Minimum Standards -- Grappling

[glad2bhere]

Dear Folks:

The following 10 techniques are identified in every curriculum I am reviewing. I have included a description, and used the most common name or title I could find. Please let me know if there is an alternate Name by which these techniques would be better known. If people know a Korean name as well it would be even better.

"............................................

Technique: Armbar

Drill: The attacker executes cross grab to the wrist. The defender counters with a low inside roll followed immediately by an outside roll. Simultaneously defender steps forward with trailing leg, as trailing knife hand rises to strike attacker’s lead elbow in a rising and rolling fashion. Drawing away from the attacker with the lead hand, and rolling in a high arc with the trailing hand, the defender’s trailing foot steps through and plants, just as the attacker’s now locked arm is pressed to the defender’s knee.

Technique: Standard Wrist Throw

Drill: The attacker executes a straight punch or grab. The defender responds with an
Outside Palm block catching the wrist and turning the hand over. Pressure is applied to the back of the hand as the defender steps forward with his trailing foot and pivots 90 degrees on the ball of the lead foot. The throw is executed by applying further pressure to the back of the attackers’ hand at a 45 degree oblique angle. The partner may either sit down with this technique or may choose to execute an air-roll.

Technique: Wrist Lock

Drill: The attacker applies straight-hand wrist grab. The defender responds with outward wrist roll of lead hand to palm-down position with a strong flex. Simultaneously the defenders’ trailing hand crosses to the attackers’ lead hand, covering the attackers’ lead hand from above. Reversing his lead hand with an outside roll, the defender now executes an inside roll, grasping the attackers’ lead hand. In this configuration each of the defenders’ hands grasps a lateral edge of the attackers’ hand flexing the palm towards the attackers’ face, fingers pointed upwards. Pressure on the back of the attackers’ hand is combined with a full step exiting the attackers’ centerline to the defenders’ rear, inducing the attacker to bow forwards to relieve tension and discomfort.

Technique: Inner Four-Directions Projection

Drill: The attacker executes a cross-hand wrist grab. The defender responds with inward wrist roll with the lead hand and a firm draw of attackers’ wrist toward defenders’ lead hip. Focus is on the index finger knuckle of defenders’ the lead hand, and the "KI-out" of the thumb down and away. The defenders’ trailing foot, with a full step, enters attackers’ centerline at 45 degree angle, as the trailing hand locates at attackers’ lead wrist with inner index knuckle bearing firmly on the radius bone. The defender simultaneously snaps their hips 180 degrees to face the opposite direction while snapping the attackers’ wrist sharply over his head and downward. The index finger of defenders’ the lead hand should point to the final destination of the attacker, typically at the knee on defenders’ lead foot, though an additional step of trailing foot can be added to extend the projection to a further point.

Technique: Forward Wrist Throw

Drill: The attacker executes cross-arm wrist grab. The defender exerts a slight pull downward immediately followed by an outward wrist roll with defender seizing the attackers’ lead wrist and feeding to the trailing hand which seizes the back of the attackers’ hand. The defender exits the attackers’ centerline with the trailing foot resulting in the attackers’ elbow rising towards the ceiling. Stepping under the attackers’ arm with the lead foot, the defender pivots 180 degrees, but maintains the forearms’ vertical position. The attacker and defender are now hip to hip, facing the same direction with the attackers’ arm in the “double flex” position, vertical in front of his shoulder, his and palm facing forward. Stepping forward with the trailing foot, the defender "casts” the attacker forward into a forward roll.

Technique: Elbow Wrist Throw

Drill: The attacker executes a straight grab to the lapel. The defender executes a cover with the trailing hand and hooks the attackers’ elbow with the lead index finger. Having accomplished a basic S-arm configuration, the defender steps two shoulder-widths behind the trailing leg with their lead leg as they torque the wrist and draw on the attackers’ elbow. The drag is accomplished as the defenders’ hips unwind. Drawing on the elbow and pressing on the back of the attackers’ hand, the attacker is taken to the floor.

Technique: Hammerlock

Drill: The attacker executes a straight grab to the defenders’ wrist. The defender responds with a “C-out” with the lead hand. As the defenders’ trailing leg steps forward, exiting the attackers’ centerline, the defenders’ trailing hand reaches for the cleft of the attackers’ lead arm and digging deeply into the pressure point, collapsing the arm. Stepping under the attackers’ arm, the defender pivots 180 degrees, allowing the attackers’ lead wrist from the webbing of the defenders’ hand and slip up the defenders’ arm. This technique may also include a takedown by utilizing centrifugal force and a step back draws the attacker to the floor in a tight spiral.

Technique: Single Leg Sweep

Drill: The attacker applies straight wrist grab. The defender responds with a low outside wrist roll with the lead hand, grasping the attackers lead wrist. Simultaneously the The defender enters the attacker’s centerline with trailing foot. As the defenders’ trailing foot plants, his leading foot, by substitution sweeps the attackers lead foot as the lead wrist is drawn out and down. The technique is completed as the attacker is taken to the mat in front of the defender. A typical follow-up might be a knee-drop to the chest or a floor-pin.

Technique: Hip Throw

Drill: The attacker applies a cross-wrist grab. The defender responds with a low inside wrist roll and a firm draw on the attackers’ arm. Simultaneously the defender enters the attackers’ centerline with trailing foot, continues to draw firmly on attackers’ lead arm and slips the trailing arm in an arc across the attackers’ shoulder blades. As the defenders’ trailing foot plants inside the attackers’ trailing instep, the defenders’ trailing hand inserts in the attackers’ armpit and the defenders’ lead hip impacts the attackers’ groin. The attacker is hefted across the defenders’ hips and thrown to the floor.

Technique: Shoulder Throw

Drill: The attacker executes a cross- wrist grab. The defender responds with a low slight inside wrist roll with the lead hand. Simultaneously the defender cross-steps in front of leading foot, exiting the attacker’s centerline, the defender’s trailing arm snaps in sharply into the attacker’s armpit. As the defender seizes the attacker’s upper arm, his hips pivot 180 degrees. Flexing sharply at the hips, the defender throws his partner to the mat.

.............................................."

Apologies to Mgmt for the bandwidth use.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Mithios]

Mr. Sims, I have a question, and it concerns the C.H.K.D. curriculum. First of all my black belt is in traditional H.K.D., And I am not affiliated with the I.C.H.F. But i have been working out with a couple of C.H.K.D. black belts for awhile,( No, they didn't get rank by video) And i must say that 95% of what they do is exactly the way i learned it(only in a somewhat different order) the rest of the actual Hapkido part of the curriculum end's up the same, with the beginning of the techniques being a little different( more use of distraction's,Etc.) but not enough to matter. They also have all the techniques that you have mentioned in this thread and other's. And follow the core principals. The guy's have been following you'r thread's with interest(As have i!) But they know they will get roasted if they try to contribute. So i am wondering if you have seen there written curriculum, or other wise? I am not impressed with the way J.P. got his rank, or his tapes for that matter. But with that being said, The C.H.D. curriculum is not as bad as i thought it would be, nor are all it's practitioner's as sucky as i had it in my head. Keep up the good work!! Mithios

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Mithios:

".......So i am wondering if you have seen there written curriculum, or other wise? I am not impressed with the way J.P. got his rank, or his tapes for that matter......"

My prayer is that if we play our cards right posts such as the one I cited above will slowly become a thing of the past. Like you I have a very low regard for people who bounce from organization to organization to get their rank or standing. Having said that, though, I don't see why the folks who follow such a curriculum have to pay with some level of disenfranchizement, know what I mean? I'm not saying that I have changed my mind about JP or his art, but there are a lot of sincere people who deserve to be included in workouts, and events and seminars and such. I can't say that I have ever heard that JR West or Rudy Timmerman knowingly avoided extending a warm welcome to anyone who wanted a good training experience. The little bit that I have seen of the ICHF material I think a dedicated practitioner would be able to have a decent experience on just about any mat. Certainly there are a lot of finer points that get overlooked. By that I mean that I think the material I have seen comes a lot closer to the Miyama-ryu material that Rahming published in his books. Quite a bit more ju-jitsu-ish but still could stuff of which good partners are made, yes? Have you been to events where other Hapkido styles participated? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Mithios]

Mostly local get togethers, seminar's etc. I have heard good thing's about JR West, and Rudy Timmerman's get together's, but i haven't made them yet. I guess i am gun shy, large organizations, in my opinion tend to be ran like a cult of personality. And I tend to be outspoken, and that is a sin in most org's! Mithios

 

[Paul B]

Hi Guys,

I say that list looks good. The only other technique that I have also seen a million and one variations of,is the classic "gooseneck" or "escort hold" involving the hyperflexion of the wrist.

I would say that everyone I have seen has some variation of this hold,whether in transition or as an end,enough IMO to be included.

 

[glad2bhere]

If its the technique that I think you are speaking of (Aikidos' "Sankyo") the only reason I did not list it as a separate technique is because one really needs to know this technique to be able to do the Forward Wrist Throw. Without familiarity with the technique you mentioned the FWT simply would be one guy pulling another by his arm. No Workkee! I will also say, though, that I got enough feedback about the RH Kick and the Crescent Kick to include them in the Minimum so if I get enough "votes" maybe we need to consider including this as a separate technique in its own right, yes? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Paul B]

Sure thing Bruce,

The technique I was attempting to communicate,in it's basic version,goes something like this from a cross hand grab...to the RH,I know you've seen this one...

1. Outside spiral with wrist,breaking the attackers grip and re-grabbing with same hand.

2. Move off center,stepping to the outside of attacker and executing a 180 degree pivot.

3.In executing the pivot,the LH comes up in between the attackers body and his arm,securing his tricep area in your inner elbow.

4. LH moves to meet RH on the back of attackers hand,and pulling it "down" and back,wedging the captured arm with pressure brought to bear on his wrist, resulting in a "gooseneck" hyperflexion.

I am sure you have seen this technique in a ton of variations. I am sorry if you still don't know what I'm talking about,and the blame falls to me for not giving a good description. Let me know how it reads,though..will ya?

 

[American HKD]

Sure thing Bruce,

The technique I was attempting to communicate,in it's basic version,goes something like this from a cross hand grab...to the RH,I know you've seen this one...

1. Outside spiral with wrist,breaking the attackers grip and re-grabbing with same hand.

2. Move off center,stepping to the outside of attacker and executing a 180 degree pivot.

3.In executing the pivot,the LH comes up in between the attackers body and his arm,securing his tricep area in your inner elbow.

4. LH moves to meet RH on the back of attackers hand,and pulling it "down" and back,wedging the captured arm with pressure brought to bear on his wrist, resulting in a "gooseneck" hyperflexion.

I am sure you have seen this technique in a ton of variations. I am sorry if you still don't know what I'm talking about,and the blame falls to me for not giving a good description. Let me know how it reads,though..will ya?

That's a good technique and works well in self defense also!

 

[American HKD]

Greetings


Bruce I would like to see Goki (joint manipulations) shown seperately from (DunjiGi) Throws as core lists.

I however many techniques are a combination of both but try to be pure to each catagory for now. I think the mix of the two may be a gray area where there's countless variations and might not be core material?

Also for core material it would be a good idea if the same tech worked for straight, cross, 2 hand and double hand wrist grabs.

 

[glad2bhere]

Great feedback! Thanks. As I chew on this I just want to make sure that we are clear on the goals involved. As I see it, the Minimal Standards are those most fundamental techniques or versions of techniques that a person can do, such that all other variations proceed from that technique. I'm pretty sure (70%?) that I recognize the technique Paul is sharing. I think his "gooseneck" would be our "vertical wrist lock". (Paul, correct me if I am misreading your post. In execution both the elbow and the wrist are strongly flexed to make the techinique work, yes?). Where I think I am getting concerned is when Stuart mentions breaking out projections from throws. For instance, the technique I am identifying as a "foward wrist throw" is a a true throw (tumbling the partner forward). However, by using a spiraling (cetrifugal) motion, one could cause the partner to go straight onto their face which would be a "projection". I think most people would see these as variations rather than separate techniques. I think my concern is that we need be careful not to move in the direction of Kevins' more exhaustive listing, yes?

Long these lines I know that in the kwan I belong to we have at least 4 variations of "clothesline" techniques as well as four or five techniques using a neck-twisting execution. I had not listed these because they are not at all uniform across a range of Hapkido arts. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Mithios:

"......Mostly local get togethers, seminar's etc. I have heard good thing's about JR West, and Rudy Timmerman's get together's, but i haven't made them yet. I guess i am gun shy, large organizations, in my opinion tend to be ran like a cult of personality. And I tend to be outspoken, and that is a sin in most org's!......................"

Sorry I didn't get right back to you over the weekend. The issue you raised about being "outspoken" needs to be addressed though. It is, afterall, the core reason that I eschew emphasizing organizational approaches. The fact that you are reluctant to speak up and contribute tells me that somewhere along the line somebodys' investment in the supremacy of their view over yours resulted in you feeling uncomfortable. So, the person who had the investment in feeling superior "won" his battle, but we lost your valuable in-put. I used to think that if we worked at it hard enough it might be possible to dicuss politically-charged bits here in a forum. I have my doubts now. Thats why I have stepped back from discussing the statements from various leaders. What I am hoping to do is minimize the degree to which the practitioners of such leaders are kept from the table and not allowed to contribute to the wealth of knowledge that we have and need. I hope you can hear the open invitation in my post.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Dear Mithios:

"......Mostly local get togethers, seminar's etc. I have heard good thing's about JR West, and Rudy Timmerman's get together's, but i haven't made them yet. I guess i am gun shy, large organizations, in my opinion tend to be ran like a cult of personality. And I tend to be outspoken, and that is a sin in most org's!......................"

Sorry I didn't get right back to you over the weekend. The issue you raised about being "outspoken" needs to be addressed though. It is, afterall, the core reason that I eschew emphasizing organizational approaches. The fact that you are reluctant to speak up and contribute tells me that somewhere along the line somebodys' investment in the supremacy of their view over yours resulted in you feeling uncomfortable. So, the person who had the investment in feeling superior "won" his battle, but we lost your valuable in-put. I used to think that if we worked at it hard enough it might be possible to dicuss politically-charged bits here in a forum. I have my doubts now. Thats why I have stepped back from discussing the statements from various leaders. What I am hoping to do is minimize the degree to which the practitioners of such leaders are kept from the table and not allowed to contribute to the wealth of knowledge that we have and need. I hope you can hear the open invitation in my post.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce,

Projection throws are used in combination with locks/pressure points in most cases Maybe they should be a seperate catagory?

 

[American HKD]

Greetings



To me these are most of the basics the rest is all application and variations.


Escapes from wrist grabs

• Horizontal
• Vertical
• Downward
• Outward

Throws

• Shoulder
• Hip
• Back reap
• Front leg sweep
• Wheel
• Low sweep throw
• Over the leg throw
• Front reap

Punches

• Center knuckle
• Tiger mouth
• Palm Heel
• Knife hand
• Reverse Knife Hand
• Bottom Fist
• Ridge Hand
• Back fist
• Thumb strike
• Elbow Vertical
• Elbow Horizontal
• Claw hand strike

Kicks

• Center toe
• Push
• Cresant In
• Cresant Out
• Back kick
• Low sweep
• Side
• Round
• 45d down (to thigh)
• Sickle kick
• Reverse sickle
• Spear kick

Joint manipulations

• Knife hand press / Arm bar
• Outer wrist break
• Elbow arm Bar
• 180d turning break
• Hammer Lock
• All Direction throw/lock
• S Wrist Break
• Outside spiral wrist break
• Goose neck
• Figure 4 arm lock
• Downward wrist break
• Possibly a few others?

Falls



1. Front

2. Back

3. Side



Rolls



1. Front

2. Back

3. Side



Blocks

• Upper
• Inside
• Outside
• Down
• Cross hand
• Double knife hand
• Inside circle
• Outer circle
• Straight-arm low parry
• Backhand parry

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

".......Projection throws are used in combination with locks/pressure points in most cases Maybe they should be a seperate catagory?........"

Thank you for posting you list. More importantly thank you for demonstarting the point I have been trying to make for a very long time. I think the point that you raised about "projections", "throws" "pressure points" and "locks" are just the tip of what we Hapkido practitioner SHOULD have been talking about the whole time we were quabbling about certs, licenses and personalities.

For instance, for the kwan to which I belong a "projection" and a "throw" are very different. The same goes for a "pressure point" and a "strike point" as well as a "lock" and a "pin". We needed to be talking about these terms and agreeing what we were meaning when we used the words long before we should have been caught-up in who was more authoritative about what.

For example here are some explanations for how I use the terms you mentioned in your post.

A Projection is what most folks call a "take-down". The tan tien or partners' center scribes a simple arc, usually 90 degrees, from a standing position to laying-down position.

A Throw is a technique that cause the center to scribe an arc, usually 180 degrees or more by first rising and then falling. IN this way a standing individual is first raised and then dropped.

A Lock stablizes a person at a single point in time and space using nothing more than what the defender has.

A Pin is a lock which use some part of the environment in conjunction with the physical technique.

To my way of thinking THESE are the sorts of things we need to be hashing out among us. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Dear Stuart:

".......Projection throws are used in combination with locks/pressure points in most cases Maybe they should be a seperate catagory?........"

Thank you for posting you list. More importantly thank you for demonstarting the point I have been trying to make for a very long time. I think the point that you raised about "projections", "throws" "pressure points" and "locks" are just the tip of what we Hapkido practitioner SHOULD have been talking about the whole time we were quabbling about certs, licenses and personalities.

For instance, for the kwan to which I belong a "projection" and a "throw" are very different. The same goes for a "pressure point" and a "strike point" as well as a "lock" and a "pin". We needed to be talking about these terms and agreeing what we were meaning when we used the words long before we should have been caught-up in who was more authoritative about what.

For example here are some explanations for how I use the terms you mentioned in your post.

A Projection is what most folks call a "take-down". The tan tien or partners' center scribes a simple arc, usually 90 degrees, from a standing position to laying-down position.

A Throw is a technique that cause the center to scribe an arc, usually 180 degrees or more by first rising and then falling. IN this way a standing individual is first raised and then dropped.

A Lock stablizes a person at a single point in time and space using nothing more than what the defender has.

A Pin is a lock which use some part of the environment in conjunction with the physical technique.

To my way of thinking THESE are the sorts of things we need to be hashing out among us. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I think your right but these are catagories of what one should know application if you will but not the core or root of the techniques.

Each Instrructor will have many different variations of all these catagories I think it's way to hard to list what should be done in each case.

I personally advocate after one learns the "Core Techniques" probably during 9th, 8th, and maybe 7th gup. Try to teach the students how to think independently and cross apply all core material working your way through all the catagories.

Interestly though is that some people will stick to a very basic ideas and "Keep it simple" self defense apps. and some will get fancy with the same material. Some school may come up with hundreds of variations, some only a few dozen. But it all hapkido!

That's why I feel you shouldn't require a set number of techniques just the understanding principles of how defense works in all these catagories.

To get there it may take 2,3,4,5 years to be a 1st dan and a couple more of a 2nd a couple more for a 3rd and so on. That's why I'm generally against time in grade as well.

The question should be can one apply these core ideas with more and more profiently as the rank gets higher.

Ground pins/finish techniques

Vital point or Pressure Points

Attacking

One hand

Weapons

Multiple attackers

Hugs defenses

Hair grab defense

Clothes grab defenses

Punch

kick

etc.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

I see what you mean. When I was organizing my own material from the WHF material I termed this approach "situational". I suppose some would call it "applicational", yes?

I guess I am still wondering why you are using words like "requirements". As far as I know a minimal standard is not "requiring" anything of anybody. What I hope we are moving towards is a most basic vocabulary for communication. If this works out we ought to be able to discuss technical material without having to explain each and every hand position and foot movement. In like manner we might be able to simply use a term for some concept without having to characterize the term from scratch. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Dear Stuart:

I see what you mean. When I was organizing my own material from the WHF material I termed this approach "situational". I suppose some would call it "applicational", yes?

I guess I am still wondering why you are using words like "requirements". As far as I know a minimal standard is not "requiring" anything of anybody. What I hope we are moving towards is a most basic vocabulary for communication. If this works out we ought to be able to discuss technical material without having to explain each and every hand position and foot movement. In like manner we might be able to simply use a term for some concept without having to characterize the term from scratch. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce you can only name and communicate about the core stuff you can't name every nuance Impossible.

 

[glad2bhere]

Yes, Stuart. I know. Thats why I am asking you to clarify where you are going with this. I think that it is plain that you have something in mind but I am wondering if you realize that you are send a variety of mixed signals. Each time I ask you for a very plain answer to a simple question you move off in another direction. This is making it very difficult to work with you. Would you please answer some very simple questions so that I know whether or not we are on the same page?

1.) What is it that you want to do with this approach that an already established authority or organization can't do for you?

For my part I can tell you that "requirements", "testing", "authentification" and "validation" are NOT what I am working on here.

2.) Where do you discern the cut-off for the standard?

For my part I can tell you that the most basic level of execution and understanding is where I believe I want to draw the line.

3.) What nomenclature or terms do you want to use to label the material that is being listed for the Minimal Standard?

For my part I can tell you that the most common English as well as the most common Korean labels are just fine for me. They don't even have to translate into each other. Just so that when a Korean practitioner and an English practitioner get on the mat they both know what the other person is about.

Your cooperation would be appreciated.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Yes, Stuart. I know. Thats why I am asking you to clarify where you are going with this. I think that it is plain that you have something in mind but I am wondering if you realize that you are send a variety of mixed signals. Each time I ask you for a very plain answer to a simple question you move off in another direction. This is making it very difficult to work with you. Would you please answer some very simple questions so that I know whether or not we are on the same page?

1.) What is it that you want to do with this approach that an already established authority or organization can't do for you?

For my part I can tell you that "requirements", "testing", "authentification" and "validation" are NOT what I am working on here.

2.) Where do you discern the cut-off for the standard?

For my part I can tell you that the most basic level of execution and understanding is where I believe I want to draw the line.

3.) What nomenclature or terms do you want to use to label the material that is being listed for the Minimal Standard?

For my part I can tell you that the most common English as well as the most common Korean labels are just fine for me. They don't even have to translate into each other. Just so that when a Korean practitioner and an English practitioner get on the mat they both know what the other person is about.

Your cooperation would be appreciated.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Ok I see what you want now,

I guess I was sending mixed signals and talking about different things.

 

[American HKD]

Bruce

I guess I was talking about several things at once sorry.

Yes, Stuart. I know. Thats why I am asking you to clarify where you are going with this. I think that it is plain that you have something in mind but I am wondering if you realize that you are send a variety of mixed signals. Each time I ask you for a very plain answer to a simple question you move off in another direction. This is making it very difficult to work with you. Would you please answer some very simple questions so that I know whether or not we are on the same page?

1.) What is it that you want to do with this approach that an already established authority or organization can't do for you?

For my part I can tell you that "requirements", "testing", "authentification" and "validation" are NOT what I am working on here. OK another time

2.) Where do you discern the cut-off for the standard?

For my part I can tell you that the most basic level of execution and understanding is where I believe I want to draw the line. Yes me too kind of where I posted my technique list a few posts back

3.) What nomenclature or terms do you want to use to label the material that is being listed for the Minimal Standard? I don't know 100% yet will work on it

For my part I can tell you that the most common English as well as the most common Korean labels are just fine for me. They don't even have to translate into each other. Just so that when a Korean practitioner and an English practitioner get on the mat they both know what the other person is about.

Your cooperation would be appreciated.