Opening a can of worms, here goes....

[matt.m]

Ok I have a question to ask my fellow hapkidoan. In all seriousness, this is not a stab towards "My kung fu is greater than yours" but one I want everyone else's opinion on as well.

Ok, if Choi founded hapkido.....He trained Suh Bok sup, Won-Kwang Wha, Ji-Han Jae, etc. then is "hapkido" that can't be traced back to Choi really hapkido? Please no hair splitting for what is Yul Sool, Yahawara, Hapkido etc. For the sake of this question then Choi is the founder ok?

From what I have read and heard through verbal tellings "Choi taught the original 11 and wanted them to found 11 different Kwans." Sure they were a bit different, but each was taught a bit differently. It wasn't all one cirriculum.

I can understand Bon Soo Han's organization, Jing Wu, The World Hapkido Federation, Sin Moo, Moo Sul Kwan and a few others I am failing to mention. However, the point is this: If Choi was not the beginning instructor somewhere in your hapkido lineage then is it not true hapkido?

This isn't supposed to bash hybrid hapkido or combat hapkido, it is merely a question of others opinion.

Paul, Howard, Stewart, you have all worked out with/have in your lineage some great hapkidoist. Help me out here.

 

[iron_ox]

Ok, if Choi founded hapkido.....He trained Suh Bok sup, Won-Kwang Wha, Ji-Han Jae, etc. then is "hapkido" that can't be traced back to Choi really hapkido?
I don't think that there is any "Hapkido" that cannot be traced back to Dojunim Choi is there? Everyone that I have seen in the world of Hapkido has roots in Dojunim Choi's material - now, 95% of the world may have a direct link through Seoul to Ji Han Jae - but his material is from Dojunim Choi...
Please no hair splitting for what is Yul Sool, Yahawara, Hapkido etc. For the sake of this question then Choi is the founder ok?

From what I have read and heard through verbal tellings "Choi taught the original 11 and wanted them to found 11 different Kwans." Sure they were a bit different, but each was taught a bit differently. It wasn't all one cirriculum. I have never heard this version - however, it is relatively common knowledge that Dojunim Choi had about 100 techniques he taught to Black Belt - this had been very consistant with many of his students until they left Korea, or left to start their own organizations. The changes that we see in Kwans I think is primarily due to the fact that most of these men trained Seminar style in Seoul, not really under the direct tutelage of Dojunim Choi. Therefore, there is significant difference in what someone might have seen or remembered from such seminar training.

I can understand Bon Soo Han's organization, Jing Wu, The World Hapkido Federation, Sin Moo, Moo Sul Kwan and a few others I am failing to mention. However, the point is this: If Choi was not the beginning instructor somewhere in your hapkido lineage then is it not true hapkido?

Can you find such an organization that is actually teaching Hapkido? Probably not - most will eventually end in Ji Han Jae - but this is alos just an extension of Dojunim Choi. I think it is probably also relevant to examine exactly what rank these instructors got from Dojunim Choi, or even Ji Han Jae, this might lead one to understand the differences in style, based simply on the depth of knowledge that an individual has.

This question could get ugly - so people please tread lightly.

There are many histories of Hapkido - best to slowly piece together relevant information from those who were there, then a clearer picture might emerge.

 

[Paul B]

Good question....I would say..no. But that's just me. That doesn't stop people now or will never stop someone from saying what they want. But the proof is in the pudding. Regardless of the paper trail or lack thereof.

Nice work on the tread lightly,Kevin. This does have the potential to be a flamefest.

 

[Brad Dunne]

OK, putting on my Fred Astair combat boots and now will attempt to tap dance in a minefield........:wink: Just kidding........

Mr Soger had a nice reply, but I think that unintentionally, this thread will find itself embroiled. Just hope I don't start the process.

Ok, if Choi founded hapkido.....He trained Suh Bok sup, Won-Kwang Wha, Ji-Han Jae, etc. then is "hapkido" that can't be traced back to Choi really hapkido?

I don't see where it couldn't be. Just a rough guesstiment here, but I would think we're on 3rd, even forth generation of instructor's who offer Hapkido training. It's only fair to assume that the branches on the tree have given life to branches of their own. Perhaps a better analogy would be the acorn falling from the tree and then becoming a tree itself. It has no direct attachment to the founding tree, but never the less, it too is an acorn tree.

 

[matt.m]

I guess what I mean is the following lineage:
As a kid -
Choi
Won-Kwang Wha
Lee H. Park
Mike Morton
Me


Current
Choi
Won-Kwang Wha
Lee H. Park
Charles Hildebrand
Me


I understand that zDom, myself and others who have learned from Dad or GM Hildebrand will be this sort of Acorns becoming their own tree kind of stuff. However, it is still traceable back to Choi.

 

[iron_ox]

Hello all,

I think that there are two parts to that question; not just "where can I trace my lineage back to" - but also what amount of knowledge did the people in my lineage attain - again, I think this is very improtant.

A person can work there way up a lineage ladder, and get to the top, in this case, Dojunim Choi, but the issue is (at least in part) if the next person on the lineage got say (for discussions sake) a 2nd dan, then left after 5 years of study, built a dojang, then and organization, then that person's top student got a 6th dan - and so on, in my opinion (read that) the art has not been fully tansmitted - I hope that makes sense.

Many people trained wth Dojunim Choi - VERY few stayed around long enough to receive high rank - but many went on to teach what they had learned and build groups.

This concept relates back to "depth of knowledge" in an art - and it can be seen across martial arts not just Hapkido - but in particular within Hapkido, I believe (again, opinion here - not a flame request) that depth of knowledge can be seen in the practice of individuals and groups. Again, I am not being critical of anyone, or any group, but I believe firmly that if one watches technique - and with a critical eye (video does not always do people justice, right) it is possible to notice subtle (and often not so subtle) variations in technique as a result of depth of knowledge.

This then, in my opinion, is the second side of the coin from the original question - not just can I trace my ;lineage back to so and so, but, what rank, or time did they actually have with them, and compared to others, what did they take away with them.

 

[matt.m]

Well said Kevin. I understand where you are coming from. We will use the example of learning from a 2nd vs. 5th dan. Is it better to learn from a 5th dan or a 2nd dan. I agree that a 2nd dan will not have the grasp or knowledge as the 5th dan.

I will say from the TKD side that I have seen 4th dans make mistakes that a lot of purple belts (3rd gup) wouldn't make. However to keep all things the same, ceteras perebus, everyone learned from Choi. So really, if all things are indeed the same then it comes down to the quality of instructions.

Everyone can learn technique, no big deal. Can everyone understand the application of technique? Nah, not unless they have a competent instructor.

That is the same in marksmanship instruction or driving a car though.

 

[Brad Dunne]

I hope I don't "open the can of worms" here, but Mr Sogers post begs me to ask this question.

Many people trained wth Dojunim Choi - VERY few stayed around long enough to receive high rank - but many went on to teach what they had learned and build groups.

This concept relates back to "depth of knowledge"

For those that did not stay long enough to receive high rank (assuming 4th or higher), would this necessarily mean that their depth of knowledge would/should be lacking, or can/did the learning thru teaching offer acceptance for depth? In the same vane, it has been said the Dojunim Choi taught differently to various students. If this is factual, then how could a baseline for depth of knowledge ever be established?

 

[iron_ox]

For those that did not stay long enough to receive high rank (assuming 4th or higher), would this necessarily mean that their depth of knowledge would/should be lacking,

Let me split up your question. Again, I will adress this as the question at hand - this has NOTHING to do with any group, individual, but an answer about what I consider "depth of knowledge".

For the first part, I would say yes, if someone never reached the stage of Mastery, they probably are lacking somewhere. Now, depth of knowledge is somewhat subjective - to someone who has never done a martial art, a lower rank would seem to have lots of knowledge - however, after almost 30 years in Hapkido, I look at it differently, and often see holes in curriculums filled with material that is "outside" Hapkido.

As a general rule, however, I do think that time of training (and to some extent one's instructor) plays a significant role in depth of knowledge.

or can/did the learning thru teaching offer acceptance for depth?

Learning through teaching does offer some acceptance - but one has to have the expertise in the principles, and sufficient knowledge of technique for this to be the case.

I believe that Hapkido can be and is defined by its techniques - it is not a "mixed art" of any kind, but one governed by strict rules of principle - and certain underlying techniques. It is hard, without citing specific examples, and thus pointing out shortcomings, to explain this with any more clarity.


In the same vane, it has been said the Dojunim Choi taught differently to various students. If this is factual, then how could a baseline for depth of knowledge ever be established?

We know much about Dojunim Choi's life from the many students still alive that were with him for significant periods of time - the earliest I have met started training with him in 1949 - and received his 8th dan from him - he recounts, as do others that the training was tough, but that Dojunim Choi taught similar groups of techniques through his life - with about 100 or so to black belt. Dojunim Choi is often quoted as saying that Hapkido is not understood until a person reachs the age of forty - then the basics become clear. Remember, Dojunim Choi did not START to teach until he was almost 50 years old - so he had a lifetime of experience before he began to teach - rare today when most people with a first dan at 24 want to open a dojang...and at one time I was right in that crowd!!

I am not sure that any baseline for depth of knowledge can be established. I think is is better however that people research teachers and see if the depth of knowledge in their opinion is sufficient to really (in their opinion) learn the art. But I do think it is worth bringing the idea to the table to see how much knowledge is at a particular dojang, the experience of the teacher, and his teacher is relevant - if the top of the chain is a low rank, and so on, maybe the experience in that dojang will be good as a starting point, but probabaly not provide a real exposure to all aspects of the art.

Hope that helps.

 

[matt.m]

Well,

I am glad to see the topic made it off the ground. I think what is really interesting is the following.

Won-kwang Wha who I have been told from GM Hildebrand learned from Choi and also studied with Suh-Bok Sub. Afterall, this has merit considering without Suh, Choi never would have made it off the ground. The grainery was the launching launching pad.

Now one particular point of interest to be considered is the fact that Lee and his brother Eui lived with Won-Kwang Wha. So everything that I am saying is what Lee had been told by Won-Kwang Wha.

There indeed is a difference of face time that students got with Choi. To my knowledge none of his students lived with with him, he taught much like the rest of us today learn....scheduled class time. Or learn for a while seminar style every so often in bits and pieces.

I read an article in TKD Times before Christmas that supports this. Good read if you can get your hands on it.

How much time did Ji-Han Jae get with Choi vs. Won-Kwang Wha? I don't know, Stuart could tell more about his teachers background. Anyway, I do know that Won-Kwang Wha was a body guard for diplomats and he was close to Choi location wise for a good length of time.

What matters is the fact that they somehow were taught by Choi and in turn taught students.

 

[howard]

How much time did Ji-Han Jae get with Choi...?

Hi Matt,

I'm pretty sure that Ji himself says that he spent three years, starting around 1949, directly with Choi. Some type of teacher-student relationship continued after that, but I don't know for how long, or to what degree. I'm taking this from a document that I got at one of Ji's seminars a few years ago.

You're right, the Sin Moo guys should have the details.

 

[Last Fearner]

Ok, if Choi founded hapkido.....He trained Suh Bok sup, Won-Kwang Wha, Ji-Han Jae, etc. then is "hapkido" that can't be traced back to Choi really hapkido? For the sake of this question then Choi is the founder ok?

Just to add a different perspective to the question, I ask, "what is a founder?" I realize the premise of this question is that "Choi is the founder of Hapkido," but what does this really mean. I find that most so-called "founders" of arts are really just founders of organizations with new labels. Perhaps there is a unique philosophy, or new method of instructing the knowledge. Maybe there is even a whole different arrangement of what bits and pieces of self defense tactics are included or omitted to make this unique system more streamlined and effective.

I would ask if a founder of any Martial Art really invented anything new, or suddenly discovered as of yet, never before seen skills that they were the first to teach? Perhaps they use a new label, and organize the information differently than before. My question is, could others who have learned the same skills elsewhere, even from the same sources that Choi learned what he assembled into Hapkido, be as knowledgeable on the subject without having been a student of Choi.

If someone were a student of Choi, and they changed the way they taught the material in their own Kwan, and the next generation did the same thing, how far of a variation would you go before you would say it's not Choi's Hapkido? If Choi instructed it differently to each student, would this not leave more room open for a wide spectrum of what could be termed as Hapkido? If others were never students of Choi, but gained the same insights and understanding as Choi after they trained without any influence from Choi or any of his students, then would their skills not be the same and be fair to call it Hapkido?

After all, what does the term "Hapkido" mean? The Art of Coordinated energy. Granted, an in-depth study into the Martial Art is needed to comprehend what all this means, but these skills have been discovered, and rediscovered by masters for centuries. They have been taught in many different ways, and labeled with many different names. I guess the answer might need to address if what someone practices, and teaches as Hapkido, might contain the same or similar skill sets, but not be an exact match for what Choi taught (even though Choi apparently did not have an exact standard to duplicate).

I guess the real question is, "would it be Choi's Hapkido if they had not studied within the lineage of Choi," and could someone have learned what Hapkido is without having learned from Choi?

These questions might not seem relevant to anyone else, but I believe it holds true for all of the Martial Art variations we do today. Where did it all come from? Who was the first to be recognized as doing it, and were they really the first to do it, or are they re-packaging what they learned from others? What is the significance of lineage other than a connection to a specific teacher? (which is important in many regards) Is the knowledge really exclusive to that one person who first gave it a name, or should others be justified in using the same general term for basically the same skills so long as it is understood that this is not the same "brand" of instruction from the one person that so many students all know, love, and to which they identify their lineage?

Just more questions to ponder.
CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[iron_ox]

Hello all,

Last Fearner,

Although your post has some merit as hypothesis, in my opinion, the simple answer is no. If the technical aspects of the art are not from the Dojunim Choi root - then it is not Hapkido.

Think on this. We have in Korea in Jang Im Mok, for example a man that learned and taught Daito-ryu - and admits to knowing Dojunim Choi in Japan - yet, the skills he teaches are not the same as Hapkido - and Jang Im Mok has taught others in Hapkido that agree - like Il Oung Hur.

Remember, Dojunim Choi said he was taught by Takeda Sokaku, but he never said it was Daito-ryu - just that Sokaku was his instructor. Now, knowing that Sokaku was a repository of information, is it possible that Dojunim Choi learned outside the Daito-ryu Curriculum? According to those that have studied mainline Daito-ryu there seem to be many difference in technique.

Therefore, I do see Dojunim Choi as a founder of something unique.

Now, could someone else have learned technique, brought it back to Korea and taught Hapkido - theoretically yes, but practically no.

I have yet to find a single case of anyone that has done so, despite many claiming the same thing. Without any specifics, so as to avoid the flames, I have yet to find a single credible source that was not taught by Dojunim Choi, or one of his students.

For all the claims of ancient this and that, the vast majority of these men are the same age, and are all known to each other in the same martial circles. Everytime the claim is made that the man "studied in a monastary" (as an example) it turns out that he was simply taught by a student of Dojunim Choi, or was a low ranking dan grade directly from Dojunim Choi.

In so far as the importance of rank, I think that many would like to downplay this issue when it comes up - but again, if it is of no consequence to them, it really does not matter - but one should be mindful that Dojunim Choi claimed there were 3806 techniques that he taught - how many were taught to first dan - about 100, if the bulk are taught and learned after 4th dan, then the skill sets of many lower ranks might be somewhat incomplete.

And although lots of technique can be gleaned from correct application of principle and self-discovery through training, it is im my opinion disingenuous to claim a higher rank because of this type of skill set expansion.

Again, just my opinion, if people are happy learning in their current environment, all power to them.

 

[matt.m]

I am so glad to see how this thread has grown. Master Eisenhart it is an honor to get your input as well.

I have a bit of .02 to put in as well. In Jackson, MO as well as Wentzville, MO there is a school called Hapkido USA. Now, without sounding biased I have heard of this organization from people who have taken and to me it sounds like a belt factory.

I mean true hapkido and its nuances are hard to learn and perfect, so I believe it should take at least 5-6 yrs. to get a 1st dan in hapkido. Just a personal thought.

Now the lineage of the GM in hapkido USA is not traced back to Choi so do I believe it is hapkido? No, not at all. Last Fearner, you brought up similiarities. I bring to your attention that there are a ton of borrowed techniques between styles. That is just how it is. There are only so many ways to do a side kick per se.

I have seen West Hapkido, we have a dan from West Hapkido that at one time worked out with He-Young Kimm. It is no secret that Lee H. Park and He-Young Kimm were pals. Anyway, Grandmaster Hildebrand once told this West Hapkido dan, by the name of James Williams, that what he was doing at least looked like pretty decent hapkido.

 

[iron_ox]

I am so glad to see how this thread has grown. Master Eisenhart it is an honor to get your input as well.

I have a bit of .02 to put in as well. In Jackson, MO as well as Wentzville, MO there is a school called Hapkido USA. Now, without sounding biased I have heard of this organization from people who have taken and to me it sounds like a belt factory.

We were doing quite well...this comment is, well, inappropriate.

I mean true hapkido and its nuances are hard to learn and perfect, so I believe it should take at least 5-6 yrs. to get a 1st dan in hapkido. Just a personal thought.

You may have that rule in your organization, but when has 1st Dan EVER been about perfection? 1st dan is about understanding basics - 4th dan is mastery (in many organizations) - but what is your point here? Just becasue it takes "so long" to get a belt really has nothing to do with the quality of the instruction or the skill sets taught...

Now the lineage of the GM in hapkido USA is not traced back to Choi so do I believe it is hapkido? No, not at all.

Again, it is very disappointing you would have to bring up a particular group - but for the record, it very much appears that Hapkido-USA Inc. is a member of the Jin Jung Kwan, whose founding Grandmaster Kim Myung Yong is a student of Ji Han Jae, thus a direct link back (and a living link) to Dojunim Choi.

In addition, you mention the "GM" of Hapkido USA - Michael Rhoades lists himself as a MASTER - a 6th dan in Jin Jung Kwan - and as the head of Hapkido USA he could call himself Kwan Jang - but he does not list GM at all...

All I can say about this type of post is research, research, research - check a fact and check it again, at least a fact can be wrong, a biased opinion at best makes an individual seem lazy about getting a few facts from the internet with a few key strokes...

 

[matt.m]

I owe an apology, I stepped on both left feet and that was not good. No good comes of that sort of thing. I was only trying to make a comparison, an apple to apple if you will. I was never intending to call anyone out.

In fact, have I not given credit to West hapkido etc? Did I not give credit to He-Young Kimm and other hapkidoist? It just came out wrong, sorry. Afterall, we all train.....that is apparent, the original question is still what it is.

Also, I said on my last post that "In my personal opinion". I didn't really try to call anyone out, I guess inadvertantly I did by naming a certain organization. My bad on that.

 

[iron_ox]

Hello all,

Coming from someone that has made worse faux pas than this, I can tell you I think it a sure sign positive conversation when we can recognize an "opps" and move forward...

The original question still has merit worthy of discussion.

Let's stay away from examples other than our own for this conversation so that it stays positive.

 

[Brad Dunne]

Mr Soger, you stated that Choi claimed 3806 techniques. My question is, just what is to be considered a technique? Does one take a specific movement/technique and that unto itself is one technique and then if we add an additional movement onto the existing one, does that then become another technique unto itself or just an extension of the original technique? The rational behind this questioning is to understand how instructors, who have not had the suggested indepth training time via Choi, could have garnered applicable knowledge based upon the number Choi eluded too. If given the suggested formula as stated, then it becomes very easy to see how the number of techniques can multiply. Thanks in advance for your participation in this discussion.

 

[matt.m]

Brad,

Good question. I know that Moo Sul Kwan hapkido has a little over 100 techniques. However you can argue that they are different and not different.

Here is what I mean, there are combination techniques. In other words you will combine lets say number 4 and number 6 wrist techniques to make one technique.

I know of Choi saying he had over 3800 techniques. It would be interesting to know if they were completely different or if they were combinations.

 

[iron_ox]

Mr Sogor, you stated that Choi claimed 3806 techniques. My question is, just what is to be considered a technique? Does one take a specific movement/technique and that unto itself is one technique and then if we add an additional movement onto the existing one, does that then become another technique unto itself or just an extension of the original technique?

I think this is a valid question. I will only speak from my experience, and obviouxly cannot speak for Dojunim Choi, or his senior students, but from my obsevations of what I seen.

Firstly, I have seen several dojang that teach "technique" by running together one motion into another - so, for example, a person is put into a forward arm bar, then "reversed" into another technique - I have always hoped that this is just for demonstration, however, I have found that many places actually teach this type of stuff as "advanced" techniques.

In my experience, techinque is the direct, basic motion used to counter a specific action taken by an opponent. So, in simple terms, I do not see "building" from one technique to another as a seperate technique - but rather as a deviation from Hapkido itself.

So, with that said, to me, a technique is the specific response to a specific action - some look VERY similar, and even have similar "starts" but the finishes are designed for specific energies and aggressions. Hope that makes sense.

The rational behind this questioning is to understand how instructors, who have not had the suggested indepth training time via Choi, could have garnered applicable knowledge based upon the number Choi eluded too.

In real terms, most never do, or ever can. They work with their basic motions, and often, as you stated put one technique on top of another to "create" more technique - but this really not creating depth to their knowledge.

If given the suggested formula as stated, then it becomes very easy to see how the number of techniques can multiply.

From what I have seen, the number of 3806 is based on a wide variety of attacks and defenses, and although many look "similar" the energy they "accept" and "release" is quite different. In addition, I believe that this number only reflects 10 kicks - the number that Dojunim Choi taught.

Thanks in advance for your participation in this discussion.

Interesting take on the idea, thanks for the question - hope I have scratched the surface for an answer.