Tkd & hkd

[Instructor]

The man is the weapon. The thing in his hands (gun, pointy object, etc) is merely an extension of the man. It increases his capability but is not a danger in it's own right.

This is why we spend so much time, effort, and money teaching people and not their guns.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I consider this to be one of the great myths of empty hand arts...Sure there are anecdotal claims from empty hand arts about battle fiedl succes.

I think we sometimes think of the battlefield from a Hollywood perspective i.e people charging across no-mans land with raised rifles and bombs bursting. That has a part, but is not the whole. The battlefield is going from building to building or room to room or other close quarter scenarios. And having been in the military and now L.E. I will equate the battlefield to the street or correctional facility. Whereas empty hand training is of little use against bullets and bombs, all three of those venues share combat in close quarter situations. And often those situations require hands on, either due to the suddenness of the situation or weapons not being the best option.

As with anything, there will be spectacular successes and dismal failures. From experience, I can attest to the usefulness and effectiveness of Hapkido principles (which can and do include Jujutsu/Chin Na principles. Where there may be slightly different nuances between these 'big three' the principles are exactly the same). A strike may or may not stop an attack. A kick may or may not stop an attack. But a properly executed lock (typically after a strike) will immobilize at least a portion of the attacker's body. When I lock a wrist, it isn't just the wrist that is being locked. It locks the elbow, the shoulder and down into the waist of the bad guy. One joint can affect the entire body as far as controlling and/or stopping the flow of the attack.

I've mentioned before an altercation with an EDP (emotionally disturbed person). My best (and repeated) elbow strikes did NOT faze him. I know they were hard strikes because the Deputy I was rescuing felt the strikes through the EDP's back and into his own chest. The EDP didn't even know I was there! He felt no pain and displayed superhuman strength. But when I put a lock on his hand (middle two fingers) he was immobilized down his full right side and the fight was over. It wasn't the pain that stopped him it was the fact that half his body was locked up. Pain is great but pain is subjective and relative. But a proper lock is the key as it inhibits free movement regardless of pain or perceived pain.

 

[Instructor]

That is my experience as well. I've ended conflict with a well placed strike some of the time, I've ended conflict with joint manipulation every time.

 

[Uncle]

Some response to the point I was trying to make have gotten off track. I.E. the relative deadlyness of Hapkido as an art or for self defense. My comments were restricted to the relative strengths of Hapkido vis a is it's grappling aspects and those of JJ.

It was not an issue of how well an art did as a whole in competition since competition severly limits what is allowed. However we do see techniques related to various arts in MMA. The frequency and efficacy of JJ grappling techniques versus HKD grappling techniques (although admittedly the lines of distinction are not always clear), speaks volumes.

Sorry folks my Internet was down. Anyway I was not criticizing hapkido as a whole but a certain section of its techniques. Some folks need to read before taking instant offense.

I quoted this above section because it has definite relevance to what I was saying with regard to certain hapkido techniques versus other techniques in hapkido and in jujitsu/wrestling/sambo/judo. Folks may have anecdotes about the techniques and their effectiveness but that does not validate them.

If we want to work from a scientific approach we can use the various MMA orgs as a large sample. What we see is very few fine joint manipulations as found in hapkido and aikido as derived from daito ryu because the opponent is fully resistant. Those techniques have their place but it is generally situational and against semi-resistant opponents.

Now compare with another sample group, law enforcement officers. What we see from LEO's in the case of techniques taught and techniques used is that techniques taught and used tend to be the higher percentage ones which are applicable across more situations. Hence in the grappling department you tend to see takedowns which go after the legs similar to wrestling. In terms of joint control you tend to see jujitsu style techniques where the subject is pinned to the ground, wall, or car to maximize control. These techniques also exist in daito ryu and their derivatives. What you will not see often if ever in these situations is officers using standing joint locks as takedowns or controls with the exception of come-alongs which are high percentage and similar in many respects to high-percentage standing locks from judo and bjj. These are generally employed, again, when e subject is semi-resistant.

Againto be clear:
- I am not ripping on hapkido as a whole but a certain set and style of techniques within the curriculum and in certain other arts
- These techniques have their place but they are not as high percentage in terms of effectiveness or situational viability as other techniques which fill similar or the same roles most of the time

 

[Instructor]

Perhaps you should specify a certain technique to use as an example? Gooseneck perhaps... Used by Hapkido and LEO but rarely seen in MMA.

 

[Uncle]

Perhaps you should specify a certain technique to use as an example? Gooseneck perhaps... Used by Hapkido and LEO but rarely seen in MMA.

Actually that would make a perfect example of a technique which is between the two so it gives a few points to work with.

The technique is one which is not as high percentage or gross motor as something like a double leg takedown yet at the same time it fills a different role. It works well against semi-resistant subjects but not so well against fully resistant ones because it requires finer motor skills. In those cases of hire resistance more gross motor, high percentage techniques are usually used. The techniques is MORE high percentage than something like a turning wrist lock as you have the elbow secured to the body so you are manipulating closer to your subject's core and in a more secure manner. At the same time it is less high percentage as a joint lock than something like a kimura. Now if we take the kimura as a technique we can level similar criticisms at a standing kimura versus one on the ground, and in many respects it has the same strengths and similar use to the gooseneck. It will still be superior to a standing wrist lock or other standing joint lock where the appendage is less secured.

These standing techniques will be less high percentage than a takedown like a double leg or a lock where the opponent is pinned like a kimura on the ground. That is one of the reasons what you tend to see when LEOs have to cuff a highly resistant subject the protocol is essentially high percentage takedown > high percentage control > handcuff > escort. They will not try to attempt a standing joint lock on a highly resistant subject. The above does the same as a standing lock but works more against resistant subjects because the moves are gross motor and high percentage. These are more similar to what you see in grappling and MMA competition.

As I said, each hs their time and place. You would not use a double leg as a retention technique if someone is reaching for your firearm but a double leg + ground control will still be higher percentage than a standing joint lock for other tasks.

 

[Instructor]

Not sure what you're point is as Hapkido also has a "Chicken Wing" style shoulder lock.

 

[Uncle]

Not sure what you're point is as Hapkido also has a "Chicken Wing" style shoulder lock.

As I have said probably about five times by now. I am not criticizing hapkido as a whole but a certain style of techniques within hapkido. I have the same criticism of the same and similar techniques aikido and certain traditional jujitsu ryus.

 

[Instructor]

You know how it is...They are noncompliant ...then you smash their face with a hammerfist and then try again.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Sorry folks my Internet was down. Anyway I was not criticizing hapkido as a whole but a certain section of its techniques. Some folks need to read before taking instant offense.

Not sure where in the quote you mentioned, or any of the other quotes anyone suggested you were criticizing more then a few techniques..can you quote it, sow e know what you're referring to?

I quoted this above section because it has definite relevance to what I was saying with regard to certain hapkido techniques versus other techniques in hapkido and in jujitsu/wrestling/sambo/judo. Folks may have anecdotes about the techniques and their effectiveness but that does not validate them.

As was already stated, MMA isn't a 'proving ground' for everything, since it has a very distinct format with its own rule set, so not the best way to test if certain techniques are practical or not, as they may be illegal or simply unsportsmanlike in that rule set, and mindset.

If we want to work from a scientific approach we can use the various MMA orgs as a large sample. What we see is very few fine joint manipulations as found in hapkido and aikido as derived from daito ryu because the opponent is fully resistant. Those techniques have their place but it is generally situational and against semi-resistant opponents.

As stated above, and by others, MMA has a very specific ruleset and mindset. As for them being situational, all techniques are situational, which is why there are so many techniques out there. I'm not a huge fan of the phrase 'just another tool in your toolbox', but thats what a lot of these moves are, tools that you use in certain situations.

Now compare with another sample group, law enforcement officers. What we see from LEO's in the case of techniques taught and techniques used is that techniques taught and used tend to be the higher percentage ones which are applicable across more situations. Hence in the grappling department you tend to see takedowns which go after the legs similar to wrestling. In terms of joint control you tend to see jujitsu style techniques where the subject is pinned to the ground, wall, or car to maximize control. These techniques also exist in daito ryu and their derivatives. What you will not see often if ever in these situations is officers using standing joint locks as takedowns or controls with the exception of come-alongs which are high percentage and similar in many respects to high-percentage standing locks from judo and bjj. These are generally employed, again, when e subject is semi-resistant.

Do you have any proof of this? I wouldn't know either way, but some people on here have suggested almost the opposite as far as what LEO's learn, so I would like to see proof. This goes for people suggesting the other way as well, if neither side brings proof, then not really sure the discussion can go any further.

Againto be clear:
- I am not ripping on hapkido as a whole but a certain set and style of techniques within the curriculum and in certain other arts
- These techniques have their place but they are not as high percentage in terms of effectiveness or situational viability as other techniques which fill similar or the same roles most of the time

Thanks, for making the points clear
For the first point, some of the reactions might be because they consider those techniques as a valuable part of hapkido, so insulting the techniques could be taken as insulting hapkido itself. For the second point, I agree with the situational viability, but not necessarily the effectiveness point, if used in the right situation, which once again goes back to the "tools in the toolbox" idea.


Finally, since I think you missed my other post, do you have any actual experience either learning hapkido, or constantly fighting/sparring/discussing with hapkidoists?

 

[Instructor]

If the toolbox analogy is troublesome you might consider the attack geometry analogy. We have techniques for various attack geometries. Further we also have a proportional response. In other words Hapkidoin do not have luxury of one goal i.e. winning a match. Different engagements have different goals. Three knife wielding attackers might mean we have to kill whereas an unruly bi-polar shoplifter really just needs to stuffed into the back of the cruiser.

 

[Uncle]

You know how it is...They are noncompliant ...then you smash their face with a hammerfist and then try again.

and then your department gets slapped with a lawsuit for excessive use of force.

If the toolbox analogy is troublesome you might consider the attack geometry analagy. We have techniques for various attack geometries. Further we also have a proportional response. In other words Hapkidoin do not have luxury of one goal i.e. winning a match. Different engagements have different goals. Three knife wielding attackers might mean we have to kill whereas an unruly bi-polar shoplifter really just needs to stuffed into the back of the cruiser.

If you have three knife wielding attackers which joint lock to use is the least of your worries. And yes the toolbox analogy is a good one. And what I am saying is that if a framing hammer works for a wider variety of situations and mo effectively in those situations than a sledgehammer it should be the one put in your toolbox first and used most often.

Not sure where in the quote you mentioned, or any of the other quotes anyone suggested you were criticizing more then a few techniques..can you quote it, sow e know what you're referring to?

I'm not going to dig for it but it was where I was critiquing the category of techniques and people like instructor went on with anecdotes which essentially equated to "yeah well my hapkido has worked in the street in deadly situations."

As was already stated, MMA isn't a 'proving ground' for everything, since it has a very distinct format with its own rule set, so not the best way to test if certain techniques are practical or not, as they may be illegal or simply unsportsmanlike in that rule set, and mindset.

Yes but standing joint locks are allowed, wrist locks are allowed, elbow and shoulder locks are allowed. The only thing you can't lock on the arm is the fingers.

As stated above, and by others, MMA has a very specific ruleset and mindset. As for them being situational, all techniques are situational, which is why there are so many techniques out there. I'm not a huge fan of the phrase 'just another tool in your toolbox', but thats what a lot of these moves are, tools that you use in certain situations.

Read my comment above about the framing Hamm and the sledgehammer.

Do you have any proof of this? I wouldn't know either way, but some people on here have suggested almost the opposite as far as what LEO's learn, so I would like to see proof. This goes for people suggesting the other way as well, if neither side brings proof, then not really sure the discussion can go any further.

Watch your average episode of cops. That'll give you a pretty good idea of what they use when a person is highly resistant.

Thanks, for making the points clear
For the first point, some of the reactions might be because they consider those techniques as a valuable part of hapkido, so insulting the techniques could be taken as insulting hapkido itself. For the second point, I agree with the situational viability, but not necessarily the effectiveness point, if used in the right situation, which once again goes back to the "tools in the toolbox" idea.

It's not an insult. It is a critique. It is putting them in their appropriate place in the toolbox which, in the case of this specific class of techniques, is the lower percentage of use and lower percentage of success category.

Finally, since I think you missed my other post, do you have any actual experience either learning hapkido, or constantly fighting/sparring/discussing with hapkidoists?

Yes. When I first trained in taekwondo my instructor was a 5th Dan in both taekwondo and hapkido and taught both. In the past year I've fought with and bested two hapkido blackbelts.

 

[Instructor]

Yes. When I first trained in taekwondo my instructor was a 5th Dan in both taekwondo and hapkido and taught both. In the past year I've fought with and bested two hapkido blackbelts.

And what were the rules imposed on these fights?

 

[Rumy73]

My martial art is better than your martial art!!! (Frustrated sarcasm.) Yes, the tiresome discourse that is found in every martial-arts related chat room and Internet forum. While I understand having pride in a system one has studied, it should not blind any of us to the point of demonstrating a lack of respect for other styles. So can we please drop this BS approach, people? Moving on to the point at hand.

I have studied a fair amount of Hapkido and sparred with it. My experience is that in order to get to the point of using any kind of lock or throw, one has to have the aptitude to deal with an attack. Foot work. Blocks. Strikes. It all has a place. Good HKD programs incorporate these elements. What I have noticed reading the posts here (yes, I read them all), that several experiences with HKD are only associated with locks and throws. Those people are only getting part of the HKD experience. It is very similar phenomenon to when TKD students are mostly familiar with the WTF/ITF sports elements of the art, but have never been taught that TKD has locks, throws, self defense, ground fighthing. The number of schools that expose students to the total experience of any art is rather limited. This lends credence to my outlook that self-education is a must for anyone looking to be well rounded.

Any fight outside the ring is filled with the unpredictable. The best self defense, of course, is to be able to avoid violence. When violence does occur, anything goes. I would use only the best, most effective and rapidly executable techniques I know. Frankly, I am feel more confident about first delivering a strong strike or two before going for a grab or a throw. But I will take what comes. Hapkido, like any martial art, gives a person options.

I almost forgot to mention, I really have come to appreciate how HKD has taught me to fall. I am not a young whipper snapper anymore and that sort of stuff comes in handy.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I have studied a fair amount of Hapkido and sparred with it. My experience is that in order to get to the point of using any kind of lock or throw, one has to have the aptitude to deal with an attack. Foot work. Blocks. Strikes. It all has a place. Good HKD programs incorporate these elements.

+1 and I would add the correct mindset is paramount.

It is very similar phenomenon to when TKD students are mostly familiar with the WTF/ITF sports elements of the art, but have never been taught that TKD has locks, throws, self defense, ground fighthing. The number of schools that expose students to the total experience of any art is rather limited. This lends credence to my outlook that self-education is a must for anyone looking to be well rounded.

+2 and I would add that TKD could be indistinguishable from HKD if taught that way. TKD came from Karate which has most/all the elements of Jujutsu. Unfortunately, all too often only a slice of TKD is taught.

Any fight outside the ring is filled with the unpredictable. The best self defense, of course, is to be able to avoid violence. When violence does occur, anything goes. I would use only the best, most effective and rapidly executable techniques I know. Frankly, I am feel more confident about first delivering a strong strike or two before going for a grab or a throw. But I will take what comes. Hapkido, like any martial art, gives a person options.

+3 and I would add, as I've mentioned above, that good self-defense is seldom pretty. Ugly and chaotic would be better labels.

Good post

 

[Earl Weiss]

Originally Posted by Earl Weiss
I consider this to be one of the great myths of empty hand arts...Sure there are anecdotal claims from empty hand arts about battle fiedl succes.

I think we sometimes think of the battlefield from a Hollywood perspective i.e people charging across no-mans land with raised rifles and bombs bursting. That has a part, but is not the whole. The battlefield is going from building to building or room to room or other close quarter scenarios. And having been in the military and now L.E. I will equate the battlefield to the street or correctional facility. .

I understand your use of the ter, "Battlefield" and it is not technicaly incorrect. However, when people claim that an art was developed or used succesfuly in battle, that is absolutley positively not what they are claiming. They are referring to some usualy non specific battle between organized opposing forces typical between nations or a nation and rebels.





​

 

[Earl Weiss]

I've mentioned before an altercation with an EDP (emotionally disturbed person). My best (and repeated) elbow strikes did NOT faze him. I know they were hard strikes because the Deputy I was rescuing felt the strikes through the EDP's back and into his own chest. The EDP didn't even know I was there! He felt no pain and displayed superhuman strength. But when I put a lock on his hand (middle two fingers) he was immobilized down his full right side and the fight was over. It wasn't the pain that stopped him it was the fact that half his body was locked up. Pain is great but pain is subjective and relative. But a proper lock is the key as it inhibits free movement regardless of pain or perceived pain.

A recent term I encountered at a seminar was "Mechanical Compliace" versus "Pain Compliance".

 

[Earl Weiss]

Sorry folks my Internet was down. Anyway I was not criticizing hapkido as a whole but a certain section of its techniques. Some folks need to read before taking instant offense.

I quoted this above section because it has definite relevance to what I was saying with regard to certain hapkido techniques versus other techniques in hapkido and in jujitsu/wrestling/sambo/judo. Folks may have anecdotes about the techniques and their effectiveness but that does not validate them.

Well said. People got their knickers in a twist because of my statement vis a vis "Strong Grappling art" comparing HKD to JJ.
If we were talking "Strong Striking Art" I would take HKD or TKD over JJ.

Some years ago when a group of TKD people had been training with my JJ instructor for over a decade smply to learn grappling without concern of JJ rank, the JJ Instructor said that the TKD guys did not need to spend any time on his striking curriculm since our striking was far superior to his guys.

 

[Earl Weiss]

As was already stated, MMA isn't a 'proving ground' for everything, since it has a very distinct format with its own rule set, so not the best way to test if certain techniques are practical or not, as they may be illegal or simply unsportsmanlike in that rule set, and mindset.

Certainly not for "Everything" but shows a heck of a lot about what works and what doesn't. Even illegal stuff.

These are usualy well trained and conditioned fighters with a determined mindset.

The "Accidental" eye or groin shot is remarkably effective. Shows that my art "Whupbut Foo" is effective

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Originally Posted by Earl Weiss
I consider this to be one of the great myths of empty hand arts...Sure there are anecdotal claims from empty hand arts about battle fiedl succes.



I understand your use of the ter, "Battlefield" and it is not technicaly incorrect. However, when people claim that an art was developed or used succesfuly in battle, that is absolutley positively not what they are claiming. They are referring to some usualy non specific battle between organized opposing forces typical between nations or a nation and rebels.​

I understand where your coming from. Although the lines are very blurred now adays, a generalization could be presented that a Jutsu art was designed for the battlefield and included armed and unarmed techniques, principles and strategies. Whereas a 'Do' was designed for unarmed, civilian use. Again, this is a generalization and not of much use these days.