Traditional HRD Syllabus:pros vs. cons?

[Bob D.]

SBN Chris Bailey started an interesting conversation on the "up and coming students...." thread. The subject of the HRD traditional syllabus has been the topic of discussion for as long as I've been in the art (26 years). The issue most have is thru 3rd dan, the numerous sets of numerous techniques are redundent and require the student to emphasize rote memorization at the expense of being able to actually fight. Of course a few instructors have remedied that by supplementing the curriculum with judo type "rondori", kick boxing type sparring and/or jujuitsu type grappling, but that is the exception not the norm. And it still doesn't deal with the issue that most students can't effectivly joint lock a resisting opponent...even after 4-5 years study!
My last sentence is applicable to Hapkido/KSW/HRD as well, it's a common problem.
So, while I love the romantic notion of learning even the most obscure and/or the most subtly different variation of a technique, I say there has to be a better method of teachig/getting it. I'm not a big fan of the Trad. HRD syllabus but I do have an odd attachment to it! Any ideas?

 

[shesulsa]

Farang, SBN Donnelly.

So, while I love the romantic notion of learning even the most obscure and/or the most subtly different variation of a technique, I say there has to be a better method of teachig/getting it.

This is a good point. For instance I can think right now of Hoshin Oui Bok Sul where the same technique application (essentially) is used for a cloth grab either at the wrist, at the elbow, or tricep area. I wonder if this could be reduced to one technique and the broader application be approached in supplemental instruction, i.e. as a student learns the intricacies of the technique and its various applications, these applications are demonstrated.

I would hate to lose all the applications, however.

Just my very humble rambling.

 

[iron_ox]

And it still doesn't deal with the issue that most students can't effectivly joint lock a resisting opponent...even after 4-5 years study!
My last sentence is applicable to Hapkido/KSW/HRD as well, it's a common problem.
Any ideas?

Hello all,

I am not HRD, but Hapkido, so I hope this helps - for training and teaching to "verify" the veracity of any technique - try it in slow motion against a full resistive opponent - being sure to use body mechanics for breaking the balance of the opponent (no strikes or kicks) - just very slow motion.

If the technique cannot be done - it is not being done right, or is not a good technique - if someting can be done with little effort, in slow motion, against a resisting opponent, full speed can be lots of fun.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Bob:

"And it still doesn't deal with the issue that most students can't effectivly joint lock a resisting opponent...even after 4-5 years study!...."

A few things come to mind as I read your post but I am not sure how much help I am going to be. Let just toss some ideas out.

1.) If there is an issue with a curriculum then the issue is not with the material in the syllabus as much as the intention or philosophy behind the material. All a curriculum is is a reflection of the priorities of the person who put it together. If you have a problem with a curriculum then it is as much to say that you have a difference of priorities with the author OF that curriculum. I don't think the issue will be resolved by merely changing the curriculum. What needs to happen is to reconcile what your priorities are with those of the curriculums author. Some people do this by sitting down and sorting through this. Others teacher the "official curriculum" up front and then have second set of materials or beliefs they tech a few on the sly. Others simply break-away and start their own shop where they can teach whatever they like.

2.) Finding myself in a position to deal with a resistant individual seems to suggest that one has changed from fighting to competing. By this I don't mean that you are actually working for a trophy, but that somehow you have suddenly become concerned about the well-being of your attacker. In a fight I have no real concern for the result on my attacker. The attack was his idea and there is a consequence for acting on bad ideas or bad decisions.

3.) From a training standpoint most people do not work with a resistant attacker since there is no uniform way to identifiy when "enough-is-enough". Most people who train want enough conditioning to cover challenges and the odd uncomfortable situation. Most people are not invested enough to train against resistance, or to deal with the likelihood of injury. Most have homes and families and a job to go to the next day. People who WANT resistance will go to an activity where they can get their needs satisfied. The idea of taking an art which is does not demonstrate sufficent quantity of the sort of activity that the person is looking for and modifying it to include something that was not there to begin with is to admit that you have selected the wrong art to begin with. (See also Point One.) FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Bob D.]

Hi Kevin, I agree with your training tool and have used it as well as many others (alot from trad. Akijujuitsu based arts). But that addresses an actual technique...learning subtlety of angulation, proper body posture, stuff like that. Good stuff though, Thanks!
The bigger problem as I see it is for years these are being taught in static setting. No flow. No "rondori", unrealistic set ups, etc. And I'm sorry, but if you get an athletic 20 year old and have a Randy Couture or? train him in "mixed MA" for a NHB match for a year, he will typically beat the snot out of 90% of the traditional HKD, HRD, KSW black belts with 5 or more years! The average B.B. will NEVER get a joint lock on one of these guys. No I'm not just talking about a sport match, I'm talking anywhere.
My point is that if one wants to become a warrior with actual combat viable skills as apposed to just learning an art, sport or self defense (nothing wrong with any of this), traditional Korean arts fall short (as taught), IMHO.
Back to the subject of the thread!

 

[Bob D.]

Hi Bruce, Without getting into "competition vs. Fight" and the like (another tread perhaps), I'll comment to the last part of number 3:
Hwarang Do was "advertised" as a combat martial art, a MA for military and so on. While there is an awesome amount of technique that is "combat, military, lethal, and ???" The method of teaching is not practical and you could say alot is outdated. So we (people I train with) have taken it upon ourselves to "work" it and update it to make it more realistic.
I would not say "wrong art". I just think the founders either got lazy or for some reason won't/don't know how to teach beyond a certian level of effectiveness. They might be/have been awesome but what have they produced (instructors)?
I think I know your stance on keeping a traditional art unmodified, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I think the fact it's called an "art" should allow creativity, updating, and addition of material. Not to say throw out the old but add and optimize!

 

[Bob D.]

Shesulsa,

For instance I can think right now of Hoshin Oui Bok Sul where the same technique application (essentially) is used for a cloth grab either at the wrist, at the elbow, or tricep area.

Your right this was (and still is evedently) being taught basically the same exact movement for the first 4 grabs, BUT that is just for beginners! There are advanced versions of almost every technique in the syllabus. My original instructor modified them (the first 4 oui bok sul) slightly so each has a different aspect that makes it work better. Now they are basically the same in appearance but very different in angle of application, and which joint/joints are broken.
Example #1 is an inside wrist break - standard.
#2 is inside wrist with a ellipticle arc that brings elbow into play.
#3 is an inside/forward break trapping opponents hand in crook of arm and brings wrist/elbow and shoulder into play.
Each is actually different in how the wrist breaks and where the emphasis of pain is located.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Bob:

"......I think I know your stance on keeping a traditional art unmodified, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I think the fact it's called an "art" should allow creativity, updating, and addition of material. Not to say throw out the old but add and optimize!...."

Now THIS ....... THIS is what every practitioner of Korean martial arts NEEDS to be talking about!!!!!!! I don't think there is font size impressive enough to underscore this point!!

Every time people start talking about modifying a martial art it almost always comes to content! People are always so excited about adding content and taking away content! And then, when people talk about being traditional the discussion always gets all balled-up between referring first to content and then skipping over to teaching methods ("pedagogy") and then back again. Just once I wish people would take a stand on one kind of curriculum (personally I don't care what the content is --- Hapkido, BJJ, Shotokan, whatever ,whatever whatever) and speak ONLY to the manner in which the material is taught. And, like you say, if the teaching method is no longer timely, or the philosophy has changed, THEN CHANGE THE PHILOSOPHY OR THE TEACHING PRIORITIES FIRST BUT KEEP THE MATERIAL THE SAME UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT YOU HAVE!! Most people change the material when what they really mean to do is change the philosophy or the approach TO the material.

Sorry, to be so animated about this but it has become such an issue with me!! People would rather bring in some new or fancy kind of material like nunchukas from Okinawa or BJJ from South America when what we really need to be doing is changing the way we think about KMA and how we are teaching!!!!!

Note: Need to tie this off and go find a cup of decaf!

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[floweringknight]

Man you guys are incredible! I basically totally agree with both of you guys (Bob and Bruce). I also believe that it is the teaching style / training mentality that needs to be continually changing and evolving. Not necessarily what is being taught; but how it is being taught! I also teach 4 different variations of the first 4 techniques in green belt. Also 30 (not 28) techniques in yellow belt. The last 2 covering the other 2 ways to grab someone's wrist. Last note: I always try to keep my training and my teaching firmly grounded in reality! But hey, I'm still learning too........aren't we all?

 

[iron_ox]

Hi Kevin, I agree with your training tool and have used it as well as many others (alot from trad. Akijujuitsu based arts). But that addresses an actual technique...learning subtlety of angulation, proper body posture, stuff like that. Good stuff though, Thanks!
The bigger problem as I see it is for years these are being taught in static setting. No flow. No "rondori", unrealistic set ups, etc. And I'm sorry, but if you get an athletic 20 year old and have a Randy Couture or? train him in "mixed MA" for a NHB match for a year, he will typically beat the snot out of 90% of the traditional HKD, HRD, KSW black belts with 5 or more years! The average B.B. will NEVER get a joint lock on one of these guys. No I'm not just talking about a sport match, I'm talking anywhere.
My point is that if one wants to become a warrior with actual combat viable skills as apposed to just learning an art, sport or self defense (nothing wrong with any of this), traditional Korean arts fall short (as taught), IMHO.
Back to the subject of the thread!

Hello Bob,

Sorry for the delay, I had to think of a quick way to answer this - so here goes- when dealing with reality, where exactly do you see MMA guys (sports men) and the likes of Randy Couture in the world? Generally in the ring. Now, I'm not sure where you hail from, but, I live, train and teach in Chicago, IL - the murder capitol of the world for about 10 straight years - we had 665
average homocides for about 8 years in a row - so reality of self defense is on my door step and the MMA type guys never, ever enter the picture - but lots of stoned/drunk/angry people do - and thats who I teach to defend against.

I don't teach or mold warriors - just average people looking to engage in an extraordinary art form - that will bring them confidence and protection - if someone wanted to be in the sports arena - I say "please look elsewhere". On a side note, I have several students that are professional and semi-pro football players - very well conditioned and strong indeed - my 4'11" female students (I have a few of those) find it SO easy to literally take the "giants" off their feet with a little off-balancing...

Thanks for listening to my ramble...

 

[Bob D.]

OK Kevin, I understand the difference between self defense and sport. I'm not going to get into an argument about why I think if one is not doing some form of "competition' with their training, they're fooling themselves into believing they are a warrior prepered to fight.
There is no way a 4' 11' female is going to jointlock a pro football player that does not want it done. Standing there, giving his arm, yes. And thats great for learning the jointlock, but to actually be able to have a chance of locking an athletic opponent in a violent incounter, some form of competitive grappling has to be practiced! It's the only safe way to learn how people move, resist earnistly, and fightback!

This is why I don't post much on these forums. People either believe the "reality" they've set up for themselves or they let pride convince them of what they don't need to be training.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Bob:

I don't know if this is going to make any sense or not within the context of what you are saying. I share it only because it has been a teaching challenge to me for years. To say this though I am going to put to one side the idea of a resisting partner, but only for the purposes of my comment, 'kay?

In my classes and even in the Hapkido club a huge portion of my work is in getting people to do what is necessary to take care of themselves. Even when using target bags and kicking shields it is a long and strong up-hill battle of constant cajoling to get people to hit and kick with any authority. The same goes for the techniques. The hue and cry of the students is "well, I don't want to hurt them!" The battle as I see it, whether the partners is resistant or not is to get people to overcome years of being told to "be nice" and simply do what is necessary to protect themselves. Each week it is all I can do to get students to punch AT their partner instead of just TOWARDS them. In fairness I originally included some resistance work but it was regularly used by the weak in the class to justify that trying to protect themselves was futile against people who were bigger and stronger. The battle as I see it is one that is fought between the ears and in the heart of the students. I know I do not have this issue but then I have a lot of life-experiences to draw on that the students do not. Most of them are soft and readily avoid adversity in their lives. I think the idea your are presenting is to ask them to run before they can walk, so to speak. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Bob D.]

Bruce;

People would rather bring in some new or fancy kind of material like nunchukas from Okinawa or BJJ from South America when what we really need to be doing is changing the way we think about KMA and how we are teaching!!!!!

Good point! But, there are issues I have with HRD's claim to be a complete MA. Now I don't think any art can be truely complete...not enough time in a life! HRD has an excellent stand up (kick-punch) curiculum, and endless amount of self defense tech. (Joint locks, throws, etc), challanging forms (hyungs), and some weapons. The ground game is lacking so at least simular fundementals to say BJJ or trad. jujuitsu should be taught and practiced. The weapons training can easily be updated while still using traditional principles. "Self defense" style yudo (which I think lacks...) would benefit greatly from practicing modern judo. Even HRD stand up needs practical appilication training, so why not be using boxing and kick boxing drills along with contact sparring? It's what will make it all work!
I've been lucky enough to have been trained this way from the ground up while learning the traditional HRD at the same time. I think this does go toward training "philosophy" and teaching approach. Thoughts?

 

[Bob D.]

I think the idea your are presenting is to ask them to run before they can walk, so to speak. FWIW.

Not at all! Just the opposite. If you pad up a timid student (with some skills)and put them in the ring (or on the mat) with another padded up student and have them spar full contact, they learn many things but two that are on subject. First that getting hit hard is not the end of the world. second throwing hard blows with agression is fun and thay're not hurting anyone! It will translate to all other martial endevers! I do it with students all the time and I've seen it done at many other schools.
It is the same with self defense or grappling....whatever. Mock battles and fighting have been part of martial training according to the earliest histories. Why would you deny their validity today?

 

[Bob D.]

BTW: it works even better when the instructor "puts on the gloves" and spars with the timid student. I can verbally exite them and get them to get aggressive because they figure out fast they can't hurt me (pads, experience) and they usually will go harder on a authority figure. In turn I can control my end of it so they don't freak out.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Bob:

Please accept my apologies for wanting to go at this at perhaps a maddeningly slow pace. I want to examine something that I think gets glossed-over way too fast in many discussions similar to this.

"......But, there are issues I have with HRD's claim to be a complete MA...."

The concern I want to focus on --- and perhaps only for a moment is this bit of your statement. To wit: "complete MA."

In these discussions the idea of "completeness" always come back to to the number, sophistication and practicality of the material. I never hear people discuss the MANNER in which the material is taught or learned. To make my thought a bit clearer, think about how many people practice Judo and then consider how many people would do 600 push-ups each day as Mifune is reported to have done. The same for Boxers who spend hours working the bag for power, or the Kyokushinkai people who spar full-contact. In Hapkido we make a lot of noises about our arts, but I wonder if the claim to a "complete art" is supported by a culture of hardwork across the system or is a "complete art" only measured by the number of ways a person knows for handling a particular attack? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Bob D.]

Sorry, I thought I was talking about method. Unfortunatly there just is'nt enough time in formal class to do full routines of conditioning. We can do some at begginging of class or have special classes for that but it's really up to the indivdual to train outside of class if they want to be in any kind of fighting shape. We had/have exactly that (extra mat time) for conditioning and to be honest more time is spent on conditioning then learning technique. Of course both can be accomplished drilling pads, sparing, rondori.

but I wonder if the claim to a "complete art" is supported by a culture of hardwork across the system or is a "complete art" only measured by the number of ways a person knows for handling a particular attack? Thoughts?

I'm talking about haveing a skill set for any possible form of combat and being conditioned to execute.

 

[iron_ox]

OK Kevin, I understand the difference between self defense and sport. I'm not going to get into an argument about why I think if one is not doing some form of "competition' with their training, they're fooling themselves into believing they are a warrior prepered to fight.
There is no way a 4' 11' female is going to jointlock a pro football player that does not want it done. Standing there, giving his arm, yes. And thats great for learning the jointlock, but to actually be able to have a chance of locking an athletic opponent in a violent incounter, some form of competitive grappling has to be practiced! It's the only safe way to learn how people move, resist earnistly, and fightback!

This is why I don't post much on these forums. People either believe the "reality" they've set up for themselves or they let pride convince them of what they don't need to be training.

Sorry Bob,

I think you mis-read me - I said "take them off their feet" - but could they joint lock them in a vunerable position - I have no doubt. Not sure if the last jab is intended for me - but "reality" - I live it everyday here in Chicago ( and practiced it for better than 10 years daily working some of the toughest nightclubs in the country) - and "pride" - can't say my last post had any of that - but again, if that was directed at me specifically, I would just say that one needs to examine their own training and their own "reality".

 

[Bob D.]

Kevin, I
Nevermind.

 

[floweringknight]

Bob - I totally agree with you on your last point. I usually spare myself with newer (lower rank) students exactly because I can control the tempo, etc, I have seen it happen so many times: 2 beginners going at it. No technique, no control, no form, sloppy, and dangerous. A lot of un-necessary injuries; not to mention bad habits being formed.