Traditional Training Styles - importance of non-compliant training

[iron_ox]

Hello all,

Non-compliant training is very important for training techniques in Hapkido as it was taught by Choi Dojunim.

OK, a simple statement to ope the thread, before I comment further, what do you all think?

 

[WC_lun]

Traditionl, non-traditional, whatever. If you never test your skills against resisting people, how can you be confident that they work. If your instructor does not train against resisting opponents either, how would he know? Guesswork? Theorycraft? Or just fantasy? There is a BIG difference from training with a complient partner and one who is simulating a real encounter. Even with fully resisiting training partners, that does not equate 100% to the street. If you can't handle your resisting training partners, how are you gonna fare against someone really intent on hurting you and all the extra baggage that brings? That doesn't mean just beat the hell out of each other. There must be both a learning and confidence curve taken into account.

 

[Gnarlie]

Totally agree with WC_Lun on the confidence building curve.

While training with the aim of reaching non-compliance is important, it annoys me when beginners want to go there straight away in class.

There are valuable lessons to be learned from compliance on the journey to non-compliance. People who want to skip straight there often end up reaching the end point of a tech using brute strength, missing point of principle. Brute strength through a technique is almost as dangerous as compliance but without the path to correct technique. It will work against smaller opponents but can lead to nasty surprises versus larger, stronger people.

I feel the same about structured pre arranged partner drills. They have their place on the road to freestyle self defence.

Gnarlie

 

[DennisBreene]

I agree. Noncompliance training always requires a balance of noncompliance vs technique to avoid injury. The more aggressive the noncompliance the more skillful the training partners need to be to avoid injury. Sort of falls in that bin with the aphorism that the most dangerous students are white belts and brown belts.

Totally agree with WC_Lun on the confidence building curve.

While training with the aim of reaching non-compliance is important, it annoys me when beginners want to go there straight away in class.

There are valuable lessons to be learned from compliance on the journey to non-compliance. People who want to skip straight there often end up reaching the end point of a tech using brute strength, missing point of principle. Brute strength through a technique is almost as dangerous as compliance but without the path to correct technique. It will work against smaller opponents but can lead to nasty surprises versus larger, stronger people.

I feel the same about structured pre arranged partner drills. They have their place on the road to freestyle self defence.

Gnarlie

 

[Doomx2001]

I agree pretty much with everything said so far. My views is this: It is important that when learning a new technique there should be only 'light resistance' (meaning if it is a wrist grab, the uke should grab really hard, but the uke's arm remain lose). That isn't to say that you should train unrealistically when learning a new technique, but instead allow the tori to have the 'ease' to learn it in the beginning. Then graduate to medium resistance from the uke, then once the tori is still able to do the technique, go to almost full resistance. It is important that the tori experience and train in the techniques with full resistance because you are only as good as you train. I would hate for someone to be learning a watered down Hapkido style just to end up assaulted easily on the street. Real Hapkido is taught with a semi-realistic (as realistic as we can make them without injury) grabs, pulls, punches...etc that we can replicate safely in the dojang. That to me is Traditional Hapkido.

 

[Doomx2001]

Also, it isn't Hapkido if it don't hurt!

 

[iron_ox]

In Hapkido, the first part of training is done against grabs of various types. This leads and moves forward to eventually seizing the opponent and getting control there. The vast majority of Hapkido that I have seen uses compliant training mixed with high speed motion to try and make the techniques look like they would work, yet the very design of the techniques should always be done from non-compliance and with the appropriate energy, direction and intent that gives the techniques purpose in the first place.
After all, if all wrist grabs were "the same" why would there be such a variety of ways to counter them.

I have seen far too many schools that use compliant training and then don't understand why the techniques fail in the school setting, forget in the real world. The techniques themselves are designed from grabs to teach a pattern of movement and body mechanics that cannot be duplicated with compliance.

I disagree that one tries to reach non-compliance. Perhaps in a demonstration phase this may be important, except all Hapkido technique from grabs can be done against non-compliant opponents very slowly if the body mechanics are right. Now, there is a great deal of conditioning that might need to precede this training, but it is very much the way the training should be done.

The first year I was in Korea, I was partnered with someone from a College Hapkido Program here in the states. He claimed to be a third dan in Hapkido. We were going over simple break away motions and simple wrist techniques. I was grabbing at normal strength. And although this is as much about conditioning as well, by the end of the third day, he was unable to continue because all the skin on his wrists was shredded. He was simply not used to non-compliant training, and it showed.

I think you all raise very good points here. In Hapkido, non-compliant training is essential, not only for some sort of street reality, but because the techniques themselves were designed to be taught in a non-compliant way.

 

[K-man]

Everything written in this thread also applies to Aikido. We train from holds as well, but the holds aren't the main object. The holds are just a means to enable an entry, whether you are held or not. When done against total resistance, which we do most of the time, it makes you move around your partner's strength.

In the real world there is also the atemi that enables a lot of the techniques and destroys the focus and balance of the attacker. However, although we train against full resistance, compliance also has its place. By not resisting a technique when it is being applied to us, we can move into the reversal or counter (kaeshi waza). Reversals in aikido are generally mosty taught after second or third dan. :asian:

 

[Doomx2001]

To me, I take 'non-compliance' as meaning if the uke grabs with one hand, he is punching with the other, and tensing up to prevent a technique. Really good thread going on here.

 

[arnisador]

People fool themselves much too often. That's why beginners are so helpful--they don't know how they 'should' react and so you see what really happens with your techs.!

 

[iron_ox]

Everything written in this thread also applies to Aikido. We train from holds as well, but the holds aren't the main object. The holds are just a means to enable an entry, whether you are held or not. When done against total resistance, which we do most of the time, it makes you move around your partner's strength.

In the real world there is also the atemi that enables a lot of the techniques and destroys the focus and balance of the attacker. However, although we train against full resistance, compliance also has its place. By not resisting a technique when it is being applied to us, we can move into the reversal or counter (kaeshi waza). Reversals in aikido are generally mosty taught after second or third dan. :asian:

Although I cannot speak for Aikido, I will say that in Hapkido, the use of striking to distract an opponent is not required but it seems to be prevalent in many school, and this is my opinion is due to not understanding the nuance of the Art, but rather it seems just a basic understanding of bio-mechanics that when they fail must resort to a strike.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I know this posted in the hapkido section, but the question seems to be a fairly universal one, so I hope no one minds a response from a jujutsu/judo/taijutsu perspective.

I think it's important to be clear on what is meant by "non-compliant" training. I don't think it's particularly useful to just drill a technique with uke trying to prevent tori from executing that particular technique. If I know exactly what technique you are trying to perform on me, I can almost always stop you from completing that exact technique. (If you're really good, that resistance will give you the energy to flow into a different technique, but that won't give you the practice you were wanting in your original technique.)

That doesn't mean that uke should just be a passive floppy zombie while tori drills the technique. Tori needs to provide the appropriate energy that the technique being drilled is intended to deal with. Is the technique designed to deal with someone who grabs and pulls? Someone who grabs and pushes? Someone who grabs and punches? Someone who grabs and holds on for dear life? Someone who grabs and executes an arm drag to take your back and then take you down? Uke needs to give that energy so that tori can understand what the technique is all about. (The speed and intensity of that energy can vary and should probably be kept low while tori is learning the fine points of the technique.)

That said, there is a need for some form of practice in which your partner does not give you a pre-scripted energy for a pre-scripted technique. Instead of grabbing your lapel and then cooperating while you break his balance, break his alignment, and then throw him, perhaps your partner will adjust to your movement, switch his grip, try to break your balance and throw you based on your reaction. Uke and tori, winner and loser, are not decided ahead of time.

That does not necessaarily mean sparring. Sparring is a valuable training method, but it has the downside of promoting a symmetric "dueling" mentality which may not reflect the realities of self-defense. The essential elements of this form of training is that each training partner is given an objective and is then free to achieve that objective in any way that does not violate the constraints that are agreed upon for that exercise. Some possible examples:
1) Start with partner A performing a cooperative takedown on partner B. The exercise begins when B hits the ground - his objective is to get back to his feet, while A's objective is to keep B down.
2) Partners A and B (the muggers) have the objective to move partner C to one end of the mat (the dark alley). Partner C has the objective to get away to the other end of the mat (freedom).
3) Partner A puts on gloves and has the objective of punching partner B. B is not allowed to strike and has the objective of thowing A to the ground.
4) Partner A starts with a superior gripping situation on partner B (perhaps a bear hug). Partner A tries to use his advantage to take partner B down. Partner B tries to escape or reach a neutral position.
5) Of course all forms of free-form sparring/randori, either with strikes, grappling, or both, fall into this category.

What is not helpful is confusing this sort of free-form non-compliant exercise with drilling a technique. When you drill a technique, you need lots and lots of repetition so that the technique can become second nature. If uke is fighting you the whole time you're drilling, then you're never going to get those repetitions and the technique won't come quickly enough when you start doing the free-form exercises.

 

[Doomx2001]

What is not helpful is confusing this sort of free-form non-compliant exercise with drilling a technique. When you drill a technique, you need lots and lots of repetition so that the technique can become second nature. If uke is fighting you the whole time you're drilling, then you're never going to get those repetitions and the technique won't come quickly enough when you start doing the free-form exercises.

That was basically what I was referring to in my post, which was about the method of non-compliance when it comes to 'drilling a techinque'. I wonder how many Hapkido styles practice Randori? This is a good thread.

 

[Doomx2001]

I disagree that one tries to reach non-compliance. Perhaps in a demonstration phase this may be important, except all Hapkido technique from grabs can be done against non-compliant opponents very slowly if the body mechanics are right. Now, there is a great deal of conditioning that might need to precede this training, but it is very much the way the training should be done.

At Jung Ki Kwan schools, when new techniques are taught, how many are taught at a time, and for how long of a period?

For example: One Hapkido teacher may teach 1 or 2 hapkido techniques for the whole month, while another may teach as much as 15 in a month.

The reason I ask other than curiosity is because in the non-compliant training that you speak of, it would seem to work well just learning just 1 or 2 techniques in a month depending on the students progress I suppose. But then again, other than my continuing Bujinkan training, I haven't seen many Hapkido styles start out with firm non-compliant training (including the Hapkido styles I'm training in now), so I was curious as to how long it takes new students to catch on, and develop real skill in non-compliant training? Because I know for myself, some people that I've trained with, I grab hard, and with intent, and they have great trouble doing the technique. And it takes them a long time just to get the basics down. And in my role as an 'uke', I'm not trying to be a prick to my training partner, but rather, give them more of a realistic situation that could lead to real skill development.

Also, I'm not being critical of your argument, I'm actually very supportive of your training methods. I wish I could train at a Jung Ki Kwan, if one was close. Good thread by the way.

 

[WMKS Shogun]

Although I cannot speak for Aikido, I will say that in Hapkido, the use of striking to distract an opponent is not required but it seems to be prevalent in many school, and this is my opinion is due to not understanding the nuance of the Art, but rather it seems just a basic understanding of bio-mechanics that when they fail must resort to a strike.

I cannot speak for Hapkido on this, but I do know that Ueshiba, Morihei, the founder of Aikido, said that a majority of Aikido was atemi-waza. What he meant by this was that getting the uke's mind off what they were trying to do was a key part of good Aikido. Whether that atemi was a strike or some other type of distraction is unimportant. Obviously the better one's technical skill is, the more effective one's technique should be. Now, I know Hapkido shares much with Aikido, but is still its own distinct art with its own philosophies (which I am learning, slowly). I do not think that a strike as a distraction is a sign of weak technique, but a practical action to better fascilitate the flow of the skill. If the aim is self protection, a small strike is not necessarily a bad thing, though obviously, a controlling technique is more appropriate as strikes and joint-destruction is more legally liable. In my opinion, the legal aspect is the greatest reason to learn to do techniques without having to do strikes as well. Just my few thoughts on it.

 

[iron_ox]

At Jung Ki Kwan schools, when new techniques are taught, how many are taught at a time, and for how long of a period?

For example: One Hapkido teacher may teach 1 or 2 hapkido techniques for the whole month, while another may teach as much as 15 in a month.

The reason I ask other than curiosity is because in the non-compliant training that you speak of, it would seem to work well just learning just 1 or 2 techniques in a month depending on the students progress I suppose. But then again, other than my continuing Bujinkan training, I haven't seen many Hapkido styles start out with firm non-compliant training (including the Hapkido styles I'm training in now), so I was curious as to how long it takes new students to catch on, and develop real skill in non-compliant training? Because I know for myself, some people that I've trained with, I grab hard, and with intent, and they have great trouble doing the technique. And it takes them a long time just to get the basics down. And in my role as an 'uke', I'm not trying to be a prick to my training partner, but rather, give them more of a realistic situation that could lead to real skill development.

Also, I'm not being critical of your argument, I'm actually very supportive of your training methods. I wish I could train at a Jung Ki Kwan, if one was close. Good thread by the way.

Well, I can only speak for myself. I tend to teach techniques in pairs or threes. Mainly because or syllabus uses small groups of techniques clustered together to demonstrate a certain principle.

The first three months or so or the new students training is about conditioning the wrists so that we can do good non-compliant training without doing any damage.

The biggest issue that I have found is that people need to learn the proper body mechanics and full resistance is not a problem.

You are welcome to come to Chicago anytime you wish do try some training with us, you would be more than welcome!! Although I do have a few emerging clubs scattered across the US, one in Davenport IA, New Orleans, Philly, a training group of mine in Connecticut, and a few others....

 

[iron_ox]

I cannot speak for Hapkido on this, but I do know that Ueshiba, Morihei, the founder of Aikido, said that a majority of Aikido was atemi-waza. What he meant by this was that getting the uke's mind off what they were trying to do was a key part of good Aikido. Whether that atemi was a strike or some other type of distraction is unimportant. Obviously the better one's technical skill is, the more effective one's technique should be. Now, I know Hapkido shares much with Aikido, but is still its own distinct art with its own philosophies (which I am learning, slowly). I do not think that a strike as a distraction is a sign of weak technique, but a practical action to better fascilitate the flow of the skill. If the aim is self protection, a small strike is not necessarily a bad thing, though obviously, a controlling technique is more appropriate as strikes and joint-destruction is more legally liable. In my opinion, the legal aspect is the greatest reason to learn to do techniques without having to do strikes as well. Just my few thoughts on it.

And I cannot speak for Aikido. But in Hapkido, using a strike or distraction as a function of doing a technique is unnecessary. Since most fights don't really start from a wrist grab...but the techniques we do from them should not require a strike to make them work. It is about proper mechanics, without them, adding a strike is useless.

 

[Dwi Chugi]

And I cannot speak for Aikido. But in Hapkido, using a strike or distraction as a function of doing a technique is unnecessary. Since most fights don't really start from a wrist grab...but the techniques we do from them should not require a strike to make them work. It is about proper mechanics, without them, adding a strike is useless.

I have to agree with Mr. Sogor on this. I have had different guest come in from different styles of hapkido in the past and they want to add the strike to off balance before doing the throw. I think that is good Hoshinsool (self-defense) but not good Hapki (combind energy). I think if you can off balance someone using their energy against them than adding a strike in a street fight is easy. It is hard however to take someone that likes to rely on striking to off balance their attacker and teach them house to off balance using pure Hapki.

Now, if I am teaching a self-defense or street defense course I will teach the strike. The course is only a few weeks long and I want to make sure my students can survive an attack safe. But my Hapkidoin have a life time to learn the proper principles of Hapkido.

Going back to the topic of the thread, I think non-compliance or live training is a must in true Hapkido. At my dojang we run lines (where one person waits for the next person in line to attack them), circles (where the peron in the middle is attacked by the students on the outside of the circle) and even spar from time to time but I think we all can agree sparring is different than being attacked but if gives you some idea what getting hit or thrown unexpectedly is like.

Great thread by the way. I am pretty new and this is one of my first replys.

 

[Doomx2001]

Great thread by the way. I am pretty new and this is one of my first replys.

Welcome to the forum, and please stick around. The more Hapkidoist we got here the better. Also the more idea's to share with one another to improve our selves, students, and just general all around research on things Hapkido.
Glad to have you here.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I once did a rather lenghty piece on this topic. To sum it up, from the perspective of using a martial art for the purpose of self-defense, you have two venues; the first is theory and the second is experience. Touching on the first, the majority of martial artists and indeed instructors teach from theory. This isn't meant to be a slight against anyone, or any art. It is simply a fact. Outside of a pushing/shoving match in the schoolyard, most have, fortunately, never been in a true altercation. This isn't a bad thing and even something to be sought after. Good self-defense begins long before the need to go hands-on. Having said that, there is a lot of useless, nonsense in many martial arts. I refer to it as fluff. It isn't really needed, doesn't enhance the art in terms of practical self-defense...but it looks good and really impresses the uninitiated. But it is useless in a real fight, against a real person, who is really trying to hurt you.

A good example is an Aikido DVD I have somewhere in the bottom of a drawer. Not to pick on Aikido, the same thing could be applied to Hapkido and I have some completely ridiculous videos on Hapkido as well. For example, the master being 'attacked' by a dozen students who he effortlessly throws all over the mat. Really looks good, lots of flash and oohh-ahhh moments. Looking just a bit deeper, the students are waiting their turn to attack the master, assisting him be self-leaping into a beautiful break fall at the slightest touch and then getting up and waiting their turn to attack again. This same master who can take on a dozen 'bad guys' in a choreographed DVD is going to get his clock cleaned by a single street thug. My favorite is the attacker throwing a half-hearted punch, two feet to the side of the masters head and then kinda-sorta leaving it there long enough to let the master grab it and work his magic. A compliant, willing partner is of no value.

This is a prime example of those that have learned from someone that has no practical experience and teaches from theory...who in turn learned from someone with no practical experience and teaches from theory...and so on up the line.

Then you have the individual that teaches from experience. They've actually successfully used something on someone that didn't want stuff used on them. Perhaps a plethora of times. When that type of experience starts mounting up you tend to know what will REALLY work and what is a bunch of crappola. This doesn't mean you need to go out and get into fights to see what works and in no way should be taken that way. But here is a litmus test; how many times have you actually been forced to use what you've learned against a real badguy? Did it work? Did you get your butt handed to you? What about your instructor...or his instructor? Is there anyone in the lineage, such as a police officer/corrections officer/bouncer etc that put various skill sets to the test within your art? Can anyone verify first-hand that a particular skill-set works? Is the skill set your teaching/learning going to actually work against a determined attacker? What is your level of confidence in it...and why?

If I seem very direct in my comments, it is because this is what I do in the martial arts. I see so much..er, stuff in the arts that I shake my head at. Stuff that is not going to work in real lfe. Stuff that is vehemently defended as useable by those with the art. And to a certain extent I can understand defending what one has put effort into. But at some point, if we're sticking to a martial art being used for self-defense, we need to have a little reality check moment and ask ourselves just what is viable and what is flashy/fluffy garbage that has been inserted because of some percieved 'wow' factor. I'm very direct because I use it, sometimes on an almost daily basis. My last was just a few days ago against a very unwilling trusty of modern chemisty (read he was out of his mind on K2). I don't want to depend on an untested skill set when it hits the fan. I don't want to depend on something that only works if the guy is standing a certain way or holding my wrist a certain way and knows the proper time to break fall.

Do you train against someone that is semi-compliant? Or do you train against someone that isn't going to 'give it to you'? Yes, we need to maintain a safe environment, but one can train with quite a bit or realism and still have a safety factor. Do you train under stress? Under stress we tend to lose manual dexterity so can you pull off your favorite lock/throw/choke etc against an unwilling opponent under stress? You may find its a lot different than with a willing partiner in a controlled environment.

Self-defense is a chaotic, ugly affair. If you and/or your partner aren't taking serious and training as real as is possible (while still being able to walk out of the school the way you walked in) then your not doing yourself..or him/her any favors.