Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ELITE Taekwondo Self Defence
#1
Critique...

Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#2
Maybe they should have called it Hosinsul (Korean self defense / Hapkido), but glad to see that some are putting forth the effort to focus on SD, but I think trying to keep TKD as the main thrust is mislabeled. Especially after watching the techniques offered, IMO they were more Hapkido based than what TKD generally offers up.

I've had some additional time to ponder this assessment and include some other offerings (weekend seminar for HKD BB) and can only come to 2 possible conclusions. 1) Either HKD is not all that it's cracked up to be (doubtful) or 2) TKD folks are finally realizing that what they teach (a generalization for not all fit into this) is very lacking. 

Now I've watched several discussions on kicks between TKD and HKD and have yet to see a definitive difference between how they are executed. I only know of one way for a snap kick, now a round house can be delivered either fully chambered or almost straight legged (slight knee bend like Muay Thai) or thrown from the back foot semi chambered from the ground up on a 45 degree angle. I've watched the spinning kicks from both and see no definitive difference etc, etc. Now here come a disclaimer, GM Choi Young Sool only used low kicks (below the waist) and he is the founder of Hapkido. Now GM Ji Han Jae (known as the father of modern day Hapkido) is credited with the inclusion of additional kicking techniques, that could only be derived from his previous studies in karate. GM Choi didn't teach them, so he had to get them from someplace else and those came from karate training which became TKD as time past. So the question presents itself, who's doing real Hapkido and who's doing an off shoot redesigned, or for that matter, does it really make a difference? 

If in fact it doesn't make a difference, then are TKD instructors offering Hapkido techniques to enhance SD wrong or is Hapkido as a distinct art in general, not really cracked up to be what people want it to be. After all, joint locks and throws were in fashion long before Hapkido came to be and offered in many different karate styles. Now comes the big question. it's not all that difficult to understand how locks and throws work, so if your really attuned to your training and have some background within the scope of SD (TKD does have SD techniques and most have been based upon Hapkido - General Choi of the ITF made them part of the curriculum), is it really that out of line to be recognized as a ranked Hapkido Dan from a weekend seminar? I know I'm going against my previous post on the subject, but sometimes when one reflects, a glimmer of light shines through and opens the portals for further investigation.
Reply
#3
(09-20-2015, 07:22 PM)sidekick Wrote: If in fact it doesn't make a difference, then are TKD instructors offering Hapkido techniques to enhance SD wrong or is Hapkido as a distinct art in general, not really cracked up to be what people want it to be. After all, joint locks and throws were in fashion long before Hapkido came to be and offered in many different karate styles. Now comes the big question. it's not all that difficult to understand how locks and throws work, so if your really attuned to your training and have some background within the scope of SD (TKD does have SD techniques and most have been based upon Hapkido - General Choi of the ITF made them part of the curriculum), is it really that out of line to be recognized as a ranked Hapkido Dan from a weekend seminar? I know I'm going against my previous post on the subject, but sometimes when one reflects, a glimmer of light shines through and opens the portals for further investigation.


It all depends on the actual TKD training in question.  The TKD school in question that offered the HKD BB's is a well known KKW school.  Now that in itself isn't a bad thing.  If one wants sport TKD then this would probably be a premier place in which to train.  But I highly doubt that the type of TKD being taught there has anything but a cursory appearance to HKD principles.  So I would put any weekend HKD BB being offered there as squarely in the money grab side of the arts.

However, there are TKD schools out there that go well beyond the sport model of TKD.  Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill come to mind.  I would have no difficulty accepting any dual certification within their teachings as one may well not see that big of a difference between what they teach and HKD.  Perhaps nuances and such but major underlying principles would be there in solid fashion.  I wouldn't see that as a money grab because their TKD would be fairly indistinguishable from any HKD.  And indeed, there is no reason that a TKD school could not in truth operate with the same principles as a HKD school.  From a self defense teaching methodology they should be fairly indistinguishable. 

Take a look at the KSD that was developed by four masters (including you and I).  The basis is TKD but it to anyone walking into any of our classes would they see a difference between what we taught and a HKD class?  Perhaps subtle difference in the minutia but basic/foundational principles were the same.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#4
The thing I continue to find, and why waters are so muddy, is that much of the HKD I see is very skimpy on the striking component of their SD practice. They punch in sparring and practice TKD style kicking on targets, but it isn't high on the list of what they do in SD. TKD, even SD oriented, is the opposite. Primarily striking with a smattering of takedowns or simple locks. It seems by in large an almost all or nothing approach.

Personally I think it takes time to get skilled in both, particularly if striving for the combination of the art and SD effectiveness. It takes time for folks to get the balanced mentality. For example if someone is working on their striking, the option of a lock may not enter their mind in SD. Similarly if someone is focused on locks at a point, when they get grabbed they forget that they don't have to struggle to get a lock because they can just punch someone in the face or knee them in the groin. It takes time before getting comfortable enough with both that you can play them together and flow from one to the other.

This for me is why I think it's dubious to grant equivalent rank in HKD and TKD at the same time. I would argue that my adult students have about green belt HKD by the time they get to black in TKD. The TKD black belt curriculum has more of the HKD included in it. With children I find it preferable to help them stay focused on the striking in TKD with some basic takedowns included and not incorporate locks more formally until they are higher in the colored belts. Largely for safety and also I've found that it's hard for them to move back and forth between the two at earlier ages.

Overall, it's all a name game anyway. There are HKD schools who do TKD style sparring and incorporate TKD forms to a minimal level just for the sake of competition. There are TKD schools that don't compete at all and have locks and throws galore. There are schools like KSD as well has HKD or TKD that blend for whatever reasons. Bottom line is don't go by the name, go by the content.

Whatever it's called, if it doesn't work for your purposes it's time to find something else. If you want SD and go to an HKD school that's all about flash, demo, and competition, find something else. If you want competition and are going to a TKD school that's got more grit and no trophies on the wall, find something else.

Just don't fool yourself into believing you've achieved something you haven't. I may be biased but I received my TKD rank and HKD rank both under training those arts very specifically. My TKD instructor was mostly striking with an SD bent. My HKD was mostly locking, throwing, and SD with the kicks mentioned. The result is I feel like both were very well addressed and getting rank in one before pursuing the other was a blessing and helped me assimilate them with a more critical eye and understanding of how they worked together for my body type and mentality. It took longer than going to a class that claimed to train them side by side and grant dual rank, but it was well worth it.
Reply
#5
Our training usually includes a strike before the lock or bar or takedown. This is just an affirmation of what pennmartkd just said. A person reeling from a strike is much easier to lock or bar. That pain, as has been said so often, breaks the OODA loop and gives a split second opening. None of this is magic. Some people just don't react quickly to pain or they are drugged up or have sick levels of focus and training, but as a general rule I think blending an initial strike with a lock or bar or takedown is simpler and highly effective.
Martial Arts done well leads to a more virtuous life because everyone is fighting something.

"If your eye is single, your whole body will be full of light.  But if your eye is evil, even the light that is within you will be darkness.  If the light that is within you is darkness, how great is that darkness?"  (Jesus of Nazareth)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)