Hapkido vs Aikido

[Danger Dave]

Oyama was a student of Funakoshi. After Mas Oyama got himself into some trouble (he was a bit of a thug in his younger days), Funakoshi refused to teach him. Oyama later remarked something to the effect that Funakoshi was a good teacher for children.

[Skorzeny]

Danger Dave:

Thanks for the validation!

Why is it so hard for others to agree with? Is it the substance or my repulsive personality?

BTW, we should all remember that Mas Oyama was a colonial Japanese name for the ethnic Korean. I believe he had a Korean name, which escapes me at the moment.

Skorzeny

[LawDog]

I think his Korean name was Yong I-Choi. He adopted the name 'Oyama' to honour the Japanese family who took him in and befriended him when he came to Tokyo for his college education.

Mas Oyama studied Chinese kempo while still in Korea, until he travelled to Japan to study at the Takushoku University. In addition to his college studies, Oyama furthered his martial arts studies under Gichin Funakoshi, reaching the rank of nidan under sensei Funakoshi.

Once his training was over with sensei Funakoshi, for whatever reason, Mas Oyama studied gojo-ryu under a man named Sodeiju. Reaching, if I remember correctly, a 4th dan.

Mas Oyama founded his own school of karate called Kyokushin.

I'm not sure where the connection between Mas Oyama and tae kwon do started, but Mas Oyama was very definently a karate stylist.

LawDog

[Dave3006]

Skoonz, to get back on topic, you need to learn a ground fighting art. You already have a some experience with a stand up striking art. What happens when the fight goes to the ground? Take Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Learn how to fight on the ground. Standing joint locks in Aikido and Hapkido are pure fantasy. Aikido is pure bull**** for pseudo spiritual idiots. Anyone who takes it for self defense deserves to get the crap beat out of them. It does not work in real life. The fight will be either two guys striking on their feet or it will go to the ground. There is no in between.

After you learn to groundfight, take an edged weapons class. Before one of my BJJ classes, I asked a guy who was a Nidan in Yosinkai Aikido to show me what he could do to defend against my knife (a rolled up piece of paper). For the next 5 minutes, I cut his arms, I cut his legs, I stabbed him in the chest. I was not ready to give him one of those big, overcomitted attacks he was used to. It was so pathetic. We finally stopped. The man was bummed out. I figure I did him, and you, a favor by showing him what a waste of time that crap is for self defense.

[swsurgeon]

So Dave, don't hold back---tell us how you really feel about Aikido....

Seriously, I agree with you about the edged weapons training being useful. Knives are a definite threat on the street. My background is mostly in Filipino martial arts so we train with a lot of different weapons. Edged weapons training helps you to recognize the severity of the threat and the difficulty in addressing it.

[Danger Dave]

Skorzeny,
Nah, there's just something confrontational about your posts. Nothing against you, it's just that they make me want to argue with you even when I agree... I dunno, it's weird.

Lawdog,
The story I heard was that Oyama got into a fight with a knife-weilding Yakuza. Oyama punched him in the head, killing him. After that, Funakoshi, a mild mannered man, (IIRC, he was chosen as Okinawa's "karate emissary" to Japan largely because of his even temperment - he was by profession a school teacher), refused to continue to teach Oyama. Then Oyama went to the mountains to meditate & train, the end result of which was Kyokushin...

Dave3006,
I have seen some amazing aikidoka, but I think they were, well, exceptional. I wouldn't dismiss aikido outright, but I think it takes an incredible level of skill to become effective. And the right mental makeup - it's a rare person that can remain calm & relaxed (which is largely required for aikido to work) in the face of someone who's trying to take your head off for real...

BTW, I think if you did your same drill against most martial artists, you would be stunned at how similar the results would be.

[MAGon]

Skorzeny:
Whoa, man!! I wasn't arguing that you were wrong about Oyama training in Shotokan, just that I'd never heard of him doing so . Know I've got an interesting tidbit of info there.

[Dave3006]

The funniest part of my Aikido vs. the rookie with a knife drill was that my entire edged weapons training consists of one Gunsite knife video. It emphasized attacking the exposed limbs (hands, arms, legs) with small uncommitted attacks. I never gave the Aikido guy an opening to unbalance me. It was so easy. It made me really respect ANYONE with a knife.

I do not apologize for attacking the validity of some martial arts. They are not all equal. Some are based on faulty premises. Such as the premise that a person can stay relaxed and centered in a violent struggle. It goes against human nature. You have to pick an art that acknowledges human biological responses to adrenaline and emphasizes simple, non-complex techniques. You loose coordination, your fine motor skills are shot, you tunnel vision, and you (and your opponent) do not feel pain as much. You have to plan for these things. Don't fall for the all the Asian mumbo jumbo. I'll take a boxer over 5 Aikido guys any day.

KISS. Keep it simple stupid - because when you are under attack, you get really stupid.

[Dave3006]

One more story of the need to plan for natural human responses:

When you are getting hit in a fight, you will naturally attempt to clinch your opponent to get safe and regain composure.

- I studied Shotokan for 10 years. I made it to 1st Dan. I trained 6 days a week for 1-2 hours per day. I would not rate myself as great. Just decent. I stepped into a BJJ studio and the small little Brazilian and I put on some gloves and decided to test my Karate. Besides the fact that his boxing skills were better than my karate, everytime I started to get hit, I NATURALLY tried to grab and clinch him to stop the blows. The situation repeated itself several times. He would take me to the mat and all my Karate was worthless. It was the best lesson I ever learned.

When I explained this to my Sensei in karate, all he could say was that the fight should not have went to the mat. It did. It did repeatly. That was the stupidest statement I had ever heard. Talk about denying reality.

How much of your martial art denies reality? That is the question.

[LawDog]

Dave3006, in my humble opinion all martial arts have their faulty premises -- even BJJ.

Part of becoming a martial artist is recognizing these faults and adapting your version of the style to minimize them.

LawDog

[MAGon]

Dave 3006:
IMHO an interesting thing comes out everytime in threads relating to unarmed combat: Most modern martial arts (Particularly those of Japanese origin) are overspecialized, emphasizing one aspect or another of fighting (Grappling ONLY, or striking ONLY) and ignoring the others. In the case of the Japanese arts, I think this happens for two reasons: Because the levels of street crime in their society is so low that most Japanese don't train with a view towards self preservation and because in their culture they are naturally exposed to various arts anyway and they're blended within the individual.
When I was first exposed to Japanese Karate in the '60s, there was an unbelievable (By today's standards) amount of throwing and joint manipulation techniques taught. This faded to nothing over the years (Ditto to self defense against blades or blunt weapons).
As pointed out early on in the thread a fight can progress from standing and striking to grappling on the floor and even back to standing. The wise person would do well to at least be grounded in various arts, or to study one that blends striking and grappling skills. Getting back to the original question posed on this thread, IMHO one would do much better getting into Hapkido rather than Aikido because it teaches to strike as well as to grapple (By the way, this from a long time Shotokan student, I have no agenda here!).

[Dave3006]

MAgon, you are right. The Japanese arts, even BJJ, overspecialize. That is why I originally recommended BJJ in addition to his striking skills. Just like a pro golfer, you need several clubs in your bag. Just avoid the ones that don't work even for their intended purpose (Aikido!).

[Skorzeny]

Dave3006:

Uh, thanks for the advice, but I've already been training in BJJ and Shooto (aka Shoot wrestling) for the past 3-4 years. I've also trained in Arnis (Filippino stick and knife fighting), Aikido (Aikikai affiliation), Kodokan Judo and Muay Thai. My TKD and Karate training was mainly when I lived in Asia.

Can you tell that I like "martial arts"?

BTW, I want to make it clear again what my primary philosophy on the goal of modern "martial arts" is - it is to allow you to evade and escape from a bad situation - it is NOT to allow you to fight and "beat" your opponent.

Danger Dave:

I'm NOT confrontational. Why do people keep saying that? I am direct and honest and I do not "massage" my messages to cater to some sensitive person's ego. But I am also quite willing to listen to others and make accomodations when needed.

I can't help that too many folks are so sensitive as to interpret my "challenge" of their IDEAS as necessarily as a challenge on THEM directly and personally. That is not so. Debating ideas should really not be so personal. I don't take it that way - I don't know why some do.

Skorzeny

[Matt Wallis]

Well let's see... There's lots of stuff been said.

First off, just for the record, gotta agree that many TKD bigwigs totally exaggerate (and sometimes downright lie) about the history and origins of the art. Too bad because it really detracts from what is a fun (and yes, still effective for what it aims to do) art. However, it seems that some of you have swung the pendulum to the completely opposite (and just as extreme) side and are claiming that TKD is basically a fabricated art from Japanese styles with no native Korean arts influence at all. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Danger Dave said, "there is no verifiable link between any modern Korean art and any ancient Korean martial art."

To which I say, define "verifiable"! I mean, there are Korean TKD masters that can demonstrate skill and competency in their art who can provide the names of instructors they claim to have learned a traditional Korean art from. Choi is a good example. He claims to have learned a traditional Korean art called Taekyon. Is that verifiable? Well seems to me it would be pretty tough to verify (or disprove for that matter). But how is that any different from when Law Dog says, "Once his training was over with sensei Funakoshi, for whatever reason, Mas Oyama studied gojo-ryu under a man named Sodeiju." Correct me if I'm wrong, but this information was probably told to someone at some point by the people involved. Can it be verified? Well I'm sure one could verify whether or not Oyama ever claimed that, but could we verify whether he actually learned that style from the person he claimed to? It would be tough.

[BTW, on a side note, I did read an article in one of the Karate rags years ago about people that claim to still be practicing Taekyon. Doesn't make it so, but it does provide some evidence that it is a real art. In addition, no Asian MA that I know of have extensive "ancient" written records. Lot's of period texts in the West though, but then they lack much of a living tradition. Go figure.]

Dave also said, "In WWII, the practice of martial arts in Japanese occupied territories was strictly controlled. As a result, a lot of the native martial arts died out, or were at least modified/blended with Japanese arts so as to become unrecognizable as separate martial arts."

I agree. This is known history. Kind of embarassing when Koreans deny this, I'll admit. However it would be unlikely (given other historical examples) that native arts would have _completely_ died out. And it is also likely that native arts influenced and changed some of the Japanese arts. So this would still leave a Korean "flavor" to the arts as well as a connection to Korean arts of the past.

"General Choi was not the "father of TKD" - he just suggested the name."

Woa! Here again is the pendulum being swung too far in the other direction. Yes, I know all about the Kwans. And yes I know that modern TKD was "put together" by many of the kwans joining together. In fact, I've heard that each of the leaders of the kwans contributed a form to the style. These are now the "chon-ji" group of forms used by the ITF. (The [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] made new forms after ousting Choi.) But the style developed by Choi is the one that provided the basis for modern TKD. And this is born out by the style itself!

What does Choi claim? He claims that he developed his style from Taekyon and Shotokan. What does TKD look like today? in your own words, "While the kicks are unique, the stances, hand techniques, blocks, the original forms, etc. all come from Shotokan Karate." Hmmmm. Seems to fit the story to me!

Listen, it is always fun to debunk history. I love doing it myself. And the history taught about TKD is ripe for "debunking"! Heh, heh. But I seem to be sensing an "all things Japanese are superior" attitude here. It's just not true, fellas. And I don't see any evidence that would convince me that there is no Korean roots in TKD at all. There's less than what is often claimed, but that's not the same as "none".

Regards,
Matt Wallis

[MAGon]

Matt: I agree with your analysis. Most of the Asian MA histories are word of mouth (Yes there are written records, but A LOT is just word of mouth). There's an undeniable (In spite of the Koreans') Japanese influence to Korean arts. In fact, I had occasion to cross- train for about 3 mos. at a Tang Soo Do Dojang some yrs. ago, and many of their kata were Shotokan kata. In fact, their version of Shotokan's Bassai Dai retained the name Bassai. But a lot of what I saw was foreign to Shotokan, enough to say that Tang Soo Do is it's own art and not merely a copy of Shotokan (In fact, I unashamedly admit to incorporating some of their techniques to my own way of doing things!).
I suspect that their denial of this has more to do with the lingering antipathy from their days as a Japanese colony, as well as the need to recreate a national identity for themselves after the colonial experience. From all accounts I've heard, the Japanese didn't go out of their way to endear themselves to the Koreans. Proof to me that this is so is that there is much less reluctance to admit to the Chinese influence in modern Korean MA than that coming from Japan (Although this, too, was present, again it probably has to do with the need for a national identity along with resentment to the Chinese role in their history, particularly during the Korean War).
The humor in all this is that the Japanese, as well, are guilty of denying the KOREAN influence in THEIR MA. Even during feudal days there was much back and forth between Japan, Korea and China, including warfare. This in itself promoted contact with MA other than the national ones. In those pragmatic days there's no doubt that a samurai who saw a Hwa Rang perform what he thought
to be a particularly useful technique on the battlefield would promptly copy it without a thought to national pride (You can't be a very good nationalist if you're dead!!). In fact, it's whispered that the Atemi techniques in the Japanese grappling arts were in no small measure copied from Korean and Chinese arts.
I'm amused by the claims of being "traditional" voiced by today's superspecialized Asian MA. The fact of the matter was that the TRADITIONAL mentality of warriors back when was to incorporate whatever worked into their training, and to seek out by hook or crook to expand their knowledge of other arts. In Japan this ceased with the advent of the Tokugawas, when the MA went from being pragmatic battlefield arts to something more apt for dueling, ceremony, physical fitness or ancestry worship.
Dave 3006's and Skorzeny's attitude of looking into and mixing various fighting systems is what's really TRADITIONAL, as opposed to the narrow view of many Asian teachers that their own narrow art has the answer to all situations.
That said, though, I wouldn't say a MA lacks credibilty because it's supposed history is bogus. Instead, I'd find it credible if it WORKS! After all, you don't see American handgunners owning up much to the influence of European dueling to their MA, but, boy, does it ever work!!!

[Erich]

All this talk about "knee strikes" got my stupid "I took a little Hapkido in college thirteen years ago" @$$ curious, so I tried one to the back of my chair.

Broke the chair.

[Danger Dave]

Whoa, Matt, I think you read a little too much into what I said!

My point was that the Koreans tend to espouse the idea that all fighting arts came from Korea, and they have cave paintings to prove it! Don't laugh - I've got an old TKD book from the 70's that tries to prove it. Strangely, there was no mention of Chinese or Japanese influence - they'd have you believe that TKD developed in a vacuum, which we all know is untrue of ANY fighting art.

By veifiable link, I wasn't talking about a few techniques here and there that were passed on/exchanged, I'm referring to a complete style. That techniques were passed down from one generation to another is not something I'll dispute - what I'm saying is that there's not any evidence, aside from a few sculptures, manuals & cave drawings, of an ancient Korean martial art that survived intact to the 20th century (I've seen pictures of them & I have yet to identify any indisputable TaeKwonDo techniques in any of them). What did survive was altered by exposure to Chinese & Japanese styles to the point where they were no longer "native Korean" styles. Yes, there are - and always have been - differences between the Korean & Japanese martial arts, just like there are differences between American and Mexican boxers. But, at the root of it all, their basic techniques came from the same place.

As far as Choi goes, I still think you're giving him too much credit. I expect the father of a style to be one singular person to whom all future students can trace their lineage - like aikido to Ueshiba, Judo to Kano, etc. TaeKwonDo can't trace their lineage like that, because it's not a singular school/style of fighting; it's the product of a coalition of several schools that all developed separately (partly because they had to train in secrecy during the Japanese occupation). Choi was the founder of Moo Duk Kwan - they can certainly trace their lineage to him (at least the real MooDuk Kwan'ers can - I've seen a quite a few groups that claimed to be what they're not). What about Chang Moo Kwan, Ji Do Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, etc., etc? They didn't study under Choi. The other Kwans did not learn their TaeKwonDo from him, they just agreed to the name he suggested. It's a good name, I think, but it's important to remember that there is not one Tae Kwon Do - it's a conglomeration of different schools/styles, all of which were based on some form of Japanese karate, which were in turn based on Okinawan karate, which was probably based on Chinese kung fu, which was probably based on some Indian fighting styles....

Like I said, I was taught the Shotokan forms - the Pyongs, Bassai, Chulgi, etc. Those didn't come from Choi! Not all the schools liked the new forms (Chon-Ji, TaeGuek or Palgwe).

I never said the Korean arts aren't arts in their own right, I just think they should give credit where credit is due. I certainly don't think Japanese styles are inherently superior. Don't forget, I'm a Korean stylist myself!

[Spectre]

Whether something works is not the same as having a verifiable history. As well, if I say I practice "Lizard WuShu" does that give some basis to Lizard WuShu? No, it's just a claim.

There is some disagreement about the history of the arts that I study. I know what I do works, so I don't concern myself overmuch about it.

[Skorzeny]

Danger Dave:

This time, I am FORCED to agree with you!

In any case, I do not accept the notion that "martial arts" history has to be largely oral.

Certainly there are plenty of WRITTEN records that demonstrate lineage. For example, Ueshiba Moriehei (founder of Aikido) claims to have studied under Takeda Sokaku (a great teacher of Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu). Guess what? There is a written record and certificate of Ueshiba's training with Takeda. "Traditional" martial artists were generally VERY fastidious about keeping records of who learned what from whom and when, because lineage was of extreme importance. This is true of Japanese AND Chinese systems.

On the other hand, there is NO written record of the "founder" of Hapkido ever training with Takeda, contrary to the claims by Hapkido practitioners. Of course, the techniques are very similar and there probably was some transmission, but the claim of DIRECT teaching is unfounded.

In addition, those of you who claim that these outlandish claims by Korean stylists "can't be disproven either" should remember that those who make positive claims in the first place have the burden of proving their claims.

I'm simply tired of these "well, I learned from the Japanese, but really I learned the real stuff from the Korean monks on the mountains, which was so so secret that there is no written record" type claims.

My favorite one, of course, is Hwa Rang Do. Its practitioners claim that this is THE style of personal combat practiced by the Hwa Rang (flower youth) of the Shilla Dynasty. This notion is so incredulously laughable that I won't even explain why...

BTW, the Korean antipathy to all things Japanese is well taken and well understood. The Japanese did unspeakable things to the Koreans (and other Asians they subjugated) and it is completely understandable why Koreans minimize that influence.

HOWEVER, Korea is today a prosperous, industralized and educated country. The Koreans ought to really feel more confident about themselves and acknowledge influences of other nations on them.

Skorzeny

[Danger Dave]

Skorzeny,
I've encountered several schools that teach "dead" arts (Kong Soo Do comes to mind; HwaRangDo is another - I don't think there's enough paper to write a list of all the Chines styles). When you start asking them where they trained, where their instructors trained, etc., their claims invariably fall apart. Usually there's someone who got a blue belt under someone in a legitimate school, then decided to buy a black belt & open their own school to make a few bucks...

Sorry, that's just what I've seen.

And I agree with you about the oral history. There's just too big of a gap between SooBak, TaeKyon, etc. to claim any real connection. The records of the arts certainly exist, but there's no verifiable connection to today's Korean arts. Sure, there might be a piece of it here & there in this technique or that, but try to prove it. Especially given the location of Korea - there's a fair amount of Chinese kung fu influence in some TKD kwans, too. I've also heard the plausible theory that TKD kicks were most likely adapted & then modified from White Crane Kung Fu... But, once again, it can't be proven.

[ATeaM]

Jesus, when is this post coming out in print ? From the looks of it you would think you guys are collaborating on a thesis.

[LASur5r]

Just came back from some of the parts that you guys are talking about. (Cheng Zhou Province...Where one of the Shaolin Temples is located....two others were burned down.), Beijing, and Tokyo...went on a trek to see other styles in their supposed origins.

Just a little something, when the emperor felt that the Shaolin monks was a threat to him, he sent his troops to the temple to destroy the temple, kill the monks, etc., etc.. You know, standard Chinese way of denying ties to the origins.

The Shaolin kept extensive records of their attendees...written records (scrolls), but because the army burned all records, the country folk would learn the stories of the "heroes of Shaolin" and pass on the stories word of mouth.

Just as the stories were changed to fit the "storyteller" so were many of the martial art styles.

For example....many of you have been in the martial arts for at least 20 years...how many of you have visited the old school or followed up on fellow students who are now teaching...perhaps at their own school now.

Please bear with me now....There was a Kenpo school that I studied at which had 6 black belts in the dojo. Two were short and a little on the heavy side (5'3" tall, about 165 lbs.)the other four were between 5 ft.6 in. and 5 ft. 11 kinches. You can bet your bottom dollar that each school looked different in what was emphasized as to what techniques suited their likes , dislikes, and their physical attributes. Some techniques were even discarded and new ones"invented by the practitioner. or "borrowed"......and that's the long and short of many of the martial art styles that you guys are talking about.

[LASur5r]

You guys are entitled to your opinion about aikido, but there are a lot of guys in the Hawaii Police Department who use aikido and the BG's are glad of it because they get taken down with wrist locks and gentle takedowns instead of a billie club upside the head or a bullet.

An Leo friend in Hawaii was working UC with a partner in some of the local bars, seems like there was a two man team working the tourists, but they were getting rougher and rougher so HPD had to put a stop to it.
One night they ran into a knifing in the parking lot of one of the bars and as my friend responded to stop the attack, the knife man turned on my friend. He got raked across the lower abdomen and across one of the forearms, but he ended up breaking both the BG's wrists. Guy was trying the borderline shift.

Funny thing of it was, the two man team assaults died down for over a year or two...then started up again but on another island.

Anyway, was a bunch of those LEO's taking aikido and they've done pretty good so far. Can't be all bad.