Hapkido and effectiveness

[samirbk]

I've been doing hapkido for a little over 6 months and i'm really not that impressed with it, it seems like more of a demonstration art than a martial art. There's an MMA school i want to join, but i'll give hapkido another 6 months since a year would be a fair timeframe to make a judgement?
Does anyone have an opinion on Hapkido's relevance for self defence, has anyone taken it up, or even better, had to use it?
There just seems to be too many useless techniques like jumping over 5 guys bent over, half the joint locks wouldnt work on an attacker who was on the ball and my club doesnt do any sparring. No disrespect to the Korean culture, but it just doesn't seem like something i'm looking for.

[Jokerz]

Originally Posted by samirbk

I've been doing hapkido for a little over 6 months and i'm really not that impressed with it, it seems like more of a demonstration art than a martial art. There's an MMA school i want to join, but i'll give hapkido another 6 months since a year would be a fair timeframe to make a judgement?
Does anyone have an opinion on Hapkido's relevance for self defence, has anyone taken it up, or even better, had to use it?
There just seems to be too many useless techniques like jumping over 5 guys bent over, half the joint locks wouldnt work on an attacker who was on the ball and my club doesnt do any sparring. No disrespect to the Korean culture, but it just doesn't seem like something i'm looking for.

I dont know about the effectiveness but since theres no sparring I would seriously get into Boxing, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, or the MMAclasses. And no I'm not biased at all :d

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by samirbk

I've been doing hapkido for a little over 6 months and i'm really not that impressed with it, it seems like more of a demonstration art than a martial art. There's an MMA school i want to join, but i'll give hapkido another 6 months since a year would be a fair timeframe to make a judgement?
Does anyone have an opinion on Hapkido's relevance for self defence, has anyone taken it up, or even better, had to use it?
There just seems to be too many useless techniques like jumping over 5 guys bent over, half the joint locks wouldnt work on an attacker who was on the ball and my club doesnt do any sparring. No disrespect to the Korean culture, but it just doesn't seem like something i'm looking for.

It depends (on the particular style, system, school, your needs, etc). Actually, the question isn't "Is it effective?" but "How long until you could use it effectively?" Got a mugging coming up?

Best self defense: don't be there.

Next best: concealed carry, .45 preferred.

Traditional arts often aren't taught in a straight line approach. So, a traditionally taught art is going to stand in stark contrast to the presumed immediacy demonstrated by an MMA style school.

What's your goal?

What will be your need to use it? Why?

Sometimes what we need most isn't what we want most.

[jvernacchio]

Originally Posted by samirbk

I've been doing hapkido for a little over 6 months and i'm really not that impressed with it, it seems like more of a demonstration art than a martial art. There's an MMA school i want to join, but i'll give hapkido another 6 months since a year would be a fair timeframe to make a judgement?
Does anyone have an opinion on Hapkido's relevance for self defence, has anyone taken it up, or even better, had to use it?
There just seems to be too many useless techniques like jumping over 5 guys bent over, half the joint locks wouldnt work on an attacker who was on the ball and my club doesnt do any sparring. No disrespect to the Korean culture, but it just doesn't seem like something i'm looking for.

You would be better off going to the MMA and getting a jump start with 6 more months of training then wasting it on a traditional Hapkido school based on forms and ritual.

You already know and are saying what needs to be said most of it is endless useless technique that wouldn't work in real life situations.

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by jvernacchio

. . .most of it is endless useless technique that wouldn't work in real life situations.

You've been there and seen it?

I guess that takes care of this thread; we have our assessment/answer.

[Jokerz]

Originally Posted by Chris Correia

It depends (on the particular style, system, school, your needs, etc). Actually, the question isn't "Is it effective?" but "How long until you could use it effectively?" Got a mugging coming up?

Best self defense: don't be there.

Next best: concealed carry, .45 preferred.

Traditional arts often aren't taught in a straight line approach. So, a traditionally taught art is going to stand in stark contrast to the presumed immediacy demonstrated by an MMA style school.

What's your goal?

What will be your need to use it? Why?

Sometimes what we need most isn't what we want most.

I disagree.... By carrying that you are already bringing a weapon into the fight, and I believe that it automatically elevates the situation. Not to mention there is always the chance that the weapon can be used against you. I train BJJ with the police captain of Riley county, and he is/was on the swat team. He has seen officers have there own gun disarmed and used against them, and they train in weapon retention.

[jvernacchio]

Originally Posted by Chris Correia

You've been there and seen it?

I guess that takes care of this thread; we have our assessment/answer.

No need to get all touchy about it. Its my opinion of traditional arts after doing some of them for a very long time lots of ritual, kata/forms, and hundreds of techniques that don't really work to well in real life fighting situations. People looking for real self defense fighting are better off going with a MMA school in my opinion.

[Bytsi]

Different styles are better for different things BUT -- I wouldn't trash all of Hapkido based on one school -- it might just be the one specific school you have gone to isn't good for what you want... other Hapkido schools and/or Korean arts might be more fight / self-defense oriented.

If you aren't learning what you want, 6 months should be enough time to know that. Try to observe a few classes before you commit to another school, if possible, so you know that they're doing what you want to do.

[samirbk]

thanks heaps for commenting everyone, i agree the most with jvernacchio. There's just too many useless techniques and most importantly no sparring. i think i'll be much more suited to the mma school that teaches muay thai and bjj

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by jvernacchio

No need to get all touchy about it. Its my opinion of traditional arts after doing some of them for a very long time lots of ritual, kata/forms, and hundreds of techniques that don't really work to well in real life fighting situations. People looking for real self defense fighting are better off going with a MMA school in my opinion.

Pushing your buttons a bit, J. You wholeheartedly agreed with the member, and you have not seen what he is doing or know how qualified he is to make his judgement. Can I sell you a nice (whatever it is you want); I've got one sitting right here . . .It's perfect for you, sight unseen. Trust me.

Regarding the original poster, techniques that he cannot imagine being useful could be quite useful in the right context if done well. Yes, it takes time, but sometimes that's a good thing.

Is the person expecting to need it for self defense tonight? (Why) Next week? (Again, why?) Realistically, ever?

Need fast, serious self defense? Buy a handgun and train with it. Seriously. If you need that, I'd venture to say you've got other life matters to address (where you live, where you hang out, who you hang with) that you should be spending time on.

Is one's training more oriented toward walking away from a fight or being tempted to "try what I know, since I am trained?" Sometimes too much confidence and ability too quickly is not so good.

In general, I agree with some of the sentiments expressed about interests, time and practicality. However, it all depends on expectations and needs, purposes and personality. It sounds like the original poster was looking for something else and that's fine.

People looking for some sort of overall personal development and carry-over self defense training can do well in many traditional arts and learn some very useful self defense that will work very well with the unaware, random attacker if need be. That's the usual attacker; they assume you are a victim. It's nice to surprise those types, and some of the Hapkido can work very well for those purposes.

MMA training certainly can be very useful and practical, but still is limited in some ways. First,the sport orientation of much of the training also overlooks some of the most effective self defense aspects: groin, eyes, throat. In my "traditional" art, coming from some military background as it does, our Hapkido is a very brutal form of hand to hand techniques. Looks more navy seal than flowery Hapkido. Even that might not get taught in some MMA school, particularly if they are ring oriented. Also, in MMA, IMO, there can be a bit of the jack of all trades and master of none phenomenon.

I've also trained and been promoted in (2nd dan) some traditional Hapkido. I could use some of that stuff very well for self defense. Granted, I promoted within Hapkido while I'd already had eight or nine years of taekwondo, which included the battlefield Hapkido, under my belt. But, then, maybe I know what I'm talking about more than somebody who's been studying the Hapkido six whole month.

As far as practical self defense against trained fighters, MMA, boxers, street, or otherwise: 1) they hopefully aren't picking fights anyway and, if they do and are that capable then 2) that's why one carries the handgun.

[jvernacchio]

Originally Posted by Chris Correia

Pushing your buttons a bit, J. You wholeheartedly agreed with the member, and you have not seen what he is doing or know how qualified he is to make his judgement. Can I sell you a nice (whatever it is you want); I've got one sitting right here . . .It's perfect for you, sight unseen. Trust me.

Regarding the original poster, techniques that he cannot imagine being useful could be quite useful in the right context if done well. Yes, it takes time, but sometimes that's a good thing.

Is the person expecting to need it for self defense tonight? (Why) Next week? (Again, why?) Realistically, ever?

Need fast, serious self defense? Buy a handgun and train with it. Seriously. If you need that, I'd venture to say you've got other life matters to address (where you live, where you hang out, who you hang with) that you should be spending time on.

Is one's training more oriented toward walking away from a fight or being tempted to "try what I know, since I am trained?" Sometimes too much confidence and ability too quickly is not so good.

In general, I agree with some of the sentiments expressed about interests, time and practicality. However, it all depends on expectations and needs, purposes and personality. It sounds like the original poster was looking for something else and that's fine.

People looking for some sort of overall personal development and carry-over self defense training can do well in many traditional arts and learn some very useful self defense that will work very well with the unaware, random attacker if need be. That's the usual attacker; they assume you are a victim. It's nice to surprise those types, and some of the Hapkido can work very well for those purposes.

MMA training certainly can be very useful and practical, but still is limited in some ways. First,the sport orientation of much of the training also overlooks some of the most effective self defense aspects: groin, eyes, throat. In my "traditional" art, coming from some military background as it does, our Hapkido is a very brutal form of hand to hand techniques. Looks more navy seal than flowery Hapkido. Even that might not get taught in some MMA school, particularly if they are ring oriented. Also, in MMA, IMO, there can be a bit of the jack of all trades and master of none phenomenon.

I've also trained and been promoted in (2nd dan) some traditional Hapkido. I could use some of that stuff very well for self defense. Granted, I promoted within Hapkido while I'd already had eight or nine years of taekwondo, which included the battlefield Hapkido, under my belt. But, then, maybe I know what I'm talking about more than somebody who's been studying the Hapkido six whole month.

As far as practical self defense against trained fighters, MMA, boxers, street, or otherwise: 1) they hopefully aren't picking fights anyway and, if they do and are that capable then 2) that's why one carries the handgun.

After all that I still will stand by what I said. Its great you enjoy your art form.

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by jvernacchio

Its great you enjoy your art form.

Whatever. I'm busy arranging my flowers.

EDIT: J, we've had a number of military personnel practice within our system and who have found it very useful and fulfilling. Of course you don't really know what we do and how we approach it. Forgive me if I respect their judgement of what we do more than yours.

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by Jokerz

I disagree.... By carrying that you are already bringing a weapon into the fight, and I believe that it automatically elevates the situation. Not to mention there is always the chance that the weapon can be used against you. I train BJJ with the police captain of Riley county, and he is/was on the swat team. He has seen officers have there own gun disarmed and used against them, and they train in weapon retention.

Just because they potentially can be unarmed doesn't mean they stop carrying weapons.

Seriously, some were disarmed. So is the protocol to then not use/draw weapons? Did they change their protocol to just resort to hand to hand combat in tough situations?

Certainly, if someone is going to carry, they should be trained and practiced. Further, one does not brandish a weapon to try and de-escalate a situation. If one draws a weapon, they should legitimately feel they or someone else are under risk of great bodily harm and be prepared to use it immediately.

I've had a couple of police officers as students, one of my black belt colleagues is a judge, and one of my carry trainers is a police sergeant. I know the issues. They are all supportive of concealed carry laws and said most of their fellow officers felt likewise.

Aside from that, the point I was making is that if self defense concern is truly of such immediate concern, it doesn't matter what style or art you practice; you can't learn it fast enough. Might as well get the gun. It's simply the next step in the continuum of the "that art isn't practical enough/effective enough, go practice this art" argument. If the self-defense is just a general concern with no immediate need/threat, then perhaps the art doesn't matter nearly as much as some make it out to be. I'm acquainted with some local folks who practice MMA training and who compete; I respect them and what they know, and they likewise me (unlike some other posters here).

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by samirbk

thanks heaps for commenting everyone, i agree the most with jvernacchio. There's just too many useless techniques and most importantly no sparring. i think i'll be much more suited to the mma school that teaches muay thai and bjj

Samir:

Ultimately you have to want and like what you are practicing. I am curious to know/hear what were looking for when you joined your current school and why you wanted to practice a martial art.

In any case, best wishes in finding what you want and being fulfilled by it.

[diamondpete]

Some comments.

The value of sparring.

Sparring has its place, but I think it is OVERATED for a "real life situation", particularly if you do sparring with gear.

Sparring "lets you" take hits that would injure you and is not good practice for a real life situation. The main benefit of sparring with "gear" is for sport, for "distancing" and feeling the impact with hands and feet (also it can be fun). If you are going to spar, for "real life" you would be better served by sparring with no gear and pull punches and kicks (semi-contact). But in general Sparring is not such a great way to train for being in a street fight.

If you want to "spar" then go somewhere where there is sparring, I think there is a great difference between wanting to spar and wanting to prepare for a fight. If you really want to prepare for a fight, you should get in some fights.

ANY art, sport, etc, will do you some "good" and I do not think that one is necessarily better than the other. A lot has been made out of MMA and its relation to street fighting, but it is still not a real fight.

MMA is more like boxing with all parts of your body. Would a trained boxer do well in a street fight - no shit - of course he would, would a trained MMA, no doubt. Would a trained hapkido-ist, - no doubt.

Some advantages of hapkido (I do not do hapkido, but another traditional MA, and IMO they are all similar in that your body only moves in so many ways) for a real situation is that practice things that would be effective like eyes and groin strikes, head butts and joint locks (more about that later). There are also no weight classes (not sure about MMA)

Some other comments:

What is the value of Kata
Kata is one way of developing good form, by practicing repeated you are developing muscle memory and a trained response. I also like paired kata, it is very good for focussing on distancing ( a most overlooked skill) If you have seen many "real" fights (by this I mean punch up in the street) you will notice that this is a very common "weak point"

joint locks
Many people think they are not effective when they study because at the early levels. For example, when the attacker grabs your right wrist in an overhand grip with his left hand and pushes down near navel level, could open your palm, rotate at the wrist while simultaneously pushing on his hand with yours, bring your elbow over his forearm creating an "s" shape in his arms and it is simple to make him eat he floor.

Then you go home and practice it with a friend and since he "doesn't grab you right" the reverse doesn't work and we can conclude it is rather useless in real life. Fair enough, but if you stick with it you will find most joint locks and reverses are built on each other and the early ones are pretty useless, but you need these and the "feel" to learn how to apply others. Basically if your buddy didn't grab you right, there is another joint reverse ( you probably haven't studied it yet).

ANother thing to consider is that before you do a real joint lock you usually get them off balance (in this example with an eye strike, groin kick, shot to the neck or perhaps a kick under the hand to the ribs) They do not need to even hit for it to make it much easier to use the lock.

Long story, but the point is if your skill level is high, joint locks are very effective, especially in a the university pub type fight where the guys want to push each other or grab each others wrist/ arms.

jumping over guys and other wierd stuff
Is there no value in being able to jump over things and keep your balance in a street fight. or learning how to fall if you are flipped so your foot takes the fall and not your back, how to roll so your head is protected.



This is getting a bit long winded but the point is, take what you want- but whatever you take your skill at it will be much more important the which system you actually choose. (btw most MMA guys studied traditional MA and took the techniques that work for them - based on their body dynamics etc)


I think that you should be looking for something that is fun and what you want to do, rather than some thing for the street, because that is really a different deal than what most people take about when they throw out words like self defense, real life, etc.

cheers