Hapkido Forms

[chick sterling]

Can anyone recommend any sites that list and demonstrate forms from Hapkido? I looked over on youtube but I think there is more out there.

[Klaas Barends]

Traditionally hapkido doesn't have any forms.
All the forms you might have seen on youtube are fabrications from individual teachers.
This doesn't necessarily mean that those forms are bad, but since there are so many forms out there, it is hard to say anything meaningful about them in general.

[Bruce W Sims]

My teacher's forms are a reflection of his background in KONGSOODO and have a rather "karate-esque" flavor to them, though some of the biomechanics are obviously a KSD interpretation of what may well have been CHUAN FA material from the start. (see: YOON Byoung In; SHUDOKAN). All the same MYUNG Kwang Sik was able to imbue his forms with a great deal of the constructs of Hapkido (as he saw it), kept much of the SIN MU variant of the kicking, and managed to do this all with a progressive series of only 5 Hyung. I've published four of the five over on YAHOO VIDEO, if you are curious about their execution.

In like manner the KUK SOOL WON has a number of forms which may or may not have been borrowed in total or in part from Southern Chinese Boxing traditions. Along these lines the HWARANGDO people also have their own set of hyung though these are much harder to find as they are more closely guarded by LEE Joo Bang and his minions.

The YONG SUL KWAN, MOO SOOL KWAN and a number of other well-know kwans do not have forms, as Klaas has stated (see: CHANG Chin Il ; GM Rim). FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[chick sterling]

My teacher's forms are a reflection of his background in KONGSOODO and have a rather "karate-esque" flavor to them, though some of the biomechanics are obviously a KSD interpretation of what may well have been CHUAN FA material from the start. (see: YOON Byoung In; SHUDOKAN). All the same MYUNG Kwang Sik was able to imbue his forms with a great deal of the constructs of Hapkido (as he saw it), kept much of the SIN MU variant of the kicking, and managed to do this all with a progressive series of only 5 Hyung. I've published four of the five over on YAHOO VIDEO, if you are curious about their execution.

Where on Yahoo video can I see these forms?

[Bruce W Sims]

Where on Yahoo video can I see these forms?

Try this link. It should lead you to a location where you can select from all 25 clips.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/pla ... 1148188835

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[chick sterling]

Traditionally hapkido doesn't have any forms.
All the forms you might have seen on youtube are fabrications from individual teachers.
This doesn't necessarily mean that those forms are bad, but since there are so many forms out there, it is hard to say anything meaningful about them in general.

If Hapkido ever had any forms in the first place, why did these teachers feel the need to have these forms in the first place?

[Klaas Barends]

You should ask them

My guess would be that fighting was taught long before forms existed. Later forms were created probably to ease the learning process. With forms it is also easier to instruct many people at the same time (armies for example).
I also think that weapon forms existed earlier than empty-hand forms.

[chick sterling]

You should ask them

My guess would be that fighting was taught long before forms existed. Later forms were created probably to ease the learning process. With forms it is also easier to instruct many people at the same time (armies for example).
I also think that weapon forms existed earlier than empty-hand forms.

Excellent points. But can you learn Hapkido without forms then? Personally I have nothing against them, but honestly if I want to learn how to fight, I need some resistance. But, I have heard from people who have trained longer than i have that forms should not be put aside since there is a lot a person can learn from them. Which is why I am looking into them.

Can you describe the weapon forms? Do you know their names?

[mateo]

Here is a place you could see some of the Hwarangdo forms:
http://www.artesguerreras.es/epages/ea3 ... 20Vol.1%22

Some bits of forms are included in here
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/411976/hw ... s_montage/

Some recent expensive HRD materials:
http://www.allmartialarts.com/KIXCO/Vid ... pvid.shtml

I like the look of some of the weapons based forms. I have seen DeAlba give demonstration of the danbong forms and application and I thought that they would be a good additional tool.

I have no time myself for single man empty handed forms but many great martial artists do.

[Klaas Barends]

Excellent points. But can you learn Hapkido without forms then? Personally I have nothing against them, but honestly if I want to learn how to fight, I need some resistance. But, I have heard from people who have trained longer than i have that forms should not be put aside since there is a lot a person can learn from them. Which is why I am looking into them.

Can you describe the weapon forms? Do you know their names?

I am not a big empty-handed-forms fan myself, and I don't know any hapkido forms.

In our school there are no hapkido-forms! (I do know a few forms from Chinese origin though, and you could say that hankido's hwansangdobeop are some kind of forms)

Weapons are another thing, I see much more use in them.

If people do practice forms and benefit from it, I would be the last one to tell them it is a waste of their time. I can see how they can be beneficial, but I think the goals can be reached in other ways as well.

[Bruce W Sims]

Traditionally hapkido doesn't have any forms.
All the forms you might have seen on youtube are fabrications from individual teachers.
This doesn't necessarily mean that those forms are bad, but since there are so many forms out there, it is hard to say anything meaningful about them in general.

If Hapkido ever had any forms in the first place, why did these teachers feel the need to have these forms in the first place?

If you take time to reflect on the history of martial traditions and their development you will uncover the answer in very short order.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[chick sterling]

Traditionally hapkido doesn't have any forms.
All the forms you might have seen on youtube are fabrications from individual teachers.
This doesn't necessarily mean that those forms are bad, but since there are so many forms out there, it is hard to say anything meaningful about them in general.

If Hapkido ever had any forms in the first place, why did these teachers feel the need to have these forms in the first place?

If you take time to reflect on the history of martial traditions and their development you will uncover the answer in very short order.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Was it to make money? Because that is the only thing I can figure out.

[dortiz]

Many original Hapkido players also studied other martial arts before training in the art. Most of those arts were Japanese Karate and even the Chinese influences had a tradition of forms. So if you study a style with forms you probably tend to think down that path regardless. Just my guess but it makes sense to me.

Dave O.

[Bruce W Sims]

If Hapkido ever had any forms in the first place, why did these teachers feel the need to have these forms in the first place?

If you take time to reflect on the history of martial traditions and their development you will uncover the answer in very short order.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Was it to make money? Because that is the only thing I can figure out.

Yeah....well...you really don't want to get me going on the role of money in the Martial Arts. You just have to trust me about this. Lets get back to the forms.

To understand the role of forms (aka:"spirit forms") there are a couple of things you need to remember about the 18th Century.
First is that about 85 to 90% of the country was illiterate. I'm not just talking about Korea, but China and Japan as well. Just like Europe, if a person wanted to get a particular point across to a large number of people it was most easily done through song, dance or iconography such as pictures or statuary.
Second, the advent of firearms during the 16th Century completely remade the role or armies and military science. The result was that military science became far more structured, and, in turn, so did its knowledge base for the typical soldier. Use of weapons and unarmed combat moved to a higher level of skill that needed to be inculcated in the fighting force in a faster period of time. This required training cadre and their trainee charges to have "short-hand notes on what they needed to know and how they were expected to do things.
Third, also as a result of the new military, those who could not or would not fit into the new order were forced to turn a dollar teaching civilians such as merchants who still required protection skills. As the market developed various skill-providers needed to distinguish their skills from others and to market their abilities in non-lethal ways.

As a result of these three greater variables and a host of smaller ones, the "spirit form" developed and came in roughly four different types.
a.) Teaching form: Lesser repetition and more representational instruction in concepts and applications.
b.) Training form: Highly repetitive with greater emphasis on conditioning and endurance.
c.) Combat form: Embodies a particular strategy, tactic or techniques for addressing a given circumstance.
d.) Demonstration form: Highly artistic with emphasis on pushing the performance limits of the individual so as to "wow" the spectators and win devotees.
Does any of this make any sense?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[chick sterling]

[img]

Yeah....well...you really don't want to get me going on the role of money in the Martial Arts. You just have to trust me about this. Lets get back to the forms.

To understand the role of forms (aka:"spirit forms") there are a couple of things you need to remember about the 18th Century.
First is that about 85 to 90% of the country was illiterate. I'm not just talking about Korea, but China and Japan as well. Just like Europe, if a person wanted to get a particular point across to a large number of people it was most easily done through song, dance or iconography such as pictures or statuary.
Second, the advent of firearms during the 16th Century completely remade the role or armies and military science. The result was that military science became far more structured, and, in turn, so did its knowledge base for the typical soldier. Use of weapons and unarmed combat moved to a higher level of skill that needed to be inculcated in the fighting force in a faster period of time. This required training cadre and their trainee charges to have "short-hand notes on what they needed to know and how they were expected to do things.
Third, also as a result of the new military, those who could not or would not fit into the new order were forced to turn a dollar teaching civilians such as merchants who still required protection skills. As the market developed various skill-providers needed to distinguish their skills from others and to market their abilities in non-lethal ways.

As a result of these three greater variables and a host of smaller ones, the "spirit form" developed and came in roughly four different types.
a.) Teaching form: Lesser repetition and more representational instruction in concepts and applications.
b.) Training form: Highly repetitive with greater emphasis on conditioning and endurance.
c.) Combat form: Embodies a particular strategy, tactic or techniques for addressing a given circumstance.
d.) Demonstration form: Highly artistic with emphasis on pushing the performance limits of the individual so as to "wow" the spectators and win devotees.
Does any of this make any sense?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

This makes a lot of sense. I just want to make sure I am on the same page and please correct me if I am missing anything.

Forms were implemented just as you and Klass mentioned, as a teaching tool to a a large group of people who probably did not know how to read or write. So instead of talking to people about hand to hand combat, they were trained with a sequence of movements. Now with the advent of firearms, the military realizes everything has changed and they put together a new hand to hand combat program.

Now people who got tossed out of the military for not keeping up had to make a living so they taught what they learned from the military.

Problem is that it is sort of like the blind leading the blind. The people who were tossed out of the military aren't really qualified to even teach forms. That is why there martial artists who are excellent and those who pretty much suck. Which leads to those 4 different types of forms.

So in that sense, some Hapkido teachers who use forms, use them as a teaching tool. And what we get is a mixed bag of students who are really good or bad because of the level of teaching.

Which opens up another can of worms. Is this proof that forms work?

I am part of that crowd that is not down with forms. But, I am more than happy to hear the others side
and if it makes sense, I will run with it

Btw, you sound very well educated. I am not just talking martial arts wise, but you sound like a college professor. What books did you read to get that information about what you just wrote? I would love to read them.

[karronte]

Master Myung told me once that he developed the forms when his teacher ask him to put together something that students could practice with even if they had no uke for training. If you want to learn Hapkido forms those are the best ones I have seen that incorporate all aspects of Hapkido within the movements, meditation / breathing, striking, kicking and self defense techniques. You can buy the video or the book on the world hapkido federation forum, or better yet find some one from the WHF that knows them who can teach them to you. I think forms are useful tools in training. I do teach solo patterns of movement for many reasons during class, especially with beginners. But I don’t require people to memorize them and test on them, like they do in TKD for example. I teach that self defense is not a pattern of movement but a response to an event or a situation, by which you need to react and adapt as needed. Thus’ teaching people solo forms or patterns that they need to memorize and develop muscle memory defeats the notion of reacting to something or some one. Still forms / patterns have there use, mostly to teach movement, proper positions and stances, successive motions and body movement coordination, like dancing but without the music. Besides I don’t think I would get away with teaching Salsa Hapkido.

[Klaas Barends]

First is that about 85 to 90% of the country was illiterate. I'm not just talking about Korea, but China and Japan as well.

I don't have any numbers on this, but my guess would be that on the Korean peninsula the illiteracy rate was lower. Don't forget that the MYDBTJ was not only published in hanja but in hangul as well!
Dutch sailors who got stranded in Korea in the 17th century were familiar with this alphabet as well.

[Bruce W Sims]

[img]

This makes a lot of sense. I just want to make sure I am on the same page and please correct me if I am missing anything.

Forms were implemented just as you and Klass mentioned, as a teaching tool to a a large group of people who probably did not know how to read or write. So instead of talking to people about hand to hand combat, they were trained with a sequence of movements. Now with the advent of firearms, the military realizes everything has changed and they put together a new hand to hand combat program.

Now people who got tossed out of the military for not keeping up had to make a living so they taught what they learned from the military.

Problem is that it is sort of like the blind leading the blind. The people who were tossed out of the military aren't really qualified to even teach forms. That is why there martial artists who are excellent and those who pretty much suck. Which leads to those 4 different types of forms.

So in that sense, some Hapkido teachers who use forms, use them as a teaching tool. And what we get is a mixed bag of students who are really good or bad because of the level of teaching.

Which opens up another can of worms. Is this proof that forms work?

I am part of that crowd that is not down with forms. But, I am more than happy to hear the others side
and if it makes sense, I will run with it

Btw, you sound very well educated. I am not just talking martial arts wise, but you sound like a college professor. What books did you read to get that information about what you just wrote? I would love to read them.

Gotta slow you down, Chick. Don't mix-up how forms are INTENDED to be used with how the forms ARE used. In our modern world these can very often be two extremely different things. Lets take a look at this.

A Teaching Form may include some bits that can be used for specific combat situations however, the overall purpose of the Hyung is to transmit information about the art in a non-literary fashion. For example, the five Hyung in the YON MU KWAN which were developed by the late MYUNG Kwang Sik are Teaching Forms. They are intended to transmit the underlying concepts that MYUNG felt underpinned his approach to Hapkido. DO they include fighting bits? Of Course. But their purpose is not fighting. Now, if you want an example of a Training Hyung....there is the first Old Frame form of CHEN Tai CHi Chuan "Lao Jia Yi Lu" which has 108 methods and is highly repetitive and very challenging physically. In the Korean traditions, TAM TUI (K. "Dam Toi") is another training form that will definitely condition folks of all arts. The TKD people have scads of Training forms.

If you want Combat forms, well these tend to be held a little closer to the vest by traditions and they usually contain those "secretive" bits we have all heard so much about. Six of the Seven traditional Okinawan Kata, including KU SHAN KU, SEISAN, NAIFANCHI and so forth are considered Combat forms (though I personally think that NAIFANCHI was a Training Kata that got a "remake". I don't have to say much about Demo Forms since you can get these at just about any flashy competition.

Also remember that not ALL forms are purely of one catagory or another. For instance, the Chinese form, "WU SONG BREAKS MANCLES" is a Teaching Form with a strong Combat bent and a few acrobatic things tossed in.

As far as reading, there are a few key books that help out a lot with understanding these things. One of the single best I have found was "UNANTE" by John Sells which is an extraordinarily fine history of the development of Okinawan martial traditions and their practices. In like manner, the books by YANG Jwing-ming, though VERY redundant, are highly informative. KARATE-DO KYOHAN (see: FUNAKOSHI Gichin) is more philosophical and should be read in union with the more technical DYNAMIC KARATE by Nakayama. Lastly, a recent bit of gold that came my way was THE ILLUSTRATED CANON OF CHEN TAI CHI CHUAN. Though I have a few fine titles on CHEN due to my research into KWON BOP, this last book did much to fill in the holes, much like TAI CHI's ANCESTORS by Douglas Wiles. Hope this helps.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Bruce W Sims]

First is that about 85 to 90% of the country was illiterate. I'm not just talking about Korea, but China and Japan as well.

I don't have any numbers on this, but my guess would be that on the Korean peninsula the illiteracy rate was lower. Don't forget that the MYDBTJ was not only published in hanja but in hangul as well!
Dutch sailors who got stranded in Korea in the 17th century were familiar with this alphabet as well.

Can't help you there, Klaas. The percentages I quoted were developed by the administration at the turn of the 20th Century and I would hold numbers from that time period suspect whether they made an arguement fore OR against a literate population. I can, however, report that following WW II the general concensus seems to be that Korean underwent a huge educational renaissance producing the highly literate ----96% by some reports---- population we have today. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Klaas Barends]

Yes, but before that you were only viewed as being literate if you could read and write hanja. Hangul didn't count.

I don't think there are a lot of statistics from before the 20th century about the literacy rate in Korea. But again, the above mentioned facts seem to point in the direction that many people could read and write hangul.