Sens55

Thanks Chris, I find the history somewhat interesting. However I also find it humorous when people broad stroke and art and say "it's this or it's that". Most don't realize that there are many interpretations of the same art, and that as a dynamic entity, one cannot just declare that "Hapkido is like Aikido" or "Hapkido is like TKD". Those are so broad that you could find examples in which it's like one or the other, or both, or neither depending on how you wanted to look at it.

I thought the article was interesting, but a little over dramatic. It was obviously a subjective article written by a fan of Kano. It certainly isn't objective, since it fills in things like the crowds response to a move right after admitting that "the records of the duel are hazy and incomplete". And, while there's no denying Judo has risen in prominence from that period, I personally don't feel as if any of this has any real relevance to today's Judo or Ju Jutsu. After all, both arts are dynamic entities not static ones. But, it's always good to keep the history and lore of an art in rememberance, and for that, this article was fitting.

Shanemm, Who told you that the military teaches Judo in basic training? The military does not teach ANY art in basic training. They teach their own version, generally called Combatives. The Marine Corps has their version, which I have seen, but do not know exactly what they call. The army teaches about 1 days worth of Combatives to most. Those that are in the Infantry get more training in it, and those in the MP's get different training (similar to Hapkido). However, most of this is during their Advanced Individual Training portion, not their Basic Training. And, if you were to see what Combatives entails, virtually every art on this board could look at it and claim elements of it. The military does not hold to any one art. They take elements from everywhere and put in what they think fits their needs and discard what doesn't. They have entire manuals on what they teach and they are ever evolving. Some units in the Army do frequently contract instructors in certain arts to set up a curriculum for MA training. Again, this is a unit thing, not a basic training thing. As an example, the 2 ID is stationed in Korea integrated some TKD into their PT. They felt that it would teach them a form of Combatives, work as physical training and help soldiers in understanding more of the Korean heritage of their hosts.

One of my proudest moments was watching my 11 y.o. son get his blue belt. He worked very hard on it and practiced every night at home for weeks for the belt test. Then, when he got it, I was prouder for him than I've ever been for anything I have done.

Wow, I didn't know it took all of that. Around my house the proper procedure is to deposit the dirty dobuk into the clothes hamper and it magically reappears a couple of days later hanging up all nice and clean! (Don't tell my wife I said that!)

The original question was what martial art is the best for a women. My answer would be the same if it were for a man. And that is, it depends on the individual. What are the goals of that woman? Self-defense? Exercise? To compete in tournaments? A lot of people in here have made a lot of assumptions. But, in reality, a woman can do any martial art she chooses, but, which is best is a very personal matter. Besides that, what may be best could also be limited to what is available in the women's area. She may only have 1 or 2 to pick from. So, my question to the original post is, why do you want to know? Are you looking to find an art? Or are you just curious as to people's opinions on which are best for women in general?

In our school it takes about 2 1/2 to 3 years IF you work at it. We're a small school, so an advanced student can actually get between 10-12 classes in per week. If a student really comes to the majority of them, they can move up a belt every 3-6 months. In practice, however, only one guy with no other form of a social life puts in that much time. Most of us go around 6 hours/week. At that rate, it'll take 3 years or so. That's assuming of course the person is actually progressing during that time.

If somebody gets you completely in a RNC, there's not much you can do. It's quick if done right and by the time you realize you're in it, it's too late. However, it's rather difficult to get in most situations. The key is to not let them get it, and many of the techniques described can work if the person is attempting the RNC, but doesn't quite have it yet. Once they've got it, you're in a lot of trouble. Luckily for us, most people's natural reaction is to protect their neck and tuck their chin under. I now in grappling the opportunity presents itself now and again because two opponents are committed to grappling each other, and in the course of their session you can't protect everything all the time. But on the street you'd probably be a lot more aware of someone trying to grab you from behind, making it harder to sink it in. And if they don't get it sunk, then there a few counters available (i.e the shin/foot stomps, elbows to the ribs, tucking the chin and trying to pry the grasp/break a finger, etc).

As ninjanurse pointed out, TKD is kind of a blanket name that governs a lot of different styles under its umbrella. However, some TSD schools go out of their way to point out that they're NOT TKD. It kind of depends on the instructor and his "heritage" (i.e. his instructor, his instructor's instructor, etc).

I don't know why "left" was chosen first. Many others have offered their insight. But I believe the reason the rest start left is based on the "building block" concepts. Our katas start with the same basic shape movement (an I) for the first 5. They add different stances and techniques and build on the previous one. It isn't until the 6th that they start introducing angles into the form. By the last few BB katas, tehy're almost all in angles. But it's done in a progressive fashion so that each is similar to the one before. In that fashion, once the first one goes to the left, the rest would also do that. Why left? Well, you had to go one way, it might as well been there.

You can do a "scarf" choke. I think this might be what JohnnyS was describing. Basically you try to catch his arm. he throws a RH punch, your deflect it so that it's over your right shoulder. Reach behind his head with your right hand and grab your left bicep. With your left hand grab his forehead. Push your head against his arm and squeeze both elbows together. If you get it right, he'll choke out.

Any of them might work. I would recommend not focusing just on the type of school, but the instructor. Some instructors are good with adults but not kids. Some are the reverse. I would think that anyone that teaches at a Y would have to be sensitive to both.

As a rather large guy, I can say that I don't spar women, kids or smaller guys the same as I spar somone my own size. I don't do it to be discourteous, I do it for safety. If I hit any of the women in my school with even a majority of my strength, I'm probably going to hurt them badly. That being said, I don't go full speed with many in my school. The instructor, 2 of the other black belts and one guy who's as big as I am. Now, I know there are women out there that can take my shots, and deliver them in kind. And, if I meet one of them, then I'll go full speed with them. But every girl in my school is under 5' 6" and 150 pounds. I've got anywhere from 6-11" and 150-200 lb advantage on them. Additionally, none of the girls in my school have that "killer" instinct where they really want to rumble. Maybe if the guys won't go full speed with you, it's reasonable. If you can handle it, kick them as hard as you can, and after a while, they'll return in kind.

Interesting. In my last post it censored my word, co ck ing, which, apparently together resembles a bad word, although it wasn't meant that way.

Tommarker is right. My instructor made me work on this specifically. I am a big guy and strong, but I was very inefficient in my movements and tried to "overpower" everything. He wanted to show me how much power you can actually generate without fully cocking my punch and trying to knock the target through next week. So, for one of my belt tests I had to do 2 board breaks without removing my fist. It worked. And I learned a lot and I really like it now. I like it because it's subtle inside fighting that can really be effective, and often the opponent won't see it coming.

Their all good arts. I would prefer Hapkido. But, again, watch the school closely. As I've said before, the best art taught by a bad instructor is worthless.

I don't think there are too many professional fighters in mma (i.e. UFC, Pride, K-1, etc) that would be classified as strictly strikers or strictly grapplers. Anymore they all seem to have exposure and proficiency in both. They may have a dominant style, but even that sometimes comes into question. Since most of the fights they know their opponents in advance, it seems to me they do just like boxers and train to the opponent (i.e. utilizing their strengths vs their opponents weaknesses). I may be off my mark, but that's how I perceive it these days.

Delta, You're right on in my book. This is not a mutually exclusive argument. PD's study different things. A lot of it actually has to do with what is available in the area. A larger city can afford to have their own internal training. Others contract it. Some leave it completely to the officers. If we actually took a true survey I'd bet we'd find that we'd have almost every art imaginable is studied by some PD somewhere (this is only specualtion, though).

Different agencies study different styles, but most that I am familiar (most of my family and many of my friends are police officers) primarily focus on joint manipulation techniques. They do learn strikes because they may need to use them for things like a knife disarm before engaging in a joint move, i.e. a crescent kick to knock it aside so they can close. They also learn some grappling techniques. However, in spite of Mr. Love's expertise, they attempt to avoid out and out grappling, since it brings the perp closer to their side arm and going to ground can be potentially dangerous for the officer, since it's unlikely he'll have any help other than his/her fellow officers. That's not to say they don't learn how to go to ground. They try to learn a blend. A little striking, a little grappling and a whole lot of submission and joint manipulation. At least that's what is learn in the academies here in the mid-U.S.

zer0, I think, without meaning to, you proved the point of the original post. The original post is why do many mma artists feel that their art is "more real" and would work on the street. You point to an mma sport, UFC, as validation for your point. That's kind of self-serving don't you think? The point was that each art has it's own measure of success. For mma, it's matches like UFC, Pride or K-1. TMA it varies depending on many issues. But, in the total measure of life, who is to say which is better? If a UFC fighter gets jumped in a bar and someone cleans his clock does that invalidate their art any more than a TMA getting beat in a UFC match? How many TMA practioners have actually used their art to defend themselves or others in real life? I would bet it's a fair amount over the years. So, saying that a mma artist would beat an mma artist kind of misses the point, doesn't it? I think the point is that both mma and tma have goals that differ and it's unfair to measure tma by mma standards.

Ben & Bart, I think you might have a cultural issue here. Ben is from the UK, and Bart, you appear to be in the U.S. Ben I think what Bart is saying on the "Babe" issue is that here in the U.S. many women consider the term "Babe" to be condescending. And in our "Politically Correct" society of today it is not often used because it can offend the recipient (or someone else who overhears it) even if it were not meant that way. Bart, you need to be careful in dealing with issues that are semantic in nature. Context is often difficult to discern from just a post. And this forum has people from all over the world and different socio-economic groups. You cannot fairly take the words, as you read them in in your American English, and accept them as the perfect verbalization of the person's meaning. There, I hope that settles that. Now, let's find something more fun to talk about....like MA!

Thanks. In my job, I have 1 or 2 days a week that I have to sit on a phone queue to help prospects and customers. We sell Internet Access commercially so I've got a screaming IP connection and 9 hours to kill. I look up lots of stuff like that when it's slow. It gives me something to think about and study.

Wow, if that's your "little" brother, it's no wonder you took up martial arts!

Sorry, can't. (Was that short enough?)

What is often missed is that a name (i.e. Hapkido, Aikido, TKD) is a static reference to a dynamic entity. That entity, the art, is ever-growing, ever-evolving and therefore very difficult to define. I would agree that Hapkido has a lot in common with Aikido, especially in name. If you read the histories of both, you'll find that that creator of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba, and one of Hapkido's creators, Choi Yong Sool, both studied a form of Ju Jutsu called Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jutsu. But each master then added their own style and philosopy to them. From what I've seen (and in Aikido it's not too much, just a few classes), the philsophy of Aikido differs substantially today from Hapkido. But, as I said, Hapkido is a name that actually emcompasses many differences, and the historians of the art acknowledge as much, as evidenced in "Hapkido - History": "Editor's Note: Much of early Hapkido history is difficult, if not impossible to establish accurately and is often based on oral recitations that cannot now be substantiated. We leave it to the informed reader to draw their conclusions as the the validity of claims made. A careful reader will note that there are contradictions contained in various contributor's versions of the same events. It is clear that both Ji Han Jae and Choi, Young Sool were major contributors to this art and that Choi, Young Sool's style was probably closer to the source that is may be shared with Aikido while Ji Han Jae's style clearly added more kicks." So, you can see that they even point out that some styles of Hapkido are closer to Aikido and others have more kicks, depending on which master's family tree you follow. http://modernhapkido.org/history.htm http://www.aaa-aikido.com/history.htm