Hwarangdo for self-defense?

[battousai16]

i'd quote you here, but you put 3 paragraphs down and it's late and i don't feel like sifting through them, so i'm just going to go from here. indeed, you're right, they did once claim that they were teaching a 2,000 year old martial art, until they were sued by... man, what was his name? i want to say it was bob dougan... something like that... you can look him up on the website, he's one of the big ones under the people who've been stripped of rank. he was also, coincidentally, the white guy in pj's i made reference too. he said that a lot of the things joo bang lee were presenting as ancient were things that he himself helped lee to develop. i forget how the whole law suit ended up, but i certainly couldn't help but notice that, if you look at the website, it never necesarily say that it's 2,000 years old, but rather dances around it. it kind of leans towards "based on the art of the hwarang" to tell you the truth, i never really much cared about the politics, and i stuck around because i thought it was a good, well rounded style with great teachers at my school. it was only quite recently when it got so mind boggling that i decided to leave the school. i haven't actually been to the dojang since june, i think. so you're right, in my personal opinion. while most hwa rang do practitioners will defend dr. joo bang lee to the grave, i personally believe there are some corrupt politics going on in the academy... that dosen't mangle the art. the art is still a good, strong art, it's the politics that are fraudulant.

as for um yang kwan, you're right once again. the romanization has a lot more b's in it, i forget exactly what it is, though that's on the website somewhere too. um yang kwan is the answer on the first written test, i think used as a generalization for whatever reason. i think it's to incorporate all the divisions. y'know, the sulsa (korean equivilant of ninjas), the guys on horse back, on foot, the royal guards. the reasoning is on the website too, i forget what it is. i must say, i'm impressed with your knowledge of hwa rang do. i learned it because i had too. but yes, "um yang kwan" is, apparently, the same as hwa rang do.

as for your second thing, see the bob dougan thing. i think he's the one. whoever the "white dude" is, he has some websites pointing fingers at hwa rang do, at least one of them is linked here on the forums in one of the other HRD threads.

"But it seems quite difficult and time consuming to become proficient in an art with 4000 truly distinct techniques that its practitioner is supposed to master."

indeed this is true, and this is what i listed as HRD's biggest weak point as elsewhere on the forums. for what it's worth, i never actually sat down and counted, but i don't beleive different heights of kicks are counted. i do think that perhaps standing, reverse, advance, and jump all count as four. for instance, standing front, reverse front, advancing front, and jumping front is four.

as for what's presented in the books, to tell you the truth, i don't much care. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying i don't care about your arguments, i just don't care what he puts in his books. he picks and chooses. it's not like the book is white belt, then the next is orange, then yellow. rather, this is beginner, this is what you should cover. this is intermediate, same deal. as for why the techniques look nicer than they should for beginners, two reasons: A) the techniques are shown to look pretty. B) you're supposed to have prior MA experience before you start hwa rang do, else you're kind of put through a smaller, kind of under-grad style to build you up to intermediate hwa rang do. tae soo do, for those keeping score at home.

"It’s a waste of time and there’s no point in teaching someone to kick one way and then stating later that was only how beginners are taught to kick"

well, they want you to start sparring early, and you start out point sparring, which is best with TKD kicks. mid level sparring dosen't start until intermediate. you'll find that the tkd kicks you learned make for a good stepping stone, though, and you found the only real difference is in the hips. you may regard it as a waste of time, but i never really felt it as such. well, that's not true. the first time they told me i'd been doing it wrong and said this is how you're supposed to kicks to do damage, i was kind of annoyed. but as i went on, i saw the usefulness of it. i don't know, to each his own.

"As far as I know, Hwa Rang Do schools don’t do much of that, and I think that’s perhaps the most important aspect of training regardless of the martial art. "

every monday, thursday, friday, and saturday night. that does, however, change school to school, you're correct. that was mine. i think the other school in town does about the same, they do more in LA, less in eau claire.

i wasn't implying everybody had to master 108 weapons, i said there were 108 weapons for an army to master. 108 weapons for 108 people?

"Again, if what you are stating is true, then I think this is the result of greater knowledge and evolution resulting from the NHB style tournaments. The art, as founded by Joo Bang Lee, had no muay Thai expressed kicks in it as you suggested in an earlier post. And besides, why would a properly executed Hwa Rang Do roundhouse kick be expressed like a TKD style kick only in the blue book (volume 1) but resemble a muay Thai kick in later books? There’s no logic to your argument. Either the mechanics of the kicks shown in volume 1 are correct in that style or they are not. "

we can't have both? and if that is due directly to the popularity of the NHB and weren't 2,000 years, so what? how does that make the style less effective?

"Let me clarify. What I was stating was that merely because you see an emphasis on joint manipulations in your school, does not mean that the original art was primarily a joint manipulation art form or even heavily emphasized such techniques. Merely because you see a roundhouse kick being delivered like a muay Thai round kick, doesn’t mean that was how the original art taught its students how a properly executed Hwa Rang Do roundhouse kick is delivered. Many schools nowadays have incorporated other styles and techniques into their curriculum but fail to give credit to where they are acquiring this information and knowledge from. And based on your statements, that is what I suspect is going on at your school.

"

i wasn't actually gunning for heavy emphasis in any direction, i think it's a pretty balanced style. some things get thrown into the back a wee bit i think, ie: jump kicks, but all in all... y'know, um yang, balance...

"As for why none of the NHB fights have ended in small joint manipulations, small joint manipulations are illegal. They’re not spectator friendly techniques, and many small joint manipulations would be difficult to catch on camera. You’d more likely see the after effects. But the primary reason why such techniques are illegal is simply because they can shorten a fighter’s career. Despite the “brutality” of MMA, the promoters still have a desire to preserve the fighters sufficiently so they can fight again and again. "

i don't recall those rules in the early UFCs... i still didn't see any fights end in small joint manipulation.

"Again, I never stated that Hwa Rang Do or TKD were useless arts."

i know, i didn't say you did. it's the thread title. y'know, other people are reading these besides just us, i'm trying to make points along the way.

"And I don't know what Lee's travel agenda or the fact that his school is in the U.S. (if indeed it is) has to do with Hwa Rang Do or our discussion. "

that was my point, actually.

"But when you get a chance to unpack all your stuff, I'd be interested in some references to the Hwa Rang Do roundhouse kick being the same as a muay Thai round kick from some old magazine articles from the 70s or early 80s. I have quite a few articles on Hwa Rang Do from back then and the demonstrators are showing TKD-style kicks and very little of the joint manipulations. Though they do show some, depending on the article. "

certainly. i think it's actually in the song gung journal. i think i might even know the box mine is in... but if that is indeed the box, it's on the bottom of a stack... we'll see if i get enough energy.

"If it is not teaching one to fight, then it is not an effective art."

i disagree, not everyone is looking to be a great fighter.

"So my point was not the speed at which someone could to learn an art or style, but the fact that there are arts out there can and will teach a person to fight but do so in a much quicker time frame than Hwa Rang Do."

you may learn to fight quicker. but i believe that if you take a high level muay thai person and pit him/her against a high level hwa rang do practitioner, the hwa rang do practitioner will come out on top, if for no other reason than just being really well rounded. that goes for most any style, really. my money will go to the hwa rang do guy most every time. and i'm not just selling my style, as i don't actively train in it anymore.

"Personally, I think most people can become competent fighters after only a year of boxing, BJJ, or muay Thai. If you add small joint manipulations, it will only make such a fighter that much more nasty to contend with. But the traditional arts usually take much longer for someone to become good at or become functional fighters, from what I’ve seen."

maybe. i think hwa rang do could make you pretty good in a year. and i think after 5 years in each style, i think the hwa rang do guy will be better prepared.

[Hansen]

Battousai16 - Very interesting post. Never heard of Bob Dougan or the lawsuit that you mentioned. But I am curious enough to browse into this matter. However, I can't think of what Bob (if that's his name) could've really sued Joo Bang Lee over. A person can't patent or copywrite a martial technique. So based on the info you provided, the only thing I can think of him suing over is false advertising. Moreover, if this Bob only aided in the development of a handful of techniques, then I would hardly say that he was pivotal in the development or creation of Hwa Rang Do. Perhaps he influenced certain techniques but that's about it. Of course, I am basing all of this on what you've told me thus far. But I hope to do a little probing on my own out of curiousity.

In addition, I don't know if the lawsuit had much effect (assuming Bob won the suit). There are still many websites by Hwa Rang Do practitioners that seem to promote Hwa Rang Do as the ancient art of the Silla, and Lee's book is still titled, The Ancient Martial Art of Hwa Rang Do and the content is quite clearly promotes modern Hwa Rang Do as the same art as that of the Hwa Rang warriors. There's no mistake about that.

as for why the techniques look nicer than they should for beginners, two reasons: A) the techniques are shown to look pretty. B) you're supposed to have prior MA experience before you start hwa rang do, else you're kind of put through a smaller, kind of under-grad style to build you up to intermediate hwa rang do. tae soo do, for those keeping score at home.

I was not aware that Hwa Rang Do (or any martial art) required that its students come in with a prior martial background. If what you say is true, then Hwa Rang Do is quite unique. Do you know why it would have such a pre-requisite? And do you know if any prior martial background qualifies or if only the Korean arts are considered adequate?

we can't have both? and if that is due directly to the popularity of the NHB and weren't 2,000 years, so what? how does that make the style less effective?

I think you missed my point here. It isn't that Hwa Rang Do can't have two different expressions of a roundhouse kick. Rather, my point was that during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s Hwa Rang Do never expressed its roundhouse kick like a muay Thai round kick. The body mechanics were different. That's why I suspect your school has merely incorporated modern NHB influences into its Hwa Rang Do. Also, I never stated there was anything wrong with it. As a matter a fact, I stated that it was great. But my point was, your description of the roundhouse kick is not Hwa Rang Do, as founded by Joo Bang Lee. And personally, I get irked when schools promote their academy as being Wing Chun or Boxing, or whatever and then include tons of other styles into the art without giving credit. They try to promote it as if their art always had such techniques in their system. Again, they only get away with it because you cannot patent or copywrite a martial technique. However, I feel that failure to give credit is like plagarizing another art. Give credit where credit is due. (It is more of a complaint toward the instructors who plagarize, and not directed at you personally).

i don't recall those rules in the early UFCs... i still didn't see any fights end in small joint manipulation.

You are correct about that. We did not see small joint manipulations in the very early UFCs. But I think the reason was because such techniques were frowned upon, though they were not considered "illegal" at that time. You can read about this in some of the books out there on the history of MMA. There were certain unwritten "rules" that the fighters were requested to adhere to, despite the promotion of the tournament as the Ultimate Fighting Championships. But today, such techniques are illegal and grounds for penalty or disqualification.

Besides small joint manipulations, there was no formal rule against eye gouging in the very early UFCs either. Rorion Gracie even stated such during an interview in the late 1990s. But it was understood that such tactics were frowned upon. To my recollection, there has been only 1 person (Tank Abbott, I think) that has even made an attempt at an eye gouge. But that was very early on. You won't see such tactics any longer (except from Mike Tyson, if he enters the UFC)

certainly. i think it's actually in the song gung journal. i think i might even know the box mine is in... but if that is indeed the box, it's on the bottom of a stack... we'll see if i get enough energy.

Please continue to provide us with info from past articles on Hwa Rang Do. I look forward to future posts from you.

i disagree, not everyone is looking to be a great fighter.

That is true. Not everyone wishes or cares about being a great fighter. However, even if a practitioner doesn't care about learning a street effective system, I think the martial arts themselves must still be about fighting. Otherwise, it is no longer a martial art. All of the other reasons why people take up martial arts (e.g. discipline, conditioning, etc) can be developed by other means, including other sports. But fighting is what makes the martial art... martial.

maybe. i think hwa rang do could make you pretty good in a year. and i think after 5 years in each style, i think the hwa rang do guy will be better prepared.

I do agree that Hwa Rang Do is a more complete system than any of the arts that I listed, but I still think even an amateur (or pro) boxer will be a superior fighter over an amateur (or pro) Hwa Rang Do practitioner. The primary reason is the boxer trains against a live, resisting opponent on a routine basis. He subjects himself the possibility of a knockout or broken rib each time. I don't think most (if any) Hwa Rang Do schools do such a thing. And to me, that is more important than the specific art one trains in. It must mimic realistic conditions as closely as possible, and boxing does so much more than Hwa Rang Do (though boxing itself is not complete).

As for grappling, I think a good grappler will be able to neutralize the strikes of a Hwa Rang Do practitioner and submit him pretty easily. And I just don't think Hwa Rang Do's grappling is anywhere near as sophisticated as BJJ, judo, or even wrestling. And so far, I have never seen a Hwa Rang Do practitioner make a name for himself in a NHB tournament, though I'm sure there are some tough Hwa Rang Do guys out there.

As for your other statements, whatever your learning at your school if it works for you, then great. I encourage you to continue. I want to make it clear that I have nothing against Hwa Rang Do or its practitioners. In fact, there are a few things that I learned from Joo Bang Lee's book. But I do think there are better arts out there (my opinion). And I do have some doubts about the authenticity of Hwa Rang Do and its association with the arts of the ancient Hwa Rang. From my own research, the association seems very loose, at best.

[battousai16]

whew, these are tricky to reply to, just because my connection is so lousy i can't finish before i get kicked off. whew.

"Battousai16 - Very interesting post. Never heard of Bob Dougan or the lawsuit that you mentioned. But I am curious enough to browse into this matter. However, I can't think of what Bob (if that's his name) could've really sued Joo Bang Lee over. A person can't patent or copywrite a martial technique. So based on the info you provided, the only thing I can think of him suing over is false advertising. Moreover, if this Bob only aided in the development of a handful of techniques, then I would hardly say that he was pivotal in the development or creation of Hwa Rang Do. Perhaps he influenced certain techniques but that's about it. Of course, I am basing all of this on what you've told me thus far. But I hope to do a little probing on my own out of curiousity. "

Hwa Rang Do is trade marked. everything about it is ours and ours alone in an effort to keep it pure. the techniques aren't pattented, but the sequences are, as well as the meng sae and the uniforms and a whole bunch of other stuff. i think what dougan actually sued lee over was slander, when lee stripped him entirely of rank and authority and credibility for saying that hwa rang do wasn't actually ancient in the first place. he supposedly helped sum up the techniques and had a hand in the development of the uniforms and symbols and the like.

"In addition, I don't know if the lawsuit had much effect (assuming Bob won the suit). There are still many websites by Hwa Rang Do practitioners that seem to promote Hwa Rang Do as the ancient art of the Silla, and Lee's book is still titled, The Ancient Martial Art of Hwa Rang Do and the content is quite clearly promotes modern Hwa Rang Do as the same art as that of the Hwa Rang warriors. There's no mistake about that."

i actually think those books are out of print now, and if you take a gander at the recent ones, they're worded quite carefully, just like the website. web sites by practitioners are generally young under belts who've found such a great love for there style that they eat what's fed to them, so to speak. they're not official.

"I was not aware that Hwa Rang Do (or any martial art) required that its students come in with a prior martial background. If what you say is true, then Hwa Rang Do is quite unique. Do you know why it would have such a pre-requisite? And do you know if any prior martial background qualifies or if only the Korean arts are considered adequate? "

It has a requisite because a) having to slow down the class to teach new comers basic techniques can really be a handy cap, but mostly because b) people had a tendancy to get overwhelmed around green sash and quit, so they tried to reduce the new amount of material being rushed at you by making sure you're familiar with the basics. it's not just korean arts, in fact, it's generally people from flowery chinese styles that adapt the best.

"I think you missed my point here. It isn't that Hwa Rang Do can't have two different expressions of a roundhouse kick. Rather, my point was that during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s Hwa Rang Do never expressed its roundhouse kick like a muay Thai round kick. The body mechanics were different. That's why I suspect your school has merely incorporated modern NHB influences into its Hwa Rang Do. Also, I never stated there was anything wrong with it. As a matter a fact, I stated that it was great. But my point was, your description of the roundhouse kick is not Hwa Rang Do, as founded by Joo Bang Lee. And personally, I get irked when schools promote their academy as being Wing Chun or Boxing, or whatever and then include tons of other styles into the art without giving credit. They try to promote it as if their art always had such techniques in their system. Again, they only get away with it because you cannot patent or copywrite a martial technique. However, I feel that failure to give credit is like plagarizing another art."

actually, in the aforementioned song gung journal, credit is given to the styles that influenced hwa rang do. i don't remember, however, if that was before or after the charts that show how amazing hwa rang do is compared to other styles, which was not only innacurate, but i thought innapropriate and cheesy. alas, that's for another thread. hwa rang do isn't thought of as a purely korean invention, rather a blend of the styles that came to korea while it was being kicked around by most of asia. Furthermore, as Lee is still alive, and the head of the academy, any changes is a presentation of the art as founded by Joo Bang Lee. I'm still fairly certain that the kick has been that way for decades at the least, I can't very well prove it, and i think i'll concede. we'll have to agree to disagree, i suppose.

"Give credit where credit is due. (It is more of a complaint toward the instructors who plagarize, and not directed at you personally). "

I should hope not; i've never been in charge of advertising.

"You are correct about that. We did not see small joint manipulations in the very early UFCs. But I think the reason was because such techniques were frowned upon, though they were not considered "illegal" at that time. You can read about this in some of the books out there on the history of MMA. There were certain unwritten "rules" that the fighters were requested to adhere to, despite the promotion of the tournament as the Ultimate Fighting Championships. But today, such techniques are illegal and grounds for penalty or disqualification. "

I always assumed it was because such techniques are tricky and can be disasterous if you botch it. I haven't really read any books on the history of MMA (never really tickled my fancy), but maybe i'll give it a look see if i come across one.

"Besides small joint manipulations, there was no formal rule against eye gouging in the very early UFCs either. Rorion Gracie even stated such during an interview in the late 1990s. But it was understood that such tactics were frowned upon. To my recollection, there has been only 1 person (Tank Abbott, I think) that has even made an attempt at an eye gouge. But that was very early on. You won't see such tactics any longer (except from Mike Tyson, if he enters the UFC)"

for what it's worth, HRD has multiple eye gouges too, although i always figured it would feel gross. still, an eye gouge is really extreme compared to, say, a submission lock.

"That is true. Not everyone wishes or cares about being a great fighter. However, even if a practitioner doesn't care about learning a street effective system, I think the martial arts themselves must still be about fighting. Otherwise, it is no longer a martial art. All of the other reasons why people take up martial arts (e.g. discipline, conditioning, etc) can be developed by other means, including other sports. But fighting is what makes the martial art... martial."

can't someone want to be conditioned and disciplined and be a fighter as a side benefit?

"And to me, that is more important than the specific art one trains in."

you made the key point here, and i agree whole heartedly. but if the HRD practitioner trains that way, wont s/he smoke the boxer?

"As for grappling, I think a good grappler will be able to neutralize the strikes of a Hwa Rang Do practitioner and submit him pretty easily. "

i think you under estimate the strikes and movement in hwa rang do, though i agree if it goes to the ground, the HRD guy will have a tough time on his/her hands, and will probably lose. what will define him/her as the better fighter will be his/her ability to stay off the ground.

"As for your other statements, whatever your learning at your school if it works for you, then great. I encourage you to continue. I want to make it clear that I have nothing against Hwa Rang Do or its practitioners."

agreed.

"In fact, there are a few things that I learned from Joo Bang Lee's book. But I do think there are better arts out there (my opinion)."

as you're entitled to.

"And I do have some doubts about the authenticity of Hwa Rang Do and its association with the arts of the ancient Hwa Rang. From my own research, the association seems very loose, at best."

agreed, but i have to point out that that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the style.