Last week I stayed after class to meet a new instructor for the west-side school, who might be doing a Hapkido class. That hour and some of basically getting beat up was interesting in a few different ways.

For one, I'd forgotten how much of an etiquette there can be when martial artists (at least, the kind without inflated-ego problems like some have) meet each other. When this hapkido instructor and one of our higher-ranked instructors met, for example, even as they were listing multiple ranks and international lineages, there was still an overriding rule of modesty - there was no comparison or competition, just a stating of facts, with the assumption being that the other person would take the information for exactly what it was. My only contribution there, of course, was to insert myself at the very bottom of the Ko Sho lineage.

Then there was the interesting technical discussion as each instructor tried to get a handle on the other's art; I knew hapkido was basically a hybrid of Korean foot-fighting arts and Japanese joint-manipulation, but didn't realize how incredibly similar it is to our Tomiki aikido. Their teaching structure is interestingly a bit different, starting out with offensive joint manipulations, which I think is a great idea, and obviously their atemi includes a repetoire of high kicks, but for the most part a good many techiques are nigh the same, and not just in principle. My contribution there was to be the demonstration dummy (or, 'demo-bitch,' if you will). Ow.

One thing that caught my attention as well was how readily apparent it was to see how a school of thought could diffuse and change by teaching-culture. For example, while the hapkido seemed to have gained some things in mixing a relatively grappling/soft art with completely-offensive, hard striking arts, namely that offensive mindset and a certain flexibility (no pun intended, for anyone who might get that), in being separated from the 'source' and in becoming more technique based, some subtle-understanding was lost. That is, it was funny to see a light-bulb appear over the hapkido instructor's head concerning something he'd been doing for years, when our aiki-jujitsu instructor went, "No no, do it like this, because of this." Ding! So, our principle-based teaching may not be as refined, but we keep some information that is easily lost otherwise. Pros and cons on both sides, which might be rectified in bringing the arts full circle.

And lastly, I'll re-state the opinion, mostly coming from the east-side school, that grappling should be taught early and often, regardless of whether the student is primarily a striker. Besides that it's a royal pain in the ass to train with someone who's never done any and so is uncomfortable and fearful, or with someone who's only trained in full-contact with no regard for control (injury waiting to happen on both counts), the benefits garnered by having that basis in knowledge of continuous contact with the opponent are huge. For example, despite having never met, the instructors and I were able to practically discuss some things without even having to talk about it, because in grappling arts a great deal is dependent upon proprioceptive sensitivity, to oneself and to the other person - their body becomes part of one's own upon contact, for all intents and purposes.