Is Hapkido Truly Korean?
Several years ago, during a Gongkwon Yusul open seminar in Arkhangelsk, Russia, I was asked a question that has stayed with me ever since.
“Master Kang, I heard you trained in Hapkido. Do you really believe Hapkido is Korean and not Japanese?”
It was not a simple question.
The tone suggested that the answer was already decided, and that I was being asked to confirm or deny it honestly.
What made the situation more ironic was that this question arose not in a Hapkido seminar, but in a Gongkwon Yusul seminar. Yet it reflected a broader issue that extends beyond a single martial art.
Before answering, I asked him where he had learned about the controversy between Hapkido and Aikido. His response was clear. Most of his information came from global martial arts forums, organizational websites, and online discussions.
The most concerning aspect is that some Aikido practitioners and groups continuously claim that Hapkido is essentially Japanese in origin, arguing that Koreans adopted both the techniques and the name without proper acknowledgment. These claims are repeatedly posted and shared across international platforms, gradually shaping public perception.
Over time, repetition creates acceptance.
What is repeated often enough begins to be treated as truth.
However, the greater problem lies not only in these claims, but in the lack of response. Among the many Hapkido organizations in Korea, there has been little to no clear explanation or structured counterargument presented to the international community.
This silence allows misunderstanding to grow.
It risks creating the impression that Korean practitioners misrepresented the art, which can damage not only Hapkido’s reputation but also the broader image of Korean martial culture.
The relationship between Hapkido and Aikido is often discussed in terms of origin. There is no denying that historical influence exists. However, influence does not define identity.
Taekwondo, for example, has technical roots connected to Karate, yet it is recognized globally as a distinct Korean martial art. The same principle applies here.
A martial art is not defined solely by where it began, but by how it developed, evolved, and established itself within a cultural and practical framework. Hapkido grew within Korean society, forming its own system, structure, and philosophy.
From this perspective, it stands as a Korean martial art.
Yet the more critical issue today is internal.
There are numerous Hapkido organizations in Korea, each operating independently. The sheer number of associations is surprising from an international viewpoint, especially when compared to the relatively limited number of active training schools.
This fragmentation has led to inconsistent standards, particularly in rank certification. In some cases, black belt certifications are issued with minimal training, low cost, and insufficient verification.
In contrast, many Japanese martial arts maintain strict certification processes, where rank is granted through structured evaluation and maintained through continued affiliation.
When certification becomes easily accessible without rigorous standards, its value declines. As a result, the credibility of the entire system is weakened.
This issue is no longer limited to Korea. It has spread internationally. Individuals who obtained rank under low standards often establish their own organizations abroad, issuing certificates without oversight or verification.
Without a unified standard or system of accountability, the identity of the art becomes increasingly diluted.
Competition structures also reflect this problem. When participation guarantees awards, the meaning of competition is diminished. Growth requires challenge, and recognition must be earned through performance, not simply participation.
Ultimately, the question is not simply about origin.
It is about identity, structure, and integrity.
A martial art is sustained not by claims, but by consistent standards, disciplined practice, and a shared sense of responsibility among its practitioners.
The future of Hapkido depends not on external arguments, but on internal clarity.
Only through clear standards, responsible leadership, and meaningful training can its value be preserved and its direction secured.
