"traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ?
Posted by: sjon
"traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 04:42 AM
Hello.
It’s been some time since I’ve posted, although I’ve tried to keep up to date with what’s happening on the forum. Now that I have a moment, I feel a need to try to clarify a few points that keep coming up.
Tek, please don’t take this as a personal attack. You are making a tremendous contribution to the forum, and are expressing a lot of valid ideas. However, this “modern” vs “traditional” thing is really getting too much for me, and I feel I need to make my position, at least, clear.
You identify “modern” TKD (WTF, I assume) chiefly with fast kicking and “traditional” TKD (TSD?) with hard blocks, more static stances and more hand technique. Fair enough. However, one of your gripes with the latter seems to be that you consider trying to block a kick a bad idea, particularly if the kicker is wearing your famous steel toe-capped boots.
OK, first, you’re assuming that there is some degree of kicking other than low kicking in most SD situations, which there isn’t. If you don’t know this, then you haven’t experienced a real SD situation.
Second, you’re assuming that all “traditional” schools teach students to use their relatively weak forearm bones to block the much stronger and heavier shin bones. This is a really bad idea and will earn you a broken arm.
Do you honestly believe that you will be able to lay a “fast combination of kicks” on an attacker in an SD situation? Have you considered the distances involved in SD? Do you think that the kind of person who is likely to attack you seriously is going to allow you that kind of space? Is he going to square off from a distance, or is he going to make sure he’s in your face before allowing the encounter to get physical? Hell, it’s common sense, man! I really think that much of what you are saying is based on the assumption that sport sparring techniques are a good idea in a critical SD encounter.
Going on with the “modern” vs “traditional” thing, I think you are too quick to categorise. Apart from the fact that the non-sparring (i.e. non-sport) aspects of “modern” TKD – the patterns, the one- and three-steps etc – are very similar to “traditional” TKD, you are assuming that those are the only two models. Personally, I would establish the following models:
- “early TKD” (TSD/KSD), emphasising power striking and a relatively small range of techniques, influenced by the need to teach soldiers quickly
- “mid-period TKD”, exported from Korea in the 1960’s, which was similar to the earlier model, but with added high/spinning kicks to attract the public’s attention, and an increased sport-sparring tendency
- “modern TKD”, both WTF and ITF, in which sport sparring and physical education of one type or another are paramount, in which “traditional” patterns and one/three step sparring are practiced, plus whatever “self-defence” tricks the instructor happens to have picked up along the way
To these three basic models, I would add a fourth, which is the one I’ve been trying to put across in most of my posts. As anyone who has read my posts will be aware, this involves going beyond the basic “face value” interpretations of block-counter, and training more SD-applicable responses using the same movements but not the same techniques. For example, this means NOT thinking that conventional blocking is the way to defend, but using the same movement that the block traces in a way that pulls, strikes, twists or presses in order to discover grappling applications. By the way, this kind of interpretation relies a lot more on body shifting than on blocking.
Is this TKD? Was TKD ever practiced like this? Probably not, but it IS how the arts which later became TKD were practiced (I’m talking about Okinawan Karate and the Chinese Quan Fa styles), and I’m fairly confident that the early TKD masters were familiar with these concepts even if they didn’t teach it to the general public. Whichever way, it is information which is preserved in the patterns of TKD – directly descended from the Okinawan ones – and it is therefore entirely valid to approach them in this way, particularly if it is going to improve our SD ability.
About one-step sparring, I agree that it is an excellent learning tool, and is the best way to practice set SD routines. You propose this method as a superior one to patterns practice. Don’t you see that they are two aspects of the same thing? The patterns get you to ingrain the sequences in your body’s memory and develop strong, balanced movement. Then you take these sequences and practice them with a partner, which is one- and three-step sparring. No-one is suggesting that just by marching around the dojang performing patterns you are somehow going to be able to apply them without previously having trained these applications with a partner.
Despite your insistence on the superiority of one-step over patterns, the example you give of a one-step sequence is exactly the same kind of thing found in the patterns when they are interpreted as “face value”, i.e. simple blocks and counters. Where is the superiority in this? And if you are so concerned with the effectiveness of the method, why have the attacker step back into long front stance with a low block before attacking? Try doing it from close in, with the attacker verbally baiting you and pushing you before launching the real attack at a moment of his choosing. Try applying the sequences shown in the patterns as something other than “face value” techniques.
OK, I must get back to work. Again, Tek, don’t take it personally. I look forward to hearing from you and from others.
Regards,
sjon
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 05:54 AM
Hey Sjon glad to see your back, it's good that you've kept up forum. Um, I havn't read your thread yet, so this isn't a response. Somehow I kind of new the Traditional vs Modern title of the thread was going to be addressed. If you have time stop by the Step SParring Notebook thread and add a step sparring exercise. Remember just one per post please. I think we are going to build a very good notebook with some great step forms. I'll send a response to your post as soon as I have the time to really think about it. Hopefully someone eles makes a contribution hopefully along the lines of what I say, but it looks like this forum is more ITF or Traditionally WTF dominated.
Posted by: sjon
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 06:38 AM
Hi Tek.
Quote:
If you have time stop by the Step SParring Notebook thread and add a step sparring exercise. Remember just one per post please. I think we are going to build a very good notebook with some great step forms.
Cool. Will do. This is a really good idea.
Posted by: Shyro
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 06:42 AM
Hello, I'm new to this forum, but I would like to take this opportunity to express my own opinion on the topic of traditional VS modern.
These days there is a clear tendency, even among instructors and masters to refer to ITF and WTF as styles of taekwondo. This is a big misconception.
Currently I teach Taekwondo and also take classes under two instructors, one affiliated with ITF and one with WTF. Aside of these two instructors I have experienced taekwondo classes from many other instructors and one thing I can tell you from my experience:
- The techniques you practice and the methods of training you use depend only on the instructor or master you have. Not on who they are paying to be able to teach taekwondo with health insurance.
Taekwondo is taekwondo, there are no distinct taekwondo styles. The teachings of an instructor affiliated with ITF are the same of one affiliated with WTF. The only difference is that one teaches tuls instead of pumses and one has his students sparring with different rules from those the other uses. But the techniques and theory behind them is exacly the same.
For example, I'm currently affiliated with WTF and, in a month or so, I'll be with ITF as well. Despite this, I've been teaching sparring lessons with rules from ITF and also from WTF to the same students. It simply allows them to develop as a much more complete martial artist.
I teach taekwondo as a practical self-defense system and use the sparring lessons as the most valuable tool. I usually first instroduce my students to WTF sparring combat so they can start to rely on the leg techniques and develop a fine sense of distance. After that, I start introducing ITF rules so they take caution on the hand techniques. As soon as they spar with safety I instroduce them to conditioned self-defense fighting (hand attacks, leg attacks, grabs, ground fighting and simulations of attacks to vital points).
It is my method of training to use combat sport to develop the ability of self-defense is a real combat situation (always explaining students that many sport combat techniques should not be attempt in real fighting).
In a street fighting situation, a practitioner affiliated with WTF would surely not only use his legs. If he did he would be dead. The different rules of ITF and WTF sparring are just for a sport situation, most of the techniques don't even apply in a real situation (high kick are simply too complex and that makes them dangerous to use in a real fight). And the sport situation is only a tool to teach taekwondo.
ITF and WTF are not styles, they are federations. If both ended because of financial problems you would still be practicing Tae Kwon Do the following day. It is known that in taekwondo sometimes the difference between instructor's training method are so big that it almost seems like they are teaching different things. But that doesn't have nothing to do with the federation with who they work with, but with their experience as martial artists. So please don't refere to modern taekwondo and traditional taekwondo as distinct styles of taekwondo, because that is not correct.
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 10:29 AM
Quote:
Hello, I'm new to this forum, but I would like to take this opportunity to express my own opinion on the topic of traditional VS modern.
These days there is a clear tendency, even among instructors and masters to refer to ITF and WTF as styles of taekwondo. This is a big misconception.
Currently I teach Taekwondo and also take classes under two instructors, one affiliated with ITF and one with WTF. Aside of these two instructors I have experienced taekwondo classes from many other instructors and one thing I can tell you from my experience:
- The techniques you practice and the methods of training you use depend only on the instructor or master you have. Not on who they are paying to be able to teach taekwondo with health insurance.
Taekwondo is taekwondo, there are no distinct taekwondo styles. The teachings of an instructor affiliated with ITF are the same of one affiliated with WTF. The only difference is that one teaches tuls instead of pumses and one has his students sparring with different rules from those the other uses. But the techniques and theory behind them is exacly the same.
For example, I'm currently affiliated with WTF and, in a month or so, I'll be with ITF as well. Despite this, I've been teaching sparring lessons with rules from ITF and also from WTF to the same students. It simply allows them to develop as a much more complete martial artist.
I teach taekwondo as a practical self-defense system and use the sparring lessons as the most valuable tool. I usually first instroduce my students to WTF sparring combat so they can start to rely on the leg techniques and develop a fine sense of distance. After that, I start introducing ITF rules so they take caution on the hand techniques. As soon as they spar with safety I instroduce them to conditioned self-defense fighting (hand attacks, leg attacks, grabs, ground fighting and simulations of attacks to vital points).
It is my method of training to use combat sport to develop the ability of self-defense is a real combat situation (always explaining students that many sport combat techniques should not be attempt in real fighting).
In a street fighting situation, a practitioner affiliated with WTF would surely not only use his legs. If he did he would be dead. The different rules of ITF and WTF sparring are just for a sport situation, most of the techniques don't even apply in a real situation (high kick are simply too complex and that makes them dangerous to use in a real fight). And the sport situation is only a tool to teach taekwondo.
ITF and WTF are not styles, they are federations. If both ended because of financial problems you would still be practicing Tae Kwon Do the following day. It is known that in taekwondo sometimes the difference between instructor's training method are so big that it almost seems like they are teaching different things. But that doesn't have nothing to do with the federation with who they work with, but with their experience as martial artists. So please don't refere to modern taekwondo and traditional taekwondo as distinct styles of taekwondo, because that is not correct.
I agree with alot of what you say as well as that MANY of the techniques are the same. But there are different styles of TKD as there are different styles of karate. ITF practices the Chang Hon style, WTF the Kukki style. Their stances are different (a front stance in Kukki is much longer and deeper than in Chang Hon). This maybe a Picyune example but it is one that comes to mind, Then there is the sine wave, unique to Chang Hon and not accepted by Kukki. I don't have time to get into much more, but to say that the only thing that separates them is their sparring rules and patterns is incorrect, there are others as there are in the Japanese & Chinese styles. But there are many things that tie them together as well.
VDJ
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 12:44 PM
I still prefer to call them "traditional" Taekwondo or "sport" Taekwondo. Traditional of course has more bases in self defense, forms, etc. that also includes sparring. Sport of course has more emphasis on sparring and olympic competition. I am WTF but we are "traditional" not "sport". Not all WTF organizations are sport. AND not all ITF are traditional.
Posted by: matxtx
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 01:56 PM
yea i think its hard to say whats what.
one technique taught by one instructor can be different from another..even under the same affiliation.
so labelling 'traditional'..'modern'..is only the view of the person who knows their teachings of traditional.
ill use the outer or inner forearm middle block as an example.
iv seen some drop both chamber arms befor chambering..some drop one arm.iv seen some make the chamber a move seperate from the block..like chamber then block.iv seen some make it flow..like an all in one move.iv seen some use it where the chamber blocks ,,the 'block strikes'..some where the chamber grabs and the movement for the block locks the attackers arm or takes them down.
..jeez then you have some sinewaving and some hip twisting..whilst doing any of the above...
so many interpretations.
all under 'traditional' block.
some techniques done long winded and obviously useless ..some techniques flowing and no wasted movement making it usefull.making it practical.
then you get the ones who do it long winded not being able to see the practicality of the 'traditional' side.
Posted by: EarlWeiss
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 03:35 PM
Well, before an intelligent discussion begins there must be an agreement as to terminology. The first misconception has to do with WTF being a style. It is not. WTF is an organization that regulates certain competitions. Other than competition standards it does not regulate standards for technique or rank.Although it could be called a sparring style. An organization often viewed as a sister organization, the Kukkiwon does set standards for rank and technique. The Kukkiwon had , and perhaps still has an inclusionary philosophy where it recognized the rank of those who had achieved rank in a variety of systems. So, a Kukkiwon Black Belt could have a proficiency in one system and no knowledge of others. This seems to be changing with the Kukkiwon holding instructor courses which focus on a single system.
However to say there are not different systems using the name TKD would be even more confusing, since there is no telling where such an idea would stop. Pretty soon everthing from Tae Bo to Tai Chi could be called TKD. I do not know anyone who wants this.
Posted by: Subedei
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 03:41 PM
This is another situation in which I'd suggest a study of swordfighting for insight into unarmed combat. The reasons for a block/parry in one situation and a sidestep/backstep or jam in another are incredibly obvious and based on exactly the same principles as unarmed combat. Somehow the weapon just makes everything much more clear, try it!
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 04:28 PM
You lost me on this one Subedei.
Posted by: TKDBlackBelt
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/09/06 09:40 PM
Well according to sjon I practice a "traditional" style of self Tea-Kwon-Do. I dont really know much about the WTF or ITF, frankly I havent heard of them since I started reading this forum, all I know is what I see in the Olympics. Now in the olympics TKD competition I see the arms of the practitioners just dangling at the side of their body, now if I was in a SD situation I would want my arms up and ready to block. I agree with Shyro that high kicks would be to inefficient in an SD situation, and as far as I can tell there are a lot of high kicks in the WTF and ITF because they are worth a lot of points I guess.
On the other hand though, the WTF and ITF practices would make you more agile and more capable of performing a high kick in an SD situation.
Trying to clarrify "tradition" and "modern" TKD is just a waste of time, time that could be used practicing (I know what your going to say I am wasting my time and should be practicing), the only thing that matters is preparing yourself for the time when you will have to use your ability to save your life and maby others.
I have much respect for anyone that can call any form of TKD a part of their lives.
TKDBlackBelt
"Ability may get you to the top, but it takes character to keep you there."
-John Wooden
Posted by: sjon
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/10/06 03:33 AM
Quote:
Well according to sjon I practice a "traditional" style of self Tea-Kwon-Do.
I didn't classify any style as "traditional". That's precisely what I was trying to get away from. I think it's more important to distinguish between sport-oriented TKD (most of what is practiced now) and earlier forms of TKD (what I referred to as "early" and "mid-period" TKD) which were more what you might call a "hard" MA. I also mentioned a fourth model based on practical pattern interpretation.
Quote:
Trying to clarrify "tradition" and "modern" TKD is just a waste of time, time that could be used practicing (I know what your going to say I am wasting my time and should be practicing), the only thing that matters is preparing yourself for the time when you will have to use your ability to save your life and maby others.
This is a forum, mate. It's things like this that give it its reason for being. Plus, if I start training while I'm supposed to be working (OK, now I'm writing when I should be working), my boss might not understand.
Why do I think it's important to clarify what is what?
(a) Because a LOT of TKD people seem to be under the impression that sports training prepares you for SD. It doesn't. Sport sparring is a game loosely based on a system that was originally used for SD, with some new crowd-pleasing techniques added.
You can train sport TKD, Kyokushinkai, Muay Thai etc as hard as you like, but it won't necessarily prepare you for someone who grabs you without warning from close up. One thing is a stand-up fight, however "extreme" it may be, where both participants know when it's going to start, there's an initial distance and only certain techniques are allowed; a fighter well-trained in one of the styles mentioned would undoubtedly do well in the unlikely event of a SD situation developing along those lines ("OK, let's go out into the parking lot and fight like men - no cheating!"). Something entirely different is a close-range semi-ambush situation.
In a recent e-mail conversation I had with a very well-known author and SD expert, he said that the current tendency is to believe that "sport technique + attitude = SD". Nicely put.
(b) Because I believe that there is an alternative to the existing models, and I know at least a few people on the forum share my interest in this.
Quote:
Now in the olympics TKD competition I see the arms of the practitioners just dangling at the side of their body, now if I was in a SD situation I would want my arms up and ready to block. I agree with Shyro that high kicks would be to inefficient in an SD situation, and as far as I can tell there are a lot of high kicks in the WTF and ITF because they are worth a lot of points I guess.
Exactly. As I said, sport TKD is a game derived from an SD practice, but which has nothing to do with SD, nor is it intended to be used as SD.
Posted by: TKDBlackBelt
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/10/06 04:08 PM
I am very sorry sjon. I wrote down the wong name, I meant to say Dereck. I agree with you 100 percent. And I am kinda new to this forum stuff. My sister is a computer geek who found this forum for me. Anyway I do agree that catogorizing would be very hard to do between modern and traditional TKD. If you really wonted to get technical Tang-So-Do would be the traditional TKD and everything else would be modern.
Sport TKD tends to aim for high points rather than saving your life. On the other hand practicing to get those high kicks makes you more capable of using them in a SD situation. The chances for finding a use for them is slim to none, more then likly you will be taken to the ground and will have to wrestle with the other person, at that point you would prollably start throwing knees and elbows and punches. At this point your sport TKD would be almost usless.
I appologize for the disrespect sjon.
TKDBlackBelt
"Ability may get you to the top, but it takes character to keep you there."
-John Wooden
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/10/06 04:29 PM
Quote:
I am very sorry sjon. I wrote down the wong name, I meant to say Dereck.
I appologize for the disrespect sjon.
Should I feel disrespected then? Just kidding. I tried to recatagorize the names based on TeK9 who likes to call them "traditional" and "modern". I on the other hand like to think of them as "traditional" and "sport".
The "sport" more based upon sparring and competition such as Olympics. The "traditional" for self defense, forms, etc. As posted I believe the WTF and the ITF organizations can be one or the other or a combination of both.
Posted by: Shyro
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/11/06 09:18 AM
Hello to all,
VDJ. The length of the stance depends on the body of the practitioner.
When teaching the front stance, for example, It is told that the legs must be at the distance of your shoulders (parallel axis to the shoulders). But the distance (perpendicular axis to the shoulders) depends much on the person executing the technique. You cannot say, "ok they have to be exacly 1.5 meters appart". The longer the distance the more balance you have when you are pushes. The body of each person is different and one fixed measure can't be used.
This is not a difference in the way the technique is executed and therefore it can't be motive to say there are styles of taekwondo.
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/11/06 10:12 AM
Quote:
Hello to all,
VDJ. The length of the stance depends on the body of the practitioner.
When teaching the front stance, for example, It is told that the legs must be at the distance of your shoulders (parallel axis to the shoulders). But the distance (perpendicular axis to the shoulders) depends much on the person executing the technique. You cannot say, "ok they have to be exacly 1.5 meters appart". The longer the distance the more balance you have when you are pushes. The body of each person is different and one fixed measure can't be used.
This is not a difference in the way the technique is executed and therefore it can't be motive to say there are styles of taekwondo.
Shyro,
As I said it was a picyune example and didn't have much time to be more clear on what I was getting at. This is what I mean : A walking stance in Chang Hon is not the same as it is in Kukki. The walking stance in Chang Hon is somewhere in between the Kukki walking stance and the Kukki front stance, this will have no bearing on the practioners body type (and I am aware that everybody does not have the same body type or abilities). Chang Hon has the turning kick, which is the Kukki round kick, but Chang Hon also has the turning side kick (this really has to be seen as I can not even come close to describing it in word, though there may be some better equipt to do so). Then there is also the Chang Hon hook kick which is also different than the Kukki hook kick where as the reverse turning kick in Chang Hon is more similar to the Kukki hook kick. There are some differences in the chambering positions (but not much) as to their delivery. Then of course you have the sine wave, this is what probably separates Chang Hon from most other martial arts (IMO). Although I can see the sine wave movement in other arts, it is not as pronounced nor is it taught as part of their theory of power. So as I said, there are different styles of TKD as there is Japanese Karate & Chinese Kung Fu. I hope this helps more to what I said earlier.
VDJ
Posted by: sjon
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/11/06 02:40 PM
TKDBB,
Please don't apologise. Really it did not cross my mind that any disrespect was intended. It's the mark of a fine individual to take the time to say what you've just said, particularly in the impersonal atmosphere that is the internet, and I certainly respect you for that.
sjon
Posted by: jamestkdkungfu
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/11/06 09:57 PM
I have this grand idea how about people stop fighting about something soo ridiculas seriously no matter where i go people fight about the same things in taekwondo well here is my 2 cents. I think that if you do tradiontal taekwondo that is great if you do mordern wtf or itf great but just because it is soo useless as you say in self-defense who cares i love it I love everything about the people the rush of the tornoments and you know what else I love the fact that nobody wants to fight me because i do martial arts hehehe... here is the thing people I started martial arts in sport taekwondo that was all it is sport and fitness nothing else. We have no forums no self defense we have two hand strikes. But i did not like martial arts at the time because i was never good at it or any other sports but now im good at most things active and now I do wing chun kung fu and a knew martial art called kindai bujitsu with brain welcher and i love it. Also i am one of the best martial arts in my area i pick up in all very quickly because i did only basic martial arts in sport taekwondo but now i can easily do advanced things. I think that if you need to get in shape go with any mordern taekwondo not tradional. Now i have tried almost all the common martial arts and i do not get much of a workout from any of them except my sports taekwondo but it isnt really the good of a self defense except it teaches how to CONTROL your distance so in a SD another thing learning self defense has been easy because of learning taekwondo I really think all martial arts are good no matter what i really wish people would stop sayin its useless
because alot of people love it besides ur all just jealous because us and judo get to go to the olmypics hoot hoot hoot but seriously i just hate mcdojos thats it
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/11/06 10:05 PM
I agree woot woot!
-TeK
Posted by: Mike_L
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/12/06 01:36 AM
This modern vs traditional subject once again. Taekwondo,TSD and other martial arts are unique to the practioner. All of theses so called "periods" of Taekwondo are an extermely shollow look into Taekwondo every person has his/her own personal style of Taekwondo or any other martial art. There are similarities, however people have their own prefrences as to Taekwondo, martial arts, combat, and life as a whole. Whether or not an art is effective or not depends on the persons ability. Basically as summed up in this quote "Akido is effective, your Akido is not" the same thing is true for Taekwondo or any other martial art. Modern is a general term Taekwondo should not be limited to modern or traditional both should be practiced. Regardless of style both WTF and ITF are effective they have their own forms, sparring, self defense, breaking, and ways of practice. But the individual is the one who decides how he/she practices. As can be seen in creative foems, breaking, and sparring competitions the individual decides which combinations, kicks, and movements to execute in sparring, breaking, and creative forms. And even in regular forms the individual technique shows through. While he/she tries to make the technique excelent it is still their own in a way, however well trained they may be. That is the beauty of it all. An individual is not resticted by a style he can chose one or multiple styles like I do. All styles have their own techniques and prefrences but so does the indivudual. The person makes the style not the other way around. That is my opinion.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/12/06 04:57 AM
Round and round we go, when it will stop nobody knows. Anybody else what to get their two cents in?
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/15/06 03:24 PM
That is not true, I would just like to point out that Modern tkd is very standardized, when you see a kid perform a few kicking combinations you can see whether they are traditional tkd or modern.
You can go to an open tournament with dozens of styles including traditional tkd and modern tkd. Traditional style looks no differnt than the karate styles you see, while the modern tkd would look completely different. And I am not reffering to uniforms. The way kicking combinations are performed in Modern TKD are completely unique to any other style.
If you go to a sports orientated school you will see all the students practicing the exact same movements, working on the exact same kicks. Sparring methods are very similar in almost all schools who focus on Olympic style sparring.
Infact this is the real difference, there really is only 2 styles of TKD. All those other "styles" which supposevely are different because of the forms/patterns "poomse/hyungs" are the exact same thing, only the solo practiced forms are different.
However,the modern form of tkd executes techniques different. And this is the difference in style. The execution of technique and the emphasis from self defense to sparring.
Posted by: TimBlack
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/15/06 03:34 PM
Right, I'm gonna try and put a stop to this once and for all... and fail miserably
The distinction between 'modern' and 'traditional' is fundamentally flawed. All Martial Arts have evolved over a period of time, and TKD is no different. 'sports' TKD, as many people would call it, is no newer than what you call 'traditional' TKD, both are descended from much older arts, and both split up to a degree at a certain point down the road.
I don't understand why people consider Kung Fu or Muay Thai to be 'ancient' arts, when they've both responded to changes in thinking, and influences from other arts for centuries, every bit as long as TKD has been evolving. You simply cannot claim that any art is not 'modern', unless by that you mean that it is no longer practised.
So, basically, this whole discussion is based on a false premise - that there is trully a difference between 'traditional' and 'modern' Martial Arts. Now shut up everyone, 'coz I'm right
Posted by: trevek
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/15/06 03:37 PM
A good point to say MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/15/06 03:55 PM
Hey man I thought we were an unarmed martial art, why are you holding a bat...luckly my MODERN TKD teaches me a special technique for people holding bats. It's called RUNNING AWAY, why do you some TKD students practice with TKD shoes on ^^
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/15/06 04:30 PM
Quote:
A good point to say MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Does this mean you are asking for help?
I know this will go round and round but if I shut it down then some may think premature. It is a forum for discussion even if the same stuff gets recycled. If some feel it is time to close it down then let me know and I will or Razorfoot will. If you want to keep it going then feel free but play nice.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/15/06 05:56 PM
Are you kidding I love the title of this thread. Besides lately not many people have been posting, just the familiar few. Besides just because one person thinks it's a waist of time yet takes the time to actually post it's a waist of time say he feels its a pointless discussion, doesn't mean it's pointless. Especially since he posted just how pointless it is. PADOW!
Try and figure that one out Dereck LoL.
I say keep the thread going. But then again your the head honcho. Mnes is just a humble request and not a direct order. Oh mighty one.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/15/06 06:02 PM
Dereck
after reading Sjons post, definetly not, please do not end this thread, he came up with some interesting points, which I would lke to think about and address. Further I think othes should re-read his post and make direct comments on it. Rather than just making comments on the Title of the thread. Sjon has some good ideas it looks like. Stuff that probably wouldn't apply to TKD but definetly to okinawan forms. Sjon I get back to you, real good stuff though.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 01:29 AM
Perhaps Modern TKD can best be understood or defined by look at other arts in similar situations.
Jujitsu and judo: These two are the same art with different emphasis. One was practiced solely for self defense and fighting. However, the other one took out potentially lethal techniques and created randori (free sparring) using these limited ammount of techniques.
What I would like to point out about this is that before judo, noone knew the importance of sweeps and throws and their effectiveness in combat. Thanks to Jigaro Kano now we all know how effective they are in self defense. Before this the main aspects of jujitsu were bone breaking and submission (rough play) there was no effective way of isolating the techniues and practicing them. Now everyone knows that judo became a form of practice to educate kids in school and that because of the popularity the practice of randori became a sport.
Jujitsu and Bjj : Brazillian jujitsu emphasises ground work over stand up. Although when teaching basic self defense techniques BJJ is essentially stand up jujitsu, however, they discovered that just because the defener is on the ground he is not useless, and through this theory they crated a new style of jujitsu one that focus's on ground fighting. However, they still adhere to basic stand up self defense. HOwever, thier sport of grappling and self defense has changed through knowledge of ground techniques.
Traditional TKD and Modern TKD:
Posted by: sjon
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 02:31 AM
Quote:
after reading Sjons post, definetly not, please do not end this thread, he came up with some interesting points, which I would lke to think about and address. Further I think othes should re-read his post and make direct comments on it. Rather than just making comments on the Title of the thread.
Thank you Tek. Exactly. The thread was originally an attempt to clarify what people are actually talking about when they say things like "traditional" or "modern", and to comment on which aspect of the art the different versions focus on and how. The idea of one being in some way better than the other was never intended to be an issue, since this would certainly have been "shollow" 
.
Posted by: trevek
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 05:18 AM
ok, maybe i was wrong. i suppose i don't have to take part if i don't want to
Posted by: sjon
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 06:23 AM
Quote:
Sjon has some good ideas it looks like. Stuff that probably wouldn't apply to TKD but definetly to okinawan forms
To the TKD forms too, since most of them consist of entire passages directly copied from the Okinawan forms or only slightly altered, plus new passages using similar concepts.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 12:26 PM
Quote:
I still prefer to call them "traditional" Taekwondo or "sport" Taekwondo. Traditional of course has more bases in self defense, forms, etc. that also includes sparring. Sport of course has more emphasis on sparring and olympic competition. I am WTF but we are "traditional" not "sport". Not all WTF organizations are sport. AND not all ITF are traditional.
I think if you call one traditional the other should be called modern, because thse who practice this style of TKD do not necessarily have to compete. Nor is it required of them. Modern would be a better term meaning a style that emphasises sparring. It just so happends this form of sparring became extremely popular like judo.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 12:32 PM
“I agree with alot of what you say as well as that MANY of the techniques are the same. But there are different styles of TKD as there are different styles of karate. ITF practices the Chang Hon style, WTF the Kukki style. Their stances are different (a front stance in Kukki is much longer and deeper than in Chang Hon). This maybe a Picyune example but it is one that comes to mind, Then there is the sine wave, unique to Chang Hon and not accepted by Kukki. I don't have time to get into much more, but to say that the only thing that separates them is their sparring rules and patterns is incorrect, there are others as there are in the Japanese & Chinese styles. But there are many things that tie them together as well.
VDJ”
Okay I think I pretty much agree on this entire statement which VDJ makes which kind of confuses me because we’ve had some very long post between us these last 2 months going back and forth on what I thought were two different point of views. My only question I can even think of right now is, perhaps you aren’t feeling well and maybe the above statement is some sort of typo? LoL kidding. Honestly I’m a bit confused. Exactly what don’t we agree on? Because I know there was something.
-Tek
Posted by: matxtx
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 01:23 PM
hi Tek, me old kindey bean.
im unsure Tek if your comparing the very earliest TKD with the very latest TKD.
or
saying the WFT you practice is 'modern' compared to the ITF or other WTF or other organisations.
i think thats were my confusion comes in.
if its comparing earliest with the latest then i can see because everything progresses.though i dont know what the earliest did compared to what i do so cant compare.i cant compare how id respond to a punch if i did it that way...because i dont know.so cant say if it was useles or not
i think your putting to many things in boxes .taking your view of your training and saying thats what every 'traditional' person does.
the art side has progressed too.not just the sparring side.individual instructors change things.they have their views,their interpretations.its too diverse to box in so easy.
if i went by your thinking..i dont know what id be.'traditional or modern'?.
its like you say ITF does sine wave.not all do.i dont.its hip twist with any natural rise or fall.in my organisation no one sine waves that iv seen.
its impossible to lump things like that.
its dangerouse in all walks of life to do so in my opinion.
you cant say a ''chinese guy robed me'' so ''all chinese are robbers''.
its like you talk of 'traditional' being modified....maybe your technique was wrong before.maybe you didnt understand.
where i train my instructor states why your hip goes that way..why your hands are doing that.id suggest if your 'traditional' training meant it didnt work,maybe your doing it wrong.or not progressed enough yet.
if your hands are doing something that wont make it work..why do it.?that technique could be wrong.because you do something a certain way and say its traditional doesnt mean everyone does.
its like a low grade doing a knife handblock....,its not blocking anything..its like they just do because theyv been told you....if their not corrected.traditional TKD wont work..its crap.well no..its their technique.
TKD is young generaly and so can change.its founder was alive recently so has changed.every aspect of it can change.
its insulting that youd presume you know how i train and would class it as useless and outdated(yes iv used it) because i call my art side 'traditional' and the sparring side sport.
i THINK i can see where your coming from...in which case al TKD today ..ITF or WTF has progressed in which case we are all modern.....if someones TKD and it doesnt work or seems useless i argue its THIER technique not that its 'traditional'.
jeez thats long .lol
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 02:29 PM
Matxtx
I'm not entirely sure what your trying to say. But I think I can clear up some of your issues with me.
I have never said that Traditional TKD is useless and outdated.
The reason why I refer to ITF and tang soo do Moo duk kwan traditional styles of TKD is because they are just that. They are what used to be referred to as Korean Karate. The reason is because the techniques and even the forms themselves were taken from Japanese karate. You can see the shotokan influence in them. In fact many of the Korean Masters had been black belts in shotokan karate, which at that time was considered modern karate.
I do not refer to sport as a style, sport is sport its competition. What I do refer to is the style of TKD which emphasizes sparring. Not everyone who spars competes.
Now people say there is no such thing as traditional style and what I refer to as modern style, well I beg to differ. The difference is as clear as jujitsu, judo, Brazilian jujitsu. Same art but each style emphasizes different aspects. They focus on different area of training.
I have never judged one art and said it was better than another. I have claimed that I prefer my modern kicks better than the way I used to perform them. But that’s just personal preference.
Now I rarely ever go by organization unless I just am generalizing, but we all generalize because it’s easier to make a point. When I generalize it is usually because I am having a post to post conversation with a select group of individuals who understand what I mean and will not nick pick every single sentence just to get one up on me. They give me benefit of the doubt.
I cannot say that every WTF and ITF school is the same world wide. As I have said before these are organizations which anyone who pays an annual fee may become apart of.
Modern TKD to me executes kicks differently than traditional. I have stated different kicks in many other post so I will not do so here. Also when I was trying to convince those who place great emphasis on form/poomses/hyungs lots of people claim the form is what makes the style. So to these folks I said well modern TKD practices Taeguk forms so according to their criteria that makes them a different style. But everyone knows were I stand with TKD forms, I find them to be useless. But everyone knows that’s just my opinion. And many have been graceful enough to accept it and have tried to illustrate how they see forms. Not to convert me but to show a different perspective.
I agree with you that it is a dangerous thing to lump things together and generalize, but in this case I am neither hurting nor threatening anyone.
Gen Choi. Was not the founder of TKD, he merely named it. The art itself is represented by techniques and philosophy. Two elements that have always been around. He merely thought of a name. I am sure he added different things, like different methods of practice, but that’s something each individual instructor does.
When Master Choi thought of the name TKD is did it amongst other masters, he wasn't grand master he was elected head of some organization. Which if you want to know about this stuff talk to VDJ he's got the info on it, it'll make you go crazy on how much he knows about TKD history.
I don’t think one style is better than another. I’ve had the benefit of being a practitioner of both styles. Both styles have the same techniques, some styles perform them slightly different, some may have taken their method of performing them from other schools and still remain Traditional even though they now perform them the same way modern styles do. The lines are getting blurry because everyone borrows from everyone. But still it is nice to say we can organize it if we wanted to. At least for the sake of discussion.
The students who I train are taught with a mixture of both styles. Enough time is spent on learning plenty of hand techniques, basic self defense, proper form execution for belt advancement, and plenty of kicking combination for sparring purposes. However, there is also that extra curricular activity known as competition. Here is where we add fancy kicks, and students know these are just for sport and not real self defense.
-Tek
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 03:37 PM
Quote:
Now people say there is no such thing as traditional style and what I refer to as modern style, well I beg to differ. The difference is as clear as jujitsu, judo, Brazilian jujitsu. Same art but each style emphasizes different aspects. They focus on different area of training.
I wouldn't say these are they same art. Jujitsu is were it all started and Judo was derived from it by taking out aspects to make it less dangerous. Brazilian Jujitsu is closer to Judo then Jujitsu but includes so much more to make it something different. Each over time have evolved into their own art. Yes I will agree then share many common things and it is easy to train in each if you know one or the other, but the same they are not. That would be like saying Karate, Kung Fu, Taekwondo and many others are the same as they kick, punch and block. Many martial arts may have some resemblance to another or have history in the other but they are certainly different and have evolved as their own styles.
Quote:
So to these folks I said well modern TKD practices Taeguk forms so according to their criteria that makes them a different style.
I'm not sure I interpreted this right TeK so forgive me if I didn't. I am WTF and we do practice Taegeuk forms. We practice a lot of traditional stuff and we do sport spar as well as self defense train/spar or MMA train/spar. How would one "label" us? We are traditional. We are sport. We are modern (with the way we think and train). It is hard to "label" or "box" up Taekwondo, as I'm sure this is prevelant in other martial arts. We are a little bit of each which I'm assuming most of us are. I think that I will just be Taekwondo ... no modern, no traditional, no sport ... just Taekwondo. The name may be modern and they way we think and train, traditional methods may be trained, sport may be prevelant in the system ... and so much more ... so Taekwondo it is.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 04:09 PM
Dereck
I see the term Taekwondo as a gernerlization. The same way I see kung fu, karate, jujutsu.
Posted by: TimBlack
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 04:13 PM
But isn't the term 'modern' or 'traditional' also a generalisation? As Dereck says, no schools adhere strictly to your criteria for modernity of tradition; can we then take the distinction as a clear one, or rather a sliding scale between various different factors?
Posted by: trevek
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 05:02 PM
Quote:
Gen Choi. Was not the founder of TKD, he merely named it.
I was under the impression the General was founder of Chang Hon TKD. The name being his nom de plume, meaning 'blue cottage'.
I am still unhappy about the idea of 'traditional' and 'modern' when referring to something only 50 years old. How long does it take to make a tradition?
As ITF Chang Hon has developed the notion of 'sine wave' in the last 15 years or so, doesn't that make it more modern than Kukki, which doesn't recognise it?
By this reckoning, what you refer to as 'trad' TKD is now 'modern'.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 05:05 PM
Maybe this is one of those questions that can't be answered. Like what is at Area 51 that is so secret? Who really built the pyramids? Who built Stonehenge? What is Taekwondo?
There are so many different types of Taekwondo depending on the organization and even within these organizations. Heck we have 3 schools in total and all three have a similar format for testing but our school does grappling/MMA, another only does grappling and the third does none. We are more the same then most and we are different. All Instructors trained by the same Master and trained together for more then 18 years. In fact last night my Instructor and a young black belt went over to the school I listed last as "none" to teach Kickboxing.
I don't have the answer but I also don't want to paint all Taekwondo as the same nor do I want to separate them into little categories and boxes as that would also be a nightmare in itself. Taekwondo is the umbrella with a lot of different sections underneath. This goes to what my Instructor discussed before.
A. He trained Taekwondo under his Master and when seeing other schools he could not understand why they did not do as much or were incapable of certain techniques. When he discussed this with his Master he found out that Hapkido was trained as well. When he asked why he did not show as both his Master simply answered that he was trained this way as a child. That Taekwondo was simple the umbrella that he had decided to call it.
B. Later as my Instructor trained, opened his own school and then took up other martial arts bring them back to his school and teaching; a thought did cross my Instructor. He wasn't just teaching Taekwondo but a multitude of different arts. With all of the Taekwondo bashing he actually had thought about renaming it Mixed Martial Arts but soon decided that he was proud of his Taekwondo heritage and followed in his Master's footsteps and called it Taekwondo with all the others included under the umbrella.
And if you've read any other stuff from me you may remember that I've said that most who have no experience with martial arts don't even realize that what we are being taught is not just Taekwondo. That most think this is what it is suppose to be like. It is only people like myself that got really interested in it and talked with the Instructor to find this out. We do talk about where the techniques come from but I would bet many don't pay attention as not much emphasis is put on it. They are techniques that flow together seamlessly due to good instruction by our Instructor. We never stop and say, today we are doing BJJ. Or today we are doing Hapkido. This is strictly Taekwondo. This is Muay Thai. It is Taekwondo … very simple if you don't over think it.
The thing is, you can't please everybody outside of Taekwondo as they will never understand it. For that matter you can't please everybody inside of Taekwondo as they will also never understand it. Taekwondo is many things to many people. It is an umbrella of itself or many arts blended in. It is taught the way the Instructor interprets it and wants to teach it. As long as we come together as one to announce that we love Taekwondo then that is all that really matters.
Posted by: trevek
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 05:12 PM
I once interviewed Master Hee Il Cho and asked him how far you can adapt TKD before it isn't TKD anymore.
"As long as you remember what your roots are it will always be TKD"
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 05:14 PM
Quote:
I once interviewed Master Hee Il Cho and asked him how far you can adapt TKD before it isn't TKD anymore.
"As long as you remember what your roots are it will always be TKD"
Nicely put ...amen. 
Posted by: trevek
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 05:17 PM
I'll try to find the tape with the interview and submit it to FA library if you like.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 05:54 PM
Trevek it's traditional because it's the samething as Japanese karate. Only back then it was called Korean Karate. Which is the same thing as Japanese karate.
The Modern TKD is less than 40 years old, when the techniques were changed to revolved more around the sparring
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 05:57 PM
hehe good luck trying to find a proud korean who will say that TKD is a Japanese knock off. Nope not gonna happend, they will claim TKD is 2000 years old. Anyone eles tired of seeing those two silly images of fat men who lok like their dancing and not performing martial arts.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 06:01 PM
eww if you leave TKD so losely then you cant really talk about it now can you. Nah its best to get some particulars so we can categorize it and put it away nicely so it can be looked at and disected. After all whenever you see someone publishing an article about new kicks in TKD and new techniques it's always so scientifically now.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 06:08 PM
Quote:
hehe good luck trying to find a proud korean who will say that TKD is a Japanese knock off. Nope not gonna happend, they will claim TKD is 2000 years old. Anyone eles tired of seeing those two silly images of fat men who lok like their dancing and not performing martial arts.
Not sure what this is referring too?
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 06:11 PM
Quote:
eww if you leave TKD so losely then you cant really talk about it now can you. Nah its best to get some particulars so we can categorize it and put it away nicely so it can be looked at and disected. After all whenever you see someone publishing an article about new kicks in TKD and new techniques it's always so scientifically now.
I thought you might find this useful.
Just let me know what label my Taekwondo gets? Thanks.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/16/06 06:12 PM
It refers to TKD's history. And how it is full of controversy. A. is it korean karate Japanese in origin or
B. Is korean karate native to korean, did korea truly have indigenous martial arts.
Posted by: matxtx
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 12:38 PM
i think for me im just going to call it 'art side' and 'sports side'.
it depends on who you are and what you want out of TKD.
things either work or they dont.useable technique or useless technique...for whatever you want to do.
i just dont like seeing assumptions and people talking of things they dont care for or study.we should all stick to what we kmow of our training and shut up about others.doesnt matter what a book in 1950 said or a book on another thing.or getting information like that then painting al like that. that doesnt convey accuracy for everything.you can read so many versions of anykind of history or thing..heck i even saw today how some think the playwright shakespear was actually the poet marlowe or vise versa.lol.
and tek i know you dont like forms.im nottryingto convert or change your mind.its impossible to do so with anyone.
im referingto yourerliest post of comparing 'modern' to 'tradition' and your talk of long windedness.. ...faster things etc.you came across as it was wrong then, yet your way is right now.and that we all do what you did hence we are all wrong and outdated and your ways the dogs b######s im sorry if im wrong on that assumption.
im going to go read marlowe..erm shakespear..erm..sod it......little red riding hood will do.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 03:27 PM
Oh you mean my refference to the round house kick. How traditionaly TKDer's lifted the knee out and swung the leg in a wide arc trajectory towards the target. And how for sport they used scicence to come up with a faster way of kicking which is shorter and depends more on the hip. The way modern TKDer's do the round kick they start by lifting the knee straight up, it's similar chamber to front kick, infact you cant see the differenc in between the two kicks until the kicker decides to turn his hips at the last moment and re-direct the leg, bending the knee and turning the hips simultaneously.
This simultaneously hip rotation and knee bending is what makes this kick the hardest to learn of the basic kicks. At least in modern sparring based TKD.
Usually though for breaking the old way is preffered because you get more power.
Remember fellas old does not mean BAD, jst means traditional, it does not mean useless. NOt in this case anyway, it's a matter of prefference. However, for sparring purposes it's found that the new way is superior. However for in-close self defense either way is fine.
I say this because I have seen american kenpo, kajukenpo,uechi ryu, and tang soo do practitioners use the old way in self defense.
-TeK
Posted by: matxtx
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 03:40 PM
oh.no.not a specific technique just i thought it was your view of all alot of them.
yea i do the sport sparring kick too.though i wouldnt say it depends more on the hip than the art kick does(if thats what you meant).for both kicks the hip is involved.
good point on the science bit.i believe alot of TKD is based on the theory of power and newtons law and other motion sciences.
mm i must state iv nothing against the sports side.i really like it.its hard to be a top sparrer physicaly,especially done well.lots of respect to the tactic side and speed at which you have to think..or 'not think'.lol.the combinations.jeez.my legs ache thinking about it.lol.
i just like to offer the other view and the positives of the art side.and not see it painted one way.
Posted by: trevek
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 03:53 PM
Quote:
i think for me im just going to call it 'art side' and 'sports side'.
my old sabum used to differentiate further by saying there was the art, the sport and the real (practical).
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 04:07 PM
My focus on TKD is on sparring and self defense. Both I would put under practical.
I also like to do research on psychological aspects such as decision making under stress.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 04:51 PM
I believe a big part of the misunderstanding that many people on this forum have with me is that I try and promote the positive aspect of modern tkd. It may not be your fault I may not be presenting my views in a proper fashion. You say I am very much for the practice of sparring. Particularly the practice of modern tkd sparring under the WTF rules. I like it; I enjoy sparring with those limitations. It has allowed me to see just how effective kicks can be. Much the same as in judo, the limitations used in randori sparring as influenced all martial arts by showing the value in throwing and sweeping techniques. If not for judo sparring rules, everyone would probably just be doing locking or bone breaking.
Now many might read this and say "is he crazy, when is a spinning jumping hook kick appropriate in self defense?"
As I have said many times, those who practice sport know not to use such techniques in self defense. Besides when I say sparring I am not referring to the sport techniques, but the basic techniques which are learned in all TKD schools no matter what style of TKD you practice.
The difference between traditional and modern tkd lie in the emphasis. Modern tkd is geared towards sparring and competition. However, this does not mean self defense is not practice and that it is not practical. Most traditional tkd schools are geared towards self defense and forms practice along with breaking. This does not mean they do not spar.
Being a practitioner from two very different schools I have seen the difference in which the kicking techniques are executed. Same kicks however, performed differently. The modern kicks were created because of the focus on sparring. Now I myself have chosen to prefer the newer way of kicking than the old because it allows me to have speed and mobility. Another practitioner may prefer the traditional way of kicking because they have more power.
Now many of you know what step sparring is, this is a method of teaching practical self defense and fighting techniques using tkd’s entire arsenal. As many of you know these step sparring exercises will always be appropriate in self defense situations. We practice the exercises in order to familiar ourselves with the technique and their application however, in a real life situation we will find that we will have to make alterations to our techniques in order to adapt to the situation.
Example: In a step sparring technique the attacker attacks and the defender blocks and then counterattacks. In the dojang you may have practiced your step sparring exercise with 5 counter attacking techniques, maybe 4 strikes followed by 1 kick to finish off the assailant. However, in a real life situation you may find that only the 4 strikes are necessary to finish off your assailant. And you didn’t use the kick. This is the kind of alteration each martial artist will have to make.
Another example of step sparring vs. multiple attackers: first, assailant attacks, defender (you) block and then counter however, before you finish your step sparring exercise the way you practice in the dojang, you see the second assailant begin his attack. So you must cut your step sparring exercise short in order to deal with the other attacker.
Now you have only managed to get 1 hit on the first attacker and now are blocking the attack of the second assailant. Now since you managed to get 1 hit off the first assailant, you may have time to perform the full step sparring exercise technique on the second assailant. However, that may not be the case and so you must make alterations again, depending on the situation.
Depending on the attacks you flow from one step soaring exercise to the other, making alterations as you go along.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 04:58 PM
Some people get hung up calling the traditional the "art" and modern "sport". I think they have a misunderstanding of the definition of the art. When referring to oriental arts, the art means the way or path, similar to the DO. But I think many practitioners think it's refers to the aesthetic when it does not, it is the combination of the spiritual and philosophical with the physical. This makes Taekwondo an art. So in essence either you practice the traditional or the modern it is still a martial art.
-Tek
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 05:11 PM
Quote:
Trevek it's traditional because it's the samething as Japanese karate. Only back then it was called Korean Karate. Which is the same thing as Japanese karate.
The Modern TKD is less than 40 years old, when the techniques were changed to revolved more around the sparring
This is where we differ Tek. You consider Chang Hon/ITF traditional. Kukki also has`a lot of traditional as well. Practiced mostly as Chung Do Kwan. It has`nothing to do with the ITF. It's patterns are different, the stances are somewhat different, the terminology is different, BUT there sparring is strictly Olympic. This is what I have been trying to get at. You are trying to separate the sparring from the other side of it and then call it modern. I can't remember who posted this above as this thread has become so long, but they mention the sine wave only being about 15 or so years into the chang hon style, and they are correct, it wa part of its modernerzation, or better yet, its evolution. ITF has also gone to continuous sparring, some venues full contact, this also makes it more modern. What I have been saying all along is your view of the differences was more narrow. Modern TKD applies to both orgs and styles, just now olympic sparring !
VDJ
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 05:13 PM
"just now olympic sparring"
that should read :
"just not olympic sparring"
VDJ
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 06:40 PM
Quote:
Oh you mean my refference to the round house kick. How traditionaly TKDer's lifted the knee out and swung the leg in a wide arc trajectory towards the target. And how for sport they used scicence to come up with a faster way of kicking which is shorter and depends more on the hip. The way modern TKDer's do the round kick they start by lifting the knee straight up, it's similar chamber to front kick, infact you cant see the differenc in between the two kicks until the kicker decides to turn his hips at the last moment and re-direct the leg, bending the knee and turning the hips simultaneously.
This simultaneously hip rotation and knee bending is what makes this kick the hardest to learn of the basic kicks. At least in modern sparring based TKD.
This part of your post TeK caught my eye. Not too long ago when talking with my Instructor he said they practiced what you refer to as the "traditional" or "old way" of kicking the roundhouse. And this was how the WTF did it as well. Then when his Master went home to South Korea and returned back, he said that things had changed and they were going to change as well for the roundhouse making it faster. This was probably only about 15 years ago. So up until then I would bet many WTF were still doing it the older way as well.
Just thought I'd share that.
And further to this topic of changing. His Master though still paying his dues to the WTF no longer follows there ways because of too many changes that are not for the good. My Instructor being on the board of the Taekwondo Alliance has also noted several changes that are coming around that he also doesn't agree with. For now were are continuing as is as I think many are. Will me change to fit all of the WTF's changes ... who knows for sure but there is a possibility we may not and do what is best for the school and students. Remember, all changes are not necessarily good.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 11:19 PM
I consider the ITF traditional TKD or Korean Karate because it looks very much like Shotokan.
And I consider the WTF modern because it's forms are unique and actually depict the types of techniques and stances used in sparring. Furthermore, modern tkd kicks are performed in a different manner with emphasis is more on sparring.
The traditional aspects are still the same as they are with almost any oriental art. A sense of spiritualism, ethics, philosphy and ritual are still involved. It is only the phsysical aspects that have changed.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/18/06 11:26 PM
Yea many of the sparring techniques have really been recent, you can always find articles written by Herb Perez talking about some new kind of strategy, kicks, combination. Many things he said were not available to him back in 1988.
Herb Perez, 1992, First American TKD Olympic Gold Medalist; Barcelona, Spain.
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/19/06 10:16 AM
Quote:
I consider the ITF traditional TKD or Korean Karate because it looks very much like Shotokan.
And I consider the WTF modern because it's forms are unique and actually depict the types of techniques and stances used in sparring. Furthermore, modern tkd kicks are performed in a different manner with emphasis is more on sparring.
The traditional aspects are still the same as they are with almost any oriental art. A sense of spiritualism, ethics, philosphy and ritual are still involved. It is only the phsysical aspects that have changed.
Then you haven't been reading anything I said at all. Yes it's roots are from Shotokan as is most of TKD (If you called Chang Hon "Korean karate", you would be putting your training to the test as it is they who consider Kukki more karate like !). Go watch an ITF sparring tournament, VERY similar to Olympic. And finally for the umpteenth time, no other martial art emphasizes (or accepts for most matters) the sine wave ! Also, please give me a reference in the name of a WTF pattern that makes it unique and its stances how more emphasis to sparring stances, as all the patterns I have seen from WTF have a much longer and deeper stance than does Chang Hon (with the exception of the walking stance found in Koryo).
VDJ
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/19/06 10:30 AM
Quote:
Yea many of the sparring techniques have really been recent, you can always find articles written by Herb Perez talking about some new kind of strategy, kicks, combination. Many things he said were not available to him back in 1988.
Herb Perez, 1992, First American TKD Olympic Gold Medalist; Barcelona, Spain.
The reason for this is that the WTF is a much larger org than the ITF and its success in getting their version of sparring into the olympics. It does not make them any more modern than Chang Hon. All styles have an evolutionary aspect to them as well as a traditional side. This is why I have an issue considering only olympic sparring to be the "Modern" version. It only seems that way as it gets more exposure than it's chang hon counter part. Now I am not very familiar as to how Muay Thai has evolved, but do you think that they have not also changed some of their techniques in how to become better fighters ? This is true of most all martial arts, kukki and chang hon, as well as keeping their traditional sides!
VDJ
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/19/06 02:35 PM
All the taeguek 1-8 have the walking stance in them. And the forward, back and cat stances are shorter more upright than in any other style of forms practiced. They are certanly not deeper.
Also I think your psuhing this whole sign wave thing, I dont think many people outside the ITF have ever heard of it. It does not sound like some revolutionary practice as you try and make it to be.
As for me going to an ITF tourny, they must only keep to themselves because out here in northern california I never here about any. I attend open tournaments and see non WTF TKDer's not sure if they are ITF but they are certainly traditional TKD.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/19/06 02:51 PM
Sure it makes WTF style more modern and uniquely different from all other versions of TKD. Back when the kwans were trying to unite or were united. All the styles looked the same. The practice methods were the same. The way the kicks were executed were the same. When they broke up each kwan made up their own forms...big deal forms dont really make a difference if everyone has the same techniques just in different order, they pretty much are all still the same style. However, the WTF no longer looks that way. They have changed thier stances, kicks, and emphasise sparring. Sparring which is now a world wide practice Olympic sport. This is the true evolution of TKD and something that can be traced to back to korea, unlike those old masters who claimed they learned taekyon, subak and cant really trace back their history passed thie own teachers or mysterious monk masters.
The current modern TKD is a martial art that is purely korean made, it has evolved from it'sjapanese counter part and has become something new. Something purely korean. Something they can say "OKay this is when we did this, changed this, adopted this and that into the system" Somthing they can all agree on. Unlike the kwons who couldn't even get along in the past with everyones mixed history about where they really trained and under who they trained with. Hell you can even call it Olympic TKD making it completely different from all the other ones. People may complain about the modern TKD system and how it's so non traditional and it's less lethal more sport. But they just need to be happy that they are tagging along onthe band wagon simply because their school uses the name taekwondo and for all their whinning and complaining they are benefiting from teh current popularity in modern tkd.
Posted by: matxtx
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/19/06 04:54 PM
tek in the beginning post of yours you were comparing your 'modern' to 'traditional' and i was saying that we in the ITF spar the way you do too except under different rules.we are all using the same techniques when we spar.footwork etc...all these things you mention.we are all doing it.
its going round in circles.
what is your point of pointing out your WTF you do is modern?
how come you want to point this out?or bring it up?
there was no need in the beginningto talk of the roundkick knee chambered up or footwork or evading as we all do it.
what was the reason in the beginning?
and the patterns evolve too.tecniques can be worked realisticaly.in fact id say that as training goes on we all personaly evolve and get better at techniques or change it anyhow.
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/19/06 06:33 PM
Quote:
All the taeguek 1-8 have the walking stance in them. And the forward, back and cat stances are shorter more upright than in any other style of forms practiced. They are certanly not deeper.
Also I think your psuhing this whole sign wave thing, I dont think many people outside the ITF have ever heard of it. It does not sound like some revolutionary practice as you try and make it to be.
As for me going to an ITF tourny, they must only keep to themselves because out here in northern california I never here about any. I attend open tournaments and see non WTF TKDer's not sure if they are ITF but they are certainly traditional TKD.
The problem here Tek is termonology. The walking stance in Kukki is not the same as it is in Chang Hon. Yes it is much shorter an upright than the Chang Hon walking stance, but the Kukki front stance is much longer and deeper and more similar to the Chang Hon walking stance than the Kukki counter part of the same name. Cat stance is also found in numerous Chang Hon patterns but is refered to as Rear stance. The L-stance in Chang Hon is shorter than the back stance in Kukki and the Kukki fixed stance is by far longer and deeper than Chang Hon. I have seen the Taeguek patterns and other than the two stances that you point out (which can be found in Chang Hon patterns under the afore mentioned names) the stances are longer and deeper (more karate like).
And as far as the sine wave, I am not pushing anything, it is part of their curriculum and is documented in their encyclopedia. Again, the reason you may not be finding ITF tourney's is because WTF is a much larger org. The south Korean gov't backs it and help it grow as to combat the General when they had their falling out. I suggest that you visit one of their web sites to see where a tourney may be near you. It is much more prevalent in Canada than it is in the states but its here. As a matter of fact I will talk to some friends of mine who might be able to direct you as to help you out with this. When I get the info I will PM you with it.
Lastly, what you are refering to as purely Korean again is just evolutionary of the roots of which it came and is only the sporting aspect of it and I do not see a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon as you have claimed. It is in REAL danger of losing its olympic status after the 2008 games.
VDJ
Posted by: dicen
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/20/06 12:34 AM
I believe we need to step back away from the "Organizations" for a moment and talk about the techniques and philosophy. I think that is where Tek9 is trying to categorize.
Before the Taeguk forms there were the Palgaes and Chung Chi forms. Now if those forms are very similar to shotokan Karate. Now along with that in the old days you couldn't really distinguish TKD and Karate their techniques were the same the only difference was their choice in techniques, Karate was hands oriented while TKD emphasized kicking. The way the techniques were executed were the same for both styles. Now I believe this is what Tek9 is trying to refer to as the "traditional" style.
The "modern" style of TKD would be when the Taeguk forms were introduced, which would be around the time TKD switched to a continous sparring system, much like boxing, eliminating hand techniques to the head (I'm not mentioning organizations because it is not relavent to the topic). When this form of sparring was introduced new forms were created along with techniques geared toward the new sparring system. Kicks were studied and changed to become more efficient, faster, but with a bit less power. For example, the roundhouse kick no longer looked like a person swinging a baseball bat, the chamber looked similar to a front kick. Stances were not as deep as before they were now walking stances instead of back stances and such. This allowed for faster combinations and more movability. The "traditional" strategy of "one punch one kill" no longer applied to this new form of sparring. For example it is rare to see a boxer knock out a person with just one punch, those individuals that can do that are very rare. Boxers rely on punching combinations to take out their opponent. This is the case with this new form of TKD sparring. The techniques changed, the philosphy changed, the new forms were created to exihibit the new way of doing the techniques.
Now that being said compare the "traditional" with the "modern" style of TKD, you would see a distinct difference. The reason Tek9 calls them styles is because there are TKD schools that teach the "traditional" style. Sjon brought up a point that he would rather not call them styles but instead list them as TKD time periods, but that would mean that the "traditional" method of TKD was in the past, but it still is being taught now, so it cannot be a time period it has to be a style because the techniques are different, and the philosophy is different. An example could be Hapkido and Aikido. They both have roots from Daito Ryu Justsu but they have different philosohpies and some of their techniques though similar are done differently. I believe this was what Tek9 was trying to convey and yes you should be able to categorize them because they are different in application of technique and in philosophy.
Posted by: trevek
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/20/06 06:08 AM
Not being a shotokan stylist (unless you include Chang Hon
) I am only going by what I have read. Older stances of shotokan were apparently a lot higher than modern ones. Apparently if you look at old pictures of shotokan the modern stances are much deeper. In which case is there an argument that the higher stnces of Kukki are closer to older stances of shotokan?
check out some of the pictures here:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/le_ronin/Accueil.htm
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/21/06 06:36 PM
I don't think there are any "real" applications to TKD Poomse.
I am a firm believer in the effectiveness of all arts if they are understood (and more to the point if real combat is understood), However...
The korean forefathers of tkd were taught a non-application based shotokan with many ideas about techniques and kata that we now laugh at with disdain and wonder how so many karateka went so long without questioning them.
TKD's effectiveness came from the solid contact based training of basic techniques that are not all listed in its forms. TKD is a modern art that was transmitted not through kata but through basics and sparring.
Add to this void of kata knowledge the fact that the Taeguks were created not to teach combat but as a means of seperating TKD from the Conformity device of the japanese invaders (aka karate) and you have a bunch of forms that mean next to nothing as far as actual fighting goes.
On the other hand... next to nothing is still something (hence the "mostly" disagree)...
Perhaps I am just biased because I studied Shotokan forms before I studied Taeguks. If u break down and practice the taeguk forms with a view to fighting then you will fight with them; they are just karate basics and so they work as well as karate basics do (all though a number of the combinations are questionable). My gripe is just that they lack the same depth mainly because of how obviously they try to get away from their ancestry. TKD really comes into its own when it fights as a Modern art as opposed to attempting to relive a history that isn't there.
Also please dont get me wrong I am a strong supporter of TKD as its own modern art and a firm believer in its effectiveness. I very much prise the knowledge and ability I've gained from TKD.
As for TKD being derived from many korean arts and other MA besides karate, I have often heard this said but I have never heard anything concrete to support this.
-Shonuff
The post above was takend from two posts contributed by Shonuf regarding TKD. I have copied and posted it on here to represent a similar attitude towards Modern TKD.
-TeK
P.S. Dicen thank you for clearing that up for them, if they don't understand now they probably never will.
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/21/06 08:07 PM
Quote:
I don't think there are any "real" applications to TKD Poomse.
I am a firm believer in the effectiveness of all arts if they are understood (and more to the point if real combat is understood), However...
The korean forefathers of tkd were taught a non-application based shotokan with many ideas about techniques and kata that we now laugh at with disdain and wonder how so many karateka went so long without questioning them.
TKD's effectiveness came from the solid contact based training of basic techniques that are not all listed in its forms. TKD is a modern art that was transmitted not through kata but through basics and sparring.
Add to this void of kata knowledge the fact that the Taeguks were created not to teach combat but as a means of seperating TKD from the Conformity device of the japanese invaders (aka karate) and you have a bunch of forms that mean next to nothing as far as actual fighting goes.
On the other hand... next to nothing is still something (hence the "mostly" disagree)...
Perhaps I am just biased because I studied Shotokan forms before I studied Taeguks. If u break down and practice the taeguk forms with a view to fighting then you will fight with them; they are just karate basics and so they work as well as karate basics do (all though a number of the combinations are questionable). My gripe is just that they lack the same depth mainly because of how obviously they try to get away from their ancestry. TKD really comes into its own when it fights as a Modern art as opposed to attempting to relive a history that isn't there.
Also please dont get me wrong I am a strong supporter of TKD as its own modern art and a firm believer in its effectiveness. I very much prise the knowledge and ability I've gained from TKD.
As for TKD being derived from many korean arts and other MA besides karate, I have often heard this said but I have never heard anything concrete to support this.
-Shonuff
The post above was takend from two posts contributed by Shonuf regarding TKD. I have copied and posted it on here to represent a similar attitude towards Modern TKD.
-TeK
P.S. Dicen thank you for clearing that up for them, if they don't understand now they probably never will.
The same could be said the other way as well Tek. If you don't see the the applications in the forms (looking beyond just the movement) then you never will as long as you keep the blinders on. I would love to be able to train with you Tek, just because I think I could show you more of what I mean rather than trying to always put it down in words. Maybe someday that will be a reality, until then, we have this forum !
VDJ
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/22/06 12:08 PM
Does anyone here train for Olympic style sparring?
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/22/06 12:30 PM
Yes, but not a lot. Our Taekwondo sparring is WTF Olympic style and we are tested on this for each belt with requirements. However we don't emphasize this type of sparring so may only spar like this once every week or once every two weeks. And then if you don't come to that class during the week it is provided you may not spar for a month. Some people will try to hit the sparring classes everytime they come up whereas myself I try to hit every grappling class. It is a matter of preference and why I'm better on the ground then stand up. I have to know the stand up so I do attend these classes (but could do more). Again sparring is a requirement for testing whereas grappling you are not tested on at this point until you are a 3rd Dan and higher.
Posted by: matxtx
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/22/06 12:59 PM
its all coming back to how the person is training in my opinion.just because one person cant see or comprehend how to use patterns doesnt mean another cant.
its impossible to go into things in words,better to show.like iv said alot depends on the technique of who's doing it.
the modern thing again is still confusing me in a way.i still dont get what the point is.lets say we do label it modern..then what?
i can see how the olympic sparring is modern and evolved for the enviroment its in.i can imagine,i think, how patterns could be done to go more towards sparring based things.though iv not seen these patterns and it would be interesting to.
though when it comes to self defence its just what works.
no modern no traditional.iv used my TKD for real so to me ,if we were to talk of modern etc...id be modern enough.lol.modern means the 'other' isnt and so outdated.you cant outdate a hard front kick to someones nuts..or a sweep or an open hand strike.or a knee or an elbow or a knife hand strike or a hammer fist or ...etc,etc
and where are all theses found...in patterns.well in the ITF ones i do.
iv actually done what i call a TKD middle block in a real situation..it wasnt as clean and it more smothered and off ballanced them so i could pile in.depending on your technique people might read it and go ..''thats crap'',others might go..''i can see how thats so''....i dont care.it worked for me.i train it to work.it wont for others.
its too personal to class.
ilike treveks one...art side ,sport side,real application side.
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/22/06 04:53 PM
Quote:
Does anyone here train for Olympic style sparring?
Yes, we do, as well as stop point. As I said, my intructor is very accomplished in Olympic style sparring, just doesn't reccomend it for self defense. Being an ex NYS Trooper and one of their top self defense tactical instructors, she feels that these techniques are more effective.
VDJ
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/23/06 01:18 PM
When you attend a Modern TKD school the focus is on WTF style sparring. Infact not every TKD instructor is well suited to teach kids this kind of training. When you walk into a sparring orientated school you see it's more of an athletic environment. Usually the students tend to be in better shape. Many times TKD schools offer competitive training programs as a special program which require additional fee's. They are advertised in similar fashion as Black belt club or Little dragons program. Sometimes teachers would hire other instructors who have experience in this kind of training. Because these techniques are fairly new and always evolving. SO it's kind of a seperate entity from traditional TKD.
The difference between athletes really is dependant ono the school they attend and the instruction of their teachers. A practitioner of traditional tkd who competes in wtf style sparring would not be able to hold his own against against a competitor from a sparring orientated school. Even if the traditionalist where to rpactice sparring on a constant basis, the right instructor is needed in order to become proficient.
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/23/06 03:05 PM
Quote:
When you attend a Modern TKD school the focus is on WTF style sparring. Infact not every TKD instructor is well suited to teach kids this kind of training. When you walk into a sparring orientated school you see it's more of an athletic environment. Usually the students tend to be in better shape. Many times TKD schools offer competitive training programs as a special program which require additional fee's. They are advertised in similar fashion as Black belt club or Little dragons program. Sometimes teachers would hire other instructors who have experience in this kind of training. Because these techniques are fairly new and always evolving. SO it's kind of a seperate entity from traditional TKD.
The difference between athletes really is dependant ono the school they attend and the instruction of their teachers. A practitioner of traditional tkd who competes in wtf style sparring would not be able to hold his own against against a competitor from a sparring orientated school. Even if the traditionalist where to rpactice sparring on a constant basis, the right instructor is needed in order to become proficient.
Tek,
Your comment about a tradiitionalist who would spar against a competitor who focus' strictly on WTF sparring couldn't hold their own is crap and untrue. I would expect better of you, this is a very elitist statement. There have been many that have crossed over and not only held their own, but won ! Yes, coaches and instructors are important, but in the end, its up to the competitor ! Remember, anybody can beat anybody when it's their day. James "Buster" Douglas proved that when he KO'd Tyson, and that wasn't Kevin Rooney's fault either !
VDJ
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/23/06 05:37 PM
What I said is true. Traditional TKD spar like most japanese karate schools do. If any of them were to try and switch over to wtf sparring they would not do well without the proper training. No matter how much sparring they did in thier school. The right instructor is needed to teach wtf style sparring. Even if your current instructor were WTF offiliated and certified he may not know a single thing about sparring. This is a fact. Which seperates the elite competitors from the rest.
Buster douglas beat mike tyson in the same sport they have both competed all their lives, both of them were familiar with the rules. A better example would be a kick boxer vs. a boxer. SImilar but different. Just like my TKD example; similar but different.
I suppose my statement could be percived ini a number of ways. Some could give me the benefit of the doubt and assume all things not being equal the traditionalist is going to a new style of sparrign with different rules...ofcourse he wouldn't stand a chance, then again there are those who would just like to post something.
P.S. we need more threads in this forum, think of orignal ideas people, think debatable issues. We have the second most popular forum. But we get more spectators than actualy posters. Dont be afraid to post your thoughts guys. It's scarry tpo be judge but who gives a hoot, say what you want to say and see what others think of it.
You will get three kinds of responses. EDither someone praises you for what you say, judges you claims you are right or wrong and then states their own opinion contrary to yours, or they just right what they feel without judgeing you. Good lukc on the thrid one though.
So step up folks.
On a seperate note, I believe mike tyson lost that match because he had just switched promoters, his trainer left him, and did you see his corner? durring the breaks they didn't even provide him with a stool to sit on in many of the breaks, he had no experienced cut man, they didn't even bring ice for him to use. Tyson was telling his corner what to do he was applying th vaseline on himself. If I remember correctly some guy decided to fill a hand glove with some cold water and that served as his ice pack.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/24/06 12:33 AM
TeK, I will have to go with VDJ on this. Anybody can beat anybody and I think somebody coming over from ITF could do very well in WTF if that is the kind of person they are. I honestly believe it is what somebody has inside that makes everything on the outside work so well.
But I will pass on this tid bit for you. Years back (before my time) our WTF club entered an ITF tournament (continuous point sparring). Even lightly sparring for points and not trying to kill them like our club is used to, our WTF fighters clearly were the better fighters and eventually we were asked to leave because they were going too hard when clearly they weren't and the ITF clubs were too frightened to fight us.
A month ago our Instructor took some of the junior fighters (16-18) to a kick boxing tournament and after one of our 18 years olds won his first 3 fights definitively and his 4th by knock out, he was disqualified for being too aggressive and going too hard. Got me on that one, especially when one of our 17 years olds was punched in the face and had to take a time out to stop the bleeding and when it continued he kicked the hell out of the guy and then was disqualified as well for being too hard.
Again it is the people, the mentality and what they have inside that counts. The skills can help don't get me wrong as clearly many of our junior fighters far exceeded their fighters ... eventhough they were seasoned tournament fighters and this was our first attempts.
Posted by: trevek
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/24/06 02:45 AM
Quote:
What I said is true. Traditional TKD spar like most japanese karate schools do.
Sorry, I'd dispute this a little. You only have to look at a group like TAGB, who are a Chang Hon organisation but have had success in WTF-style competition. Likewise, an ITF club here in Poland has become involved in WTF (although they still practice Chang Hon) and are also having a lot of success (at least one of the members being listed for the Polish Olympic team).
Chang Hon stylists in UK (I can't speak much of other places) often use some very non-traditional looking techniques when competing.
Posted by: VDJ
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/24/06 11:53 AM
Quote:
Quote:
What I said is true. Traditional TKD spar like most japanese karate schools do.
Sorry, I'd dispute this a little. You only have to look at a group like TAGB, who are a Chang Hon organisation but have had success in WTF-style competition. Likewise, an ITF club here in Poland has become involved in WTF (although they still practice Chang Hon) and are also having a lot of success (at least one of the members being listed for the Polish Olympic team).
Chang Hon stylists in UK (I can't speak much of other places) often use some very non-traditional looking techniques when competing.
My understanding is that more & more European ITF schools have been making a pretty succesful transition as well, whether it be Olympic or MMA's comps. As I said, coaches & instructors are important and competent they should be, but it always comes down to the competitor in the ring. I think that Tek's statement above is VERY elitist and he should recognize it as such. I know of several ITF fighters that have no problem in the Olympic sparring venue and have won. Thats the nice thing about the AAU, it is a sister org to the WTF, but you can be a member of the ITF and still join AAU and compete in WTF venue's. I really wish that I could get that full contact ITF video to download again, that way Tek could see how similar they really are !
VDJ
P.S. Tek, I have been informed that there is an ITF tourney in Northern California next month. I am trying to get a date and location for you and hopefully it will be close enough for you to attend to see.
Posted by: dicen
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 02/24/06 07:10 PM
I don't know about this one cause both tek9's and vdj's arguements hold true but considering if we'er talking about elite athletes not those who compete on the international level I have to agree with VDJ, the reason why is because I read a blackbelt magazine article about how the Chinese TKD team won I believe bronze in the ASian Games after only training for 2 or 3 years. And these tkd competitor had no other prior martial arts training, they were swimmers and gymnasts. 2 or 3 years is a short time, in my opinion from noob to elite tkd athlete, though they were already elite athletes in different sports but it still supports VDJ's arguement.
I'll try to find the article, but I believe it was Tim Conolly who trained them.
Posted by: TeK9
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 03/08/06 03:25 AM
Darn it...this was a real good topic, unfortunetly we desputed it to death and it looks like there are no more fresh opinions on the subject matter, I just thought I'd revive it one last time with this useless statement hoping someone out there maybe one of the new members might have a fresh perespective on it.
Come on Guys step up and stake your claim to fame.
-Tek
Posted by: theoldone
Re: "traditional" & "modern" TKD ... ? - 03/08/06 06:00 AM
Hmmm...
I will not wade into the traditional vs.modern TKD pool. You guys enjoy the water there. The only thing I'll mention about the pool is this:
I've seen lots of instructors being "chastised" by examiners after gradings, with the examiner saying, "They're doing such and such, and it is not acceptable. This is a martial art, not sport, but they are doing tournament techniques. I know competitions are an important part of the curriculum, but in gradings, they're being tested on the martial arts".
True.
I have also heard sport TKD coaches say to their students, "Why bother blocking when you can intercept and score immediately. Think you'll last 6, 7 matches with all that blocking? Don't block. Just kick".
True.
Haute cuisine is not fast food and fast food is not haute cuisine. Whether either is nutritious or not is, of course, an entirely different matter. But generally, you can call both "food". An appreciation of one can enhance your understanding of the other.
Likewise, if one can appreciate and understand the "traditional", it will enhance an understanding and appreciation of the "modern". And vice versa.
Just try it. Look at the modern and try to find the "secrets" that can help you power up the traditional. Look at the traditional and try to find the "secrets" that can help you power up the modern.
I assure you they are there. You just have to look with different eyes an a "seeking mind". No, I'm not trying to be "Zen-ish" here. The "secrets" are really there (note the use of quote marks in "secrets")
-------------------------------------
As for whether an ITF can do well in WTF sparring (and vice versa or not), remember that competitive sparring is a game. Each game has its own rules, such as what constitute a score, and its own dynamics etc., etc. If you design your training to work with those rules and according to the dynamics of the game and train your student-athletes accordingly, they have a very good chance of winning, regardless of whether they're WTF or ITF (or even from Karate)
So, the game works this way, you design your tactics, drills, etc., based on it, then drill your student-athletes in those specifics, and they will have a good chance. It is not a matter of which "style" they're originally from.
For example, take someone from Silat, train them specifically according to the rules (and methods) of, say, competitive wushu sparring, and they might do very well, because the game allows sweeps and locks, etc. Or take someone from Hapkido and train them for competitive Silat. Things like that.
Actually, we've already done this. I'm very good friends with a few Silat and Karate coaches/instructors and we've "exchanged" athletes. "Hey, you got anyone in the 78 - 84kg category? I need one. You do? Great, send him over for training. Eh? You need one in the below 50kg? Ok, I've got one. He'll be there Monday".
You just need to adapt to the specifics of the game. If you don't, then your students (or you) will simply lose because the dice is loaded against you right from the beginning.
For instance, take someone use to full-contact WTF and put him in, say, point Karate. If he spars according to the rules of WTF, he's going to get disqualified for excessive contact.
Likewise, put someone from point Karate into a WTF contest without adequate adaptive training, and he'll lose from not scoring anything even though he might have scored hundreds of points according to the rules of point Karate. In either case, it is not a reflection on the effectiveness of a "style"
It's not the "style". It's the specific training.
To paraphrase Archimedes, "Give me a player long enough and strong enough, and I can make him a champion".