Taekwondo - a fragmented art?
Posted by: GriffyGriff
Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 08:15 AM
Have a good look at Taekwondo and how you practice it.
Is it a collection of disjointed practices?
Are your lessons structured similar to the points below?
1. Fitness / Cardiovascular
2. Tuls (Kata) movements
3. Line-Work
4. Sparring
5. Self Defense
Has anyone else questioned that Taekwondo and many other Martial Arts follow the same disjointed pattern? Is this the "Classical Mess" that Bruce Lee referred to?
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 09:52 AM
I am confused by your posting. How or why do you not feel this does not all come together?
It is not like one can do all this at the same time! Please explain you thinking.
Most of what you are referring to comes together for most people at the higher levels in their training, the light clicks on and the student go's ahhhh, ohhh I see.
I can not see for the life of me how these things do not connect, one needs to learn all of them to be rounded.
Posted by: Supremor
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 11:19 AM
I'd never thought of it that way before Griff.
But IMO it's no different to how other martial arts organise themselves- for example in my judo class we started off with a warm-up, then would divide the class into some technique practice, perhaps dividing this into standing and ground work, then we would do randori(sparring) again often dividing between standing and ground-work. We did practice standing and ground-work together occasionally, but still you can see the division between practicing techniques in isolation, and then putting it into a free or semi-free situation. Some judo classes further divide the classes into Kata practice, but my club never did this.
I think the division of training comes mainly from the recognition that some of the things within the art cannot be practiced in sparring, so they must be dealt with separately. I feel that this is wrong-headed, and would prefer not to practice it at all if I can't spar with it, but then I'm not really in MA for the self defense aspect so I can appreciate that others' opinions may differ.
Posted by: Sorin
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 12:13 PM
Most arts separate things because thing are simply easier to learn when you take them one at a time. What would you consider to be the remedy of this "classical mess"? How would you conglomerate all of these together?
Sorin
Posted by: VDJ
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 01:24 PM
Quote:
Is this the "Classical Mess" that Bruce Lee referred to?
No,
I believe he was refering to the "My art is better than your art" debates that have been and still are so prevalent in the MA's community. He was a big believer in seeing the good of all arts and in cross training.Just look at what he did. His kick's were very Korean, learning much of how to develope kicking power from Jhoon Rhee. His hands showed his expertise in Wing Chung, footwork from western boxing, grappling though I am not sure what style he may have studied as I don't think that BJJ was so well known though there were many others. I don't think he was a big believer in forms but he did believe in live partner work (with how much resistance I don't know). As mentioned by the others above, I don't know how else you could go about teaching an art, but I do not believe that was what Bruce Lee was refering.
VDJ
Posted by: JAMJTX
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 01:42 PM
To call these arts "disjointed" shows a real lack of understanding of them and how the different components join together.
How can you claim that "cardio vascular fitness" is in no way connected to "sparring"? This is just ridiculous.
The only alternative here to just being ignorant is being disingenuous and just trying to tear something apart in order to promote your own art.
You can say a lot about Bruce Lee. But out of shape is not one of them. He placed a very high value on physical fitness and it was part of JKD training.
Posted by: oldman
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 02:24 PM
Quote:
JKD students reject traditional systems of training, fighting styles and the Confucian pedagogy used in traditional kung fu schools because of this lack of flexibility. JKD is claimed to be a dynamic concept that is forever changing, thus being extremely flexible. "Absorb what is useful; Disregard that which is useless, and Add what is Essentially your own" is an often quoted Bruce Lee maxim.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 02:39 PM
Quote:
Have a good look at Taekwondo and how you practice it. Is it a collection of disjointed practices?
Are your lessons structured similar to the points below?
1. Fitness / Cardiovascular
2. Tuls (Kata) movements
3. Line-Work
4. Sparring
5. Self Defense
Has anyone else questioned that Taekwondo and many other Martial Arts follow the same disjointed pattern? Is this the "Classical Mess" that Bruce Lee referred to?
I am not sure of what is meant by the classical mess. Maybe you can elaborate more, this way people won't react without being informed or understanding of your point.
I would offer this out, as I was thinking of starting a new thread. So here goes:
The 1st Korean martial artists that went overseas & began teaching MAs, were basically teaching a watered down version of Japanese Karate. They trained for awhile in Korea, as teens or young adults, then went overseas, where there was little if any exposure to the MAs. They were viewed as masters. But where they REALLY?
For instance, the one considered by many or referred to by many as the father of American TKD, moved to the States when he was just 24 years old. He basically was a novice BB from the Chung Do kwan. He instructor was Nam Tae Hi, who later would become General Choi's right hand man & co-founder of the Oh Do kwan. Now Col Nam joined the Chung Do kwan in the mid 40s, very early on in the Kwans formation. For Mr. Rhee to consider Col Nam as his teacher, Mr. Rhee would have most likely joined in the 50s. So how much training could he have had? Once living in the States how much exposure to training could he have had? I know he eventually learned the ITF or Chang Hon Tuls (ChonJi Patterns), but how much additional training could he have had under a senior instructor?
Now this is not limited to him. Some of the other early Koreans that moved to the States had similiar exposure levels. One states he started with the JiDo kwan in 1953, although he reports begining his MAs training in 1949. What that means & to what extent, we are left to wonder. Now he was the capt of the college KSD team in 56/57 & moves to the US in 1958. So how much could he have learned & how mush additional exposure could he have had.
Another graduated college in 1957 & reports being capt of the college club & that he started MAs at age 11. By 1962, he is living in the States, as a young man. How much exposure did he really have to indepth MAs that would qualify he as a master in a new country? Again, how much additional instruction could he have had in his new country, one with little connection to Asian fighting arts?
As another & final example, a rather influential figure in the early kwan system, took over after some training after his teacher, an original kwan founder stopped teaching. As one of the senior students & older ones, he took over the responsibilty of teaching. Where was his learning? When he moved to the States in the early 60s, how much exposure to seniors did he have?
So where am I going with this? Most of the early crew had little exposure to a watered down Art. They go abroad & stick to a class structure of basics. I think it is clear. is this what GriffyGrif is getting at? If not, then lets move this to a new thread, titled maybe have subsequent generations been taught more & more indepth & had additional exposures that were not available or accessed in the early days of KMSa?
Posted by: Supremor
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 02:57 PM
Quote:
To call these arts "disjointed" shows a real lack of understanding of them and how the different components join together.
How can you claim that "cardio vascular fitness" is in no way connected to "sparring"? This is just ridiculous.
Nono, I think you guys have missed the point of the question.
Griff isn't arguing that the components are unconnected in martial arts, he is arguing that they are trained separately. If taekwon-do is one indivisible thing, then why do most schools split it up into distinct components? Perhaps this makes it clearer?
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 03:03 PM
unity
I didn't know what griffy was exactly getting at so I asked him to explain, but I really don't understand what you are getting at or how it relates to griffy's posting.
I think griffy was not fond that much training is separate from other parts of training, not sure.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 03:16 PM
Quote:
Have a good look at Taekwondo and how you practice it.
Is it a collection of disjointed practices?
Are your lessons structured similar to the points below?
1. Fitness / Cardiovascular
2. Tuls (Kata) movements
3. Line-Work
4. Sparring
5. Self Defense
Has anyone else questioned that Taekwondo and many other Martial Arts follow the same disjointed pattern? Is this the "Classical Mess" that Bruce Lee referred to?
I would say no. Each class starts with some type of exercise with many that will relate to what is being taught, but not necessarily. Then we stretch and if we are doing ground work we will work more on upper body stretching. If doing more kicking then more emphasis on lower body stretching Then class will start.
Classes for us are divided up into days such as:
A - Promotion Preparation; if no promotion coming up then Instructor's choice
B - Kicking Training
C - Patterns & Basic Movements
D - Sparring Techniques; this may be TKD sparring or Boxing Sparring or MMA type sparring
E - Self Defense / Falling Techniques; our grappling happens on these days as does MMA type sparring or we will learn self defense techniques, throwing, falling, etc.
F - Breaking Techniques / Target Sparring; honestly breaking days are far and few now unless a test is coming up and for us that are BB we work on other things or help out.
Nothing is set in stone and can be changed on a whim but rarely are the classes the same. If you want to teach a day or are assigned to teach a day you should try to keep to the theme but that is up to you.
Some days will be piecing all of this together to flow as one so there is a better understanding. The only thing the same is the conditioning and stretching which are fundamental for training.
I believe these must be broken down so that they can be worked on individually so that the understanding level happens. Then once that understanding grows and we have classes where they are worked together then it is easier to comprehend and apply. For instance we will work on takedowns and falling techniques and chokes and armbars and positioning and punching skills and kicking skills and distance and so much more and do them individually but then we will have days that they are all put together and we do something similar to MMA type days where you can use all of these skills. Or with TKD sparring you have to understand many different kicks you have to work on distancing you have to work on so many things so that when you spar you put it all together.
It is a puzzle that you have to understand what each little picture is in order to piece it together to see the big picture. And when the big picture is done you can sit back and a light will click and you will understand it. And then you will realize the puzzle is not even close to being done and there are more pieces you were not aware of and it is back to square one.
Posted by: Fruitloopy
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 05:31 PM
Quote:
Have a good look at Taekwondo and how you practice it.
Is it a collection of disjointed practices?
Are your lessons structured similar to the points below?
1. Fitness / Cardiovascular
2. Tuls (Kata) movements
3. Line-Work
4. Sparring
5. Self Defense
Has anyone else questioned that Taekwondo and many other Martial Arts follow the same disjointed pattern? Is this the "Classical Mess" that Bruce Lee referred to?
Yes and No! It Depends! 
Posted by: GriffyGriff
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 03/31/08 10:13 PM
I think Von1, VDJ and Sorin miss the point I was alluding to and JAMJTX – (With Respect….) You are soo far off the mark mate.
Quote:
Supremor:
But IMO it's no different to how other martial arts organise themselves- for example in my judo class we started off with a warm-up, then would divide the class into some technique practice, perhaps dividing this into standing and ground work, then we would do randori(sparring) again often dividing between standing and ground-work. We did practice standing and ground-work together occasionally, but still you can see the division between practicing techniques in isolation, and then putting it into a free or semi-free situation.
Supremor from the mainstay of what you are saying, all of what you study in Judo, is ALL Judo.
Supremor’s quote below says it all in a nutshell. He is training in a non-disjointed art.
Quote:
Supremor:
I think the division of training comes mainly from the recognition that some of the things within the art cannot be practiced in sparring, so they must be dealt with separately. I feel that this is wrong-headed, and would prefer not to practice it at all if I can't spar with it……….
When I used to train in Wing Chun, everything we did was Wing Chun orientated.
Even if we broke up training into segments, we always trained Wing Chun, the style.
(Chain Punching, Forms, Line-work, Chi Sau, Sparring, Self Defense ….. it was ALL Wing Chun).
Taekwondo however (and I have been training EXCESSIVELY for over 7-8 years) is a disjointed art.
1. A lot of places that I visited spent an inordinate amount time doing circuit/cardio-vascular training.
Circuit Training is something that should be done in your own time. It has no direct link to Taekwondo the Art.
2. Tuls (Katas) bear little resemblance to Line-work and almost no resemblance to Sparring.
3. Line-work techniques also bear little resemblance to sparring.
4. Virtually all of points 1 – 4 bear no resemblance to “Realistic” Self Defense.
Posted by: Sorin
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 01:09 AM
Ah, I think I understand now. In a sense, it is true. Cardio could be added because most beginners don't know any conditioning exercises. It's true that if you just train in class and not outside then you probably won't be that great. I think the things you do in class should be nothing compared to what you do on your own.
The forms don't have much to do with practical application in my opinion. Good form is necessary, but form without application is useless. I can't count the number of times I've seen people spar(experienced instructors and company) and thought that half of the moves that are practiced in the forms seem completely useless when you are actually fighting. Many didn't use the stances or blocks the way the form showed, just half versions of them. I also do that though. And for the matter, sparring is only useful to some extent in self defense. With too many rules, you can't expand on self defense training. Although it's there more so everyone doesn't kill each other. This isn't 1000 years ago where people spent their entire life devoted to the arts and only the arts. You can't make a living off only teaching today, but that's another discussion.
The split isn't so bad, although it does degrade the self defense aspect a bit, though in our class we had free drills where we could do any number of techniques and have our opponents try to get out of them. This was only for the higher ranking students though. The reason why it's split up like this could be several things though. Teachers won't something they can easily break apart and put into a schedule. Some to take up time, others because some students don't have the drive to workout outside of class. Some come to class for the workout they get there and less for the self defense. It also was probably easier for them to dumb down the art a bit, since people who come, won't be coming and training everyday. It had to be made more "market friendly". There are probably other things, and these might not all be completely correct, but I think they make sense.
Sorin
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 01:49 AM
Quote:
Taekwondo however (and I have been training EXCESSIVELY for over 7-8 years) is a disjointed art.
1. A lot of places that I visited spent an inordinate amount time doing circuit/cardio-vascular training.
Circuit Training is something that should be done in your own time. It has no direct link to Taekwondo the Art.
I agree with that to a point. Part of TKD is conditioning though,right? The cardio could be linked to that. We don't want a bunch of donut inhaling TKD'ers!!! ...oops ..too late. 
Quote:
2. Tuls (Katas) bear little resemblance to Line-work and almost no resemblance to Sparring.
3. Line-work techniques also bear little resemblance to sparring.
4. Virtually all of points 1 – 4 bear no resemblance to “Realistic” Self Defense.
That's a problem within your school,but imo sparring and self defense are two different things entirely. Your forms should relate to realistic self defense,but not necessarily to a pre arranged fight. There's a difference between an attack and a sparring match where both contestants are agreed upon a set of rules.
Posted by: GriffyGriff
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 06:03 AM
Quote:
Ah, I think I understand now. In a sense, it is true. Cardio could be added because most beginners don't know any conditioning exercises. It's true that if you just train in class and not outside then you probably won't be that great. I think the things you do in class should be nothing compared to what you do on your own.
Absolutely agree!! TKD'ers who just do classes and do not train excessively outside are in danger of treading water.
Quote:
The forms don't have much to do with practical application in my opinion.
Again - Agreed. Do some research/cross train with Karate and you will see 99% of the techniques are in other styles. But in different sequences and often different stances.
(Is this not "the Classical mess").
Quote:
This isn't 1000 years ago where people spent their entire life devoted to the arts and only the arts.
Disagree a bit here though. What you put in, you get out.
Quote:
The split isn't so bad, although it does degrade the self defense aspect a bit, though in our class we had free drills where we could do any number of techniques and have our opponents try to get out of them. This was only for the higher ranking students though.
I bet your Self Defense uses very little from what you are taught in Tuls. Some of the Schools I visited had a VERY Dangerous view of Self Defense. I cringed at some of the stupid techniques taught. (I think that this has the potential to degrade TKD in many people's eyes).
Quote:
It also was probably easier for them to dumb down the art a bit, since people who come, won't be coming and training everyday. It had to be made more "market friendly".
I do not profess to have the answer here....
But I sure as hell can see the problem.
And I beleive the more people who wake up and see the problem, the sooner we can bring these arts back into a whole.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 08:45 AM
Griffy:
Thanks for explaining your thinking on this subject. I now understand what you were saying, still processing the concept though because I had never given it much thought before your posting. hummmm, get back to you on this in the future. I have little reference because I have only/always trained mainly TKD.
quote
I cringed at some of the stupid techniques taught. (I think that this has the potential to degrade TKD in many people's eyes).
end quote
Please give a few examples of some of what you are witnessing going on out there so others will see what to watch out for.
Posted by: Andymcc
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 09:23 AM
Quote:
[
But I sure as hell can see the problem.
And I beleive the more people who wake up and see the problem, the sooner we can bring these arts back into a whole.
I just don't see it as a problem. What you are concerned about as "fragmented" I would simply call "faceted"... as a diamond is multi-faceted. Many things that make up the whole.
If there is a problem, it is poor instruction (ie, stretching and some endurance training is good, but schools that are doing circuit training is just plain poor instruction, not what a TKD class should be spent on).
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 10:34 AM
Griffy griffy:
To help us that are on the fence regarding this proposed fragmentation of TKD training.
What is your vision as to how to synchronize TKD training so as it will not be fragmented? Lay out a sample of what would make things better.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 11:03 AM
Griff, am I to understand that you don't think "conditioning" should be a part of TKD? If so I find that wrong as it should be.
We do conditioning prior to training to not only warm the body up but to get us more fit for what we are doing. Conditioning is highly important in any training and that training has to start within the school. For those that want to take that to the next level on their own then they can only get better but it has to be made and trained in the school as well as a minimum.
I've attended some schools where conditioning wasn't trained and that was apparent by tired students that couldn't train to their full potential; that is a travesty.
Posted by: Supremor
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 11:12 AM
I agree with Andy.
I can agree that taewkon-do training is usually divided into quite discrete parts, but I don't think this necessarily detracts from the art.
If you train anything then you split your training into sections. When I played basketball, I divided my training into fitness, ball handling, static jump shooting, and then putting it together either in dribble-shooting drills and onto small games and such like. Again a clear division, but it allowed me to improve at a faster pace than simply playing games all the time.
It is the same in TKD. As long as everything you do will improve your complete skill at the end of the day. For instance, perhaps circuit training is not the best way to train, but if the activities done in the circuit are similar to tkd techniques then they can be beneficial. I've done circuit training with padwork before, and it is a great way to mimic the stresses of sparring.
So perhaps you are seeing more of a division than actually exists Griff?
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 12:08 PM
Quote:
(Is this not "the Classical mess").
No.. the classical mess Bruce Lee was refering to was regarding do things with no reason behind them.. back then, he refered largely towards kata & forms, as many moves were taught with no application and the onus was all about getting the move right and pretty rather than combative applications... times have changed however!
Stuart
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 12:17 PM
Quote:
Have a good look at Taekwondo and how you practice it.
Is it a collection of disjointed practices?
Are your lessons structured similar to the points below?
1. Fitness / Cardiovascular
2. Tuls (Kata) movements
3. Line-Work
4. Sparring
5. Self Defense
Has anyone else questioned that Taekwondo and many other Martial Arts follow the same disjointed pattern? Is this the "Classical Mess" that Bruce Lee referred to?
The Taekwon-do I teach incorporates the elements you mention and each area helps and overlaps others to make them better, eg.
Fitness / Cardiovascular helps with sparring, fighting, hosinsul, conditioning work 9as in bone conditioning) and hard patterns training.. without it, one would not be able to train the other areas at maximum potential and also, fitness in SD is imperitive.. "Fit to Fight" as the saying goes!
Tuls (Kata) movements relate to self defence (hosinsul).. that is their purpose. Sparring, can utilize elements of patterns as long as its not limited to competition sparring. Patterns as a solo practice also help with training the fundamental techniques as well as fitness, balance etc.
Line-Work is basically a training method to develop technique.. this in turn helps patterns, basics, fundamentals, which in turn help in both sparring and self defence.
Sparring ... well, if you only do competition sparring then there are fewer areas to overlap, but line work and fitness still overlap with it.. for "Traditional Sparring", both the above and all the other areas overlap.. good hosinul and pattern apps transend into Trad sparring, and fitness is a major component. Line work work has helped make techniques cleaner and crisper and Trad Sparring is heavily related to SD!
Self defence is IMO, the main aim of TKD.. ALL the elements above relate to SD period. as mentioned, sparring (Trad Sparring) and SD and cousins, Fitness is required for effective fighting which forms part of SD, patterns contain a myriad of SD techniques to train and practice and line work suppliments technique!
So in answer to your question: "Is it a collection of disjointed practices?" I'd have to say no.. in fact I'd say its the exact opposite!
Stuart
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 01:00 PM
This is how I always viewed training too. Must admit that Griffy has me pondering a few things but I am not ready to say he is correct by no means.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 01:35 PM
Quote:
unity I didn't know what griffy was exactly getting at so I asked him to explain, but I really don't understand what you are getting at or how it relates to griffy's posting.
I think griffy was not fond that much training is separate from other parts of training, not sure.
Von1, what I mean is that the history of our Art is so very important to understanding how & what we are doing & how we got here. From my understanding is that we train components & don't put them together enough under realistic conditions for purposes of SD. If one wishes to learn SD, they must learn basic moves then apply then against live opponents to the extent possible in training scenarios.
I offer my input to show that many early TKD instructors went abroad, arriving in new homelands perceived by the natives as masters, when in fact, at most they were novice BBs. So they repeated the component training that is IMHO dis-jointed. I am not sure how many of us do enough SD in a realistic setting. We did not have that mentored for us. In fact, as these early instructors from a poor 3rd world country ravaged by war & occupation, settled into their adopted countires, there was a built in incentive to increase & retain membership. Logic dictates that going easy helps those aims. This is what IMHO led to an explosion in the MMAs, as an answer to somewhat weakened SD programs.
Now how did TKD develop? Well the ITF has a full program, but TBH many do not follow it or even understand it. The Kukkiown also has a full program & above is true for them. In addition, their program is clouded by the fact that many now view T K D as a sport. That is what I experienced in Korea. It also should be noted that there are several Colleges & Universities in SK that have bachelor, masters & even doctorate programs where 1 can earn a PhD in T K D. From my understanding these programs are sports science & fitness orientated. This is also a dis-jointed approach.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 01:37 PM
Quote:
Taekwondo however (and I have been training EXCESSIVELY for over 7-8 years) is a disjointed art.
1. A lot of places that I visited spent an inordinate amount time doing circuit/cardio-vascular training.
Circuit Training is something that should be done in your own time. It has no direct link to Taekwondo the Art.
2. Tuls (Katas) bear little resemblance to Line-work and almost no resemblance to Sparring.
3. Line-work techniques also bear little resemblance to sparring.
4. Virtually all of points 1 – 4 bear no resemblance to “Realistic” Self Defense.
Understood & agree!
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 01:43 PM
Quote:
I do not profess to have the answer here....
But I sure as hell can see the problem. And I beleive the more people who wake up and see the problem, the sooner we can bring these arts back into a whole.
I see the same problem. I don't have the answer either. I think it lies in the fact that we have to do more training under more realistic conditions. This is tuff 2 do in a commerical setting, with insurance requiremrnts etc.
What I try to do is get students firmly grounded in the basics as color belts. Then put it all together as BBs. But it is difficult, as not that many make it to BB. many schools continue the same dis-jointed training for BBs, maybe pushing it up a notch or 2.
We also look to do more than just SD, with fitness being a part of it. Good thread, complicated problem, with no easy answers. But very good food for thought.
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 01:46 PM
Gotta admit.. I dont do line work that much :-)
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 01:46 PM
Quote:
Griff, am I to understand that you don't think "conditioning" should be a part of TKD? If so I find that wrong as it should be.
We do conditioning prior to training to not only warm the body up but to get us more fit for what we are doing. Conditioning is highly important in any training and that training has to start within the school. For those that want to take that to the next level on their own then they can only get better but it has to be made and trained in the school as well as a minimum.
I've attended some schools where conditioning wasn't trained and that was apparent by tired students that couldn't train to their full potential; that is a travesty.
Yes conditioning or forging (Dallyeon) is an essential part of TKD. However it takes valuable time away from instruction & interaction in realisitc SD settings during class time. The problem is, how many students will address this aspect on their own? Or before class?
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 01:54 PM
Quote:
The Taekwon-do I teach incorporates the elements you mention and each area helps and overlaps others to make them better, eg.So in answer to your question: "Is it a collection of disjointed practices?" I'd have to say no.. in fact I'd say its the exact opposite! Stuart
I find it hard to disagree with you as well as they are all necessary componets. The problem is finding the balance, with I have not yet. It is complicated by the aforementioned settings we find ourselves in. I think the key is developing the basics as color belts & then putting it together as a BB. This is how I think boxing does it. At some point thay put it all together & they box sparring opponents as the most important part of their training, as that is what is going to get them through the real fights they book. JMHO
This is where too many of us deviate from the founder's direction to train SD under realsistic conditions.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 02:46 PM
ITFUNITY and/or others
This should fit well with this thread.
I am beginning to see that TKD is a fractured art on many levels not just the basic training level, but it may be for good reason. Maybe TKD simply is just to encompassing to easily and neatly put together? This very fact may be our uniqueness in comparison to other art forms.
I am WTF affiliated.
My question to ITF persons or any others that wish to chime in, is regarding SD. We utilize a lot of HPK and judo for SD as do many WTF schools.
What do you as ITF utilize or is it similar to what we are doing?
For some reason I am picturing ITF members training SD similar to their sparing methods with the addition of more vital point striking and some take downs and I am not sure this is accurate. I trained a short time with an ITF school many years ago but I do not recall them giving SD an identity other than calling it SD. I seldom or at all recall much discussion from ITF as doing HPK or judo.
So, if it is not HPK or judo, what exactly is it? or what do you refer to your SD training as?
We refer to ours as being HPK or judo based but not exactly calling it TKD, HPK, or Judo.
No we do not issue certificates in judo or HPK. We are however required to know a said amount of defences/counters against certain attacks to progress to a higher level, at each level progression one should know more SD techniques.
Does TKD even have claimed to have originated any SD techniques that can be called TKD, leaving out the kicking and punching aspect and not including 1,2,and 3 step sparring.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 03:38 PM
Regarding 1, 2, and 3 step sparing.
All of our advanced one steps have HPK mixed in with them so are they mostly TKD who knows?
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 03:52 PM
Quote:
Yes conditioning or forging (Dallyeon) is an essential part of TKD. However it takes valuable time away from instruction & interaction in realisitc SD settings during class time. The problem is, how many students will address this aspect on their own? Or before class?
To be honest I would say the majority won't do anything other then what they do in class. For myself I weight lift loyally and have for over 10 years. I show up to class at least a half an hour early to work on stretching and conditioning and sometime work on patterns. I will also work with others as required or I will be called upon to help with the class that is already in progress. And depending on what is taught in class I may opt to stay late with others to carry on with the training such as when we do BJJ.
I have many people in my class that are fitness freaks. There is a group that run prior to class. Get together on weekends to run. They run marathons and a few have done triathlons. Some also take spin classes during the week. One of our 2nd Dans in his mid 40's trains during the day, goes skating and playing hockey and then comes to class. His endurance is phenomenal and I wish I could tap into it. A few people take BJJ outside of our school on the side which I do from time to time in conjunction with our training as can plus me and another black belt that started when I did, we in past months joined Judo to supplement our training.
BUT with all of that said the majority will only do what is provided in class and why important, plus we all get the benefits as well ... and I need it still. You have to have a certain level of fitness and for those going to black belt testing must first pass the physical endurance test which is done on a Saturday before the first of two black belt tests. Without this conditioning I would have found it harder then what it already was.
Condition in class I don't look at it from taking away from training, it is training.
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 06:24 PM
Quote:
To be honest I would say the majority won't do anything other then what they do in class. For myself I weight lift loyally and have for over 10 years. I show up to class at least a half an hour early to work on stretching and conditioning and sometime work on patterns. I will also work with others as required or I will be called upon to help with the class that is already in progress. And depending on what is taught in class I may opt to stay late with others to carry on with the training such as when we do BJJ.
In the main... you my friend are the exception, not the rule. If all TKD studnets were like you it would be a great thing, alas, they are not.. class training IS there only traiing and those that think differently are well intetioned but sorely misguided as to "what is a student"!
Kudos to you Dereck.
Stuart
Posted by: GriffyGriff
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 07:16 PM
Quote:
Quote:
(Is this not "the Classical mess").
No.. the classical mess Bruce Lee was refering to was regarding do things with no reason behind them.. back then, he refered largely towards kata & forms, as many moves were taught with no application and the onus was all about getting the move right and pretty rather than combative applications... times have changed however!
Stuart
With Respect ....
Got to disagree there Stuart.
On the Whole, Tul techniques are NOT Realistic Combative Techniques. (Although I realise you have a vested interest in this subject).
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 11:05 PM
Quote:
ITFUNITY and/or others
My question to ITF persons or any others that wish to chime in, is regarding SD. We utilize a lot of HPK and judo for SD as do many WTF schools.
What do you as ITF utilize or is it similar to what we are doing?
For some reason I am picturing ITF members training SD similar to their sparing methods with the addition of more vital point striking and some take downs and I am not sure this is accurate. I trained a short time with an ITF school many years ago but I do not recall them giving SD an identity other than calling it SD. I seldom or at all recall much discussion from ITF as doing HPK or judo.
So, if it is not HPK or judo, what exactly is it? or what do you refer to your SD training as?
Does TKD even have claimed to have originated any SD techniques that can be called TKD, leaving out the kicking and punching aspect and not including 1,2,and 3 step sparring.
Well the best way I think to answer this question is not what ITF schools do, as many have not been to a real, regsitered & up to date ITF school. In addition, many schools do not follow the syllabus. So I can only answer as to my understanding of the ITF or Chang Hon syllabus, devised by Gen Choi, with the help of many others.
Remember that original TKD, which was founded, formed or devloped in the south Korean Army, under the Oh Do kwan, co-founded by Gen Choi & Col. Nam Tae Hi, was a modern mix of the MAs of the time (40s, 50s & 60s). The refinement continued under the auspices of the ITF when these Pioneers were civilians. Later the Korean TKD Committee, located in NK, added their research & development.
We do much the same as others do, building basics with dis-jointed drills & line exercises. Step sparring is introduced starting with white belts, with semi-free sparring coming in at 5th gup & free sparring coming in at 4th gup. At 2nd gup level we introduce HooSinSul. What HooSinSul is SD using 3 motions, attacking, breaking & releasing. Some mis-label this as HapKiDo. I am sure when TD was devloped, they looked to Judo (YUDO), AiKiDo (HapKiDo), as well as wrestling, can't think of the Korean term right now. This is however where most schools go wrong! They simply do a show, with unrealistic routines with a willing partner that goes along. This all should be done against a live opponent, under as realistic conditions as possible. This should be the focus of BB training, as they have gotten the basics out of the way. IMHO not enough people do this. So you should see students fighting, maybe ending up on the floor & continuing, pounding if able, grappling if possible, with locks, pins & holds etc. It has been my experience that most schools concentrate on our tournament rules. I am working hard trying to correct that at my school, as it has taken me years to grasp what the founder wanted.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 11:08 PM
Quote:
Regarding 1, 2, and 3 step sparing.
All of our advanced one steps have HPK mixed in with them so are they mostly TKD who knows?
My guess would be that you are doing step sparring as done by the karate influences that have been held over from the Kwan days. ITF TKD step sparring's 3 levels are different from how we did them under the Kwan way of my original teacher. BTW, we under him, only did 3 & 1 steps, not 2 steps. We now do all, the way they were meant to be done by the founder with live conditions.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 11:11 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Yes conditioning or forging (Dallyeon) is an essential part of TKD. However it takes valuable time away from instruction & interaction in realisitc SD settings during class time. The problem is, how many students will address this aspect on their own? Or before class?
To be honest I would say the majority won't do anything other then what they do in class.
Condition in class I don't look at it from taking away from training, it is training.
This is the problem, as most won't do it in class, so we have to incorporate it. But it does take away from time engaging in SD traing with opponents.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/01/08 11:13 PM
Quote:
In the main... you my friend are the exception, not the rule. If all TKD studnets were like you it would be a great thing, alas, they are not.. class training IS there only traiing and those that think differently are well intetioned but sorely misguided as to "what is a student"!
Kudos to you Dereck. Stuart
Agreed! Good going Dereck! You have much more intensity than I ever did.
Posted by: VDan
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 03:08 AM
I can't speak on other styles of TKD - just ITF Taekwon-Do. But I do not see ITF TKD as a fragmented art. Each area is directly related to the next and each area can reinforce another area. When it's all said and done it all goes back to fundamental movements.
Training is also in the eye of the beholder. I would have to disagree with GriffyGriff in the age old debate as to whether or not patterns can be translated into practical self defense. I have been in a few "altercations" and I have applied movements learned in patterns effectively. Nobody can tell me that there is no value or practicality to patterns. That is my personal experience and I can appreciate if others do not share that opinion.
I think if ITF Taekwon-Do is taught by a qualified instructor each piece fits together nicely. For example my step sparring is based on movements found in patterns for every rank. Practicing this reinforces the material a student is working on. Breaking requirements come from rank appropriate kicking, sparring progresses. I have crossed trained in several martial arts and I can say many are considerably more fragmented compared to TKD.
From a teaching perspective the training curriculum also facilitates the learning process by breaking it down in learnable pieces.
Guess my answer is No.
V Dan
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 06:58 AM
Quote:
With Respect ....
Got to disagree there Stuart.
No problem with that. Though Im not sure if you are disagreeing on what I feel Bruce Lee was talking about with regards to "the classical mess" or that patterns arnt realistic for combative purposes!!
Quote:
On the Whole, Tul techniques are NOT Realistic Combative Techniques.
And I disagree there.. however, with regards to the Bruce Lee thing.. by stating that, you are actually agreeing with the reasoning I put as to what he refered to as the classical mess. I also agree with you on this point, as patterns done solo have little combative fuctions, as they need to be trained and drilled properly.. when done so, then they utilize their main purpose & potential.
Quote:
(Although I realise you have a vested interest in this subject).
Only because I 100% believe and know it to be the case.. they are useful, they do contain SD techniques and they can be worked and trained like any other techniques.
Stuart
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 08:30 AM
Whats HPK?
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 09:36 AM
Quote:
Quote:
In the main... you my friend are the exception, not the rule. If all TKD studnets were like you it would be a great thing, alas, they are not.. class training IS there only traiing and those that think differently are well intetioned but sorely misguided as to "what is a student"!
Kudos to you Dereck. Stuart
Agreed! Good going Dereck! You have much more intensity than I ever did.
Thanks Stuart. Thanks ITF. Sadly I burn out just like everybody else. I have the intensity and we are encouraged to give it our all and leave it all out there until we are drained and by pushing past that point will make us stronger. I just wish that I rose to that challenge all of the time. Sometimes when I'm done I'm done. But my enthusiasm is there.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 10:26 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Regarding 1, 2, and 3 step sparing.
All of our advanced one steps have HPK mixed in with them so are they mostly TKD who knows?
My guess would be that you are doing step sparring as done by the karate influences that have been held over from the Kwan days. ITF TKD step sparring's 3 levels are different from how we did them under the Kwan way of my original teacher. BTW, we under him, only did 3 & 1 steps, not 2 steps. We now do all, the way they were meant to be done by the founder with live conditions.
I don't think you are accurate, I will give you an example and we can go from there. Also keep in mind that this is not the core of our SD training it is advanced level SD BB only. There are many more simpler and basic techniques learned below BB level.
I will do the best I can to describe this it sounds much more difficult on paper than it really is.
Advanced 1 step no.1 the first and most basic. These are BB level advanced 1 steps.
Assailant attacks by punch (we will use right handed attack)
Defender - simultaneously steps in and sideways, blocking the punch (LH) and chopping the side of the neck with (RH)
next phase - simultaneously done also - blocking hand secures punching arm while defender executes a strong punch to assailants ribs this is primarily a distraction for what is coming.
next - step behind assailant with (R) leg while simultaneously grabbing the throat with (RH) taking assailant down still controlling the punching arm.
Your R knee is planted in the ribs of the assailant, the assailants arm that you control is hyper extended over your left thigh for possible break while final blow is administered to assailants head/neck/face area. Whew, much harder to explain than to do. This sounds very involved on paper but it actually is administered in a madder of seconds.
The point is even in the advanced 1 steps there is HPK arm locks and as one learns more 1 steps there is more HPK and judo administered, I don't believe this to be karate one steps nor do I see it as totally being TKD, HPK, or judo.
This is why I asked others to respond so we all can get a better understanding of what is going on and being taught in the world of TKD regarding SD. (See a bigger picture)
Is it mainly a difference from school to school, a difference from ITF to WTF or is there that big of a difference at all?
We all claim to learn SD but we are not all learning the same things but how different are we? as far as I know TKD does not have SD that is considered to be mostly or solely TKD. Is this the reason why we are all learning different techniques, because we do not have any of our own?
And finally, If there are TKD SD techniques are they better or worse than what many of us are being taught? These are the questions I want to address and this is where I am beginning see Griffy's point as to TKD being a fragmented art. We are fragmented in our training even at the higher levels of our training.
Please any one feel free to share.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 11:01 AM
Quote:
Whats HPK?
HPK, is abbreviation for Hapkido
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 11:46 AM
Quote:
Advanced 1 step no.1 the first and most basic. These are BB level advanced 1 steps.
Assailant attacks by punch (we will use right handed attack)
Defender - simultaneously steps in and sideways, blocking the punch (LH) and chopping the side of the neck with (RH)
next phase - simultaneously done also - blocking hand secures punching arm while defender executes a strong punch to assailants ribs this is primarily a distraction for what is coming.
next - step behind assailant with (R) leg while simultaneously grabbing the throat with (RH) taking assailant down still controlling the punching arm.
Your R knee is planted in the ribs of the assailant, the assailants arm that you control is hyper extended over your left thigh for possible break while final blow is administered to assailants head/neck/face area. Whew, much harder to explain than to do. This sounds very involved on paper but it actually is administered in a madder of seconds. Please any one feel free to share.
Okay but you are describing exactly what I mean by the left over from the Kwan days. This is not to be taken as a critisism. What you detail sounds like a good drill. It is not the drill that I say is different, but the format. All ITF step sparring is done limited to 1 counter attack, mostly against a live opponent, using all available attacks. Each of the step sparring has different purposes & goals.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 11:57 AM
Quote:
Is it mainly a difference from school to school, a difference from ITF to WTF or is there that big of a difference at all?
We all claim to learn SD but we are not all learning the same things but how different are we? as far as I know TKD does not have SD that is considered to be mostly or solely TKD. Is this the reason why we are all learning different techniques, because we do not have any of our own?
I disagree whole heartedly. The TKD I do, has its roots in the Korean military as a modern, at the time, mix of MAs that were available at the time. As such, modern TKD, named in 1955 & continually developed by more than 1 person in 1 rather seperate system, does have what we believe is a strong SD component. It is called HooSinSul & comes in at 2nd gup red belt level. The problem is that many ITFers do not fully understand, embrace or follow completely the very comprehensive syllabus that has very clear directions. JMHO
So if some call their SD component HapKiDo or whatever, it may simply be semantics. However I think it goes back to the Kwan days, as individual kwans (schools) did things their own way, based on their link to their respective japanese kakrate links. These kwans were headed by individuals & they often can be said to have brought in other components of various Arts, like HapkiDo. But remember, this individual setting was much different than the setting of the military & their almost unlimited or hard to quantify seemingly endless sources of various Arts input.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 11:58 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Whats HPK?
HPK, is abbreviation for Hapkido
I think I was using HKD. 
HapKiDo
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 12:01 PM
quote
I disagree whole heartedly. The TKD I do, has its roots in the Korean military as a modern,
end quote
As does mine,
our master was a Korean born U.S. army combatant instructor in Korea in the sixties.
quote
Each of the step sparring has different purposes & goals.
end quote
As does ours.
By no means took this as criticism and welcome the discussion.
I was hoping for a more involved response regarding peoples training to see if, or how, we fit together as TKD people.
That is why I describe the drill in some detail.
My whole point is that I am not sure if this training is mostly TKD or something else, I just did not see it as mainly karate, TKD, HPK, or judo that's all. And if people do want to criticize that is OK too.
Just attempting to open a dialog from one organization to another, am not attempting to prove anything.
Want to see if/how do we connect in our training SD.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 12:10 PM
No I understand!
However you may be misisng my point as I tend to get long winded or type happy!
The step sparring format you describe comes from the Kwan days, which of course are left overs from the karate roots. That is not a bad thing in & off itself. The drill of counters you decribe is using what you call HapKiDo techniques. That may be so, but it is still performed in a kwan/karate type setting. I think the overwhelming majority of TKD step sparring I have seen are done using this FORMAT. In fact, I can't really come up with an exception, other than the ITF schools & even not that many, as most I have seen still do the kwan/karate type format. Even some that have awesome pattern movement & great ITF fighters. It simply is not a aspect that gets much attention, nor is it one that students refer to the text in order to gain guidance.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 12:23 PM
It simply is not a aspect that gets much attention, nor is it one that students refer to the text in order to gain guidance.
end quote
You lost me here, and am not sure about the first part of your responce. Maybe as others chime in things will become clearer.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 12:29 PM
quote
All ITF step sparring is done limited to 1 counter attack, mostly against a live opponent, using all available attacks. Each of the step sparring has different purposes & goals.
end quote
Please explain with detail/example as I did so I may better understand.
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 01:09 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Whats HPK?
HPK, is abbreviation for Hapkido
Thats what I thought but the normal abbreviation for Hapkido is HKD.. bit like TKD 
Stuart
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 01:16 PM
Quote:
Please explain with detail/example as I did so I may better understand.
What he means is that the ITf way means you counter attack with a single technique only, as opposed to a combination of multiple techniques.
Something, I totally disagree with btw (as in thats how it should be done)
Stuart
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 01:45 PM
I agree and have stated that before. While a single technique "is" a good working tool I believe multiple techniques that take a second or so is a much better idea and training tool. How many times have we've been told how you train is how you will react. I wouldn't want to stop at one attack and then be on the receiving end of somebody doing multiple and be caught off guard.
Von, years ago on there a Hapkido artist came on and showed videos of some of their training techniques and I was totally surprised that our one-steps looked very much the same. There were a great many differences with most however some were almost exact which blew me away. But knowing our schools heritage it made more sense.
I listed on here many years ago a step by step of our one-step drills that I may look up again and link, however they are much like your own Von. And again for ITF, this is only a drill and not the foundation of the self defense taught in our school nor in others. It is one of many drills as I'm sure your one attack and one technique defense is only a small portion of your training.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 01:48 PM
quote
Thats what I thought but the normal abbreviation for Hapkido is HKD.. bit like TKD
end quote
You are absolutely correct, HPK is very bad habit of mine. I will certainly work to correct this, Thanks
quote
What he means is that the ITf way means you counter attack with a single technique only, as opposed to a combination of multiple techniques.
Something, I totally disagree with btw (as in thats how it should be done)
end quote
Thanks again, but could you please give a detailed example similar to what I gave above.
Also is this ITF curriculum or is it more of an ITF school preference.
Please note that I am in no way trying to establish what is best as I really have no idea what is being taught in any school other than my own. my goal is to see where we are similar and where we are different. Also I would like to determine if, where, and to what extent their are similarities and differences between WTF schools.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 02:37 PM
quote
All ITF step sparring is done limited to 1 counter attack, mostly against a live opponent, using all available attacks. Each of the step sparring has different purposes & goals.
end quote
Doesn't every one do 1-steps with a live opponent?
If you do them without a live opponent you would simply be doing something like or similar to forms/Kata. Never herd of doing 1-steps any other way.
Does any one do them different? please respond.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 03:21 PM
Dereck
Good to here from you. You always have much to contribute.
Looking forward to you posting the 1-steps you do. Do you also refer to these as advanced 1-steps? We have one steps and we have advanced 1-steps.
Basically, the difference between regular 1-steps and advanced 1-steps is advanced will incorporate the arm locks, joint manipulation, take downs, and finishing blows, (HKD, thanks StuartA) where as regular 1-steps will be more similar to 3-step sparring.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 04:51 PM
Hey Von, we just call them one-steps and they include everything that you've listed. I will do a search on this site and then attach the link.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 05:04 PM
These are for colored belts as there are other self defense techniques for black belt and beyond known as our 26 self defense steps. I don't have my list here for those but I will supply those later for everybody to review however here is that link.
Dereck's One-StepsNote: It is hard to write things down like this and better shown so I may not have done this stuff enough justice at that time. And forgive me as when doing searches it hi-lites words and I couldn't figure out how not to have certain words bolded.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/02/08 09:37 PM
Dereck
Thanks for finding and re-posting your 1-steps. These are very similar to what we do for 1-steps with slight differences. There are a few areas that we might have a kick or an elbow where you have a punch but for the most part we are very similar in our training.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 12:17 AM
Quote:
quote
All ITF step sparring is done limited to 1 counter attack, mostly against a live opponent, using all available attacks. Each of the step sparring has different purposes & goals.
end quote
Please explain with detail/example as I did so I may better understand.
The below is taken from the thread does anyone train in WTF TKD. Dereck & I went back & forth with this very point. I am reluctent to re-type it all. 
Quote:
Quote:
As for one-steps, I wasn't saying they should be the same but at standardization would be a good idea, you can at least agree with that coming from an ITF school.
No way, no how, never!
The ITF 1 steps are not standardized. The way they start is. For example, both attacker & defender stand i/f/o each other, in a pararell ready stance, at a distance pre-determined by the attacker, depending on the attack to be used. The attack is done from this position, without going back into a walking stance with low block & attacks with any & all attacks are allowed, not just a punch with the right forefist. You can only do 1 attack & 1 counterattack. There are examples of this in the Encylopedia, but they are just that. Our 1 steps are a SD drill, where the attacker must try to hit the defender, with all available attacks. In the case of all step sparring, 1, 2 & 3 steps, as a student advances, the attacks should be more spontaneous & realistic.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 12:21 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Let me ask you, why do you do your 1,2 and 3 steps? Why do you do patterns?
The quick & silly answer would be, "because they are in the syllabus". LOL
But seriously, our step sparring, 1, 2 & 3 are part of pre-arranged sparring. Pre-arranged in the sense, the format, number of attacks are pre-arranged. When this series has been introduced to the student, they move to semi-free sparring at 5th gup green belt. When they reach 4th gup blue belt, they start to learn free sparring. So it is a careful progression based on several uses, or purposes, which is the focus of your question. So here is the exact answer as to the purpose of our step sparring:
3 step: to teach DISTANCE
2 step: to acquire a MIX of hand & foot techniques
1 step: to SIMULATE real combat
Now what you describe seems to be a SD technique drill. However it also seems that it may not be the most effective SD training, as you describe an intitial attack for real, but then seem to indicate that is the only attack & the attacker then just "strikes a pose". In addition, you further describe that it appears the defender is allowed to use more than 1 counter attack against someone who is no longer an opponent, but a partner who is only posing. This IMHO may also help to create a false sense of security & actually be detremental from a SD standpoint.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 12:24 AM
Quote:
Also is this ITF curriculum or is it more of an ITF school preference.
This is from the ITF syllabus as outlined in volume #5 of the 15 volume Encylopedia of TKD. I would think that a fair amount of ITF so called schools do not follow these instructions to the T. So it is not a school preference, but is mandated in the syllabus. However many do not delve into it enough to grasp the way it should be done.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 12:40 AM
Quote:
Doesn't every one do 1-steps with a live opponent?
If you do them without a live opponent you would simply be doing something like or similar to forms/Kata. Never herd of doing 1-steps any other way.
Does any one do them different? please respond.
I guess we must 1st define what is a live opponent! I will offer a definition.
In step sparring, a live opponent is not a willing partner, who will comply or pose, much like a model, for another to practice drills or moves on. A live opponent is one that when attacking tries to strike the defender.
The reason why we limit the counter attack to one, is that no real opponent will stand there & even comply, as the defender does mutiple counter attacks. I understand the need to develop combos for defense counters. It is just we do that in another setting, not 1 step sparring.
Now I am not saying this is better etc. But I will ask you to do an experiment, that I challenge students with.
Do your 1 steps the way you normally do, with 1 exception. Whisper into the ear of the attacker to really try to strike the defender. See how it changes the dynamics. After awhile, whisper again into the ear of the attacker, that after the intitial attack immediately do another. See how this changes the dynamic even more.
So before anyone wants to critique, please realize we do mutiple counters & the students are prepared to execute them. It just does not occur in 1 steps. That is why our 1 stpes are different than others, as we limit the counter to one. The focus is real attack, with correct defense & immediate effective counter, as the real opponent will not pose.
I am sure other schools have something similiar, but may just call it by another name. From my understanding & experience, many schools do 1 steps like I 1st learned, which is a throw back to the Kwan days. Nothing wrong with them, as they are a useful drill. Ours are just different, as the purpose is different. JMHO
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 12:49 AM
Quote:
The One-Step Sparring we do in our school is done with partners and are patterns that have a Hapkido influence. As colored belts there are 9 different patterns. They start out as such:
A. There is always an Attacker and a Defender.
B. The Attacker will first attack with the right and then the left and then the two switch roles.
C. To Start the Attacker ki-ups and goes into a low section block.
D. When the Defender is ready they will ki-up.
C. The Attacker will step in and punch towards the Defender's jaw/chin.
I think this may be a format used by many. We differ, as the attacker does not step back & low block. They stand in a PRS, feet shoulder width apart. They attack using any attack, arms, feet, legs, hands etc. directed at any section of the body, usually not pre-arranged & with left or right side.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 12:52 AM
In order to help this drill become more effective, with respect to realism, try these simply modifications:
1- attacker does not step back before attacking, they should attack from a natural standing position, like a pararrel stance, without 1st moving away from the target
2- attacks should be limited to 1
3- the attack should not be pre-arranged
4- the attacker must try their best to strike the defender
5- counter attacks should be limited to 1, remember a true opponent will not attack using a single technique, nor will they stand still & pose or cooperate with the defender
6- the distance is determined by the attacker, according to the techniques used for attacking, for example, knee to groin, close quarters, side kick, further apart, flying kick, even further apart, not that too many flying kicks happen in the street, but attackers do come running at you
7- the counterattack should be approriate for the vital spot attacked
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 04:19 AM
Quote:
However many do not delve into it enough to grasp the way it should be done.
OR.. they do not agree its the best way to do it perhaps! 
Stuart
Posted by: StuartA
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 04:20 AM
Further to that, we have done it on occassion, full contact with hogu's on (no hard head strikes, which was difficult because they were still allowed with control). Its an interesting exercise.
Quote:
2- attacks should be limited to 1
Isnt this the way everyone does it or did I miss something? Was I incorrect when I said to Von that I think you meant the ITF like 1 counter technique rather than multiple? Apologies if so.
Stuart
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 09:45 AM
Quote:
In order to help this drill become more effective, with respect to realism, try these simply modifications:
1- attacker does not step back before attacking, they should attack from a natural standing position, like a pararrel stance, without 1st moving away from the target
2- attacks should be limited to 1
3- the attack should not be pre-arranged
4- the attacker must try their best to strike the defender
5- counter attacks should be limited to 1, remember a true opponent will not attack using a single technique, nor will they stand still & pose or cooperate with the defender
6- the distance is determined by the attacker, according to the techniques used for attacking, for example, knee to groin, close quarters, side kick, further apart, flying kick, even further apart, not that too many flying kicks happen in the street, but attackers do come running at you
7- the counterattack should be approriate for the vital spot attacked
As before ITF, our one-steps are prearranged and standardized and they are not changing nor would I want to change it. Instead of telling to try something different to make them better I throw that back at you. You try these to make yours better.
1. The stepping back is just a ready position plus if I'm going to throw a punch I am not going to throw it from a position where I'm standing with my feet shoulder width apart. And I have no idea what PRS stands for.
2. Attacks should NEVER be limited to "1". If you want to add realism you need multiple attacks; no ands ifs or buts. A person doing multiple attacks against a person doing a single attack; multiple withs 9.9 times out of 10.
3. These "are" prearranged drills; what don't you understand? We keep going around and around on this, get this straight.
4. But of course and I have stated that over and over.
5. No, again counter attacks should never be limited to one. You train that way you will fight that way and you will be wondering "what happened?". Understand again for the upteenth time ITF, these are pre-arranged drills. These drills are for the defender no the attacker; though the attackers does get many benefits from these drills as well. Yes, nobody is just going to stand there but you cannot tell me that you don't have drills in class where you allow one person to do something to the other person and then switch it so the other gets a chance. That is what this is and this has emphasis on the defender and to teach them multiple methods of defending themselves with multiple attacks that can be done in a second or two.
6. Not sure where you are going with this one however distance is very important in this drill for both. The attacker is suppose to being punching at the defenders chin and the defender must have the proper distance to defend using multiple techniques.
7. If the drill was one of our vital spot drills then the defense would be BUT we are not talking about this drill, we are talking about my one-step drills. Please don't assume that we don't have other drills. We have many drills, too many that I could even list and I'm sure some how you would try to analyze and scrutinize and summarize these as well and tell me how they could be made better.
Again ITF, you need to understand the drill in order to know what benefits it has. Don't change my drills and tell me how to make it better because you have no idea about the drill and again I throw it back at you, give them a try as you may find them beneficial and if not take one thing from it, multiple defensive attacks are better then single ones. One may stop an attacker but highly unlikely however multiple defensive attackers and taking them off guard and bring the fight to them and not letting up; that stands more of a chance in your favor and is for realistic.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 10:35 AM
ITFUNITY
Like to start with saying that I enjoy your contributions to this forum and you have enlightened me on many issues and hope I have clarified some things for you also.
Got to say though that I agree with Dereck regarding the 1-step issue. There is no way that those of us that train these would give them up, you have no idea of the value that these contain. Not only do they work they have a way of opening the mind to utilize unlimited ways to improvise technique when one phase of a step go's wrong and I can not stress how valuable this is because every one knows things can change in a milla second. The goal with all of these is that once you are attacked by an assailant (1) to defend, (2) you become the aggressor through a series of unprodictable assaults until the attacker is helpless no if ands or buts. This is key to survival in SD and you will not accomplish this with one assaultive response. This one technique response will cast you into a sparing match at best and I do not want a no rules sparring competition with some idiot.
Would not give these up for anything. If I had to pick a physical aspect of training that was most valuable to me it would hands down be my advanced 1-steps. I would even rate these ahead of conditioning because if mastered you don't need to fight back very long.
These are so valuable that I don't mind the WTF sparring rule set (you know the no hands thing) because I know that issue is a non point because of the advanced 1-step training. I read your suggestions of how to improve them and most, not all, of these suggestions are experimented with by the students from time to time but never, not once, have I witnessed a students desire to utilize a one response attack once they have learned the multiple attack steps.
Posted by: Shonuff
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 10:37 AM
I just saw this thread after replying in the one below, the discussion here may have moved on, but I feel my points do have relevance to the initial discussion.
http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...71#Post15992958
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 11:52 AM
Quote:
[Again ITF, you need to understand the drill in order to know what benefits it has. Don't change my drills and tell me how to make it better because you have no idea about the drill and again I throw it back at you, give them a try as you may find them beneficial and if not take one thing from it, multiple defensive attacks are better then single ones. One may stop an attacker but highly unlikely however multiple defensive attackers and taking them off guard and bring the fight to them and not letting up; that stands more of a chance in your favor and is for realistic.
Dereck I am sorry that you don't see my point. I am kinda reluctent to continue this with you as your response doesn't recgonize the thrust of my statement. You seem to want to get a back & forth going on which way is better. See below:
Now I am not saying this is better etc. But I will ask you to do an experiment, that I challenge students with.
Do your 1 steps the way you normally do, with 1 exception. Whisper into the ear of the attacker to really try to strike the defender. See how it changes the dynamics. After awhile, whisper again into the ear of the attacker, that after the intitial attack immediately do another. See how this changes the dynamic even more.
So before anyone wants to critique, please realize we do mutiple counters & the students are prepared to execute them. It just does not occur in 1 steps. That is why our 1 stpes are different than others, as we limit the counter to one. The focus is real attack, with correct defense & immediate effective counter, as the real opponent will not pose.
I am sure other schools have something similiar, but may just call it by another name. From my understanding & experience, many schools do 1 steps like I 1st learned, which is a throw back to the Kwan days. Nothing wrong with them, as they are a useful drill. Ours are just different, as the purpose is different. JMHO
You simply do not get what I am saying, refuse to acknowlege understanding it or any benefit of it. We do have drills like your 1 steps. I also stated most places probably have drills like our 1 steps, but maybe call it something else. Von1 wanted me to explain. I did & brought back some previous posts regarding same. This is not an either or, nor is it my way is better than yours. That is not my style, nor is it of any benefit to me, especially in a setting like this. I find it rather insulting that you would think I don't do drills like your 1 steps, don't see a benefit in them & think that other places & other accomplished martial artists like yourself, would have similiar drills like what i call 1 steps, to fill in the gaps. I have been doing this for 30+ years, during a timeframe spanning 4 decades. I simply offer something as food for thought. If you are not hungary, or do want to bite or taste, so be it. However, please don't question my motives, especially when I continue to spell it out. Some may wish to be close minded & that is fine. I am simply sharing, as Von1 asked me to.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 12:03 PM
Von1 of course I appreciate your kind words & have had my mind opened by many of your very valid points.
Please get beyond the labels. Forget what you do as 1 steps & what I do as 1 steps. Lets call yours combo drills. Maybe call mine defend & single counter drills.
Now if that is possible, one may see the benfit of both drills. I wish to make it clear, I do them your way & I think many, if not most have done things my way as well. You have just stated that your trianing does rightfully address this aspect.
With that in mind, my drill is just build defense & instant effective counter, period. It is done in as realisitc setting as possible, with the obvious & stated limitation of 1 attack & 1 counter. As I stated we also have our combo building drills. They just do not apply in this setting, as the focus is different, not better.
I again respectfully suggest that you try your drill adding the 2 whispers in the ear I previously outlined. I am sure that any opened minded person will clearly see how that dynamics are changed. Again I will make it clear by restating that I do not do this to show up or claim that something is better. It is just an exercise that will reveal a concern that I am sure most are aware of & most supplement in other areas of their comprehensive training.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 12:56 PM
ITF I am not being the difficult one it is you. You state what we do is different then yours and that we may do other things and just call them a different name. I accept this but you don't, why?
I don't know where you are coming from but I feel you are always trying to push your ideas and beliefs on others and especially myself; like you feel your system is far greater because you are ITF TKD and that you have some great encyclopedia from a person you always refer to as the founder like everybody should bow down and automatically respect.
In our one-steps the attacker is ... let me emphasize that ... IS trying to hit the defender especially at blue belt level and higher. If they don't move and respond then they get hit; simple as that.
Now I'm all for experimenting ITF however what you need to understand is that these drills are what they are and we are not changing them or experimenting with them. These are viable and proven techniques that work and why they are put into a drill and practiced. Before you get your panties in a not please also understand as I have tried to relate before is that we also do similar training such as you have proposed however as earlier you even said yourself, we call them different things. We practice those as well so why would I change another drill to incorporate a drill that we already do. And also we do free sparring that includes these with resisting opponents that we incorporate many of our drills to ensure that we understand how they work; there is nothing better.
I do not refuse to acknowledge or understand the benefits of other training, it is however you that will not acknowledge anything beyond your own nose that isn't what you do as beneficial or that it is being practiced in other drills and called something different. I am sure all that you train is covered in our and others curriculum and it is understood by all their value. If anybody should feel insulted it is I and not you when it comes to these discussions.
I have always found you to be a very knowledgeable person and looked forward to reading what you had posted to better learn all of TKD and not just mine. But more and more that I read I find that you are driving home your TKD as being the better and that everybody else would be that better off if they would just tweak their system to mimic yours. Small discussions you blow out of proportion and throw a lot of history at it that many times has nothing to do with it and you always refer back to the encyclopedia and the founder like those mean something to anybody else but your system and others that follow that system. Those are fine if that is how you learn, teach and train ... I have no problem with that if that is what you choose and you benefit from them. However they mean nothing to many others and surprisingly we can learn, teach and train as effectively without them.
I have stated over and over that I'm not into the history and that I learn by application and doing and referring to an encyclopedia would not aid me ... that is me. I can learn from technical videos and take those to class to work on them and learn then and incorporate them into my routine however reading an encyclopedia would do me no good nor would it for others.
I am happy with the way I train and I am confident in my Instructor who has a solid base in TKD with influences from Hapkido due to his Korean Master. I am confident in his abilities as a black belt in JJJ. I am confident in his skills as a Machado BJJ blue belt. I am confident in his MMA skills that he trains with and fights for the MFC and has training partners who fight regularly in the UFC. I am happy where I am and I am learning effective TKD under his guidance; his hands on. Please accept that and don't try to change that.
You are happy with your system. You are happy with your encyclopedia to reference. You are happy with your knowledge of the history. I accept that and am happy for you and wouldn't want to change that.
I don't mind discussions or keeping an open mind, I've learned lots this way and even from yourself that I appreciate. However please stop being so overbearing and full of yourself and feel that nobody is listening to you. Perhaps if you stop to listen yourself you would find that people are listening and it is just that they are as set in their ways as you are and just because they won't incorporate your ideas in their system doesn't mean somebody doesn't understand the value or that the value is being addressed by other means. You are hung up on these one-steps even though you say that you train something similar but call it a different name, which I and others have expressed we train similar to you and call it a different name.
Now if this too much to ask and you have your back up then I suggest that we leave it at this so as not to ruin things for others. If you want to battle this out then we shall do through PM's or we will decide to drop it here once and for all as this has been ongoing and if you look at the one-step link I put up from over 2 years ago, you did it then as well. What say you?
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 12:58 PM
Regarding the 1-steps conversation
Just wanted to add that on another thread I spoke of styles like the UFC and other MMA and how I thought too many people were getting too caught up in all the great marketing these organizations are doing.
Many people are saying that this is the closest you can get to real fighting ect. This is true if you are comparing sparring rules and one on one resistance training and competition. I made the claim that to me personally it still did not constitute real fighting and all most got my head taken off.
What I was getting at is that there are many ways to neutralize these type fighters and many of these ways are contained in advance 1-steps which contain many debilitating techniques that you would never want to use unless it was for real and this to me would be real fighting so I am not concerned with an MMA type fighter any more than any other fighting style.
The point is, now looking back, I would guess it safe to say that most people scuffing at this probably do not train the advanced 1-steps or train them much different, and have absolutely know idea why I was making these comments. This is not to say that I claim to be able to beat all MMA on the street, many could wipe their a-- with me just as many in my own art could, but these are not the persons to fear on the street they are too busy training and growing as I am and not out causing trouble. However, if thugs who watch to much MMA and fight untrained MMA style, which for a thug is plain old smash mouth assault and try to take you down, and this is, (who one should be concerned with) our 1-steps have this covered. Apples to apples of course, meaning not some TKD 80 pound sack against 300 pound muscle bound in raged, high, or armed thug, and even then the odds are much better. Once one gets proficient at these they are awesome, and no one is going to convince us that train them otherwise. They are much more than they come accross in print trying to explain them.
I love this forum, I can be the toughest s.o.b. in the world on here!
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 01:21 PM
Von, I definitely understand what you are saying. I am a believer that MMA fighters are definitely on to something and that fighting in the MMA ring is as close to a street fight you can get as all tools are being use. I've seen it first hand and we train many techniques within our own system due to my own Instructor's involvement and it is a viable self defense system.
Now with that said I have seen some highly trained martial artists with some being on here that are so proficient in their system that they would give anybody a run for their money. I believe there are many viable training methods and it does come down a lot to the person as I could be trained in each and everything my Instructor has from the ground level and would never accomplish the success he does.
Now in respect to your comments about our one-steps, I see value in that as well. The average joe and many others that fight are going to throw their punches at ... you can say it ... we all know it ... your face. That is ingrained in so many people that by training these one-steps that deal with the attacker punching towards your face, these drills can only work more in your favor and as you know multiple attacks done in this drill take a second or two only and that multiple attacks where you now are the aggressor can end that situations quicker then becoming a back and forth fight due to a single strike even to a vital area. Technique, commitment, aggressiveness and finishing the fight quickly are required and this drill can deal with that. Of course this cannot be the only drill but we all knew that already.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 02:39 PM
Dereck
quote
Von, as all tools are being used. (Part of the quote)
end quote
Got to disagree with this.
All tools are not being used, this is my whole point and why I feel that SD training has the smash mouth take you down fighter covered. They only use the basic safest techniques that can be used to compete not any/much of the nasty stuff contained in advanced 1-steps. This is a good thing no one wants to be hurt, maimed, or die and MMA still is the most realistic way to train but I still do not feel that it is real because in reality it's no non scence nasty and that's where all the tools are used. Many people at the color belts or the non MA'st think it is real and is the ultimate fighting style just as they do it in the ring this could get them killed because they would only be fighting not applying the nasty stuff that will allow them to go home. Now if one is so good that they can simply over power every one fine, not me I am not even thinking of turning things into a competition.
This probably is coming across like I think I am some bad a-- and that is not my goal because I am far from that, just trying to state SD that I believe to be true.
Posted by: matxtx
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 04:02 PM
I commented on another post of yours Von and I dont agree still AND I believe I understand advancted 1-step and have taken it very seriously and weighed up pros cons and taken it into MMA type training so feel I can comment.Not that I am absolutly right or thinking everyone will agree.
If you practice one step like you said where the attacker steps back into a low stance,kiaps and attacks with a right punch with a TKD punch technique,that is a totaly unrealistic start and anything you train after is void as no one will attack like that.Its been a waste of time.
From the post thats how I gather you practice one step.Correct me if I am wrong please.
In my veiw one step is just an excercise that could fit in at some point during an assault or fight.Its not meant to nor does resemble how an assault or fight starts.Its a bit like skipping in the sense that skipping is an excercise to help hand, foot co-ordination,timing ,fitness yet you dont go and skip in a fight.
Its just a STEP towards something else.
To make it as realistic as possible in my view the attacker should be given a time frame to attack,say 1 minute and he can walk about or move position and attack in any way suddenly,The defender does his best and if he doesnt either get dominant striking position then run or get a submission ,which would be a break if it was real,they continue in an all range spar for say 3 minutes or untill the defender can do that.
It could be argued all spars should start like that.
At some point in a fight or assault you could end up in a position which resembles what you see in one step.But it wont be from a strike.An example is you see people do a middle block from a traditional punch attxk then throw an open hand strike to the temple then sweep.Or similar.
In close in the middle of an assault you might be able to trap an arm if you can pummel or hand fight.Maybe get something like a russian 2 on 1.NOW it might resemble that moment you have an arm,and can get a strike off then a sweep.But it was an oppurtunity.Almost a fluke.
To me thats the possible use of one step.And thats debatable.
Again,concerning rules,if there were no rules or referee there would be deaths and seriouse injuries in MMA fights.It is easier to apply the nasty stuff if youv been put inder stress in as sports envoiroment than if youv never been put under stress at all.
''If I can beat you with rules just think what I could do to you without any''.Thats the Motto,haha.
As a TKD person I get embarrassed because of comments like yours and I feel those kind of unrealistic views put down TKD.Thats why Im posting now.Please go to a wreslter or boxer or MMA person and experiment with it and put whatyour sayingto the test.Its the only way.
Posted by: matxtx
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 04:18 PM
Another thing I would like to comment on is the idea of who will attack you.Von, you say you are not concerned with MMA fighters.
Thats cool.
I just wonder who you do have in mind and how their attacks fit into one step?
If you are a good guy and dont go around getting into fights,which you seem like,then thats, that area covered.
So now a person who is going to asault you is going to be either after something,in which case they have a weapon so its a no brainer to give them what they want, or realy wants to damage you or kill you and is a loon.He will attack you ambush style and your against it there.
Another type might be an assault where he walks up to you or runs up to you and attacks.Again,doesnt resemble that one step.He wil choose his victim on grounds of an easy target and will have experience of violence and probably a good attack like a great punch or a spitto your face then punch.Something tried and tested.That ,I have not seen in that one step or any one step.So its all very violent up to now and not resembling any one step iv seen.
Next the person who likes to fight and a challenge and just startsa fight for fun and is trained.An MMA thug maybe.This person you said you dont worry about so your buggered if that happens.
So I am flumoxed as to who is left to attack anyone.And how the one step thats being talked about will help.
I hope this comes across as just a friendly discussion and some views or ideas to think about(which is what I intend) ,not as laying into anyone or having a go.
Thanks.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 04:31 PM
Quote:
Dereck
quote
Von, as all tools are being used. (Part of the quote)
end quote
Got to disagree with this.
All tools are not being used, this is my whole point and why I feel that SD training has the smash mouth take you down fighter covered. They only use the basic safest techniques that can be used to compete not any/much of the nasty stuff contained in advanced 1-steps. This is a good thing no one wants to be hurt, maimed, or die and MMA still is the most realistic way to train but I still do not feel that it is real because in reality it's no non scence nasty and that's where all the tools are used. Many people at the color belts or the non MA'st think it is real and is the ultimate fighting style just as they do it in the ring this could get them killed because they would only be fighting not applying the nasty stuff that will allow them to go home. Now if one is so good that they can simply over power every one fine, not me I am not even thinking of turning things into a competition.
This probably is coming across like I think I am some bad a-- and that is not my goal because I am far from that, just trying to state SD that I believe to be true.
Oh Von you didn't.
Let's look at it this way. For most people they look at TKD and they say, "those guys wouldn't fair well in a real altercation, do you see how they fight with their hands down." You and I know that is the "sport" side and that we train other ways that include self defense but instead you now are doing that to MMA. I can guarantee you that the real deal is being trained with all of the nasty stuff by many schools because remember, not everybody competes. And I think John Kogas who trains a MMA type of programs would highly disagree with this comment.
You are sticking MMA "sport" in the same category as TKD "sport" and not giving it a chance. We don't like it and I'm sure they don't like it.
Posted by: ITFunity
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 04:48 PM
Quote:
If you practice one step like you said where the attacker steps back into a low stance,kiaps and attacks with a right punch with a TKD punch technique,that is a totaly unrealistic start and anything you train after is void as no one will attack like that.Its been a waste of time.
These are good points & all ways would have similiar shortcomings or different weaknesses. There is no 100% way to simulate real fighting & realistic defense, because of very obvious limitations.
The point I would like to add is that often after the initial attack, even if it is live, the attacker justs poses, which of course presents additional concerns.
No easy answers
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 04:55 PM
Correct, no easy answers. As martial artists all we can do is train with different techniques in different drills and then put them all together. If you are inclined to then compete to do so as that will also aid you. Try going to other schools to see what they have to offer. Even with all of this is still can be a hit or miss but more information is better then no information.
Posted by: von1
Re: Taekwondo - a fragmented art? - 04/03/08 08:56 PM
quote
I can guarantee you that the real deal is being trained with all of the nasty stuff by many schools because remember, not everybody competes. And I think John Kogas who trains a MMA type of programs would highly disagree with this comment.
You are sticking MMA "sport" in the same category as TKD "sport" and not giving it a chance. We don't like it and I'm sure they don't like it.
end quote
O.K. I may have jumped the gun. I am not referring to those that come from other arts to MMA. I was referring to the young man that wants to be an MMA fighter with the goal of UFC or what not, this person has no back ground other than training primarily for competition. If I am wrong I apologize to all whom train MMA. I admit that my experience is limited to that of a spectator so those that train MMA feel free to let me have it.
Oh, wait you already did that to me once.