Should TKD patterns be scrapped?

Hello

For those that don't know, I did TKD for a year quite a while ago with the TAGB (Chang Hon).

Question(s): Should the patterns (hyungs/poomse), in all versions of TKD, be scrapped? Is there any need for them? Is there anything particular in the forms that is shown elsewhere in TKD? Do they have any function aside from just being there??

Now, a lot of you may be thinking "Why is he singling out just TKD? Other arts use patterns (aka forms/kata etc...)" The reason I am looking at TKD is due to the following:

i) In my experience, and it seems in many other peoples experience, so called "self defence" movements taught in TKD come from a variety of other sources outside the art e.g. Hapkido, Krav Maga, Ju Jitsu... I have seen very little to suggest there is anyone seriously practicing TKD patterns, then looking for fighting application in said patterns in the same way that Karate has the kata/bunkai relationship. There may be one or two exceptions, but by and large it seems to be that TKD pattern application doesn't exist, if simply because hardly anyone is teaching or learning it.

ii) ITFUnity is lucky enough to have studied at an old school TKD class, where by his accounts, they do all sorts of good stuff like sweeps and takedowns. I have seen parts of the TKD encyclopaedia, and it seems that a lot of this existed in original TKD. ITFUnity did mention though that a lot of this was drilled in step sparring, not patterns. So if there are different techniques being used in TKD "above the norm", are they being learnt in step sparring, not patterns? Hopefully ITFUnity reads this, because I would be interested to hear what he (and others think!).

iii) The patterns of TKD were created or modified to promote Korean identity. Sure they may have other reasons to exist, but that I think was a BIG reason for their existence, and then in their evolution (i.e. Poomse).

I haven't come across another art that seems to have as little practical use for patterns as TKD.

Is there any practical reason for having patterns in modern TKD? They don't make you better at sparring, Self Defence techniques in many TKD schools is either borrowed from other arts (e.g. Hapkido) or taught in step sparring, and many of the patterns were created for what seemed to be reasons more to do with promoting national identity rather than having any practical use.

Am I presenting one side of this? Probably. Then again, people were complaining about it being slow on here, so hopefully this will generate some discussion!

I'm a yes and no. This for me all comes down to what you are training for. If you are truly training for self defense then yes, scrap them. If you are to be a fighter whether TKD or perhaps you blend it in with your MMA then again I say yes. Now if you are in a traditional system and are taking TKD as a whole then I say no.

Derek you need to write one more post, you are at 9999.. make a wish!

I look at poomse the same way as I look at dance coreography. Will coreography help you on the dance floor? No, probably not, but that isn't what it is there for. For one, it is definitely there to show off, and it is a lot of fun. It may not help you with your lead and follow on the dance floor but you dancing does improve when you practice coreography. It is a way to practice, repeatedly moves in sucession with other moves. You can learn possible combinations, how the end of one move is supposed to flow into another one. How the weight is shifted before and after, etc. etc.

I agree with Derek, if you are taking martial arts to defend yourself, you don't need them. But they aren't completely useless when martial arts is looked at as an artform and I do quite enjoy them.

I go back to Mr. Anslows book which shows many SD applications within the patterns. I don't think the question is should they be scrapped as much as should instructors be held to a higher standard of teaching the applications? I think that the Japanese arts do a better job of this.I do believe in most cases that obtaining the BB rank in TKD is much to easy (definitely when compared to BJJ). I think that tests should be held no less than 6 months apart with a proficient knowledge of the applications of techniques from both the basics and the patterns. I don't like hearing that TKD takes its techniques from "other, more effective" arts as this is true of most all arts. Again, it comes down to how it is actually taught ! I am a practioner of the art and I believe in it, but again, I may hold my self to a higher standard in my practice of it. I don't care what rank I reach, I will NEVER use the term "Master" as I know I have too many flaws in executing some of the techniques, whether it be due to body type or age. Keep them, analyze them, teach them accordingly!

VDJ

I think Dereck is closest to my own personal position. Patterns are simply not an effective way to train for either sparring or self defence. I would widen that remark, not only to refer to Taekwon-do, but all martial arts. But we have to admit that there are many reasons people take martial arts. For those who are looking to get a bit fitter, enjoy themselves and learn a neat party trick, I can see nothing wrong with practising patterns. Even for those, like myself at one point, who simply find it interesting to try and do something "perfectly," as an exercise in focus and perseverance, will also find patterns agreeable. I don't see those goals as somehow less worthy than training to spar or defend oneself, as long as the individual is honest with him/herself.

Personally, I train almost purely for sparring and scrapping. I enjoy the sports aspect of martial arts much more than the self defence aspect. I don't think that makes me less worthy a martial artist than anyone else, although I wouldn't use the term martial artist to describe myself. I'm a hobbyist.

So, for me, whether or not patterns should remain in TKD is first and foremost a question of why one is doing TKD. It is exactly the same when I practice basketball. I go out a few days a week and have a shoot around for an hour, on my own. Does it improve my ability to play a 5v5? Probably not. Do I want to become better at 5v5s? Not really. But I resent someone telling me that I am not a basketball player, I merely play with other goals in mind.

I see forms as a way to practice what you have learned and to apply them in a short amount of time. It is also fun and beautiful to watch and perform. Also, it helps me with my footwork. Kinda hard to defend yourself when you trip over your own feet. I'm naturally a clutz.

I disagree with this statement regarding patterns.

If you are training to defend yourself then you have to be put in that position over and over until you figure things out. That means you have to do live training with individuals. You have to be put in positions where you feel uncomfortable and out of your element. Only then when you practice this will you truly be effective at self defense.

The thing with patterns is life doesn't mimic them. It is just like when you sit in horse stance throwing punches; who does that in real life? It is not a practical training method and simple is something of the art of the martial art. I can accept the art side and in many aspects it can be beautiful to view, though I will admit that TKD patterns either WTF or ITF are not as fluid and beautiful as other martial arts I've seen.

Plainly put, working against imaginary opponents doing set out patterns is not an effective way to train if you are in it for self defense or in it to learn to fight. You want that then you need to train as such. If you want to take a martial art for the overall experience then patterns are fine and they can express the art. You truly cannot train techniques to their fullest in patterns to apply to real life experiences.

You say what? I'll say it again, you truly cannot train techniques to their fullest in patterns to apply to real life experiences. For example, you cannot tell me the kicks you are performing in patterns is as effective as hitting a person or a slammer shield or a heavy bag. Kicks are meant to be driven through the target which is something you cannot do in a pattern. Now you say that the patterns are a supplement to that such training you are doing as well. I then say good, that is what I would expect from training martial arts as a whole BUT if you are training specifically for self defense or fighting then you are wasting your time because time could be better spent doing more live training. Cut out the fluff and train like you want to perform.

Again, nothing wrong with patterns within a martial art system where you can enjoy all of the aspects. But don't for once think you are more then that.

TKD Patterns should be scrapped!

The Chang Hon Tuls take similar movements from Karate Katas but are "Spiced Up" and taken out of sequence just to give them a Korean flair. (Which leads nicely onto the fact that most Karate Katas should also be scrapped).

The movements have been modified beyond their initial usage to the point that not even Stuart Ainslow ("The Darren Brown of Tuls"), can really decipher them.

But the performing of techniques can in fact be immensely helpful, if approached with integrity and with proper techniques, focus, timing and power.

Don't believe me?

OK, go visit an Enshin Karate School.
They are the only style I know that has NO WASTAGE in their Katas!!
Techniques learnt in their Katas translate DIRECTLY to fighting, be it Line-Work, Bag-Work, Sparring or Self Defense.

But in case I may have inadvertantly defended those who live in Plato's Cave. I would like to make amends by saying "Stay near the Fire, don't venture out! it is dark beyond the comforting firelight. Keep practicing your Tuls which often mimic postures similar to Coat-Racks and Hat-Stands"

Im a JKD guy now, so I no longer practice forms but before JKD I was TKD. I did TKD with ATA, and the I moved on to Moo Duk Kwan TKD. This will surely offend, and I apologize ahead of time, but IMO ATA was a joke. I believe that it instills a false sense of security and an inflated sense of skill, and its been watered down to point sparring competition techniques and sold as self defense. Its fraudulent at best.

MDK was different. My offense was somewhere around 80% kicking techniques 20% punching and no grappling at all while doing ATA. In MDK it broke down roughly to 70% punching, 20% Grappling, either in the clinch or on the ground, and about 10% kicking and of that 10% about 90% of it was knee strikes and low level leg kicks. We still did forms, for form. After we had the form, it was broken down to 2 and 3 step sparring, and when we had that, we then drilled with progressively increased resistance and full contact sparring. So not ALL TKD patterns should be scrapped, just most of the teachers.

Hi, Im new here. But ive been coming to this site for quite some time reading posts, articles etc. I study TKD, no longer practice at a gym(financial reasons). Ive been doing martial arts close to 20 years on and off now.

I thought this was a very interesting topic, ive been thinking about it a lot lately so I had to chime in. I came across these patterns on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7zbClPyXQ8 Hand techniques

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Q1XoF4P68&feature=channel Leg techniques

Im on the fence whether or not the patterns as we know it should be scrapped or not, but I do think better patterns could be employed. More focused, centered on application rather than aesthetic purposes. Something like, 3-4 patterns and thats it, there is no need for 16 patterns(WTF) and 24(ITF) ... for the most part they are just the same moves done over again with one or two here and there that are different. Don't get me wrong though, I do know each technique has its various applications, but we are getting to a point in MA where we know what really does and doesn't work. And unless you are gifted in certain areas, strength, speed, agility, etc.. Even less techniques work.

Also, if you haven't read A Killing Art by Alex Gillis , I recommend it to anyone interested in Taekwondo. In there it talks about how in the beginning only few techniques were practiced and actually utilized in real world instances. To me, a very eye opening book, until I read it I was starting to lose hope and confidence in my TKD. Now, completely renewed with a better direction. I believe there is another thread posting videos that Mr. Gillis shot of some sparring patterns that were developed, I believe these are more along the lines of what should be done for patterns. Very basic, simple combinations, with clear and concise application.

I believe of all the TMA, even though TKD is less traditional being formed only since the 50s, is actually one of the most evolving arts. I think TKD schools are quicker to cross breed, and a lot have been since day 1, hapkido, boxing, judo... Eventually, at least at the place I trained at, hapkido, boxing, and TKD were taught as one art and just called TKD. Granted we weren't getting the BEST boxing instruction or the BEST hapkido instruction, but it definitely was enough to offset TKD and now, to me, it just is what TKD is. So i think, at the very least, new patterns should be created, or new methods of practice should be employed as the center or TKD training. Like shadowboxing, which is basically a form of pattern training, and simple combinations, rather than full blown choreographed patterns. I don't know though, im still confused ...

KiBon, those videos I found horrible. Actually in class we did something similar but without the voicing, just kihups. But as i was doing a TMA I was okay with that but now that I can step back and look at martial arts and their effectiveness, it was merely fluff; like a lot of thing in TMA. It fills the void and while there are hints of techniques in them that translate over to other martial art skills, the time spent on them could have been better spent doing better training.

The book sounds interesting, I think I will take a look at it.

Your TKD was like my TKD, practiced many things but called themselves TKD. Mine was probably 70% TKD and 30% BJJ with hints of MMA thrown into them. And of the 70% TKD it also had Hapkido blended into it. Of course this all comes down to the instructor and what his interests were, and with mine also fighting professionally MMA, his interest were then translated over to our training. And like you mentioned it wasn't the best boxing it wast the best hapkido, my Instructor always told us that if we really wanted to excel in any aspects that we then need to cross train; go to a boxing school for punching, go to a Judo school for throwing, etc. Some of us actually did and I also gave a go at Judo but with weight lifting, my regular training and Judo, it was too much. And when our school closed I went into a school that taught separately Muay Thai, BJJ and MMA (an hour each night). But with 3 hours a night and weight lifting I was getting burned so it was then only Muay Thai and BJJ and then finally only BJJ. With now me not having trained since January. But will again in the future.

Back to regards to patterns, I don't think they need to be redone they just need to only be in a system where everybody understand they are the art side. If your training is gear towards fighting and self defense then perhaps you need to be looking for another school and that may not even be a TKD school.

There are patterns that General Choi was asked to be included or incorporated in the system but he refused.

There are a sequense of practical moves that could be used in a fighting situation.

They were referred to as sparring patterns.

I have been doing them for at least seven years now.

My instructor GM CK Choi would disagree with the notion that TKD is not a fighting system. He would say it was first developed as a fighting system but to many people it has lost its way or been taught incorrectly. Too much focus on sparring for competetion and too much focus on patterns. Not enough focus on contact fighting and the developmen of knock out techniques.

We are trainned that it is not the number of technique you know but rather it is the number of techniques you could potentially knock somebody out with that is important.

Check my post re Allex Gilles "A Killing Art"

I agree Flynch, TKD is most certainly a fighting system IF taught that way; no disagreement from me. Unfortunately that is not the case with the greater percentage of TKD out there.

That is the problems; watered down systems that crank out students that know very little in way of self defense or fighting. They believe because they do patterns that those hold the key to self defense, timing and technique and that is WRONG. To learn to fight and defend you need to ... say it with me ... fight and defend. This does not mean with imaginary opponents and it does not mean without resistance. Understanding that you must crawl then walk and then run, the same goes with training. Yes you have to start with little to no resistance to learn these techniques however the resistance should be increasing all of the time. The problem is within many martial arts systems, and TKD is not the only one, that resistance doesn't change. Without adequate resistance one will never truly know how to fight or defend themselves. Until you've been hit and hit hard you will truly never know how to react. With many martial arts to make it available for everybody this has been watered down or taken out and thus you have the crap that is out there. And in saying that I also say that martial arts is not for everybody, not the true nature of martial arts.

In my humble opinion, the number of forms in TKD is too *many*.

Hi,

I've never sparred a TKD stylist, in tournament or our dojo (guest stylists are always welcome to join our sparring class as long as respect,rules and they have control w/ lower ranks and agree to amount of contact w/ Dan ranks prior) or even watched a TKD class..but..FORMS..HUmmm

Forms and prearranged sparring sets do not teach either sport fighting or how to fight. But I believe I have 2-3 reasonable supports to not eliminate them...but then these are things I've pondered, My Master did not say what follows, so as they are my reasons(students ask why) I made up....opinion only

1.)Most people starting a MA often come with NO trained body control, they walk poorly, lack grace, may be weak and inflexible, and probably would never come back if just thrown into technique and sparring.
The Kata strengthen, teach bodily awareness in stillness and motion such that arms, legs,head and body may all move without thought(eventually), and as they approach the point where they are ready to begin sparring they have been inculcated and accept the concept that they are learning to cause damage or death to an attacker, and those who dont like the idea find a Tai Chi school:) (just kidding)

2.)Sometimes a different perspective is all it takes...for the moment forget that some MA believe Kata are intended to teach fighting...now you are a seasoned warrior in the late 1800's and teach the Shogun MA and you know 100's of techniques, you want to open a school and dont want any of your best individual attack/defense techniques forgotton after you kick it...KATA ARE MENU of all the techniques master sosanso found best and the pre arranged format w/ repetition ensures individual technique will not be lost.

3.)gateway...some advanced students will never try to make their own kata or may live believing it does teach how to fight and never split up techniques in a form to see what fits and flows,and there they are stuck.
The students destined to produce the best of the new generation drop all preconceived idea of kata and experiment, creating, perfecting favorite, or more natural for their body, techniques and moving these into sparring, the prelude to fighting.

as for "too Many" I believe in Cuong-Nhu I dont even know how many forms we have...I believe the idea here is that one is to continue practice and that for a life time...Theres enough to keep the advanced student (a "Lifer") always learning and growing, so not "too many", just enough for life...hhmmmmm

What do y'all think, good reasons for keeping kata?

Karl. Peace.

(quote)

1.)Most people starting a MA often come with NO trained body control, they walk poorly, lack grace, may be weak and inflexible, and probably would never come back if just thrown into technique and sparring.
The Kata strengthen, teach bodily awareness in stillness and motion such that arms, legs,head and body may all move without thought(eventually), and as they approach the point where they are ready to begin sparring they have been inculcated and accept the concept that they are learning to cause damage or death to an attacker, and those who dont like the idea find a Tai Chi school:) (just kidding)
(end quote)


Very nice points. I do not believe that forms were ever intended to be an accurate representation of SD or fighting. I also like your point as to forms being a minue to chose from and incorporate what one is comfortable with, again nice points.
One thing that I am convinced of is that forms/patterns are a nice tool to teach the body to transition from one manuveur to another while maintaing proper balance, posture, and form. I am not referring to the form it"s self regarding proper balance, posture, and form, I am referring to an individual technique be it a punch, kick, or combination of many techniques.
MA people practice patterns for a reason and always have and no one will convince me that they serve no perpose. I have done MA for many years and have done my share of sparring, in training and competitivly, and have witnessed first hand that the best fighters are always the fighters that train in all aspects of TKD including patterns because of the above stated reasons. Others have talked about resisting partners and this is also a must to reach the top of ones quest to become good at SD or fighting, but that does not mean that practicing patterns is worthless.
If patterns are good for the beginner why arn"t they good for a person at higher rank? arn"t we all beginners at the next leval with new things to learn, practice and perfect? I am not saying that patterns are the best for training to sparr, fight, or SD, I am saying that they are another tool that should not be ignorred.
Does this all mean that if one is good at performong patterns that they will be good at fighting, absolutly NOT! Does it mean that one can not learn to be a good fighter if they suck at patterns, absolutly NOT! What I am saying is that those that incorporate, study, and practice more of their craft seem to always become more crafty.

So I guess whenever boxers do "Shadow Boxing" to practice their combos and footwork, they are wasting their time?

I think the focus of the OP is too narrow. Patterns are not meant to be the only or ultimate training tool. They are just one tool.

First, if you only want to learn to fight, forget about learning a Martial Art all together. What you need is more in the nature of a Martial Science. Victoruy is the only goal. No need for Philosophy, beauty, or competition.

Now, you can focus on THE application for a technique. Or you can broaden your focus.

This involves the following. Reality Based Guru Peyton Quinn runs RMCAT. He states up front that he does not teach a Martial Art. It is a padded assailant adrenal stress program. Now, a big part of what they do is teaching you how to operate in the adrenalized state that accompanies SD situatiuons. One effect of this state is that movements become smaller and even trained individuals find the moves may then be ineffective. So, the scenarios and training involves going thru moves in an exagerated fashion so that when adrenalized the moves are smaller but still large and powerful. As they explain this I am thinking "Patterns".

Next. (And this is something Gneral Choi would cover in his courses) While you can focus on a single stated application for a technique. Or, you can focus on the "Real Application" found in any number of books, perhaps insted what you should focus on is how the pattern teaches you to move with well balanced power and practical efficiency in certain directions, levels and angles. Now, however you apply that motion is only limited by practical considerations.

A common example would be the traditional low outer forearm block being used to block an attack directed to the lower part of the body, effect a release from a wrist grab, or perhaps strike the neck of a person trying to grab you around the waist for a takedown. The motion, angle and diurection is virtualy identical.

I actually agree with Dereck and EarlWeiss. That for one, forms are tools (but in my opinion lesser tools than other ways of training the same thing better and quicker in modern times)that are traditional---and if that's what you want go for it.

However, with that said, a system taught sans any applications from those forms in their most rudimentary applications have turned their back on their use so can be easily abondoned---then they are just vestigial parts of something that could be usable but are misunderstood. BTW, I am one of those who thinks forms of any kind should be gotten rid of, but in my trek through TKD to never be informed of the use of a front stance as also the same movement for certain throws, that a horse stance can be used to control a falling opponent so that your center of gravity goes down with the opponent and so that you can use one of your bent knees as an impacting surface to drop your opponent's head onto....well it's frustrating to see these things denuded from the original intent and then taught as loose, coreagraphed elements that have no bearing on utility when there are aspects of use that could be entertained and practiced.

If you system does not teach these things or says that forms were meant to be used against multiple assailants, well you've got the watered down versions of the art because the instruction is missing these applications. Maybe the system's not bad, but then it is a few steps away from how thse things were thought of as mnemonic devices to teach application.

Back up the train EarlWeiss. You cannot compare a boxer working on combos this way and a person doing patterns; two different things.

Boxers and MMA fighters will train in the "shadow" type drills working on breathing, combos, footwork, etc. This has a lot of mental training and focusing. They train to fight, with fight being the key word. This CANNOT be compared to somebody performing a pattern. Boxers and MMA fighters will mimic how they actually fight, patterns are no such things. They are preset moves and techniques that require certain spaces between their feet and how certain techniques should look; look being the key word. We all know that no fight will ever look like a pattern and most certainly foot work won't. So you cannot compare the two, not at all, not ever.

Shadow training to fight is different then pattern performance for visual effect.

Your train and mine are on different tracks. I can absolutely compare the 2. There is however a difference. Boxers and MMA people are training exclusively for sporting contests with one opponent, (Not what I define as a "Fight" . Perhaps we need to define the term. So their drills reflect this. TKD patterns are designed for combat with any number of opponents positioned anywhere around you. This is what I call a fight.

Ever seen someone try to Steamroll the person in a fight. That is the base you need to develop in a front or walking Stance to prevent this. Someone try to sweep or kick tour lead leg. You need an L stance. Opponents to either side? Then a Sitting / horse stance may be best (Of course world Champ Boxer Ken Norton defeated Ali with it). How do you turn, advance or retreat with any number of opponents. Patterns provide this practice. Someone tries to hit you on the head with a stick, you need a rising outer forearm block in a sold stance. (Boxers and MMA guys don't need to train for this) . Etc. Yep, it includes Breathing, combos and footwork.

You think "Look" is the operative word. I think it is not the operative word but simply a characteristic. I think the operative words are movement, Balance, power, efficiency, tarining for adrenal stress conditioning, Learning angles, directions and levels of attack and defense and in some cases Esthetics.

Boxers doing shadow-boxing and TKD Practioners doing Tuls are immensely different. Paracticing Tuls is just getting your body trained at doing obscure and unrealistic movements.
That's why boxers don't do Tuls, or Shadow-Knitting.

I know... lets pretend that it was all just a bad dream and TKD Patterns are really really special

Agreed.

What I find is that too many people have bought into or sold patterns as anything but what they really are. If they were all that and a bag of chips then every fighter would be doing them and they are not. Instead you will find that martial artists from a traditional background who get into fighting will scrap things they don't need to work on things they do need, and patterns are not one of them.

I can Empathise with them. They like myself, have spent years doing TKD, getting their black belts and beyond. That's quite an investment.

Then someone realises that the Tuls which have been religiously practised for years are in fact quite nonsensical. That is a hard thing to take and many will continue to bury their heads in the sand. It's a shame. If it could been seen for what it is, then there would be better chance for an evolutionary change. But I seriously doubt that.

Yep, Dereck, have to agree with you. The reverse is also true, that if forms were so great then not doing them would be a hinderance to all those who needed to win a fight...and that just ain't so.

As for the comment about competition that Mr. Weis added, the functional problem is two fold here: 1) In every example of skill related use, I see competition...that's true for TKD and elsewhere; and 2) The only thing that has changed when competing in the use of the techniques is the intent. Tell me where a round kick would be different if applied in SD or a comp?

There is no difference in technique. Added to this is the fact that everyone seems to scream aboug a big difference in allowed techniques, well traditionalists don't use these either in competitions and there's no one saying that a MMAist wouldn't also practice for SD scenarios.

Good point Brad.

In most of the systems I have been in they were always geared towards self defense. My TKD most certainly was, only competed once in the 7 years being there. Yes we did patterns but that was set aside for 1 day in our 6 day rotation and was basically needed due to testing for belts. While told to do imagining an imaginary opponent, would it not have been better if there was an actual opponent?

BJJ most certainly was self defense orientated and to practice some of those techniques competition was a good way to do this because you had people other then the ones you trained with; people who were out to win. No patterns in BJJ is most certainly a plus and having to do everything with resistance is a huge thing when it comes to training; no pretending here. A short stint in Muay Thai and MMA that I took briefly were also geared toward self defense not competition. Also nice about both was no patterns. All things were practical and always had resistance training. Competition was never a factor. If you wanted to compete you could but there was a huge difference between MMA training and MMA fighting. If you wanted to fight then you did so by trying out for the MMA fight club and that required a lot more training which again no patterns were considered. You want to fight you drop stuff you don't need to learn to fight. You focus on fighting and patterns do not do that otherwise they would be used.

Again, patterns are fine for traditional systems that want to show off the art. I would never say they don't show techniques of the art however I can think of better ways to train technique then within a pattern and that would be all resistance training. People want to talk about focus, breathing, footwork and so much more about patterns but that is just not realistic. Perhaps trying your focus, breathing and footwork while somebody is trying to punch you in the face or tackle you to the ground. This way realism is being addressed and realism is where you really need to focus because that is when you need it the most; when your adrenalin is running high and your mind is in fight or flight mode. Patterns will NEVER address this.

Again, I see nothing wrong with incorporating patterns in a traditional system. I can even say I enjoyed some of them. I enjoyed being put on the spot to perform them, though at the time I may have said differently. But I understood why they were there and did not read into them more then many would.

Ain't that the truth! You know, too often we get hung up trying to find a reason why we do things. Patterns for some people are good fun, beautiful and medidative. There's nothing wrong with having them in your training if they are there for that reason. All I think that most of us is saying, is that they are not an EFFECTIVE way of training for fighting or self defense.

People train martial arts for many reason, and most train for more than one reason. If the above reasons are important to them, then I see no reason why we should attack those who perform patterns. Heck, I do patterns when I train TKD. I'm not a big fan of them, but I like the school and you have to take the rough with the smooth. And I can see the attraction of patterns: there is a great sense of achievement in practicing something a lot and then seeing noticeable improvements. I'm sure it's not helping my sparring an awful lot, but it can be good fun.

If you're a professional fighter, then practicing patterns is not an effective way to spend your time. But for the rest of us, being far from professionals, we can pick and choose to a certain extent, according to what we enjoy and what we think brings us closest towards our personal set of goals.

Are patterns realistic? No, of course not. When are you ever going to fight someone where you move that slow between moves? However, if trained properly, patterns CAN teach you a lot. How to generate power, balance, focus. It gives you time to work on the correct motion of a technique. If done correctly, it's a great workout and one you can do on your own, without fancy equipment. We are told you should be breathing hard by the third repetition of your pattern. If not, you aren't doing it hard enough.

In addition, it's one area that can be done without a lot of risk. In my own case, it's just about the only thing I can do right now. I was thrown from my horse early this summer and I am still recovering (broken pelvic bone, in two spots, and a wrenched knee). I am unable to do most everything else as I am unable to jump or kick for very long without pain, nor can I risk self defense, grappling, or sparring. But lower patterns are something I can still do. Stance practice is a great way to build/rebuild muscle tone.

I wonder if people are against patterns because they aren't willing to do the work, or because they've never been taught the correct way to do them. I see too many people at too many schools just walk through patterns and not give them the attention they deserve.

Laura

Ok people, I am going to start somthing here but I feel that I must. It sounds to me that most people speaking against practicing patterns are too hung up on or caught up in the UFC mentality.
What I mean by this is that people keep saying to train like you would fight and they are absolutly correct! if one wants to fight, but SD is much different than fighting. Patterns/forms contain many usefull and more affective weapons that one can choose from than traditional fighting techniques, especially at the higher levels. Many patterns that are practiced contain things such as eye couges,spear hands to volnerable body parts and much more. I do not want to get into a boxing/wressling/ground and pound situation when it comes to SD.
I would much rather spear hand an assailant in the neck or eye and get out of dodge not fight him and risk losing. This of course is a last resort.
These are just two examples that can be found in patterns that would be affective SD and if we look deep into patterns you will find many, many more. I train to perfect SD skills more than fighting skills and take my SD way more seriously than learning how to fight an assailant UFC style. Not saying that some of the fighting skills are a bad thing but I personally will rely on the nastier things that TKD offers and there are many techniques that are very nasty stuff. Every one is talking as if fighting is the same as SD and again it is not, (but one will make it that way if that is how they train) this is worth saying again, (one will make it that way if this is how they train!) One will naturally begin to fight!
Maybe my thinking comes from the fact that my instructor came from Korea and use to be a U.S. army combative instructor so we distingish our training and group it as fighting or SD, but never are they confused as being the same. We train to fight and we train for SD, and personally I perfer it that way and never forget the difference.

Believe it or not I agre with a lot of what was said here. If all you want to do is Fight or compete, you don't need patterns. Of course, you may do any number of drills which might be viewed as mini patterns.

If you eliminate any consideration of an esthetic performance, one only geared for competition victory or battlefield survival do you really have an art?

20 years ago before it became mass marketed I asked an Israeli about the learning the MArtial Art of Krav Maga in the Military. His answer was "Art, what art? There is nothing artistic about kneeing someone in the groin."

Laura, I'm sorry to hear about your accident; hope you recover fully. Not to belittle what you have posted and I'm glad you are doing something to keep active however there are far better ways to build or rebuild tone then stance practice. In fact stance practice would not even fall on that list and I think professionals would agree otherwise that is what they would be doing in physiotherapy.

Von, I disagree. We don't all have the mentality of UFC but what I do find is many think that because a person is a MMA fighter that they are not training self defense. In actual fact MMA fighting is probably the closest thing to a real fight is it will get for most. Are you serious to think they don't know nasty stuff? They can no sooner practice their deadly techniques then the "nastier stuff" you learn in TKD.

It has been proven over and over that highly trained traditional martial artists that enter a MMA ring generally lose. And I will even boldly stand behind that if the two ever went head to head in the streets with no refs that the outcome would still be the same.

You are not training near the degree that these people are training to fight. To hit and to be hit. To act and to react. These people are training day in day out learning only one thing, to fight. That is their goal, to beat their opponent as quickly as possible. And if there was no ref involved then it wouldn't be a sport it would be a blood bath and people would be dead or in jail for assault/murder.

To think that they don't know eye gouges; give me a break. How many people have you eye gouged in class? I can probably guess zero unless it was by mistake. You are merely mimicking the effect and I can tell you that I don't nor do others need to mimic this to know how to do it. If I'm in a fight for my life then I will eye gouge, groin strike, bite or do anything that needs to be done; guaranteed, no training required, it is my fight to survive reaction.

You don't want to wrestle or ground'n pound or even box? Self defense comes in many forms and the person you are against will dictate what happens. Guaranteed if they are a skilled boxer they will box the hell out of you. If they are a skilled grappler or wrestler I can almost guarantee they will take you to the ground if you want to or not. All of your self defense skills will go right out the window over somebody trained in these areas.

I can speak from personal experience coming from a TKD background for over 6 years. A TKD background just like yourself, training initially from a Korean Master that taught TKD to Korean and US Troops. A TKD background blended with Hapkido to cover more then just TKD had to offer. All from one of his top students who also blended BJJ and MMA to make the system even more complete. Then when that school closed going to a BJJ/Muay Thai/MMA school that you truly find where you really stand in the mix of things.

I pull no punches. I know where my skills stand and after seeing other training, actually seeing how fighters train; I am not on that level and I guarantee very few of us on here are. And no matter how much self defense we think we are training, how many patterns we've done, it will pale in comparison to those training to fight. And again they know all of that same stuff. They know eye gouges, groin strikes, soft tissue and sensitive areas, joint manipulation ... they are trained too.

Earlwiess,
You sound as if you seldom agree with me which is fine I just thought it funny the way you said it.

Derreck

You raise many great points that on the surface are very hard to argue against but I think that we are talking about two different things.
Regarding the UFC fighters example, yes they know the nasty stuff that most every MA person knows, they learned it in their prior MA training prior to becoming a professional fighter. The difference is there is training for the average person, and there is training for the professional which 99.9% of people are never going to come close to.

Yes these guys are on a whole different level of training, agreed. Your example emplies that these are the persons that one must use SD against but these are not the people out there doing the mugging and assaults on people.

There are many persons that train MMA that do not have prior MA training, these schools are popping up everywhere, and I gaurantee that their SD training is geared towards regular fighting techniques and these people will find them selves in a fight situation not a SD situation. They are going to respond as such because that is how they train. Many of these people are going to come out on the loosing end of some of these confrontations because they have been dooped into believing that fighting is SD. I too have trained other MA and a little MMA and realize that there is differences but I would put my SD skills up against most anyone because that is what I focus, train, and practice the most.

My comment about not wanting to box/wressle/ground and pound was ment to emply that there are more affective and quicker methods to ending a confrontation than an all out fight. As far as ones assailant dictating what happens I disagree strongly, they may dictate the beginning but I plan to dictate the ending, which is much harder to do if you are in a fight.

Your arguement is geared towards the professional fighter and mine is more of an average joe mentality and that is what most people are, and most of us need to defend against, most criminals are average joes gone bad and I can say this with confidence because I work with criminals all day for a living.

Just tinking. Perhaps in order to properly evaluate a person's opinion on patterns we need to first know:
A. What pattern system(s) they studied
B. Approximate number of classroom hours spent on the pattern

Neither of the above are definitive. But perhaps will add some insight. As to item B above, sometimes hours of experience is really just the same experience repeated for hours.

Woah!! Back up there von!




I think you're making a mistake when you associate my arguments with the "UFC is SD" position. I am not saying that at all, although I would say that mma is nearer self defence than patterns practice. What I am saying is that patterns are neither an effective tool for fighting OR for self defence.

That is for different reasons in each case, but the basic point is that patterns don't resemble either. If you want to train to be a fighter, then you should train like an mma guy. But if you want to train for self defence, you should be doing stuff that deliberately gears you up for self defence situations. For example- role playing situations, defence against weapons, rape scenarios for women etc. etc. It should probably be done in what John Kogas would call an "alive" way, i.e. with resistance, because you want to mimic a self defence situation as much as possible. But it is not the same as mma training, that much is a given.

The fact is that if you want to be good at something, you should practice that something a heck of a lot. In terms of self defence, this is probably unwise!! Getting yourself into dangerous situations all the time is more trouble than it's worth. However, you can attempt to simulate a self defence situation as much as possible, while keeping things relatively safe, in a dojang/gym. Patterns in no way simulate self defence situations- they are about as far removed from a stressful, threatening situation as you could get!

So you're right to say that fighting and self defence are apples and oranges, but patterns practice is a lemon.

I, for one, am against them because there are more productive ways to train, IMHO. They amount of attention they deserve is really a matter of opinion.

Matt, I'm referring more to the people I've seen at tournaments and other schools. I hear a number of people say "patterns suck" when really it's their ability to perform a pattern that "sucks", or their lack of desire to do them.

At tournaments, I look at people who come from strictly sparring schools and those that are more "traditional". 9 times out of 10, the people who win the sparring competitions are those that also win the patterns competitions. And typically, the patterns schools are a lot stronger than the sparring only schools. Heck, I've seen instructors drop patterns from their curriculum and watched the quality of their students drop rapidly.

At my own school, it's very clear that the people who practice their patterns regularly improve their technique much quicker than those that don't. Maybe it's just that the people willing to practice patterns are just more serious about their training, but there is a very noticeable difference.

Anyone can throw a punch, but how many people do you know can perform a pattern like Juche, where you perform a side kick then while keeping the foot up in the are turn 180 degrees around? I guarantee that person is going to be in better control of their body and be able to respond better to any situation.

Please also understand that I am not saying that patterns are the only thing you train, but just one aspect that has a lot of value IMHO.

I hear "homework sucks" a lot from children, does that mean we should get rid of it too?

Laura

In my case, it's a question of efficiency in time spent. Patterns are dead last in comparison to almost anything else (sparring, bag work, etc).



I think that shows that people who compete a lot, win a lot. I don't see that patterns have anything to do with it.



Anything is possible, I suppose. But again, I haven't noticed that forms work increases anyone's fighting ability in the slightest.



That's extremely condescending, and I *know* that is not true. Anyone that judged my training by lack of forms practice would be sorely misguided.



You guarantee it? I'm pretty sure being a gymnast does not mean that someone can fight. You are trying to connect practices that have nothing to do with each other.



I understand. But I disagree.

Laura, if you base how well you a are a martial artist by how well you do patterns then you have missed the boat. If you are good at patterns because you practice them a lot then that is all it is; you are good at patterns. Doesn't make you better at kicking. It doesn't make you better at punching. It doesn't make you better at self defense. It doesn't make you better at sparring. It only makes you better at patterns.

In a traditional system where patterns are used I see no problem with them supplementing the other things you are doing; I have absolutely no problems with that. They are the "art" side of martial arts and they are a part of a system as a whole. But as to effectiveness, I put them very low on the scale of things and in order to flourish in fighting or self defense then there are better things to put your times towards.



Laura, I don't agree with this. I did not dislike patterns and in fact I did them very well and I also taught them very well. There was no lack of desire of ability on my part. However I am not blinded by what they really are and know there are better ways to train.

I always laughed at competitions and people winning trophies and medals for performing patterns. I personally think this part is a joke and what give TKD and other martial arts a black eye. To think many of these people think their are skilled martial artists because they can perform preset moves. Sure there are techniques shown in them but I will guarantee you that it is no different then what a dancer could do and in fact I could easily train one do perform them and perform them well. In fact I could take an average person and teach them patterns and they would do well at these tournaments. Doesn't make them martial artists, it just means they can follow direction.

I understand that not everybody has the same view of martial arts. I also understand that martial arts especially traditional martial arts are there for everybody to do and in order to do them a lot of things have to be dumbed down or have to be modified so that all can participate. Patterns are most certainly something everybody can participate in but not for once would I base how well somebody does patterns to how well a martial artist they are. Nor would I believe that they are a form of teaching self defense or teaching techniques because there are more effective ways of doing this. I will not disagree that they can "show off" techniques and self defense moves and are a window into martial arts; but they are nothing more then that.

I have seen many people who were excellent at patterns, understood them and liked them but they fell short in other areas of martial arts training and conditioning. I've seen others not perform patterns well and disliked them but when it came down to the grit of martial arts they were excellent. And of course I have seen others excellent at patterns and the grit of martial arts. So patterns in reality really cannot be held in such high regard in relation to how well a martial artist is. A performance aspect to display the art itself; nothing more.

We all have our strong points. We all have our likes and dislikes. What ever we decide we like, how every we decide to keep active mentally and physically; well then that is all good. I am reminded of something my Instructor always said. "If they come out of this with just one thing that will make them better then that is all that matters. If you are happy doing it even better." I totally agree with this however I'm also not one to believe I am more then I really am.

(Part quote from Derrick)

I will not disagree that they can "show off" techniques and self defense moves and are a window into martial arts; but they are nothing more then that.

(end partial quote)

This I agree with.

I never ment to emply that patterns are the best way to teach SD or fighting. My goal was to show that they are still worth keeping and teaching as yet another tool of TKD and should not be scrapped. As Derrick said , patterns/forms as we call them, are a window into a martial art, and they are a window that many feel should not be closed.

The glass within this "Window" is so Heavily Fosted, it is of VERY little use and can be detrimental to the art as a whole. Espescially as Instructors continue to try and make "Dodgy" Self Defense applications from them.

For Example:
I have just come back from a book shop where I saw a TKD Patterns book which described the Upset Fingertip Strike (Palm Up Spear Hand) as an effective Groin Strike !!!



Laura


You could apply your argument to the practice of constructing Brick-Life-Rafts.
Some people say that this exercise sucks, because of their lack of brick-laying ability.
But the big picture is that the entire practice is of dubious value.

Once again I think you misconstrue what I was trying to say. So let me try again.

Lets take one technique, lets say my all time favorite kick, the back kick and show how patterns can be of uses.

I can kick the bag or other target all day, with significant force (or I could when I wasn't injured), however, put this technique into a pattern and it sucks. I have no balance, my kick is low, sloppy, etc. The reason for this is that I am used to training where I can actually hit the target and my technique takes into account the weight and resistance of the target. It does not take into account the fact that I might miss!

By practicing the back kick in my pattern and the transitions to and from that kick, I improve my balance and technique and train for the possibility and all likely hood that I could miss my target in a real life situation.

I use the bag to get comfortable with hitting a target, I use pattern work to get comfortable with the technique and insure that if I miss I'm not going to loose my balance and get myself into a situation that would be very bad, and then, when I am comfortable with both, try it in a sparring match, when and if the opportunity actually arises.

Sparring requires two people, patterns and bag work do not. patterns don't even require expensive equipment. Not everyone can afford to go out and buy a bag to kick, but all a person needs to practice a pattern is some space. If nothing else it's a mechanism for providing a library of techniques for the student to be able to practice on their own at home, which can then be corrected and refined in class.

Every drill in the martial arts has it's pro's and con's. One Steps are very unrealistic, but they give you the opportunity to work through counters to a specific situation. Paddle work is great, but provides no resistance. Bag work provides resistance, but doesn't move. Sparring works a lot of things, but has a lot more risk involved.

Laura

I'm sorry Laura, I disagree with some of what you said. Do you know why it sucks in a pattern? The reason is you cannot perform this and other techniques as they were intended in a pattern because the do need resistance. For many techniques you must go through what you are hitting to make them effective. How many times have you seen punches, kicks, breaks and such fail because people don't go through their intended target? Misjudged distance. Misjudged power. Stopping short of the target. Pulling back too soon. I see patterns only increasing these mistakes because in a pattern you cannot perform the technique as it was intended.

I am reminded of one of the routines we used to do as a class. We'd start with punching and kicking drills and for me I admittingly struggled doing many kicks in the air. Sometimes I would be darn right embarrassed especially with so many years under my belt. But you put something in from on me whether it was a person, slammer shield, paddles, wave master or a heavy bag; that technique could flow. I won't ever being fighting imaginary people or kicking the air for sh1ts and giggles. When I use those techniques there will be somebody in front of me and I want to be able to go through that person. Resistance training is the only true way to do this.



Still don't agree. Stumbling around in a pattern trying to perfect a technique that you are unable to do fully because you would injure yourself makes no sense to me. I would sooner train those techniques with resistance and if I miss know what that feels like so that when it does really happen that I can acknowledge it and deal with it under that type of pressure. To set up and get ready to either do it again, do something else or get ready to defend myself. True balance will come to you when doing the technique only when you are using the technique to its fullest.

Doing patterns just are unrealistic for much of the training especially if you are talking self defense or fighting. The same thing goes with standing in horse stance doing punching. And in fact many things taught are in this respect. What these things are good for is that everybody can do them whether young or old so opens up martial arts to the many who could never do them before. They look good and I would put them under the "art" category of martial arts.

I'm not a fan of Bruce Lee; not at all. Not to get into that in this thread but what I can respect about him is that he looked at martial arts and striped away a lot of the nonsense. Not everybody can do martial arts if you did this and there lies the problem. If everybody cannot do them then where is the money? So people are told and sold the reasoning for why they are doing stuff. This is passed down through one Instructor to the next to the next. This is all fine but for the majority of us we will never ever have to defend ourselves and only a small number will really compete at a higher level of fighting. So martial arts today are fine as is for the majority of us; even with patterns and such that could be time better spent actually training with resistance.

Actually, I wouldn't go as far as to say that one should only do these things while hitting something. You can learn a lot from doing your kicks and punches in the air, not least, as Laura mentioned, in case you don't hit your target. Where I differ from Laura is that I see such things as a warm-up activity.

At the beginning of nearly every class, I do lots of kicks in the air- often not full kicks, but drills that force me to balance, keep my leg straight and high in the air, keep my feet moving etc. I do them because I think it is very important to have dexterity in your legs, and this can be built through what may seem like impractical drills. It is like SAQ training, which team sports athletes use for footwork- all that ladder training and strange shuttle running- well although it looks very impractical for playing football or basketball or whatever, it is actually very useful for building dexterity and quickness. I see my kicking drills as analogous.

However, this is really an argument that gets away from the main point of the thread. I think it would be a mistake to claim that doing techniques in the air is entirely ineffective- it is clearly not, if used as just part of practice. The problem, in my opinion, with patterns claiming to do this, is that again they do this inefficiently. If I want to build dexterity in my legs, I will do kicking drills, not patterns. If I want to improve my balance, I will do kicking drills or specific balance work, not patterns. If I want to improve my power, I will go do padwork and lift weights.

The question must always be one of efficiency, and patterns are inefficient at improving just about anything, save for the ability to perform patterns!

Yes YES YES!! I agree 100.8% Thank you VERY VERY much.
(For a while I thought I was taking Crazy Pills).

Cha-Ching; we have a winner.

I will join the dog-pile, agreeing with Supremor. Patterns are dead-last, efficiency-wise, in martial arts training.

(quote from TKD Tutor)

Patterns promote serious study of the martial arts. They help enforce the values of discipline, patience, and self-control. It offers a means of self-measurement. And, it sustains many of the ancient techniques of empty-hand com-bat. Along the way, the study of forms also offers students stability and gives them a lifelong challenge to improve themselves. And it is in things that last for a lifetime that you can find the most meaning.

Pattern training is good exercise. It allows students to practice fighting techniques without an opponent, similar to shadow boxing. Students can personalize the intensity of their workout by performing the patterns with varying degrees of power and speed. One of the great things about patterns training is that it can be conducted anywhere— indoors, outdoors, and on a variety of surfaces.

Students tend to practice what is easy for them to do. Patterns force students to learn and practice difficult techniques they probably never would have even tried otherwise and to use them in combinations they probably would never have imagined. Patterns depict self-defense situations rather than than sparring techniques and show how Taekwondo may be a useful and practical fighting system.

Learning a pattern is a process. Information in some patterns is voluminous and diverse. There are no solid rules for interpreting patterns. Some are based on certain stances and related techniques. Some are so intricate that studying them can require the same effort as any other art or science.

(end quote)


I strongly agree with this assesment of patterns, especially agree with the third paragraph of this quote.


I understand why many assign a low priority to doing patterns, I my self do not get excited about doing them, but I still disagree that patterns should be scrapped. They never were and never will be the greatest tool for teaching fighting or SD but they were never ment to be the main tool, they are one of many tools for training and practicing.

I would expect TKD Tutor to say nothing less. Just like I would expect a TKD Instructor to say something similar. To say otherwise would be to admit some failings to their system. And I'm not picking on TKD, this goes for many martial arts.

Again, I also don't think they should be scrapped. They have their place in a traditional system of training. It is something every student of any age can do making TKD and other martial arts attainable. If it was solely a self defense or fighting system it would only have a small following.

Ok, we are some what in agreement, patterns should not be scrapped.
Correct me if I am wrong but where we part is in our oppinions of wether or not patterns are a failing to the system of TKD and other arts.

Personally I do not see them as a failing and I will attempt to explain why.

1. Learning a MA. is a life long journy.
2. Learning to fight is a young mans journy.


Learning to fight mma. style is a young mans quest, few will ever become
good enough to really affectively defend them selves for a life time battling their way out of problems this way. I am not talking about the professional fighters that we watch on TV, they have MA training behind them and skill sets that encompass more than the brawn that is required to fight this way. These are the altimate professionals. I am talking about the young man that walks into the new corner MMA. school and wants to be the next bad as%. The level of conditioning one must maintain to be good enough to battle this way is beyond most and gets worse with age.

Most people can not even put in enough time to become good enough to fight this way, we have jobs, relationships, kids, and other things we must attend to, and if one wants to brawl you better be good or ouch, maybe even death.

To consistantly train this way means that as one ages they will be injured more and more often and their injuries will become more and more serious with more time spent on healing than actually training so how well do you think these individuals will really be able to stay good at what they train? Conditioning alone will become a problem, not to mention the mounting aches and pains from the punishment endured from this type training.

Many, including yourself, have said to train as you fight and this is what these people are going to do and they will no longer have the goods to hang in there. They are going to want to brawl an assailant because they were once good, or thought they were good at it, and it is going to come back to bite them for the reasons stated above.

Now the person that has made training a life long journy that does not have too many old time serious injuries, has been able to train on a consistant basis, probably has ok conditioning, and trains to attack vital and soft tissue areas before brawling is where I prefer to be, and where the good instructors want their students to be at when they are going to need SD most.

After all who is most volnerable to attact? OLDER FOLK! This is when one will probably need SD more than any other time.

Not flashy but speaking of the long run I can make an argument that good TKD training is as good or better than the blood bath brawls that we admire on televion.

Again I am not saying that Randy Couture or others with similar talant and skills are going to become out of shape old bag of has been not capabable of defending them selves, I am talking about the average joe who walks into one of these MMA. schools that are popping up on every corner and wants to train to be the next Couture, there are not many people blessed as these guys.

ahh, so you don't like the message so you shoot down the messenger. typical. Personally, tkd tutor said exactly what I've been trying to say, thanks von for posting that!



Actually I disagree. The majority of the people I see who hold back on their techniques, hold back out of fear. It's going to hurt when I kick or punch that. I challenge you to take a kids bag and a standard wave master bag. Fill them up with the same amount of sand and see what happens. More people will kick the smaller bag over than the bigger one because they perceive that the smaller bag is easier to kick over. Same thing happens with board breaking. The student gets scared of the board, stops committing to the technique. Switch out the board, or even pretend to switch out the board and they break it first try. Happens all the time.

However, take a person, say someone with ok technique, perhaps they have enough body mass to kick the bag over, and ask them to do that kick off the bag. What happens? They fall over. Maybe they are leaning. Maybe they are not rechambering their leg, just dropping it after they kick. Maybe they don't extend their kick. Fix those things, then put that student back on the bag and you will see a student with much better technique and a bag that goes flying.

The best patterns person at our school has the most beautiful, technically accurate kicks and they just shine in his patterns. Full extension, height, and power. He may weigh half of what I do, but I've been on the receiving end and been flattened by his kicks before.

A persons skill, how they hold their body, the cleanness of their technique shows in their patterns. I don't care if it's a traditional pattern that has been around for a thousand years, or one made up on the spot. A person with a sloppy pattern is going to have sloppy techniques.

Personally, I love patterns, enjoy the challenge they provide, the variety, and the feedback that they give. I loved getting a new pattern every 4 months as a colored belt. I loved going from being horrible at the whole thing to being ok with most of it but struggling with a couple of moves to the day where it all clicks and you get it and then being able to move onto the next challenge. I miss getting a new pattern every 4 months. I find it harder to stay motivated when you go a year or more between new patterns. I personally, would love it if we continued to get a new pattern every 4 month, even if it meant borrowing them from other styles. Very few other areas in the MA give you as much opportunity for momentum or growth and such constant feedback.

At my school, the biggest attendance day out of any testing cycle is always the day following a testing. The most common thing I overhear is "I hope we get to work on our new patterns today"

Laura

Von -



Von, you clearly have a very inaccurate view of MMA-style training. There is MMA for competition (like the UFC) and there is MMA training for self defense. It is not brawling or whatever you think it is. There is a high degree of skill required to be able to put the different facets of striking and grappling together, and if you haven't done it, you might not know that it is not as easy as it looks.



Many current MMA pros have come up as pure MMA fighters, although many of them do have a specialty. Brawn is actually not required, although it certainly helps. Not many people regard Royce Gracie or Kenny Florian as "brawny".



You are referring to competitive MMA folk, who are probably NOT the majority. Some do it for the workout, some because they are looking for effective SD, etc.



The brawling thing again. You clearly do not understand the skills involved - it is not brawling. This is probably hard to hear, but the average MMA student realitically knows much more about actual fight mechanics than the average TKD or karate person. This is coming from a fairly experienced karate person.



There is some truth to this, but remember that MMA style training is not always full intensity, like what you see in the UFC.



Brawling again. Von, you should really work out with some MMA people. You would find that you are really misguided in your beliefs.



Better at what, though? Clearly not better at fighting, right? Have you seen the early UFC's?

Laura -



You are actually making the case for LESS pattern training and MORE resistant stuff. They can't kick the bag right, because they can't kick the bag right. Doing more patterns will not help them. Watering down people's training is doing more harm than good.




They fall over? Then they don't even have 'OK' technique. But again, doing patterns is not going to help them - sparring will.



I could agree with that, but your logic is skewed here, because you don't *need* patterns to get good, applicable technique. You do need to spar and hit the bag.



Ehhhh.....I can think of several that do, more realistically and much more quickly.

Matt is correct, there is a HUGE difference in MMA fighting and MMA training.

The school Arashi-Do that I did attend for a short time between June of 2008 and January of 2009 was BJJ (1 hour), Muay Thai (1 hour) and MMA (1 hour). MMA put it all together and was geared towards self defense and general training. It had nothing to do with competing; not one bit. It was merely to give you the skills and technique that many other martial arts say they will but cut out the unnecessary stuff. Competition wasn't even a factor unless you chose to; and most certainly it wasn't at any high levels.

Now if you wanted to MMA fight, well they had that too and it was mostly done at one of the other schools though some of the guys I trained with did some together at the school I attended; my old school's building they took over. If you decided that is what you wanted then you could try out for the Sniper Fight Team and if made it then you trained full time with fighters. Many years ago a young Jason MacDonald trained as such.

But for the majority of us, we will never attain that level nor have what it takes to be a fighter physically or mentally. MMA training doesn't necessarily have anything to do with competing with the exception of class sparring however competition sure can up your game. But what MMA training can give you is a solid system of defense training.

(quote)

Von, you clearly have a very inaccurate view of MMA-style training. There is MMA for competition (like the UFC) and there is MMA training for self defense. It is not brawling or whatever you think it is. There is a high degree of skill required to be able to put the different facets of striking and grappling together, and if you haven't done it, you might not know that it is not as easy as it looks.
(end quote)


MattJ


This is really the only part of your reply that I need to address.

Some of what you say is correct, about the high level of skills, it is not as easy as it looks ect. but you assume that I have never participated in MMA training because my view of it does not match yours. Just recently I trained a little MMA at a place out side of Detroit which many believe is a very good school, me, I was not that impressed.

Yes I picked up some nice things from my limited experience at the place, but to be honest, I remain much more comfortable with my TKD SD Training than what they were teaching. I still can"t help to be of the oppinion that they prepare one for actual fighting more than ending altercations quickly, and to me my definition of fighting is brawling, you can not tell me I am wrong because this is how I see it, experienced it.

Quickest simplest example I can think of, grappling night, learning the mount, a guy is on his back I am standing at his feet, now to gain mount I want to grab and/or push legs to one side and pounce, now I have gained mount, let the beatings begin. Holly crap I have just turned a SD situation into a brawl/fight/beating! Not to mention I offer my back to a world that most likley is unfriendly! Talk about offering your back!

In a real SD situation I would be attempting to leave not gain mount! the guy was on his back for a reason, eigther he wants me down there or I already knocked him on his duff so why would I mount him? Learning to mount has absolutly no value to me where SD is a concern. Not knocking training MMA, only saying that where and what I train and assist in teaching, to me is good stuff. We train SD not fighting.

Maybe it was the school, maybe it was my own warped perception of the place, or maybe I am crazy, but this is still how I feel from the experience.

Hi,

what happened to the "should TKD patterns be scrapped"?

Thought I made some salient points as to why Not to scrap forms in general way back at the beginning.

Yes it would be a definite 'tell' if guy on ground appeared to be waiting for a mount and unless skilled on the ground best to let him get up.

Like so many internal arts the teachings give one the choice ( at of course advanced levels) of not to harm the attacker or to cause bodily harm.

Interestingly enough when one notes the use and training in Judo, BBJ and MMA of the choke (which merely renders attacker unconscious) in a simple one on one use of the choke (properly) is a means of showing the attacker mercy...yeah there are caveats and addendum's...but it is a good option

Karl. Peace.

HUH? Absolutely no idea where you are going with this Karl???? Doesn't even seem on topic.

Hi, Dereck

Original topic WAS "Should TKD forms be Scrapped", seems to have gotten lost in a MA pissing contest.

As part of Pissing I was pointing out the value of MMA and other arts where Puffadder my see virtue in a trained technique in a one on not a group bludgeoning and how the choke is a valuable BBJ/MMA/Judo fast ground fight elimination without harmining someone (call me a softie)...that seem more on point with the Original concept of the post???>

Karl. Peace.

Karl314285
(quote)

what happened to the "should TKD patterns be scrapped"?

(end quote)


You are correct I did venture off topic, these threds always evolve to something other than what they start out to be. I will work on that.

To
MattJ and Derrick


Not trying to down your wanting to expand your skills and abilities by training MMA and by no means wanted to turn this to a TKD vs. MMA. This is an argument I would surely loose for MMA is very popular and does offer many benifits to various people.

I am just trying to explain that I am comfortable with my own training, skills, and where I am at, patterns/forms and all.

Every time I venture away from TKD I find that I end up with a renewed appreciation for it and discover things about TKD that I over looked when I was training in it.

It serves one well to step away and venture out even if your journy takes you back, I know I have done it many times, but I always return and my training and insight into TKD has improved because of it.

I agree completely with that, and perhaps it is what people mean by martial arts being a life-long pursuit. I am not much able to comment on this, because I have not even been practicing for a decade yet, so can't say what will happen to my training in the future. TKD definitely has a lot to offer many other arts, as well as the other way around.

Every time I come back from university to rejoin my ITF TKD club, I bring with me new goals to improve my TKD- getting better at head movement; telegraphing less; faster footwork etc. And TKD offers a lot to my other MAs, even judo! My balance has very much improved thanks to TKD, and the flexibility in my hips and legs has helped enormously with ground techniques.

Having said that, I don't personally feel that any of this was gained through practicing patterns, despite performing pretty good patterns.

Laura, you make an interesting point, and anecdotally to me it also appears that often the people with better patterns, also spar better. However, as one of those people (throwing modesty aside for a moment! ) who does both well, I would say that little of that was gained through practicing patterns.

Let me try to explain. When I was grading for my colour belts, I remember becoming a green belt and realizing I had to perform Won Hyo Tul, for which I had to do shoulder level side kicks at full extension. This was something that I couldn't do! But I did not manage to do it by practicing my patterns. Rather, I managed it by isolating the skill- i.e. kicking at shoulder height with strength, power and balance- and practicing that skill an awful lot (like half an hour everyday of practicing just that). Surprise, surprise, within a few months my side kicks improved immensely. Perhaps this was due to the motivation to perform my patterns well, but it was not at all due to practicing the patterns themselves.

Again, I achieved my goal due to specificity. If you want to do something well, it is usually no good doing practicing something different. You don't get good at maths by studying geography. When it came to improving my sidekicks, the fact that there were sidekicks in patterns was only incidental, because my main training to achieve better sidekicks was by practicing sidekicks a lot.

This whole argument reminds me a lot of th debates within language acquisition. There has been a big movement in language learning away from lists of vocab and books of grammar, towards use of native materials and media. Just look at this website on learning Japanese:

http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/

I think that martial artists could learn a lot from this commonsense approach (although I don't agree with everything he writes, in terms of when to start outputting in a target language). Simply, if you want to get good at something, you need to practice that thing as much as possible and as closely as possible. Once you start doing that, weaknesses become much more apparent, and you are better able to work on those weaknesses by, guess what, practicing those weaknesses an awful lot!

Supremor

10 years, where or what have you been training?

I have stepped back from TKD, I have stepped away from TKD, and I have moved with in TKD, but not even close to 10 years. I believe my record is aprox. 1 year, had to test the waters of other ma"s a few times.

Well, first of all I said that I hadn't been training a decade yet. My background is pretty simple- 6 years ITF TKD(5 years with no break, then off to university so only training in holidays). 3 years judo, on and off(about 18 months continually, then a 6 mcoth lay-off, then another year continually). 1 year kickboxing during the university term.

I would say that at the end of it all, I am a thoroughbred ITF taekwon-do guy. I do a lot of grappling nowadays, but I consider my striking my primary skill set. I do have a black belt in taekwon-do, and I did really spend a heck of a lot of time practicing patterns. I didn't really do it for the transfer to my sparring or self defense skills, but purely because I have the notion ingrained in my head that it's not worth doing anything if you don't do it 100%. That is why I think I am qualified to give an opinion on why skill in performing patterns often seems to correlate to skill in other aspects of TKD.

Also, I would freely admit that I am one of those sports guys, who trains mostly for having a good scrap in class! I like competing a lot, and I don't mind rules. I also don't really see the need for self defense in my own life, living in nice neighbourhoods and being sensible enough not to hang around in bad ones.

Seems in 1989 TKD Times published an article that addressed some of the benefits of pattern pracice.

Reprints available at

http://www.geocities.com/ustfregion5/Forms.html

I would expect nothing less then TKD Times to see benefits.



This is not saying anything we haven't discussed. To a very small degree on some of these, I can agree with however any benefits receive doing patterns would benefit better patterns more then anything else. In fact I would say that other training that is live will benefit patterns more then patterns would benefit it.

Muscular development; I'm sorry I draw the line. That is pure BUNK. Muscular development comes from resistance; the greater the resistance the greater development. What resistance does patterns provide; NONE. Body weight exercising is legit but the benefits are pale in comparison to say weights. Patterns don't even provide minimal body weight for resistance if at all. Sorry, that just does not fly. Nobody got bigger or stronger from doing patterns, SORRY!

And if you want better stamina well look elsewhere then patterns. And I would sooner learn my breathing under conditions of live training where I feel my adrenalin running and possibly fear; where I need to learn to control it and not have it control me. Continually put in these types of situations will benefit you much greater.

Earl, my critique of the article would fall into two parts:

First, in the first paragraph in fact, the argument is made that patterns will improve your balance, strength, power etc. This is of course nonsense, for the reasons that Dereck and I have been arguing from the beginning- they are clearly inefficient at improving fitness. If you want to get stronger, lift weights; if you want to get better punching technique, punch things more, etc. etc.

The second part discusses the non-fighting benefits of patterns- aesthetic beauty, the fact that anyone can do them and so on. This is an argument that I have clearly supported from the beginning. In my first post I wrote:



But this does not stop my argument from being just as forceful. If you want to learn to fight, don't do patterns; if you want to learn self defense, don't do patterns; if you actually enjoy patterns, do patterns. The main benefit of patterns is getting better at performing patterns, nothing else. They have some other benefits as well, but these are so minor, and inefficient compared to other forms of training that they should not be considered when deciding how to reach one's goals as a martial artist.

While I believe in the benefits of weightlifting being on a 3x a week program for about 40 years now. I disagree that the strength of most weight training exercises nenefit kicking and punching directly. I don't know which pattern system you practice so I cannot address it directly. But if you look at the Chang Hon system you will find a beautiful progression of physial activity starting with no kicks nd simple turns to mre complex turns and more complex kicking. A much better way to warm up than junping jacks or jogging. The practice and training needs no extra equipment and can be done virtualy anywhere.

Since I wrote the article in 1989, my thoughts have expanded somewhat.

For instance, when at RMCAT and they taught large exagerated motions which would still be powerful when truncated under adrenal stress, I was thinking "Patterns".

Patterns are not intended to be the only or best training tool . In the Chang Hon ssytem it is clear they are one element of several. If you want to spar, then spar. If you wnat SD, train for that.

what about that pattern technique that would only be useful 1% of the time, so you may not train in it, yet the 1% happens?

If you eliminate patterns and only do sparring or SD, then are you really doing any specific Martial Art? If you are, then what makes what you are doing unique when comapred to any other sparring or Self Defense training?

Quote:
"If you eliminate patterns and only do sparring or SD, then are you really doing any specific Martial Art? If you are, then what makes what you are doing unique when comapred to any other sparring or Self Defense training?"

That's where I think you might miss some of what the others were considering. If you are looking at utility outside of an aesthetic or historical connection to an art, then the face of that art is an illusion. That patterns, etc do not matter. What matters is essentially ability to perform and how to make individuals better than they were in the use of the techniques in application.

In that case, a quick study of how better to perform (ala modern sports medicine and coaching) would probably point you into using a MMA paradigm to teach for use. In that case, there are no new techniques or delivery systems, just better ways to teach individuals to use them.

Very nicely put Brad. You looked at this as a whole and explained it very well.

Exactly! I was trying to think of a way to say the same thing. Utility is my primary concern, and on that face, patterns are the lowest priority.

If you are only looking at utility, is it utility for...

Competition?

Self Defense?

If either or both of the above are the only goal, is what you are doing a Martial Art, or would it be better classified as a Martial Sport, or Martial Science?

Well, first of all, I would have no problem calling what I do a "martial sport." I fail to see the negative connotations that the word sport has for so many here, and personally I find sport far more enjoyable and meaningful than learning to "defend oneself," or adopting a "way of life." Sport can have incredible depth: geniuses like Michael Jordan, Roger Federer and, dare I say, Anderson Silva show the enormous value of sport in our society. You need only ask football fans in England to know the significance sporting moments have in their lives.

However, I think there is a greater problem with you argument Earl. It leads to a complete deadlock in the debate. Quite frankly, by accusing those who practice purely for self defense as not really practicing a true martial art, you are refusing to sit down at the table with them, let alone play the game.(it's an old Bertrand Russel analogy about Сhess I believe)

People practice martial arts for many reasons, not always ones we agree with, and not always ones that we would personally associate with martial arts. For example, I have never understood the desire to adopt martial arts as a way of life, or as a way of more deeply understanding Eastern thought. However people do indeed practice MAs for precisely those reasons, and it is foolish of us to deny to them that they are practicing martial arts. After all, no matter what definition of martial arts we come up with, there would probably only be a minority of martial artists who accepted that definition.

Rather, it is better to look at the practice of martial arts as an way of achieving one's goals, whatever they may be. If a person's goal is to defend themselves, then it stands to reason that they should practice those elements of martial arts that will most help them achieve that goal. If a person's goal is personal fulfillment through the perfection of a set of movements, then patterns training is fine. And if a person's goal is to become better at sparring, then they should be able to train without patterns, without the stigma of being mere "sports" martial artists.

Very nice Supremor and I agree totally; as would others.

I knew I voted for Supremor to be our moderator for a reason. Well said Sup...here, here

You see it as the problem, I see it as the solution. Before an intelligent conversation can take place, people need to agree on how the terms are defined. Do I understand your all inclusive position? Absoutely. Do I agree with it? No.
Hence the article on this topic I had published in TKD Times.
http://www.geocities.com/ustfregion5/What.html

I do not consider Tae Bo or Cardio Kickboxing a MArtial Art. Martial exercise perhaps. It frosts me when I hear "XXX does Kickboxing." and then I find out it's only the cardio type.
Had a conversation with an Israeli about 25 years ago and asked about his experience with the Martial Art of Krav Maga. (This was before the current mass marketed system was in place. It was only taught in the Military. ) His answer was telling. He saud "Art, what art? There is nothing artistic about kneeing someone in the groin."

Similarly at Peyton Quinn's RMCAT, one of the first things they will tell you is that it's not a Martial Art.

So, we will agree to disagree. Before the question of patterns can be addressed as to whether they should be scrapped for TKD we need to define what is TKD, or what is a martial art.

I completely understand where you're coming from Earl. I too have problems accepting Tae Bo as a martial art. But the problem is that it becomes a slippery slope, where some people exclude themselves from the rest of the martial arts community. One of the greatest problems with Taekwon-do, as any browse of the history or this forum will indicate, is political factionalism.

The inability to accept others as really practicing taekwon-do is a large reason for such factionalism, because if you have a more narrow definition of a martial art than others, then you cannot accept what they are doing. It also leads to an inability to adapt to innovations in science and experience, because that new knowledge may not fit within one's fixed definition of a martial art.

What about people that join Taekwondo for their exercise? This is their mindset so they are not thinking self defense, they are not thinking they are fighting imaginary people while doing patterns (only going through the motions), they simple are doing Taekwondo for health and fitness. So are these people that even though in a martial "art", are they martial artists? Are they training really anything different then Tae Bo?

Well exactly Dereck. The trouble is that a martial arts instructor would find it very difficult to only allow students to train who had the same idea of what the wanted to get out of training. I would say a great deal of people who take MAs, do so for purely fitness reasons.

Exactly, Dereck. And the reverse is true, too. I have trained a nominally "sportive" art (BJJ), with the intention of adding those skills to my self-defense repetoire, with little interest in competition. Where do I fall on the continuum?

No disrespect intended, but because one can publish an article in the TKD Times doesn't mean it is correct; that is the opinion of the writer only. If I were to get an article published in MMA Magazine and then link it here would he make the argument change? No it wouldn't. So that there is an article in the TKD Times, a magazine solely for promoting TKD, I don't really hold that in too high of regard especially with all that TKD is today.

With respect Dereck, I don't think Earl is doing that. He is merely pointing out an article that he wrote that made a certain argument, some of which I agree with. It is probably easier for him than writing a new article from scratch, just for us!

It is interesting for me to note that the article was written in 1989, long before mma had become popular in mainstream culture. I wonder if it would be too much to ask Earl if and how his ideas have been changed since the writing of that article, and whether mma has played any role in that.

Supremor, I think that is an excellent idea. I must say, you are very intelligent in many of your responses and how you handle things. Props.

pffff, I'm a politics student haha!

FWIW I don't know if any of the ideas in the 1989 article have changed, but they have certainly expanded. This had little to do with MMA and more to do with the current hot topic of "Real Applications" for patterns. I had an article published in Totaly TKD this year which addressed this in part.

The basic theme is this. Dilman would often say patterns teach us "Angle and Drection" . I asked what the difference was between angle and direction? He said it was basicaly the same thing. General Choi's text references distance and direction.
Also, as Gneral Choi would teach he would review the purpose of the move and go thru a scenario where a hypothetical student said the purpose was different than the text. The resolution as to what the purpose was depended on if the hypothetical studen't idea made sense.

So, as I sstated in the article, my thought is that the stated application is there to help students learn distance, direction, angle of applicaton, Angle and level of attack. Generating poswer in a practicaly efficient and table manner, and from my RMCAT experience, using exagerated motions to overcome adrenal stress truncation effects which mke movements smaller and less effective.

With these ideas in mind, how th motion is used, whether it be a "Block" , "Attack" or nay number of things is limited only by pracical considerations concerning how the motion can be applied.

So, in conclusion, the focus should initialy be on stated applications to learn angles, levels, distance and direction. Learning so called Real, or alternate applications will help broaden the focus to where I now believe it should be. Generating power with practical efficiency in a well balanced motion so that it can be applied in an inumerable number of applications limited only by realistic considerations.

I would just like to see Taekwondo use another way to grade people other than patterns. If people want to do them fair enough I just dont think they give any indication of how a person can deal with another who attacks them violently or forces them to fight back.

Well certainly the author:) Of course there are the 8 other noteables (Among them, Chuck Norris, Funakoshi, General Choi Hong Hi, Robert Trias, John Funk, Floyd Burk. ) referred to in the article as well.

As compare to other systems that use pattern(s) as training method --- like Chinese King Fu (such as Wing Chu, Tai Chi ...), Boxing (shadow-boxing), certain Karate family, etc --- we would see practitioners of those systems "often" use techniques resemble to their patterns training, under the condition which the individual is free to decide which tool to use (it can be stuff they learn from from patterns, drills, hitting the bags/pats, step sparring, free sparring, sports/competition ...)

I had a friend that his family is teaching Wing Chu. From what I seen is they clearly apply the moves are shown in their patterns. (And lets not debate the effectiveness of Wing Chu's training method, I think it is a different topic). However, they also do pattern training on a wooden dummy, which TKD don't use.

I am not sure how other fellow TKDer feel, as for myself in situations which I would apply things from TKD, very few comes from TKD's pattern training.

I don't think patterns should be scrapped. I didn't read all the previous post on here so if I am repeating this my apologies.

TKD patterns should not be scrapped, maybe adjusted slightly because times change and we are not in the 1800's or the 1940's. I think that patters are an essential part of Martial Arts specially the mental side of it.

What I've noticed about TKD patterns is that there is no INTENTION behind the moves, behind the art itself, behind the person executing the moves. I see people all over training without intention. They sparr/fight without intention, the patterns are done without intention. Somehow sloppiness/laziness became accepted in the arts probably due to all the McDOjos out there, IDK.

I've been training TKD for 12 years and I am fortunate enough to have a Master that does not slack, is on our ass every single minute about how to do things correctly not from his perspective but scientifically and realistically. The patterns have to, should be done with intention, you got to mean what your doing, understand it, visualize it, Once the person understands that then they can apply whatever is useful in a reality situation.

Bow out with respect from MARTIALIST

(quote)

It has been proven over and over that highly trained traditional martial artists that enter a MMA ring generally lose. And I will even boldly stand behind that if the two ever went head to head in the streets with no refs that the outcome would still be the same.

(end quote)

Derrick,

I agree with the first part of this statement but not the second part.
Yes most times when a traditionally trained martial artists enters an MMA ring they lose, but there is a reason for this.

TKD and many other arts are considered to be hard style fighting systems, meaning that if tought correctly and regarding SD, every blow delivered is ment to cause serious damage to vital body areas. Most of the main targets of a hard style fighting systems are elimated for the sake of competition and safty.

MMA competition rules are more liberal than other competition rules witch allows for better entertainment but this does not mean that these fighters would fair any better in the street where SD is concerned. In the street the trained fighter may be aiming for the chin but the traditionally trained hard style fighting system MA"s with SD in mind will be aiming about 3 inches below the chin. MMA training is a fantastic way to train to fight no argument there, but I still view SD as totally different than fighting. One should never raise a fist unless ones health or life are threatend and if this is the case things should end as quickly as possible and one can not accomplish this by implementing standard fighting methods, but they can accomplish it by implementing traditionally trained SD techniques. The problem is many TKD schools teach some form of fighting and call it SD and don"t even know the difference, if this is the case you would be correct in stating that the MMA guy would fair better in the street because yes, many MMA schools do a very good job of preparing their fighters to fight.