# Self defense in modern Taekwondo



## FearlessFreep (Oct 7, 2005)

This came over the wire and thought it worth bringing up here
 ----------------------------------
 Self defense in modern Taekwondo: the essence of the martial art revitalized  By Avner Wishnitzer, 3rd Dan WTF. (2005/04/08) / Recommend: 8                                           
The SangRok World Taekwondo Academy. 

 Grandmaster Chang Seong Dong in a knife hand breakTaekwondo has never been so popular. From China to California, from Australia to Norway, millions practice this originally Korean martial art. Tournaments held all over the world attract thousands of professional and amateur practitioners. The introduction of Taekwondo into the Olympics has given it an official recognition. Taekwondo has become a world-wide sport. 

But success had its price, a price which is much higher than usually acknowledged. In the process of popularizing Taekwondo, the sportive aspect has taken over and Taekwondo as a martial art has lost its identity. In this short article I would like to present the problematic nature of today's Taekwondo in light of the growing distance between its present condition and its roots as an art of self-defense. After discussing the present situation I shall raise a few ideas regarding possible solutions. My hope is to attract attention to the issue of self-defense which is significant to the future of Taekwondo as a whole. 

WTF Taekwondo today is all about competing. The growing popularity of both Kiyurugi and Poomsae tournaments has led to the dwindling of anything that does not serve the "ultimate goal" of winning a tournament. What good are low kicks if they are forbidden? What's the point of practicing take-downs if they cannot win a medal in a Poomsae championship? 

Thus, in many DoJangs around the world basic self-defense skills are not taught at all. As a result, many Taekwondo black belts, including competing athletes, can hardly defend themselves outside the ring. That leads, in turn, to the gradual decrease in the prestige of Taekwondo within the martial arts community. Already today, Taekwondo is perceived by many merely as a sport rather than as a martial art with a sportive dimension. 

More important than image, is what Taekwondo means for the people who practice it. One may even ask what is Taekwondo today? What is its nature? 

At a first glance, we may say that Taekwondo has a very distinct style, one that anyone can recognize. But that is not true if we step out of the ring. What would Taekwondo look like then? What form would it have when not confined by rules? Can one still find today Taekwondo which is independent of WTF rules, or maybe its nature has come to be defined only by competing rules, just like any other sport? The way soccer is played, for example, will change completely if the offside rules are changed since it is rules that dictate the nature of soccer. Does the nature of Taekwondo, like football, depends only on the rules according to which it is played or does it still have an independent essence? 

The place of the self-defense aspect within Taekwondo is crucial for all these questions. From a self-defense point of view it is clear that neither sparring in the WTF style, nor Poomsae training are similar to actual fighting. If one is to use only techniques which are allowed by the WTF rules, Taekwondo is hardly practical. So what is the point of practicing all these complex stepping and kicking techniques for people who are done with competing? What's the point of doing Poomsae if one cannot utilize the knowledge it conveys? 

The answers to all these questions lie in a broader concept of a "martial art". What makes all aspects of modern Taekwondo meaningful is the role they play in the whole, in the general performing level of the martial artist. 

Most martial arts share a few characteristics in common: they combine the nourishing of the body and the mind through physical training and the developing of self-defense skills. They focus on the individual and measure his progress not only in comparison with others, but mainly in light of his own ability. A martial artist does not satisfy his ambitions just by winning in the ring, for competing is only a means to achieve a higher level. Why? Because. A martial artist strives to perform better just for the sake of performing better. It is in this context that the self-defense aspect of Taekwondo should be understood. Self-defense skills are not necessarily developed only for practical reasons. They should mainly serve as a guide line, a main theme that ties all other aspects of Taekwondo together. After all, self-defense is the essence of the martial art and what separates it from other types of rhythmic activities such as dancing. 

Thus the high level kicking technique, speed, agility and stamina all of which are attained by sparring, and the firmness, precision and focus which are improved by Poomsae should not be seen as unrelated activities. All aspects of modern Taekwondo are part of a wider system, a system in the heart of which stands the constant striving towards higher performance. This performance cannot be degraded to such a level of being evaluated only by points. It should also be measured in more concrete and real terms of "does it actually work". These are the terms of self-defense. 

It is the self-defense aspect that makes Taekwondo a true martial art. Without it Taekwondo sparring is not essentially different than boxing or wrestling. Taekwondo Poomsae, without its connection to self defense is not very different from gymnastics. Aesthetic as it may be, many of us do not find it satisfactory. 

Reintroducing self defense into modern Taekwondo is important not only for redefining its identity as a martial art. It is crucial for far simpler reasons. Firstly, due to the decrease in the prestige of Taekwondo as a martial art, many potential practitioners turn to other martial arts. Many of them do that simply because they hear that "Taekwondo is not practical. It is, just like Judo, only a sport". 

Older practitioners, including former competitive athletes, very often do not find stimulation in Taekwondo training which for the most part focuses on sparring techniques. These techniques are sometimes worthless outside the ring and are thus not enough for people who do not compete anyway. Some of these more advanced practitioners look for "the next stage" in their growth as martial artists. For many, learning the next Poomsae or another Kiyurugi combination that can only work in a ring, is simply not enough. They want to go deeper and further with their understanding and skills but cannot easily find the path within Taekwondo. For these reasons some of these advanced practitioners turn to other martial arts to continue and develop their skills. Others just give up and become instructors. 

In short, due to the neglect of some of the more traditional aspects of Taekwondo, mainly the self defense aspect, Taekwondo has become "thinner" and "poorer" in many ways. 

So much for the problems that arise from the neglecting of self defense in modern Taekwondo; what can be done to improve the situation? 

It is my belief that the main institutional organs of Taekwondo (the WTF, the Kukkiwon, the ETU and so forth) should take the issue into their hands and work out ways to reintroduce self-defense. As is evident in the Poomsae, in the Macho Kiyurugi techniques and in the Hoshinsul, Elbow strikes, Knee attacks, knife hands and punching to the head, take-downs and low kicks, are all an integral part of Taekwondo. Only few practitioners, however, are capable of executing such techniques "for real". All these techniques should thus be reincorporated into everyday training, not just as a part of the Poomsae, but as techniques that are mastered to the level of performance. The way to do it is of course, to set a curriculum, to develop drills and to make self-defense part of the obligatory material for grading. I do not think that anyone can take seriously the way Hoshinsul techniques are performed in grading today and even these techniques are not obligatory in Kukkiwon grading in Korea.
 (The neglect of self defense may partly explain also why Taekwondo in Korea is practiced almost exclusively by children. Adults, who don't compete and who may be looking for something more "real", just don't see the point.) 

The reintroduction of self defense is not simple, of course. This aspect has been neglected for too long and much knowledge has been lost. It can still be found in the older books and in the back of the minds of the older masters. It can also be reconstructed with the help of ITF masters and their knowledge, for that style has remained more true to its roots. I am well aware of the political problems that keep the two federations apart but it is time to work toward a solution of these problems for the sake of mutual enrichment. Obviously, much work is needed but certainly no more than the effort that was put into the reconstruction of the Poomsae system only a few decades ago. 

The developing of the self defense aspect does not mean throwing away of all other aspects, rather it completes them. A practitioner who masters the use of elbows will perform, say, Taeguk Hojang to a much higher level. His elbow strikes, formerly an "empty" movement, a movement that only resembled a strike, will now be "full" and meaningful as they can actually be used "for real". Increasing the importance and the time dedicated to self defense will make Taekwondo black belt holders more worthy of their ranks, as people fully able of defending themselves if needed. 

Reintroducing self defense will enrich Taekwondo, moreover, it will give it back its identity and integrity as a martial art. It will attract more students and will keep the older, more advanced ones within its realm. It will revitalize this wonderful martial art and push it forward, into the 21st century.


----------



## bluemtn (Oct 7, 2005)

I feel that bringing back what was lost in a lot of TKD schools (self- defense speaking), could quite possibly bring its popularity up in the "older" people.  I love TKD but at the school I'm at, I feel it is lacking in SD.  Maybe it is just the teacher, not the art as a whole.  I've been to other schools that have added another art, such as Hapkido, into its curriculum to kind of fill in that gap.


tkdgirl


----------



## mantis (Oct 7, 2005)

you know what..
i was at some point looking at TKD schools, and when i talked to the masters my condition to join was if they taught Hapkido along with TKD.. 
only about 2 schools in southern california (pretty much the most dense korean population in the US. korean is second language btw!) guaranteed they would teach locks, grappling, takedowns, gun defense, knife defense, and everything else you want for shelf defensh


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 7, 2005)

_i was at some point looking at TKD schools, and when i talked to the masters my condition to join was if they taught Hapkido along with TKD.._

 My instructors background is about 70% Takewondo and 30% Hapkdio.  So...we do taeguek forms, olympic style sparring, but self-defense incorporates joint locks adn sjm, pressure points, throws, kinfe defense and gun defense.  When working on forms we also talk about the self-defense applications of the moves of the form.

 Usually, Monday is forms and self-defense.  Wednesday is sparring and footwork (whether do actual sparring or working on related techniques and moves), Friday is conditioning.  Tuesday usually related to Monday and Thursday to Wednesday.  Saturday is pretty open based on who shows up and what they need work on.

 One thing I've adapted is that I tend to throw a lot of sidekicks in sparring; to me the seem more 'combat effective' then roundhouse kicks so I try to work them into my sparring more than most so I can be good with them.


----------



## mantis (Oct 7, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _i was at some point looking at TKD schools, and when i talked to the masters my condition to join was if they taught Hapkido along with TKD.._
> 
> My instructors background is about 70% Takewondo and 30% Hapkdio. So...we do taeguek forms, olympic style sparring, but self-defense incorporates joint locks adn sjm, pressure points, throws, kinfe defense and gun defense. When working on forms we also talk about the self-defense applications of the moves of the form.
> 
> ...


 i think it depends on the masters mentality and his experience as well.. maybe he lived his entire life without having to defend himself.. a good talker! haha 
 where's that school anyway? i assume, since you replied to my message, that you're around Irvine, ca?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 7, 2005)

_where's that school anyway? i assume, since you replied to my message, that you're around Irvine, ca?_

  Nope, I'm in Albuquerque, NM.

 I know schools where all the focus on is 'tournament' styles of competing and such...trophies on the well. To me that's messed up. To me, a tournment is where you go to test yourself against your peers to measure where you are.  My instructor stress self-defense and knowing the whole art, not just competition aspects and tournament preperation

 To me, TKD is a total fighting art. Forms and sparring are training tools for that art, and they all play into improving in the art, but the art is about fighting, and in our culture, that's centered around effective defense. Sparring is not an end in itself but is part of a larger training in effective fighting


----------



## arnisador (Oct 7, 2005)

The sport approach has worked well to help spread tha art. But at some point one reaches a crossroads, and must decide whether to go all the way to a pure sport or more back to self-defense.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 7, 2005)

_The sport approach has worked well to help spread tha art._

 Agreed, while the sport focus has given, it has also taken away.  A few months ago I had a thread aout the future of Taekwondo that was based on that concern that some of the governing bodies had abandonded any pretense of 'fighting martial art' in favor of 'martial sport'

 I think for this reason you won't ever see a united Takewondo because all some care about is the sport, but others care about the art and the fighting aspects of it


----------



## Gemini (Oct 7, 2005)

I'm fortunate that the school I attend is based in SD. I know there are schools out there that teach sport aspect TKD exclusively, but mine isn't one of them. Yes, we do have it as a separate entity. It's very popular and I myself love sparring. It used to bother me that TKD got such a bad wrap, but because I now understand what they're seeing from the outside, I understand why they say it. 

Bottom line, I can handle myself on the mat or outside, so I was finally able to let it go. If TKD becomes so large it collapses on itself, then so be it. I will always love the art and believe in it's abilities, regardless of what happens. TKD is hardly the first thing that ever got cut by that two edged sword.


----------



## Miles (Oct 8, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think for this reason you won't ever see a united Takewondo because all some care about is the sport, but others care about the art and the fighting aspects of it


 I would hope you are wrong Jay, but agree that at least for now, there are many folks focusing on one aspect-sparring, and thinking they are getting the complete package.  As they mature in their understanding of the art, they will see that sparring is one aspect (kyorugi), and albeit an important aspect, it should not overshadow the others (kibon, kyukpa, hoshinsul, poomsae).  It is important for young people to do poomsae just as it is for older people to spar.

 Miles


----------



## karatekid1975 (Oct 8, 2005)

I'm fortunate enough that my TKD school does SD as well. We do Taegeuks and olympic style sparring as well, but we do Chin Na and Thai type self defense (elbows, knees, ect). But I also cross-train in Jujitsu.

In TSD, they mixed Thai boxing and Hapkido in the mix. So I guess I am lucky that I was not stuck in a sport school.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 25, 2005)

I have notice alot of Karate schools declare themself TKD and also alot of TSD school claim the same. I know TKD brings in people but what about there training. We as a whole have always incorporated Hapkido or boxing into our TKD training for the self defense I believe most school do as well they just don't no it.
Terry


----------



## arnisador (Oct 25, 2005)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> I have notice alot of Karate schools declare themself TKD



I have never seen this happen. I see the other way around quite often, but never a karate school that labeled itself TKD.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 26, 2005)

Many of the American Freestyle Karate schools had KMA roots.


----------



## Gemini (Oct 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I have never seen this happen. I see the other way around quite often, but never a karate school that labeled itself TKD.


 
Actually, I have to agree with Terry on this one. I've seen this quite often. I'd hate to see what they're actually teaching. Sometimes I wonder if THEY even know. Or, as mentioned, that the training is good, they're just using the name to bring in customers. I have three in mind right off the top of my head. Maybe if I ever 2 extra minutes, I'll stop in one and check it out.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 26, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Many of the American Freestyle Karate schools had KMA roots.


 
But that would be the other way around, right--a TKD (or other KMA) school calling itself a karate school?


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But that would be the other way around, right--a TKD (or other KMA) school calling itself a karate school?



The local ATA school here labels itself as Karate for Kids, the storefront says "KARATE".  In all fairness, they WILL tell you it is TKD.  I suppose it is just a marketing tool.  Everyone knows KARATE = Martial arts, so they are playing on that.  

Also, I am guilty of letting people say I practice Karate, it is far easier than explaining what art I do train in


----------



## arnisador (Oct 26, 2005)

Yes, this is my point--many TKD schools label themselves Karate, because of its wide name recognition. I understood the claim to be that (Japanese or Okinawan) Karate schools were calling themselves TKD. That I have never seen, personally.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But that would be the other way around, right--a TKD (or other KMA) school calling itself a karate school?


You're right. Dunno how I managed to read that bass ackwards. (Hmm...)  

I do see plenty of karate schools willing to borrow the kicks tho.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 26, 2005)

That I believe. I've seen it too. I think the success of TKD students in forms competition drives some of it.


----------



## Flamebearer (Oct 26, 2005)

I've never had a problem with my school focusing too much on sparring to the detriment of self-defense. Possibly because it's a more traditional school...
Do more traditional schools tend to be less single-track - more focused on developing the whole martial artist instead of winning trophies?
-Flamebearer


----------



## bignick (Oct 26, 2005)

Not a single iota of offense is meant to anyone here, but I find it interesting that everybody's school here is much more "traditional", or "focused on SD", etc...

Nothing implied...I wonder if it's just that only those in that type of school choose to respond, or this type of forum draws people from those type of schools.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with focusing on the competition aspect of taekwondo as long as you know that's what your getting.  Just like going out and playing a pickup game of basketball or something...do it, have fun, enjoy it ...just don't think you've now got the skills to go pro.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Oct 26, 2005)

IMO it's that most people fail to see the truth of TKD. That the forms many of us perform are NOT ancient, but recent inventions to distinguish our art from those of Japan. That it IS a modern art and as much as many of us wish to believe it, it was never a combat art to begin with. TKD that is.


----------



## Gemini (Oct 26, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> Not a single iota of offense is meant to anyone here, but I find it interesting that everybody's school here is much more "traditional", or "focused on SD", etc...
> 
> Nothing implied...I wonder if it's just that only those in that type of school choose to respond, or this type of forum draws people from those type of schools.


Honestly, I think that pretty much sums it up. I think I know most of the TKDers here and most are based in SD schools. However, many like my own focus a good deal on sparring also, if that's what you want to do. Though we do welcome and support the sport schools much more than other forums, we don't get many replies from them. I think because of all the sport TKD bashing, they tend to keep a low profile on MA boards.


----------



## bignick (Oct 26, 2005)

That's unfortunate, even if you don't agree with their training methods we could all at least learn a lot from their work ethic.


----------



## Gemini (Oct 26, 2005)

Yes, it is. Even if that aspect doesn't encompass as much of the art as ours, I can assure you, there's nothing "fake" about it. But with all the flaming I've seen them take, I don't blame them for the low profile. Who would want to spend all their time posting, defending what they've chosen to do. That's why I like it here so much. Few people spend time having to go through that.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 27, 2005)

I guess to me nobody really cares about the self-defense applications of soccer or vollyball and if the sport aspect of Taekwondo is what you're into, that's great; enjoy it and do well.

It does seem though that at this board everyone seems to take MA so darn seriously and that if you don't train to use your art to defend you from armed biker gangs then you're not doing it right.  So I think somone who *would* be interested in Taekwondo only as a sport would not feel very welcome, which is a shame because everyone fundamentally uses the same basic techniques so I think a lot could be learned all around.

Which is ironic because if by "MMA" you mean "UFC", "Pride", "K1", etc..., as many seem to, those are just sports as well, and it's hard to really take sword arts serioulsy as self-defense in today's society either.  And so on.  There are a lot of aspects and practices in MA today that are really just for sport but for some reason, sport-oriented Taekwondo seems to be looked down upon


----------



## ajs1976 (Oct 27, 2005)

I'm not sure where my school stands as far as SD and sport.  

With my old instructor our one-steps and Hoshinsul were the SD part of the curriculum.  The the ratio was probably about 60% sport to 40% SD.

We had a new head instructor start at the beginning of October.  Since then the focus seems to be on sparring, forms, and conditioning.  I know he is trying to figure out were all the students are at and correcting things, so i'm not sure if this is the new direction or if the other aspects will come back into focus.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> It does seem though that at this board everyone seems to take MA so darn seriously and that if you don't train to use your art to defend you from armed biker gangs then you're not doing it right.


 
I'm not sure I agree. Everyone knows that Judo and wrestling are sports, and most people realize that MMA and Sambo have large sport components. There was a boxing forum here for a while, and a (Western) fencing forum, let alone discussions of Kendo, etc.

I think the disconnect for people in regards to TKD is that, more than, say, Judo, TKD claims to be _both_ a sport and self-defense, or has many who claim it's a sport and many others who claim it's self-defense. I can see where all this can be true...but it's less of a united front than, say, the savateurs have. They'll tell you that _le boxe francais_ is a sport, that has self-defense benefits.

I think people are looking for TKD to declare itself primarily a sport. Frankly I don't think that would be fully accurate, myself...but I think that's the hang-up for many people.


----------



## bignick (Oct 27, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Everyone knows that Judo and wrestling are sports


:shrug:


----------



## Gemini (Oct 27, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> :shrug:


 
Well, almost everyone.....:uhyeah:


----------



## bignick (Oct 27, 2005)

There's actually a lot of infighting/political B.S. about this in the United States Judo Association (USJA) about matters like this.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2005)

Well, no one would deny that Judo is a sport--an Olympic one, in fact. I think it's excellent self-defense for many of the same reasons that BJJ is--most notably, the live training against a resisting opponent--but it's a sport.

Boxing is first and foremost a sport. It's also great self-defense. Ditto for Muay Thai.

But, their primary identity is as a sport, I'd say. Does the USJA devote more time to tournaments or to self-defense clinics?


----------



## bignick (Oct 27, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But, their primary identity is as a sport, I'd say. Does the USJA devote more time to tournaments or to self-defense clinics?



That's were the infighting comes in.  There's actually a pretty good number of schools that practice Judo as a martial art or as self defense, or just as a lifelong activity and former board focused heavily on competition, and not just competition but the elite level competitors....that combined with some allegations of abuse of power, misuse of funds has lead to some ugliness...

But not the right forum, perhaps we'll hop over the Judo/Jujutsu forum...


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> But not the right forum, perhaps we'll hop over the Judo/Jujutsu forum...



I'll see you there!


----------



## Flamebearer (Oct 28, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I guess to me nobody really cares about the self-defense applications of soccer or vollyball and if the sport aspect of Taekwondo is what you're into, that's great; enjoy it and do well.
> 
> It does seem though that at this board everyone seems to take MA so darn seriously and that if you don't train to use your art to defend you from armed biker gangs then you're not doing it right.


 
I suppose what really matters is the mentality with which you approach sport TKD. I would say that one of the attributes of a martial artist is seeing self-defense applications in everything, even in a soccer kick or a volleyball spike. If I chose to attend a sport TKD school I would do so with that kind of mentality - and I might end up benefitting from the techniques they teach. Even if the techniques themselves aren't practical for street defense, they would still develop stamina/balance/etc. Maybe "doing it right" depends upon the manner of your approach.
-Flamebearer


----------



## Gemini (Oct 28, 2005)

The fundamentals to do either successfully are the same. To truly acheive these is no small task in any art/sport.

Range
Timing
Power
Conditioning
Mental control

Which is why, when I hear "people who practice sport TKD can't fight in the street", I have to bite my lip. If someone has a good self-knowledge of these, I wouldn't dismiss their abilities too easily. That kind of generalization could be a huge mistake.


----------



## MountainSage (Oct 29, 2005)

I've read this thread through several times and I think I have found the problem.  Most of you folks are debating skills not fight theory.  Yes, TKD has the skills to be both a sport and self-defense, much like many other martial arts and combative sports.  Were TKD lacks, like many other combat sports, is in the use of sport mentality.  Fight for a given amount of time under a set rule system.  This type of fighting causes people to acquire bad habits that will get you killed on the street, like not keeping your hands up for protection.  On the street you want to put an attack down fast and hard, there really isn't time for thinking. I read at one time that the average street fight last 30 seconds or 3-5 striking encounters total.

Mike Wood
Mountainsage


----------



## Gemini (Oct 29, 2005)

MountainSage said:
			
		

> I've read this thread through several times and I think I have found the problem. Most of you folks are debating skills not fight theory.


I don't think you found the problem, Mike. There wasn't a problem to find. Skills is what the topic is about and what's being discussed. 

I don't think anyone would disagree with your theory. If you'd like to start a thread about it, feel free. I'll join in.

Regards,


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 29, 2005)

Gemini said:
			
		

> I don't think you found the problem, Mike. There wasn't a problem to find. Skills is what the topic is about and what's being discussed.
> 
> I don't think anyone would disagree with your theory. If you'd like to start a thread about it, feel free. I'll join in.
> 
> Regards,


 
Geminin I would have to agree with your Statement.
Mountainsage alot of TKD'ers would fair pretty darn well in the street. A well connected roundhouse to the head will do damage in the ring or the street. I know the mass conception is TKD is all flash, I guess alot of people forget about the training we do and the power behind of our kicks, and yes alot of TKD'ers keep the hands up. Most Not all know the difference between ring and street.
Terry Lee Stoker


----------



## Shaderon (Feb 16, 2007)

I would agree that a lot of people view TKD as a sport, however everyone I've spoken to in GTUK talk about WTF as "the sport version of TaeKwonDo" and not true TaeKwonDo.  In my Dojang, while we train, there is constant talk about what we would do if an attacker "did this" and how we would defend against it.  People who complain about light contact or hard blocks get told "you are learning to fight, deal with it".   If my school closed down, and I lost my instructor (can't see it as we are friends now) then I don't think I could face learning WTF style at all.  I'd rather travel further for lessons and pay more, after all I got into this to learn how to defend myself, not how to win points in a sports match.

However, I can see the point in having a "sport version" of TKD, in the games, no one really wants to see anyone get really hurt, ok they do in boxing but people are used to that, if someone got a really hard kick to the head and it put them in hospital, then arms would be thrown up and people would cry out for MA to be made illegal, like some do with boxing, but more so as people would get more upset I think at kicks that do damage.


----------



## IcemanSK (Feb 16, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> I would agree that a lot of people view TKD as a sport, however everyone I've spoken to in GTUK talk about WTF as "the sport version of TaeKwonDo" and not true TaeKwonDo. In my Dojang, while we train, there is constant talk about what we would do if an attacker "did this" and how we would defend against it. People who complain about light contact or hard blocks get told "you are learning to fight, deal with it". If my school closed down, and I lost my instructor (can't see it as we are friends now) then I don't think I could face learning WTF style at all. I'd rather travel further for lessons and pay more, after all I got into this to learn how to defend myself, not how to win points in a sports match.
> 
> However, I can see the point in having a "sport version" of TKD, in the games, no one really wants to see anyone get really hurt, ok they do in boxing but people are used to that, if someone got a really hard kick to the head and it put them in hospital, then arms would be thrown up and people would cry out for MA to be made illegal, like some do with boxing, but more so as people would get more upset I think at kicks that do damage.


 
Hi Shaderon. Welcome to MT.

There are groups within the WTF who don't focus on the sport aspects of TKD. These groups tend to say they align themselves with the Kukkiwon, rather than WTF. These schools are nothing like your description of the WTF above.

I'd encourage you to not paint any MA organization (especially one that big) with such a broad brush. You will see here on MT that many TKD folks who bring all kinds of perspectives....Some are the "norm" for their branch, some are not.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 17, 2007)

You know I have always said that Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido are the perfect arts to blend.  However, and I have had this talk with high ranking dans, you should not blend the two.

For instance: In MSK:TKD - We do the ITF and WTF poomsea, we do 3 one step sparring techniques per gup rank......up to 26.  We also do 3 steps, or combinations.  We have self defense techniques.  From 8-4th gup or (White-Blue) we have 6 power basic moves.  We do a lot of sparring, even though our drills have great success in the ring they were designed for street defense.

At brown and red, 2nd and 1st gup a 3rd poomsea is added.  We have multiple board breaks for the test beginning at 3rd gup test.  The 1'' pine for adults only.

I am 100 % for certain that the way that TKD was handed down by Lee H. Park is very self defense capable.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Feb 17, 2007)

You know I have always said that Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido are the perfect arts to blend. However, and I have had this talk with high ranking dans, you should not blend the two.

Matt, I find this interesting and perplexing at the same time. Why do they have this position? There have been other discussions that have accounted for just this nature of TKD/HKD intermixed. Many of us have had HKD techniques in our curriculums since day one. I find there is a very big distinction between learning technical applications as opposed to embracing an art in it's intirety. Many, if not all, of the original instructors who came from Korea to the U.S. in the 60's/70's were versed in Hapkido. Now to what extent in Hapkido I don't know, but the self defense aspects that were taught were very much Hapkido based. I find it odd, to say the least, that since TKD has "in general" devoided itself of the self defense mindset in favor of the sport application(s) and now there is a movement, of sorts, to regain what was lost, why they would not wish to avail themselves of what was there originally?


----------



## Shaderon (Feb 17, 2007)

IcemanSK said:


> Hi Shaderon. Welcome to MT.
> 
> There are groups within the WTF who don't focus on the sport aspects of TKD. These groups tend to say they align themselves with the Kukkiwon, rather than WTF. These schools are nothing like your description of the WTF above.
> 
> I'd encourage you to not paint any MA organization (especially one that big) with such a broad brush. You will see here on MT that many TKD folks who bring all kinds of perspectives....Some are the "norm" for their branch, some are not.


 

Hi Iceman, thanks,

Sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone, just quoting what I'd heard and saying my opinion based on that of what I'd prefer to do.  I've not much information other than the little I've read here and what I've heard other people say.   I obviously still have much to learn.


----------



## IcemanSK (Feb 17, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> Hi Iceman, thanks,
> 
> Sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone, just quoting what I'd heard and saying my opinion based on that of what I'd prefer to do. I've not much information other than the little I've read here and what I've heard other people say. I obviously still have much to learn.


 
No offense taken. It's a popular misconception. I just want to let you know that all is not as it would seem. (I may have been too forceful [defensive] in my post as well). Our own Terry1965 is very much into Olympic style, & yet very much into self-defense oriented TKD as well. 

Your question, is still valid.


----------



## exile (Feb 17, 2007)

IcemanSK said:


> shaderon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think _both_ of you are right! It's true, as Iceman says, that the WTF/KKW represent a kind of `big tent' approach, in that it's possible for a school which differs pretty significantly from the prescribed curriculum to still be associated with the KKWmy own instructor is 5th dan KKW certified, but we don't do Taegeuks as our colored belt forms; we do the Palgwes instead, and you can learn the Pyung-ahn and other `suppressed', kwan-era hyungs that are fairly literal versions of the grand old Okinawan kata that Funakoshi's teachers and _their_ teachers practiced (and thoroughly understood the combat applications for!) So you can be reasonably `subversive' and still be part of the KKW orbit...

... but I don't think it's all that controversial to say that the influence of the WTF  has been to push the sport aspect of TKD, and I have to say, based on the `applications' for hyungs that I've seen in the past at the KKW website, that their view of self-defense techs is pretty much a very literal block/punch/kick model taking no account of the real progress made during the past decade in bunkai/oyo analysis (especially by UK karateka) and extended to TKD by (again, mostly UK) practitioners like Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neil. The essay that started this post a couple of years ago seemed to be saying that the tournament scoring practices and rules enforced by the WTF tend to encourage an approach to competition sparring which has little to do with self defense apps, and that this approach seems to be encouraged in the successive curricula which the KKW has issued as its `official' core. In the last chapter of his masterpiece about the combat application of kata-encoded techniques, _Bunkai-Jutsu_, Iain Abernethy points out that kumite, as understood by the past Okinawan masters who shaped modern karate, was based on fairly intense `all-in' application of the combat techs summarized in the kata; he cites the following passage from H D Plee's 1967 book _Karate: Beginner to Black Belt_ on sparring:

_One must not lose sight of the fact that Karate is `all-in' fighting. Everything is allowed... This is why Karate is based on blows delivered with the hand, the foot, the head or the knee. Equally permissible are strangulations, throwing techniques and locks'_

And exactly the same thing is true of TKD: the actual technical content of karate and TKD are almost identical in many respects. But when, in competition, high kicks to the head are encouraged, hand strikes frequent unscored, and knee and elbow strikes forbidden, along with whole ranges of set-up techniques, you have to ask yourself just what kind of vision of TKD is being promoted by the largest TKD organization in the world? Is there any evidence that the KKW is trying to complement this very artificial emphasis on a tiny subset of TKD's technical repertoire over an extremely unrealistic combat range? It seems to me that the kind of work that Simon O'Neil and Stuart Anslow have been doing is well outside the KKW orbit; on another MA board that I looked at last year, when I was trying to get some further information on O'Neil's work, I came across a post by him that indicated he'd gotten a fair amount of flack from high-ranking TKDists for the kind of bunkai he was proposing for TKD forms and his suggestion that blocks be rethought as strikes and locks, that kicks in the hyungs be regarded as finishing strikes, aimed low to maximize joint damage, with major reliance on hand and arm techs to set up such kicks. 

I don't get the feeling that promotion of this kind of alternative thinking, and identification of the street-applicable aspects of TKD, is a big priority in the main Korean TKD institutions. People such as Shaderon (and many others on MT, as far as I can see) who want to pursue that approach to TKD can, of course, do it on their own, but I don't see that there's much in the way of support for that whole _view_ of the art in the WTF/KKW world. I have the strong impression that, institutionally speaking, Tang Soo Do has, at least up to the present, been _far_ more oriented in that direction...


----------



## matt.m (Feb 18, 2007)

Brad Dunne said:


> You know I have always said that Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido are the perfect arts to blend. However, and I have had this talk with high ranking dans, you should not blend the two.
> 
> Matt, I find this interesting and perplexing at the same time. *Why do they have this position?* There have been other discussions that have accounted for just this nature of TKD/HKD intermixed. Many of us have had HKD techniques in our curriculums since day one. I find there is a very big distinction between learning technical applications as opposed to embracing an art in it's intirety. Many, if not all, of the original instructors who came from Korea to the U.S. in the 60's/70's were versed in Hapkido. Now to what extent in Hapkido I don't know, but the *self defense aspects that were taught were very much Hapkido based.* I find it odd, to say the least, that since *TKD has "in general" devoided itself of the self defense mindset in favor of the sport application(s)* and now there is a movement, of sorts, to regain what was lost, why they would not wish to avail themselves of what was there originally?


 
Brad my friend all of these are great questions.  To the first, GM Hildebrand has said that he tried to blend a touch of hapkido into TKD in the early 70's.  GGM Park put a quick stop to it.  GGM Park said, "This in TKD, not hapkido or judo.  Do not show any tae kwon do student a hapkido technique." 

There is no doubt that TKD self defense is very much hapkidoesque.  The problem is though that they are esque, at least the way MSK teaches it.

To the third point of yours that I bolded, well you are right again.  I know very much that this is so.  Is it right, is it wrong to be?  I say that tae kwon do is more of what you make it.  If you love the sport aspect then that is what you favor and will be good at.  Sparring does have its place the same as poomsea, that is a big reason why I think that tae kwon do is a great art.  There is enough for everyone and each student can make it their own for themselves.


----------



## Adept (Feb 18, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Which is ironic because if by "MMA" you mean "UFC", "Pride", "K1", etc..., as many seem to, those are just sports as well, and it's hard to really take sword arts serioulsy as self-defense in today's society either. And so on. There are a lot of aspects and practices in MA today that are really just for sport but for some reason, sport-oriented Taekwondo seems to be looked down upon


 
This is a point from the initial post I was going to comment on.

TKD, as a combat sport, shares a niche with boxing and MMA competitions. TKD however, lacks the 'realism' for lack of a better word, that these other combat sports have. Everyone knows a competent boxer or MMA fighter is a very dangerous opponent 'on the street' but most (myself included) consider a sport TKD fighter to be much less dangerous.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is not TKDs sporting aspect that makes sport TKD poor for self defense, but the rules and style of combat that sporting TKD fighters engage in.



exile said:


> _One must not lose sight of the fact that Karate is `all-in' fighting. Everything is allowed... This is why Karate is based on blows delivered with the hand, the foot, the head or the knee. Equally permissible are strangulations, throwing techniques and locks'_
> 
> And exactly the same thing is true of TKD: the actual technical content of karate and TKD are almost identical in many respects. But when, in competition, high kicks to the head are encouraged, hand strikes frequent unscored, and knee and elbow strikes forbidden, along with whole ranges of set-up techniques, you have to ask yourself just what kind of vision of TKD is being promoted by the largest TKD organization in the world?


 
Absolutely! I have long held that, in order to gain the most accurate measure of a persons ability to fight, the only rules in place in a competition should be those that limit the potential for extreme and permanent injury.

I would _love_ to throw some WTF TKD fighters into the Octagon and see how they do!


----------



## exile (Feb 18, 2007)

Adept said:


> I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is not TKDs sporting aspect that makes sport TKD poor for self defense, _but the rules and style of combat that sporting TKD fighters engage in_.



Good point, Adepta critical point really, because a sport emphasis by itself doesn't necessarily compromise technique. It can actualy expedite technical improvementskiing is a good example of an activity in which sport competition has led to the discovery of the most effective techniques for turning a pair of skis and moving them efficiently over even very difficult terrain, like mogul fields. It's the racers who discovered carved turns, stepping to improve one's line, hip angulation to apply pressure over the whole length of the skis throughout the turn, and so on. And as you say, boxing, though a competitive sport, doesn't suffer from the same perception of combat irrelevance that WTF TKD does. The reason I think is that boxing starts from a much more realistic premise: the heavy lifting in boxing-style combat is to be carried out by the hands. In Olympic style TKD, the assumption is that the hands are largely irrelevantyou score with your kicks, preferably as high as possible, or you don't win. But the technical content of TKD itself, as reflected in its hyungs, makes it clear that by far the greater percentage of techs were originally envisaged as hand/arm-based, with kicks as finishing strikes aimed _LOW_. That is I think the main difference between boxing and WTF TKD... the realism of the premises in the scoring system.

Taekwondo means `foot/fist striking way'the name itself tells you that hand techs are at least half the story (the hyungs say _more_ than half, but...)... so why does the WTF scoring system ignore this aspect of the art? Visual appeal, apparently... karateka have the exact same complaint about sport karate: excessive emphasis on high kicks, with consequent loss of combat realism.... draw your own conclusions!


----------



## Miles (Feb 18, 2007)

First of all, sorry for the long post.



exile said:


> ISo you can be reasonably `subversive' and still be part of the KKW orbit...




  Not so much subversive.  I call it "open-minded."



exile said:


> ... but I don't think it's all that controversial to say that the influence of the WTF  has been to push the sport aspect of TKD, and I have to say, based on the `applications' for hyungs that I've seen in the past at the KKW website, that their view of self-defense techs is pretty much a very literal block/punch/kick model taking no account of the real progress made during the past decade in bunkai/oyo analysis (especially by UK karateka) and extended to TKD by (again, mostly UK) practitioners like Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neil.



I agree that the WTF is only concerned with sport.  That's what it does.  The KKW site does show only very basic applications. At the instructor course, we were shown that blocks were in fact more than strikes but were also joint locks.




exile said:


> Is there any evidence that the KKW is trying to complement this very artificial emphasis on a tiny subset of TKD's technical repertoire over an extremely unrealistic combat range? It seems to me that the kind of work that Simon O'Neil and Stuart Anslow have been doing is well outside the KKW orbit; on another MA board that I looked at last year, when I was trying to get some further information on O'Neil's work, I came across a post by him that indicated he'd gotten a fair amount of flack from high-ranking TKDists for the kind of bunkai he was proposing for TKD forms and his suggestion that blocks be rethought as strikes and locks, that kicks in the hyungs be regarded as finishing strikes, aimed low to maximize joint damage, with major reliance on hand and arm techs to set up such kicks.
> 
> I don't get the feeling that promotion of this kind of alternative thinking, and identification of the street-applicable aspects of TKD, is a big priority in the main Korean TKD institutions. People such as Shaderon (and many others on MT, as far as I can see) who want to pursue that approach to TKD can, of course, do it on their own, but I don't see that there's much in the way of support for that whole _view_ of the art in the WTF/KKW world. I have the strong impression that, institutionally speaking, Tang Soo Do has, at least up to the present, been _far_ more oriented in that direction...



Taken from the Kukkiwon website but with emphasis added by me:
"....A man of good defense techniques may                                              not necessarily provoke a fighting,                                              although he is capable of winning.                                              To the contrary, a man of insufficient                                              defense capabilities would prove himself                                              stupid if he dares a fighting. Defending                                              oneself from attacks alone could not                                              lead to a final solution, if the other                                              party continues attacking; therefore,                                              it is necessary to apply the techniques                                              of weakening the opponent's offensive.
*                                             That is why most of makki Taekwondo                                              techniques are designed to hurt the                                              opponent in the course of defending                                              oneself by using the wrists or hand                                              blades, which, if trained hard, may                                              inflict impacts on the other party's                                              vital points, making the latter's                                              arms and legs incapacitated.*
                                            Therefore, makki techniques must be                                              trained hard so that they may function                                              equally as offensive techniques. With                                              this, one may show himself or herself                                              generously, not by winning over the                                              opponent by initiative attacks but                                              by overcoming the latter by mere defense                                              techniques without impairing others.                                              This is indeed a righteous way if                                              a man of virtue that Taekwondo teaches."


Exile, keep the faith, it's all in there, just waiting to be pulled out at the right time.  Other arts teach joint locks earlier (i.e. hapkido, aikido) whereas other arts teach striking last (i.e. judo).  But a good TKD instructor is going to teach striking, falling, joint locks, and throws.  

Train hard!

Miles


----------



## exile (Feb 18, 2007)

Miles said:


> Exile, keep the faith, it's all in there, just waiting to be pulled out at the right time.  Other arts teach joint locks earlier (i.e. hapkido, aikido) whereas other arts teach striking last (i.e. judo).  But a good TKD instructor is going to teach striking, falling, joint locks, and throws.
> 
> Train hard!
> 
> Miles



Nice post, Miles. I agree, it's all in there. My main concern with the KKW approach is the _literalness_ that I detect in the `official' bunkaithere's no generally agreed on terms in Korean for it, or I'd use it!compared with the subtle approach that the various karateka and `rogue', leading edge TKD analyists have proposed (e.g., the chamber is actually the crucial part of the block, establishing locks and traps, or being the actual deflection part, whereas the `blocking' motion is a decisive strike on a weak/vital point, such as the collarbone or throat). So a down block would not be a way of imposing limb damage to the assailant's attacking arm (as the passage from the KKW site you quoted seems to suggest) but rather a finishing strike to an already controlled attacker whose upper body is under forced compliance due to the locks or partial throws enforced by the seemingly innocuous chambering/retraction part of the block (where the retracting fist actually imposes a wrist lock on the attacker's grabbing arm, the up-chamber of the down block slams into the attacker's forearm above the elbow, and the two move together, along with a quick 90º rotation of the defender's body, impose an arm lock on the attacker, using pressure to force him down and delivering the `block' as an arm bar to the assailant's throatthat kind of thing). A lot of times, it seems that people say, oh sure, a block really is a strike, but what they mean is, a block that you interpret as a normal block _but much harder_ will incapacitate the attacker and then you get to move in and counter attack. What I'm looking for from the KKW is an approach to the problem of bunkai analysis that I see in Abernethy's work, or Rick Clark's or Javier Martinez'.

The thing is, we _know_ that Itosu began this strategy of repackaging the actual combat scenarios of Okinawan karate as very simple kick/block/strike movements. He _told_ us that he was doing that, as part of his successful campaign to get karate training into the Okinawan public school system around the turn of the 20th century. And as Master Penfil pointed out in a post on one of the current TSD threads, Hwang Kee observed in one of his books, written late in life, that there were important bunkai for certain important kata in Okinawan karate that Funakoshi himself had never been taught and never acquired. The analysis of the truly effective content of kata/hyungs is a kind of quest which requires imagination and the kind of lateral thinking amongst MAists that you find in people who do code-breaking for a living.  Definitely, as you say, a good instructor will try to teach the whole technical repertoire... but the problem is finding the best quality apps, the sequences of moves which have the best chance of applying in the real-time nastiness of violent conflict so that the defender walks away at least relatively unharmed. This is the areapersonal CQ self-defensewhere I see people _outside_ the KKW orbit making the really important contributions...


----------



## Manny (May 1, 2007)

That's why I dropped TKD 17 years ago! I was in TKD for it's martiality and self defense and afther 1988 all the classes were towards competition techniques only leaving SD out.

It's true, TKD has evolved in a tournament pointing sport and it's sad that a rich martial art that was is dying.

I love SD, in fact I took some clases yeras ago of shotokan and aikido cause this.

If only as you mention dojans around the world will give 1/3 of the class devoted to SD it would be a change.

Manny


----------



## exile (May 1, 2007)

Manny said:


> That's why I dropped TKD 17 years ago! I was in TKD for it's martiality and self defense and afther 1988 all the classes were towards competition techniques only leaving SD out.
> 
> It's true, TKD has evolved in a tournament pointing sport and it's sad that a rich martial art that was is dying.
> 
> Manny



Manny, it's gonna come back. I really do believe there's change in the air. But it _might_ lead to a bunch of schools breaking with the KKW over curriculum issues. Conceivably those schools might wind up using the AAU as their large umbrella org, as the original post in the `AAU vs. WTD' thread suggests... or maybe they just won't feel they _need_ such an organization. After all, the kwans didn't have one when they first started in Korea in the late 1940s&#8211;early 50s, and SD was pretty much their first, last and middle name...


----------



## Shaderon (May 2, 2007)

I agree it's in the air....  our method of training includes a lot of the hand techniques and Hyung techniques trained in their own merit.  One of the good things about Western Society is people ask questions and demand answers, if they don't get them, they go elsewhere and look for them. 
Our school hasn't been with the KKW for a long time though.....  we were with the original break off.  The head of our school was one of Gen Choi's students so we still have a slight military style lean.


----------



## RealTaiji (May 3, 2008)

Isn't there a precursor to Taekwondo, that is Qigong-ish or meditative, coupled with meridian maps and kill strikes?

What is it? Who does it?


----------



## tellner (May 3, 2008)

RealTaiji said:


> Isn't there a precursor to Taekwondo, that is Qigong-ish or meditative, coupled with meridian maps and kill strikes?
> 
> What is it? Who does it?



If you go back far enough. With a bit of exception on the part of one of the kwans - and not the biggest or most influential - it comes from Japanese Karate later revised and edited in the interests of Korean nationalism. Move back a generation and it's Okinawa Te. Move further back, and it's Chinese boxing and indigenous Ryukyu martial arts. Somewhere in there you'll find what you're looking for. But it's a fair stretch.


----------

