# karate/ taekwondo differences



## athenry (Nov 2, 2002)

Hi all

I'm thinking about taking up martial arts and was wondering if anyone could help.  There are two schools near me - karate and taekwondo. I know that the quality of the teaching is obviously a factor, but I'd like to know more about the differences between the two styles. Could anyone help by outlining them?


Many thanks.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 2, 2002)

That's a bit vague. What style of Karate? For that matter, what kind of TKD is it? (ITF, WTF, ATA etc?)


----------



## athenry (Nov 2, 2002)

Sorry, I should have been a bit more specific. I meant ITF taekwondo verus shotokan karate.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by athenry _
> 
> *I meant ITF taekwondo verus shotokan karate. *



Historically, they're _very_ closely related, with TKD strongly influenced by Shotokan. Karate doesn't have the high kicks however and usually has less of an emphasis on sport aspects than TKD. Karate emphasizes punching more than kicking, TKD usually the other way around or at least nearer to 50-50. Usually you get some weapons training in karate but not always in TKD.


----------



## theneuhauser (Nov 2, 2002)

you would probably gain more flexibility in tkd, or at least faster. and the intensity of the workout will probably depend on the instructor's attitude, i would guess.


----------



## theneuhauser (Nov 2, 2002)

by the way, i think shotokan is pretty neat!!!


----------



## athenry (Nov 2, 2002)

I'm guessing that shotokan might be more effective from a defence point of view, given than TKD might be limited if somebody gets in close. Would that be a fair comment?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by athenry _
> *I'm guessing that shotokan might be more effective from a defence point of view, given than TKD might be limited if somebody gets in close. Would that be a fair comment? *



You'll get different answers from different people, and of course it depends very much on the instructor and possibly the subsystem--I knew of a TKD instructor who mixed in some boxing who taught a _very_ effective system. However, as a rule I'd agree. The TKD emphasis on kicking as opposed to the Shotokan emphasis on hand techniques means that the latter is more practical for the types of stiuations you'd be likely to be in, including the types of clothes you're apt to be wearing. Personally, I like Okinawan Karate even better for self-defense.

You might also ask in the Tae Kwon Do forum!


----------



## Mike Clarke (Nov 3, 2002)

Like others here I would advise that you look more at the teacher than the style.
Each combat system (if taught by a qualified person) will have strong and weak points. These may change according to your own body build, attitude and abilities etc.
Before you start training it might be a good idea to think long and hard about just what it is you want from the training, and what you (as a person) can bring to it. When people come to the MA's with the attitude of "What can karate/teakwondo/judo etc give me?" I think they miss the point somewhat. Martial arts can give you nothing you don't already have. What they can do is coax mental and physical attributes from deep inside you to the surface.

I should add that this will only happen if you find a good teacher, and then train for a long time (years not months). If you're still around in ten or fifiteen years, you'll have something of great value (regardless of the art). If you want instant ability you won't find it at a legit school. If you want to be at one with the universe or be able to stop any attacker you might meet, go live deep in the forrest, or buy a gun.

Forget rank, it has little meaning thanks to the majority of those already in the martial arts today.

Good luck with your quest.

Mike.


----------



## TkdWarrior (Nov 3, 2002)

i think u should better go out for instructor rather than a styles... a good instructor can teach u no matter how bad/good u r
i think Mr. Mike Clarke summed up it good...
-TkdWarrior-


----------



## celtic bhoy (Nov 3, 2002)

It depends if your after competition or self defence. If it's self defence your after then your best bet is Karate. Because you might be only lucky enough to find Tkd instructor who concentrates self defence, where as in Karate it's usually compulsory. If it's competition your after then take your pick.

Best Regards


----------



## KennethKu (Nov 4, 2002)

Forgive me for saying this. But It is absurd to suggest that KT is better suited for self-defence vs TKD, or the other way around.  IT is totally a function of how you train and condition yourself.  Kicks are as devastating as they come.  If you can't deliver lethal  kicks, the fault lies in your conditioning, not in TKD or any art for that matter.  It is also possible that the particular instructor or school, fails to instruct the students properly. Nevertheless, it is incorrect to blame the art.

For the sake of argument, when someone closes in, you can still kick the shin, the knees,  and/or knee the attacker's groin, lower abdomen etc. And to imply that TKD does not punch, chop, elbow, is absurd.

And also, please forgive me for disagreeing with the conventional wisdom that it takes you years to be effective in self-defence. That is simply not true.  I am sorry if I offend any one.  If what you are learning, fail to equip you with the basic skills to defend yourself, there is something wrong.  Granted, it might take years to master a Martial Art. I don't dispute that. But self-defence is different. 

Self-defence is almost never a drawn out duel between 2 professional fighters.  It is almost always a sudden full blast of violence. The one that lands the first effective strike that opens up for a followup KO, wins.  Self-defence is not sparring.


----------



## Mike Clarke (Nov 5, 2002)

Have to agree with you there Kenneth,

If you get hit with a technique that puts you down or stops you, it's pretty academic what style the guy learnt to hit from, or even if they have had any formal training at all?
It's true, a martial art is one thing, street defense is something else. This is why I suggest people have some understanding as to what it is they want from training before they spend years doing something that may not deliver the things they were looking for?

Comparing style against style is silly I think. It's like saying my car is better than yours. Finding a training system that gives you what you want is the best way to go (in my opinion).
The trick is to know what you want and what your doing and finding someone who is the 'real' thing (by that I mean someone properly qualifide to teach you the things you think you're learning).

Of course those out their trying to make a living and pay the bills from their instruction (many of them anyway), may find a little bit of bais advertising will get more people through their door than the school down the road. but thats not martial arts, thats bull dust.

Mike.


----------



## fissure (Nov 8, 2002)

KennethKu, great post - thanks for saving me the time:asian:


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 29, 2007)

I'm going to outline my percieved similarities, differences, opinions, pros and cons of each.  As most people say, TKD is strongly influenced by shotokan karate.  I've found karate usually gives at least half of it's class time to warming up, working out and stretching.  I know it varies from place to place but the pattern I've observed is that most TKD schools do much more leg stretching (splits, hip rolls etc.) wheras in karate they do more stress stances and push-up/sit-up style exercises, and TKD seems to do half as long of a warm-up (just my own observaion, fellas).  I found TKD to be much more fun.  You get to free spar a lot earlier, usually than in karate where it progressively becomes one-step, two-step, three-step and finally free sparring.  I don't find either of the sparring to be nearly as helpful for learning self-defense as full contact.  I think karate is less fun because of the seriousness involved, but I find I get more out of it.  TKD is more than just fun too.  I think the sport aspect is capable of having a detrimental effect, both to the interpretation of what you're learning and to the outward appearance of the art to others.  There isn't a lot of significant difference of technique, IMO.  They are both (primarily) linear, have self-defense potential, sport aspects and so called "soke" to watch out for.  I suggest learning the basics of karate for a few months first and then try TKD and see if you like it better.  Try asking the instructors about each other's arts.  A good master will usually be more inclined to talk differences than superiorities and will use these differences rather than percieved superiorities to


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 29, 2007)

Assuming you've observed the schools and deem them both to be good (adequate warm-ups, correcting the students, emphasis on finess and hard work), I'd reccommend taking karate for a few months, learn the basic blocks, stances, kicks, strikes and punches, maybe earn your yellow belt.  Then switch to TKD and see if you like it.  While you're still a beginner in karate, you'll also learn the basic blocks, punches, kicks, strikes and stances in TKD.  Maybe earn your yellow belt in TKD as well.  Keep in mind that TKD kicks more.  I also don't remember TKD being as strict on their stances.  Karate may often seem more boring but you have to consider what it does for you, who you like better as an instructor and why you are taking the martial art.  I would consider as a general rule that karate holds self-defense to be of paramount concern when training.  TKD almost always has some kind of tourney/competition agenda, though whether this is detrimental to the self-defense aspect depends on how the training is done.  Often, though not a correct impression of a self defence situation, tournament practitioners often train very hard and can often be more fit.  Your fitness level is the primary factor that can definitely improve your chances of ddefending yourself successfully.  Remember that it's what you put into it and the quality of instruction that matter more than anything.  Good luck with your endeavor.


----------



## zDom (May 29, 2007)

Em MacIntosh said:


> I also don't remember TKD being as strict on their stances.



Many aren't. But there are some of us out there who still are very strict about good form in formal stances.


----------



## exile (May 29, 2007)

Em MacIntosh said:


> I'm going to outline my percieved similarities, differences, opinions, pros and cons of each.  As most people say, TKD is strongly influenced by shotokan karate.  I've found karate usually gives at least half of it's class time to warming up, working out and stretching.  I know it varies from place to place but the pattern I've observed is that most TKD schools do much more leg stretching (splits, hip rolls etc.) wheras in karate they do more stress stances and push-up/sit-up style exercises, and TKD seems to do half as long of a warm-up (just my own observaion, fellas).  I found TKD to be much more fun.  You get to free spar a lot earlier, usually than in karate where it progressively becomes one-step, two-step, three-step and finally free sparring.  I don't find either of the sparring to be nearly as helpful for learning self-defense as full contact.  I think karate is less fun because of the seriousness involved, but I find I get more out of it.  TKD is more than just fun too.  I think the sport aspect is capable of having a detrimental effect, both to the interpretation of what you're learning and to the outward appearance of the art to others.  There isn't a lot of significant difference of technique, IMO.  They are both (primarily) linear, have self-defense potential, sport aspects and so called "soke" to watch out for.  I suggest learning the basics of karate for a few months first and then try TKD and see if you like it better.  Try asking the instructors about each other's arts.  A good master will usually be more inclined to talk differences than superiorities and will use these differences rather than percieved superiorities to





Em MacIntosh said:


> Assuming you've observed the schools and deem them both to be good (adequate warm-ups, correcting the students, emphasis on finess and hard work), I'd reccommend taking karate for a few months, learn the basic blocks, stances, kicks, strikes and punches, maybe earn your yellow belt.  Then switch to TKD and see if you like it.  While you're still a beginner in karate, you'll also learn the basic blocks, punches, kicks, strikes and stances in TKD.  Maybe earn your yellow belt in TKD as well.  Keep in mind that TKD kicks more.  I also don't remember TKD being as strict on their stances.  Karate may often seem more boring but you have to consider what it does for you, who you like better as an instructor and why you are taking the martial art.  I would consider as a general rule that karate holds self-defense to be of paramount concern when training.  TKD almost always has some kind of tourney/competition agenda, though whether this is detrimental to the self-defense aspect depends on how the training is done.  Often, though not a correct impression of a self defence situation, tournament practitioners often train very hard and can often be more fit.  Your fitness level is the primary factor that can definitely improve your chances of ddefending yourself successfully.  Remember that it's what you put into it and the quality of instruction that matter more than anything.  Good luck with your endeavor.





zDom said:


> Many aren't. But there are some of us out there who still are very strict about good form in formal stances.



I gotta say, you guys impress the hell out of me. So much excellent well-informed common sense in three posts... it's outrageous! Yes, definitely TKD and Shotokan karate are brother arts, maybe even fraternal twins. And yes, while some schools emphasize kicking techs, a lot of schools have yout _train_ those techs as part of a total self-defense approach in which hand techs play the primary role and low- or mid-level kicks, targeting particular weak point below the waist, or the floating ribs at the highest, are brought in as finishing moves once the assailant is secured using various traps and locks that are evident throughout the hyungs as setups for the final, disabling strike. Make no mistake, TKD is built around not only the same technical toolkit but the same strategic agenda as karate: the intention is, every move either sets up the finish or is itself the finish. 

Sure, kicking practice is emphasized, but that doesn't mean that kicking is more important thanor even as important ashand techs. The idea in TKD practice is that kicking is harder than hand techniques, because of balance issues and kinæsthetic issuesit's harder to balance with one leg off the ground and rapidly moving toward a target, and it's also harder for most of us to control the force/angle/impact surface of a kick, because we use kicks much less in ordinary life than we do hand/arm movements which have martial content. So kicking requires more practice. But if you look at TKD hyungs, as Simon O'Neil emphasizes tirelessly, you'll find that there are usually four or five times as many hand techs as leg techs. 

Think of TKD as the Korean flowering of Shotokan karate and you won't be far off the mark at all. And yes, as zD points out, TKDers can be just as finicky and stylistically strict as the stricted Shotokan style dictator. My own sabunim is like that. Our stances are low, low low, and our transitions have to be quick, quick, quick... I'm not sure how we manage to do it!


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 30, 2007)

I think stance is extremely important and feel that any good instructor from any art will be riding your back about it.  TKD also taught me another way to look at breathing, to breath hard but only let a little out.  Stopping the air like that compresses the internal organs creating "steam power".  The concept can be taken universally but it was never explained to me like that until I tried TKD.  Our TKD instructor occasionally swung at you with focus mits to keep you on your toes when practicing on them.  Another place I took TKD at bounced when they stretched (very bad) and did a fifteen minute warm-up, even though there were some old-timers in the class.  I'm 24 and that wasn't enough for me, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't enough for the people 2 and a half times my age.  A good instructor will be hard but considerate to all students' needs.


----------



## zDom (May 30, 2007)

Em MacIntosh said:


> A good instructor will be hard but considerate to all students' needs.



I agree. You know you have a great instructor when you feel like he or she has tailored the class just for you  and everybody else does at the same time!


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 30, 2007)

I would vouch for doing a little wrestling and boxing though as well.  Just the basics of both.  Karate isn't really know for it's groundfighting (can't speak for TKD...) so it's good to roll around on the mat a bit, so if you do happen to go down, you're in familiar territory. Boxing might help you loosen up your karate, something I still have trouble with.  It's good to practice rolling with the punches, taking a hit, bobbing and weaving.  Great for footwork too.  If you want to stick with a more traditional aproach, jiu jitsu and karate or judo and karate go together like flies on rice.  You might be able to ask your sensei to teach you some karate groundfighting that I've never heard of though.  Bring your concerns about your art's perceived weaknesses to you sensei's attention (respectfully and tactfully) andhear his/her opinion.  Don't try to disprove your sensei though.  It's more like asking an expert.  He/she might be able to reccommend another art to supplement those possible weaknesses.


----------



## Logan (Jun 1, 2007)

It's not the art it's the artist....blah blah blah

I would keep it simple. Observe classes in each and see which one appeals to you best for whatever reason. Then, you are more likely to stick with it and train well.

Karate and Taekwondo are very similar and the differences are often down to the individual teacher. They are (generally speaking) external striking arts.


----------



## chinto (Aug 23, 2007)

athenry said:


> Hi all
> 
> I'm thinking about taking up martial arts and was wondering if anyone could help. There are two schools near me - karate and taekwondo. I know that the quality of the teaching is obviously a factor, but I'd like to know more about the differences between the two styles. Could anyone help by outlining them?
> 
> ...


 
It does depend on the instructor to a poin, but also the style to a point as well.

I would say as far as Self Defence more then any other thing that style and instructor in that factor. I study Shobyashi Shorin Ryu myself and the emphisis is defenently on self defence and combat and not on sport. I would say that from what I personaly have seen that karate, especialy shobayashi shorin ryu is more suited to self defence then what I have seen offerd as teakwan do . this is not to say that there are not Taikwan do instructors out there that do not teach good self defence. I understand that meany of the ROK armed forces train in and use TKD for hand to hand combat training and are respected for their skills.  Just what I have seen tought as TKD as  Oposed to what is normaly tought as Karate in the main shorin ryu styles.


----------



## 009abz (Aug 25, 2007)

look i do tkd and karate but when people ask me wat style is better or would be more effective in a street fight i tell them like ill say about any martial art their both da same because you dnt know wats going to happen in a street fight also like ppl have said it depends on the instructor for example my tkd instructor only teachs us kicks and boxing punches for tkd or karate punches dont do **** in a street fight,also i would like to add it depends on the way u train.




to fight you got to be strong but to win you got to be smart


----------



## Yeti (Aug 25, 2007)

009abz said:


> look i do tkd and karate but when people ask me wat style is better or would be more effective in a street fight i tell them like ill say about any martial art their both da same because you dnt know wats going to happen in a street fight also like ppl have said it depends on the instructor for example my tkd instructor only teachs us kicks and boxing punches for tkd or karate punches dont do **** in a street fight,also i would like to add it depends on the way u train.
> 
> 
> to fight you got to be strong but to win you got to be smart



Well, first off, welcome to MT. 
After reading your post, I will say this...If your TKD instructor doesn't teach you TKD punches because "tkd or karate punches don't do **** in a street fight" - that tells me you should probably go find another instructor.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 25, 2007)

Yeti said:


> Well, first off, welcome to MT.
> After reading your post, I will say this...If your TKD instructor doesn't teach you TKD punches because "tkd or karate punches don't do **** in a street fight" - that tells me you should probably go find another instructor.



With you on that Yeti.  

And I can assure you, 009, that they do.

Just remind me, the art of kicking and ummm.. punching!  What do you do for forms?


----------



## 009abz (Aug 25, 2007)

a boxers punch is faster and stronger and better all up then a tkd or karate punch ecpecally in a street fight and you said i have to go find a notheir instructer well ill tell you this he has done at least 5 martial arts and he was the youngest tkd instructor to reach his 5 dan in australia so he would know a million times more than you when it comes to tkd also everyone ive ask have showen me a told me how boxing punches are better than tkd and you said tkd stands for the art of kicking and punching well thats true but every martial art has it weakness and punching or hand combat is tkds weakness and all my instructor is doing is giving us better hand skills then the normal tkd person and we still learn tkd punches and hand movements for gradding and patterns.......

I love to see my name where everyone can read it. Someday I'm gonna see it in bright, bright lights


----------



## 009abz (Aug 25, 2007)

Yeti said:


> Well, first off, welcome to MT.
> After reading your post, I will say this...If your TKD instructor doesn't teach you TKD punches because "tkd or karate punches don't do **** in a street fight" - that tells me you should probably go find another instructor.


 

a boxers punch is faster and stronger and better all up then a tkd or karate punch ecpecally in a street fight and you said i have to go find a notheir instructer well ill tell you this he has done at least 5 martial arts and he was the youngest tkd instructor to reach his 5 dan in australia so he would know a million times more than you when it comes to tkd also everyone ive ask have showen me a told me how boxing punches are better than tkd and you said tkd stands for the art of kicking and punching well thats true but every martial art has it weakness and punching or hand combat is tkds weakness and all my instructor is doing is giving us better hand skills then the normal tkd person and we still learn tkd punches and hand movements for gradding and patterns.......

I love to see my name where everyone can read it. Someday I'm gonna see it in bright, bright lights


----------



## chinto (Aug 26, 2007)

Yeti said:


> Well, first off, welcome to MT.
> After reading your post, I will say this...If your TKD instructor doesn't teach you TKD punches because "tkd or karate punches don't do **** in a street fight" - that tells me you should probably go find another instructor.


 
I would tend to agree to a point to say the least. I would say the very least I would have some very very tough questions for the instructor.. and I can tell you that karate punches are very effective in combat. Please remember that karateka trained with out exception till recently for combat and survival. the sport aplications and trianing is something that is relitivly new. On Okinawa at least the normal way you figured out who won a street altercation was by who was still breathing.  Fights then, and Now for that matter, so any fight on the street in self defence has your life at stake.


----------



## chinto (Aug 26, 2007)

009abz said:


> a boxers punch is faster and stronger and better all up then a tkd or karate punch ecpecally in a street fight and you said i have to go find a notheir instructer well ill tell you this he has done at least 5 martial arts and he was the youngest tkd instructor to reach his 5 dan in australia so he would know a million times more than you when it comes to tkd also everyone ive ask have showen me a told me how boxing punches are better than tkd and you said tkd stands for the art of kicking and punching well thats true but every martial art has it weakness and punching or hand combat is tkds weakness and all my instructor is doing is giving us better hand skills then the normal tkd person and we still learn tkd punches and hand movements for gradding and patterns.......
> 
> I love to see my name where everyone can read it. Someday I'm gonna see it in bright, bright lights


 

hmmm well it is said that no one hits harder then a boxer. That being said, Boxing has become a sport and has been one for a long time. they took out the most effective techniques so as to prolong the fight for 'sporting fans'.  Karate is optimized for self defence when tought properly. I understand that the ROK Marines and Amy units use TKD for hand to hand combat as well. so to some how think that a sport derived from pugilisum is more effective in a combat situation then some art that is more focoused on combat and self defence seems unlikely. if boxing was so much better dont you think that it would have dominated every other combat system a long time ago for self defence? after all boxing was a sport in china and asia, the indian sub-continent and midle east as well as the amaricas and austraila .. in short world wide by 1850... why would the other systems have survived?  After all, if its about staying alive, you will go with what is effective and efficent at keeping you alive.


----------



## chinto (Aug 26, 2007)

009abz said:


> a boxers punch is faster and stronger and better all up then a tkd or karate punch ecpecally in a street fight and you said i have to go find a notheir instructer well ill tell you this he has done at least 5 martial arts and he was the youngest tkd instructor to reach his 5 dan in australia so he would know a million times more than you when it comes to tkd also everyone ive ask have showen me a told me how boxing punches are better than tkd and you said tkd stands for the art of kicking and punching well thats true but every martial art has it weakness and punching or hand combat is tkds weakness and all my instructor is doing is giving us better hand skills then the normal tkd person and we still learn tkd punches and hand movements for gradding and patterns.......
> 
> I love to see my name where everyone can read it. Someday I'm gonna see it in bright, bright lights


 

hmmm well it is said that no one hits harder then a boxer. That being said, Boxing has become a sport and has been one for a long time. they took out the most effective techniques so as to prolong the fight for 'sporting fans'.  Karate is optimized for self defence when tought properly. I understand that the ROK Marines and Amy units use TKD for hand to hand combat as well. so to some how think that a sport derived from pugilisum is more effective in a combat situation then some art that is more focoused on combat and self defence seems unlikely. if boxing was so much better dont you think that it would have dominated every other combat system a long time ago for self defence? after all boxing was a sport in china and asia, the indian sub-continent and midle east as well as the amaricas and austraila .. in short world wide by 1850... why would the other systems have survived?  After all, if its about staying alive, you will go with what is effective and efficent at keeping you alive.


----------



## chinto (Aug 26, 2007)

009abz said:


> a boxers punch is faster and stronger and better all up then a tkd or karate punch ecpecally in a street fight and you said i have to go find a notheir instructer well ill tell you this he has done at least 5 martial arts and he was the youngest tkd instructor to reach his 5 dan in australia so he would know a million times more than you when it comes to tkd also everyone ive ask have showen me a told me how boxing punches are better than tkd and you said tkd stands for the art of kicking and punching well thats true but every martial art has it weakness and punching or hand combat is tkds weakness and all my instructor is doing is giving us better hand skills then the normal tkd person and we still learn tkd punches and hand movements for gradding and patterns.......
> 
> I love to see my name where everyone can read it. Someday I'm gonna see it in bright, bright lights


 

hmmm well it is said that no one hits harder then a boxer. That being said, Boxing has become a sport and has been one for a long time. they took out the most effective techniques so as to prolong the fight for 'sporting fans'.  Karate is optimized for self defence when tought properly. I understand that the ROK Marines and Amy units use TKD for hand to hand combat as well. so to some how think that a sport derived from pugilisum is more effective in a combat situation then some art that is more focoused on combat and self defence seems unlikely. if boxing was so much better dont you think that it would have dominated every other combat system a long time ago for self defence? after all boxing was a sport in china and asia, the indian sub-continent and midle east as well as the amaricas and austraila .. in short world wide by 1850... why would the other systems have survived?  After all, if its about staying alive, you will go with what is effective and efficent at keeping you alive.


----------



## chinto (Aug 26, 2007)

009abz said:


> a boxers punch is faster and stronger and better all up then a tkd or karate punch ecpecally in a street fight and you said i have to go find a notheir instructer well ill tell you this he has done at least 5 martial arts and he was the youngest tkd instructor to reach his 5 dan in australia so he would know a million times more than you when it comes to tkd also everyone ive ask have showen me a told me how boxing punches are better than tkd and you said tkd stands for the art of kicking and punching well thats true but every martial art has it weakness and punching or hand combat is tkds weakness and all my instructor is doing is giving us better hand skills then the normal tkd person and we still learn tkd punches and hand movements for gradding and patterns.......
> 
> I love to see my name where everyone can read it. Someday I'm gonna see it in bright, bright lights


 

hmmm well it is said that no one hits harder then a boxer. That being said, Boxing has become a sport and has been one for a long time. they took out the most effective techniques so as to prolong the fight for 'sporting fans'. Karate is optimized for self defence when tought properly. I understand that the ROK Marines and Amy units use TKD for hand to hand combat as well. so to some how think that a sport derived from pugilisum is more effective in a combat situation then some art that is more focoused on combat and self defence seems unlikely. 

If boxing was so much better dont you think that it would have dominated every other combat system a long time ago for self defence? After all boxing was a sport in china and asia, the indian sub-continent and midle east as well as the amaricas and austraila .. in short world wide by 1850... Why would the other systems have survived? After all, if its about staying alive, you will go with what is effective and efficent at keeping you alive.

So I guess the long and short of it is that I do Not buy your argument that some how boxing is so superior to other styles with their hands. They do a good job with combinations and they hit hard, but so do other arts and styles.


----------



## Axe_KO (Aug 26, 2007)

chinto said:


> hmmm well it is said that no one hits harder then a boxer. That being said, Boxing has become a sport and has been one for a long time. they took out the most effective techniques so as to prolong the fight for 'sporting fans'. Karate is optimized for self defence when tought properly. I understand that the ROK Marines and Amy units use TKD for hand to hand combat as well. so to some how think that a sport derived from pugilisum is more effective in a combat situation then some art that is more focoused on combat and self defence seems unlikely.
> 
> If boxing was so much better dont you think that it would have dominated every other combat system a long time ago for self defence? After all boxing was a sport in china and asia, the indian sub-continent and midle east as well as the amaricas and austraila .. in short world wide by 1850... Why would the other systems have survived? After all, if its about staying alive, you will go with what is effective and efficent at keeping you alive.
> 
> So I guess the long and short of it is that I do Not buy your argument that some how boxing is so superior to other styles with their hands. They do a good job with combinations and they hit hard, but so do other arts and styles.


 

Well said my friend, but you have to realise that every sport has its advantages/disadvantages, yet, think about the outcome of two great sports combining the hand techniques of boxing and Kicking of TKD, what kind of force will it have. That is the  point being stressed by my frind 009abz, about our instructor combining the 2 for us to have the most effective punch style as well as kicks in a tournomant/street fight. 

Thank you.

"To fight you gotta be strong, To win you gotta be smart"


----------



## Yeti (Aug 26, 2007)

009abz said:


> a boxers punch is faster and stronger and better all up then a tkd or karate punch ecpecally in a street fight



I never said a boxer's punch wasn't a good thing and to supplement your TKD training with boxing is one thing. But to flat out state that your instructor doesn't teach TKD punches because (paraphrasing) they are ineffective, is another, and I stand by my earlier statement. Again, to combine the two arts is one thing but for your TKD instructor to get away from TKD's handwork....why? It works. See my point? Supplementation and abandonment are two very different things. Perhaps you didn't mean to say what you said earlier?...



009abz said:


> and you said i have to go find a notheir instructer well ill tell you this he has done at least 5 martial arts and he was the youngest tkd instructor to reach his 5 dan in australia so he would know a million times more than you when it comes to tkd


Being youngest to 5th Dan in Australia doesn't mean much to me.  That is NOT to take anything away from your instructor or your instructor's skills. It is to state, in my opinion, that rank isn't always what it's cracked up to be.  All depends on what you want out of your training.  



009abz said:


> I love to see my name where everyone can read it. Someday I'm gonna see it in bright, bright lights


Good for you! I hope you attain your goals. BTW...should I look for the name '009abz' in lights or do you go by another? :wink2:


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 26, 2007)

We are very much on the same page Yeti.


----------



## chinto (Aug 26, 2007)

Axe_KO said:


> Well said my friend, but you have to realise that every sport has its advantages/disadvantages, yet, think about the outcome of two great sports combining the hand techniques of boxing and Kicking of TKD, what kind of force will it have. That is the point being stressed by my frind 009abz, about our instructor combining the 2 for us to have the most effective punch style as well as kicks in a tournomant/street fight.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> no I dont buy that you can take 2 styles, and especialy if both some how have been modified to be more sport orianted ( IE as in less likely to permenently injure or kill one or the other of the combatents) and just combine them and some how come up with somthing that is some how superior to systems that have been refined for centurys with the sole purpouse of saving your life in an altercation.  So Sorry but that just does not wash.


----------



## chinto (Aug 26, 2007)

yep, I agree with you Yeti!  I also very much on the same page on this.


----------



## Last Fearner (Aug 27, 2007)

athenry said:


> I'm guessing that shotokan might be more effective from a defence point of view, given than TKD might be limited if somebody gets in close. Would that be a fair comment?


This a myth, and a complete falsehood. Taekwondo is not limited in anyway in close quarters combat. Only those who are not trained in Taekwondo (or their training is incomplete) make that assumption based on appearances and reputation of TKD kicking. They think that kicks can not be used when close to an opponent (false), and that Taekwondo does not contain devastating hand strikes, joint locks, pressure points, etc. (and that would be false as well).



celtic bhoy said:


> If it's self defence your after then your best bet is Karate. Because you might be only lucky enough to find Tkd instructor who concentrates self defence, where as in Karate it's usually compulsory.


This would be an incorrect notion to suggest that Karate would be better for self defense than Taekwondo. Either one would work fine provided you get proper training, and put forth the effort to learn the art correctly. The only smidgen of truth to this quote is that there are so many "look-alike" TKD schools that don't really know what they are teaching (McDojangs as some call them), and those that are specifically sport oriented. If you are looking for self defense, simply be sure that the instructor is qualified, and that the school's curriculum has a fair balance of self defense training.



exile said:


> Make no mistake, TKD is built around not only the same technical toolkit but the same strategic agenda as karate: the intention is, every move either sets up the finish or is itself the finish.


I agree. Although I would say the "toolkit" is slightly different in some cases, the core substance of the two are very similar.



exile said:


> Sure, kicking practice is emphasized, but that doesn't mean that kicking is more important than&#8212;or even as important as&#8212;hand techs.


Exile is correct here as well. TKD places the emphasis on kicking because of the unique philosophy of TKD which says that it is better to use the longer reach of the legs (when applicable) in order to be able to strike first and keep your opponent at a safe distance where they have difficulty striking you. Also the strength and power of the legs over the arms is evident (try bench pressing as much with your arms as you do with your legs). The mistake is made when anyone, in Taekwondo or not, believes that this favored technique of kicking should replace hand strikes, or grappling completely, thus reducing or eliminating sufficient training time in the other areas.



exile said:


> The idea in TKD practice is that kicking is harder than hand techniques,
> ... it's also harder for most of us to control the force/angle/impact surface of a kick, because we use kicks much less in ordinary life than we do hand/arm movements which have martial content. So kicking requires more practice.


This is true, and a point that I have heard Bill 'Superfoot' Wallace make several times in his seminars. We are much more adept, coordinated, and skilled with our hands than our feet. If we are going to make a useful weapon out of our feet, then we need to put a lot more time in training them, but other areas of training should not suffer for it.



exile said:


> But if you look at TKD hyungs,.... you'll find that there are usually four or five times as many hand techs as leg techs.


This is a good point that many people, who claim TKD is all kicks, often overlook. I know what a Taekwondo class typically consists of, and it is not just kicking from start to finish.



chinto said:


> I would say that from what I personaly have seen that karate, especialy shobayashi shorin ryu is more suited to self defence then what I have seen offerd as *teakwan do* . this is not to say that there are not *Taikwan do* instructors out there that do not teach good self defence.


First of all, it is "Taekwondo" (or Tae Kwon Do, or Taekwon-do). By your post, you have admitted that your opinion is based on what you have personally seen of TKD and Karate. It is apparent that you have seen some good Karate schools, and some not so good TKD schools. That is, of course, not a reflection of the art itself, just the sampling of schools and instructors you have observed.



009abz said:


> my tkd instructor only teachs us kicks and boxing punches for tkd or karate punches dont do **** in a street fight,


009abz, your post started off with a good point, and ended with a good point, but this part in the middle is an absolute falsehood, and misinformed assessment. Both Taekwondo and Karate contain hand strikes and punches that are very fast, very powerful, and very effective in the street (first hand experience speaking here). I don't know if this statement is your own opinion, or if you are just parroting what your instructor tells you, but before you just blindly accept a sweeping statement like that, I suggest you do some research and ask a variety of experts. Many would be more than happy to give you (or your instructor) a demonstration of why that statement is incorrect.



009abz said:


> a boxers punch is faster and stronger and better all up then a tkd or karate punch ecpecally in a street fight


No disrespect intended to your instructor, but I believe I could match my age, years of training, experience, and rank in Taekwondo (among other certification in other variations), but that would do little good. What is important is the proof of a statement. Let's start with "a boxer's punch is faster... than a tkd or karate punch." Where is the scientific proof of that? Who conducted the tests and who were the participants? I would contend that many Taekwondoists (such as myself) have just as fast of a hand strike as any boxer.

Next statement, "a boxer's punch is stronger than a tkd or karate punch." Again, where is the proof of this? Boxers tend to fight with gloves on and angle their punches for a specific type of knock-out. While I can duplicate that, it is not typically the aim of a Taekwondoist (or in Karate) to jolt the brain and cause cerebral hemorrhaging. TKD is designed to destroy the target, and pinpoint specific vulnerable spots for maximum effect. I break multiple boards with my bare handed punches (as well as other hand strikes) - - something that I rarely see a boxer be able to duplicate without breaking the bones in their hand. Unless they have trained in the Martial Art (such as Muhammad Ali who studied Taekwondo), they are taught to punch differently for different effect, but I have never seen a study that proves their punch is "stronger."

Finally, the allegation that a Boxer's punch is better in a street fight is absolutely an unfounded opinion. Better in what way? When a TKD or Karate expert punches an opponent in the street, the opponent is injured, damaged, even downed from one strike. Boxer's might match that, but you can not get "better" than that. Besides, you should know that the internal mechanics, muscle contractions, and reactionary forces of a Martial Art strike is very different from that of a Boxer. We are different for a reason, and there is no sense in my stepping backwards in the evolutionary development to train the way a boxer punches, and abandon the way I punch since my punches are just as fast, powerful, and effective (if not more-so), and for all the right reasons of physical mechanics and fight strategy for self defense in the street - - not in the ring.



chinto said:


> hmmm well it is said that no one hits harder then a boxer.


Here again, I would simply ask, "who has said that, and where is the proof?"



Axe_KO said:


> think about the outcome of two great sports combining the hand techniques of boxing and Kicking of TKD, what kind of force will it have.


No need to combine boxing hand skills with TKD since we already have the force we need the way we do it. Yes, it would advantage a boxer to know the kicking power of TKD, but the trade-off you suggest is of no benefit to Taekwondo. I study, watch and learn how boxers punch and fight so that I know how to counter their movements, just like when Buster Douglas beat the unstoppable Mike Tyson. Not that he used Taekwondo, but you have to study a fighter to find their weak points, but that does not mean that you fight like them. I have no intention of fighting like a boxer. Not to be disrespectful, or boasting, but my training is beyond that point.


----------



## exile (Aug 27, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Taekwondo is not limited in anyway in close quarters combat. Only those who are not trained in Taekwondo (or their training is incomplete) make that assumption based on appearances and reputation of TKD kicking...
> 
> ...009abz, your post started off with a good point, and ended with a good point, but this part in the middle is an absolute falsehood, and misinformed assessment. Both Taekwondo and Karate contain hand strikes and punches that are very fast, very powerful, and very effective in the street (first hand experience speaking here).



Right on target, LF. I wish that these completely correct points would finally register with more people in the MA community, many of whom don't seem to understand that the _kwon_ in Taekwondo really does mean `fist (strike)'! Taekwondo = `foot-fist-way'... it's a bit frustrating when the very name of the art tells you, yes, we do both kicking _and_ hand techniques, and you still have people with this serious misconception that TKDists only kick.

A lot of it probably comes from the way WTF tournament scoring has affected strategy and tactics during sparring matches, but again, one would hope people would know better. Imagine basing your view of skiing solely on the downhill event, where long, straight schusses at very high speeds are occasionally punctuated by relatively long turns, and coming to the conclusion as a result that skiing simply involves going very fast straight down a hill and that very short-radius turns aren't part of the technical competence of skiers. Nothing could be further from the truth...




Last Fearner said:


> No disrespect intended to your instructor, but I believe I could match my age, years of training, experience, and rank in Taekwondo (among other certification in other variations), but that would do little good. What is important is the proof of a statement. Let's start with "a boxer's punch is faster... than a tkd or karate punch." Where is the scientific proof of that? Who conducted the tests and who were the participants? I would contend that many Taekwondoists (such as myself) have just as fast of a hand strike as any boxer.
> 
> Next statement, "a boxer's punch is stronger than a tkd or karate punch." Again, where is the proof of this?



Yes, I've wondered myself about this kind of statement, which is far from uncommon, comparing boxing punches to TKD/Karate punches. I have seen four-board stacks, 1" per board and no separators, blasted apart by experienced TKD and Karate breakers at tournaments, using a punch delivered while the stack was being _held_ by two assistants, as vs. resting on concrete blocks... that is incredibly hard punching, don't let anyone tell you differently, and I myself wonder how many boxers, punching barehanded, would be able to do the same breaks. I've seen individual boards broken by speed breaks&#8212;no one is holding the board: it stands on edge and the force delivery of the punch is so accurate and efficient that the board breaks even though it can move freely. Again, I wonder how many boxers would be able to do that without specific training. Please note, I'm not saying that a gifted boxer wouldn't be unable to do that; I don't know enough to say that in advance, but even those who happily compare boxing to TKD/Karate punches to the latter's detriment should be willing to admit that it's a real question whether such a boxer could do these kinds of breaks without serious training and preparation.

And is breaking relevant to actual SD applications? We've had a number of thread discussions on this, and I think one important point which has emerged is that board breaking is a way of both quantifying effective force delivery and also _training_ one's strikes to improve that force delivey (just as lifting free weights both measures one's current strength and helps one gain the muscle mass needed to increase that strength). Breaking also requires accurate placement of the strike. Surely accuracy in judging the placement of the strike, and efficiency in deliverying force to the target, are going to be relevant to SD use of MAs, no?



Last Fearner said:


> Boxers tend to fight with gloves on and angle their punches for a specific type of knock-out. While I can duplicate that, it is not typically the aim of a Taekwondoist (or in Karate) to jolt the brain and cause cerebral hemorrhaging. TKD is designed to destroy the target, and pinpoint specific vulnerable spots for maximum effect. I break multiple boards with my bare handed punches (as well as other hand strikes) - - something that I rarely see a boxer be able to duplicate without breaking the bones in their hand. Unless they have trained in the Martial Art (such as Muhammad Ali who studied Taekwondo), they are taught to punch differently for different effect, but I have never seen a study that proves their punch is "stronger."



Yes, exactly.



Last Fearner said:


> Finally, the allegation that a Boxer's punch is better in a street fight is absolutely an unfounded opinion. Better in what way? When a TKD or Karate expert punches an opponent in the street, the opponent is injured, damaged, even downed from one strike. Boxer's might match that, but you can not get "better" than that. Besides, you should know that the internal mechanics, muscle contractions, and reactionary forces of a Martial Art strike is very different from that of a Boxer. We are different for a reason, and there is no sense in my stepping backwards in the evolutionary development to train the way a boxer punches, and abandon the way I punch since my punches are just as fast, powerful, and effective (if not more-so), and for all the right reasons of physical mechanics and fight strategy for self defense in the street - - not in the ring.
> 
> 
> Here again, I would simply ask, "who has said that, and where is the proof?"



Always, this is _the_ question, and this boxers-punch-harder/faster/better-than-MAists statement is one that you never see any answers for based on actual measurements. Again, I'm not saying that such measurements haven't been made; sports physiologists do all kinds of experiments, and there are a huge number of journals in which results of punching comparisons under controlled conditions might be published. But I _can_ say that I've never seen the superiority of boxers' punching supported in any thread discussion, or magazine article, where it's been asserted as self-evident fact. 




Last Fearner said:


> No need to combine boxing hand skills with TKD since we already have the force we need the way we do it. Yes, it would advantage a boxer to know the kicking power of TKD, but the trade-off you suggest is of no benefit to Taekwondo. I study, watch and learn how boxers punch and fight so that I know how to counter their movements, just like when Buster Douglas beat the unstoppable Mike Tyson. Not that he used Taekwondo, but you have to study a fighter to find their weak points, but that does not mean that you fight like them. I have no intention of fighting like a boxer. Not to be disrespectful, or boasting, but my training is beyond that point.



Great response, LF.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 27, 2007)

Exile:



FieldDiscipline said:


> Just remind me, the art of kicking and ummm.. punching!


 :wink1:

In summary, there is a reason why punching the way we do is banned in boxing.


----------



## terryl965 (Aug 27, 2007)

athenry said:


> Hi all
> 
> I'm thinking about taking up martial arts and was wondering if anyone could help. There are two schools near me - karate and taekwondo. I know that the quality of the teaching is obviously a factor, but I'd like to know more about the differences between the two styles. Could anyone help by outlining them?
> 
> ...


 

I have read the thread and here is an answer to the question Karate is Japanese base and TKD is the Korean Art. Now how simple was that.

I know there is more to it than that but it is the best place to start.


----------



## chinto (Aug 28, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> This a myth, and a complete falsehood. Taekwondo is not limited in anyway in close quarters combat. Only those who are not trained in Taekwondo (or their training is incomplete) make that assumption based on appearances and reputation of TKD kicking. They think that kicks can not be used when close to an opponent (false), and that Taekwondo does not contain devastating hand strikes, joint locks, pressure points, etc. (and that would be false as well).
> 
> 
> This would be an incorrect notion to suggest that Karate would be better for self defense than Taekwondo. Either one would work fine provided you get proper training, and put forth the effort to learn the art correctly. The only smidgen of truth to this quote is that there are so many "look-alike" TKD schools that don't really know what they are teaching (McDojangs as some call them), and those that are specifically sport oriented. If you are looking for self defense, simply be sure that the instructor is qualified, and that the school's curriculum has a fair balance of self defense training.
> ...


----------



## chinto (Aug 28, 2007)

exile said:


> Right on target, LF. I wish that these completely correct points would finally register with more people in the MA community, many of whom don't seem to understand that the _kwon_ in Taekwondo really does mean `fist (strike)'! Taekwondo = `foot-fist-way'... it's a bit frustrating when the very name of the art tells you, yes, we do both kicking _and_ hand techniques, and you still have people with this serious misconception that TKDists only kick."
> 
> ************
> 
> ...


----------



## chinto (Aug 28, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Exile:
> 
> :wink1:
> 
> In summary, there is a reason why punching the way we do is banned in boxing.


 

yep.. boxing is about the sport of the prize fight and making money for the boxing indestry, its not really about self defence at all.


----------



## chinto (Aug 28, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> I have read the thread and here is an answer to the question Karate is Japanese base and TKD is the Korean Art. Now how simple was that.
> 
> I know there is more to it than that but it is the best place to start.


 
Actualy, Karate is Okinawan base, the Japanese Karate came from and was modified from the Okinawan Karate systems.... but basicly you have stated the initial place to start very susinctly.


----------



## exile (Aug 28, 2007)

chinto said:


> I do know that the doctrin of TKD seems to prefer to fight from long range where it is much harder to be hurt quickly and also harder to hurt some one quickly, but I would say that by the same token on a steep Korean hill legs might be a good thing to start with while closeing on the agresser. neither system is superior nessesarly.. just depends on who tought it and how it was tought.



Chintoone quick point: bear in mind that apart from the way scoring is done, it can often be quite hard to tell a TKD and a Karate sparring match apart, because sport karate operates at exactly the same ranges; if you read, say, Iain Abernethy or Peter Consterdine or other SD-application-oriented karatekas, you'll hear them saying virtually exactly the same thing about the fighting ranges in Karate tournaments, as vs. street-defense situations. It's not the art per se; it's the way, in both TKD and Karate, the scoring system is designed to award points, and the way judges implement those systems. Tournament Karate has come to put a premium on high kicks in much the same way that Olympic TKD has. SD-applications of both TKD and Karate start, in contrast, from the assumption of much closer fighting ranges. I've seen numbers like 12"18" given as a kind of estimate of the average separation between an assailant and his target at the start of a street attack; in any given situation the distance might be a bit closer still or maybe a little bit more, but that order of magnitude is what's intended, as vs. the kind of ranges where tournament competition in _either_ art mostly takes place.


----------



## chinto (Aug 29, 2007)

exile said:


> Chintoone quick point: bear in mind that apart from the way scoring is done, it can often be quite hard to tell a TKD and a Karate sparring match apart, because sport karate operates at exactly the same ranges; if you read, say, Iain Abernethy or Peter Consterdine or other SD-application-oriented karatekas, you'll hear them saying virtually exactly the same thing about the fighting ranges in Karate tournaments, as vs. street-defense situations. It's not the art per se; it's the way, in both TKD and Karate, the scoring system is designed to award points, and the way judges implement those systems. Tournament Karate has come to put a premium on high kicks in much the same way that Olympic TKD has. SD-applications of both TKD and Karate start, in contrast, from the assumption of much closer fighting ranges. I've seen numbers like 12"18" given as a kind of estimate of the average separation between an assailant and his target at the start of a street attack; in any given situation the distance might be a bit closer still or maybe a little bit more, but that order of magnitude is what's intended, as vs. the kind of ranges where tournament competition in _either_ art mostly takes place.


 
yes and no, again I have been told by several TKD types that the idea of the kick preference was partly cultural... but mainly about the steep hills they have in Korea.  beleave me they got some very steep hills there.. go look at any pictures from the Korean war...  so I can see terain haveing an effect on it as far as if you are down hill that longer reach might let you take out a knee or something with out getting your head kicked in.... dont know how true that is as far as the basise of the doctrin I was told was a part of TKD.... but hell if it is as I was also told by both of them  decended partly from shotokan you know they got some good close in punching and stuff too.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 29, 2007)

chinto said:


> yes and no, again I have been told by several TKD types that the idea of the kick preference was partly cultural... but mainly about the steep hills they have in Korea.  beleave me they got some very steep hills there.. go look at any pictures from the Korean war...  so I can see terain haveing an effect on it as far as if you are down hill that longer reach might let you take out a knee or something with out getting your head kicked in.... dont know how true that is as far as the basise of the doctrin I was told was a part of TKD....



Cant comment on Okinawa, but Japan has got some rather good hills too...

Don't bet on that reasoning mate.


----------



## onibaku (Aug 29, 2007)

I think taekwondo is concentrating on kicks. both teach discipline. but they are almost alike


----------



## exile (Aug 29, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Cant comment on Okinawa, but Japan has got some rather good hills too...
> 
> Don't bet on that reasoning mate.



Righto, FD. The whole landscape there on the Pacific Rim is pretty up-and-down. The Japanese alpine region is spectacular&#8212;check out e.g. http://gojapan.about.com/cs/photogallery/l/blnat_jaalps3.htm.

But think about it, Chinto. The Koreans who learned their MAs from the Kwan founders who had studied in Japan were training it in _dojangs_. They weren't on hillsides. They were learning these techs on flat floors. Why would terrain considerations enter into it? 

Reason it out: the original Okinawan techs, pre-tournament era, used low kicks primarily; the early Japanese Karate techs also did. As tournament competetion under `safe', point-scoring rules became a bigger part of the picture, kicks become higher (to take advantage of the rules rewarding technically more difficult shots, like head strikes, with more points). We can see this happening in recent decades. And the Shotokan kicks that people like Byung-Jik Ro and the other Kwan founders brought back from Japan were low too, and then as time goes on we see the kicks becoming higher, and also more tournament competition coming in... surely this is going to be a way bigger factor than anything to do with terrain? I've been in Korea, and there's plenty of totally level ground in Seoul&#8212;and even in steep parts of the city, the floors are level!


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 29, 2007)

exile said:


> But think about it, Chinto. The Koreans who learned their MAs from the Kwan founders who had studied in Japan *were training it in dojangs[/I*_]. They weren't on hillsides. They were learning these techs on flat floors. Why would terrain considerations enter into it? _


_

Huh.  Cant believe I didnt think of saying that.  Funny image 

Nice pics._


----------



## exile (Aug 29, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Funny image



Yeah, I have this image in my mind of guys doing one-steps on very wide _staircases_, where the low man has to kick to head height just to catch the chap on the upper stair somewhere on the thigh. Talk about making things hard for yourself, eh? :lol:



FieldDiscipline said:


> Nice pics.



I've never gotten there so far... but people I used to know had skied in Japan and raved about the landscape.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 29, 2007)

Perhaps I have already answered this at some point during the thread and forgot, but the difference is in the range in which you choose to fight, which incidently is the difference between all the arts.
sean


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Aug 29, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Perhaps I have already answered this at some point during the thread and forgot, but the difference is in the range in which you choose to fight, which incidently is the difference between all the arts.
> sean



I think karate and TKD use the same range.


----------



## Last Fearner (Aug 30, 2007)

chinto said:


> beleave me they got some very steep hills there.. go look at any pictures from the Korean war...


Like exile, I have been to Korea. I trained and taught there, and traveled the countryside. Some areas are hilly and there are mountains throughout, but just about anywhere you go, you are pretty much on level ground. It is not much different than Colorado or West Virginia in the U.S. You have mountains and flat land. A hill or mountain might be a chore to climb, but you are not typically standing on an incline all the time.



chinto said:


> so I can see terain haveing an effect on it as far as if you are down hill that longer reach might let you take out a knee or something with out getting your head kicked in....


As a Taekwondoist, kicking would be one of the last things I would do if I were on a hillside. I think that theory is flawed, and the TKD type people who told you that are probably just repeating some 'guesswork' by someone the studied under. While there have been shared technical skills, and training concepts from the Shotokan Karate to the Kwan founders which remains in Taekwondo today, I think the unique aspect of kicking (even low to mid-section kicks), are a result of the traditional kicking that existed prior to the Japanese occupation.

Although there are those that disagree with the history and contributions of ancient Korean Martial Art, many believe that Koreans have had some unarmed combat skills as part of their history in civilian self defense, and military training for centuries. We don't know exactly when the kicking was first introduced, or what kicks they did, but Koreans were known for it. Some believe that it was merely a folk-game, or contest played to knock each other down, but I believe than any such contest was the reflection of a prior self defense skill that might have been modified for recreation, especially during less turbulent times.

I believe the Koreans, mainly because of the physical size and body structure, found it easier, and more powerful to kick an attacker to fend them off. It is most likely a natural development of self preservation that turned into an analysis of what kicks worked better, and did more damage. I would tend to believe that the majority of early use, training, and development of kicks was done on level ground, in average physical altercations.

When I was a kid (in the 1960s), if someone was beating you up, and hurting you, you might resort to biting them or kicking them. These things were generally considered undignified, unfair fighting tactics, and frowned upon by your peers. Kicking was usually considered the "sissy" thing to do, since this is how most girls stopped a boy bully (kick them in the shin, or knee them in the groin). Kids did not associate this with "self-defense" tactics in those days, and boys were usually chastised and teased for doing it.

In my early days of learning Taekwondo, we had to endure that label of "sissy kickers." It wasn't until guys like Bruce Lee, and Chuck Norris came along, and the movie industry made kicking more of a macho thing to do. The reason I mention this is because I believe that early Korea (1st century B.C. to the 19th century A.D.) had no such stigma attached to kicking. It became a natural part of their self defense skills, they might have even played it is a game in the streets, and it carried over to be re-inserted into the modern development of KMA after WWII.

Kicking has changed and been modified quite a bit since then, as exile pointed out, but I doubt its early use and development had very much to do with terrain, but more to do with the discovery of effectiveness a kick has on an attacker - - especially for a shorter, weaker person fighting a bigger stronger opponent. In this case, I think the Koreans fit the bill perfectly for necessity being the mother of invention.


----------



## chinto (Aug 30, 2007)

exile said:


> Righto, FD. The whole landscape there on the Pacific Rim is pretty up-and-down. The Japanese alpine region is spectacularcheck out e.g. http://gojapan.about.com/cs/photogallery/l/blnat_jaalps3.htm.
> 
> But think about it, Chinto. The Koreans who learned their MAs from the Kwan founders who had studied in Japan were training it in _dojangs_. They weren't on hillsides. They were learning these techs on flat floors. Why would terrain considerations enter into it?
> 
> Reason it out: the original Okinawan techs, pre-tournament era, used low kicks primarily; the early Japanese Karate techs also did. As tournament competetion under `safe', point-scoring rules became a bigger part of the picture, kicks become higher (to take advantage of the rules rewarding technically more difficult shots, like head strikes, with more points). We can see this happening in recent decades. And the Shotokan kicks that people like Byung-Jik Ro and the other Kwan founders brought back from Japan were low too, and then as time goes on we see the kicks becoming higher, and also more tournament competition coming in... surely this is going to be a way bigger factor than anything to do with terrain? I've been in Korea, and there's plenty of totally level ground in Seouland even in steep parts of the city, the floors are level!


 
yep, you got a point.. I was passing on what I have been told.. not sure then or now that I totaly buy it, but it is a possibility.  for myself, I train with low line kicks that is tought in my okinawan style and really hate high kicks as they always seem an invitation to desaster in a real confrentation.  ( no this does not mean some people can not make them work there perhaps... but it does mean that if they dont make it work they are really sticking their necks out. That assumes the confrentation is with a skilled attacker who is out to do real injury.)


----------



## chinto (Aug 30, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Like exile, I have been to Korea. I trained and taught there, and traveled the countryside. Some areas are hilly and there are mountains throughout, but just about anywhere you go, you are pretty much on level ground. It is not much different than Colorado or West Virginia in the U.S. You have mountains and flat land. A hill or mountain might be a chore to climb, but you are not typically standing on an incline all the time.
> 
> 
> As a Taekwondoist, kicking would be one of the last things I would do if I were on a hillside. I think that theory is flawed, and the TKD type people who told you that are probably just repeating some 'guesswork' by someone the studied under. While there have been shared technical skills, and training concepts from the Shotokan Karate to the Kwan founders which remains in Taekwondo today, I think the unique aspect of kicking (even low to mid-section kicks), are a result of the traditional kicking that existed prior to the Japanese occupation.
> ...


 

hay I cant argue it, I am not a TKD guy, and really do not know any thing much about the style except the little I have seen. I went by what I was told by an instructor of the style as his justification for the kicks.. I personaly would not choose the style from what I have seen. just does not fit me some how... but when I saw what I do study I said .. "wow, that is for me"  different strokes for different folks..  besides really there are a limeted number of ways to effecently and effectively use the human body in unarmed combat.. so I think you will eventualy end up in a similer place, perhaps just from a slightly diferent angle and point of veiw.


----------



## exile (Aug 30, 2007)

Chinto&#8212;the points LF underscores in his recent post have also been stressed by Simon O'Neil, in his excellent mini-essay `Taekwondo as a kicking art', who notes that

_...The origins of modern Taekwondo as a predominantly kicking style can be found, among other factors, in the Korean people&#8217;s innate enjoyment of the method. A large, vigorous people by Asian standards, their physique and temperament seem to lend themselves naturally to wide, sweeping circular movements and leaps.

This tendency was embodied in Taekyon, a combative form first named as such in the early 19th Century... the limited historical evidence that is available suggests that it was essentially a recreational or tournament activity, in contrast to the other arts already mentioned. Bouts took place both informally, to settle disputes, or as part of organised youth festivals. Contestants would attempt to knock each other down using kicks, sweeps and throws. Wide, circular and spinning movements were favoured over linear techniques, and kicks to head level were assigned greater value than lower kicks. Taekyon was outlawed by the Japanese occupying authorities in the 1920&#8217;s and teaching of the art all but disappeared until a resurgence in the late 1950&#8217;s.

*Taekyon can be seen, however, as a kind of culmination of the preference for kicking technique in Korean martial arts.* ...In fact, in the early- and mid-20th Century, Taekyon even enjoyed the dubious honour of being a preferred streetfighting method of thugs and gangsters. The need to defend against these kicks is quoted as one of the reasons why Choi Yong Sool, the precursor of modern Hapkido, began to incorporate kicking technique into the Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jutsu which he had learned in Japan.

Pioneers of American Taekwondo like Jhoon Rhee and Henry Cho included a wide range of high and jumping kicks in their syllabus, despite teaching what amounted ... to a &#8220;Koreanised&#8221; version of Japanese Karate._​
So on O'Neil's view, it's not so much that taekyon itself was a direct  precursor to the modern KMAs as that it was simply an expression or manifestation of a particularly Korean fondness for kicking methods which became manifest in various avatars of MA in Korea, including the latest round based on Okinawan and Japanese methods. (And maybe not even particularly Korean per se: there's some reason to believe that modern Korean MAs incorporate a use of kicking and leg actions which, from ethnographic sources I've read describing northern Asian and (sub)Arctic cultures, seem very widespread over a vast region which includes Arctic Siberia, Kamchatka, what used to be called Manchuria, Korea and possibly Mongolia: kicking and leg-wrestling  competition, conspicuously absent from what we know about ancient China and Japan). The crucial point: Koreans (and maybe other long-time residents of northern Asia) like to use kicking techniques for their own sake. 

This affection for leg methods had important consequences for the development of modern KMAs: O'Neil goes on to suggest that

_In the second half of the 20th Century the martial arts in general have undergone a transformation from the simple, unspectacular and often brutal self-protection systems of the past to the globally accepted and commercially attractive mass recreational disciplines of the present. Taekwondo has been especially forward-looking in this sense, remaining relatively unified in its goals (in comparison to other arts) and seeking international expansion and recognition as a bona fide sporting and educational method.

Naturally, any such initiative requires distinguishing features in order to establish its own identity in the public eye. One of the ways in which Taekwondo was made to look less like Japanese Karate was to take advantage of the wealth of native Korean kicking technique, and to emphasise this aspect within the existing framework. With time, kicking grew in importance in competition Taekwondo and featured more heavily in the hyungs and pumses than in the older patterns. As a result of the growing popularity of the tournament sport in particular, a large part of regular training is taken up by kicking drills and physical conditioning to enhance kicking ability._​
Remember also that if you're going to use kicking as a major part of your SD arsenal, you need to train it in a way that you don't necessarily need to do with hand techs: there are balance skills required for kicking that are not issues with the upper-body skill set that TKD shares with Okinawan and Japanese MAs, but which are very much at issue if you want to add effective kicking to the arsenal. This is something both LF and I have I think suggested earlier: if you're going to use kicking, you need to train some difficult balance and accuracy skills, and those skills are not routinely reinforced in other domains of normal activity. There are all kinds of everyday activities, games, sports and so on which both depend on and develop eye-_hand_ coordination, but the use of legs, and independent manipulation of legs in good balance, to deliver full power, isn't really characteristic of too much that we do, either in sports or otherwise, on a day to day basis.


----------



## chinto (Aug 31, 2007)

exile said:


> Chintothe points LF underscores in his recent post have also been stressed by Simon O'Neil, in his excellent mini-essay `Taekwondo as a kicking art', who notes that
> 
> _...The origins of modern Taekwondo as a predominantly kicking style can be found, among other factors, in the Korean peoples innate enjoyment of the method. A large, vigorous people by Asian standards, their physique and temperament seem to lend themselves naturally to wide, sweeping circular movements and leaps._​
> 
> ...


 

hmm good point.. and it is true that the avaridge Korean is larger then say the averidge chinese or okinawan from what I understand... Diet perhaps? ( though the Okinawans and Japanese have gained something like 4 to 6 inches averdge in hight for males since WWII do to the better nutrition as children .. ie more protine in the diet and such)

So if you have longer legs and arms, why not work out side where you usualy can strike and kick with out getting struck or kicked especialy by the other guy on averidge?  that may indeed be a more logical reason for the preference for good kicks and working out side some what more then say an Okinawan might.   Don't know if its true.. but it is logical ... hell the Okinawans were on averidge smaller then the Japanese, but usualy stockier... the chinese where as I understand it about the same hight on avaridge as the Okinawans but tended to be a bit more slender in build.. .as always these are extreem generalitys... but  your avaridge guys size and build will tend to effect how you develope your system if you are teaching others to fight in unarmed combat....   still going to end up sooner or latter with much the same kind of thing though as there are still only a limited number of ways to punch or kick or lock or throw or what have you.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 31, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> I think karate and TKD use the same range.


Laughs


----------



## exile (Aug 31, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Laughs



Because?


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Sep 1, 2007)

exile said:


> Because?



??


----------



## exile (Sep 1, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> ??



Well, I was curious about why ToD was laughing in response to your observation that Karate and TKD use the same fighting range. As sport activities, they use the same fighting range&#8212;the usual 6-8 foot separation, something a lot of karateka who write about realistic bunkai talk about when they note that kata applications are aimed at very close-range combat, and evident from just about any sparring event in a karate tournament you choose to watch. And as applied self-defense activities, their use of largely overlapping, if not outright identical, strategic and tactical ideas, means that they're oriented to the same 12-18" fighting range, the range at which punches to the head are thrown by the attacker. So I couldn't see what Sean found in your post to laugh about... maybe I was missing something though...


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Sep 1, 2007)

exile said:


> Well, I was curious about why ToD was laughing in response to your observation that Karate and TKD use the same fighting range. As sport activities, they use the same fighting range&#8212;the usual 6-8 foot separation, something a lot of karateka who write about realistic bunkai talk about when they note that kata applications are aimed at very close-range combat, and evident from just about any sparring event in a karate tournament you choose to watch. And as applied self-defense activities, their use of largely overlapping, if not outright identical, strategic and tactical ideas, means that they're oriented to the same 12-18" fighting range, the range at which punches to the head are thrown by the attacker. So I couldn't see what Sean found in your post to laugh about... maybe I was missing something though...



Sorry Exile, that was what my question marks were for!  To show I didnt know either!


----------



## exile (Sep 1, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Sorry Exile, that was what my question marks were for!  To show I didnt know either!



Ah, OK... I was being cryptic, to match ToD's cryptic post, and I was concerned that maybe I had miscommunicated just which post I was querying. Electronic communication is a wonderful thing, but sometimes a little obscure... anyway, glad we were on the same page there!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 4, 2007)

You will notice the long range kicks in TKD. I wasn't talking about tournaments.
sean


----------



## exile (Sep 4, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> You will notice the long range kicks in TKD. I wasn't talking about tournaments.
> sean



I _will_ notice them, I practice them, but I would never use them for SD, where the combat range is in the range of a foot to a foot and half or so. For that I train deflections in connection with moves _into_ the attacker, using either an opening or closing approach; immobilization and control of the attacking limb, and strikes to the face, temples and neck with knifehand strikes to the throat, palm-heel or  to jaw and face, and hammerfist and elbow strikes anywhere I can get in. I train hikite-type retraction to anchor the attacker, knee strikes to the abdomen, arm pins to bring down his upper body and vertical elbow strikes down on the back of his neck and spine. And this is how my instructor, a fifth dan, KKW-certified, teaches us; these tech come straight down our Song Moo Kwan lineage.

Long range kicks are for long range. A street attack usually begins close up, where TKD possesses all of the tools I've mentioned, and more, and linking moves to keep the attack going, all encoded in its hyungs and recoverable through bunkai. Karate _also_ has exactly the same kicks, btw; check out e.g., Joachim Grupp's _Kumite: Shotokan Karate_ (2004, Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport) and you'll see 'em there in all their glory... for kumite, just as they're there for competition use in TKD. If you have the chance to use them opportunistically as part of a preemptive strike and know what you're doing, all the better... but I'm certainly not counting on them for a real street attack.

The point is, range isn't something that the art lets you decide on; it's determined by the situation and the nature of the attack, and the fighting system better provide tools to let you operate in those ranges (and keep the fight in the range that the system is strongest in). Any MA that's stood the test of time is going to operate over the same relevant set of ranges that arise in a street attack. I'd say that TKD and karate use pretty much the same set of tools over the same fighting ranges, as you'd pretty much expect, given the historical relationship between the two, and I'm pretty sure that this is what FieldDiscipline was getting at in saying that the fighting ranges of the two are pretty much the same.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Sep 4, 2007)

exile said:


> I'm pretty sure that this is what FieldDiscipline was getting at in saying that the fighting ranges of the two are pretty much the same.



You'd be correct Exile.  That was exactly the point I was making.



> The point is, range isn't something that the art lets you decide on; it's determined by the situation and the nature of the attack



This is a fundamental point.  Depending on how aware you are, how in control of the situation you are and even then, the enemy will often dictate the range in which you fight.  Its up to you to be prepared for all of them.  If you look at some of Iain Abernethy's work (I know you have Exile) he very clearly shows how karate works in _all_ ranges.  But I digress...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 5, 2007)

exile said:


> I _will_ notice them, I practice them, but I would never use them for SD, where the combat range is in the range of a foot to a foot and half or so. For that I train deflections in connection with moves _into_ the attacker, using either an opening or closing approach; immobilization and control of the attacking limb, and strikes to the face, temples and neck with knifehand strikes to the throat, palm-heel or to jaw and face, and hammerfist and elbow strikes anywhere I can get in. I train hikite-type retraction to anchor the attacker, knee strikes to the abdomen, arm pins to bring down his upper body and vertical elbow strikes down on the back of his neck and spine. And this is how my instructor, a fifth dan, KKW-certified, teaches us; these tech come straight down our Song Moo Kwan lineage.
> 
> Long range kicks are for long range. A street attack usually begins close up, where TKD possesses all of the tools I've mentioned, and more, and linking moves to keep the attack going, all encoded in its hyungs and recoverable through bunkai. Karate _also_ has exactly the same kicks, btw; check out e.g., Joachim Grupp's _Kumite: Shotokan Karate_ (2004, Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport) and you'll see 'em there in all their glory... for kumite, just as they're there for competition use in TKD. If you have the chance to use them opportunistically as part of a preemptive strike and know what you're doing, all the better... but I'm certainly not counting on them for a real street attack.
> 
> The point is, range isn't something that the art lets you decide on; it's determined by the situation and the nature of the attack, and the fighting system better provide tools to let you operate in those ranges (and keep the fight in the range that the system is strongest in). Any MA that's stood the test of time is going to operate over the same relevant set of ranges that arise in a street attack. I'd say that TKD and karate use pretty much the same set of tools over the same fighting ranges, as you'd pretty much expect, given the historical relationship between the two, and I'm pretty sure that this is what FieldDiscipline was getting at in saying that the fighting ranges of the two are pretty much the same.


But ideally, you dictate the situation and any TKD class I ever took prefers you end the fight before it becomes a wrestling match with well placed long range kicks. Logic, of course, dictates that TKDers train the other ranges and they do; however, Karate starts a little closer.
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2007)

Ok time for you to laugh at me! This thought came about Exile by your mention of hedgehogs on another thread! Brilliant creatures, I have them in my garden eating slugs. 

Anyway before you think I'm mad I'll confirm it, in Chinese styles they have movements, styles etc based on animal behaviour/defensive moves.Well if Karate and TKD came from Chinese roots why aren't these animal type things (for want of a better word) in them? Or are they and I 've never come across it?


----------



## exile (Sep 5, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> You'd be correct Exile.  That was exactly the point I was making.



OK, I just wanted to be a bit tentative there, because I know from experience that people often don't want to have words put in their mouth. 



FieldDiscipline said:


> Depending on how aware you are, how in control of the situation you are and even then, the enemy will often dictate the range in which you fight.  Its up to you to be prepared for all of them.  If you look at some of Iain Abernethy's work (I know you have Exile) he very clearly shows how karate works in _all_ ranges.  But I digress...



No, it's not a digression, it's the heart of the matter, I believe. The fact is that MAs are supposed to be robust fighting systems, that is, they give you tools to use even if you've made an error of judgment, strategic or tactical. A strategic error, maybe the main one, is letting the fight begin at the attacker's convenience and preferred range (which will be close, since his biggest advantage is the surprise factor, and that gets lost if he launches the attack too close. But since most of us aren't mind-readers or oracles, any MA worth its salt has to give you techs to use at closer-in ranges. It would be nice if a lightbulb flashing _*Now I'm gonna deck you!!*_ were to start flashing over assailants' head a second or so before the attack, but here on Planet Earth, your best bet is serious training at defense and counters at close-in punching range. And TKD and Shotokan provide almost identical toolkits for that range, and closer ranges as well.



Touch Of Death said:


> But ideally, you dictate the situation and any TKD class I ever took prefers you end the fight before it becomes a wrestling match with well placed long range kicks. Logic, of course, dictates that TKDers train the other ranges and they do; however, Karate starts a little closer.
> Sean



I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, Sean. My point is just that TKD trains an almost identical technical toolkit to Shotokan for very close-in fighting. If the fight begins at a typical `haymaker' range, TKD training will give you a very similar set of principles (and techniques following from those principles) to apply to terminate the attack asap. Preemption, where you have the necessary data, is of course desirablebut as a lot of karateka will tell you (and defend on the basis of the writings of their greatest practitioners and theorists), a preemptive strike is perfectly ok in Karate, and you will probably use the same methods in Shotokan for that as in TKD (although a TKDist may be more comfortable with using certain leg techs than a karateka, since TKD tends to train kicking more intensively)...


----------



## stoneheart (Sep 5, 2007)

When you're talking about ranges, it really depends on the style of karate you are talking about.  I would agree that Okinawan Goju starts at a closer proximity than TKD or even Shotokan for that matter.  

At the same time, I don't see much difference in range between Shotokan and TKD.  Check out the old karate tournament footage with the JKA greats like [SIZE=-1]Kanazawa or Enoeda if you want to see for yourself.  Those masters displayed great ability to cover ground quickly in their tournament victories.[/SIZE]


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 6, 2007)

From what I`ve seen some Taekwondoists tend to shout part of the name of their art a lot during training. 

Typical conversation:

Trainer: Are you having fun?
Class: Tae Kwon!

Trainer: What? I can`t hear you.
Class: Tae Kwon!!

Are you ready for some pushups?
Class: Tae Kwon!

etc

Why do they do this thing? Tae Kwon meaning something like "to strike with hand and foot" it actually sounds a little uuhh.. strange. Like you are talking to a giant or something. "Me smash!" :uhyeah:
Or is it a remaint from when the art was taught in the millitary? I haven`t seen anything like this in Karate yet.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 6, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> From what I`ve seen some Taekwondoists tend to shout part of the name of their art a lot during training.
> 
> Typical conversation:
> 
> ...


 
Ah that's like people who shout the word 'kiai' instead of doing it, if you know what I mean? You wouldn't use the English word 'shout' so why use the Japanese? ot is this just me?


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 6, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Ah that's like people who shout the word 'kiai' instead of doing it, if you know what I mean? You wouldn't use the English word 'shout' so why use the Japanese? ot is this just me?


 
Well a Kiai don`t have to be "Kiai". I tend to use a different sound each time, Ay!, Ieh!, Ha! etc. A friend of mine sounds almost like a dog "Boww!"


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 6, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> Well a Kiai don`t have to be "Kiai". I tend to use a different sound each time, Ay!, Ieh!, Ha! etc. A friend of mine sounds almost like a dog "Boww!"


 
that's what i mean, make a noise not use the word itself as a kiai!


----------



## exile (Sep 6, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Ok time for you to laugh at me! This thought came about Exile by your mention of hedgehogs on another thread! Brilliant creatures, I have them in my garden eating slugs.



Ah, so not just charming but practical too... how did we wind up not getting our allotment of them? Do they have them on the Continent?



Tez3 said:


> Anyway before you think I'm mad I'll confirm it, in Chinese styles they have movements, styles etc based on animal behaviour/defensive moves.Well if Karate and TKD came from Chinese roots why aren't these animal type things (for want of a better word) in them? Or are they and I 've never come across it?



I actually don't think they're there, at least in the sense you seem to be asking about. I don't know why that is, but I'm pretty sure that the animal names that Hwang Kee gave some of his version of forms he introduced into his own MDK curriculum in the Kwan era were specifically intended to obscure the Japanese origins of those forms (origins which he later admitted to in his last book, in 1995). Animal names for forms are so specific to Chinese fighting arts that using them would have conjured up the association with the CMAs that HK wanted to establish (reminiscent maybe of the longed-for ancient KMA lineage back to the Three Kingdoms era, when China intervened heavily in the endless peninsular warfare, and the contemporary KMAs, so far as the documentation permits, were taken over almost unchanged from Han fighting systems?) There might be some specific reason for the avoidance of animal names in Okinawan/Japanese MAs (apart from direct loans from Chinese nomenclature), but that reason would probably be connected to some larger cultural pattern... you'd need an ethnographic historian to get an answer to that question, probably. 



Cirdan said:


> From what I`ve seen some Taekwondoists tend to shout part of the name of their art a lot during training.
> 
> Typical conversation:
> 
> ...



Not so fast, Cirdan! Aren't you forgetting something... like, _*Osu!!!*_ bellowed out at top volume every 4.3 seconds in a lot of dojos? There's a very funny analysis of the misuse of this expression in North American dojos by Rob Redmond on the _24fightingchickens_ Shotokan site, here.



Tez3 said:


> Ah that's like people who shout the word 'kiai' instead of doing it, if you know what I mean? You wouldn't use the English word 'shout' so why use the Japanese? ot is this just me?



I know, this business that `Tae Kwon' (or `Tang Soo', I've heard that one also at TSD classes) or yelling _kiai_... I don't get it at all, except maybe that it's part of a general problem that people have in trying to recreate MA school rituals in places far distant from the origin points of those MAs... :idunno:


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Sep 6, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> Why do they do this thing? Tae Kwon meaning something like "to strike with hand and foot" it actually sounds a little uuhh.. strange. Like you are talking to a giant or something. "Me smash!" :uhyeah:
> Or is it a remaint from when the art was taught in the millitary? I haven`t seen anything like this in Karate yet.



I can answer this.  It dates back to Nam Tae Hi (and presumably others) at the time when TKD went by different names.  He used to have his Oh Do Kwan classes shout it when double punching in sitting stance and I believe as a kind of salute.  Kind of to reinforce the name and identity I guess.  

Never heard it used to quite the extreme you've described though, Cirdan.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 6, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> From what I`ve seen some Taekwondoists tend to shout part of the name of their art a lot during training.
> 
> Typical conversation:
> 
> ...


 

I was told it was a part of the art being brought over to help give instint recognition to the Art from Korea. They added this yell for these command so people would chime those words over and over. To give the impression that the Art was the most extreme art out there in those days. I really do not know how true it is but GMKim said this was as close as he could remember.


----------



## Last Fearner (Sep 7, 2007)

exile said:


> I _will_ notice them, I practice them, but I would never use them for SD, where the combat range is in the range of a foot to a foot and half or so.


 


exile said:


> Long range kicks are for long range. A street attack usually begins close up,


 
These are some of the points where exile and I disagree.  I am aware that some fights begin at close range, but have seen many that build up with talk, insults, and threats to the point that a trained fighter can easily keep their opponent at some distance.  Many physical altercations begin with the antagonist getting right in your face and yelling threats, even bumping chests or pushing with their hands before actually striking or attacking.  If you haven't taken the cues by then, and created some distance for safety, then you are asleep at the wheel.

Some fights begin with little or no warning, but I would not put those in the majority.  Even when a fight has begun at close range, I take quick steps to change that fact, thus it is rare that the fight is going to end in those first few seconds of initial close range assault (save a lucky sucker punch, which could happen), and anyone would be foolish to remain in that close range unless that is the area in which you are dominant.



exile said:


> The point is, range isn't something that the art lets you decide on; it's determined by the situation and the nature of the attack, and the fighting system better provide tools to let you operate in those ranges (and keep the fight in the range that the system is strongest in).


 
Exile, perhaps I am misreading this, but it seems a bit contradictory within itself.  First you said that range is determined by the situation and not the art, but then you say the art must have the tools to "keep the fight in the range that the system is strongest in."  I agree that the art teaches skills to maneuver to various ranges, and environment might influence or restrict these options (IE: pinned against a wall, in a confined space, back to a busy street, etc.), but in most cases, I believe we have enough room, and the ability to maintain at least a 3 to 6 foot range where the opponent gets hit if they violate that distance.  I keep the range in my control when I fight.



Cirdan said:


> From what I`ve seen some Taekwondoists tend to shout part of the name of their art a lot during training.
> 
> ...Trainer: Are you having fun?
> Class: Tae Kwon!...
> ...


 
Actually, you are quite close there.  From what I understand, it was General Choi Hong Hi who began this practice.  He was pushing very hard for the term "Taekwon-Do" to replace the other common terms in use.  Even if people continued to use some of the old names, he wanted Taekwon-Do to become the "umbrella" name under which all other Korean systems would be organized.

When General Choi introduced Taekwon-Do to the Korean military, he required all of the soldiers to respond with a loud shout of "Taekwon" every time they came to attention.  This helped to promote a sense of unity among those training in Taekwondo, and was part of his campaign to spread the word, and make the term popular - - and it worked.  He also used this practice during any of his Taekwon-Do classes in the Military and in his Oh Do Kwan.

These days, many schools do the same thing, or use different terms in response to instructor commands.  Some simply say "Yes, Sir!" (or Ma'am).  At my school, we teach students to say "kamsahamnida" (thank you) every time they bow.  Sometimes, we do drills where students yell "Chung-Do" to promote the spirit of the Chung Do Kwan.  Sr. Grandmaster Sell has started promoting the term "Chung-Do" as meaning something extreme, or exceptional as in a technique, a type of form, or a student's positive attitude or success in anything.

I believe these kinds of expressions differ a bit from the "kia" confusion.  When non-Asians (particularly in America that I know of) were first taught to yell, they found the concept difficult, and the communication between foreign instructors strained.  Thus, they were told to "kia" or in Korean terms, to "kiphap" which means to yell.  Some early participants decades ago, were actually told to yell the word "Kihap!"  In the ATA, there were many misunderstandings and lax correctness of terms, pronunciations, spellings and their meanings that still carry over to instructors today.

It is silly for a person to shout the word "YELL" in English, thus it is equally strange for a Korean to hear someone yell "Kihap!"  However, yelling terms of identity, like "Taekwon" is similar to an Army platoon from Delta Company yelling "Delta" when they come to attention, or a football team shouting "Go Bears" or "Touchdown" when they break from a huddle.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Sep 7, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> I was told it was a part of the art being brought over to help give instint recognition to the Art from Korea. They added this yell for these command so people would chime those words over and over. To give the impression that the Art was the most extreme art out there in those days. I really do not know how true it is but GMKim said this was as close as he could remember.



Which GM Kim is this Terry?


----------



## exile (Sep 7, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Exile, perhaps I am misreading this, but it seems a bit contradictory within itself.  First you said that range is determined by the situation and not the art, but then you say the art must have the tools to "keep the fight in the range that the system is strongest in."



I'm thinking here of the fact that usually a street fight progresses from shoving range to the `intechange of limbs' distance to possibly grappling/ground contact. And I'll freely admit that neither Karate or TKD are great at the latter, because they operate from a different strategic plan: they're striking arts that reward being able to deliver strikes&#8212;hand/arm and leg both&#8212;when the defender is vertical; they do give you tools to handle ground situations, but those tools are designed to help you get _off_ the ground, whereas wrestling, judo and jiujitsu spend a good deal of time training for control and destruction _on_ the ground. When I say that the art should provide means to keep within the strongest range for that art, I'm thinking about how a TKDist/TSDist or karateka will handle the case of someone who shoots in low to get the defender on his back. This is a scenario you often see people bringing up against the striking arts: how do you keep from going to the ground (my own take on this is that the defender should train the use of elbow strikes to the neck vertebræ to handle this kind of attack, and I've read really good analyses of defense against that kind of attack by other striking-art practitioners). Given that you aren't looking for the fight, and have only so much input as to where it will begin (short of announcing to unpleasant-seeming types that if they get within five feet of you, say, you're going to preemptively attack them&#8212;_not_ recommended!), it's much better to keep the fight at the striker's prefered range, allowing your skills of deflection, control and movement to inside or outside to damage the attacker, than to allow the fight to get too close for striking and have to reestablish that range from the ground, or a clinch, or something like that. That was what I was getting at. Definitely, the situation finds you, you don't get to set it up in advance, but since it can move quickly to less and less comfortable range (from a striker's point of view) the idea was just that a striking art needs to be able to keep the range from shrinking past the point where the main techs of the art are effective.

My impression is that there are Okinawan styles which are rather more comfortable at the `interchange of limbs' range, with a heavy use of tuite methods, throws and other jiujitsu-like techniques. So far as Sean's observations about range preference go, though, I was thinking specifically about Japanese karate styles vis-à-vis TKD/TSD, and here I think both the Japanse and Korean arts are most comfortable at&#8212;and have the greatest number of technical elements devoted to&#8212;the same general striking range. The discussion grew out of Sean's suggestion that TKD and karate inherently possess different fighting ranges; based on the kinds of tools they train, however, at least in my experience with friends and instructors in both, it seems to me that people in both are trained to operate over the same distances.



Last Fearner said:


> I agree that the art teaches skills to maneuver to various ranges, and environment might influence or restrict these options (IE: pinned against a wall, in a confined space, back to a busy street, etc.), but in most cases, I believe we have enough room, and the ability to maintain at least a 3 to 6 foot range where the opponent gets hit if they violate that distance.  I keep the range in my control when I fight.



My own (admittedly limited) experience with fights and threats of attack have mostly involved confined spaces where more than a couple of feet would be a considerable luxury. Tables, chairs and the vertical poles of subway care represent some of the main obstacles I've encountered, and very sudden initiations where it only become clear that there was very, very bad trouble incoming when the would-be assailant was within arm's length.


----------



## stoneheart (Sep 10, 2007)

> My impression is that there are Okinawan styles which are rather more comfortable at the `interchange of limbs' range, with a heavy use of tuite methods, throws and other jiujitsu-like techniques. So far as Sean's observations about range preference go, though, I was thinking specifically about Japanese karate styles vis-à-vis TKD/TSD, and here I think both the Japanse and Korean arts are most comfortable atand have the greatest number of technical elements devoted tothe same general striking range. The discussion grew out of Sean's suggestion that TKD and karate inherently possess different fighting ranges; based on the kinds of tools they train, however, at least in my experience with friends and instructors in both, it seems to me that people in both are trained to operate over the same distances.



And that's a great qualifier to throw in.  All karate is not the same.   Traditional Okinawan karate specifically addresses close range combat.   Other  variations of karate that are more tournament-oriented may teach the long range aspect to the exclusion of everything else.  In general, I have found Japanese and Korean arts to fit this mode more with Wado-Ryu (a Japanese style) a notable exception.


----------



## exile (Sep 10, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> And that's a great qualifier to throw in.  All karate is not the same.   *Traditional Okinawan karate specifically addresses close range combat.*   Other  variations of karate that are more tournament-oriented may teach the long range aspect to the exclusion of everything else.  In general, I have found Japanese and Korean arts to fit this mode more with Wado-Ryu (a Japanese style) a notable exception.



Javier Martinez' and Mark Bishop's work both spotlight the very close-range applications of Okinawan systems  (my impression is that the Naha styles and Uechi-Ryu were especially known for their grappling/throwing techs). 

Still, some caution is probably in order here, because you have to distinguish sports applications of _any_ style from combat applications, and as Iain Abernethy points out in his book _Karate's Grappling Methods:_

Karate possesses a great many close range techniques but they are rarely practised. The main reason for this is that close range technique will not score points in the competitive environment...

The type of karate sparring that forms the basis of modern  day competition was originally designed as a training method ot emphasise the importance of quickly disabling an assailant through well-placed strikes to weak points.​
He later cites Funakoshi's comment in _Karate-Do Kyohan_ that `in karate, hitting, thrusting, and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are included', a view repeated by Egami, and shows how serious throws and ground applications are found in `cross-the-board' katas such as the Pinans, Bassai, Naihanchi and Rohai. 

I get the sense that what's involved is that certain styles have perhaps a greater percentage of active participants in tournament competition than other styles do. If that's the case, then the problem isn't the lack of technical resources but the way in which training is carried out. It could well be that the Okinawan-based dojos, and Wado-Ryu, from what you've said, just don't view tournament competition as nearly as important to train for as other styles might.

But I think that could well be true for KMA dojangs as well....


----------



## Last Fearner (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks for clearing up what you were meaning about ranges.  I think the important thing for Taekwondoists to remember is that the use of long range kicking and close range strikes is an advantage to be used but should not become a crutch.  KMA and Karate do contain joint locks, throws, and grappling, and we must train in them regularly, with strong resistance from training partners, to ensure we can be effective at any range.



exile said:


> If that's the case, then the problem isn't the lack of technical resources but the way in which training is carried out. It could well be that the Okinawan-based dojos, and Wado-Ryu, from what you've said, just don't view tournament competition as nearly as important to train for as other styles might.
> 
> But I think that could well be true for KMA dojangs as well....


 
I agree that this is a valid observation.  Many modern schools might have lost some of their complete content, or might intentionally focus on sport, fitness, or fun, but I believe in training for real-life street-combat survival first, and sports second.


----------



## chinto (Sep 11, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> And that's a great qualifier to throw in. All karate is not the same. Traditional Okinawan karate specifically addresses close range combat. Other variations of karate that are more tournament-oriented may teach the long range aspect to the exclusion of everything else. In general, I have found Japanese and Korean arts to fit this mode more with Wado-Ryu (a Japanese style) a notable exception.


 
as some one who studies an Okinawan style I have to agree in general with this.  I am sure that there is some diferences in instructors and such, but in the style I study we work a lot on close range and intermediat range techniques.  
In a self defence situation I would sugest that close range is where you can do a lot of damage and get damaged fast! I would also sugest that the longer a fight lasts the more danger you are in of a fatal out come to you .. as some one who may not be as skilled can get lucky.  the old Okinawan masters designed and developed the art of Karate for self defence where your life was the prize! In short the one still alive at the end or a few seconds to say 30 seconds was the winner!! this may be  harsh, nasty, but the reality of a real self defence situation where the assailant wants to take your life.


----------



## chinto (Sep 11, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Thanks for clearing up what you were meaning about ranges. I think the important thing for Taekwondoists to remember is that the use of long range kicking and close range strikes is an advantage to be used but should not become a crutch. KMA and Karate do contain joint locks, throws, and grappling, and we must train in them regularly, with strong resistance from training partners, to ensure we can be effective at any range.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that this is a valid observation. Many modern schools might have lost some of their complete content, or might intentionally focus on sport, fitness, or fun, but I believe in training for real-life street-combat survival first, and sports second.


 
yep in the dojo I train in, that is an  Okinawan style , we do train in the locks and throws and graples and other techniques as well as the strikes and kicks that most do.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 11, 2007)

exile said:


> Not so fast, Cirdan! Aren't you forgetting something... like, _*Osu!!!*_ bellowed out at top volume every 4.3 seconds in a lot of dojos? There's a very funny analysis of the misuse of this expression in North American dojos by Rob Redmond on the _24fightingchickens_ Shotokan site, here.


 
Thanks for pointing that out exile. The *Osu! *is thankfully not used much around here and I had in fact forgotten about the whole silly business. The one time I met a Karateka who shouted *Osu!* at me every five seconds I just replied with a calm Onegai shimazu and Domo arigato gozaimashita after. :asian:


----------



## exile (Sep 11, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> Thanks for pointing that out exile. The *Osu! *is thankfully not used much around here and I had in fact forgotten about the whole silly business. The one time I met a Karateka who shouted *Osu!* at me every five seconds I just replied with a calm Onegai shimazu and Domo arigato gozaimashita after. :asian:



LOL! He probably couldn't understand why you were being merely polite and not getting into the manic spirit of the thing. I'm wondering if Redmond's little essay on the misuse of `Osu' by people trying to recreate what they imagine a Japanese dojo to be has had a sobering effect on the Shotokan community here&#8212;a fair number of karate people read the 24fightingchickens site.

In my school we never bark `Taekwon!!!!' at each other, so I was kind of surprised to find out that people actually did this...



Last Fearner said:


> Thanks for clearing up what you were meaning about ranges.  I think the important thing for Taekwondoists to remember is that the use of long range kicking and close range strikes is an advantage to be used but should not become a crutch.  KMA and Karate do contain joint locks, throws, and grappling, and we must train in them regularly, with strong resistance from training partners, to ensure we can be effective at any range.



I wonder how much of that is people, even those who actually know the close-in techs, only teaching a subportion of the full syllabus because that's what they believe their clientele is interested in. If enough people get into TKD with the expectation that the whole story is Olympic-style point-sparring, then a rational marketing strategy would be to focus on just those techniques that stay in the distant range. It's not good for the art, but it might well be good for business. Unless the owner/chief instructor feels a certain obligation to the art that goes beyond the bottom line on the balance sheet, there could be a lot of oversimplification of the considerable technical diversity in these arts.





Last Fearner said:


> I agree that this is a valid observation.  Many modern schools might have lost some of their complete content, or might intentionally focus on sport, fitness, or fun, but I believe in training for *real-life street-combat survival first, and sports second.*



Yes, exactly.



chinto said:


> as some one who studies an Okinawan style I have to agree in general with this.  I am sure that there is some diferences in instructors and such, but in the style I study we work a lot on close range and intermediat range techniques.
> In a self defence situation I would sugest that close range is where you can do a lot of damage and get damaged fast! I would also sugest that the longer a fight lasts the more danger you are in of a fatal out come to you .. as some one who may not be as skilled can get lucky.  the old Okinawan masters designed and developed the art of Karate for self defence where your life was the prize! In short the one still alive at the end or a few seconds to say 30 seconds was the winner!! this may be  harsh, nasty, but the reality of a real self defence situation where the assailant wants to take your life.



This ties into the same point. But remember, in North America we have I think a deeply different view of things from that of people in these Asian societies during the past couple of centuries. At some level, we believe that our first and main line of defense, of personal safety, is determined by an institutional network&#8212;law enforcement agencies, a hierchical court system, professional governmental prosecutors acting as our advocates, and an extensive network of prison&#8212;that serves as a deterrent to the increasingly anonymous crime which threatens our security. As cash becomes less and less used, the vast bulk of crime is carried out in increasingly nonviolent ways&#8212;we are far more likely to have credit-card fraud or identity theft happen to us than a violent mugging. So people's background assumptions about personal security in 20th c. N.America are probably very different from those in 19th c. Shuri or mi-20c c. Seoul, where for most people, none of these things I've mentioned were true: you were responsible for your own survival, law and enforcement were pretty scarce unless you were one of the privileged wealthy, and violent street crime and gang activity were quite visible. I suspect that things were much the same, in this respect, in Korea, China, Okinawa, Japan and the rest of Asia, where our TMAs come from. So that entail, almost, a very different view of the MAs:  not as essential SD tool, life-preservers in a dangerously violent everyday world, but as a recreational activity, a sport, a fitness regime, and _maybe_, for some people, a reliable tool for self-defense&#8212;but my experience has been that a lot of the MA business is driven by these other perceived benefits. For a lot of kids, especially, MAs seem to be a kind of alternative to gymnastics, inspired by MA movies. The difference in world view translates into a difference in actual practice, pretty much inevitably...


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 11, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Which GM Kim is this Terry?


 

GM Gin KIm he is out of California, he is a 9th Dan Kukkiwon certified from the Oh Do kwan side. Great guy, strickly old school TKD.


----------



## chinto (Sep 12, 2007)

This ties into the same point. But remember, in North America we have I think a deeply different view of things from that of people in these Asian societies during the past couple of centuries. At some level, we believe that our first and main line of defense, of personal safety, is determined by an institutional networklaw enforcement agencies, a hierchical court system, professional governmental prosecutors acting as our advocates, and an extensive network of prisonthat serves as a deterrent to the increasingly anonymous crime which threatens our security. As cash becomes less and less used, the vast bulk of crime is carried out in increasingly nonviolent wayswe are far more likely to have credit-card fraud or identity theft happen to us than a violent mugging. So people's background assumptions about personal security in 20th c. N.America are probably very different from those in 19th c. Shuri or mi-20c c. Seoul, where for most people, none of these things I've mentioned were true: you were responsible for your own survival, law and enforcement were pretty scarce unless you were one of the privileged wealthy, and violent street crime and gang activity were quite visible. I suspect that things were much the same, in this respect, in Korea, China, Okinawa, Japan and the rest of Asia, where our TMAs come from. So that entail, almost, a very different view of the MAs: not as essential SD tool, life-preservers in a dangerously violent everyday world, but as a recreational activity, a sport, a fitness regime, and _maybe_, for some people, a reliable tool for self-defensebut my experience has been that a lot of the MA business is driven by these other perceived benefits. For a lot of kids, especially, MAs seem to be a kind of alternative to gymnastics, inspired by MA movies. The difference in world view translates into a difference in actual practice, pretty much inevitably...[/quote]


yes for most perhaps. but some of us have had the experiance of personal self defence on a very serious basis.  those of us who do may have a similer veiw of the situation. 


ALSO.. *** NOTE** the supreem court of the Untied States of Amarica has found that the Police have NO DUTY to protect you!! their duty is to Investgate a Crime that Has Allready happend for the District Atterny to Prosicute!  this is a finding and ruling of the court so LAW. ....


Please remember that under that ruleing that you have a duty and the obligation to defend yourself. .....  I know its not politicaly correct to point it out; But it is the law and the truth.

If I am attacked by some one ever I will use that as part of my defence when I use what I train in to defend myself from that attacker.


----------



## exile (Sep 12, 2007)

chinto said:
			
		

> exile said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, no question&#8212;but as I say, those of us who have been in that position are not representative. I mentioned somewhere else that according to statistics assembled by a clinical psychologist (who is also a high-ranking TKDist) in the current _Black Belt_, the odds of being subject to a heart attack are 43 times greater than the chances of being injured in a violent crime; and there are similar numbers for diabetes, certain cancers and other lifestyle-based illnesses. It's like the numbers for shark attacks: in any given year, according to figures collected by the Vancouver Aquarium, more people are killed by being struck on the head by falling coconuts or crushed by soda machines that they're trying to get their jammed Coke bottles from than by shark attacks. So that means that a proportionally small percentage of MAists are actually subject to street violence. (You could say, well, MAists are healthier and fitter than the background, but from what I've seen, I'm not so sure about that). So MAists who've been in dangerous altercations (and thereby formed the attitude that MAs should be SD-oriented first and foremost) are almost certainly in a distinct minority. And cultural attitudes tend not to reflect minority perspectives. 




			
				chinto said:
			
		

> ALSO.. *** NOTE** the supreem court of the Untied States of Amarica has found that the Police have NO DUTY to protect you!! their duty is to Investgate a Crime that Has Allready happend for the District Atterny to Prosicute!  this is a finding and ruling of the court so LAW. ....
> 
> 
> Please remember that under that ruleing that you have a duty and the obligation to defend yourself. .....  I know its not politicaly correct to point it out; But it is the law and the truth.
> ...



I don't know that political correctness comes into it... I suspect that most people of any political stripe would regard someone who argues that you should let yourself be beaten up and physically damaged by an attacker (and then wait for the court system to incarcerate the guy for a year or so after plea-bargaining) as a nutter. The primary impulse wired into us is survival; it would be hard to make a case that you shouldn't defend yourself, no matter _what_ political axioms you were starting from. I think the major factor is that the market for street-useful MAs is just not there, because the middle class people who are the bread and butter of the MA business don't enounter nearly enough personal violence on a daily basis to make it profitable for the industry to emphasize SD applications in their curricula...


----------



## chinto (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't know that political correctness comes into it... I suspect that most people of any political stripe would regard someone who argues that you should let yourself be beaten up and physically damaged by an attacker (and then wait for the court system to incarcerate the guy for a year or so after plea-bargaining) as a nutter. The primary impulse wired into us is survival; it would be hard to make a case that you shouldn't defend yourself, no matter _what_ political axioms you were starting from. I think the major factor is that the market for street-useful MAs is just not there, because the middle class people who are the bread and butter of the MA business don't enounter nearly enough personal violence on a daily basis to make it profitable for the industry to emphasize SD applications in their curricula...[/quote]

yep, but I have to say there are some real nutters as you call them out there that think that some how you should not be allowed a weapon or training in any thing that might be "Violent".  

In our local schools if there is an altercation, both students go to jail. ( juvinile hall enless over 17 I understand).  this is regardless of who started it, or who was defending themselves or any of the other sercomstances.  I am not a student or a parant..(thank god) but I find this attitued that meany of the schools and some others who are raising our youth rediculious!  So unfortunently "Nutty" as it sounds and is in fact, it is actualy being practiced by some in authority!~


----------



## exile (Sep 13, 2007)

chinto said:


> In our local schools if there is an altercation, both students go to jail. ( juvinile hall enless over 17 I understand).  this is regardless of who started it, or who was defending themselves or any of the other sercomstances.  I am not a student or a parant..(thank god) but I find this attitued that meany of the schools and some others who are raising our youth rediculious!  So unfortunently "Nutty" as it sounds and is in fact, it is actualy being practiced by some in authority!~



I agree. This is crazy. Collective punishment is ethically hateful. By that logic, both the lynch mob _and_ its resisting, would-be victim _all_ should be sent to the slammer. Furthermore, schools in the past typically have done a rotten job protecting kids from bullying. I don't know to what degree this has changed in general, but until fairly recently, in many schools there is a kind of pseudo-Darwinian attitude to the violent harassment of one child by another. I tend to think this was an implicit policy set by school officials, maybe following dictates from their local boards of education, to minimize interventions that could lead to legal wrangling, and would require a lot more monitoring than overworked teachers have time and resources to carry out. Incidents like Columbine may have been a wake-up call in the K12 education world about the dangers of casting a blind eye to bullying, I don't know...

But regardless of where all that comes from, I think that again, the numbers probably don't add up to a perception by middle class parents that their kids need to learnand have the right to usetechnical MAs specifically for SD purposes. A lot of MA schools stay in the black through their programs aimed at schoolkids, emphasizing sparring and technique performance in a vacuum of combat application. I suspect that both TKD and karate are in the same boat in this respect. I'd like to bet any amount you name that Krav Maga programs have a _way_ higher percentage of adult participants than the plain-vanilla dojo or dojang....


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Sep 14, 2007)

exile said:


> I'd like to bet any amount you name that Krav Maga programs have a _way_ higher percentage of adult participants than the plain-vanilla dojo or dojang....



I certainly think that is the case.

Thanks BTW Terry for your reply.


----------



## chinto (Sep 15, 2007)

exile said:


> I agree. This is crazy. Collective punishment is ethically hateful. By that logic, both the lynch mob _and_ its resisting, would-be victim _all_ should be sent to the slammer. Furthermore, schools in the past typically have done a rotten job protecting kids from bullying. I don't know to what degree this has changed in general, but until fairly recently, in many schools there is a kind of pseudo-Darwinian attitude to the violent harassment of one child by another. I tend to think this was an implicit policy set by school officials, maybe following dictates from their local boards of education, to minimize interventions that could lead to legal wrangling, and would require a lot more monitoring than overworked teachers have time and resources to carry out. Incidents like Columbine may have been a wake-up call in the K12 education world about the dangers of casting a blind eye to bullying, I don't know...
> 
> But regardless of where all that comes from, I think that again, the numbers probably don't add up to a perception by middle class parents that their kids need to learnand have the right to usetechnical MAs specifically for SD purposes. A lot of MA schools stay in the black through their programs aimed at schoolkids, emphasizing sparring and technique performance in a vacuum of combat application. I suspect that both TKD and karate are in the same boat in this respect. I'd like to bet any amount you name that Krav Maga programs have a _way_ higher percentage of adult participants than the plain-vanilla dojo or dojang....


 

yep that is provably true of meany dojos and dojangs.. the one I study at does teach self defence to the few kids we have.. but of course the instructor is carefull what is tought and to wich kid and when it is tought to that kid.  but there is NOT a Vacuum of combat applications at our dojo THANK GOD! I would not be a student there if there were.


----------



## exile (Sep 15, 2007)

chinto said:


> yep that is provably true of meany dojos and dojangs.. the one I study at does teach self defence to the few kids we have.. but of course the instructor is carefull what is tought and to wich kid and when it is tought to that kid.  but there is NOT a Vacuum of combat applications at our dojo THANK GOD! I would not be a student there if there were.



Right, I feel the same way. Our instructor is very conscious of the combat content of our hyungs and of the need to link realistic SD training with these forms... but it's all too true that there are very few places that will do that, and even fewer which will teach that approach to kids. My own feeling is, you don't have to give a child the full monty on SD and `hard' techs in order to get them thinking along the right lines about practical application. Showing them just a bit, as your instructor does, from what you say, can definitely be enough, as long as it's made clear to the child that everything they're being taught will ultimately have SD payoffs, even if those payoffs aren't going to be made clear just yet. 

So this is another area where I think that the differences between Karate and TKDwhich do exist and shouldn't be deniedare nonethless a lot less prominent than the similarities. Both arts (or families of arts, might be a more accurate way of thinking of them) have been increasingly marketed primarily to children for business reasons, and the effect has been to dilute the combat content of both arts in similar fashion. In both arts, there are always a few dedicated instructors who buck this trend and teach the `hidden content' of the art (suitably modified for children's use; but it's still taught, just as you say). My hope and belief is that as time goes on, there will be more such instructors and schools.


----------



## chinto (Sep 17, 2007)

exile said:


> Right, I feel the same way. Our instructor is very conscious of the combat content of our hyungs and of the need to link realistic SD training with these forms... but it's all too true that there are very few places that will do that, and even fewer which will teach that approach to kids. My own feeling is, you don't have to give a child the full monty on SD and `hard' techs in order to get them thinking along the right lines about practical application. Showing them just a bit, as your instructor does, from what you say, can definitely be enough, as long as it's made clear to the child that everything they're being taught will ultimately have SD payoffs, even if those payoffs aren't going to be made clear just yet.
> 
> So this is another area where I think that the differences between Karate and TKDwhich do exist and shouldn't be deniedare nonethless a lot less prominent than the similarities. Both arts (or families of arts, might be a more accurate way of thinking of them) have been increasingly marketed primarily to children for business reasons, and the effect has been to dilute the combat content of both arts in similar fashion. In both arts, there are always a few dedicated instructors who buck this trend and teach the `hidden content' of the art (suitably modified for children's use; but it's still taught, just as you say). My hope and belief is that as time goes on, there will be more such instructors and schools.


 

I certianly hope that over time meany more dedicated instructors will buck the trend to sportify and dumb down the SD and COMBAT content in their classes. 

that is not to say that you would teach say a kid 9 or 12 the same way or even the same amount of  the bunkai and SD aplications there in as you would an adult or even say a 16 or 17 or 18 year old. 

but it is the sensei's responsibility to not "make a frankanstine student".


----------



## Zhan Mu Si (Sep 25, 2007)

arnisador said:


> Historically, they're _very_ closely related, with TKD strongly influenced by Shotokan. Karate doesn't have the high kicks however and usually has less of an emphasis on sport aspects than TKD. Karate emphasizes punching more than kicking, TKD usually the other way around or at least nearer to 50-50. Usually you get some weapons training in karate but not always in TKD.



I would agree with most of that, though disagree with the high kick comments. It is very true that TKD concentrates alot more on kicks than they do on punches but I think it's too easy to assume Karate works the other way. Shotokan Karate has a multitude of kicks, any of which can be performed at head level (any higher than your opponants head and it's not needed)

TKD form is very similar and seems to be largely based on Shotokan 'Kata', so in form/kata the difference is very small. Obviously as already mentioned, punching in Karate is a big deal, possible more than TKD.

Another point previously made was looking at the sport aspect of TKD. Karate can have a very active sport side to it, this depends on the association that the Shotokan club falls under. What association was it, btw?

The difference in Shotokan from many other Karate systems and TKD systems is that Shotokan is intended to be a *very* hard, external system. There is little to no deflections. Either totally avoid the strike or take the strike and turn impact into devistation. When Shotokan was founded by Funakoshi Sensei all of its original basic blocks were developed as breaking techniques. A trational Karate-Ka would conition their arms, fists, fingers, wrists and so forth so that even the most basic of blocks would disable their attacker by means of bone breaking, with little (if any) damage to the Karate-Ka. Obviously today Shotokan Karate in classes in the west does not have the brutality it once did. But that is in a class.. many Karate-Ka's still take conditioning very seriously and as a result of learning the correct technique in class, can apply to it devastating effect in the real world. There are also a whole range of open hand and finder techniques in Shotokan Karate, I've not come across much more than nukitae (knife hand strike) in TKD though could be there, I just have not seen them.

Another large difference ( of which many find hard). Is that Shotokan is trationally practised very low to the ground. Strong, low, pounding stances are the secret to Shotokan. "Beware of the shotokan man. Why, Because he trains low". Training logo gives you increbible speed and power when stood up right. You'd train low, stand high in real situations by which time you are well prepared with huge leg muscles and excellent speed.

No doubt I'm slightly bias to Shotokan as it has long been a passion of mine, though I have tried and give merrit to many other systems. Many shotokan classes today do not train as hard as I would like, though that being said some still find it hard. I feel TKD is an excellent system for those wishes to practise marial arts in a fun, friendly, sincier enviroument that don't want to walk out of each lesson with bruised forearms and the rest. Shotokan is a great system for the same sincier enviroument possible slightly more trational. TKD is a bit more standardised than Shotokan though still has plenty of trational and diversity there to interest you. 

Just my 2 cents..
Cheers


----------



## exile (Sep 25, 2007)

Zhan Mu Si said:


> There are also a whole range of open hand and finder techniques in Shotokan Karate, I've not come across much more than nukitae (knife hand strike) in TKD though could be there, I just have not seen them.



Palm heel strikes, both with fingers retracted and with fingers extended, disguised as a spearhand; face claw-strikes with spread fingers aimed at the eyes; flat-hand slaps to the ear/temple; half-fist strikes (open hand, fingers bent so the middle knuckle is the striking surface, aimed at the throat, spearhand to the base of the throat... and more... are all part of the technical repertoire of TKD. We train them and we practice them.



Zhan Mu Si said:


> Another large difference ( of which many find hard). Is that Shotokan is trationally practised very low to the ground. Strong, low, pounding stances are the secret to Shotokan. "Beware of the shotokan man. Why, Because he trains low". Training logo gives you increbible speed and power when stood up right. You'd train low, stand high in real situations by which time you are well prepared with huge leg muscles and excellent speed.



This isn't a function of the system per se, it's a function of how you train, no? There are ways to get powerful leg muscularity and considerable speed that don't depend on training low, and if you watch some of the top TKD competitiors, you'll see as much speed as you could want. And I say this as someone who has no interest in sport TKD.



Zhan Mu Si said:


> No doubt I'm slightly bias to Shotokan as it has long been a passion of mine, though I have tried and give merrit to many other systems. Many shotokan classes today do not train as hard as I would like, though that being said some still find it hard. I feel TKD is an excellent system for those wishes to practise marial arts in a fun, friendly, sincier enviroument that don't want to walk out of each lesson with bruised forearms and the rest. Shotokan is a great system for the same sincier enviroument possible slightly more trational. TKD is a bit more standardised than Shotokan though still has plenty of trational and diversity there to interest you.



Again, I think you're talking about training, and how people choose to spar. If you're training TKD for street defense, you aren't doing anything like kumite or standard sport-TKD sparring; you're training application of the system to defense against grabs, roundhouse punches to the head, head-butts and other typical violence-initiators. You aren't having fun, or being especially `friendly'; you're practicing throat strikes with knifehand and forearm, strikes to the face, pins to control the attacker to set up knee kicks to the abdomen, and elbow strikes to the face (and, if the attacker's head can be forced low by a controlling move based on a wrist or elbow lock, to the back of the neck as well, which will most definitely end the fight). This approach to TKD is certainly traditional: it was the fighting system of the RoK military in two wars, and was fearedwith good reasonby the South's communist enemies (see this for more detail and documentation). So far as I know, it's the only variant of karate (I consider TKD to be the Korean development of Japanese karate, just as Shotokan or Wado-Ryu are Japanese developments of Okinawan systems, themselves syntheses of Chinese _chuan fa_ styles, native combat methods and Japanese samurai bujitsu theories brought over by the Satsuma warlords) ever adopted as the battlefield combative training for an entire national army. The technical resources that made TKD so damaging are still part of its content. And as for conditioning...  a lot of experienced TKDists train their force delivery via multiple board breaking; the strikes those TKDist are able to deliver as going to be perceived as anything but `fun' and `friendly' by anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one of them.

I think part of the problem is that there is a systematic ambiguity which arises when ever you use the name of some particular martial art. That name denotes a set of techniques, and a theory of combat often (though not always) encoded in formal patterns that integrate these isolated techniques as applications of certain strategic principles and tactical methods. But the name also identifies what you might think of as the current `state of the art', including how that art is trained. There's plenty of soft TKD training that goes on; but that's true for Shotokan as well; read anything by Iain Abernethy or any of the other British Combat Association karatekas, and you'll notice that time after time they compare the `alive', unscripted, realistic training with totally noncompliant partners they advocate with tradition kihon/kumite-based training. The two cases are very similar. Take someone from a `hard' TKD school, say one of the Song Moo Kwan dojangs, and compare them with someone from a Shotokan McDojo, and the picture you paint will still fit, except it will be Shotokan which is `fun and friendly' and TKD which sends its practitioners home with major bruises, or to the doctor or the emergency rooms with fractures. 

What I'd like to do is eliminate this variable, the different approaches to training, from the comparison, because it's not an inherent part of the technical content of either art, and therefore will give a distorted picture. It seems to me far more productive to compare, example, how each of the two arts equips a skilled practitioner to handle a series of commonattacking moves by an untrained, but dangerously violent assailant. A roundhouse punch is thrown at your head, with or without a set-up grab: what do you do? That sort of thing. I strongly suspect that if you do that sort of comparison consistently, you'll find little difference amongst Tang Soo Do, Taekwondo, Shotokan, and maybe a couple of other styles. 

It would be a very interesting and useful exercise to carry out, but to do it right, you'd need a number of practitioners at the same advanced level of training, and a couple of days to experiment with how they responded to `live' attacks (by the same group of ukes, to control for as many variables as possible). In the absence of that kind of relatively controlled experiment,  a good deal of all all this discussion probably has to count as somewhat-informed guesswork...


----------



## chinto (Sep 25, 2007)

Zhan Mu Si said:


> I would agree with most of that, though disagree with the high kick comments. It is very true that TKD concentrates alot more on kicks than they do on punches but I think it's too easy to assume Karate works the other way. Shotokan Karate has a multitude of kicks, any of which can be performed at head level (any higher than your opponants head and it's not needed)
> 
> TKD form is very similar and seems to be largely based on Shotokan 'Kata', so in form/kata the difference is very small. Obviously as already mentioned, punching in Karate is a big deal, possible more than TKD.
> 
> ...


 

all provably true in the styles mentioned. I am not a shotokan or TKD man. but I remember the moto of the military.. train like you fight, and fight like you train.... the okinawan styles train to fight the way they train, or at least we do.  so we train and do things diferently then both TKD and Shotokan and most other of the japansesaified styles of Karate.  this is becouse our doctrine is a bit diferent as the cultures of Korea and Japan are diferent from Okinawa... so to are their stature, experiances in combat, and even the tarain and size of the people on averidge.
I am not a native of Okinawa, but I train in a traditional Okinawan system that is optimized for combat and not for sport. This means that the aproch and the kata are " old school" and unmodified from what they were say in 1870 or so... and so predicated on the idea that you are training not for points, or for dominance, but for survival of an encounter that is likely to end in the death of one or the other of the combatents.  THIS also means that the best defences will always be not being there for the fight! After all if you do fight you MAY DIE!   ........ ( usualy considerd a bad thing by people who are not suicidal or crazy... so best to avoid a fight if you can.. if you can't, then make sure that the least ending is you take the basterd with you!)


----------

