# Does taekwondo needs cross-training to complete it



## terryl965 (Mar 25, 2010)

This was brought up by Dancingalone for Gorilla so let discuss this ok.


What cross training do you believe in to make TKD complete?


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 25, 2010)

Oh, I expect we'll get the usual 'TKD is a complete art if taught properly' remarks, so let's dispense with that red herring entirely.  

I suggest people post their curriculum up to first dan.  Most of us have rank requirements in electronic form.  Just copy and paste that bad boy and then we can have hopefully a meaningful discussion.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 25, 2010)

TKD is a complete art, if taught properly.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 25, 2010)

OnlyAnEgg said:


> TKD is a complete art, if taught properly.



Thanks!  You made my day and hopefully Gorilla's too.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 25, 2010)

I can and will post mine later it is on my computor at the school and I do not know how to get it from this one, my wife does but not me. 

And for the record TKD is a complete sport I mean Art..


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> This was brought up by Dancingalone for Gorilla so let discuss this ok.
> 
> 
> What cross training do you believe in to make TKD complete?


 

Back in my day (Pre-Olympic) real TKD it didn't need anything.... but I have been away for a very long time... did somebody lose part of it someplace


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 25, 2010)

Xue Sheng said:


> Back in my day (Pre-Olympic) real TKD it didn't need anything.... but I have been away for a very long time... did somebody lose part of it someplace


 
Yes it was lost between a rock and the sport, now it is just lying there waiting to be a top notch piece of the MA pie once again.


----------



## Cirdan (Mar 25, 2010)

Xue Sheng said:


> Back in my day (Pre-Olympic) real TKD it didn't need anything.... but I have been away for a very long time... did somebody lose part of it someplace


 
Yup, thrown out with the bathwater and replaced with a double dose of mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 25, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> This was brought up by Dancingalone for Gorilla so let discuss this ok.
> 
> 
> What cross training do you believe in to make TKD complete?


 
Depends what you mean by "Complete". Complete for what or in what sense? 

Many systems favor striking over grappling or vica versa or may be incomplete in that sense. 

Many arts have sparring rules and if only sparring is concentrted on may be incomplete from a combat sense. 

Many arts focus on no weapons or few weaposn and would be viewed as incomplete in that sense. 

So, since TKD is primarily  weaponless striking do we add:

More standup grappling

More ground grappling

Combat tactics

Weapons ranging from a 4 inch Yawara / Kubotan stick  increasing in inch increments for various Kali sticks thru 6 foot poles; and 

Sai, Knives of variuous shapes and lengths, Tonfa, Kama, Nunchucks, 3 section staff,  thrown projectiles,  Whips, chains, Spears, Swords, Bow and arrow, crossbow, Guns of all types, How to apply and administer poison or toxic chemicals seperately or in conjunction with weapons. 

Feel free to ad to the above list to make a "Complete" martial art.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 25, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> This was brought up by Dancingalone for Gorilla so let discuss this ok.
> 
> 
> What cross training do you believe in to make TKD complete?


Firstly which TKD are we talking about: 
*A.* the foot fighting sport where competitors who are too timid for kyokushin pad up and throw high kicks while leaning backwards with their hands down or *B.* the martial art that was derived from Shotokan karate?

If *A*, then crossing it is kind of pointless, though I think that the WTF rule makers should go watch Best of the Best.  If WTF taekwondo looked like that, then it would have no image problems.  Or go watch a kyokushin tournament.  That will open their eyes.

If *B*, then I am going to have to say that it does not *need* to be cross-trained in anything.  No art will ever be truly complete, so trying to make it complete is, in my opinion, counterproductive. 

The best thing for B is to jettison the WTF sparring entirely.  It is not taekwondo.  It does not resemble taekwondo.  It should be called something else.  

Secondly, teach complete bunhae, develop a sparring rule set geared towards live training in taekwondo techniques (you know, all those things that the sport prohibits) and not towards making a television friendly game.

Lastly, require all students under fifteen to wear a darned pum belt if they are pum ranked.  

So in short, yes, if taught properly, taekwondo does not _need_ to be crossed with anything else.  

Taekwondo has all of the necessary tools. Problem is that live training is not conducted in 99% if them.  Seeing as how padding up is already being done, why not work in those knee and elbow strikes?

Please note that I am not saying that taekwondo is a fully comprehensive art.  I am going on the 80/20 rule.  You don't need to be all over the map to be able to defend yourself.  You do need to be solidly versed in good, solid basics.  

Obviously, the above is not the direction that taekwondo is going.  That is fine and good.  I have no beef with the sport.  If that is what the orgs and majority of schools want to do, then that is what they are going to do.  Those of us who like it will follow.  Those who do not will not.  

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 25, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> Depends what you mean by "Complete". Complete for what or in what sense?
> 
> Many systems favor striking over grappling or vica versa or may be incomplete in that sense.
> 
> ...



Oh, I don't think it needs to be as nebulous as that, Mr. Weiss.  I think most people on forums like MT usually mean effective unarmed combat in all ranges when they talk about a 'complete' martial art.  That doesn't mean we have to all be expert at knives, but some worthy elements of self-defense vs. a knife should be expected.


----------



## Miles (Mar 25, 2010)

Attached (if I did it right) is my curriculum in .pdf format for white belt through 1st guep:.

I think TKD is complete as is.  But I don't subscribe to the idea that it encompasses weapons, grappling, etc.  It is a striking art.  If you want to round out your abilities in other areas, training in an art that specializes in that area is best IMHO.  Judoka don't kick but they are pretty good on the ground and throwing folks, Wrestlers don't strike but they are fine on the ground as well...


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 25, 2010)

Thanks, Miles.  You're a good man and a great sport!

I'm asking this in the spirit of positive discussion with no ill intent at all to anyone:  Would you consider your curriculum 'complete'?
===================================

Thanks for answering in your edit!  



> I think TKD is complete as is. But I don't subscribe to the idea that it encompasses weapons, grappling, etc. It is a striking art.



You're a KKW man, right, sir?  In that case, is it a fair statement to say that your expression of TKD has been trimmed down from an initial larger framework?  And that the further back we delve into what TKD is, we would see that it does contain some grappling, locks, pins, and throws?


----------



## Miles (Mar 25, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Thanks, Miles. You're a good man and a great sport!
> 
> I'm asking this in the spirit of positive discussion with no ill intent at all to anyone: Would you consider your curriculum 'complete'?


 
  Heaven's NO!  It is always a work in progress, like myself.

As an aside, my program is in a multi-discipline gym.  We offer Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, Combat Submission Wrestling, Muay-Thai, Savate, Pekiti-Tirsia Kali, Wing Chun Kung-fu, Silat, and probably 5 other arts I've not dabbled in.  I think our school is "complete" but I don't look at any of the various arts and believe that that is the "be all, end all."  There are many roads up the same mountain, TKD is just the one I've traveled the longest...


----------



## dortiz (Mar 25, 2010)

"Attached (if I did it right) is my curriculum in .pdf format for white belt through 1st guep:."

Very nice!!! Hoshinsul from lower belts up with Reaps by Blue Belt. Choke defenses and applied in real world circumstance. All around a very nice program. Lucky students!!

I should have known ; )

Dave O.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 25, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I suggest people post their curriculum up to first dan. Most of us have rank requirements in electronic form. .


 
How do I attach the curriculum as an attachment like Miles did. The posting rules say "May NOT post attachements."


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 25, 2010)

I think you have to be a Supporting Member to post attachments.  Copy and paste?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 25, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> How do I attach the curriculum as an attachment like Miles did. The posting rules say "May NOT post attachements."


 
Dancingalone is correct.  you could a) copypasta or b) upload it to online storage and link to it or c) become a groovy supporting member.  It's cheaper than you might think!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 25, 2010)

> What cross training do you believe in to make TKD complete?



Complete at what?

To me, martial artists study martial arts for one  (or more) of 5  reasons.
1) Art
2) Self-Defense
3) Sport
4) Fitness
5) Spirituality

In my mind, TKD is more than complete for 1, 3 , and 4, and doesn't really address 5 at all (although some may interpret it for themselves that way).  Leaving only #2 to ask.

But I think sometimes the question is asked backwards. We tend to ask the question in terms of the techniques, or often the training style, of the art.  I think the question should be asked in terms of reasonable threats (and 'reasonable' depends on the person, if you are an average guy living and working in a decent part of town then 'reasonable' means something different than if you are bouncer, or an LEO, or a soldier).  Somewhere I once had a list to somebody's site (Abernathy?) that talked about the statistically more common forms of assault. I think if you approach your art and your training not from a point of view of "what techniques do I have?" but from the goal "can I realistically meet these threats?", then you could say that your art is 'complete'.  Add to this the idea of weapons (knives and guns and sticks) and some other threats such as being knocked over and sat on, etc.., etc.. If you approach your art to realistically meet these threats, then yes, your art  is complete; if not, than no your art is not complete.

I think the two loaded terms are 'reasonable' and 'realistically'.  

For a middle age father living in middle america, an assault with an AK-47 is probably not a reasonable threat to worry about facing, but in that scenario I don't think many arts are really 'complete' in that arena and it comes down to awareness, reading the situation, and survival more than roundhouse kick or hip throw.  So the 'completeness' of your art is a reflection of your ability to realistically meet 'reasonable' threats for your life.  Which makes 'completeness' a personal issue.

The 'realistically' portion is also to be considered.  If you do Tae Kwon Do and your response to the question of "how would you do on the ground?" is "sidekick to stop the shoot and stay on my feet" than I don't think you are being honestly realistic with yourself.   Which is not to say that Tae Kwon Do could or could not be used on the ground, just to say that you should really approach the threat with a good understanding of what someone fighting in that range can and will do.  Crescent kick gun disarm? High-block knife defense?  Not really realistic.

So I think that to consider if your art is complete, at least for self-defense, than you must look at it from the perspective of it's capability, within how you approach it, to meet likely threats.


----------



## Manny (Mar 25, 2010)

I liked the answers of Daniel and Miles about this post, it seems to me they are a well versed men about MA and TKD.

I think (and sorry for the words) "Traditional TKD" is a balanced MA it has lots of kicks a good number of hand techs and some other techs like trows,sweeps,take downs,pins,and in some cases a little submition. In the other hand the "Sport TKD" focuses only in kicks (foot techs) and some punches and no more, this kind of TKD focuses in competition most of the time.

I think Traditional TKD does not need cross-training but the taekwondoing can benefit to do crosstraining in for example: Hap Ki Do, or Judo or Aikido.

Myself, tired of asking more self defense (I never was a competitor and never will) inside my dojang choose to do crosstraining in American Kenpo because there I found what I was looking for.

So does TKD need cross training?? well all depends.....

Manny


----------



## cmassman (Mar 25, 2010)

I think TKD is a great art, but complete is a pretty big word. I believe by cross training you and pick up other things from different arts, which has given be a better appreciation of TKD


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 25, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I suggest people post their curriculum up to first dan. Most of us have rank requirements in electronic form. Just copy and paste that bad boy and then we can have hopefully a meaningful discussion.


 
First dan is a pretty arbitrary place to draw a line, IMHO, and would rather exclude much if not most of what any martial art contains. At least it would in the Taekwon-Do I've learned. I'm a V dan and still learning new stuff. I believe my instructor has a syllabus up to VI dan.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 25, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> First dan is a pretty arbitrary place to draw a line, IMHO, and would rather exclude much if not most of what any martial art contains. At least it would in the Taekwon-Do I've learned. I'm a V dan and still learning new stuff. I believe my instructor has a syllabus up to VI dan.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



It is an arbitrary demarcation.  That said, I've got to question any curriculum that waits until 3rd dan and up to introduce close range combat material.  Thoughts?


----------



## Quarterstaff (Mar 25, 2010)

Are we talking WTF or ITF? 

Perhaps it is a big assumption to think that you can complete a martial art system like Taekwon-Do?


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 25, 2010)

Quarterstaff said:


> Are we talking WTF or ITF?
> 
> Perhaps it is a big assumption to think that you can complete a martial art system like Taekwon-Do?



Post your curriculum if you don't mind then.  Afterwards we'll all have a better idea why you believe Taekwon-Do is too expansive to complete.

I imagine the thread is about any kind of TKD.


----------



## dortiz (Mar 25, 2010)

"Perhaps it is a big assumption to think that you can complete a martial art system like Taekwon-Do? "

Both General Choi (ITF) and the Kukkiwon took the time to document the arts so it seems in that regards it has some reasonable definitions of what it encompasses.


----------



## Quarterstaff (Mar 25, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Post your curriculum if you don't mind then. Afterwards we'll all have a better idea why you believe Taekwon-Do is too expansive to complete.
> 
> I imagine the thread is about any kind of TKD.


 
The ITF encyclopedia is 15 volumes long and would take weeks to read and as such is a little big to post. 

Don't people say that Martial arts is about the journey not the destination?


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 25, 2010)

Quarterstaff said:


> The ITF encyclopedia is 15 volumes long and would take weeks to read and as such is a little big to post.



Oh you're ITF then.  I expect Mr. Weiss will find a way to post his info up then as he mentioned above.



> Don't people say that Martial arts is about the journey not the destination?



Yes, many people say something like that.  I would merely suggest the destination is awfully important when I am making my daily commute to work.  The same is true in martial arts.  Just what have we been practicing all this time if it is to not gain fighting skills?

Too much "Do" makes Does out of all of us.  Respectfully said.


----------



## dortiz (Mar 25, 2010)

"The ITF encyclopedia is 15 volumes long and would take weeks to read"

A. I hope if someone studies the art they can take the time needed to read it.
B. A syllabus is not the same as the broken down text on how to do every part of the art. Its more like the Table of contents from the 15 books.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 25, 2010)

OK, this may sounds weird but, in a lot of ways, art or system may not matter much.

Here's what I mean.   We've been doing a drill called "shark bait" a lot recently.  That's one person in the middle and everyone else around attacking in turn.  Sometimes you end up with several attackers at once.  It's very unrehearsed and not a little bit scary.  The attacks very from grabs to punches to chokes to holds.  The level of attack depends on the level of the defender, but it's fairly intense.

What I've noticed is that, while some students have better techniques, stronger, smoother, faster.  The first level of defense is really a mindset.  The ability to respond, to handle the adrenaline and the fight-or-flight instinct.  The refusal to give up, to go down.  This seems to transcend what technique is used or even sometimes well good the technique is executed.

So above and beyond the particular techniques or the art they are from, there is the need to develop a mindset to never give up, don't freeze up, move fast, hit hard, keep moving, keep hitting, until you are safe.  If you train for that mindset, and train in a way that hones and reinforces that mindset, then I think whatever your techniques, they will serve you well, as long as they are trained to be hard, smooth and effective (my instructor's been saying "smooth is the new fast" : )

Not to belie the importance of technique, but technique, your art, will not be complete if you do not train to use it when needed, and that's first and foremost in  the mind and the will to live

Caveat: I do not train Tae Kwon Do anymore (although I do train using techniques learned from Tae Kwon Do.  Even when I trained Tae Kwon Do, it had influences from Hapkido and others, so in many ways I really don't know what real Tae Kwon Do is, beyond poomse and sparring rules  I'm not an instructor


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 25, 2010)

Shark Bait!  Hoo Hah Hah!

sorry


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 25, 2010)

OnlyAnEgg said:


> Shark Bait!  Hoo Hah Hah!
> 
> sorry



Oh, yeah, that comes up a lot!


----------



## dortiz (Mar 25, 2010)

Great drill.

look, both in sport or Sd TKD the entire idea is to drill techniques so that you respond from a muscle memory position. Thats what forms are trying to teach you. How to turn right or left and transition to an attack or defense.

This drill is one good way to make sure if your techniques are ingrained well enough. Lower belts may panic or use one or two techniques while higher belts should flow more and therefore become more comfortable to transition to different things.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Mar 25, 2010)

In my opinion no art is 100% 'complete' , I do believe though, that tkd taught the traditional old school way is more than enough for someone to be able to defend themself on the "street".


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 25, 2010)

Gorilla, where are you, Buddy?  This thread was started for you!


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> It is an arbitrary demarcation. That said, I've got to question any curriculum that waits until 3rd dan and up to introduce close range combat material. Thoughts?


 
What do you mean by "close range combat material"? Use of knee and elbow strikes? Close range punching and striking (upset punches, upwards punches, crescent punches, angle punches, turning punches, etc.) Grabbing? Sweeping and throwing? Punches, strikes and kicks executed from a prone position (often as a counter attack after being thrown)? Grappling?

Apart from grappling Taekwon-Do has quite a number of those techniques. So if your definition of "complete" means having a major ground game, then no TKD isn't a complete art. 

FWIW, I don't know of any instrcutor who would wait until 3rd dan to introduce any of those elements to his students. (3rd dan is fairly is still considered a novice black belt by the ITF, as oppsed to 4th-6th dan who are experts and 7th-9th who are masters.) Do you know of someone who doesn't introduce close range techniques until this rank, since you mentioned it? That would be weird. Is this a common place to introduce such techniques by the instructors you know?

Also, if you realize that 1st dan is an arbitrarty line of demarcation you should know that by asking for only requirements up to that rank will probably not give an accurate portrait of any art.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2010)

> Also, if you realize that 1st dan is an arbitrarty line of demarcation you should know that by asking for only requirements up to that rank will probably not give an accurate portrait of any art.
> Chris



Really?  By 1st dan, one should have been well-acquainted with the fighting concepts of the system.  One can certainly learn more techniques into the black belt ranks, but it should all build on the philosophies that should have been taught from day one.

There's a reason after that many styles have koans or sayings that condense their style into a few sentences.  "From within, without."  Or "Swift to rise, quick to rest." 

If you're saying there are many more requirements in ITF TKD after 1st dan that dramatically transmute the art, I'd be less than impressed as someone tenured in martial arts.  It is of course your system however.



chrispillertkd said:


> What do you mean by "close range combat material"? Use of knee and elbow strikes? Close range punching and striking (upset punches, upwards punches, crescent punches, angle punches, turning punches, etc.) Grabbing? Sweeping and throwing? Punches, strikes and kicks executed from a prone position (often as a counter attack after being thrown)? Grappling?
> 
> ....
> 
> FWIW, I don't know of any instrcutor who would wait until 3rd dan to introduce any of those elements to his students. (3rd dan is fairly is still considered a novice black belt by the ITF, as oppsed to 4th-6th dan who are experts and 7th-9th who are masters.) Do you know of someone who doesn't introduce close range techniques until this rank, since you mentioned it? That would be weird. Is this a common place to introduce such techniques by the instructors you know?



It could be all of those things.  This topic is fairly broad after all about whether cross-training is needed to complete TKD.  

And no, I should have added 'hypothetical' in front of my remark about 3rd dans.  It would be pretty nutty to wait until 3rd dan to introduce clearly some fundamental and necessary techniques.

By the way, that's pretty incredible to me that you in the ITF consider a 3rd a novice black belt.  Are high dan ranks so common then?

In Goju-ryu karate, I am a yondan (4th) and I have learned all the material in my system.  As I progress upwards in rank, it's just a matter of refining what I have been given already as well as service to the art.

When I studied TKD and I attained 2nd dan in the old Jhoon Rhee system, it was understood that I pretty much had everything under my belt too.  Other than a few new hyung there wasn't anything else to learn, and given the lack of form application work, it's not like it was any big deal to memorize a handful of new patterns.


----------



## Cirdan (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> By the way, that's pretty incredible to me that you in the ITF consider a 3rd a novice black belt. Are high dan ranks so common then?
> 
> In Goju-ryu karate, I am a yondan (4th) and I have learned all the material in my system. As I progress upwards in rank, it's just a matter of refining what I have been given already as well as service to the art.


 
It seems to me this difference between Karate and TKD is getting more pronounced. In many places TKD 4th dans are treated like Karate 1st dans with respect to how far they have progressed. Low ranking BBs are even not alowed to teach without supervision. At 3rd to 5th dan a karateka in a traditional dojo will typically know the whole system.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Oh you're ITF then. I expect Mr. Weiss will find a way to post his info up then as he mentioned above.
> 
> 
> .


 
My color belt curriculum is 10 pages long, one for each gup level. I think cutting and pasting would be to lengthy for a board like this and the formatting would probably be messed up.  Unlike the encyclopedia, it does not contain technical parameters for techniques and in some portions it refers to other printed material such as for required knowledge and Board Breaking.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> By the way, that's pretty incredible to me that you in the ITF consider a 3rd a novice black belt. Are high dan ranks so common then?
> 
> In Goju-ryu karate, I am a yondan (4th) and I have learned all the material in my system. As I progress upwards in rank, it's just a matter of refining what I have been given already as well as service to the art.
> 
> When I studied TKD and I attained 2nd dan in the old Jhoon Rhee system, it was understood that I pretty much had everything under my belt too. Other than a few new hyung there wasn't anything else to learn, and given the lack of form application work, it's not like it was any big deal to memorize a handful of new patterns.


 
Hmm, is it more icredible to use the term novice, than those that use the term "Master " when the entire syllabus has not been learned? 

Aside form refining your material after 4th Dan do you not continue to have greater insight into the techniques? 

I am not sure what you learned under Jhoon Rhee, since he has had different systems including Chang Hon, but a clue to what was missing from how he taught that system was the fact that it only had 20 of the 24 patterns.  Kind of like learning the alphabet and leaving out 4 letters.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> It is an arbitrary demarcation. That said, I've got to question any curriculum that waits until 3rd dan and up to introduce close range combat material. Thoughts?


 
What curriculm waits until then?


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> Hmm, is it more icredible to use the term novice, than those that use the term "Master " when the entire syllabus has not been learned?
> 
> Aside form refining your material after 4th Dan do you not continue to have greater insight into the techniques?



I actually don't like the term "Master" at all and I don't use any titles other than 'Sensei'.  Outside of class, I am Alex or Mr. XXXX.  I am a fourth dan that has been authorized to teach on my own without supervision by my own instructor.  That's simple as it can get. 

Regardless of my personal status, I do feel even a lowly first dan should have a clue about what his system tries to accomplish.  It would be tragic if our theoretical first dan merely knew a conglomeration of punches and kicks but possesses no framework behind which to use them.



> I am not sure what you learned under Jhoon Rhee, since he has had different systems including Chang Hon, but a clue to what was missing from how he taught that system was the fact that it only had 20 of the 24 patterns.  Kind of like learning the alphabet and leaving out 4 letters.


Yep, less patterns.  Of course without any real applications to speak of, the forms aren't too meaningful anyway other than as an exercise of coordination, discipline, and perhaps idle tradition.  Like I said, in the old Jhoon Rhee system it wasn't any big deal to learn some new patterns.  It's not like they were really used to teach fighting concepts, nor were any of the other drills even remotely connected to the hyung.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> The same is true in martial arts. Just what have we been practicing all this time if it is to not gain fighting skills?
> 
> Respectfully said.


 
If your only goal is to learn fighting skills then learning a martial art is a huge waste of time.  
Now that I have yyour attention we would of course have to define"Martial Art" 

"We" (meaning the collective "WE" not necessarily you and I) would first have to agree on the definition. Not likely . 

For my thoughts see:  http://371078645507472465-a-1802744...GJGBN38fxpDFjv0sfIlaiuQv8adaI=&attredirects=0

Not asking you to accept my point of view. Only to get wghere I am comiong from when I say, if you only want to fight, don't learn a martial art. You are looking for something that would be better off called a "Martial Science"  Art is irrelevant.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> What curriculm waits until then?



I clarified in #37 that I referred to a hypothetical system.  Hopefully no such infamy actually exists.

I am curious about what techniques Chris referred to when he said you'd not be getting an accurate portrait if you just looked at cumulative 1st dan material.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 26, 2010)

Quarterstaff said:


> Are we talking WTF or ITF?
> 
> Perhaps it is a big assumption to think that you can complete a martial art system like Taekwon-Do?


This may be a nitpicking remark, but there is no WTF taekwondo.  The WTF neither certifies nor creates requirements that satisfy certification.  The WTF establishes a rule set under which athletes compete.  This rule set has caused athletes to adopt a number of practices that are not otherwise found in taekwondo (hands down, backward leaning upright stance, predominance of high kicks and a distinct lack of punches.  This does not dictate a taekwondo curriculum; only a rule set that really, anyone can compete under, even karateka or athletes with other martial arts backgrounds.

You have Kukki taekwondo, which consists of taegeuk and palgwe forms, with taegeuk forms being the required and palgwe forms being recognized as Kukkiwon, but not required.  There is a fairly minimal set of standards in addition to those forms. 

The Kukkiwon establishes a set of standards, not a curriculum.  School owners then build their curriculum around those standards.  

The Kukkiwon exists to certify dan grades of schools on the basis that all Kukkiwon yudanja have learned material that is required in those standards.  School owners can (and do) teach material in addition to those minimum standards.  Things like bunhae, grappling, weapons forms, etc. are all over and above those standards.

In this sense, Kukki taekwondo was never meant to be complete.  It was meant to define the area of overlap between different schools that needs to be there in order to certify a portable rank.  Nothing more.

Daniel


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I clarified in #37 that I referred to a hypothetical system. Hopefully no such infamy actually exists.
> 
> I am curious about what techniques Chris referred to when he said you'd not be getting an accurate portrait if you just looked at cumulative 1st dan material.


You asked a very simple, straightforward and legitmate question. However, it would take a great deal of time and space to answer thoroughly. I will explain why. In the 15 volume set , each pattern is preceded by a section of "new Techniques" for the pattern.  Of course to what degree they are "New" is a matter of degree. It may simpley be an open hand version of a closed handed technique, or a technique seen before performed in a different fashion or at a different level (or something much different such as a "Sweeping Kick") but then you need to understand where in another volume the parmaters are explained as having an open hand facilitates a grab, and from there determine how that might be used. 

So, to review the 14 patterns from first Dan onward and list all the techniques which did not previously appear, as well as explanations as to technical parameters and applications would be a monmentous task.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> If your only goal is to learn fighting skills then learning a martial art is a huge waste of time.
> Now that I have yyour attention we would of course have to define"Martial Art"
> 
> "We" (meaning the collective "WE" not necessarily you and I) would first have to agree on the definition. Not likely .
> ...



Yes, interesting article, but a quick glance reveals a rather arbitrary classication by you.  A Martial Science is in your words a "physical activity that uses striking, grapplying or both and may include weaponry and joint or pressure point manipulation."  It also is "concerned solely with skills necessary for surviving a physical threat, protection of oneself or others, and the ability to control or destroy an opponent as efficiently as possible."

Well, Goju-ryu has all of these, some in greater measure than others but elements are all present:  striking, grapplying or both and may include weaponry and joint or pressure point manipulation.  However, Goju-ryu is generally taught as karate-DO, so while I tend to a more fighting art interpretation than some other teachers, I do concede that fighting skills are not the only goal of the system.  There are certain things like dojo kun, meditation, and the attempt to develop harmony and balance in karate that likewise make its practice more than kicking and punching.

So is Goju-ryu a martial art or a martial science?  I think it defies your neat classification as indeed many other arts probably do.  The emphasis on self-improvement or self-defense varies by school and teacher instead of art/system.  

I would be remiss to my students if I didn't emphasize that the acquisition of useful self-defense skills are the primary reason we train.  Hopefully that's true for TKD teachers too.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Really?


 
Yeah. 



> By 1st dan, one should have been well-acquainted with the fighting concepts of the system. One can certainly learn more techniques into the black belt ranks, but it should all build on the philosophies that should have been taught from day one.


 
Built on, sure. By first dan, however, I'd argue that one doesn't fully understand the philosphies (at least not to the extent that a person who has been training for 20 years or so can).

You originally said: 



> Oh, I expect we'll get the usual 'TKD is a complete art if taught properly' remarks, so let's dispense with that red herring entirely.
> 
> I suggest people post their curriculum up to first dan.


 
BY doing so you cut off any sort of discussion of curriculum after 1st dan while belittling the idea of TKD being a complete art if taught correctly. My point is that if you're going to look at an art and see if it's complete or not you'd be better served looking at the art _in toto_ instead of just looking at what would amount to, at least form an ITF persepctive, perhaps high school. 



> If you're saying there are many more requirements in ITF TKD after 1st dan that dramatically transmute the art, I'd be less than impressed as someone tenured in martial arts. It is of course your system however.


 
Transmute the art? No, not really. But do people come to a better understanding of the principles of TKD after training longer? Sure. Are the things in the syllabus that appear after first dan building on what has preceded them? Yes, obviously. Do they contradict the previous principles? No. Do they add insight into what you've already done while teaching you more stuff? Yes. 



> It could be all of those things. This topic is fairly broad after all about whether cross-training is needed to complete TKD.


 
Then my answer stands. If you reduce "complete" to grappling then no TKD isn't complete. If anything else I've mentioned is important then you're free to make whatever judgement you want. 



> By the way, that's pretty incredible to me that you in the ITF consider a 3rd a novice black belt. Are high dan ranks so common then?


 
No, quite the opposite, all things considered. 



> In Goju-ryu karate, I am a yondan (4th) and I have learned all the material in my system. As I progress upwards in rank, it's just a matter of refining what I have been given already as well as service to the art.


 
The ITF syllabus tops out at 6th dan. Hence being considered a "master" at 7th and above. 



> When I studied TKD and I attained 2nd dan in the old Jhoon Rhee system, it was understood that I pretty much had everything under my belt too. Other than a few new hyung there wasn't anything else to learn, and given the lack of form application work, it's not like it was any big deal to memorize a handful of new patterns.


 
I'm sure that was accurate for the system you studied but, as I have pointed out before, there's more than one style of TKD and making generalizations from one's background to the art as a whole isn't necessarily going to yield accurate results. In other words, when it comes to talking about TKD maybe empty your cup a little.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 26, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> This may be a nitpicking remark, but there is no WTF taekwondo.


 
Yeah, technically the same could be said about ITF Taekwon-Do. As such it doesn't exist. It's more proer to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But ITF TKD and WTF TKD are just easy to use short hand terms for people (maybe WTF'ers could start calling it KK TKD since that would be more accurate). As long as people know that I don't see a problem with it. YMMV, of course.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2010)

> Transmute the art? No, not really. But do people come to a better understanding of the principles of TKD after training longer? Sure. Are the things in the syllabus that appear after first dan building on what has preceded them? Yes, obviously. Do they contradict the previous principles? No. Do they add insight into what you've already done while teaching you more stuff? Yes.


Well, Chris, this might just be a potato, potatoe semantic, but I submit your assertion about missing out on the full portrait of TKD if you cut off at 1st dan is actually incorrect then.  We all develop better understanding of our art after more practice.  If nothing has substantially changed in how ITF TKD chooses to handle a specific combat situation (technique and tactic) beyond 1st dan, then 1st dan in fact serves fine as a cut-off point for discussion.



> I'm sure that was accurate for the system you studied but, as I have pointed out before, there's more than one style of TKD and making generalizations from one's background to the art as a whole isn't necessarily going to yield accurate results. In other words, when it comes to talking about TKD maybe empty your cup a little.



Empty my cup?  Huh?  We all have different systems and are coming together to discuss them in common.  Obviously, we will have different perspectives based on our experiences coming in.   In your case, you've stated ITF TKD is not a complete system if we want to talk about grappling elements.  Fair enough.  That's the topic of discussion, and it seems yes, if you study ITF style and you want to add grappling you'll have to do somewhere else to get it.  Good information for all.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 26, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Yeah, technically the same could be said about ITF Taekwon-Do. As such it doesn't exist. It's more proer to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But ITF TKD and WTF TKD are just easy to use short hand terms for people (maybe WTF'ers could start calling it KK TKD since that would be more accurate). As long as people know that I don't see a problem with it. YMMV, of course.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Generally, Kukkiwon tkd is called Kukki taekwondo.  WTF is a rule set.  My point was not so much to nit pick about the difference, but to point out that firstly, there is one, and that neither the WTF rule set nor Kukki taekwondo is intended to be fully complete.

In absorbing the Kwans, the Kukkiwon established a set of forms that could be used commonly between schools of all kwan lineages, and codified the overlap.  This insured (or was intended to) that a black belt from one school would have enough overlapping skills to be considered a black belt in any other school who's kwan had signed onto the Kukkiwon.  The assumption was that each kwan already had what they considered to be a  complete system of some kind in place (complete within itself, not all encompassing).  

WTF sparring was created to have tournaments that were visually and technically different from Karate tournaments.  By its very nature, it cannot be complete.  What is commonly called Olympic TKD is essentially sport tkd under WTF rules.  If one must identify WTF taekwondo, that would be it.  But WTF taekwondo is not a martial art.  It is a martial sport designed to be interesting, challenging, and fun (and I believe that it is all three), not a comprehensive self defense art.

Daniel


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Well, Chris, this might just be a potato, potatoe semantic, but I submit your assertion about missing out on the full portrait of TKD if you cut off at 1st dan is actually incorrect then. We all develop better understanding of our art after more practice. If nothing has substantially changed in how ITF TKD chooses to handle a specific combat situation (technique and tactic) beyond 1st dan, then 1st dan in fact serves fine as a cut-off point for discussion.


 
Then I guess we'll just have to disagree. I didn't learn prone defenses in a systematic way until after I was a first dan, for instance. Did what I learned change underlying principles of TKD? No. But it certainly built on what I already knew and added to it new things. 



> Empty my cup? Huh?


 
Yes. _If_ you equate TKD with what you learned and think that completing the syllabus at 2nd dan like you did covers the entirety of TKD then I'd suggest that is an innaccurate picture of TKD as a whole. The stuff I've posted has been apparently an inadequate attempt to present a wider picture of what TKD is (at least some of it), despite your arbitrary cut off point of 1st dan.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Yes. _If_ you equate TKD with what you learned and think that completing the syllabus at 2nd dan like you did covers the entirety of TKD then I'd suggest that is an innaccurate picture of TKD as a whole. The stuff I've posted has been apparently an inadequate attempt to present a wider picture of what TKD is (at least some of it), despite your arbitrary cut off point of 1st dan.



I'm not sure how this changes what I said above at all.  We all have different perspectives.  That's a given and shouldn't even be a sticking point.  You spoke for your piece of TKD and I did for mine.  End of story.



> Then I guess we'll just have to disagree. I didn't learn prone defenses in a systematic way until after I was a first dan, for instance. Did what I learned change underlying principles of TKD? No. But it certainly built on what I already knew and added to it new things.


How long after first dan?  Second, third, fourth?  I would humbly suggest that's something that should be placed in the geup rank material.  The ability to defend and get up from a prone position seems fairly key to me in a street fight.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I'm not sure how this changes what I said above at all. We all have different perspectives. That's a given and shouldn't even be a sticking point. You spoke for your piece of TKD and I did for mine. End of story.


 
I think you're missing my point, but never mind. 



> How long after first dan? Second, third, fourth? I would humbly suggest that's something that should be placed in the geup rank material. The ability to defend and get up from a prone position seems fairly key to me in a street fight.


 
I was a seocnd dan when the bulk of that material made it's appearnace. I had learned bits and pieces when I was a first dan, but this material as a whole came later.

Your opinion on what should go where in a MA's syllabus is interesting but irrelevant to the original topic of this thread ("completeness" of TKD as a MA). I can only assume in your own style they get into a ground game at a fairly low rank given your opinion. 

As for it being a key ability in a street fight, I suppose that would depend on whether or not you buy into the Gracies' stats about 90%+ fights ending up on the ground (that was based on law enforcement figures, which tend to go prone due to cuffing the suspect, after all). It's certainly a good ability to have, but I'd say knife work would be more helpful (and easier) to acquire. YMMV. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> I think you're missing my point, but never mind.



Chris, am I wrong in detecting a bit of snippiness on your part?  If so, please don't take any of this the wrong way.  I am outspoken and it's hard to convey tone through the written word.



> I was a seocnd dan when the bulk of that material made it's appearnace. I had learned bits and pieces when I was a first dan, but this material as a whole came later.
> 
> Your opinion on what should go where in a MA's syllabus is interesting but irrelevant to the original topic of this thread ("completeness" of TKD as a MA). I can only assume in your own style they get into a ground game at a fairly low rank given your opinion.



I teach defenses against a mounted opponent as early as 7th kyu.  My choice - it's not something typically done in other dojos of the same style that I've visited.  As for relevance, it's certainly connected.  One of the biggest criticisms made against TKD and similar striking arts are their perceived ineffectiveness on the ground.  I'm no Gracie, but yeah I think colored belts need exposure to this material early and often.



> As for it being a key ability in a street fight, I suppose that would depend on whether or not you buy into the Gracies' stats about 90%+ fights ending up on the ground (that was based on law enforcement figures, which tend to go prone due to cuffing the suspect, after all). It's certainly a good ability to have, but I'd say knife work would be more helpful (and easier) to acquire. YMMV.



No, I don't use that stat for my reasoning.  I know from my own observation that fights frequently are started with a tackle or a sucker punch or a grab (usually as a prelude to a sucker punch).  At least one of those attacks can end with you on the ground, so it seems like a good idea to practice defending and getting up, so you can use all your cool striking/takedown techs.

Knife defense is good too.  I actually start that around 7 kyu too.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> How long after first dan?  Second, third, fourth?  I would humbly suggest that's something that should be placed in the geup rank material.  The ability to defend and get up from a prone position seems fairly key to me in a street fight.


In our hapkido curriculum, defending and getting up from a prone position comes at the very end of the geub ranks, after which the student is a dan bo for a while before testing for first dan.

It all depends I suppose on how much material is being covered.  Realistically, there is much more material to be learned in a standing position than in a prone position, and it is not unreasonable (though nor is it necessary) to require students to master those techniques first.  From what I understand, the Chang Hon system has a fairly full hoshinsul program as well as forms, one steps, three steps, and all of the various specific techniques to learn, so something is inevitably going to be at the tail end. 

Either every potentially useful technique is covered in the geub ranks and the student is a colored belt for longer or once the student is conversant in the stand up curriculum, they get their first dan in less time and learns the seated/prone defense as a dan grade, with the same quantity of material covered in the same period of time.  It is simply a question of when the black belt is awarded.

Considering that Kukki taekwondo does not even have seated/prone techniques required in their standards, it does not surprise me that the Chang Hon system puts it after black belt.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2010)

> It all depends I suppose on how much material is being covered. Realistically, there is much more material to be learned in a standing position than in a prone position, and it is not unreasonable (though nor is it necessary) to require students to master those techniques first.



Unreasonable, no.  That said, reasonable minds can also disagree.  The popularity of grappling systems only continues to grow.  It would be a mistake to not expose one's students at an early point to some of the more common situations they might face.  




> From what I understand, the Chang Hon system has a fairly full hoshinsul program as well as forms, one steps, three steps, and all of the various specific techniques to learn, so something is inevitably going to be at the tail end.


Yeah, I'd love to get a look at that.  I have some of the volumes of the Encyclopedia but I didn't really see what I was looking for.  I believe I will purchase the CD-Rom version and check it out.  Of course, that begs the question, does the Encyclopedia contain the hoshinsul program?


----------



## dortiz (Mar 26, 2010)

"From what I understand, the Chang Hon system has a fairly full hoshinsul program"

Yes, General Choi was smart enough to bring in a top Hapkido Master for this.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yeah, I'd love to get a look at that.  I have some of the volumes of the Encyclopedia but I didn't really see what I was looking for.  I believe I will purchase the CD-Rom version and check it out.  Of course, that begs the question, does the Encyclopedia contain the hoshinsul program?



Hmm, I checked my indices again tonight.  Looks like the answer is a big "Nope".  The hoshinsul must be unpublished material, at least in terms of the Encyclopedia.


----------



## Kyosanim (Mar 27, 2010)

Xue Sheng said:


> Back in my day (Pre-Olympic) real TKD it didn't need anything.... but I have been away for a very long time... did somebody lose part of it someplace



Yes we seem to have misplaced  A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to the knee and elbow strikes? The brutal kick grapples? The you punch me I poke your eye out philosophy? Real TKD is no joke, and should not be taught to children like this ATA ********.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> So is Goju-ryu a martial art or a martial science? I think it defies your neat classification as indeed many other arts probably do. The emphasis on self-improvement or self-defense varies by school and teacher instead of art/system.
> 
> .


 
How one teaches a system is not relevant to a classification of the ysystem if that person has deleted elements or added elements not generaly accepted as part of the system.  It simply changes what that person teaches. 

Again , as I said I would not presume that everyon would accept my classifications, since I basicaly made them up based upon experiences. Among them: Speaking to a former Israeli soldier about 20 years ago before  Krav Maga became Mass marketed and I asked about the Martial Art of Krav Maga, He said "What Art? There is no art to kneeing someone in the nuts. " Or Peyton Quinn at his Rocky Mountain Combat Applications training center who maintians that he does not teach a martial Art. 




For clarity to others that may not have read the article, A Martial Art would include Martial Science as part of it's elements, so you needn't say it is Martial Science but not art. From What you said the ssystem contains the neccessary elements, although youmay choose to train otr emphaisze the science parts.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> . That's the topic of discussion, and it seems yes, if you study ITF style and you want to add grappling you'll have to do somewhere else to get it. Good information for all.


 
I would say if you want a more comprehensive grappling program you may need to go somewhwere else. The USTF which is no longer ITF but was for about 30 years added basic throwing and falling to the curriculm long ago. 

Myself, figured this out in 1975, (been dabbling in Ju Jitsu since then) having had Judo as my first MA in 1971.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> The ability to defend and get up from a prone position seems fairly key to me in a street fight.


 
The ability not to end up in the prone position is key way before defending and getting up. One of the best drills I learned for theis was at a Rickson Gracie Workshop. 

BTW  IMNSHO the idea that 90% of street fights end up on the ground is BS. (My review of all the "Caught on tape" real world attacks confirms my opinion)   Perhaps 90% end up with one fight on the ground.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 27, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> The ability not to end up in the prone position is key way before defending and getting up. One of the best drills I learned for theis was at a Rickson Gracie Workshop.



Probably true for a karate-ka or TKDist.



> BTW  IMNSHO the idea that 90% of street fights end up on the ground is BS. (My review of all the "Caught on tape" real world attacks confirms my opinion)   Perhaps 90% end up with one fight on the ground.



Yes, I hope you realize I wasn't the one that brought that stat up.  It's a bit of a strawman from someone else.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Chris, am I wrong in detecting a bit of snippiness on your part? If so, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I am outspoken and it's hard to convey tone through the written word.


 
Yes, you are wrong.  



> I teach defenses against a mounted opponent as early as 7th kyu. My choice - it's not something typically done in other dojos of the same style that I've visited.


 
So, it's not indicative of your style, then? When are these techniques generally taught? (You're a karateka, but I can't recall what style you practice; do you mind telling me again?) 



> As for relevance, it's certainly connected. One of the biggest criticisms made against TKD and similar striking arts are their perceived ineffectiveness on the ground. I'm no Gracie, but yeah I think colored belts need exposure to this material early and often.


 
The general thinking in most stand up systems seems to be that the students need to become rather proficient in stand-up fighting, including avoiding going prone, before going to a ground game. 



> No, I don't use that stat for my reasoning. I know from my own observation that fights frequently are started with a tackle or a sucker punch or a grab (usually as a prelude to a sucker punch). At least one of those attacks can end with you on the ground, so it seems like a good idea to practice defending and getting up, so you can use all your cool striking/takedown techs.


 
On the other hand, if people actually trained to be aware of their surroundings I think a lot of this would be unnecessary (and all of our observations really don't amount to more than anecdotal evidence; like mine of observing fights frequently starting with sucker punches but not ending up on the ground). I believe the term in Japanese is "zanshin" (not sure if there's a Korean equivalent; "concentration" isn't really what I'm looking for, as it should be a dispersed awareness).



> Knife defense is good too. I actually start that around 7 kyu too.


 
Is that part of your karate style or an ad on from kobudo, perhaps?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Hmm, I checked my indices again tonight. Looks like the answer is a big "Nope". The hoshinsul must be unpublished material, at least in terms of the Encyclopedia.


 
Check again. It's been present in all of his books since the 1972 textbook. 

There are hosinsul techniques in both the 15 volume encyclopedia and the condensed version.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, I hope you realize I wasn't the one that brought that stat up. It's a bit of a strawman from someone else.


 
I was th eone who brought it up, and not as a strawman. As I originally posted: 

"As for it being a key ability in a street fight, I suppose that would depend on whether or not you buy into the Gracies' stats about 90%+ fights ending up on the ground (that was based on law enforcement figures, which tend to go prone due to cuffing the suspect, after all). It's certainly a good ability to have, but I'd say knife work would be more helpful (and easier) to acquire. YMMV."

In other words, I don't see it as being "a key ability" for street self defense but rather I see it as a good skill to have. The Gracies did a great marketing job when they hit the U.S. scene and many people simply accepted what they said. That doesn't take away from the effectiveness of their techniques, but it does point out the statistics they were using aren't for street fights as a whole. Most civilians I know aren't trying to put their aggressor prone to cuff them. Nor are there any statistics on what happens in a street fight between two non-law enforcement officers, as far as I know. 

You can see it as a key ability if you want, but as I stated in a previous post observation on a personal level is simply anecdotal evidence. Grappling is good to be able to do, but there's really no way of _knowing_ how common a ground game is going to be in a real fight. 

I will say, however, that what happens in a fight a specific person is involved in will greatly depend on what kind of strategy, tactics and techniques with which that person is familiar. Thus if a person has spent a great deal of time working on take downs and grappling it seems likely that when they are in a confrontation it will end up on the ground. If they have spent more time working on controlling the distance, striking and kicking they're going to finish things from their feet. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 27, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> In our hapkido curriculum, defending and getting up from a prone position comes at the very end of the geub ranks, after which the student is a dan bo for a while before testing for first dan.
> 
> It all depends I suppose on how much material is being covered. Realistically, there is much more material to be learned in a standing position than in a prone position, and it is not unreasonable (though nor is it necessary) to require students to master those techniques first. From what I understand, the Chang Hon system has a fairly full hoshinsul program as well as forms, one steps, three steps, and all of the various specific techniques to learn, so something is inevitably going to be at the tail end.
> 
> ...


 
Best post on the topic thus far. Thanks!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 27, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Check again. It's been present in all of his books since the 1972 textbook.
> 
> There are hosinsul techniques in both the 15 volume encyclopedia and the condensed version.
> 
> ...



I'll respond to the rest of your posts as I get the chance this weekend.  In the meantime, could you kindly point me to a specific volume and page number for an example of the hoshinsul?  I'm baffled, thumbing through the volumes I have.  Looks like vol 8-15 are all patterns, surely you don't mean these?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I'll respond to the rest of your posts as I get the chance this weekend. In the meantime, could you kindly point me to a specific volume and page number for an example of the hoshinsul? I'm baffled, thumbing through the volumes I have. Looks like vol 8-15 are all patterns, surely you don't mean these?


 
No, I don't. We've been discussing hosinsul, not tul right? Although I will say that there are several techniques which are covered in the volumes on tul which would qualify as hosinsul, as I'm sure you're aware. 

Anyway, you can check out the following sections of Gen. Choi's various books for examples of hosinsul:

_Taekwon-Do: The Art of Self-Defense_ (1965 edition): pp. 264-286. The influence from Gen. Choi's Shotokan background is evident here. Techniques include releasing fom a grab (and are further delineated into "when standing," "when kneeling," and "when lying down"); how to defend against sudden attack (when kneeling, when sitting cross-legged, when sitting in a chair, when sitting on an arm chair, when sitting on a bench, when lying down); how to throw the attacking opponent (when standing, when kneeling, when lying down); how to defend against and armed opponent (against a dagger, against a bayonet [he was, after all in the military], against a club, against a pole, against a pistol).

_Taekwon-Do: The Korean Art of Self-Defense_ (1972 and subsequent editions): Here you see more hapkido influence and hapkido-GM Chung, Kee Tae is pictured in many of the technique examples. The above areas are all covered again.

_Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do_ (1983 and subsequent editions):
Vol. 1, pp. 228-235. Samples of self-defense technique (mostly releasing from grabs with striking counter attacks).
Vol. 5, pp. 268-375. All the areas originally covered in the 1965 text are presented here, again. This section is clearly listed in the index for vol. 5 along with a break down by subsection of techniques. Can't miss it, really. 

I can't tell you the page numbers for the hosinsul material in the condensed encyclpedia because I don't own a copy but I've seen it in there many times when I've worked on hosinsul with my instructor. Would you like me to call him for the information?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 27, 2010)

Oh, the 1972 textbook covers this material on pp. 465-490.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## granfire (Mar 27, 2010)

I have not (yet) made my way through 5 pages of replies...

I think there is not a single activity that does not profit from a complimentary activity.

There is cardio work, flexibility, strength...not to mention the mental aspect.

There are various ways to impact the body, some are more forgiving than others, 'extending the life' of joints etc, not to mention avpiding the burnout factor.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Unreasonable, no.  That said, reasonable minds can also disagree.  The popularity of grappling systems only continues to grow.  It would be a mistake to not expose one's students at an early point to some of the more common situations they might face.


Face in what?  

Wrestlers and grapplers do not seem to be what is commonly faced.  Gang members with guns are more likely.

As Earl already stated, it is much more productive to keep from going to the ground than it is to be good at rolling around once your there.  Not to mention that the popular grappling systems are every bit as sports geared as WTF sparring and not exactly what one is going to face outside of a competitive venue.

Defenses against multiple foes, knives, and hand held weapons are probably more of a requirement.  The problem here is that, particularly with regards to weapon defenses, many such defenses do not translate well outside of the studio.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 27, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Face in what?
> 
> Wrestlers and grapplers do not seem to be what is commonly faced.  Gang members with guns are more likely.
> 
> As Earl already stated, it is much more productive to keep from going to the ground than it is to be good at rolling around once your there. Not to mention that the popular grappling systems are every bit as sports geared as WTF sparring and not exactly what one is going to face outside of a competitive venue.



Pushing, pulling, grabbing, tackling are all common attacks that can force one to the ground.  This without even mentioning the possibility of a MMA ripple effect into the general population.  I don't think it's outlandish to believe that more and more people will be familiar with something like double leg wraps as MMA continues to grow in popularity, and I think it's only prudent to prepare for it.   While good systems do have training vs. punches, kicks, clubs, knives, etc., they should also be prepared to 'modernise' as necessary.  It's just adding one more needed facet IMO.  



> Defenses against multiple foes, knives, and hand held weapons are probably more of a requirement.  The problem here is that, particularly with regards to weapon defenses, many such defenses do not translate well outside of the studio.
> Daniel


MORE of a requirement?  I don't know about that.  They are all important, ground defense included.  For those of us who teach kids in suburbia, I argue that learning how to get off the ground against a mounted foe may actually be more practical than drilling vs. knives or multiple assailants.  Those of us who live in higher crime areas may find the opposite.  In short, it's a mistake to conclude that ground defense is not necessary or not as important.  I realize we all have limited time to teach and the curriculum will reflect that.  It's fine if we decide ground defense is something to sacrifice for other goals...That said, let's be aware a REAL sacrifice is being made and possibly keep an open mind towards adjustment if need be.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 27, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Earl Weiss* 

 
_The ability not to end up in the prone position is key way before defending and getting up. One of the best drills I learned for theis was at a Rickson Gracie Workshop. _

Probably true for a karate-ka or TKDist.


Well, apparently also true for BJJ stylists since I have had several say at their workshops that going to the ground in a self defense situation is a bad idea.  Aside from having this in common, they had something else in common as well, .... their last names.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Pushing, pulling, grabbing, tackling are all common attacks that can force one to the ground.  This without even mentioning the possibility of a MMA ripple effect into the general population.  I don't think it's outlandish to believe that more and more people will be familiar with something like double leg wraps as MMA continues to grow in popularity, and I think it's only prudent to prepare for it.   While good systems do have training vs. punches, kicks, clubs, knives, etc., they should also be prepared to 'modernise' as necessary.  It's just adding one more needed facet IMO.
> 
> MORE of a requirement?  I don't know about that.  They are all important, ground defense included.  For those of us who teach kids in suburbia, I argue that learning how to get off the ground against a mounted foe may actually be more practical than drilling vs. knives or multiple assailants.  Those of us who live in higher crime areas may find the opposite.  In short, it's a mistake to conclude that ground defense is not necessary or not as important.  I realize we all have limited time to teach and the curriculum will reflect that.  It's fine if we decide ground defense is something to sacrifice for other goals...That said, let's be aware a REAL sacrifice is being made and possibly keep an open mind towards adjustment if need be.



I did not say that they are not necessary or important; only not as important as what you do while still standing up.  And yes, they are all important; there is a reason that I do hapkido after all. 

But you can only learn but so much at a time, or at least only learn so much effectively.  Because of that, schools prioritize their curriculum, placing the most all around useful (i.e. basics) first.  

Taekwondo is a classical long fisty stand up striking style, and it is designed to be self defense via strikes primarily.  I see no reason that it would be surprising to see seated/prone defenses taught later in the curriculum, even after first dan.  

I have serious doubts about any MMA ripple into the general population, at least to the degree that you would be facing MMA trained assailants.  Any ripple that would involve grappling is much more likely to come from high school wrestling, which is far more commonplace than MMA.  Considering that Judo and wrestling have been popular in this country since the early twentieth century, I really do not see MMA changing the ratio of grappling encounters.

Keep in mind that the above is my opinion; no hard data.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 27, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> Quote:
> Well, apparently also true for BJJ stylists since I have had several say at their workshops that going to the ground in a self defense situation is a bad idea.  Aside from having this in common, they had something else in common as well, .... their last names.



Yes, I agree.  There's no argument about that.  Where I seem to differ from some of you is that I believe even relative beginners should receive some instruction as to how to defend against someone on top of them.  Not in the sport sense either... Avoid damage and get to your feet asap.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 27, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> But you can only learn but so much at a time, or at least only learn so much effectively.  Because of that, schools prioritize their curriculum, placing the most all around useful (i.e. basics) first.
> 
> Taekwondo is a classical long fisty stand up striking style, and it is designed to be self defense via strikes primarily. I see no reason that it would be surprising to see seated/prone defenses taught later in the curriculum, even after first dan.



We could go round and round and round about what constitutes basics even in taekwondo.  We know from the recent evolution of sport TKD schools that TKD continues to change, sometimes even very quickly. 



> I have serious doubts about any MMA ripple into the general population, at least to the degree that you would be facing MMA trained assailants.  Any ripple that would involve grappling is much more likely to come from high school wrestling, which is far more commonplace than MMA.  Considering that Judo and wrestling have been popular in this country since the early twentieth century, I really do not see MMA changing the ratio of grappling encounters.
> 
> Keep in mind that the above is my opinion; no hard data.



I'm not even thinking about actual MMA trained athletes.  I refer to the invasion of the human consciousness... Hey, knocking guys to the ground seems to work for those UFC guys, maybe I'd do that next time I get into a fight.  You've also have to remember that many who have played contact sports instinctively drift INTO their opponents in fights.  I see it all the time in sparring with young guys - they know they are better off being in close to avoid being kicked and punched.  It's not a big reach for me at least to try to recognize and handle that instinct in my lessons.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 28, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Really?
> 
> By the way, that's pretty incredible to me that you in the ITF consider a 3rd a novice black belt. Are high dan ranks so common then?
> 
> .


 

I think part of this was due to who TKD was designed for, back in the days - pre 1965 when really only one system used the name. It was taught to Military guys. (Which is not to say it was a Military combat defense system, since it was empty hand) . It was a 2 year 940 hour or one year 1250 hour first dan program.  As such you really need to concentrate on fundamental physiical movement.  More esoteric and esthetic movements coming in later.  So, a first dan was a novice. 2nd and 3rd, a better novice


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 28, 2010)

I own neither volume which explains the confusion.  If you view the "synopsis" in the back of the Encyclopedia, it merely states vol 1 covers a "sample of self-defense techniques" and vol 5 covers sparring, which I guess doesn't tell the full detail.

In any case, I have arranged to borrow a copy of vol 5 and will certainly be interested in discussing the contents at a future date.  

Thanks for the assistance and I will reply to your posts above asap.




chrispillertkd said:


> _Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do_ (1983 and subsequent editions):
> Vol. 1, pp. 228-235. Samples of self-defense technique (mostly releasing from grabs with striking counter attacks).
> Vol. 5, pp. 268-375. All the areas originally covered in the 1965 text are presented here, again. This section is clearly listed in the index for vol. 5 along with a break down by subsection of techniques. Can't miss it, really.
> 
> ...


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, I agree. There's no argument about that. Where I seem to differ from some of you is that I believe even relative beginners should receive some instruction as to how to defend against someone on top of them. Not in the sport sense either... Avoid damage and get to your feet asap.


 
Well, we don't really differ since I actualy teach mount defenses at about the same time you do.  Falling, as a prelude to throwing comes in at 7th Kup. Since we are on the mats anyway, this is where I teach the mount defenses.   I just never considered it truly a part of TKD curriculum although General Choi's text does contain basic throws,  grappling groundwork is not present.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> We could go round and round and round about what constitutes basics even in taekwondo.  We know from the recent evolution of sport TKD schools that TKD continues to change, sometimes even very quickly.


Sport taekwondo is an entirely different activity and has no place in this discussion.  It is like comparing an F1 car to a Nascar. Both can be called cars and both have an engine and four wheels.  The similarity ends there.



dancingalone said:


> I'm not even thinking about actual MMA trained athletes.  I refer to the invasion of the human consciousness... Hey, knocking guys to the ground seems to work for those UFC guys, maybe I'd do that next time I get into a fight.  You've also have to remember that many who have played contact sports instinctively drift INTO their opponents in fights.  I see it all the time in sparring with young guys - they know they are better off being in close to avoid being kicked and punched.  It's not a big reach for me at least to try to recognize and handle that instinct in my lessons.


One of the basics of taekwondo is maintaining and controlling distance.  Also, taekwondo the art (not the foot fencing sport) has elbow and knee strikes, as well as punches for infighting and a selection of standing grapples, so an opponent getting in close should not somehow render them immune to attack.

As far as seeing guys getting knocked down and saying, 'hey, that might work', that impact on human consciousness has already been made by wrestling and football.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Sport taekwondo is an entirely different activity and has no place in this discussion.  It is like comparing an F1 car to a Nascar. Both can be called cars and both have an engine and four wheels.  The similarity ends there.



If you don't like the sport TKD analogy, throw it out.  I think the point still stands that TKD is an evolving art and that it can and will ultimately be more well-rounded with regard to close quarter work.  Born out of Shotokan karate, it now includes a wide array of kicking techs inspired by hapkido and likely Chinese MA.  There's been extensive fragmentation already of TKD as the various groups focus on their own aims.  Heck in my own little neck of the woods, I am having an impact in TKD as I am a 'special' instructor inside my friend's TKD school.  



> One of the basics of taekwondo is maintaining and controlling distance.



Actually that's a goal of ALL martial arts, even those that grapple.



> Also, taekwondo the art (not the foot fencing sport) has elbow and knee strikes, as well as punches for infighting and a selection of standing grapples, so an opponent getting in close should not somehow render them immune to attack.



Undoubtedly, although I would like to know what you mean by "standing grapples".  

The general consensus seems to be TKD lacks ground defense entirely which would be a fair criticism of most striking systems.



> As far as seeing guys getting knocked down and saying, 'hey, that might work', that impact on human consciousness has already been made by wrestling and football.



And is being emphasized even more as MMA popularity grows.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> So, it's not indicative of your style, then? When are these techniques generally taught? (You're a karateka, but I can't recall what style you practice; do you mind telling me again?)



I am foremost a Goju-ryu karate-ka, but I also study aikido seriously and I cross-train with a regular group of other martial artists, some traditional like hapkido or tukong moo sul, some who are MMA guys.  It's inevitable that I would pick up ideas or variations on technique that I might like to teach as a side dish to Goju-ryu karate.

Mounted defenses and knife defense start around 7th kyu.  I realize many think this is 'advanced' material, but IMO it's actually better to introduce them at an early time to allow the student to become more and more comfortable over time.  Arguably for women and children, mounted defense is imminently practical.



> The general thinking in most stand up systems seems to be that the students need to become rather proficient in stand-up fighting, including avoiding going prone, before going to a ground game.



Yeah, I disagree.  Knowing how to throw a punch or a kick is a totally different skill set than defending from the ground.  There's really no logical reason why it must be taught first other than instructor preference.  In my case, I'd rather expose my students early on and get them used to working in all ranges than let them get too used to hunting and pecking as some long distance arts can.

Also, I would wonder how you can teach avoiding going prone without considering the prone position itself?  They're just aspects of the same skill set.



> On the other hand, if people actually trained to be aware of their surroundings I think a lot of this would be unnecessary (and all of our observations really don't amount to more than anecdotal evidence; like mine of observing fights frequently starting with sucker punches but not ending up on the ground). I believe the term in Japanese is "zanshin" (not sure if there's a Korean equivalent; "concentration" isn't really what I'm looking for, as it should be a dispersed awareness).



I agree.  We train outdoors once a quarter to help explore this.



> Is that part of your karate style or an ad on from kobudo, perhaps?



Unfortunately no.  I learned extensive bunkai for how to take down a foe from my karate teacher, but verbatim defense techs against a wrestler was a bit sparse.  At least it wasn't nonexistent though.  Same with blade defenses.  On the other hand, I know lots of counters vs. staves, tonfa, sai, and swords (with sai).  

The bulk of my DEFENSIVE information comes from training aikido formally and other systems informally.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> If you don't like the sport TKD analogy,  throw it out.  I think the point still stands that TKD is an evolving  art and that it can and will ultimately be more well-rounded with regard  to close quarter work.  Born out of Shotokan karate, it now includes a  wide array of kicking techs inspired by hapkido and likely Chinese MA.   There's been extensive fragmentation already of TKD as the various  groups focus on their own aims.  Heck in my own little neck of the  woods, I am having an impact in TKD as I am a 'special' instructor  inside my friend's TKD school.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



MMA is merely taking the place of pro wrestling, which doesn't change the ratio; it merely alters what channel is being watched.  And football still outpaces MMA by a staggering amount, both in viewership and participation. 

Standing grapples are just that.  Guy throws punch, defender blocks, grabs, applies arm bar, all without going to the ground.  Standing grapple.  Half and full Nelsons and choke holds can also be applied standing.

Sweeps and takedowns where you stay standing and your opponent goes down are also a part of taekwondo.  Not a huge part, but knowing one or two exceedingly well should be a sufficient supplement.

TKD is not a rolling on the ground art and is geared more towards staying on your feet.  Having said that, I did learn groundwork in taekwondo.  Not very much, but a small amount.

We also learned falls and rolls back in the day.  

Yes, a goal of all MA is to control distance.  That is not any sort of secret.  My point was that it is basics, and should be well developed along with the rest of what is 'basic' in taekwondo.  Your basics in most arts conform to the 80/20 rule.  Your basics are the twenty percent of your techniques that do 80% of the work.

In taekwondo, basics are punches, both reverse punches and jabs, front kicks, side kicks, turning kicks, knee and elbow strikes, and blocks, and of course, controlling the distance in a fight, be it a ring fight or a fight for your life.  

There is a reason that boxers do relatively well outside of the ring even though they don't have any kicks or groundwork: they train a very small skill set in the combat ranges that one starts out in 100% of the time and train very, very hard to excel in that range and to control their opponent in such a way as to keep them there. 

I remember when kickboxing got big.  Schoolyard kids and street punks still got into fistfights.  Wrestling has always been big.  Weird how figure four leg-locks and suplexes didn't suddenly become a must have in everyone's arsenal.    

The fact is that going to the ground in a real fight is generally a bad idea, both for the attacker and the defender.  Knocking someone down and stomping on them is a more likely attack than any sort of weird TV inspired home made BJJ.  

And falling or rolling and getting up after being knocked down is about the limit of the groundwork that I got in taekwondo.  I have gotten more in hapkido, though not anything as sophisticated as in BJJ.

In the end, a skilled practitioner of any art does not need a huge quantity of techniques in any range.  Once you get to a certain point, you should be able to figure out how to apply various techniques in different situations.  MMA is a good example of this actually, but it applies to other arts as well.

Daniel


----------



## dortiz (Mar 29, 2010)

"In the end, a skilled practitioner of any art does not need a huge quantity of techniques in any range. Once you get to a certain point, you should be able to figure out how to apply various techniques in different situations. MMA is a good example of this actually, but it applies to other arts as well."

Ding Dind Ding!

While I agree the more rounded the better in truth the best fighters are Masters oif a few core techniques. All the greatest fighters had their signature techniques that were so honed they meant the end for the opponent.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> MMA is merely taking the place of pro wrestling, which doesn't change the ratio; it merely alters what channel is being watched.  And football still outpaces MMA by a staggering amount, both in viewership and participation.



Yes football  > MMA in popularity.  However I do think you are overly discounting the effect of MMA has on the general trends in combat.  People watch pro wrestling as entertainment.  Surely no one takes the moves in 'rastling' on a serious level.  Von Erich Iron Claw, anyone?  

Meanwhile, we can see that even the US Marines have added elements of BJJ into their Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP).  And at least in my area, the MMA gyms and BJJ schools are doing well.  I truly don't understand your perspective on this, Daniel.  I see the influence drifting quite readily into daily life.



> Standing grapples are just that.  Guy throws punch, defender blocks, grabs, applies arm bar, all without going to the ground.  Standing grapple.  Half and full Nelsons and choke holds can also be applied standing.
> 
> Sweeps and takedowns where you stay standing and your opponent goes down are also a part of taekwondo.  Not a huge part, but knowing one or two exceedingly well should be a sufficient supplement.
> 
> ...



Well, then you've identified your vision of TKD as much of what everyone including myself thinks it is:  A solid system that needs some cross-training in ground work in order to be complete, going back to the thread topic.




> Yes, a goal of all MA is to control distance.  That is not any sort of secret.  My point was that it is basics, and should be well developed along with the rest of what is 'basic' in taekwondo.  Your basics in most arts conform to the 80/20 rule.  Your basics are the twenty percent of your techniques that do 80% of the work.
> 
> In taekwondo, basics are punches, both reverse punches and jabs, front kicks, side kicks, turning kicks, knee and elbow strikes, and blocks, and of course, controlling the distance in a fight, be it a ring fight or a fight for your life.
> 
> ...



Reading through these paragraphs, I can't help but think you got the wrong idea about what I support.  I don't believe in training to roll around on the ground looking for a submission.  That's the MMA sport.

I believe since there's a chance in self-defense you can find yourself prone on the floor either on your back or on your belly with a foe pounding away on you, you should devote some of your training time to that.  Maybe if you're a TKDist, you might choose to spend only a small fraction of your training on that.  Fine.  I myself would suggest exposing even beginners to these drills, and the amount of time spent should be enough to be credible.



> In the end, a skilled practitioner of any art does not need a huge quantity of techniques in any range.  Once you get to a certain point, you should be able to figure out how to apply various techniques in different situations.  MMA is a good example of this actually, but it applies to other arts as well.



Yep.  Let's apply this maxim to ground defense though.  If you've never practiced against a mounted opponent, I'd say it's a gaping hole in your repertoire.  I've learned bunkai from kata like naihanchi which arguably can be used as ground defense.  Still it means nothing if you don't practice it on the ground with a mounted partner.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yes football  > MMA in popularity.  However I do think you are overly discounting the effect of MMA has on the general trends in combat.  People watch pro wrestling as entertainment.  Surely no one takes the moves in 'rastling' on a serious level.  Von Erich Iron Claw, anyone?


There was a time when they did.  WCW still was taken semi seriously in the early nineties.  The major issue with pro wrestling until about a decade ago (likely still the same, but I have not watched it in about a decade) was not that the moves are not real; many of them are.  The main issue is that the outcome is predetermined.  That and the 'Days of our lives' meets Jerry Springer theme that seems to have taken over.  Once again, the ratio is not going to change.  The viewership simply has moved, precisely because MMA is offering what the WWF and WCW were perceived to be offering at one time.  



dancingalone said:


> Meanwhile, we can see that even the US Marines have added elements of BJJ into their Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP).  And at least in my area, the MMA gyms and BJJ schools are doing well.  I truly don't understand your perspective on this, Daniel.  I see the influence drifting quite readily into daily life.


Those schools are doing well partly due to the popularity of the UFC and the popularity of MMA on television, but martial arts schools do not accurately reflect the general public.  The marines added it to foster competitive spirit, not because it is particularly practical on the battlefield.  And I seriously doubt that the marines were devoid of prone defense before BJJ became popular.



dancingalone said:


> Well, then you've identified your vision of TKD as much of what everyone including myself thinks it is:  A solid system that *needs* some cross-training in ground work in order to be complete, going back to the thread topic.


Not quite what I said.  

I never discourage cross training, as I think that it is a good idea no matter what system you practice.  But no, I do not feel that taekwondo *needs* it.  Also, it depends on what you mean by 'complete', as realistically, no system will ever really be fully comprehensive with zero perceived holes.  A technique for every situation does not necessarily equal completeness, particularly if you cannot train to be top notch in the entire system.   

What Taekwondo needs in order to be a complete system is to spin the foot fencing sport off entirely so that taekwondo students are focused on actual self defense and the foot fencers can train to foot fence without being compared to SD training.



dancingalone said:


> Reading through these paragraphs, I can't help but think you got the wrong idea about what I support.  I don't believe in training to roll around on the ground looking for a submission.  That's the MMA sport.


Sorry, but MMA = sport.  Yes, I realize that a school can say "mixed martial arts" to refer to teaching a blending of arts, but those 'MMA' schools that you referenced as doing well are competitive sport.  BJJ, by the way, is essentially sport as well (yes, I realize that it has some practical application as well).



dancingalone said:


> I believe since there's a chance in self-defense you can find yourself prone on the floor either on your back or on your belly with a foe pounding away on you, you should devote some of your training time to that.  Maybe if you're a TKDist, you might choose to spend only a small fraction of your training on that.  Fine.  I myself would suggest exposing even beginners to these drills, and the amount of time spent should be enough to be credible.


Sure you could.  And that is found in the hoshinsul that was mentioned several times previously in this thread.  While I am not ITF and never have been, there was an element of that in taekwondo when I took it in years past.  Sadly, most TKD schools do not teach anything more than standing one steps, forms, and foot fencing.



dancingalone said:


> Yep.  Let's apply this maxim to ground defense though.  If you've never practiced against a mounted opponent, I'd say it's a gaping hole in your repertoire.  I've learned bunkai from kata like naihanchi which arguably can be used as ground defense.  Still it means nothing if you don't practice it on the ground with a mounted partner.


Now you have identified an issue with training methodology versus curriculum content.

Incidentally, taekwondo schools are notoriously bad about teaching bun hae (the Korean term bunkai), which is why I ended up transitioning to hapkido.  It was *not *an issue of content that caused my shift, but the issue of training methodology narrowing to one steps, forms and foot fencing and away from practical SD, which _was_ taught in years past when I first took up taekwondo.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2010)

I would like to follow up my last post by saying that there are numerous training issue that need badly to be addressed in taekwondo at this point in time, much of which is the result of WTF sport and olympic inclusion, as well as the rampant commercialization of the art.  

People who make statements regarding the completeness of taekwondo generally are not practitioners of the art.  They are not off in their assessment that there are elements that are simply not addressed by most taekwondo schools, but the assumption is that the content simply does not exist within the art, which is really not correct.

Frankly, taekwondo is in complete disarray as an art.  The sport is pretty well locked down and does well, but because it shares the same name and is taught alongside the art, it has contributed to the problem.  The sport requires the strong development of specific skill that are geared almost entirely towards competing under a unique rule set.  It is much like the difference between kendo and kenjutsu, except that the difference is actually much greater than between kendo and kenjutsu.  Development of those unique skills requires a great degree of focus and leaves little room to develop the rest.  There is a reason that kendo and kenjutsu are taught as separate arts.  Likewise, WTF sport taekwondo should be taught as a separate exclusive art and taekwondo should be taught as a separate and exclusive art.  Perhaps the sport should be called tae sul? 

Hate to say it, but the Kukkiwon is the primary culprit for this disarray.  They have done a very poor job of maintaining the integrity of the art, though they have done a wonderful job as a certification agency.  Unfortunately, effectiveness in the one does not equate to effectiveness in the other.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> There was a time when they did.  WCW still was taken semi seriously in the early nineties.  The major issue with pro wrestling until about a decade ago (likely still the same, but I have not watched it in about a decade) was not that the moves are not real; many of them are.  The main issue is that the outcome is predetermined.  That and the 'Days of our lives' meets Jerry Springer theme that seems to have taken over.  Once again, the ratio is not going to change.  The viewership simply has moved, precisely because MMA is offering what the WWF and WCW were perceived to be offering at one time.



I can see you're not an MMA fan.  I will respectfully disagree with you on this.  I do see the real possibility that MMA would influence the lay person.



> Those schools are doing well partly due to the popularity of the UFC and the popularity of MMA on television, but martial arts schools do not accurately reflect the general public.  The marines added it to foster competitive spirit, not because it is particularly practical on the battlefield.  And I seriously doubt that the marines were devoid of prone defense before BJJ became popular.



I always hear anecdotally that the unarmed combat taught in our military are actually quite limited.  I don't know for myself first hand.  Regardless, I bring up the MCMAP as an example of MMA popularity filtering itself into mainstream institutions... That was the point instead of arguing that the Marines didn't have prone defense before adding BJJ.



> I never discourage cross training, as I think that it is a good idea no matter what system you practice.  But no, I do not feel that taekwondo *needs* it.  Also, it depends on what you mean by 'complete', as realistically, no system will ever really be fully comprehensive with zero perceived holes.  A technique for every situation does not necessarily equal completeness, particularly if you cannot train to be top notch in the entire system.



Well, I think I already defined what I thought 'complete' meant above somewhere:  training for unarmed effectiveness in all ranges.  That seems sufficiently narrowed to where one can start using adjectives like comprehensive.



> What Taekwondo needs in order to be a complete system is to spin the foot fencing sport off entirely so that taekwondo students are focused on actual self defense and the foot fencers can train to foot fence without being compared to SD training.



OK.  My preference would be to change the rules so that the sport and the self-defense sides need not be mutually exclusive.



> Sorry, but MMA = sport.  Yes, I realize that a school can say "mixed martial arts" to refer to teaching a blending of arts, but those 'MMA' schools that you referenced as doing well are competitive sport.  BJJ, by the way, is essentially sport as well (yes, I realize that it has some practical application as well).



OK, but again surely you don't think I am advocating to train for sport?  I said "I don't believe in training to roll around on the ground looking for a submission.  That's the MMA sport."  I also said above in a reply to Mr. Weiss that "...I believe even relative beginners should receive some instruction as to how to defend against someone on top of them. Not in the sport sense either... Avoid damage and get to your feet asap."



> Sure you could.  And that is found in the hoshinsul that was mentioned several times previously in this thread.  While I am not ITF and never have been, there was an element of that in taekwondo when I took it in years past.  Sadly, most TKD schools do not teach anything more than standing one steps, forms, and foot fencing.



I am eagerly awaiting the loan of Vol 5 of the Encyclopedia, but I am going to go out on a limb and guess that I won't see any mounted ground self-defense in the book.  Maybe Mr. Spiller or Mr. Weiss can jump in and correct me if I am wrong.



> Now you have identified an issue with training methodology versus curriculum content.



Have I?  If it is not taught and drilled, it is not in the curriculum, period.    



> Incidentally, taekwondo schools are notoriously bad about teaching bun hae (the Korean term bunkai), which is why I ended up transitioning to hapkido.  It was *not *an issue of content that caused my shift, but the issue of training methodology narrowing to one steps, forms and foot fencing and away from practical SD, which _was_ taught in years past when I first took up taekwondo.



Many karate schools sadly have the same problem.  Everyone says they practice bunkai, but they really mean they practice kata and are TOLD not TAUGHT some base-level information on what the movement means.  Luckily there's still some excellent karate taught here and there.  You just have to know what you're looking for or you have to be plain lucky to stumble upon it.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I  They are not off in their assessment that there are elements that are simply not addressed by most taekwondo schools, but the assumption is that the content simply does not exist within the art, which is really not correct.



Well this is partially why I suggested people post their curricula up to first dan.  That would seem a semi-rational point to discuss what is and isn't within taekwondo, but we got a bit bogged down with what dan rank should be the dividing line.

Let's refocus though.  What do we mean by exist within the art?  Is there any validity to the statement that TKD has this or that, if in main the majority of TKDist never practice it?  

Let me use another example, since TKD and grappling can be polarizing.  Consider pressure points and the instruction for their usage codified in the older Okinawan karate kata.  The Bubushi even has the old chart we frequently see copied and reprinted of the human body and all of the main pressure points.  So if you practice kata, you could 'argue' that pressure point manipulation is part of your art.  But the reality is something different, if you never actually delve into the subject properly in your daily practice.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I can see you're not an MMA fan.  I will respectfully disagree with you on this.  I do see the real possibility that MMA would influence the lay person.


My status as a fan or not a fan really is immaterial.  I am not an MMA detractor, however.  

Regardless, all that the lay person sees is a cage preventing the crap that goes on in wrestling (interference from managers, folding chair-jutsu, etc.) and two guys either rolling around, punching and kicking, or both.  Which is essentially what they see in wrestling.  I am sorry, but I have no faith in the lay person to turn what they see on television into anything remotely useful.  Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.



dancingalone said:


> I always hear anecdotally that the unarmed combat taught in our military are actually quite limited.  I don't know for myself first hand.  Regardless, I bring up the MCMAP as an example of MMA popularity filtering itself into mainstream institutions... That was the point instead of arguing that the Marines didn't have prone defense before adding BJJ.


I never said nor implied that the unarmed combat taught in the military is limited.  I said that the purpose of BJJ being added was to foster competitive spirit.  That was told to me by more than one marine.  Not that any of them complained about it.  Quite the contrary.    



dancingalone said:


> Well, I think I already defined what I thought 'complete' meant above somewhere:  training for unarmed effectiveness in all ranges.  That seems sufficiently narrowed to where one can start using adjectives like comprehensive.


Fair enough, and I would agree with that for the most part.  The question then becomes whether or not such defenses can be found within the art.



dancingalone said:


> OK.  My preference would be to change the rules so that the sport and the self-defense sides need not be mutually exclusive.


I agree, but because it will never happen, so I have stopped suggesting it.  The sport is far too specialized and olympic inclusion has virtually guaranteed that it will never, ever go back to its roots.  In fact olympic inclusion has virtually guaranteed that it is the art that would need a name change.



dancingalone said:


> OK, but again surely you don't think I am advocating to train for sport?  I said "I don't believe in training to roll around on the ground looking for a submission.  That's the MMA sport."  I also said above in a reply to Mr. Weiss that "...I believe even relative beginners should receive some instruction as to how to defend against someone on top of them. Not in the sport sense either... *Avoid damage and get to your feet asap*."


That last part I will agree with.



dancingalone said:


> I am eagerly awaiting the loan of Vol 5 of the Encyclopedia, but I am going to go out on a limb and guess that I won't see any mounted ground self-defense in the book.  Maybe Mr. Spiller or Mr. Weiss can jump in and correct me if I am wrong.


Not having any volume of the encyclopedia, I cannot answer that.



dancingalone said:


> Have I?  If it is not taught and drilled, it is not in the curriculum, period.


Yes, you have.  And therein lies the problem.  Most of what is actually part of taekwondo is generally not taught to either any great degree or at all in most schools.  Which brings us to...    



dancingalone said:


> Many karate schools sadly have the same problem.  Everyone says they practice bunkai, but they really mean they practice kata and are TOLD not TAUGHT some base-level information on what the movement means.  Luckily there's still some excellent karate taught here and there.  You just have to know what you're looking for or you have to be plain lucky to stumble upon it.


At least in karate they tell you.  In taekwondo, you just learn the form in most schools with no application beyond the obvious being discussed.  After practicing hapkido, I can find a lot within the taegeuk forms that would not be readily apparent.  

Frankly, at least in US schools, I feel that many of these skills have simply been lost in the process of taekwondo's commercialization.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Well this is partially why I suggested people post their curricula up to first dan.  That would seem a semi-rational point to discuss what is and isn't within taekwondo, but we got a bit bogged down with what dan rank should be the dividing line.


Dan rank is almost irrelevant in taekwondo.  Most schools, from what I can see, are sport focused and the student is into dan grades in 18 to 24 months.  While most karate schools (from what I gather) are more along the lines of four years.

Neither length of time is inherently good or bad, so long as the material all gets taught.  



dancingalone said:


> Let's refocus though.  What do we mean by exist within the art?  Is there any validity to the statement that TKD has this or that, if in main the majority of TKDist never practice it?


In the technical sense, yes the statement is valid, though in a practical sense, it most likely is not in most schools.

Daniel


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Well this is partially why I suggested people post their curricula up to first dan. That would seem a semi-rational point to discuss what is and isn't within taekwondo, but we got a bit bogged down with what dan rank should be the dividing line.


 
Actually we got bogged down because you made an arbitrary cut off which disqualifies a good portion of material. Doing so could possibly change the form of the conversation since you apparently only want a limited amount of what constitutes a style brought up. Perhaps this is the result of your own background as you mentioned by 2nd dan in the Joon Rhee system you were told you had pretty much learned everything. This might be true for that particular style but I would hesitate to say it would hold true across the board.



> Let's refocus though. What do we mean by exist within the art?


 
The answer seems fairly obvious to me. It means that the techniques exist as a formal part of the style in question. 

I know people here occasionally like to ignore the distinction between the formal syllabus of the art and what a person learns or teaches if we're talking about something "existing in" an _art_ then it would be best if we looked at the art as a whole, no? 



> Is there any validity to the statement that TKD has this or that, if in main the majority of TKDist never practice it?


 
Of course. People not knowing a portion of the style they study (whether it's TKD or any other MA) is irrelevant if you actually want to talk about the _style_, IMNSHO. In some of the koryu or some of the more esoteric CMA's some students will simply never learn the entire system. That does't mean the style in question doesn't contain the techniques or concepts which they haven't been taught. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I am foremost a Goju-ryu karate-ka, but I also study aikido seriously and I cross-train with a regular group of other martial artists, some traditional like hapkido or tukong moo sul, some who are MMA guys. It's inevitable that I would pick up ideas or variations on technique that I might like to teach as a side dish to Goju-ryu karate.


 
My original question was: "So, it's not indicative of your style, then? When are these techniques generally taught?" It appears that the answer is no, since you're a goju karateka. Nothing wrong with that, of course, I just find it interesting that this is a thread about TKD _qua_ TKD and yet you're introducing things into Goju fom an outside source. In a way that's actually pretty Okinawan since there's all those stories about people going to a variety of teachers to learn a variety of skills. From my limited experience Okinawan karate seems much less systematized than, say, the ITF. You have many different Goju orgs, for example, all teching the same style but with different emphases. Gen. Choi, conversely, was quite adamant that if you wanted to do TKD you should do it his way (at the same time he was fairly open minded about technique applications).  



> Yeah, I disagree. Knowing how to throw a punch or a kick is a totally different skill set than defending from the ground.


 
There's more to stand up fighting than knowing how the punch or kick. Evading, blocking, contorlling the distance, sweeping, throwing, foot tackling, body dropping, dodging, jumping, shifting, etc. You're simply taking one or (at most) two facets of stand up fighting and loking at things from that perspective. There's a ton more to it than that.  



> There's really no logical reason why it must be taught first other than instructor preference.


 
Oh, sure there is, you just disagree with it. Every style focuses on something as its central doctrine. As a necessity other things get moved to the periphery as people gain expertise first in the central doctrine. Only later do they pick up skills that are more on the periphery. You focus on other things as your central doctrine, that's all. Or you simply allow your students to take more time at becoming proficient at it since you seem to introduce them to a wider array of techniques earlier. 



> In my case, I'd rather expose my students early on and get them used to working in all ranges than let them get too used to hunting and pecking as some long distance arts can.


 
Right. You have a different central doctrine than Taekwon-Do. But that doesn't mean there's "no logical reason" to put ground work after stand up fighting (and, for the record, I don't think anyone has argued it _must_ be that way, which is what you said in your comment quoted above; that's just an inaccurate statement). Suer there are, you just disagree with them. 



> Also, I would wonder how you can teach avoiding going prone without considering the prone position itself? They're just aspects of the same skill set.


 
If you're considering the prone position itself you're no longer talking about _acoiding_ going prone, are you? You're already there. Now you can talk about getting up fom the prone position. But those are two different things.  



> Unfortunately no. I learned extensive bunkai for how to take down a foe from my karate teacher, but verbatim defense techs against a wrestler was a bit sparse. At least it wasn't nonexistent though. Same with blade defenses. On the other hand, I know lots of counters vs. staves, tonfa, sai, and swords (with sai).


 
So, would you therefore say that Goju is an incomplete art?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Actually we got bogged down because you made an arbitrary cut off which disqualifies a good portion of material. Doing so could possibly change the form of the conversation since you apparently only want a limited amount of what constitutes a style brought up. Perhaps this is the result of your own background as you mentioned by 2nd dan in the Joon Rhee system you were told you had pretty much learned everything. This might be true for that particular style but I would hesitate to say it would hold true across the board.



The whole point to the first dan thing was to gather data on the techniques taught to a reasonable amount of people who've invested sufficiently into training.  I don't want to throw in the material not commonly taught - I don't want to look at the uber-master techniques that are by definition confined to a small amount of people.

Why not?  Well, arguably because it's not mainstream at all and doesn't present a good view of what taekwondo commonly is.  If you're saying a lot of people reach 2nd and 3rd dan in your system and it's not rare territory, then by all means talk about it.  The goal is to keep the discussion to freely available TKD as nebulous as that term might be. 




> The answer seems fairly obvious to me. It means that the techniques exist as a formal part of the style in question.
> 
> I know people here occasionally like to ignore the distinction between the formal syllabus of the art and what a person learns or teaches if we're talking about something "existing in" an _art_ then it would be best if we looked at the art as a whole, no?


Well, that's precisely the argument I am making above with Daniel.   Fighting systems are living instruments.  Is the definition of an art made by a fistful of seniors or is it the evolving ebb and flow of what occurs in daily practice by the much greater body of practitioners?  I believe I understand your answer.  I hope in some small way to provoke some thought on the other side.



> Of course. People not knowing a portion of the style they study (whether it's TKD or any other MA) is irrelevant if you actually want to talk about the _style_, IMNSHO. In some of the koryu or some of the more esoteric CMA's some students will simply never learn the entire system. That does't mean the style in question doesn't contain the techniques or concepts which they haven't been taught.



In comparing other styles, you have to consider whether the new information taught at the higher levels really differ all that much from the base material or not.  In Goju, it can.  And I understand secondhand, that the gap can be an even greater chasm in CMAs.  I thought we had agreed above that it did not in TKD though.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> My original question was: "So, it's not indicative of your style, then? When are these techniques generally taught?" It appears that the answer is no, since you're a goju karateka. Nothing wrong with that, of course, I just find it interesting that this is a thread about TKD _qua_ TKD and yet you're introducing things into Goju fom an outside source. In a way that's actually pretty Okinawan since there's all those stories about people going to a variety of teachers to learn a variety of skills. From my limited experience Okinawan karate seems much less systematized than, say, the ITF. You have many different Goju orgs, for example, all teching the same style but with different emphases. Gen. Choi, conversely, was quite adamant that if you wanted to do TKD you should do it his way (at the same time he was fairly open minded about technique applications).



Yes, the Goju world is less than homogeneous, although I believe TKD is similarly diverging.  My lineage goes back to the Jundokan and Meibuken lines, although my sensei is fairly eclectic, dabbling into some Shorin-ryu too.  I rejoice in the diversity as meeting up with another Goju stylist is a fun opportunity to share kata and bunkai.  Frequently, they have a different interesting spin.



> There's more to stand up fighting than knowing how the punch or kick. Evading, blocking, contorlling the distance, sweeping, throwing, foot tackling, body dropping, dodging, jumping, shifting, etc. You're simply taking one or (at most) two facets of stand up fighting and loking at things from that perspective. There's a ton more to it than that.



I never said there wasn't.  I just said the skill sets for ground defense are entirely different from punching and kicking.  You don't disagree with that statement, do you? 



> Oh, sure there is, you just disagree with it. Every style focuses on something as its central doctrine. As a necessity other things get moved to the periphery as people gain expertise first in the central doctrine. Only later do they pick up skills that are more on the periphery. You focus on other things as your central doctrine, that's all. Or you simply allow your students to take more time at becoming proficient at it since you seem to introduce them to a wider array of techniques earlier.



Yes, the latter is my approach.  As I said, there's no logical reason to wait until later other than instructor preference.  



> Right. You have a different central doctrine than Taekwon-Do. But that doesn't mean there's "no logical reason" to put ground work after stand up fighting (and, for the record, I don't think anyone has argued it _must_ be that way, which is what you said in your comment quoted above; that's just an inaccurate statement). Suer there are, you just disagree with them.



Actually, you mentioned it first, Chris.  "The general thinking in most stand up systems seems to be that the students need to become rather proficient in stand-up fighting, including avoiding going prone, before going to a ground game."  I simply disagreed with the premise.



> If you're considering the prone position itself you're no longer talking about _acoiding_ going prone, are you? You're already there. Now you can talk about getting up fom the prone position. But those are two different things.



<shrugs>  They are one and the same in the training I follow and teach.  Perhaps a semantic not worth pursuing.  




> So, would you therefore say that Goju is an incomplete art?



Sure.  Both of my arts as commonly taught are incomplete.  'Classical' Goju lacks true ground work.  And aikido is woefully lacking in striking.  That's the unvarnished truth from someone who has some really good lineage in both systems if that means anything.  It bothers me not to admit it, and I've had some late night discussions with very senior people in both arts who admit it too... Just not in public.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Actually, you mentioned it first, Chris.  "The general thinking in most stand up systems seems to be that the students need to become rather proficient in stand-up fighting, including avoiding going prone, before going to a ground game."  I simply disagreed with the premise.


Ah, the age old dilemma that has dogged the auto industry since automobiles were capable of speeds in excess of five mph; crash avoidance versus crashworthiness,  

Always been a bigger fan of crash avoidance.  Once you are relying on crashworthiness, you've already crashed.  Of course having a bit of each is certainly handy.

And the ITF syllabus will give you that from what Chris is saying.  But you get crash avoidance first.  I'm going to have to agree that avoidance should be first.  Knowing the general frequency of most MA students attendance (1-3 days a week for an hour at a time) and how much the average student spends training in between (little to none outside of form memorization, if that), yes, teach them stand up and avoiding going prone first.  That will be about as much as they'll be able to usefully absorb.  Too much more and you run the risk teaching just one thing too many, and when they get to where they have to use that one thing, they find that they haven't absorbed it and they have to think about how to do it.  At which point, they're dead meat.

Opinion yes, but I am not alone in it regarding taekwondo.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm going to have to agree that avoidance should be first.  Knowing the general frequency of most MA students attendance (1-3 days a week for an hour at a time) and how much the average student spends training in between (little to none outside of form memorization, if that), yes, teach them stand up and avoiding going prone first.  That will be about as much as they'll be able to usefully absorb.  Too much more and you run the risk teaching just one thing too many, and when they get to where they have to use that one thing, they find that they haven't absorbed it and they have to think about how to do it.  At which point, they're dead meat.
> 
> Opinion yes, but I am not alone in it regarding taekwondo.



It's all opinion.  

Equally valid reasons for teaching ground defense from the start are:

1) lets beginners study it when they are in true beginner's mind and can perhaps benefit from being without prior prejudice/conception
2) obvious application for rape/bullying scenarios 
3) opportunity to ingrain whole body movement whether you want it to originate from legs or hips


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I
> 
> The general consensus seems to be TKD lacks ground defense entirely which would be a fair criticism of most striking systems.
> 
> ...


 
Well, don't count me in the consensus. I have a first dan in Ju Jitsu certified by the USJA.  I would agree that what might considered ground grappling as a defense is virtualy non existant. However, there are many simple defenses to ground attacks that would be considered illegal in many ground grappling matches.    Pelligrini in his system came up with a catchy slogan "Don't grapple, survive".   Can an EXPERIENCED grappler avoid or defeat these defenses? Possibly, if they train for them. But still, the non grappling defenses are very effective albeit "illegal" for competition.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Let's refocus though. What do we mean by exist within the art? Is there any validity to the statement that TKD has this or that, if in main the majority of TKDist never practice it?
> .


 
It is absolutley valid. It is not the fault of any creator of the system if people choose to neglect or omit elements of the system. 

I submit that it is very sad having had Chang Hon practitioners come to my school and when I sometimes ask why they do something a certain way they don't have any answer.  It would be one thing if reasoeable minds disagreed on the answer, but to have no idea what any reason might be particularly when available texts contain the material is very sad.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> It's all opinion.
> 
> Equally valid reasons for teaching ground defense from the start are:
> 
> ...


1 and 3 I think are equally valid.  

2 I will disagree with as supporting an absolute need in the early stages.  Avoidance of going to the ground is much, much more important in both of these scenarios, especially rape.  Also rape and bullying are very, very different scenarios and really do not belong grouped together.  I will say that the get off of the ground and defend on the ground is much more crucial in a rape scenario because baring highly unusual circumstances, the goal of the attacker is to render the victim prone.  

Bullying covers such a broad spectrum of things that prone/ground defense only addresses a fraction of it.  From my years in school, stand up skills were where it was at in dealing with bullies.  My kids feedback is that, at least in Mont. County, bullying is primarily verbal.  The physical is limited mostly to pushing and shoving, due to the school system handing out suspensions to both parties for any sort of physical altercation.  Both have indicated that stand up is still the primary need.  Seems like cyber bullying is a bigger issue these days than physical bullying, not to mention concerns of weapons.  

In fact, weapons being brought into altercations has been a bigger issue than fist fights in the high school my kids attended.  Thankfully, neither of my kids have been the targets of bullying to any real degree.  My eldest sent the 'school bully' home with a bloody nose in middle school and the two became friends shortly after.  My younger son's one encounter with a bully was limited to pushing and shoving with my son punching him.  Teachers were spied and the two separated and the bully has gone after other targets. 

On the other hand, we have had one student commit suicide over cyber bullying, one student killed by another with a baseball bat after a football game, and both kids were stuck in school under lockdown due to one kid attempting to knife another.  The intended victim received a minor facial cut when all was said and done.  All of this being the reason that I had mentioned defensed against weapons being slightly more important in my opinion.

Once again, my opinion.  

I will state that I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> I would agree that what might considered ground grappling as a defense is virtualy non existant. However, there are many simple defenses to ground attacks that would be considered illegal in many ground grappling matches.



Such material is surely invaluable.  But I also think it necessary to understand mounted defense where the assumption is that someone is already on top of you and he's got you pinned.



> Pelligrini in his system came up with a catchy slogan "Don't grapple, survive".   Can an EXPERIENCED grappler avoid or defeat these defenses? Possibly, if they train for them. But still, the non grappling defenses are very effective albeit "illegal" for competition.



I'm very interested in this.  I writing a brief review of a few of his Combat Hapkido dvds that I will post here.  Based on the little I know about the system however, I thought he did teach some elements of grappling.

This link certainly gives that impression.  http://www.masterfrydefense.com/hapkido.htm

"                   Combat Hapkido contains a complete Ground                    Grappling program.                    "


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 29, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> 2 I will disagree with as supporting an absolute need in the early stages.  Avoidance of going to the ground is much, much more important in both of these scenarios, especially rape.  Also rape and bullying are very, very different scenarios and really do not belong grouped together.
> 
> I will say that the get off of the ground and defend on the ground is much more crucial in a rape scenario because baring highly unusual circumstances, the goal of the attacker is to render the victim prone.
> 
> Bullying covers such a broad spectrum of things that prone/ground defense only addresses a fraction of it. From my years in school, stand up skills were where it was at in dealing with bullies. My kids feedback is that, at least in Mont. County, bullying is primarily verbal. The physical is limited mostly to pushing and shoving, due to the school system handing out suspensions to both parties for any sort of physical altercation. Both have indicated that stand up is still the primary need.



I don't think so.  There are certainly more ways bullying can manifest itself, but in the end both rape and bullying are about a despicable person exerting power over the victim.  It is not too hard to imagine bullying taking place as someone giving another the old 'swirlee' treatment or just forcibly pinning down a victim to the floor for some slaps or other unpleasant treatment.



> Seems like cyber bullying is a bigger issue these days than physical bullying, not to mention concerns of weapons.
> 
> In fact, weapons being brought into altercations has been a bigger issue than fist fights in the high school my kids attended. Thankfully, neither of my kids have been the targets of bullying to any real degree. My eldest sent the 'school bully' home with a bloody nose in middle school and the two became friends shortly after. My younger son's one encounter with a bully was limited to pushing and shoving with my son punching him. Teachers were spied and the two separated and the bully has gone after other targets.
> 
> On the other hand, we have had one student commit suicide over cyber bullying, one student killed by another with a baseball bat after a football game, and both kids were stuck in school under lockdown due to one kid attempting to knife another. The intended victim received a minor facial cut when all was said and done. All of this being the reason that I had mentioned defensed against weapons being slightly more important in my opinion.




Yes, it is such a bright, bright world we live in, isn't it.  

Weapon defense is important too and it too should start at an early stage.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 29, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I'm very interested in this. I writing a brief review of a few of his Combat Hapkido dvds that I will post here. Based on the little I know about the system however, I thought he did teach some elements of grappling.
> 
> This link certainly gives that impression. http://www.masterfrydefense.com/hapkido.htm
> 
> " Combat Hapkido contains a complete Ground Grappling program. "


 

I went to a ICHF Seminar that featured Bill Wallace. Another  part of the seminar, were the ICHF guys who developed the grappling Defense system. Their t-Shirts had the mantra "Don't grapple, survive". My impression of their approach is based on material from the seminar.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, it is such a bright, bright world we live in, isn't it.
> 
> Weapon defense is important too and it too should start at an early stage.


Interestingly, one of the reasons that European fighting men were not known for their unarmed combat but are definitely known for sword work and other sorts of weapon work is that the training assumption then was that everyone wrestled and had fistfights, so the general idea was that everyone had some kind of base for fighting without a weapon.  Weapons training, however, was done early precisely because it was not natural.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Interestingly, one of the reasons that European fighting men were not known for their unarmed combat but are definitely known for sword work and other sorts of weapon work is that the training assumption then was that everyone wrestled and had fistfights, so the general idea was that everyone had some kind of base for fighting without a weapon.  Weapons training, however, was done early precisely because it was not natural.
> 
> Daniel



Most Okinawan karate schools teach kobudo as well, generally starting 1 or 2 kyu ranks after the unarmed material is first introduced to a beginner.  It's assumed as a matter of course that kobudo will reinforce your empty hand technique and vice versa.  I buy into it as the way you thrust out a tonfa for example is the same way you should straight punch with karate technique:  relaxed shoulder, elbows tucked in, etc.

I like to teach knife defense at the exact same starting point.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, the Goju world is less than homogeneous, although I believe TKD is similarly diverging.


Diverging?  Not as an art.  

If anything, it is paring down and homogenizing even more.  The sport is the juggernaut.  It has more or less subsumed the Kukkiwon.  The other juggernaut is the commercial school that focuses on the rah-rah-ataboy stuff, after school programs, and blackbelt clubs, with adult classes that focus on forms, one steps, and WTF sport but with very little in practical SD.

Schools that do not conform to this model are either independents or ITF.  Cannot say regarding other areas, but at least in the DC Metropolitan area, you would be hard pressed to find an ITF school (I know of one).

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Diverging?  Not as an art.
> 
> If anything, it is paring down and homogenizing even more.  The sport is the juggernaut.  It has more or less subsumed the Kukkiwon.  The other juggernaut is the commercial school that focuses on the rah-rah-ataboy stuff, after school programs, and blackbelt clubs, with adult classes that focus on forms, one steps, and WTF sport but with very little in practical SD.
> 
> ...



In my area, it's ruled by ATA, ITA, independents, KKW, and then ITF in that order.  I wasn't even aware of the ITF resources until last year when Mr. Weiss posted a few links/names.  I also don't see much of the Olympic rules sparring fallout here.  While the local KKW-affiliate Korean master is an awesome TKDist, he doesn't coach a competition team at all.

To me that's actually quite a bit of diversity, and several of the TKD schools in town share floor space with BJJ, judo, wing chun, and silat teachers, resulting in cross-sharing of ideas AND students.  This will inevitably affect TKD, one person at a time as these open-minded people eventually grow and start teaching themselves.  I like to think that I am doing my part to add to TKD by teaching kobudo and bunkai based on my understanding of the shorin-ryu kata to students at my friend's TKD school.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2010)

When I say the art, I am referring to how it is steered by the major organizations.  In the US, that is the Kukkiwon and the ATA.  That translates to mostly sport/competition oriented schools or commercial schools that focuses on the  rah-rah-ataboy stuff, after school programs, and blackbelt clubs, with  adult classes that focus on forms, one steps, and WTF sport but with  very little in practical SD.

Ultimately, the independents will be strong in some areas and weaker in others.  

Also, independents often stick to what they were doing before they became independent.  Most independents come out of larger organizations, so they may continue to practice in the idiom of the Kukkiwon, ATA, ITF, or whomever.  

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> When I say the art, I am referring to how it is steered by the major organizations.  In the US, that is the Kukkiwon and the ATA.  That translates to mostly sport/competition oriented schools or commercial schools that focuses on the  rah-rah-ataboy stuff, after school programs, and blackbelt clubs, with  adult classes that focus on forms, one steps, and WTF sport but with  very little in practical SD.
> 
> Ultimately, the independents will be strong in some areas and weaker in others.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  I still have optimism for taekwondo because I primarily fall in with the independent view, where the system itself is not dogmatic and it can and will absorb other influences as needed to improve itself.  

Believe it or not, the ATA does a good job of that.  Where they fall down is that they are overly commercial with the accompanying low standards.  They also out of concern for liability err too far on the side of caution so it can be difficult to find hard contact under their roof.

I don't really have too much of a beef with the local KKW guy.  He teaches a lot of kicking and their sparring is largely sans hands, but they practice hard and the spirit is good.  He's honest about what type of school he's running (mostly kids) and he knows enough hapkido to teach it if he had an audience for it.

Never met either of the ITF guys in the area so I can't comment on them.  We've mentioned their hoshinsul curriculum developed by a hapkido master by the request of General Choi, so I am excited to look it over.  I am curious if what is published in the Encyclopedia is comprehensive or whether it is just a sampling of techniques.  (Directed more to Chris or Mr. Weiss.)


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 30, 2010)

Honestly, I don't have a beef with any of the orgs.  Each one meets a different need. 

The ATA, and many schools in other organizations, all tend to fit the same mold in the US because they are all going after the same customer, which is suburban families and kids.

I don't even have a beef with the WTF/Olympic sport taekwondo, though I still think that a name change is in order, lol.  

I figure that if I don't like it, then I need to put my money where my mouth is and open my own school.  Or find another art. 

In the end, I ended up taking up hapkido and have devoted my efforts there, though I still go to taekwondo class with my son and I still practice the forms as part of my personal training (what can I say?  I like the forms).  For my sportive inclinations, kumdo/kendo more than fills that need.

Daniel


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 30, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Never met either of the ITF guys in the area so I can't comment on them. We've mentioned their hoshinsul curriculum developed by a hapkido master by the request of General Choi, so I am excited to look it over. I am curious if what is published in the Encyclopedia is comprehensive or whether it is just a sampling of techniques. (Directed more to Chris or Mr. Weiss.)


 
I am only familiar with the ITF commonly referred to as ITF V. As far as I know there is no Ho Sin Sul curriculum for the ITF (or the otehr 2 for that matter.)  The USTF which was the USA governing body for the ITF until 2002 does have a Ho Shin Sul Curriculum.  I do not know if the current governing bodies have a curriculum.  So, the techniques in the encyclopedia are not a curriculum in that  I don't believe it specifies that certain things are taught at certain ranks. 

In the same vein, much of the ITF syllabus is not really set out as a curriculum other than certain patterns are learned at certain ranks, (and therefore the techniques contained therein must be learned before the pattern)  as are certain types of sparring.  Much of the actual curriculum as to what techniqyes are taught when are left to the discretion of the instructor or local orgs.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> I am only familiar with the ITF commonly referred to as ITF V. As far as I know there is no Ho Sin Sul curriculum for the ITF (or the otehr 2 for that matter.)  The USTF which was the USA governing body for the ITF until 2002 does have a Ho Shin Sul Curriculum.  I do not know if the current governing bodies have a curriculum.  So, the techniques in the encyclopedia are not a curriculum in that  I don't believe it specifies that certain things are taught at certain ranks.
> 
> In the same vein, much of the ITF syllabus is not really set out as a curriculum other than certain patterns are learned at certain ranks, (and therefore the techniques contained therein must be learned before the pattern)  as are certain types of sparring.  Much of the actual curriculum as to what techniqyes are taught when are left to the discretion of the instructor or local orgs.



I see.  I was hoping for a fairly solid breakdown of specific techniques taught at each gup/dan level when I peruse the Encyclopedia... Still, I thank you for the information.


----------

