# Joe Rogan's TKD comment



## shane23ss (Feb 8, 2005)

Did anyone here watch the UFC Saturday night? If so, did you hear Joe Rogan's comment about TKD. There was a fighter (can't remember the name) who stated he was a TKD stylist. When the fighter was coming into the ring, Joe Rogan stated "i can't believe anyone still claims that system....I used to teach TKD and it's pretty much useless". I thought that was a pretty "way out there" statement. What do you guys think?


----------



## Zepp (Feb 8, 2005)

Didn't see it, sorry.

There's no shortage of TKD McDojangs out there giving third rate instruction.  Sounds like Joe Rogan learned from one of those schools.  TKD isn't great for MMA competition if that's the only training you have, but a good teacher can train you in solid striking skills that will definitely transfer over to MMA.

Just out of curiousity, how did the TKD stylist do?


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 8, 2005)

shane23ss said:
			
		

> Did anyone here watch the UFC Saturday night? If so, did you hear Joe Rogan's comment about TKD. There was a fighter (can't remember the name) who stated he was a TKD stylist. When the fighter was coming into the ring, Joe Rogan stated "i can't believe anyone still claims that system....I used to teach TKD and it's pretty much useless". I thought that was a pretty "way out there" statement. What do you guys think?


In the UFC defense it is built on hardcore strikes and groundwork, everyone knows the new TKD is sport base. Not trying to start conflict just stating a fact.I myself teach TKD the sport and traditional but without the hard striking and grappling it would be hard for a purest of the sport to compete.Sincerly yours


----------



## Adept (Feb 8, 2005)

shane23ss said:
			
		

> When the fighter was coming into the ring, Joe Rogan stated "i can't believe anyone still claims that system....I used to teach TKD and it's pretty much useless". I thought that was a pretty "way out there" statement. What do you guys think?


 Joe can only comment on what he sees. And looking around, pretty much every traditional TKD stylist I've ever seen would get hammered into pulp in the octagon. Their competition rules are so out-of-whack compared to MMA events, and their traditional syllabus doesn't focus on the things that are going to be used in a MMA bout.

 Having said that, for any fans of the UFC out there, I have just one word - Kimo.

 The TKD stylist who took Royce (I think it was Royce) Gracie right to the end, and very nearly beat him.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 8, 2005)

It largely depends on the training moreso than the system. There's footage of a TKD champ vs Genki Sudo floating around the net, and the TKD stylist lasted two rounds against Sudo, which would at least IMPLY that TKD isn't totally worthless as a striking system. 

That aside, mocking TKD is pretty much required in MMA circles. It's almost reflexive to those doofs. Just hit RMA some time.


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> It largely depends on the training moreso than the system.



Excellent point!  While TKD may not address all areas of fighting, it is a good striking system.  This art does seem to take alot of heat, and until we see how every single school out there teaches, we really can't 'judge the book by its cover' so to speak.  

A good example to good striking skills can be seen in the Mark Coleman/Maurice Smith match.  While Smith was not the best grappler out there, he had enough skill to fend off the ground attacks, get back to his feet, and do what he does best...strike!!!  And obviously it paid off, because the match was won by him, while standing!  

As for the fight and the comment...I did see the fight, but I don't recall hearing that comment.  I'll have to go back and watch it again.

Mike


----------



## Phil Elmore (Feb 9, 2005)

The proliferation of point-sparring no- and low-contact strip-mall TKD outfits has created, in large part, an overwhelming body of evidence where the viability of TKD as a self-defense system is concerned;  it would not be far-fetched to say that at least the plurality of commercially available TKD is indeed "pretty much useless."  This does not mean there are not good schools, good teachers, and good curricula out there among the many poor schools, nor does it automatically mean that if you've studied TKD (or some style of Karate) you're automatically going to fail in self-defense endeavors.  It just means the odds are against you.

I spent a couple of years training in Wing Chun and had the fortune of learning from a gifted teacher at a very good school.  I've talked with plenty of people whose negative opinions of Wing Chun bore no relation to what I'd studied -- because they'd formed those opinions based on the many bad schools out there (and therer is no shortage of poor Wing Chun available commercially).


----------



## phlaw (Feb 9, 2005)

I train in Traditional TKD and my instructor has always incorporated grappling into or training, and he has been doing this since before the UFC craze started back in 1993/1994.

When it comes to TKD too many people generalize, the system I train in is very good for self defense, we also mix in Hapkido and cross train with other stylist's on different occasions.


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2005)

phlaw said:
			
		

> I train in Traditional TKD and my instructor has always incorporated grappling into or training, and he has been doing this since before the UFC craze started back in 1993/1994.



What does the grappling consist of at your school?



> When it comes to TKD too many people generalize, the system I train in is very good for self defense, we also mix in Hapkido and cross train with other stylist's on different occasions.



Sounds like you're getting a well rounded art.  Its good IMO to always keep an open mind and at the very least, check out what else is out there.  Even if its not so much as cross training, but cross ref., at least you're getting an idea of some of the other ideas/concepts that are out there!! :ultracool 

Mike


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 9, 2005)

I think part of the problem of perception is that for a lot of people and a lot of schools, the focus really is on the sport aspect.  TKD has a strong sport aspect to it in that you can participate in organized tournaments and such and train the rules for the sport and not even really look at it as combat.  That's ok for some people, that's what some schools teach and what some people want to do.  However, people don't sit around arguing whether football or baseball is the best sport for self-defense and I don't think 'olympic-style sparring' or 'point-sparring' as some schools teach as a sport is really meant as self-defense training either. A friend of mine says the whole point of coming to class is to spar and while I don't have the same viewpoint, if that's what he's in it for then I really don't fault him for that

 That being said, I think using any sort of ring-style sparring match as a true gauge of the self-defense aspects of a MA, even for those who practice the MA for self-defense/combat, is a bit misleading.  Take someone with strong ground-grappling and joint manipulation skills and put them in an TKD match and you'd see a different result as grabs and holds are not allowed.  They may be a very good grappler and even an adequate striker but in a context where striking is favored by the rules against someone who heavily focuses on striking and it's a different ballgame.  What does that say about the grapplers self-defense skills?  Nothing, really.  It's just the rules of the game.  Last week I was playing jazz at a club and the TV was playing something with some female kickboxers and I thought their kicking was terrible; poor technique and no power (by TKD standards).  In a TKD match, they would get killed..but they were also very good at standing in and using punches and taking hits and especially avoiding punches.  What does that say about TKD versus kick-boxing?  Nothing...different rules encourage different tactics lead to different strengths and training styles.

 'Cause after all, it's just a game.  Any sort of tournament is an artificial situation.  I think one of the fisrt aspects of self-defense is having the situational awareness to try to avoid being in danger in the first place.  If something comes up you can't avoid, then a little pain may diffuse the situation.  Something to allow the aggressor a chance to back down.  Again, situations vary; a drunk at a superbowl party mad at you for wearing the wrong team jersey is not the same as a guy pulling a knife on you for your wallet in the parking lot afterwards.  Different situation, different aggressor mentality, different ways to get the aggressor to back down before it gets to all-out combat.  In a MMA style tournament, your opponent is trying to win and is not going to back down.  However, in a live situation where you do run into an aggressor where you cannot minimalize the situation and they are really trying to hurt or kill you, then all bets are off, and all rules are out.  Which means no messing around with points or legal strikes, and if you're training is in a striking art, especially TKD, then that's going to include breaking bones, strikes to the throat,etc... In other words, I think there are techniques available in striking arts that would be useful in a life-threatening situation that are not allowed under any rules, so judging the effectiveness of an art for combat based on performance in a context where some of the art is not available is not really realistic.

 In the end, it's really all up to a) what do you want to do and b) what do you train for.  If you train for sport and the sport aspect is what's important to you, then that's good.  If you train for combat/self-defense, most systems were designed for that anyway and as long as you train in the full range of your art then that's good.  I think we nned to be careful, though, not to judge the combat effectiveness of a particular MA based on it's sport expression


----------



## Marginal (Feb 9, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> This does not mean there are not good schools, good teachers, and good curricula out there among the many poor schools, nor does it automatically mean that if you've studied TKD (or some style of Karate) you're automatically going to fail in self-defense endeavors.  It just means the odds are against you.



The odds grow longer compared against what standard? An untrained person? A MMA practitioner? A high school wrestler? Will practicing a fusion of MT and BJJ really up the odds of avoiding injury during an attack against three people with tire irons? 

Basically the generic MMA argument (which I am NOT attaching to Sharp Phil's comments, just making a general comment) is TKD, WC, Kenpo, Shotokan, Combativies, Tai Chi etc all fail in self defense situations becuase highly considioned pratictioners of multiple arts have consistently beaten practitioners of the aforementioned "useless" single focus systems. Works great when you assume that an attacker  in a SD situation is going to be attacking you barehanded, and that this attacker posesses an expert knowledge of all fighting ranges. 

BJJ fails under that same criteria as does MT. Both systems on their own are incomplete, and will (and have) failed when pitted against a multi dimensional martial artist. Doesn't make the arts bad. Doesn't mean that since you study one or the other but not both (along with relevant weapons training) that you have a much higher chance of failing in all SD situations. (Since SD situations rarely mimic conditions in the octagon.)


----------



## Phil Elmore (Feb 10, 2005)

Compared to the standard of someone trained in an art or system that is realistic and self-defense oriented.


----------



## Yeti (Feb 10, 2005)

Joe Rogan did not learn TKD from a McDojang.  He studied under GM Jae H. Kim in Boston (also where I studied although at a different time).  JH Kim TKD Academy is an ITF style school, which is a lot less "sports" oriented that the WTF (Olympic) style.  We sparred frequently, but it was free sparring and not tournament or point sparring. From what I understand, Joe Rogan was a pretty bad-a$$ fighter.  This is at least what I heard from one of my instructors who progressed through the ranks with Mr. Rogan.  FWIW.


----------



## bushi jon (Feb 10, 2005)

the reason people say all the karate is not good self defense because alot of what we learn today is incomplete from what was taught in the past.


----------



## Toasty (Feb 10, 2005)

"Having said that, for any fans of the UFC out there, I have just one word - Kimo.

The TKD stylist who took Royce (I think it was Royce) Gracie right to the end, and very nearly beat him."

And he used 0 TKD...

watch the fight again... Kimo had been "training" with a Mr. Joe Son in TKD (soon to be re-named "Jo Son Do" - i am not making that up!) for about 3 mos. before entering the UFC. Mostly what he used was his footaball background & what would come to be known as "ground & pound" .


----------



## Marginal (Feb 10, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Compared to the standard of someone trained in an art or system that is realistic and self-defense oriented.


What qualifies? Boxing?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Feb 10, 2005)

I would consider boxing more useful for self-defense than most commercially available TKD, sure.  There are always exceptions and there is a lot of variation within each style.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 10, 2005)

True enough.


----------



## Adept (Feb 10, 2005)

Toasty said:
			
		

> "Having said that, for any fans of the UFC out there, I have just one word - Kimo.
> 
> The TKD stylist who took Royce (I think it was Royce) Gracie right to the end, and very nearly beat him."
> 
> ...


 Maybe he wasn't very good at TKD, but my point was more that the style does not make the fighter, not that the TKD syllabus can hold up to MMA in the octagon.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 11, 2005)

http://neurology.med.upenn.edu/~jason/fights/Match-Karate.vs.TKD.wmv

Just in case someone was wanting to view the clip I mentioned earlier... Can't say much for his handwork though.


----------



## Akashiro Tamaya (Feb 11, 2005)

Great Clips Marginal, Thanks for sharing....Love the flag !


----------



## Shu2jack (Feb 11, 2005)

Could someone direct me to a website that gives a sylabus or basic overline of a MA or MMA that many would consider street effective?

Or perhaps give us an outline of what is done in the average class of a MA/MMA that is considered "street effective" Exercises, drills, basics, etc.

I just want something to compare my training against and I want to see what I am missing and why I would get my *** pounded in the octagon against most other people. I am being serious. People constantlly tell me that TKD sucks or that it wouldn't last in a ring, even in a kick boxing-only ring, and I want to know what others do that I don't.


----------



## shane23ss (Feb 11, 2005)

It should be pretty obvious to most people that the UFC has shifted toward MMA fighters. The UFC went through several phases. The first phase was everyone's own systems. Pretty much everyone (Strikers/Grapplers/Ground and Pound) had a chance at winning. Then the Gracie's started to dominate. Everyone then rushed to get a ground game. Once this happened, the ones who had less of a ground game rushed to find ways to counter. Now, the UFC is made up of mostly Boxers with wrestling ability. I would say it will probably shift again some time in the future. Right now is just not the time for someone is almost a 100% a stand up striker.


----------



## Kumbajah (Feb 11, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> http://neurology.med.upenn.edu/~jason/fights/Match-Karate.vs.TKD.wmv



This is K1 not UFC - basically a kickboxing match. It doesn't qualify as MMA.


----------



## Yeti (Feb 11, 2005)

Cool video.  But the TKD guy was a bit sloppy in that he seemed fixated on scoring a knockout blow with a spinning hook kick, but passed on several opportunities to score a serious roundhouse kick to the other guy's ribs.


----------



## KyleShort (Feb 11, 2005)

That vid gave me heart burn...interesting that most of the spinning techniques caused the person exectuing the technique to fall on their rump...exactly what you want to be doing out in the concrete jungle.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 11, 2005)

Kumbajah said:
			
		

> This is K1 not UFC - basically a kickboxing match. It doesn't qualify as MMA.


K1 is mixed martial arts. It just happens to be mixed striking arts. 

That aside, I don't see the point of the comment. Everyone already knows that TKD's a striking system. If it's going to be weighed, it has to be weighed vs other striking systems.


----------



## Adept (Feb 11, 2005)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> I just want something to compare my training against and I want to see what I am missing and why I would get my *** pounded in the octagon against most other people. I am being serious. People constantlly tell me that TKD sucks or that it wouldn't last in a ring, even in a kick boxing-only ring, and I want to know what others do that I don't.


 Well, I dont know about street effective (I dont really consider most MMA training to be really street effective either) but as far as the octagon goes - 

 Well versed in both take-downs and take-down defense. When that 250 pound guy shoots for your legs, what are you going to do?

 Get into and out of the guard, utilise the guard, and both control and excape control when on the ground. The same 250 pound guy is sitting on your chest and slowly turning your face into powder. How do you get him off?

 Well versed in submissions. Someone is putting you in a figure four armlock. What is the best way to get out of it? What are you going to do if they put you in a rear naked choke?

 Well versed in strikes, which I obviously don't need to elaborate on here.

 The key ingredient is to train with resisting live opponents. No amount of saying 'Oh, I can deal with that' Is going to prepare you for what it really feels like to have someone trying to twist your arm out of its socket.


----------



## Miles (Feb 11, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Compared to the standard of someone trained in an art or system that is realistic and self-defense oriented.


 It is unfortunate, if in your experience (whatever that may be), you have found that the majority of schools teaching TKD to be unrealistic or not self-defense oriented.  It is even more unfortunate if Mr. Rogan (isn't he the Fear Factor guy?  I don't watch that show either) said something negative on television. 

 The art does not make the man (or woman), rather, the man (or woman) makes the art.

 Miles


----------



## Miles (Feb 11, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Well, I dont know about street effective (I dont really consider most MMA training to be really street effective either) ........(heavily edited by Miles).........
> The key ingredient is to train with resisting live opponents. No amount of saying 'Oh, I can deal with that' Is going to prepare you for what it really feels like to have someone trying to twist your arm out of its socket.


 Thank you for your honesty, Adept.  FWIW, (nothing actually   I agree with you totally about the need for "resisting live opponents."  

 Miles


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 11, 2005)

You know, I have to wonder at somebody who would make a statement like that. I mean, where would you draw the line, right? OK, so I am a teacher. Guess what--- as a teacher UFC is pretty much useless!  How about if I was an auto mechanic? UFC?  Pretty much useless! How about a champion Chess player of the World?  UFC? Pretty much useless. My point is that there are folks who have trained their whole lives in TKD, have never been in a fight and probably never will. What are you going to tell them--- that their wentire lives were useless? I will probably never duel anyone with a sword or carry one on a battlefield. So am I to construe my training in Kum-Bup is "useless"? 

I don't care much for TKD but I am not going to tell somebody what they do is useless. From what I can tell from the openning comment to this thread it sounds like more of the usual narcissistic garbage one can come to expect from someone who has no room in his life for anyone but himself. In such cases it seems like whatever is "not him" is useless.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Kumbajah (Feb 11, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> If it's going to be weighed, it has to be weighed vs other striking systems.



My point was he (Joe) was commenting on a MMA/UFC event which incorporates more than just striking. Most people view MMA as almost a style to itself, grappling and striking. I'm not trying to argue Joe's position - but other than in a striking tourneyment will you find yourself in a strickly striking situation. So saying that it has to be judged by other striking arts is a false premise. TKD can be effective in a SD situation - every MA can. 

Brian


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 11, 2005)

shane23ss said:
			
		

> Did anyone here watch the UFC Saturday night? If so, did you hear Joe Rogan's comment about TKD. There was a fighter (can't remember the name) who stated he was a TKD stylist. When the fighter was coming into the ring, Joe Rogan stated "i can't believe anyone still claims that system....I used to teach TKD and it's pretty much useless". I thought that was a pretty "way out there" statement. What do you guys think?




For that kind of fighting, he's absolutely right.

Don't get me wrong here.  TKD has its place in self defense and as an Olympic style sport, but as an art it won't survive in an MMA setting.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Shu2jack (Feb 11, 2005)

Adept, thank you for your reply. That gives me an idea of what you guys are talking about.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 11, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> For that kind of fighting, he's absolutely right.
> 
> Don't get me wrong here.  TKD has its place in self defense and as an Olympic style sport, but as an art it won't survive in an MMA setting.


Largely moot since no single art has.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 12, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Largely moot since no single art has.




Uhhh...BJJ in the early days of the UFC.  I'd count that.  Granted, the game passed it by, but it had its moment...and its impact.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Marginal (Feb 12, 2005)

1


----------



## Marginal (Feb 12, 2005)

Yes, but it hasn't survived since. It's been forced to evolve and fill in gaps just like any other single focus system has had to.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 13, 2005)

Just some random thoughts this morning but one of the things that strikes me, no pun intended, about striking arts vs other approaches is that strking affects the body differently.  A shot to the ribs I think is easier to shrug off or work past then having your arm twisted out of shape.  Unless that shot is *very* hard.  

I think MichiganTKD brought up in another thread recently about the difference in trainging TKD for sport vs combat and I was wondering what he had in mind and something that came to mind was in the difference of power and difference and movement.  In a real fight, someone's probably not going to stand outside and wait for an opening and use feints and false attacks to get you to open up.  You can't count on someone throwing a rear-leg roundhouse that you can evade and counter strike, etc...   On the other hand, if you strike, you need to strike *hard*.  Not hard enough to jar him but hard enough to really shake them or put them *down*.  Sparring TKD doesn't work like that.  The rules are such that you score by hitting the hogu or head hard enough for the judge to notice, but not really to disable or incapitate the opponent.  Since  the rules are such and both sides work in those rules, certain strategies and tactics develop, and training works as such.  If you are training for a TKD tournament, you are not really training for "guy bull rushes you with his arms to grab you, put him down before he gets you in his grasp" because that's not a part of TKD sparring so you don't train for it.  If you were training for combat you might be thinking "side kick (or roundhouse) to the knee *hard* enough to break it" or 'front kick to the stomach or groin to get him over then a knee to the face"  Evasions and counters are going to be different depending on someone playing by 'sparring' rules and someone playing by 'street' rules.  But mostly, in sparring you hit hard enough to score, in self defense you need to hit hard enough to bring down.

So that's why I think TKD sparrers really wouldn't or don't fare well in MMA style tournaments.  They are probably usually not used to having to fight someone who will come in and grab and they are not used to having to kick someone hard enough to keep them away.  This is not a problem with TKD so much as just a reflection that people that train heavily for sparring train for certain tactics, and against opponents who don't use those tactics, it's very difficult.


----------



## nekoTKD (Feb 13, 2005)

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but what exactly is allowed in UFC? Can you smack them as hard as you want or what? I've never really watched it, so I don't know.

Thanks,
Brandon


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 13, 2005)

Dear Jay: 

".....So that's why I think TKD sparrers really wouldn't or don't fare well in MMA style tournaments. They are probably usually not used to having to fight someone who will come in and grab and they are not used to having to kick someone hard enough to keep them away. This is not a problem with TKD so much as just a reflection that people that train heavily for sparring train for certain tactics, and against opponents who don't use those tactics, it's very difficult....." 

My guess is that your post goes a long way to explain some of the "boring" material in some forms. True enough that people would like to see some sort of exotic and highly-contrived material. And I think folks get turned-off when they see so much of the same "block-punch-kick" combinations. The fact is though, when a person is in a real fight its usually the basic "bread-and-butter" techniques, not some fancy stuff that ends the fight. Now I don't discount the training in the fancy stuff because it means that the basics get done that much better. Still, when Motobu was fighting in Okinawa the rumor was that his opponents all fell forward since he was hitting them so hard that they simply were stopped dead in their tracks. This wasn't exotic Dim Mak stuff; the guy could just really swat!! The same was said of Rocky Marciano who was rumored to be able to break a 4X4 with a mid-section punch. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 13, 2005)

_Can you smack them as hard as you want or what? I've never really watched it, so I don't know._

Not much here either.  I'm just thinking that smacking hard enough to score in TKD is not the same as smacking hard enough to stop an opponent rushing in  Not that TKD doesn't have the techniques to handle something like that, but I think it's possible that someone who trains to score in TKD would not really be in the mindset to smack someone hard enough to really stop them


----------



## nekoTKD (Feb 13, 2005)

Yeah I agree completely. If I was in sparring mode, I really wouldn't be ready to take someone on in a real fight. Of course that's why we train in selfdefense and real life situations. Im pretty confident that I could stop an attacker if needed. Hope I never have to though.

Thanks,
Brandon


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 13, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yes, but it hasn't survived since. It's been forced to evolve and fill in gaps just like any other single focus system has had to.




Right...which is what I indicated.  That ONE art, and its promoters, changed the focus of training for a great many people and got the ball rolling.  In doing so it earned its place in history.  The game itself quickly evolved to where BJJ lost its growing mystique (and a clown named Sakuraba had a lot to do with that, too)...but not so much that it hasn't retained respect from many corners of the MMA community.

Back to TKD.

TKD's evolution in the last thirty years (and believe me, it _has _ evolved) has removed it from a path where its techniques could be used on an MMA battlefield.  Its kicking methods are high maintenance.  The amount of time it takes to maintain them detracts from other training needed for the MMA ring.

I would love nothing better than to see an accomplished TKD competitor take some of that footwork and (some of the ) kicking and apply it to MMA.  I honestly think it would have a chance of success PROVIDED he learned to clinch, execute fundamentals of takedowns and ground work, and got some skill in boxing or comparable hand skills.

TKD's kicking skills...and to a lesser degree its footwork...have allready bled over into other fighting sports.  It hasn't been given much credit for this, but credit isn't necessarily the goal in cross pollination of this sort.  When we see a classic wrestling technique used in an MMA event we don't slaughter a lamb and sacrifice it on the altar of wrestling in order to thank the Gods of Grappling...we merely use it if it suits us.  So too with kicks and footwork.

If we see such a transition it will be slow in coming.  TKD competitors are rare to cross boundary lines (as we've debated in another thread on sharing arts).  This reluctance is seen in open tournament sport karate as well...the kids with the flashy uniforms and pretty kicks so much maligned here on MT will not--if given the choice--get on the mat and grapple someone or readily enter into a full contact match.  

In thirty years I have yet to encounter an art where this reticence isn't found, even among those arts purporting to be "progressive."

We do what we're comfortable with...what we've trained the most.  Once we've attained a measure of skill it is difficult to put the ego aside and enter into an arena where we are once again a beginner.  There is a great deal of risk.  It is not so much a risk to the body as it is a risk to pride.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 13, 2005)

One also possible reason for reluctance to adapt in new approaches is simply philosophy.  TKD, for example, is not a set list of techniques.  It's a philosophy about fighting and power and force and body movement; the techniques are merely the natural result of that philosophy.  To incorporate new approaches would be a distraction from implementing that philosophy and powerfully and efficiently as possible.  TKD in particular is about hard linear strikes to particulr body parts to stop the opponent with injury or breaking something.  Body movement, everything from hip twist  to pivot foot rotation to body spin, is based on increasing the speed and therefore power of the strike.  Grappling really doesn't fall naturally along this line of study so there's a natural resistance not because it's though 'wrong' but probably just because it's thought distracting from the focus.

Because, in one sense, if you feel the need to introduce grappling, then I would think that means that you probably failed with the striking,  I mean, if the guy can get close enough to put his arms around you, then you didn't kick him hard enough before he got  that close.  Maybe you spent too much time training for sparring and didn't learn to strike hard enough, maybe you spent time learning chokes and holds rather than using the time to perfect your technique to get more power.  If you can get the power to break several boards, though, you have the power to break limbs and the guy should be down before you need to turn to your grappling techniques.

Because of the emphasis on point sparring, though, I don't think many people coming up really train in TKD in this manner, and then when they get into MMA competitions they can't really stand up well; so it's seen that TKD needs to borrow other techniques to really get the job done.  That may or may not be true, but I think it's probably less true than is common wisdom, if the focus on training were to switch from 'hit the hogu to get a poin' to 'hit the floating ribs to break them'

Just playing devil's advocate here


----------



## Adept (Feb 13, 2005)

nekoTKD said:
			
		

> Not to hijack the thread or anything, but what exactly is allowed in UFC? Can you smack them as hard as you want or what? I've never really watched it, so I don't know.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon


 It's essentially boxing without as many restrictions. Yes, you can smack the other guy as hard as you want. You can spear tackle his legs, throw him to the ground, and then smash him in the face until he either passes out or the ref stops the fight.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 13, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> It's essentially boxing without as many restrictions. Yes, you can smack the other guy as hard as you want. You can spear tackle his legs, throw him to the ground, and then smash him in the face until he either passes out or the ref stops the fight.



As well as choke him or lock a joint until he submits.  You can also kick him and knee him while he's standing.  You can suplex him and drop him on his head, too, I believe.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Kumbajah (Feb 13, 2005)

From the UFC Website

Fouls:


1.  	Butting with the head.
2.  	 Eye gouging of any kind.
3.  	 Biting.
4.  	 Hair pulling.
5.  	 Fish hooking.
6.  	 Groin attacks of any kind.
7.  	 Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8.  	 Small joint manipulation.
9.  	 Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10.  Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11.  Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12.  Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13.  Grabbing the clavicle.
14.  Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15.  Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16.  Stomping a grounded opponent.
17.  Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18.   Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19.  Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20.  Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21.  Spitting at an opponent.
22.  Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23.  Holding the ropes or the fence.
24.  Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25.  Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26.  Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27.  Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28.  Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29.  Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30.  Interference by the corner.
31.  Throwing in the towel during competition.

Ways To Win:


1.  	Submission by:
	? 	 Physical tap out.
	? 	 Verbal tap out.
	? 	 Technical knockout by the referee stopping the contest. 
2.  	 Technical knockout by the referee stopping the contest. 
3.  	 Decision via the scorecards, including:
	? 	 Unanimous decision.
	? 	 Split decision.
	? 	 Majority decision.
	? 	 Draw, including:
	? 	 Unanimous draw.
	? 	 Majority draw.
	? 	 Split draw. 
4.  	 Technical decision. 
5.  	 Technical draw. 
6.  	 Disqualification. 
7.  	 Forfeit. 
8.  	 No contest.


----------



## bignick (Feb 13, 2005)

the eliminated all the fun stuff


----------



## nekoTKD (Feb 13, 2005)

Thanks for the replies, that sounds like it could get quite violent.


----------



## Digger70chall (Feb 14, 2005)

i haven't watched it recently, since probably 10 or so.  They are way up in numbers now...it looks like they changed a ton of it, probably to protect their contract fighters...i feel like it has more of a WWE feel to it now.  It doesn't seem as raw as it used to.


----------



## MJS (Feb 14, 2005)

Digger70chall said:
			
		

> i haven't watched it recently, since probably 10 or so.  They are way up in numbers now...it looks like they changed a ton of it, probably to protect their contract fighters...i feel like it has more of a WWE feel to it now.  It doesn't seem as raw as it used to.



Yes, you're correct.  If you look at the list that was posted above..(Thanks Kubajah) there are a few things such as kicking/kneeing/stomping the downed opp. that were allowed in the first few events, but are no longer allowed.  There was a short time when the UFC was removed from PPV due partly to politicians.  Since its return, there are more rules, as seen above, sanctioning with athletic comm., etc.  Alot of it also has to do with fighter safety.  

As for the WWE feel..lol...yeah, I noticed that too in the last few events.  People coming out in costumes, the post fight antics/challenges, etc.  

Its all good though.  I'm looking forward to the next one!!

Mike


----------



## WilliamJ (Feb 14, 2005)

Digger70chall said:
			
		

> i haven't watched it recently, since probably 10 or so. They are way up in numbers now...it looks like they changed a ton of it, probably to protect their contract fighters...i feel like it has more of a WWE feel to it now. It doesn't seem as raw as it used to.


They added alot of the rules to get sanctioning and get out of legal troubles. When the current owners took over they were having trouble even staying on pay per view.


----------



## Digger70chall (Feb 15, 2005)

Well even with the new rules it's still entertaining.  sorta off topic but does anyone know a place to get some WTF TKD tourny videos?  either VCR,DVD or online.  I have only seen still pictures so far but their kicks look amazing and i would like to see it in motion   alrighty back on topic.


----------



## Kumbajah (Feb 15, 2005)

Not sparring but def worth a watch - 

http://http.dvlabs.com/adcritic/a/d/i/adidas-tae-kwan-do.mov


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 15, 2005)

*
Fouls:


1.  Butting with the head.
2.  Eye gouging of any kind.
3.  Biting.
4.  Hair pulling.
5.  Fish hooking.
6.  Groin attacks of any kind.
7.  Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8.  Small joint manipulation.
9.  Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11.  Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12.  Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13.  Grabbing the clavicle.
14.  Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15.  Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16.  Stomping a grounded opponent.
17.  Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18.   Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19.  Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.*


Hmmm.  I guess it's safe to say THESE are effective techniques.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Digger70chall (Feb 15, 2005)

Kumbajah said:
			
		

> Not sparring but def worth a watch -
> 
> http://http.dvlabs.com/adcritic/a/d/i/adidas-tae-kwan-do.mov


 thanks that was pretty funny


----------

