# Sharing with other Arts



## MichiganTKD (Jan 28, 2005)

Here is an interesting question:

Do you think it is proper for an Instructor in, say, Tae Kwon Do, to share his Art with Instructors of other styles and hang out with them?

I have read numerous posts about well known Instructors who didn't hesitate to reach and share with other martial artists.
I don't know the etiquette for other styles. My personal belief, based on information my Instructor has told me about traditional TKD etiquette, is that, as a TKD Instructor, it is improper for me to share my style and technique with non-TKD martial artists and hang out with them in a martial arts setting.

Why?

Because each style wants to be number one, and each Instructor wants to be number one. There is a reason why GM, Ford, and Chrysler do not share and associate unless they have to: professional rivalry.
The whole reason the KTA was formed was because the different kwans openly fought each other for social and political power. And those were all Tae Kwon Do schools. Now try to image TKD vs. karate vs. kung fu vs. hapkido vs. whatever.
It's not that I as a TKD Instructor can't respect other styles (usually), but because each style wants to be number one and has its own etiquette and customs, I don't think TKD Instructors do themselves any favors by teaching and associating as TKD Instructors with other stylists.
I practice aikido as well. However, when I practice aikido, I am not a Tae Kwon Do Instructor, the subject generally does not come up, and the other students don't care about Tae Kwon Do. The Instructor and myself also do not compare TKD and aikido. It is strictly aikido.


----------



## mj_lover (Jan 28, 2005)

I wouldn't compare ma instructors to the big car companies. Look at it this way, like minded people coming together to talk about something they love. Discuss ma's etc. sharing isn't really a big deal, as long as it is kept in reason.


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 29, 2005)

There's room in the whole, wide world for all styles of martial arts. If that is kept in mind, then instructors simply acknowledge some students prefer style A, style B, or Z for whatever reason. Competition only exists if instructors/schools make it that way. There is really no need for competition between styles as students seek for what will fit them the best while progressing with their own personal journeys.

 Having instructors meet, mingle, and share is one way to learn tolerance and fellowship for each other. For the most part, I think almost all martial arts instructors share the same basic goal: To develop their students into the best kind of people possible, including the characteristics of respect for others and integrity within themselves.

    - Ceicei


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 29, 2005)

Ah yes.  Good topic!

 Why on earth would people not share their knowledge (to an extent) of their art with others in other arts?  Competition is the only answer, for money, status, control, tournament, glory, reputation, you name it.  Oh, that's right - there is one other reason given and that's purity in art.

 Nowadays, purity in art is EXTREMELY difficult to a) find, b) keep, c)verify.  How do we think all the influences on our arts came into being?  Warriors fought and observed, came back and modified what they had learned to allow for the improved fighting techniques of the enemy, then the enemy would do the same.  So our arts evolved not independent of each other, or in a linear, timely succession as many would like to believe, but together, in and of each other.  Because of each other, with each other.

 I don't see this as a bad thing, I see this as something that has always occurred.

 And yes, MTKD, when one is in Aikido class, one is that rank and in that class, not the other, and vice-versa.  Protocol is still important, IMHO.

 Separatism and standardization can set an art up for stagnation.  Then there will be the renegades who renew, modify, etcetera. 

 Interesting reading so far and I can't wait to read more.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 29, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Here is an interesting question:
> 
> Do you think it is proper for an Instructor in, say, Tae Kwon Do, to share his Art with Instructors of other styles and hang out with them?
> 
> ...



Your whole post above so it is in context.

Now to address a certain point.


			
				MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Because each style wants to be number one, and each Instructor wants to be number one. There is a reason why GM, Ford, and Chrysler do not share and associate unless they have to: professional rivalry.



Hmmmm, I think you are wrong.

In the news a few years ago, GM and Ford have a partnership for the development of a new 6 speed transmission, including sharing assembly line space at a common plant. 

A recent news article stated that GM and Chrysler were working together on hybrid technologies.

GM and Fiat joined together in sunsidaries, GM Powertrain and Fiat Powertrain to form FGP in Europe which is Fiat/General Motors Powertrain. Later Fiat reorganized their company and pulled key assets out and also did not share information, and now both companies are in high level discussion to avoid the court cases.

Sometimes these partnerships or sharing work and sometimes they do not. Hence my three examples off the cuff with one working, one in the works and one failed.

No one forced them to do such legally. 

No one or legal entity forced GM to enter into these agreements. It was mutually beneficial to both parties to do so at the time of the initial agreement.

So, personally I think sharing is fine, both in the Automotive world and also in the Martial Arts Community. Now if your organization does not or you as an individual does not then I respect that decision. Yet, I have to ask why are you here, sharing information with those of non TKD studies? If you take the arguement further, not only at martial arts events, but also in your writing snad postings, one could also make the same arguement. And as an indiviual you decide to not post or share that is your choice. If it is a mandate by your organization or an unwritten law, then I would begin to question that organization myself. Why do they not wish for me to see what others have or what I could offer to them? Now, as a general rule for students, and at lower levels, I can see this being a request, as it could be difficult for the student to try to learn the bascis of multiple arts at the same time. Yet, later, I find it diffiuclt to see why they cannot hang out, talk or discuss, martial arts with other members of the martial arts community who may not be or your art or organization.

These questions are not a pesonal attack, they are just my personal thoughts and opinions and questions, that I would ask myself, and if someone asked me I woudl tell them in person also, no matter who was present. 

Peace
:asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jan 29, 2005)

Well I personally like to interact with  martial artists of other styles and compare notes. Most notedly my JJ friend. Every now and then he invites me in to practice with his class, we have a good time, laughs, and general commeraderie (sp?) between us. One day he and I were alone practicing when we started doing flow drills. We started with the hub-bud drills. Not even knowing he knew them it was nice to flow with soemone new. We did the punch, knifehand, reverse handsword, back knuckle, then I showed him a couple of variations. We had a good time hugged at the end shared some general self defense and called it a night. We have respect for each other and call each other from time to time for basic questions and what not. 
That's my 2 cents worth on the subject.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Jan 29, 2005)

Ahh, good question: Why am I here then?

I voice my opinions about martial arts in general in the "General Martial Arts" section. I do not get too technical.

I use the Tae Kwon Do forum to express my views about technical, physical, historical, philosophical, and personal aspects of Tae Kwon Do-my area of expertise. I do offer advice about proper technique to a karate student or a hapkido student. Let them talk to their Instructor about proper karate technique.

Keep in mind, there is a difference between the rather anonymous world of the Internet and the MT forum, and actually discussing in person Tae kwon Do with a different stylist. I don't really see a conflict here. it would be different if I were actually meeting with, say, kung fu students to share and compare. It's also different if I were a young college student and in an environment where I was surrounded by different stylists. 
But what you do as a 1st-3rd Dan and what you do as a higher ranking Instructor are different. I have associated with other stylists when I was younger and in college. Kinda the nature of the beast. Experience other worlds a little.

What I do have a problem with are Tae Kwon Do (or karate-kung fu-kenpo-etc) who actually teach their art to other martial artists, join martial arts organizations not related to the style they teach, and belong to "Soke" organizations comprised of representatives of all styles. If you are a Tae Kwon Do Instructor, why do you need to belong to a Kung Fu or a General Martial arts Organization? 

Again, it's nothing against other organizations or arts. Practice what brings you satisfaction and happiness.


----------



## Miles (Jan 29, 2005)

Good question/discussion.

I enjoy my friendships and regular training with non-TKD folks.  We have common interests within and outside of martial arts.  When we train together, it is more of a "my art approaches this problem in this manner" versus "I'm number one or my art is number one."  Arts don't have egos, only people have egos.

I train weekly with a gentleman whose background is Wing Chun/Shaolin Long Fist/Kali.  He's teaching me Kali and I'm teaching him TKD.  We have a great time.  I met him in Cleveland OH at a TKD instructor's seminar-he was taping it for a TKD friend of his, now ours.  Drove 4 hours to meet and befriend someone who lives less than 10 minutes away.

Miles


----------



## Zepp (Jan 29, 2005)

I believe it's perfectly acceptable for martial artists of different styles to train together and learn from each other.  For the most part, the reasons behind my opinion have already been expressed by others on this thread, and I think it's been said better then I could have said it myself.  

I also agree that someone shouldn't accept rank and titles from some organization that's unrelated to what they practice and teach.

Let me ask a hypothetical question: Let's say I'm teaching my own TKD class (probably someday, as I don't plan on quitting) and the advanced students want me to show them how to deal with a particular self-defense situation.  Let's say it's how to get out of a headlock.  Now I know TKD givs me several possible solutions for this, but what if I felt the best solution I had (and the best method for teaching it) was something that I had learned while studying another art.  Should I not teach what I feel to be the best method to my students?  If I do teach it, am I not teaching them Tae Kwon Do?

I'll answer my own question, since I can guess what the majority of responses here will be.  I absolutely should teach them the technique I feel is best, and not worry where it came from.  This is how the different Korean kwans got started in the first place.  This is how martial arts evolve to survive to the next generation.  As far as I would be concerned, though the technique in question may not have originated in TKD, it would be TKD from now on.


----------



## okinawagojuryu (Jan 29, 2005)

I am not a TKD stylist , but , yes I do think it is good to share w/ others . We do it all the time , here in FL . Me , & a group of friends have formed a group , called The Florida Budo Tomonokai . It's a group of Black Belts that just get's together to train , share , & for fellowship . No fee's , ego's , or politics . In Okinawa , the masters of Old did it all the time .


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 29, 2005)

I can't see any reason for _not_ sharing.  Joining other organizations facilitates this.

I'm surprised by the number of people who have a xenophobic approach to training.  They profess to be worried about preserving the "purity" of their system, keeping it the way the Great Master Sokey Dokey first conceived it in 1876, not letting other arts know the secrets of the system, and blah blah blah.

Cut away the facade and you often find deeply insecure people who are afraid their system...or they themselves...won't measure up if contrasted with other methods.  Often these people are very concerned with rank, title and the respect they're afforded by their juniors.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## terryl965 (Jan 30, 2005)

For one reason only the obvious Knowledge why else do you train, I mean come on who are we kidding. Any Ma'er that has been training for more than 5 years look at other Art for Knowledge the more we learn the better we are in our Art and in life!!!!!


----------



## Spookey (Jan 30, 2005)

Dear Sir,


 In reference to the KTA and the fighting between the kwans of Taekwondo...I am friends with an instructor at another TKD school. I am Oh Do Kwan he is Moo Duk Kwan, we have seperate patterns, different technique, and different methodology. Should I share with him but not to Karate as neither practice what I do?


TAEKWON!
Spookey


----------



## Adept (Jan 30, 2005)

I'm somewhat nonplussed by your position, MTKD.

 You seem adamant that Taekwondo should not 'share' with other martial arts. And I assume, by extension, that no martial art should share with another.

 Why?


----------



## MichiganTKD (Jan 30, 2005)

One of the reasons why the Korea Tae Kwon Do Association originally formed was because from the time the kwans first came about to when the KTA finally firmly established itself in the early 60's, there was open fighting among the schools for social and political supremacy. I'm not talking verbal conflict or letters to newspapers, I'm talking actual street conflict resulting in injury and death between Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, Chang Moo Kwan etc. members. it was only when the Korean gov't stepped in and ordered all kwan members to join the unifying KTA or lose gov't recognition and support that the member schools agreed (Gen. Choi was instrumental in this BTW). Out of this conflict came the Korean National Free Fighting Championships. Kind of like legal fighting between Kwans. The winners determined which schools were considered most powerful in the TKD world and received gov't support.

Now my other point is this: the traditional symbol for Tae Kwon Do and Korea is the tiger. If you know tigers, tigers are solitary creatures. They do not hunt in packs, and they pretty much keep to themselves. Traditional Tae Kwon Do can be thought of as the same way. A traditional Tae Kwon Do student or Instructor tends to be solitary, practicing with his organization or on his own. He does not associate with karate students, or kung fu, or hapkido, or whatever. Not because he doesn't respect them, but because the philosophies, etiquettes, techniques etc. are different. 

It is not that other arts don't have things to offer. They do. Hapkido has some great self defense; aikido and other arts also have different viewpoints that are interesting to understand. However, it is one thing to leave your Tae Kwon Do status at the door and be an aikido student. When I practice aikido, I very seldom mention Tae Kwon Do because it is not relevant and I am in the aikido world. I wear an aikido uniform, use aikido weapons, and practice aikido philosophy. We never talk about Tae Kwon Do.
It is quite another for a Tae Kwon Do Instructor to hang out with other stylists AS a Tae Kwon Do Instructor, talking about TKD technique, philosophy, and politics. If you really want to understand a different art, leave your TKD rank, ideas, attitudes, and thinking behind at the door and practice that art. Do not go to their class with an "I'm also a Tae Kwon Do Instructor who is practicing X martial art." If possible, minimize your TKD background because it would be irrelevant. To me, TKD instructors who associate with other stylists AS TKD instructors do so out of ego. It is not enough to be recognized in their little TKD world, they want recognition from other arts as well. These "Soke Organizations" strike me as a bunch of ego trippers out to impress each other.
It would be the same if a kung fu or aikido student came to my school. I would tell them flat out "leave your aikido mentality at the door. You are not an aikido student in this class. And don't constantly tell me what an aikido student would do in this situation unless I specifically ask." For example. I am not specifically picking on aikido. I actually have great respect for it.


----------



## okinawagojuryu (Jan 30, 2005)

IMO , think that instructors dont want students to train w/ other instructors because of money . It has nothing to do w/ being faithful , or rude , etc . In the KMA , ecspecially this is prevalent . They say your not being faithful , but that's a bunch of hogwash . What their really saying , to themselves , is this guy's spending money somewhere else , & they can be spending it here w/ me , & I want his money . Now , dont think that I'm trying to bash Korean MA , because I'm not . I spent many years training TSD , & one of my 1st styles was TKD CMK , so I am very familiar w/ the ins & outs of KMA . They try to gain control of you , because they want that money , & nothing more . 

You stated "To me, TKD instructors who associate with other stylists AS TKD instructors do so out of ego. It is not enough to be recognized in their little TKD world, they want recognition from other arts as well." 
Do you not think that some people just wanna learn , & share , w/o no hidden agendas ? Gen. Hi , the father of modern TKD himself trained both Isshin Ryu , & Shotokan , as he stated in his book . Do you think he had an ego , for doing so ? There's nothing wrong w/ learning , & sharing w/ others , if thats what you choose to do . If not , that's fine too , that's your opinion . But , dont look down on others , because they dont feel the same way as you .


----------



## Miles (Jan 30, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> However, it is one thing to leave your Tae Kwon Do status at the door and be an aikido student. .......
> It is quite another for a Tae Kwon Do Instructor to hang out with other stylists AS a Tae Kwon Do Instructor, talking about TKD technique, philosophy, and politics. If you really want to understand a different art, leave your TKD rank, ideas, attitudes, and thinking behind at the door and practice that art. ...... .


MichiganTKD-I agree that one should "empty your cup" to the extent one can when learning a new art.

I don't think anyone is an entirely blank slate-even first night white belts come to class with preconceptions as to what they will be doing or not doing, or can do or can not do. I am sure that I learn other MA techniques through the eyes of someone who has trained in TKD since the mid-70's-you just don't turn it off.




			
				MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> To me, TKD instructors who associate with other stylists AS TKD instructors do so out of ego. It is not enough to be recognized in their little TKD world, they want recognition from other arts as well. These "Soke Organizations" strike me as a bunch of ego trippers out to impress each other..


Two separate points you are making. I totally disagree with the first, i.e. that one associates with other stylists out of ego-I think that in many, hopefully most instances, it is because we share a common passion-the martial arts and a thirst for more knowledge. What is surprising to me is that most martial arts teach much the same material-in different ways and at different times with different emphasis....it's all good.

As to the second point about these Soke-Dokey orgs-agree w/you 100%. From what I've seen these same folks are wearing multi-colored uniforms with more advertising than a NASCAR racer. They have stripes up and down their multi-colored belts. But, if they need the attention.....

Miles


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 30, 2005)

It's kind of odd how people get so entrenched in the label they associate with themselves that they can completely seperate themselves from groups with different labels.  Regardless of whether they are trying to do exactly the same thing.

 Comparing to car companies is not right, that is a business model and they are competingto get your money.  But they will not simply write off anything that the other guys are doing, if Ford comes out with a new, better way of doing something all the others are going to "borrow" it.

 And progress gets made.  It takes more then the knowledge of how to do it, you also need the ability.  If someone gave me complete access to all of Ford's technical data and engineering data I still don't think I could make a car that would run.

 How many companies make CD players based off the exact same technology?  But yet there are good ones and bad ones.

 The way to become the best is to share openly, take what everyone else has, and just do it better.  Otherwise everyone else will share and you will live in your little isolated room and get left in the dark...

 Of course if the goal is preserving a system as best as possible that is something completely different.  But it is no longer about being the best.  People still preserve sword work, but don't try to go out onto a modern battlefield and win a war with swords and arrows.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Jan 30, 2005)

Don't misunderstand. As I stated before, it is one thing as a 1st-3rd Dan black belt to hang out with other stylists. Especially if you are in college, I could hardly blame you for wanting to see what other arts are like. That is the age when you are curious, full of energy, and sometimes want to see how a karate student moves. You are innocent, so to speak.
However, an Instructor is a whole other ball game. Do we have this same mentality in this country? Absolutely. it is not unusual for athletes from different schools to congregate together. They are young and social. However, if the coach from MSU asked the coach from U of M to compare notes and hang out at practices, the U of M coach would like at him like he were insane. Many times, athletic practices are closed to the public so that rivals cannot get in and get the coach's game plan. The game plan becomes apparent on game day and through the course of the season. The coach's future at a school depends on his being able to defeat his rivals. How is he going to do that by hanging out with them and sharing his secrets and knowledge?


----------



## okinawagojuryu (Jan 30, 2005)

1st of all , I am no beginer , I have been training since I was 5 years old , & am 32 yo now . I have a 4th Dan in both Okinawa Goju Ryu , & TSD , not that it matters . If it was'nt for Gen Hi , training in both Isshin Ryu & Shotokan , you wouldnt be pacticing what you're practicing now . Please take a look at this Photo , on my site : http://okinawagojuryu.org/Portals/8/okimasters.jpg , there you can see the masters of old . They were all from different styles , but they put aside their differences , to train , share , & socialize . Now , as I said before , just because you dont like doing something , doesnt make it right , & you dont have to agree w/ me , but thats your perogrative . However do not look down on others , because they have other beliefs than you .


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Jan 30, 2005)

Not sharing knowledge means avoiding criticism. A person or organization who is so sure of itself, that it feels it should not share a universal commodity such as knowledge, will surely never improve beyond the mediocrity they adopted along with their hubris.

Share your knowledge and in return you shall recieve it. :asian:


----------



## TigerWoman (Jan 30, 2005)

That analogy of different coaches/teams is one of competition.  They don't share knowledge/secrets because of competition and that bottom line we all know, is money.

I can see that Taekwondo masters do not want to share the knowledge for fear of it getting mixed up into some other art.  Maybe a 10% mix, maybe a 80, 20 mix.  But then it changes its identity to one of Taekwonaikido.  Or mixed martial arts.  

The "art" of Taekwondo could be lost if it all got mixed up.  Who would be the master of that part of the art...who would be the expert?  How would a certain part of a mixed martial art be quality controlled if there were no grading/testing?  Anyone could be call themselves proficient and even say they excel at everything and we all know that would be very difficult.  Some of us, actually I believe alot of us, do not train for self defense but enjoy the practice of one particular art. TW


----------



## Zepp (Jan 30, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> However, it is one thing to leave your Tae Kwon Do status at the door and be an aikido student. When I practice aikido, I very seldom mention Tae Kwon Do because it is not relevant and I am in the aikido world. I wear an aikido uniform, use aikido weapons, and practice aikido philosophy. We never talk about Tae Kwon Do.
> It is quite another for a Tae Kwon Do Instructor to hang out with other stylists AS a Tae Kwon Do Instructor, talking about TKD technique, philosophy, and politics. If you really want to understand a different art, leave your TKD rank, ideas, attitudes, and thinking behind at the door and practice that art. Do not go to their class with an "I'm also a Tae Kwon Do Instructor who is practicing X martial art." If possible, minimize your TKD background because it would be irrelevant.



Michigan, in this, I completely agree with you.  However, what I don't think I understand is why you believe a Tae Kwon Do instructor couldn't get together with an Judo instructor for a casual training session and "compare notes."  I don't see both instructors as being in competition with each other.  In fact, the way I see it, the only competition a Tae Kwon Do instructor really has to worry about is with the students of other Tae Kwon Do instructors (with the exception of commercial schools competing for business).


----------



## TigerWoman (Jan 30, 2005)

Zepp said:
			
		

> Michigan, in this, I completely agree with you.  However, what I don't think I understand is why you believe a Tae Kwon Do instructor couldn't get together with an Judo instructor for a casual training session and "compare notes."  I don't see both instructors as being in competition with each other.  In fact, the way I see it, the only competition a Tae Kwon Do instructor really has to worry about is with the students of other Tae Kwon Do instructors (with the exception of commercial schools competing for business).



If one percent of the population did martial arts and there were ten different schools in your town, that would be still be competition if you were the owner/master of a school.  For those black belts who don't worry about income or whether a school will survive, they have the luxury of going to another school to learn another art.  But like some have said an instructor still could learn another art on the side with a friend.  I would think you just can't bring it back and incorporate it necessarily into the TKD curriculum.  TW


----------



## Adept (Jan 30, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> However, if the coach from MSU asked the coach from U of M to compare notes and hang out at practices, the U of M coach would like at him like he were insane.


 The two universities are in direct competition with each other. Martial arts schools are not, or should not be. 



> The coach's future at a school depends on his being able to defeat his rivals. How is he going to do that by hanging out with them and sharing his secrets and knowledge?


 An instructors future at a school _does not_ depend on him being able to defeat his rivals.

 I can see where you are coming from with regards to cross-training. It is simply common curtesy to not try and correct the instructor of the 'new' style, or to over-rule him. But I sense that this isn't the issue we have here.

 You seem to have an issue with martial artists from different styles comparing notes and styles in order to improve both styles. Why is this?

 Try this for a mental exercise. Instead of TKD< OR Hapkido, or Aikido, or BJJ, instead use the words 'Martial Art'. Replace the name of every style with the same words.

 Imagine that everyone in all organisations has the same rank. Not necessarily the same skill, but the same rank.

 Now, in this mental construct, what would be the problem with two senior martial artists comparing notes, cross-referencing, and trying to improve their training?


----------



## arnisandyz (Jan 31, 2005)

Some reasons why schools don't want you to share:

"pollute the system"
"conflicting theories and principles"
"give away secrets"
"lack of respect to the Master"

THE TRUTH IS THAT THEY WANT YOU TO STAY BOXED IN, BELIEVING THAT THEIR SYSTEM IS SUPERIOR TO ALL. THAT THE SYSTEM IS BIGGER THAN ANY ONE PERSON OR YOU PERSONAL ADGENDAS.

Why you SHOULD share:

to find the truth FOR YOURSELF regardless of style. That being said, if one is going to share, all egos must be set aside. You must go into the situation willing to be beaten or proven wrong, only when you can do that will you grow beyond what the system your in holds you to.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Jan 31, 2005)

Adept,

To a certain extent I agree with you about informal practice. I don't see much wrong with one Instructor having casual or informal practice with another of a different style, especially if they happen to be friends and the same level. In other words, a Master Instructor should not be having casual practice with a junior grade black belt of another style for the same reason that an adult does not hang out with 15 year olds. Two different levels. If one of my friends happened to be a judo Instructor, I would probably practice with once or twice to see what worked against him.
What I do have a problem with is Instructors who openly associate with Instructors of a different style, belong to martial art organizations unrelated to their style, encourage their students to practice with students of a different style, and host/attend events open to all styles. The Tae Kwon Do instructor near where I taught, and some of you would probably know his name, belongs to karate, kung fu, and various "Soke" organizations. I really would not even classify him as Tae Kwon Do since he seems determined to belong to everything. His students are the same way-determined to belong to everything.
As an Instructor, you have very high obligations to present your art and your organization in a positive light. People take what you do and say seriously. Additionally, Tae Kwon Do has a culture, history, etiquette, philosophy, and mindset different from the other arts. A Tae Kwon Do mind is not the same as a kung fu mind or a judo mind. So to attempt to associate with other organizations as a Tae Kwon Do instructor is impossible. You also send your students and the public mixed signals: You are a Tae Kwon Do instructor yet you belong to a Chinese Kung Fu organization AS a Tae Kwon Do instructor, and they know you are a Tae Kwon Do instructor. Don't think for a minute they aren't thinking of ways to beat you. It is the nature of human competition.


----------



## Teh Tot (Jan 31, 2005)

I think that it goes back to goals that you have for your martial arts experience. one is to be in top physical condition, two is to be able to adequately protect myself should the need arise, and three is to share martial arts with others.  so if you follow goals like that it should be perfectly aceptable to train with people from other martial arts. i look forward to when I get the chance to train with those trained in other styles of martial arts and share what I know with them. 
Thats my take


----------



## glad2bhere (Jan 31, 2005)

"......THE TRUTH IS THAT THEY WANT YOU TO STAY BOXED IN, BELIEVING THAT THEIR SYSTEM IS SUPERIOR TO ALL. THAT THE SYSTEM IS BIGGER THAN ANY ONE PERSON OR YOU PERSONAL ADGENDAS....." 

Not sure how I feel about this observation accept to say that maybe it works that way in commercial schools, I don't know. I bet there a probably a lot of people who are heavily into "turf wars". I can only speak for myself. I will say that part of what learning a martial art is about is realizing that one is always part of something that it bigger than oneself. Thats a big piece of what martial training is suppose to draw us towards--- that view. 

I teach and train in YON MU KWAN Hapkido. I have been part of this kwan for a goodly number of years. While I have been a member of this kwan I have occasionally spent time with other folks, but I always come back to the art in which I train. Sometimes I share what I do with others, but its on a pretty selective basis. I don't view what I do as simply a constellation of techniques which can be passed around like some tray of canapes that people can cherry-pick through. Nor am I particularly interested in what other folks do, by and large. I have enough material in my own art to keep me busy for more than a little time to come, and my BB indicates that I have made a committment to the art that I practice and left my leap-frogging from this bit to that bit behind. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Adept (Jan 31, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> a Master Instructor should not be having casual practice with a junior grade black belt of another style for the same reason that an adult does not hang out with 15 year olds. Two different levels.


 While their level of skill is different, how does this impact their relationship? To my mind, it doesnt



> The Tae Kwon Do instructor near where I taught, and some of you would probably know his name, belongs to karate, kung fu, and various "Soke" organizations. I really would not even classify him as Tae Kwon Do since he seems determined to belong to everything. His students are the same way-determined to belong to everything.


 But why do you find this distasteful?



> As an Instructor, you have very high obligations to present your art and your organization in a positive light.


 I would say you have a much more important obligation to ensure your students recieve the best education they can. 



> A Tae Kwon Do mind is not the same as a kung fu mind or a judo mind.


 In terms of tactics, this is partially true. In terms of actual mindset, it is not. The way we think and our behavioural patterns are largely set by the time we are seven.




> So to attempt to associate with other organizations as a Tae Kwon Do instructor is impossible.


 Not so. One of the instructors at our TKD school is also a third dan instructor of Jiu Jitsu. This fact is well known, and he incorporates a lot of JJ techniques and thoughts into our TKD training, which has only grown as a result.




> You also send your students and the public mixed signals: You are a Tae Kwon Do instructor yet you belong to a Chinese Kung Fu organization AS a Tae Kwon Do instructor, and they know you are a Tae Kwon Do instructor.


 Again, why is this bad?


----------



## MichiganTKD (Jan 31, 2005)

Adept,

You are a mixed martial artist-someone who, by definition, associates with and practices with students of other styles. As a result, I don't really expect you to emphathize with my position as a traditional stylist. An MMA takes what he can get from every style, and has problem admitting it.
Now, if you declare yourself an MMA, I understand what that entails, for better or worse. However, if you declare yourself a Tae Kwon Do stylist, especially a _traditional _Tae Kwon Do stylist, yet you openly associate with and invite all styles to practice with you and share, I truly believe that is wrong.
Why? Because traditional Tae Kwon Do stands on its own and should remain apart from the other arts, as should traditional karate, traditional kung fu etc. I don't think the lines should be blurred, otherwise it is not Tae Kwon Do anymore.
There is nothing wrong with being curious about kung fu etiquette in relation to Tae Kwon Do. My own Grandmaster was explaining a little about kendo mannerisms and why they think the way they do. But we don't have have kendo students over, we don't visit kendo schools, and he doesn't demonstrate kendo. We are Tae kwon Do, apart from kendo and the others.
Anyway, traditional martial art etiquette, manners, and philosophy takes a lifetime to understand and master. How would you even have time to openly share with other styles, unless it is totally superficial. If I really wanted to share traditional karate with a Master, I'd have to be with him 24 hours a day. I don't exactly have time for that.


----------



## Adept (Jan 31, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> You are a mixed martial artist-someone who, by definition, associates with and practices with students of other styles.


  Yes.



> As a result, I don't really expect you to emphathize with my position as a traditional stylist.


  I dont empathize, you are correct. But I am still curious.



> An MMA takes what he can get from every style, and has problem admitting it.


 Most have no problem to admitting it. In fact, most espouse it loudly from the rooftops. Take what works, and leave the rest behind. 



> Why? Because traditional Tae Kwon Do stands on its own and should remain apart from the other arts, as should traditional karate, traditional kung fu etc. I don't think the lines should be blurred, otherwise it is not Tae Kwon Do anymore.


 Okay, so preservation of the style is our goal here. Fair enough, I can understand that even if I dont share that goal. What I disagree with is that training in a second (or more) style, and making it known that you also train in TKD, will in some way affect the purity of your TKD.


----------



## Han-Mi (Feb 1, 2005)

EVOLUTION! - that's why we share, we do not usually teach others our art unless we are getting something in return. Also, there are plenty of things that we do not train the same way or at all, that are helpful to learn in case the proper situation arises.  The whole point is for the art to evolve while remaining true to the traditions and history. That is why you learn the basics and  then you are opened up to the full scope of the art and the Martial arts as a black belt. 

And it isn't like we have any big secrets, watch enough tapes and read enough books you can learn pretty much everything about the art, it's just better to have a living breathing person there to help you with the details of it.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 1, 2005)

".... Take what works, and leave the rest behind....."

I had fully intended to sit quietly until this little bit raised its head. Commonly attributed to Bruce Lee I find this quote used as the maxim to support many things, but I never hear anyone actually discuss its implications. I believe that the operational part of this quote ("what works") is the most troublesome since even Bruce Lee himself never actually defined what was meant by something "working". Allow me to use my own training as an example. 

In the kwan to which I belong we train in a martial art.  This means that we use a particular kind of activity to develop the ideal of realizing that the individual is part of something greater than himself and works to come out of the best part of himself so as to give that greater whole better service. On a physical level this is often realized as various S-D techniques, drills and practices, and these are almost self-evident when done. However, what is not so obvious are the effects on the intellect, emotions and spirit of the individual. These may not become apparent until months--- maybe even years--- after one enters into training. When they do become apparent I suppose that one can say that the training has "worked". What one cannot do is "cherry-pick" what he wants to do and what he does not want to do because the effect of a particular part of training may not be known until long after the event. 

As I mentioned before I have no problem with people doing what it is that they want to do, in fact I have no actual control over their behaviors. If a person wishes to identify what they do as little more than a group of techniques that can be passed back and forth, I suppose that is fine for them. I think it would be inaccurate to call such activities "martial arts" but we all have our illusions to deal with. To my way of thinking Bruce Lee was to the Martial Arts community what Elvis was to American music, or Paris Hilton is to American society. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 1, 2005)

*What one cannot do is "cherry-pick" what he wants to do and what he does not want to do because the effect of a particular part of training may not be known until long after the event. * 

On the contrary, one can "cherry-pick."  Novices would not be advised to do so, but advanced students/instructors/fighters not only _can_, but _ought to_.  As we age we have no choice but to cherry pick, and if we're smart coming up through the ranks, we learn to discard that which is of no use to us.  

Should you talk of the novices that cherry pick, those dilettantes who flit about and never settle on a particular system, these are typically unfocused and ill-disciplined youngsters who make no impact on the martial arts community at large.  They've been coming in, and going out of the schools I've taught at for two decades.  They're hardly the contemporary founders of progressive systems such as I've listed below.

*If a person wishes to identify what they do as little more than a group of techniques that can be passed back and forth, I suppose that is fine for them. I think it would be inaccurate to call such activities "martial arts" but we all have our illusions to deal with. * 

Hardly an illusion, Bruce.   I hate to say this, as I've always respected your posts in the past--but like MichiganTKD--you're coming off as a stylistic bigot, reserving the title "martial arts" for what you conceive it to be.  The term itself is western in orientation, often attributed to systems from well over a dozen countries and comprising countless different philosophies.  You're not a gatekeeper for that rather large community.

*To my way of thinking Bruce Lee was to the Martial Arts community what Elvis was to American music, or Paris Hilton is to American society. FWIW. * 

Insofar as entertainment and movies, that's debatable.  As far as engendering a fighting system and inspiring millions to train...I wouldn't dare minimize his contribution.

I would find it difficult to say that Lee's protege Dan Inosanto isn't a martial artist.  He studied classical systems in-depth along with Lee's methods, and was responsible for helping launch the careers of a number of noted instructors.  Erik Paulson studied Tae Kwon Do for years (3rd dan, I believe), as well as Aikido.  Now as an MMA fighter and coach, he "cherry picks."  I suspect he's rather qualified to do so.  

Neither of these two ever, EVER criticize the Korean arts as you and others here on MT have cracked on MMA.  I find this revealing, and ties in with what I wrote earlier...and I'm disappointed.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisandyz (Feb 1, 2005)

[QUOTEDo not go to their class with an "I'm also a Tae Kwon Do Instructor who is practicing X martial art." If possible, minimize your TKD background because it would be irrelevant.It would be the same if a kung fu or aikido student came to my school. I would tell them flat out "leave your aikido mentality at the door. You are not an aikido student in this class. And don't constantly tell me what an aikido student would do in this situation unless I specifically ask." [/QUOTE]

Sounds like a bit of "Eddie Haskelism" (from Leave it to Beaver).  You put on a strait Mr. Nice guy mask in from of the parents and the wise guy act in front of friends.  Every martial arts you study should become a part of you that shouldn't be so easy to take off like a shirt. People boxed into a system say "i am a TKD stylist" or i am a "Kung fu man" (the style is more important than the man).  People who are liberated say I am a man who studies TKD, Kung Fu, BJJ.  (or simply a martial artist)

People that come into my classes that have background in another style, I say great! Don't forget what you have learned and find a way to integrate it into what you will be learning here. That is a part of you nobody can take away. Classical styles have a way of being very linear in both technique and conceptualization.  You finish one thing, put it away and move on to another - linear. A more circular concept would be working on multiple things at a time, stirring the pot and seeing how one set of rules may oppose or help another.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 1, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Adept,
> 
> You are a mixed martial artist-someone who, by definition, associates with and practices with students of other styles. As a result, I don't really expect you to emphathize with my position as a traditional stylist. An MMA takes what he can get from every style, and has problem admitting it.
> Now, if you declare yourself an MMA, I understand what that entails, for better or worse. However, if you declare yourself a Tae Kwon Do stylist, especially a _traditional _Tae Kwon Do stylist, yet you openly associate with and invite all styles to practice with you and share, I truly believe that is wrong.
> ...




Hmmm, I study FMA. 

I was at a seminar for another FMA style. They were also promoting WEKAF sparring. They divided people up into grops by size, and we sparred. Some of the people there did not want to spar me, for I had a flyer up for giving a benefit seminar. I then had to explain to them that when the pads go on you get hit. no matter what level you are. This is a controlled test environment, you go out with a game plan and you see if it worked. If it did not work , why ? is what you ask later and try again.

If becuase someone decided to call me a master in a school or an art, and now I cannot get on the floor and work out with out people and or spar for fear that I might get hit, then there is no more reason to train at all. You are only a paper tiger, with nothing to offer but coaching at best, to make sure your ego is not bruised.

Maybe I have a different mentality, for you see I bounced and did security and street faught. Not the smartest thing to do, but you know it was the college age and I was in college and I thought it was ok to pay the bills to keep my in college. Yet, one punch form an untrained fighter can knock you out just as one from a trained fighter. I still study a traditional art, and I believe it works. I just do not hold any wierd notions that at some point no one is going to be able to touch me. 

Now I do agree that in your school, you are teaching TKD and it is expected that it will be TKD. I have no problems with that. There is always people with questions, some people call them the What If Bunnies, for they keep coming and coming, and never stop. I explain that different arts ahve different approaches and then demonstrate using my timing and experience to show how it can be done in the art I am teaching. If they do not like this, they can go elsewhere. Just as if I step onto their teaching floor I expect it to be about their art. Unless I am an invited guest, in which case then it is about their art, only I am given the respect of my rank in the other art. 

But, this does not mean I cannot go to the bar or their wedding or watch the latest UFC at their house with them. I see nothing wrong with hanging out with people of other arts. And No I am not a fan of MMA for myself, for I think they miss the point of fighting. There are great atheletes and martial artists that MMA practitioners, but there are rules. I practice for no rules myself. I do teach in a progression of safety and understanding so that students do not hurt each other or themselves, yet I do not limit their minds with rules for their practice. I support my friends who do this type of fighting and work outs, and it is a good work out. I even watch, and if their is a fight I can make it too, I try. I see nothign wrong with this mixing unless, it is back to the ego of the Master Instructor, and not wanting to look bad, or weak, or human. Dude, I make mistakes, I laugh at them and move on. This is why I continue to train, for I do not think I have it all. I hope I can always learn.

Just not sure, what your real point here is?

Master Instructors of TKD should not work out with lessors.

Explain to me why? Other than it just is so. Still confused


----------



## okinawagojuryu (Feb 1, 2005)

Perhaps it is insecurity , in the knowledge , or teachings he has recieved ; or maybe it is out of ego , that he thinks he knows it all . Who knows , who cares . Let him have his narrow minded way of thinking , & keep to his lil' Dojang , & let him stay stagnant in his knowledge . 
His comments of the TKD mind vs this mind , vs that mind make no sense . He should think for himself , & stop being controled , & stop trying to control others . I've spent years training TSD , before training Goju Ryu , & before that I trained TKD as a teenager , & child . The way of thinking in TKD , is the same as TSD . They try to control you due to money . It has nothing to due w/ being loyal , respectful , not watering down the art they learned , etc .
As I've stated in my previous post's Gen Choi Hong Hi , the founder of TKD trained in both Ishhin Ryu , & Shotokan as stated in his book . Now , the founder of Isshin Ryu-Tatsuo Shimabuku , trained w/ Miyagi Chojun , Chotoku Kyan , & Taira Shinken . The founder of Shotokan , Gichin Funakoshi studied under both Itosu , & Azato sensei . The founder of his own Kwan , Won Kuk Lee , studied Tae Kyon , then went to japan where he trained Shotokan w/ Funakoshi Gichin . I just dont understand how a person who trains in a style that is created by an instructor that cross trained , & their instructors cross trained , can say it's wrong to cross train . I guess men like Choi Hong Hi , Won Kuk Lee , Tatsuo Shimabuku , & Gichin Funakoshi were all wrong , due to his way of thinking . It seems odd to me , that it was ok for them , but not this generation , that is absurd !


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 1, 2005)

I know what you are saying and I am sorry the tone of my post is not clearer, but I also cannot take responsibility for the misuse of a terms lo these many years. People throw the concept of following a "martial art" or practicing a "martial art" like it was candy. And as if that is not bad enough there are also those instructors who feel that "martial art" means running their classes like "Hell Week". The whole idea of martial training is to imbue the practioner with a particular way of dealing with situations--- Life if you will. For want of a better way of saying it, one goes through "martial training", call it "Basic Training" or "Boot Camp", call it "probationary period" or "orientation" to get all of the individualism under-control such that everyone is on the same page.  Now why am I making such a point of this? 

The fact is that everytime I start representing these facts to the public the feedback that I get is uniformly negative. Some people suggest that I am being "too philosophical".  Some people suggest that I am being too intellectual. Of course, there are folks like yourself who may suggest that I am being down-right "snooty" or elitist. Actually I'm not doing any of these things. What I am doing is making a case for the Korean MA to be what they have always been and what has been forgotten in the process of trying to make traditional KMA "all things to all people". They aren't. Suggesting that Hapkido is just so many revised AJJ tricks, or Kum-Bup is just reorganized Kenjutsu is not unlike saying all TKD or TSD is just Karate under another label with the money going to different pockets. The Koreans had/have a reason for selecting the material that they incoporated into their martial science and for training the way that they do. To follow these lines of thinking is to practice Korean Martial Arts. I won't pretend that everyone needs to think the way that I do, nor do I pretend that everyone is GOING to think the way that I do. I do have some understanding of the Korean value system and I know that while it must look as though the Korean arts are little more than borrowing this and that, Life experience has demonstrated that this is not the case.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Teh Tot (Feb 1, 2005)

> Master Instructors of TKD should not work out with lessors.


 I disagree. If master instructors did not work out with those of lesser rank, then how would anyone learn?  its very important for masters to teach. that is why they are called master *INSTRUCTORS*.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 1, 2005)

There is a difference between _Instructing_ lessors and _working out_ with them. Instructing them means I am superior to you in either level of technique or rank, and I am teaching you something. This is the teacher-student relationship. In traditional martial arts it is formalized and acknowledged.
Working out with lessors means that we are equal. I have a higher rank than you or my technique is better, but we are equal. I will teach lessors (meaning one of lower rank or technique than me, not standing outside class), but I will not work out with them, because to work out with them we would have to be equal. Black belts do not work out with color belts, masters do not work out with junior black belts, and Grandmasters do not work out with masters. They assist and instruct, but they do not work out, because they are not equal.

Getting back to my original point. I would use Hank Hill from the TV show "King of the Hill" as an example of my attitude toward Tae Kwon Do sharing with other arts.
Hank Hill is a propane salesman. Not only is he a propane salesman, he is very proud to be in propane. Propane is his life. Some people think propane and charcoal and wood are all the same and should associate. Hank thinks otherwise. He respects charcoal (somewhat), but is a propane man. To him, propane is something to be proud of and promote. Not that he dislikes charcoal, but the two are separate and should remain separate.
My attitude toward Tae Kwon Do is the same way. I am very proud to to be associated with Tae Kwon Do. The key word is pride. Some people think Tae Kwon Do should associate and mingle with other arts. I respectfully disagree. If you believe Tae Kwon Do is some casual activity that has no problem sharing with other styles and can only improve if it does, knock yourself out. However, I, like Hank Hill, am very proud (some might say arrogant) to be a Tae Kwon Do man, and believe Tae Kwon Do stands on its own because of its beauty and power. Sort of like a woman. You show me a woman who associates with everyone, and I'll show you a woman many people consider cheap or have questions about. You show me a woman who is very selective who she associates with, and I'll show you a woman whose reputation is unquestioned.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 1, 2005)

Not too put too fine a point on this, but there are some parallels I have with Michigans' view. 

In the classes I teach we "circle-up", we don't "line-up". We bow in together, not first one way to the flags and then to the teacher and then among the students. The feeling is that we are all there working our way along the same Path with some of us who have been at it longer right along side those of us who may have just started. In this sense we are very equal. There is, however, an understanding that I am the mentor for this kwan or the "teacher" if you will. I do my best to keep our focus in a particular direction, facilitate growth and coach people through challenges. From this stand-point I probably get more deference paid to me than maybe other people give and take among themselves, but it is not something I demand as much as it is something that comes my way and for which I am very appreciative. Each of us knows that despite our rank we are only as good as the last technique we executed or the last form we performed. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 1, 2005)

_*~MODERATORS NOTE:

 ~Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

 ~shesulsa~
 ~MT Moderator~*_


----------



## Adept (Feb 1, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> In the kwan to which I belong we train in a martial art. This means that we use a particular kind of activity to develop the ideal of realizing that the individual is part of something greater than himself and works to come out of the best part of himself so as to give that greater whole better service.


 I would disagree with this a as a definition of a martial art. A martial art, to me, is anything that is designed to improve someones chances of avoiding a violent conflict, and surviving one if it is unavoidable.



> On a physical level this is often realized as various S-D techniques, drills and practices, and these are almost self-evident when done. However, what is not so obvious are the effects on the intellect, emotions and spirit of the individual. These may not become apparent until months--- maybe even years--- after one enters into training


 Common developmental studies disagree with you. The basis of the human brain is developed by the age of seven. Our genetics and our environments during our developmental periods aer what affects our personalities and behavioural patterns, not a martial art. Learning a martial art does not change us as a person any more than learning football or soccer does.



> What one cannot do is "cherry-pick" what he wants to do and what he does not want to do because the effect of a particular part of training may not be known until long after the event.


 Short term goals of such training are visible and easily verified. The long term effects you are speaking of are somewhat nebulous. Can you clarify them, and support them with scientific papers published in peer reviewed publications for me?



> To my way of thinking Bruce Lee was to the Martial Arts community what Elvis was to American music, or Paris Hilton is to American society. FWIW.


 I'm afraid I dont understand the comparison.


----------



## Adept (Feb 1, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Working out with lessors means that we are equal. I have a higher rank than you or my technique is better, but we are equal. I will teach lessors (meaning one of lower rank or technique than me, not standing outside class), but I will not work out with them, because to work out with them we would have to be equal. Black belts do not work out with color belts, masters do not work out with junior black belts, and Grandmasters do not work out with masters. They assist and instruct, but they do not work out, because they are not equal.


 Imagine, for a day, that everyone in your organisation had the same belt on. What then, would be the problem with one person working out with another, even if their level of skill was slightly different? 

 I cannot see one. I, as a black belt in TKD have worked out with people who were on their very first night of training. And there was no problem. 

 Now, if without different belts, there is no problem, then why should the belts be a problem? They are, after all, only there to hold your pants up.



> Getting back to my original point. I would use Hank Hill from the TV show "King of the Hill" as an example of my attitude toward Tae Kwon Do sharing with other arts.


 There is no need to get into different analogies about propane, loose women, university sports coaches, or anything else. We can call a spade a spade here, it isn't a complicated issue.

 Now, I can see why you would not want to incorporate other martial arts techniques into your TKD teaching. You wish to maintain it as it was first designed. Fair enough. But you also consider it wrong for _other_ people to contribute to their TKD syllabus. And you haven't really said why.


----------



## Shu2jack (Feb 1, 2005)

As someone who has only studied TKD for 11 years now, I have no problem openly associating with someone of a different style and training with them. By training with someone who places a different focus in their training and puts greater emphasis on different techniques, I begin to better understand how my own system works and how it works against someone who doesn't train in TKD.


I agree with you MichiganTKD, I wouldn't train with a 15 year old jr. black belt from a judo school simply because of the age, experience, and maturity difference. I would train with a adult who is well grounded in his system so when I ask him about specific techinques or why that technique countered mine so well, he could give me a good answer.

I do disagree that instructors can not work out with his juniors and that it implys equality. I think by working out with your students, you set the standard by way of example and show your students how an experenced, skilled practioner does it. Also, you can always learn a new trick, or find a different way of doing something, or work on improving something.

I had the privilege of meeting the late Grand Master H.U. Lee a few times. Once at our national tournament he was observing some rings when this little 8 year old girl came up to him and said, "Sir, everybody has an instructor to learn from. You don't have a instructor. Who do you learn from?"

When I heard the answer I knew I was in the presense of a true master. (And not because he didn't take offense to this little color belt girl simply walking up to him and asking a question.) He smiled, knelt down to her level, and said, "I learn from you." From that point on, I have always made it a point to improve on something or learn something when working with students.


----------



## okinawagojuryu (Feb 1, 2005)

Awesome story ! Before I went to Okinawa , in one of the phone calls I had w/ him , I had inquired if he had any Dojo here in the US . He replied no , he said , maybe you can open one . I then asked what the requirements are . He said most important is having a good personality . I said Shin (heart) ? He said yes , shin , gi , tai (heart,body,&technique) , he said , but of all three , heart is the most important . 
When you meet him , there's no helping but to like him , you can actually see his heart . He is always smiling , & brings out the best in others . I miss him very much , & cant wait to go back to see him . 
I think your story depicts what heart means , as well . You are very lucky !


----------



## Shu2jack (Feb 1, 2005)

> Awesome story ! Before I went to Okinawa , in one of the phone calls I had w/ him , I had inquired if he had any Dojo here in the US . He replied no , he said , maybe you can open one . I then asked what the requirements are . He said most important is having a good personality . I said Shin (heart) ? He said yes , shin , gi , tai (heart,body,&technique) , he said , but of all three , heart is the most important .
> When you meet him , there's no helping but to like him , you can actually see his heart . He is always smiling , & brings out the best in others . I miss him very much , & cant wait to go back to see him .
> I think your story depicts what heart means , as well . You are very lucky !


 
Are you referring to my story okinawagojuryo? I believe we are thinking of two different Grand Master Lees. The late G.M. Lee of the ATA was teaching in the United States before either of us were born and he passed away about 4 years ago from cancer. Otherwise, you are correct. Appartently both of the Lees we know/knew were awesome martial artists, but what made them masters were the type of men they were.


----------



## okinawagojuryu (Feb 1, 2005)

No , I didnt mention my instructors name , Nakamoto Masahiro , not Lee , lol . I was just saying thats an awesome story of heart .


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 1, 2005)

".......In the kwan to which I belong we train in a martial art. This means that we use a particular kind of activity to develop the ideal of realizing that the individual is part of something greater than himself and works to come out of the best part of himself so as to give that greater whole better service. 


I would disagree with this a as a definition of a martial art. A martial art, to me, is anything that is designed to improve someones chances of avoiding a violent conflict, and surviving one if it is unavoidable......" 

Your observation would probably be more apt in describing a military art rather than a martial art. Big difference between the two things. 


"..........On a physical level this is often realized as various S-D techniques, drills and practices, and these are almost self-evident when done. However, what is not so obvious are the effects on the intellect, emotions and spirit of the individual. These may not become apparent until months--- maybe even years--- after one enters into training.  


Common developmental studies disagree with you. The basis of the human brain is developed by the age of seven. Our genetics and our environments during our developmental periods aer what affects our personalities and behavioural patterns, not a martial art. Learning a martial art does not change us as a person any more than learning football or soccer does....." 

You will probably have to explain your position to the generations of individuals who have, as adults, been inculcated with the martial spirit by virtue of their training. You may not know it but you are confusing predisposition with result.


".....What one cannot do is "cherry-pick" what he wants to do and what he does not want to do because the effect of a particular part of training may not be known until long after the event.  


Short term goals of such training are visible and easily verified. The long term effects you are speaking of are somewhat nebulous. Can you clarify them, and support them with scientific papers published in peer reviewed publications for me?...." 

I could, but unfortunately that would make little difference to you as you have already decided what you believe. My effort to document would simply give you more information to disagree with and I, for my part, am not mandated to change your mind inspite of your own belief system. The only place at which I take any interest at all in this conversation is that folks who espouse a position perhaps identical to your own state that they practice "martial arts". By definition, then, you are then stating that you pursue an activity whose commulative effect is to induce a Martial approach towards meeting your responsibilities. Now if what you actually want to do is learn to fight, defend yourself, experience a wide range of approaches to either of these goals or whatever I heartily encourage you to follow your goals. All I ask is that you not identify what you are doing as a "martial art". Call it a "military skill set", or "martial sport", or "martial commerce"-- any thing you choose, but "martial art" speaks to a very specific approach towards accomplishing a specific goal and that label is already taken. 


"...To my way of thinking Bruce Lee was to the Martial Arts community what Elvis was to American music, or Paris Hilton is to American society. FWIW.  

I'm afraid I dont understand the comparison......" 

Bruce Lee was a movie personality and as such was as much a product of his marketing  or publicity department as anything else. I don't recall him getting into the ring with Benny Urquidez, or on the mat with Mifune, or doing "sticky-hands" with Cheng, or a few rounds with Oyama. I saw where Bruce Lee was touted as the greatest Martial Artist of the 20th Century which was probably done by the same dullards who figured Elvis was the greatest musical talent of the same time. Certainly there is nothing wrong with adopting the personality of your choice as a model, but I would probably be careful about throwing too much of his buzz-phrases around. Some of us actually know a little something about what we do.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Adept (Feb 2, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Your observation would probably be more apt in describing a military art rather than a martial art. Big difference between the two things.


 From Dictionary.com

*mar·tial* 

 ([font=verdana,sans-serif] P [/font])  *Pronunciation Key*  (mär
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





sh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




l)
_adj._ 
Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
 Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms.
 Characteristic of or befitting a warrior. 
 It would appear the common definition of the word would disagree with you. Lets simply set this part of the debate aside, and agree that our definitions of a martial art are different.



> I could, but unfortunately that would make little difference to you as you have already decided what you believe.


 Not at all. I approach life with as open a mind as I can manage. Please, bring out the papers in question.



> The only place at which I take any interest at all in this conversation is that folks who espouse a position perhaps identical to your own state that they practice "martial arts". By definition, then, you are then stating that you pursue an activity whose commulative effect is to induce a Martial approach towards meeting your responsibilities.


 Once again, obviously our definitions of 'martial art' are different. There is no need for conflict on this issue



> Bruce Lee was a movie personality and as such was as much a product of his marketing or publicity department as anything else. I don't recall him getting into the ring with Benny Urquidez, or on the mat with Mifune, or doing "sticky-hands" with Cheng, or a few rounds with Oyama. I saw where Bruce Lee was touted as the greatest Martial Artist of the 20th Century which was probably done by the same dullards who figured Elvis was the greatest musical talent of the same time. Certainly there is nothing wrong with adopting the personality of your choice as a model, but I would probably be careful about throwing too much of his buzz-phrases around.


 I'm still missing both the relevance, and the comparison between Elvis and Paris Hilton. It seems you have some kind of grudge against Bruce's popularity. I suggest you take this particular issue to the JKD forums.



> Some of us actually know a little something about what we do.  FWIW.


 Yes, _some_ of us do...

*NOW THEN*

 I'm not entirely certain how that post above relates to the thread, so could you please outline for me your stance on cross-training martial arts, and your supporting arguments?


----------



## Simon Curran (Feb 2, 2005)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that we should all be able to work and learn together regardless of rank/style whatever, looking at how others do things and comparing things allows us all to progress personally.

Like I said just my opinion.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 2, 2005)

Sorry, fella, but I take particular exception to your dis-ingenuous approach to this discussion. To my mind it is readily apparent that you are being very selective in what it is that you do and do not understand and I have no interest in playing the foil to your agenda. Your selective use of a definiton which conveniently disregards the Latinate origins of the term "martial" as compared to the French derivation of the term "military" are telling. And if you are unable or unwilling to understand the parallels between the contrived adulation for Bruce Lee as compared with other pop stars there is little or nothing I can do for you other than to suggest that you make TV and Movies a smaller part of your life-style.  

To my mind you have declared very clearly that you hold with less structure and take a particularly liberal approach to where you accept the influences in your development from. I have participated in way too many strings on these themes not to know beforehand where this string will go. Therefore, if you think that pursuing activities such as are reported here on this string, and in the manner in which they are portrayed here are acceptable who am I too rain on your parade? Feel welcome to pursue your intersts in the manner in which you select anywhere in the World that you care to with, of course, the exception where I teach and train. FWIW. 

Regards, 

Bruce


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 2, 2005)

_*~MODERATORS NOTE:

  ~Gentlemen, this is your second warning to keep the conversation polite and respectful.

  ~shesulsa~
  ~MT Moderator~*_


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 2, 2005)

I am very aware that many people, particularly American students raised in an American culture, will have a problem accepting my attitude toward "martial art mingling". Do not take it as me degrading other styles or feeling they are unworthy of me associating with them. I am not and do not. Where I am coming from is a traditional point of view utilizing the mindset of the culture from where the Art I practiced originated. Korea was not called the Hermit Kingdom for nothing. And the symbol of Tae Kwon Do and Korea is the tiger for a reason. 
Now, some of you practice styles that are perhaps much more informal than traditional Tae Kwon Do. Some that come to mind are MMA, FMA etc. The etiquette and culture are more loosened. It is perfectly acceptable to hang out and associate with other arts.
As it was explained to me, the Tae Kwon Do mindset is like sand. Sand particles stay separate, and only come together when forced (gravity, wind etc.). Similarly, Tae Kwon Do students are like sand. We stay separate and only come together when forced. Part of it has to do with the nature of the Art. We spend our time keeping people away from us (punching, kicking, blocking etc.). Similarly, our mindset is to keep people away from us. It is the nature of the art. Judo is different. Judo is like dirt. Dirt clumps together and sticks. Judo people, because they practice a skin-on-skin martial art, are much more comfortable being close to people. Two different arts, two different attitudes. 
You cannot criticize traditional Tae Kwon Do students for staying apart from other people any more than you can criticize Americans for being freedom-loving. It is part of who we are.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 2, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I am very aware that many people, particularly American students raised in an American culture, will have a problem accepting my attitude toward "martial art mingling". Do not take it as me degrading other styles or feeling they are unworthy of me associating with them. I am not and do not. Where I am coming from is a traditional point of view utilizing the mindset of the culture from where the Art I practiced originated. Korea was not called the Hermit Kingdom for nothing. And the symbol of Tae Kwon Do and Korea is the tiger for a reason.
> Now, some of you practice styles that are perhaps much more informal than traditional Tae Kwon Do. Some that come to mind are MMA, FMA etc. The etiquette and culture are more loosened. It is perfectly acceptable to hang out and associate with other arts.
> As it was explained to me, the Tae Kwon Do mindset is like sand. Sand particles stay separate, and only come together when forced (gravity, wind etc.). Similarly, Tae Kwon Do students are like sand. We stay separate and only come together when forced. Part of it has to do with the nature of the Art. We spend our time keeping people away from us (punching, kicking, blocking etc.). Similarly, our mindset is to keep people away from us. It is the nature of the art. Judo is different. Judo is like dirt. Dirt clumps together and sticks. Judo people, because they practice a skin-on-skin martial art, are much more comfortable being close to people. Two different arts, two different attitudes.
> You cannot criticize traditional Tae Kwon Do students for staying apart from other people any more than you can criticize Americans for being freedom-loving. It is part of who we are.



I must ask again:

Why are you here?

If not to share then why?

No disrespect towards your choice in martial arts. No disrespect towards your choice to follow this path. I just have a problem seeing how you can share here, and not in person. For is not the greatest weapon the mind. For is not what you just said; it was the mentality of the traditional TKD to separate themselves and keep separate that is what sets you apart.

 :idunno: Confused, yet hopeful you will share and educate me on you point of view.


----------



## okinawagojuryu (Feb 2, 2005)

So are you saying the founder of your style Gen. Choi Hon Hi , & the founder of your Kwan , Won Kuk Lee were both wrong , for having trained in more than one style ? How about their teachers , Tatsuo Shimabuku & Gichin Funakoshi , were they wrong too ? You come from a lineage of people that have trained in more than one art , why was it ok for them , but not you , or present day TKD practicioners ?


----------



## Teh Tot (Feb 2, 2005)

> If not to share then why?



Exactly what I was trying to say. Also, General Choi trained with others from martial arts other than TKD. I think he set a great example with that and that is just one of the reasons why I train with an instructor in the WTF even though I am strongly USTF based. and I would like to find someone else to work out with on a regular basis in my area.

I hope that is polite enough for this forum shesulsa.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 2, 2005)

Gen Choi was not the founder of my style, but that's another thread. Both Choi and Won Kuk Lee studied karate because of the circumstances of their eras. They didn't have much of a choice. When you pretty much have to go to Japan or you don't have a future, your options are limited.
I don't have a problem discussing my art with another stylist, or even having a practice session with another stylist. I draw the line at loudmouths or those convinced that tae kwon Do doesn't work or that their art is superior to all others. I also won't have regular practice sessions with other stylists. Once or twice is enough, simply to compare. And I have to like them as people.
If you'd been paying attention, I stated that I do not _regularly_ associate with other stylists, go to "open to all styles" events, belong to all styles "Soke Organizations", regularly go to other gyms, or belong to organizations outside my chosen style. The key word is "regularly". I will have discussions with people, whether live or in the MT forums, the same way I will discuss politics or sports. Discussing tae Kwon Do is not the same as comparing technique, comparing form, free fighting etc. It is just that-discussion. To me, sharing and comparing is more physical and demonstrative.
And for the record, my aikido organization is the same way. Very traditional, it does not share and compare with other styles because its mindset is the same as mine-aikido is separate from the other arts. Not that they don't have their own merits, but they stand separate from what we do.


----------



## okinawagojuryu (Feb 2, 2005)

Ok , you got me now . You study both Aikido , & TKD ? So , whats the problem ? 
Why do you keep mentioning Soke organizations ? You're the only one mentioning them . I wouldnt accept a piece of paper from them if you paid me . All of my present ranks come from recognized instructors/organizations in Okinawa , or Japan . 
When I was training TSD , I trained w/ KJN Kim Jae Joon , Dan # 38 under Hwang kee .
I presently train under Nakamoto Masahiro Sensei , & have trained w/ Hichiya Yoshio Sensei , who I hope allows me to train w/ him when I return to Okinawa . 
I dont think any of those men would recognize rank from a Soke organization , nor do I .


----------



## Kempogeek (Feb 2, 2005)

I respect your views MichiganTKD although I don't agree. Like Tae Kwon Do, in Kosho Ryu Kempo we train quite a bit on keeping people away by blocks, kicks and even some escaping skills. When I started, I don't believe the instuctor put that idea of keeping to ourselves. In fact I believe my instuctor does some side training in aikido. I wouldn't mind metting with people from other styles. I believe every style has alot to contribute and can learn from. Just my 2 cents. Best regards, Steve


----------



## Adept (Feb 2, 2005)

MichiganTKD - I am nonplussed. The nature of TKD does not influence the personality of its students in such a way. If it did, all Traditional TKD students would avoid human contact whenever possible, and live reclusive lives. This is simply not the case.

 I understand why you would not wish to 'pollute' your TKD syllabus. But why is it wrong, in your opinion, for others to train in other styles (where the knowledge of their TKD training is in the open, as a TKD instructor)?


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 2, 2005)

Dear Moderator: 

Is there a specific behavior you are reacting to or it there some tenor to the conversation or ????. There are plainly strong views on both sides of the discussion but I don't think I am hearing anything that too out of line.  Am I missing something? Even if its just that the comments are becoming a little to direct, its OK to be a little be more specific if you think things are getting out of hand. Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 2, 2005)

Dear Michigan: 

I am still in agreement with you but still from a slightly different point of view. I don't see a pollution of the art as much as a risk of pollution of the process that the art facilitates. People who practice only for the physical expression of the art will not get this concept. In that case practicing a martial activity will only be just so much phys Ed to them. Oddly, there are more than a few great names in sports who routinely touted their sport as "building athletes" or "building Character" or one can look at the Military that often speaks to "making men". This Character development is the process of which I speak and is of much greater importance in my view than simply protecting a particular curriculum. After 1400 years of being overrun by a spectrum of enemies the Korean had a very clear view of the role of the martial mentaility on their culture which is to say that they viewed it as an unfortunate but necessary evil (so to speak). To this day the approach to developing a martial spirit is still to mute the importance of the military roles in common Korean culture, but it is still there. If we are to pursue the Korean ethos I suggest that we get used to the idea of being the same necessary evil in American life and do what necessary to protect the integrity of the process. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 2, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Moderator:
> 
> Is there a specific behavior you are reacting to or it there some tenor to the conversation or ????. There are plainly strong views on both sides of the discussion but I don't think I am hearing anything that too out of line. Am I missing something? Even if its just that the comments are becoming a little to direct, its OK to be a little be more specific if you think things are getting out of hand. Thoughts?


 Bruce et al;

 Any kind of name-calling or insult or flame against another member on this board is against the rules.  No matter how strong one's opinion or stance on any issue is, there is simply no need to stoop to this level in order to prove the intelligent person's point.  Gender-based analyses are also irrelevant to the discussion and not necessary to make one's point.  You are all intelligent men.  Let's discuss things in an intelligent way - no name calling, insults or inappropriate connotations.  And if you have problems with this, please feel free to take it up with a senior or super moderator.


----------



## Zepp (Feb 3, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> ...I stated that I do not _regularly_ associate with other stylists, go to "open to all styles" events, *belong to all styles "Soke Organizations"*, regularly go to other gyms, or belong to organizations outside my chosen style.



Michigan, I think most people here would agree with your opinion on "soke organizations," and I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's okay to accept rank from MA organizations that don't have anything to with your own art.  But that seems to be a different topic than the one you originally raised.  

One more question for you: why exactly do you think that a TKD school participating in an open tournament or a multi-style event is a bad thing?


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 3, 2005)

Zepp,

I am opposed to Tae Kwon Do students attending open-style tournaments for several reasons.

First, open-style tournaments are designed to make more money for the tournament promoter, despite what the flyers may say. Look at it this way: A karate tournament will make so much money for the promoter. But a karate-tae kwon Do-kung fu-MMA tournament will make a lot more money because many more participants can be invited.

Second, whose rules are followed? If you have a tournament with many different styles, each style has its own rules regarding what is allowed. If a karate student fights a Tae Kwon Do student, whose rules are followed? WTF? ITF? Point fighting? Karate rules?

Thirdly, a Karate tournament promoter would most likely be unfamiliar with the background, history, culture, and ways of Tae Kwon Do, and vice versa. A Tae Kwon Do tournament is also a celebration of Tae Kwon Do as a whole. In open tournaments, much of this celebration is left out because of the various backgrounds of the competitors. Then it just becomes a fighting competition.

Fourthly, open tournaments tend to degenerate into "I'm flashier than you" competitions. Competitors try to outdo each other with flashier uniforms, fancier weapons (if there is a weapons division), made up forms with acrobatics added that have no relation to self defense or history, and no emphasis on etiquette and manners.

I don't care whether it is Ed Parker, S. Henry Cho, or the United States Open Nationals. The above could apply to any one of them. Would I attend as a spectator? Possibly, out of curiosity. Would I attend to compete or recommend people to compete? Nope.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 3, 2005)

Gretchen,

Speaking in their defense, I do think you are being a bit unreasonable. I don't believe anybody resorted to name calling or flaming. And as for gender references, I tried to use a gender reference that I hoped would help convey my attitude without being offensive. I hope I was not being offensive, for it was not my plan to be.
We are reasonable men. The posts I have read from Bruce in various threads convey the sentiments of someone who is entirely reasonable. I personally have tried very hard to convey my thoughts in a civilized, reasonable manner. Whether people agree with them is another matter. Some do, some don't. Believe me, I've seen attacks far worse than these in other MT threads.


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 3, 2005)

Michagan TKD if I may what tournament do you and your student attend, where you at State, USTU Junior Olympic or maybe Nationals both Junior And Seniors. Not trying to be rude or anything but I've done alot of open with apre set of rules for sparring and enjoyed myself. 
Thanks Your Friend in arms
Terry L. Stoker


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 3, 2005)

Terry,

Our organization is actually not affiliated with the USTU, much of it for political reasons. When we do attend tournaments, they are usually organized and led by colleagues of our Grandmaster Tae Zee Park. They are held according to WTF rules, but are not officially USTU or WTF sanctioned.They are normally private tournaments with color belt/Dan forms and free fighting divisions only. These tournaments have taken us around the country, as well as to Vietnam, Peru, Spain, and a few other countries whose names escape me.


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 3, 2005)

Thank you Michagan TKD for clearing that up for me.

Have a wonderful evening

Terry artyon:


----------



## arnisandyz (Feb 4, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Here is an interesting question:
> 
> Do you think it is proper for an Instructor in, say, Tae Kwon Do, to share his Art with Instructors of other styles and hang out with them?



Would you consider the above quote a form of prejudice? Your say I am ______(fill in the blank) and you are not, therefore I am not going to be associated with you. 

Here is  question for you...Do you think it is "proper" for an Asian instructor who has an art handed down to him through family to teach non-Asians or even hang out with them?  In some cultures it would not be proper, however, the US would have not learned Eastern Martial Arts if this had not happened. I only bring this up to state a point (don't mean for it to get "racial" moderators). The point being to set aside your prejudices whether it be racial, political, social or stylistic.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 4, 2005)

"....Would you consider the above quote a form of prejudice?..." 

Does it need to be "prejudice"? Might it not just be "discretion" or perhaps even a sense of being protective of what one does? I have trained in MA for a tad over 30 years now and the last 20 or so in Hapkido. I take what I do pretty seriously, though I will go halfway across the country on my own dime to give information to people who are seriously interested in learning. On the other hand I routinely turn-away kids who come to me with 2nd and 3rd TKD dans because they want to see what Hapkido is "like" or they have some sense of being entitled to be taught by me because they are willing to give me dollars. Always comes as a shock to them that their money carries no currency (pun intended) with me. 

Do I need to go places to learn from others? No, not really. My art has more than enough material to keep me busy in this life and well into the next. But I also don't sit around on my bum waiting for someone to spoon-feed me the next dose of insight. Hapkido has plenty of room for growth all by itself. What I seem to be hearing other people suggest is that whatever they are involved in has lost its novelty, is somehow lacking, or perhaps is even too chalenging to deal with. The result is a need to just hang-out in less structured activities so as to do some MA-like things without having being held to accountable for accomplishing actual Growth.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 4, 2005)

MichiganTKD's comments in bold:

*I am opposed to Tae Kwon Do students attending open-style tournaments for several reasons.*

*First, open-style tournaments are designed to make more money for the tournament promoter, despite what the flyers may say. Look at it this way: A karate tournament will make so much money for the promoter. But a karate-tae kwon Do-kung fu-MMA tournament will make a lot more money because many more participants can be invited.*

The assumption here, if I read this correctly, is that Tae Kwon Do promoters are above any avaricious intent, and don't host tournaments for the purposes of profit.  This is patently false.  I know a Korean-once a state director for the USTU-who was in it for only that purpose.   The man was (and is) noted for his profit driven motives and will openly teach ways of cheating a student out of several months of tuition via bank drafts.

Is this a tu quoque argument?  Hardly.  I list it to point out the error in your reasoning.  Open karate tournament directors haven't cornered the market in corruption when it comes to sponsoring an event.  I know open tournament directors who make a fair profit and run a fair event, and I know Koreans who host biased competitions and are in it for the cash.  It goes both ways.

*Second, whose rules are followed? If you have a tournament with many different styles, each style has its own rules regarding what is allowed. If a karate student fights a Tae Kwon Do student, whose rules are followed? WTF? ITF? Point fighting? Karate rules?*

You fight the rules of the tournament.  If a TKD fighter can't handle the hand strikes of a karate man, or the karate man can't handle the kicks of the TKD stylist, or neither can handle the boxing skills of a Muay Thai fighter, I'd say that leads to reflection and illumination.  Or, perhaps, to a "sour grapes" attitude with rationalization for having received a beating.

*Thirdly, a Karate tournament promoter would most likely be unfamiliar with the background, history, culture, and ways of Tae Kwon Do, and vice versa. A Tae Kwon Do tournament is also a celebration of Tae Kwon Do as a whole. In open tournaments, much of this celebration is left out because of the various backgrounds of the competitors. Then it just becomes a fighting competition.*

No kidding it becomes a fighting competition.

The paragraph above is a rather sad rationalization for not stepping out of your house.  Again, the term is _xenophobia_.  

You have plenty of tournaments in which to "celebrate" Tae Kwon Do culture.  

*Fourthly, open tournaments tend to degenerate into "I'm flashier than you" competitions. Competitors try to outdo each other with flashier uniforms, fancier weapons (if there is a weapons division), made up forms with acrobatics added that have no relation to self defense or history, and no emphasis on etiquette and manners.*

The flash and star spangled forms are an event you don't have to participate in.  Merely fight, and see in what areas you're found wanting.

*I don't care whether it is Ed Parker, S. Henry Cho, or the United States Open Nationals. The above could apply to any one of them. Would I attend as a spectator? Possibly, out of curiosity. Would I attend to compete or recommend people to compete? Nope.*

Well, we wouldn't want that moment of reflection and illumination now, would we?  Or would it be sour grapes?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 4, 2005)

I realize full well that Tae Kwon Do is no stranger to tournaments organized for monetary gain. One of the reasons why our Grandmaster did not recommend tournaments to us for many years. Too much Instructor politics and shady financial dealings. He waited until he had Instructors of his own in his organization who could judge and referee properly and then began to give them the responsibility of organizing the tournaments, telling them what he wanted and how they were to be organized (WTF rules, safety first, color belt forms/sparring/one step, black belt forms/sparring). Much like the ATA, it is an organization tournament supervised and run within our organization. We know what the rules will be, and (overall) what to expect. Unlike open tournaments, with their "anything goes" mentality.
We don't have karate students or MMA students at our tournament, or the tournaments we go to for the same reason there are no such students at the World TKD Championships-it is a Tae Kwon Do tournament, celebrating TKD culture and using its rules. If someone else wants to go to a MMA tournament and risk getting injured, have at it.
One of the nice things about having a tournament organized along these lines: You know what to expect and what the rules are. There are no satin or star-spangled uniforms, no one doing a form they made up to impress the judges, no forms with flips and somersaults, and no matches with karate students fighting Tae Kwon Do students. Everyone goes home happy and in one piece.

Bruce is absolutely correct. Tae Kwon Do or Hapkido have enough in them to keep me busy and occupied for at least one lifetime. Aside from curiosity, there really is no reason for me to continually share with other styles.


----------



## Miles (Feb 4, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Michigan:
> 
> I am still in agreement with you but still from a slightly different point of view. I don't see a pollution of the art as much as a risk of pollution of the process that the art facilitates. .......This Character development is the process of which I speak and is of much greater importance in my view than simply protecting a particular curriculum. ........To this day the approach to developing a martial spirit is still to mute the importance of the military roles in common Korean culture, but it is still there. If we are to pursue the Korean ethos I suggest that we get used to the idea of being the same necessary evil in American life and do what necessary to protect the integrity of the process. FWIW.


Very interesting post Bruce!

Please explain how the process of character development is polluted by sharing with other instructors. (I am assuming the instructors share an equal desire to develop martial spirit, at least that is one of my goals as well as that of my friend who is learning TKD and teaching me Kali.)

Miles


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 4, 2005)

Dear Miles: 

If I decided to get "Biblical" about this, my response would come down to that bit from the New Testament about how "no man can serve two masters". But let me try something a little more concrete. 

Lets say you decide to join the Marine Corp here in the States. Off to Paris Island you go for Boot Camp. Say about the Xth week you get your weapon and the DI gives you the skinny on your weapon according to the Corps. But then your bunk buddy, who has previous duty in the Army starts to fill you in on what the "REAL" story is about your weapon, some of which matches the DI and some of which does not. Now we have a mental conflict-- follow the DI and his theory, or your bunk buddy and his life experience. The issue is not whose right or wrong --- the DI or your buddy. The ISSUE is that YOU now have a conflict which will reduce your efficiency and effectiveness as a team player. Fact is that you didn't come to Paris Island to become a Marine. You were sent to Paris Island to learn how to subject your priorities to those of the organization. In the end the label you earn for doing this is "Marine".

Lets shift this to Martial arts. You join a martial art with an eye towards becoming a Black Belt in a selected art. As you go through the training you are constantly distracted by people who think differently, who tout an "easier way", or a "better" way. Now you are conflicted and you will remain conflicted until you resolve that conflict, and until that happens you will be compromised as a practitioner. The fact is that you didn't join a MA to become a BB. You joined to learn how to be a better person and a true servant of your culture. In the end, if you succeed, you earn a Black Belt--- which mean in this case you are just getting warmed-up for the rest of your life.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Shu2jack (Feb 4, 2005)

> Dear Miles:
> 
> If I decided to get "Biblical" about this, my response would come down to that bit from the New Testament about how "no man can serve two masters". But let me try something a little more concrete.
> 
> ...


I do agree with that to an extent. I believe that color belts should stick just with what they are doing in their art, their organization, and their school. This is so a student can gain a solid foundation.

Once you earn your black belt, I think it would be acceptable to train with different people, compete in different types of events, and maybe talk to other instructors about theory and application. I don't think it is diluteing anything, but looking at a different perspective. In your example with the military. Both the DI and bunk-mate could be correct, but different personal experiences lead to different views and ideas. After that marine has gained his own expereince he can take what the DI says and what his bunk-mate says, use his own real-world experience, and determine what is best.

After all, each art teaches a person how to be a better person by different methods. They also view things differently. I think part of learning to be a better person is to know how other people are "raised" and "trained" in order to know where they are coming from, how to interact with them, and how to get along. By sticking with just my art I limit my understanding of others and what it is to be a good person. This could be said of character-building, technique, knowledge, theory, etc.

It is like growing up. As a child you get all these mixed messages and different thoughts. You need a parent to give you a set, solid, healthy way of doing things and thinking. As a teenager or "young adult" you hear all these crazy ideas and points of views. You compare these to what you have been taught as a child and think for yourself. Once you become an adult and gain real world expereince you begin to see how things are in the world and take what works for you.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 4, 2005)

Bruce,
Excellent analogy. Each martial art has their own way of doing things, their own culture, philosophy etc. Again, I don't really have a problem with one time comparing styles with someone else out curiosity. However, if you frequently share with a karate student, or a MMA student, inevitably it will lead to questions of "why do you do it like that? Why do you kick like that? Why do you believe that?" Sometimes the questions are innocent-merely curiosity toward a different culture. However, if you share often enough with other styles, inevitably questions about why you do the things you do will surface, and doubts will be planted about how and why you practice. Trust me, when was the last time you heard a karate student say "Wow! Tae Kwon Do is just as good as karate. Maybe I should practice that instead!" Doesn't happen.

One of the basic tenets of the teacher-student relationship is trust. As the Instructor, it is my obligation to teach you the right way, and your obligation to trust me to do so. If you contantly compare with other styles and question each other, eventually doubts will build up in our relationship because other students-who do not share your experience-will question why you do what you do and its effectiveness. As an Instructor, I simply cannot teach someone who continually questions me, for there is no trust. 

Let's be honest. Every stylist believes their art is the most effective and the best. It is part of being proud of what you practice. The MMA think traditional styles don't work; jeet kune do people think JKD is the ultimate style because of the Bruce Lee mystique; Tae Kwon Do students think their style is the most effective etc. Nothing wrong with being proud of what you practice. However, if you frequently practice and associate with other students who think their style is the best, they will inevitably question what and why you do what you do. Maybe out of curiosity, maybe because in their mind they don't think your art is effective. What will happen is the instructor-student relationship is now undermined because some guy who doesn't even practice the same style constantly questions how effective my art is.

And please spare me the "all arts are one" bull. All arts are not one. Each art is different and separate, with its own background, history, philosophy, and etiquette. I would no more expect a karate student to want to frequently share with me than I would want to share with a karate or Hapkido student. They go their way, I go mine.


----------



## Miles (Feb 5, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with being proud of what you practice. However, if you frequently practice and associate with other students who think their style is the best, they will inevitably question what and why you do what you do. Maybe out of curiosity, maybe because in their mind they don't think your art is effective. ......And please spare me the "all arts are one" bull. All arts are not one. Each art is different and separate, with its own background, history, philosophy, and etiquette. I would no more expect a karate student to want to frequently share with me than I would want to share with a karate or Hapkido student. They go their way, I go mine.





			
				Bruce said:
			
		

> Lets shift this to Martial arts. You join a martial art with an eye towards becoming a Black Belt in a selected art. As you go through the training you are constantly distracted by people who think differently, who tout an "easier way", or a "better" way. Now you are conflicted and you will remain conflicted until you resolve that conflict, and until that happens you will be compromised as a practitioner. The fact is that you didn't join a MA to become a BB. You joined to learn how to be a better person and a true servant of your culture. In the end, if you succeed, you earn a Black Belt--- which mean in this case you are just getting warmed-up for the rest of your life. FWIW.


Thank you both for your insights.  Bruce, what about black belts or instructor-level people simply training with each other?  I totally agree with your inference that there may be distractions to those who may not have matured within a given art.  But if one is an instructor, the assumption will be that he/she has learned to be a better person, and therefore may not be so stylistically-prejudiced to presume his/her art is better...just different.

MichiganTKD, I agree each art is different-has it's own background, history, etiquette, as you stated.  I say, "viva la difference."

Perhaps not as good as your analogy Bruce, but when I was a high school student I studied the French language.  In doing so, I learned more about the structure of the English language.  My son is a senior in high school.  He studied Latin-I know it has benefited him as well.  

I am not advocating formal mixing of the arts per se-I agree "all arts are not one" as MichiganTKD mentioned.  Just sharing....

Miles


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 5, 2005)

Something else I would add.

If you are truly curious about another style, I think there is a window of opportunity when it might be more acceptable to do this. Not as a color belt. During the color belt time, you are establishing your basics, getting grounded in your style's technique, history, philosophy, and establishing a relationship with your Instructor. During this time, your teacher is deciding whether or not you will advance in the style. Sort of like K-12 in school.
Not as an Instructor. As an Instructor, you are beginning to make a name for yourself within your organization and within your style. The higher you go, the more you promote your art and become known as a leading proponent of that style. Being an Instructor of that style becomes part of your identity, as much as your family, your career, and your personal life. Certainly the more you advance, the more you associate with regional, national, and world leaders of your Art. 
I think the time to experiment and share with other styles, if you really want to, is the period of 1st-3rd Dan. For a couple of reasons. First, your relationship with your Instructor is established. You know what you practice, how to do it, and have a sense of loyalty to the organization. You are still innocent, because as a junior Dan holder, noone expects you to have a national reputation and be influential within your style. Even if you choose to be a tournament champion, you are still primarily concerned with the development of physical technique.
Second, as a junior Dan holder, you will not be concerned with charting the course of your organization or style. Your concern is physical practice and being a good student to your Instructor.
Would I recommend frequently associating with other styles? No. Again, they all have their way of doing things and you have your way. Karate technique is different from Tae Kwon Do technique, which is different from kung fu. Too  much associating with others can lead to confusion of technique and identity. And again, there is a time for that which must be chosen carefully. When is that time? Perhaps college, when you have opportunities to observe other styles and compare. Perhaps on vacation, when your schedule is a little more free, and knowing that whoever you meet you might not meet again. I would not make it a point of purposely going out of your way to share with other styles. I think it disrespects your Instructor if you purposely contact and share with other styles, versus sharing one time because an opportunity happens to be there. If nothing else, it might make you glad you practice your art and belong to your organization.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 5, 2005)

Dear Miles: 

".....Thank you both for your insights. Bruce, what about black belts or instructor-level people simply training with each other? I totally agree with your inference that there may be distractions to those who may not have matured within a given art. But if one is an instructor, the assumption will be that he/she has learned to be a better person, and therefore may not be so stylistically-prejudiced to presume his/her art is better...just different....." 

Not to split hairs about this but I don't know that I would speak in terms of people being "instructor-level". The way I would characterize it might be something more along the lines of "Mature Black Belts." I know some people might take exception to my making this distinction and figure I am just being a raving Age-ist. Fact is, though, as we all know a person can be very mature at just about any age. The distinction I make about being a Black Belt comes from my own judgement that a person who has attained at least a Cho-dan or E-dan has made a commitment to a particular art and has a firm grounding from which to make assessments of other arts relative to their own. ('Course, I COULD be wrong.   )Yes, I HAVE heard the story about "emptying your tea cup". But, I have never heard a story about substituting someone elses tea cup for your own, or re-fashioning your own tea cup so that others feel more comfortable with your company. My guess is that a mature BB has a firm grip on his own tea cup, knows how much tea he wants, and is perfectly able to dump out what he gets if its not to his liking without being made to feel bad about it.  Nor do I suspect that a mature BB will be cowed into accepting that what he has committed to is somehow lacking if, when playing according to anothers' game, he finds his own skills lacking. Know what I mean? Its a matter, once again, of acknowledging things without being controlled by them.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 5, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I realize full well that Tae Kwon Do is no stranger to tournaments organized for monetary gain. One of the reasons why our Grandmaster did not recommend tournaments to us for many years. Too much Instructor politics and shady financial dealings. He waited until he had Instructors of his own in his organization who could judge and referee properly and then began to give them the responsibility of organizing the tournaments, telling them what he wanted and how they were to be organized (WTF rules, safety first, color belt forms/sparring/one step, black belt forms/sparring). Much like the ATA, it is an organization tournament supervised and run within our organization. We know what the rules will be, and (overall) what to expect. Unlike open tournaments, with their "anything goes" mentality.
> 
> One of the nice things about having a tournament organized along these lines: You know what to expect and what the rules are. There are no satin or star-spangled uniforms, no one doing a form they made up to impress the judges, no forms with flips and somersaults, and no matches with karate students fighting Tae Kwon Do students. Everyone goes home happy and in one piece.




Closed circuit tournaments are an effective way for an organization to keep others from coming in and stealing the limelight from their own people.  Any failings in the organization's fighting methods or fighters are thereby hidden.  Any champions are homegrown.  Nobody from a competing organization can ever rock the boat by winning over the organizations golden few.

As for satin uniforms, ignore them.  Go to a more traditional tournament where they don't prevail if this really causes your bile to rise.  If you can stomach it for a bit get out and fight one of these yahoos and see if you can beat him at his game.  If you can't, you can't.  You'll at least be able to make fun of his uniform after he's thrashed you.

As for your statement that every style thinks itself superior, I'd have to agree this is often the case.  If someone should make the claim, they ought to test it.  If they think their method is superior, they need to back up what they say.  Hosting a closed tournament doesn't do this.  

As for knowing what to expect and knowing what the rules are, I've never had a problem with that when I've taken my students to open tournaments.  We research the rules and train accordingly in preparation.  A need for certitude and stasis is silly when one considers we practice arts that purportedly teach self-defense.  There is no certitude or stasis in agonism.

To quote Charles Marsh, "...stasis in the arts is tantamount to death."

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Miles (Feb 5, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Not to split hairs about this but I don't know that I would speak in terms of people being "instructor-level". The way I would characterize it might be something more along the lines of "Mature Black Belts." ...... The distinction I make about being a Black Belt comes from my own judgement that a person who has attained at least a Cho-dan or E-dan has made a commitment to a particular art and has a firm grounding from which to make assessments of other arts relative to their own. ..........Nor do I suspect that a mature BB will be cowed into accepting that what he has committed to is somehow lacking if, when playing according to anothers' game, he finds his own skills lacking.


 No hair splitting!   

I used the term "instructor-level" as the person with whom I'm been training on the side (and using as my primary example) has a background in several Chinese styles where there is no belt system.  He has 36+ years in the martial arts, so he is my MA senior by 6 years and he is also 9 yrs older than I am.  At this stage in our respective journeys, neither of us needs to prove anything to the other.  We just enjoy training and sharing our respective arts with each other.

Take Care,

Miles


----------



## Miles (Feb 5, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As for your statement that every style thinks itself superior, I'd have to agree this is often the case. If someone should make the claim, they ought to test it. If they think their method is superior, they need to back up what they say. Hosting a closed tournament doesn't do this.


Steve, I think you meant every style has students who think their style is superior.  In my experience, these are often the students who have not matured.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As for knowing what to expect and knowing what the rules are, I've never had a problem with that when I've taken my students to open tournaments. We research the rules and train accordingly in preparation.


This is the sign of a good instructor-you research and prepare your students.  Even WTF-style tournaments modify the rules. Locally, there are very few tournaments which allow full-contact WTF rules for gueps or ultra seniors.  Too many lawyers! 

Miles


----------



## Shu2jack (Feb 5, 2005)

> As for knowing what to expect and knowing what the rules are, I've never had a problem with that when I've taken my students to open tournaments. We research the rules and train accordingly in preparation. A need for certitude and stasis is silly when one considers we practice arts that purportedly teach self-defense. There is no certitude or stasis in agonism
> 
> To quote Charles Marsh, "...stasis in the arts is tantamount to death."


I really don't think tournaments should be equated to self-defense and evolution of an art. I think almost all of us can agree that tournaments are not street self-defense. People also train for other reasons other than self-defense. 

So I do not see how open or closed tournaments would lead to killing or reviving a martial art. If you study only for self-defense, exercise, what ever, and that is what your art is about, then tournaments really do not matter to your art. They are just extra. What would kill your art is not taking into account the changes in violence and how your training deals with it. It has nothing to do with the tournament scene.

If your school focuses on competition, then it is a sport art and having closed tournaments wouldn't kill a sport. The NFL, NBA, and other sports have "closed" competitions. Only their rules, only players from their organization, etc. As long as you can keep the product fresh (remember, we are talking sport art), you should be ok.



> Closed circuit tournaments are an effective way for an organization to keep others from coming in and stealing the limelight from their own people. Any failings in the organization's fighting methods or fighters are thereby hidden. Any champions are homegrown. Nobody from a competing organization can ever rock the boat by winning over the organizations golden few.


I really don't think those reasons you list are primary for holding closed tournaments. I have competed in closed tournaments in the ATA for 10 years and have attended a few open tournaments. Each have their advantages and disadvantages.

By holding a closed tournament I can greatly improve quality. Quality in competitor behavior, professionalism in judging, and a smoothly ran tournament. Because every judge, instructor, and competitor can trace a direct chain of command to the senior rank at the tournament any problems can be eliminated quickly and all the black belts know each other. We can black list those who are trobule makers or who misrepresent the art. Everyone knows what is expected of them, parents included. We have our own way of dealing with "soccer" or "little league" parents. If you give us problems, your child will lose the match regardless of how much butt they are kicking. Because of these reasons, we can hold higher standards for everyone and the organization's reputation greatly improves. I think this is the reason for closed tournaments.

As for beating our "golden boys", "rocking the boat", and "showing weaknesses in our training"....right. If you join an organization with closed tournaments and beat the snot out of everyone, I really don't think anyone would mind. The goal of a closed tournament is to keep out the punks and those who are just there to fight and care nothing for the traditions, competitors, or organization.

I am not saying the ATA's style of sparring or training is perfect, our methods definately have some holes, but if someone comes in to our tournament and starts sparring by our rules against people who have lived by the rules for at least a decade, the ATA person would have a great advantage in the closed ATA tournament. Could he be defeated? Absolutely. But the competiton training for our tournaments is made to take advantage of our rule set. I really don't think there is any major failing for the training for our tournaments. Other people's tournaments, yes.

That said, I think people who compete in closed tournaments should compete in open tournaments and mingle with others outside their art. It gives them room to grow, examine their own training, and question what they study in order to better understand what they do.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 5, 2005)

You know what...... 

I'm wondering how many people wouldn't mind getting rid of tournaments? 

In the DRAJJ tradition there are yearly demonstrations where folks get out on the mat in front of an audiance and show what their art/ryu-ha is about. I don't think there is competition in the sense of people winning something for best demo. Could be wrong. Its more along the line of showing what they are about. Now I know that people COULD do the same thing at a tournament but the atmosphere is sort of skewed (in my book) as the intent is towards competition. The Internationale in Jackson (which is coming up BTW) is a collection of seminars and workshops for the Hapkido community that happens twice a year. There is absolutely NO competition, but there IS a lot of taping, instruction, recording and discussion about how different people approach the same thing (Hapkido). I should also add that there are almost always large numbers of TKD/TSD people who attend to flesh-out their Hoshinsul material or maybe just to get an organized taste of another Korean art. I could see having the tournament circuit split itself into at least 50-50 mix. 

Does anyone have any thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Adept (Feb 5, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Lets shift this to Martial arts. You join a martial art with an eye towards becoming a Black Belt in a selected art. As you go through the training you are constantly distracted by people who think differently, who tout an "easier way", or a "better" way. Now you are conflicted and you will remain conflicted until you resolve that conflict, and until that happens you will be compromised as a practitioner.


 I agree with this. However, your analogy specifically targets people who have yet to master the basics. Colour belts, if you will. At this stage of training, it is very unlikely that a martial artist will be able to discern for himself or herself what works, and what does not. Or if two things work, then what is more effective. Or at least, what is more effective _for them_. 

 But this isn't the point we are discussing. We are (or were) specifically discussing the training of a high level artist in another style, where his previous training is known and drawn upon. 



> The fact is that you didn't join a MA to become a BB. You joined to learn how to be a better person and a true servant of your culture. In the end, if you succeed, you earn a Black Belt--- which mean in this case you are just getting warmed-up for the rest of your life. FWIW.


 Some people join a martial art simpy to get fit. Some people join an art that has no belt structure at all. Not everyone wants a belt.



			
				MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I don't really have a problem with one time comparing styles with someone else out curiosity. However, if you frequently share with a karate student, or a MMA student, inevitably it will lead to questions of "why do you do it like that? Why do you kick like that? Why do you believe that?" Sometimes the questions are innocent-merely curiosity toward a different culture. However, if you share often enough with other styles, inevitably questions about why you do the things you do will surface, and doubts will be planted about how and why you practice.


 A martial artist should be confident in their skills and method of training, becuse they honestly believe it to be the best way to train, not because their instructor told them. They should compare and evaluate all of their training. If someone is doing something in a different way, and it is _better_ than your way, then why shouldn't you adpot that method of training? If you are asked "Why do you kick like that?" You should be able to say "Because it is the best way for me to kick" and you should be able to _defend_ that assertation. You should be able to say "this is the best for me, because of X,Y, and Z". If they then put up a good argument, and you realise they are right and you are not, what benefit is there in staying with the 'inferior' technique?


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 5, 2005)

A couple of issues I would like to address. 
On the issue of going to open tournaments: As I have stated before, I disagree with open tournaments. A Tae Kwon Do tournament celebrates the whole package of Tae Kwon Do, not just who the best fighter is. If someone wants to go to one, that is their choice. I choose not to because, as the old saying goes, you are who you associate with. I would rather not be associated with satin or stars and stripes uniforms, made up/acrobatic forms, Hollywood wanna-be's, and poor etiquette. The fact that I am at the same event as these guys implies I condone these activities.
I also believe in the Instructor-student relationship, like the parent-child relationship. Telling someone their technique or their manners are no good is like telling them their Instructor is no good. If you frequently associate with students outside your style, inevitably they will question what you do, because it doesn't jibe with what they do. Friendly competition between organization instructors is one thing. Across different styles, it will reach whole new levels. You can't tell me a Kenpo stylist wouldn't be critical of a Tae Kwon Do stylist and vice versa. I seriously doubt various stylists would respect this traditional relationship and think nothing of voicing disapproval of why and how we do things.

Again, what is to be gained by frequently sharing with other stylists? How does a Tae Kwon Do Grandmaster, supposedly a world leader in his chosen style, justify be associated with non-Tae Kwon Do Instructors? Yes, there are Instructors who do, but I mean legitimate Masters and Grandmasters.


----------



## Adept (Feb 5, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> How does a Tae Kwon Do Grandmaster, supposedly a world leader in his chosen style, justify be associated with non-Tae Kwon Do Instructors? Yes, there are Instructors who do, but I mean legitimate Masters and Grandmasters.


 He can continue to learn.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 5, 2005)

This is his Instructor's job, as well as the result of associating with other world-class Tae Kwon Do Instructors. Why would I need to learn from some karate Instructor when I can benefit from my Instructor's knowledge, his connections, and the knowledge of high ranking Tae Kwon Do Masters and Grandmasters the world over?
Other than simple curiosity, I see no reason to pursue this type of association. It's like saying "I'm going to study French because I know all I need to know about English." If you want to study French, great. But not because you have mastered English.


----------



## Adept (Feb 6, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> This is his Instructor's job, as well as the result of associating with other world-class Tae Kwon Do Instructors. Why would I need to learn from some karate Instructor when I can benefit from my Instructor's knowledge, his connections, and the knowledge of high ranking Tae Kwon Do Masters and Grandmasters the world over?


 To improve your knowledge base. Those TKD grandmasters are unlikely to have a ground game which is as good as the Gracies of Brazil. Nor are they as likely to have a solid grounding in RBSD skills as the people who train LEOs for a living.

 Thats why I _would_ and _do_ train openely with people from other arts. But the nature of the argument is not for us to provide a reason why, but for you to provide a reason why _not_.

 Because someone might question you or your techniques? So what. Your techniques should be able to stand up to the questioning and scrutiny they might come under in a MMA environment. If they don't, then why train like that?



> Other than simple curiosity, I see no reason to pursue this type of association. It's like saying "I'm going to study French because I know all I need to know about English." If you want to study French, great. But not because you have mastered English.


 This analogy is poor. The nautre of the argument really prohibits analogies. Learning skills to aid oneself in a violent confrontation is vastly different from just about anything else. G2BH has come up with the best analogy so far (marine boot camp) but even that was critically flawed. A better analogy would be - 

 As an instructor at marine boot camp, you teach your recruits to do one thing a certain way (say, sight down the rifle with one eye closed). You associate with an army instructor, who asks why you do it that way. You explain, and he in return explains why he does it with _both_ eyes open. You think about it, try it, and find it works better. You then train your recruits to sight with both eyes open.

 Or, you explain it, and he realises you are right, and now _he_ trains _his_ recruits with one eye closed.

 You learn, compare, and choose what works best for you. The techniques you use should be the best available to you, not just the ones your instructor tells you to use.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 6, 2005)

"....Some people join a martial art simpy to get fit. Some people join an art that has no belt structure at all. Not everyone wants a belt...." 

The belt issue is actually superfluous. Traditionally Korean Martial Art and Martial Science never had a belt system, but thats an arguement for another string. 

If a person truely joins a martial art to "get fit" I suggest to following points to consider. 

1.) That person is not actually pursuing a martial art in his heart anymore than one would join the Marines to get fit. 

2.) That an activity that suggests that they allow a person to participate physically without an eye towards shaping his character is not only NOT a Martial Art, but is probably a gross waste of time. 

3.) That the key to this discussion is the level to which a person aspires to become something more than that with which he started. This he might do by exposing himself to variants outside of his own discipline. However, he need do this without losing touch with who he is or what his original goals were. This takes maturity which may, or may not, coincide with a belt rank. FWIW.

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 6, 2005)

"....As an instructor at marine boot camp, you teach your recruits to do one thing a certain way (say, sight down the rifle with one eye closed). You associate with an army instructor, who asks why you do it that way. You explain, and he in return explains why he does it with both eyes open. You think about it, try it, and find it works better. You then train your recruits to sight with both eyes open.

Or, you explain it, and he realises you are right, and now he trains his recruits with one eye closed.

You learn, compare, and choose what works best for you. The techniques you use should be the best available to you, not just the ones your instructor tells you to use....." 

This dynamic is very common in Martial Science. In fact there is an arm of each military branch whose sole purpose is to review and make recommendation for military instruction. This is not Martial Art. Different situation. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Adept (Feb 6, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> This is not Martial Art. Different situation. FWIW.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Bruce


 Could you explain what you mean and how it relates to the discussion at hand?


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 6, 2005)

Yes, I can. 

For years now people have been calling what they do "martial art". In the last thirty years or so, effectively since the "Bruce Lee Revolution" what people have been practicing is "Martial Science". Yes, they still call it "martial art", but its not. The minute you quantify a body of knowledge and begin to subject it to Scientific Method you have stopped practicing Art and started practicing Science. CAN you make an art out of a science? Well, obviously, that what started most of the arts we discuss here. Can you make a science out of an art? Certainly, anytime you introduce the Scientific Method. What is creating so much confusion is that people keep rocking back and forth between the two wanting to have things one way but call them or experience them in another way. They want the authenticity of history in an art, but also the innovation that comes with practicing a Science. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Adept (Feb 6, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> For years now people have been calling what they do "martial art". In the last thirty years or so, effectively since the "Bruce Lee Revolution" what people have been practicing is "Martial Science". Yes, they still call it "martial art", but its not. The minute you quantify a body of knowledge and begin to subject it to Scientific Method you have stopped practicing Art and started practicing Science.


 Once again it seems we are getting bogged down in semantics. While the minuteia (sp?) of tiny label differences can be interesting and make understanding easier over the internet, I feel that in this case it is counter-productive.

 The discussion at hand is with regard to the positive and negative elements of an experienced martial artist* openly associating with martial artists of a different style.

 While I understand that this is not something everyone would want to do (some people are happy learning from only one syllabus) I do not understand how it can be viewed as something that is bad for _other_ people to do.

 * - Call it combat sport, martial science, boxing, whatever label seems best to you.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 6, 2005)

".....Once again it seems we are getting bogged down in semantics. While the minuteia (sp?) of tiny label differences can be interesting and make understanding easier over the internet, I feel that in this case it is counter-productive....." 

Yes, this is a popular arguement, but in itself is counter-productive. We Humans communicate in symbolism. Taken to its higher forms that symbolism becomes language and finally writing. The venue we are using here is the American Dialect of the English branch of that language. The ability to communicate productively requires that we are all calling the same thing by the same label. It has been my misfortune to participate in scads of discussions that revolve around why certain liberties cannot be taken with a Martial ART using protocols, or approaches that are used for Martial Science. 
For instance, why can't we simply pick "what works and leave the rest". You CAN do this with a Martial Science. In fact the nature of science nearly requires it. Martial Art does not bow to this since the idea is to polish the individual by utilizing the same body of practice over and over. Indeed, it is the very ability to most accurately reflect a set standard such as a hyung or sool that defines much of the expertise in Martial Arts. In this way, if one were to get together with others within the context of a Martial Art one might only reasonably expect to learn how to do what one knows better rather than add some new construct to their art. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Adept (Feb 6, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Martial Art does not bow to this...


 I say it does, you say it doesn't, neither of us can prove it either way since we both define the words differently, so lets not bother our heads about it, and instead concentrate on the issue at hand.

 I repeat from above - 

_The discussion at hand is with regard to the positive and negative elements of an experienced martial artist* openly associating with martial artists of a different style.

  While I understand that this is not something everyone would want to do (some people are happy learning from only one syllabus) I do not understand how it can be viewed as something that is bad for *other* people to do._

 Although I think you may be leaning towards a conclusion somewhat like this:

 It is not wrong for a martial artist to openly associate with martial artists of a different style, but he must then call himself a martial scientist, and not an artist.

   * - Call it combat sport, martial science, boxing, whatever label seems best to you.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 6, 2005)

".....Although I think you may be leaning towards a conclusion somewhat like this:

It is not wrong for a martial artist to openly associate with martial artists of a different style, but he must then call himself a martial scientist, and not an artist....." 

Not quite but I do have that sensitivity, thats true. What I am thinking of is more along the lines of this. 

a.) If people want to get together and train I think that is fine. I see a need for the participants to have a solid founding in their own art and practice, which means an understanding and maturity commensurate with the activity. Well and good. In that case......

b.) If you are getting together to practice an art then the focus will be on doing what each person knows and understanding how to do that knowledge-base better. I don't know how practitioners of different Martial Arts would do this but I suppose it IS possible. On the other hand.......

C.) If you are getting together to compare what one person does to what another person does with an eye towards moderating or modifying the knowledge-base itself thats some thing different. 

The dog that I have in this race is that folks not say they intend to do one thing, call it another and perform yet something else, that all. 

Regards, 

Bruce


----------



## DuneViking (Feb 17, 2005)

There was this one time, at a martial arts seminar some people from my club attended, and the sponsoring instructor was very well respected and a highly accomplished martial artist. It was said that he did not even have hash marks on his belt to indicate his rank, he was that modest. He is still well known, and he shared all kinds of useful information. Like that artist, others in our club draw upon any applicable source to advance their understanding, which is practicle because our emphasis is on building character and developing self defense skills, rather than competition. We also recognise the enjoyment that many have for tournament competition and are glad to help them, but in doing so we emphasize the difference twixt self defense and the sport. 

Our GrandMaster, president and founder recently shared a story, about how he entered a tournament in forms and won first, and a youngster who worked very hard took 4th, but they only had trophies for the first 3 places. He took his trophy and asked the second place man and third place man and they swapped them so that the 2nd place took home a 1st place, the 3rd took home a 2nd place and the 4th place kid got a 3rd place trophy with my instructor being happy to just have had the opportunity to compete as he was not interested in the trophy. He got one anyway, for a long time afterward, at every tournament that 4th placed kid went to, he pointed out the man who gave up his trophy so he could have one, saying to his friends, "there, that's the guy who gave up his trophy." That is the reason I am in martial arts, that is the best demonstration of what TDK is, building character by example and sharing. 

Remember the seminar I wrote about above? Well my instructor had taken students there to learn and was even aquainted with the sponsor of the seminar. Later in the evening after the first or second day of the seminar, that sponsor, an 8th Dän at least at that time, stopped by their rooms and asked " Hey, can I hang out with you guys? " Another demonstration of TKD. While I am proud to study with my instructor I will respect his privacy and say only that the sponsor of that seminar was also someone  of great character, he is called Bill Wallace. Share with other martial artists? You bet. As our master says: if it works on me, its TDK the next day.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 18, 2005)

Bill Wallace is a kickboxer, not a traditional martial artist. In other words, an athlete. Therefore, he is not guided by the same manners, etiquette, philosophy etc. that traditional martial artists use. I'm sure he's a nice guy. There are lots of nice guys out there.

Anyway, what would we talk about? Sparring? He is a point fighter and I use WTF rules. Forms? I doubt he does the same forms as me, if he even does forms. He is a kickboxer, remember. Kickboxers tend not to practice basics, forms, or one-step. They are athletes. They do drills, conditioning, exercises. His horrible acting? I'm sure he'd want to talk about the bad films he's been in.

But hey, if associating with Bill Wallace brightens your day, have at it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 18, 2005)

*Bill Wallace is a kickboxer, not a traditional martial artist. In other words, an athlete. Therefore, he is not guided by the same manners, etiquette, philosophy etc. that traditional martial artists use. * 


From what I recall, Bill Wallace received training in Shorei-Goju under Glen Keeney, in Anderson, Indiana.  He studied (allegedly) Tae Kwon Do under Jong Woo Kim in Muncie, Indiana in the very early seventies.  I say allegedly because Kim claimed it openly when my sister studied with him.  Wallace also studied classical Judo for a time, I believe...but I may be wrong.

As for his standards of etiquette, I don't know.

As for manners, etiquette and philosophy, etc of traditional martial arts, please post right now that these below (a very partial list) are not traditional martial arts, or if they are, list those standards of etiquette and philosophy that are in accordance with yours:

Pencak Silat Mande Muda
Krabi Krabong
Muay Thai
Bersilat
Bando
Hsing I.
Dos Pares escrima
Pekiti Tirsia
Kyokushin
Savate
Hop Gar
La Coste kali
Kenpo
Serrada escrima

Now, you may classify them as mere athletes, or ring fighters, or what have you...but please, _lets see you do that right now_.  

Tell the practitioners of these systems here on this board that they're not practicing a martial art...or that these arts are somehow diminished in comparison to your brand of TKD because they don't follow your Hanophilic standards of obsequiousness and thus are not "traditional."  

And if they meet your standards, tell us again why you have nothing in common with them and refuse to interact with them.

I find it odd that you can pontificate on the merits of your system of etiquette here on MT; then go about abusing junior ranks as you have in the past by minimizing their worth; then go about snidely swiping at other martial artists whose accomplishments are substantial; and then manage to ignore the systems of at least a dozen other nations other than your beloved "Land of the Morning Calm" because they don't meet your standards of interpersonal conduct.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Raewyn (Feb 18, 2005)

Are the different kinds of Martial Arts not allowed to evolve???  Do they have to stay traditional out of respect to the grandmasters??
Is MMA not a Martial Art because the training incorporates and teaches all kinds of MA???

These are just genuine questions I dont know the answers to.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 18, 2005)

You know,  I honestly don't know why this has to keep going round and round. 
Are people being purposely obtuse or do folks reading this post honestly not understand? I could use an honest answer here because, frankly, it seems like people are going out of their way NOT to understand----- and to me that begins to smack of just plain messing with folks for the sheer joy of messing with them. Maybe its just me but this is pretty cut and dried. 

I understand that folks want to work out together. Thats OK in my book. 

I understand that maybe one of the outcomes of working out is that people may adopt some new practice. Thats OK, too. 

I understand someone may even want to turn around and show/teach these new things to others. Still no problem. 

The only place that a problem comes in is when the "New" thing is represented as being the same as the "Old" thing. Now, we have a problem. Not so much that I have an issue with Evolution. Thats going to happen. What I have a problem with is people representing what they do as one thing and actually promoting something else. We started talking about sharing and as I say thats fine. People want to turn Hapkido into a sport and THATS fine. But don't come back after a sharing event, or a sporting event and say you are doing "Hapkido". Hapkido arts are not sports. Use another name, 'cuz the term "Hapkido" is already taken.  What part of this don't folks understand? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 18, 2005)

Steve,

Nowhere have I ever said or implied that Tae Kwon Do or the Korean Way is the best. I favor TKD because I practice it. The same way a kenpo or karate stylist would favor their art. I have just as much respect for a traditional Japanese or Chinese stylist as I would for a Tae Kwon Do Instructor

I don't associate with Bill Wallace for the following reason: he is/was a point fighter/kickboxer, and I am a traditional Tae Kwon Do student. I'm not saying he's not a nice guy or that what he did was easy. But the fact is this: what Bill Wallace does-lead seminars on point sparring and how to prepare for it-is the equivalent of a coach. A coach's job is to take your technique and build it up to enable you to win matches and competitions. He happens to coach point sparring, something I don't do and am not interested in.

It's nothing personal against him. We just have nothing in common. He doesn't teach anything that I relate to. He doesn't instruct in good martial art basics, how to make power, forms, etiquette/manners, or history/culture. I'm sure he's good at what he does. But he exists in a different world than me and the people I associate with. 

Again, if you practice kickboxing or point fighting and think training with him would benefit you, have at it. But, to quote Yogi Berra, include me out.


----------



## DuneViking (Feb 22, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Steve,
> 
> Nowhere have I ever said or implied that Tae Kwon Do or the Korean Way is the best. I favor TKD because I practice it. The same way a kenpo or karate stylist would favor their art. I have just as much respect for a traditional Japanese or Chinese stylist as I would for a Tae Kwon Do Instructor
> 
> ...


My apologies. I was not very good at making my point I guess. I think it is good to share with others and it is up to me to get something out of it, to collect my golden nugget of knowledge, so to speak. 

The last time I saw Bill Wallace fight, it was a 3 second fight. He won by knockout, not on points. But again, I digress. The point I was making is that he shared on both an instructional level and a personal level. Our whole training emphasis is on 1-real world self defense and 2-building character-making yourself the best person you can be, and sharing can help there too. This is not meant to be a _persuasive argument,_ but a simple explination of my opinion on the subject of the thread. :viking3:


----------



## Marginal (Feb 22, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I don't associate with Bill Wallace for the following reason: he is/was a point fighter/kickboxer, and I am a traditional Tae Kwon Do student.



The same could be said of Chuck Norris.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 22, 2005)

Personally, I never really thought much of Chuck Norris. I'll admit, I used to watch his movies when I was 15, but I also used to love the Sho Kosugi Ninja films, so that doesn't mean much.
But yeah, the same could be said for Chick Norris. We occupy two different worlds. Not saying he's not a nice guy, but he doesn't teach anything I'm interested in learning, unless you count "Getting Your Face on the Cover of Black Belt Magazine 101". He's really good at that.
You know, I'm not even really sure what stylist I'd consider him. Is he a Tang Soo Do Instructor? Karate? Kung Fu? He's made it a practice to associate with so many different Instructors I'm not sure exactly what it is he teaches.
And don't give me a line about "well when he came back to America he practiced with different stylists out of necessity." Lots of Instructors, mine included, came to this country and stayed true to what they practiced. They didn't practice with 50 different stylists "out of necessity". They practiced what they were familiar with.


----------



## DuneViking (Feb 23, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Once again it seems we are getting bogged down in semantics. While the minuteia (sp?) of tiny label differences can be interesting and make understanding easier over the internet, I feel that in this case it is counter-productive.
> 
> The discussion at hand is with regard to the positive and negative elements of an experienced martial artist* openly associating with martial artists of a different style.
> 
> ...


Bullseye!
And where did these arts [and sciences] come from, hmmmm?
Obviously some one thought of them, thru observation or speculative contemplation, or probably both, and to share with others is to continue that experience. Remember Ayn Rand's Anthem, should we not develop the light bulb because it would threaten the department of candles ?


----------



## DuneViking (Feb 23, 2005)

Actually, you youngin's might not remember, and I am sure I'll go senile too, but FYI, both Bill Wallace and Chuck Norris were superb _*full contact*_ champion martial art fighters. I learned those names watching the sporting events and reading the early print media for that information- I learned those names before they were ever in any movies. That is how they got into movies etc.


----------



## glad2bhere (Feb 23, 2005)

Dear DuneViking: 

Personally I LIKE candles. Some people might find them messy and bothersome, but I DO like them. I have nothing against people using light bulbs. I even can accept light bulbs that are shaped like candles and have those wiggly filaments inside. *Just don't hand me a lightbulb and tell me its a "candle."* What is more I would shudder to think that someone would take a bulb and put a load of wax and a wick in it and represent that as an improvement over both the candle AND the lightbulb because it used features from both. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## DuneViking (Feb 26, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear DuneViking:
> 
> Personally I LIKE candles. Some people might find them messy and bothersome, but I DO like them. I have nothing against people using light bulbs. I even can accept light bulbs that are shaped like candles and have those wiggly filaments inside. *Just don't hand me a lightbulb and tell me its a "candle."* What is more I would shudder to think that someone would take a bulb and put a load of wax and a wick in it and represent that as an improvement over both the candle AND the lightbulb because it used features from both. FWIW.
> 
> ...


LMAOROTG !!

Waa Hooo! Excellent explination! Your discourse is short sweet and to the point, in a word, eloquent! Understanding is the key to using any techniques. If you do not understand how to apply something how can it help? Some movements in some forms do not have an obvious use, but after some contemplation and experimantation one may come to understand. To do something ritualistically makes no sense if one cannot apply the information. The same with incorporating 'wax' in 'lightbulbs' as you described. I might take a little bit of wax and rub it round the first thread of the bulb to help it fit in a stick socket. That is useful. Too much might be dangerous. Thus, one must take what works and dump the rest and use it in accordance with their goals.:viking3: :viking3:


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 26, 2005)

Sharing is fine with me. Telling me my Art is no good is another thing I've been in the Arts for 43 years and nowhere has my art is better than your has appeared as much has it has in the last 15 years. Everybody have found a new way or a lost secret or the holy grail of training techniques. A roundhouse is a roundhouse the only difference is who gets the kick to land first. Sorry off topic, I'll shut up now.


----------



## DuneViking (Feb 26, 2005)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Sharing is fine with me. Telling me my Art is no good is another thing I've been in the Arts for 43 years and nowhere has my art is better than your has appeared as much has it has in the last 15 years. Everybody have found a new way or a lost secret or the holy grail of training techniques. A roundhouse is a roundhouse the only difference is who gets the kick to land first. Sorry off topic, I'll shut up now.


No need to stifle, that competative 'My school vs your school' stuff, well, bites!!


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 26, 2005)

I think the "my art is better than your art" and "traditional martial arts are useless" attitude has directly paralleled the rise of UFC, Pride, and K-1. These guys make it a point to pick and choose techniques from many different styles, not realizing how superficial the end result is. While I personally prefer traditional Tae Kwon Do because it works for me, it seems to be the aforementioned students who have carried disrespect for other styles to new heights. 
But then, they are following in the steps of their spiritual godfather, Bruce Lee.


----------



## Adept (Feb 27, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> These guys make it a point to pick and choose techniques from many different styles, not realizing how superficial the end result is.


 How do you mean superficial?



> it seems to be the aforementioned students who have carried disrespect for other styles to new heights.


 There is a difference between disrespect and simply being rude. Even if I think what someone is teaching me is bollocks, or if I think a certain style or attitude is not as beneficial as something else, I would not voice those opinions because it would be rude. 

 To whit, I do not respect all arts or organisations equally, but I do not make a point of openly insulting people involved with those arts or styles.

 Please be aware I am not trying to imply that you _are_ trying to insult me or anyone else, I'm just pointing out that it is possible to have no respect for something without being rude about it.

 Having said all that, I dont tend to see MMA practitioners insulting other artists more, or less, than their traditional counterparts.



> But then, they are following in the steps of their spiritual godfather, Bruce Lee.


 To a certain degree. The underlying principle of take what works and discard what does not seems very near to perfect, as far as I'm concerned. It is open enough to allow for personal interpretation (what works for _me_ as opposed to what works for someone else) and yet rigid enough to make you the best you can be. A particular move not working for you? Dont bother with it. Being taught something ineffective? Discard it.

 I would not call Bruce Lee a spiritual godfather though. An innovative and influential martial artist and talented individual, certainly, but not someone whose religious and moral views I necessarily agree with.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 27, 2005)

I mean superficial because all these guys do is train to fight other fighters in a controlled ring environment. To that end, instead of being students of a martial art, they pick and choose selected techniques from various styles to help them become better fighters. They do not care about etiquette, history, background, manners, or how/why a technique developed. All they care about is learning a few moves from different styles to become better fighters. In the process they develop a fighting mentality. This is not the same having warrior spirit or martial art spirit. Fighting mentality means all you do is practice and train to to fight. One step above a thug, because you don't actually try to make trouble. Instead, these UFC, Pride, and K-1 guys become one-dimensional: Their whole life at that point is spent preparing for fighting instead of using martial arts to enrich their lives.
They have such disrespect for traditional arts and denigrate them because they fail to see how these arts train them for their next fight, not realizing that these arts help you AVOID fighting.


----------



## Adept (Feb 27, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I mean superficial because all these guys do is train to fight other fighters in a controlled ring environment.


 Thats only as accurate as saying traditional martial artists only leanr how to fight other traditional martial artists of the same style in point sparring tournaments.



> They do not care about etiquette, history, background, manners, or how/why a technique developed. All they care about is learning a few moves from different styles to become better fighters.


 I freely admit that this description suits me. The etiquette and history of a particular throw or punch is irrelevant to me. I learned manners and morals from my parents and other formative influences as a child. I learn martial arts to be the best I can be.



> In the process they develop a fighting mentality. This is not the same having warrior spirit or martial art spirit. Fighting mentality means all you do is practice and train to to fight. One step above a thug, because you don't actually try to make trouble.


 This is interesting. I'm going to have to hit you up for some definitions. What is a fighting mentality, what is a martial/warrior spirit, and how are they different? And how are they developed differently by TMA and MMA?



> Instead, these UFC, Pride, and K-1 guys become one-dimensional: Their whole life at that point is spent preparing for fighting instead of using martial arts to enrich their lives.


 To a certain degree. They are proffesional athletes. They make their living from being extremely strong, fit, and skilled. So naturally, it occupies a lot of their time. One dimensional? I dont think so. No more one dimensional than any other professional athlete.



> They have such disrespect for traditional arts and denigrate them because they fail to see how these arts train them for their next fight, not realizing that these arts help you AVOID fighting.


 Well, as I said earlier, I dont hear MMA fighters denigrate TMA any more than I hear MMA fighters denigrate TMA.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 27, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Well, as I said earlier, I dont hear MMA fighters denigrate TMA any more than I hear MMA fighters denigrate TMA.


Going by the spirit rather than the meaning... 

www.sherdog.com
rec.martial-arts

Mention that you practice a TMA on either. See what happens. 

I'm betting at least 10 responses on RMA telling you you're utterly wasting your time. One guy ranting about Cho's TKD, and someone else ranting about ear biting.

Not saying there aren't reasonable MMA'ers, but there tend to be very vocal, obnoxious people in MMA circles that are more than happy to lay down what they perceive as "the cold truth".


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 28, 2005)

*MichiganTKD in bold:

I think the "my art is better than your art" and "traditional martial arts are useless" attitude has directly paralleled the rise of UFC, Pride, and K-1. * 

The "my art is better than your art" attitude is perennial, a part of human nature, and will never disappear.  It manifests itself in your own attitude towards MMA, Wallace, Norris and point fighters, though you've attempted to veil it by essentially saying, "if it works for them, fine."  MMA'ers and progressive stylists also adopt this pose.  It is, at best, condescendingly generous.

*These guys make it a point to pick and choose techniques from many different styles, not realizing how superficial the end result is. * 

Or perhaps, not caring whether it is superficial or not.  Their attitude, if anything, is western.  Yours is an eastern mindset, more specifically limited to those formalized arts from Korea and Japan and exclusive of those arts from southeast Asia and much of China.  

*While I personally prefer traditional Tae Kwon Do because it works for me, it seems to be the aforementioned students who have carried disrespect for other styles to new heights. But then, they are following in the steps of their spiritual godfather, Bruce Lee.*

An amazing contradiction once again, as you have shown nothing but disrespect for Lee and other progressive martial arts in your posts throughout this forum.  It is as if you're saying, "Each to his own...but THOSE guys, cheez..."

*Marginal in bold:

Not saying there aren't reasonable MMA'ers, but there tend to be very vocal, obnoxious people in MMA circles that are more than happy to lay down what they perceive as "the cold truth".*

Their attitude is little different than MichiganTKD's.  They're polar opposites insofar as personal philosophy, but carry the same level of disrespect.  However; the MMA'ers and progressives don't fall into a category of hypocrisy.  They don't pretend to politeness and then show little of it.  They don't give undue veneration to respect only to dance around the issue so as to look down on other methods.  

But I can readily see why they hold little regard for traditionalists.  The latter, for years, have held the public's attention as being the ultimate in unarmed self defense.  Suddenly their cherished status is gone, and they're left with touting their method as being morally and ethically superior...a "way" that cultivates character.  However beneficial that might be (and I'd defend it is, within a measure of reason), the arts have lost much of their mystique.  There are no TKD people entering the Octagon.  Nobody yet has made a pressure point technique work in any MMA ring.  Ninjas have yet to be seen in a K-1 or "Rage in the Cage" match...but then, we all know how good they are at not being seen.

That no traditional art has survived for very long in an MMA setting is revealing on many levels.  Most arts today have no testing ground other than the sparring ring.  Rules are adopted to prevent injury to contestants and to keep the art within certain parameters of performance.  MMA, while it has adopted quite a few rules since the days of the first UFC (remember the "There are NO rules" tag line?) still has one thing going for it---it fights at all empty hand ranges.  It does throws and takedowns.  It does submissions.  It hits and kicks.  No other formal art has ever approached this level of complete competitiveness or been this popular.

But the trash talk, while keeping these details in mind, is born of competitiveness itself.  Traditionalists and MMA'ers and Progressives are all vying for a market share--not for dollar shares--but for validation.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 28, 2005)

The reason why you seldom, if ever, see traditional martial artists in UFC, Pride, or K-1 "Steel Cage " matches is because they won't stoop to that. And refusing to take part in those matches does not mean their technique doesn't work. it means they refuse to be a part of that environment.
 Being a good UFC fighter means nothing. It means you happen to be good against a similar fighter who trains the same way you do. It doesn't mean your technique is particularly good. it means your technique works in the framework of that particular scenario. You want realistic? Make one of them drunk or high, give him a knife or gun, and allow ANY kind of contact-eyes, groin, biting, headbutts, joint breaking etc. That's called streetfighting. And traditional martial artists train to avoid those scenarios. Anyway, what's the average career span of a UFC fighter? 10 years max? You can do martial arts your whole life. I've seen it done.
Honestly, I've watched Pride and K-1 matches just to see how good these guys really were. You know what? It almost put me to sleep. Two guys with no footwork or movement, focusing on punching, and kicking the legs once in a while. That's supposed to be exciting? These guys are primarily boxers, and it's pretty obvious they learn just enough kicking to get by in the ring. They certainly are not martial arts or kicking experts. It's just PKA for the modern era.
And I can certainly respect their right to practice what makes them happy, but disagree with what they do. Happens all the time. Doesn't make me a hypocrite at all. 
As for Bruce Lee, I'll admit he was a marvelous physical specimen and quite talented. He also died at the age of 33 because he refused to slow down, was hotheaded, and openly contemptuous of those who didn't follow his line of thinking. So there were some aspects of him I admire, but a helluva lot I don't.


----------



## Adept (Feb 28, 2005)

> The reason why you seldom, if ever, see traditional martial artists in UFC, Pride, or K-1 "Steel Cage " matches is because they won't stoop to that. And refusing to take part in those matches does not mean their technique doesn't work. it means they refuse to be a part of that environment.


 Not entirely true, I dont think. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of traditional martial artists around the world. Not all of them feel that stepping into the ring or octagon would be 'stooping' to any kind of level. You dont see people using tradtional martial arts in the ring because for the most part they just dont work. Many MMA fighters have a background in traditional martial arts.



> Being a good UFC fighter means nothing. It means you happen to be good against a similar fighter who trains the same way you do. It doesn't mean your technique is particularly good. it means your technique works in the framework of that particular scenario.


 Michigan. you can say the exact same thing about any kind of martial art, be it mixed or traditional. The bonus MMA has in that regard is that the 'style' the practice is a lot more free-form and a lot closer to 'reality' than most, or any, traditional martial arts.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 28, 2005)

*The reason why you seldom, if ever, see traditional martial artists in UFC, Pride, or K-1 "Steel Cage " matches is because they won't stoop to that. And refusing to take part in those matches does not mean their technique doesn't work. it means they refuse to be a part of that environment. * 


_Right._

You just go on believing that.  I'm sure it'll bring you some comfort.

Here I'll state it clear and direct.  Their technique simply won't work in those environments.  The very best Olympian TKD man would be manhandled in those matches.  The reason you don't see them in that ring is that they're well aware it isn't something they can adapt to without drastically changing their methodology and adopting methods from other systems (_Gasp! _  Such heresy!)

Tae Kwon Do...and other traditional arts...are far too one dimensional to survive in an MMA ring.  Long before MMA became popular these arts suffered horribly when they were pitted against Muay Thai fighters.  Why?  Traditionalists hadn't the full contact training, the clinch work, nor any way to properly defend against shots to the legs and knees to the body.  The were eaten alive.  

Refreshingly, certain Muay Thai fighters have adapted kicking methods from Tae Kwon Do and incorporated them into their systems.  The flow rarely goes the other way, which is sad.  It'd be interesting to see TKD'ers incorporate some Muay Thai clinch work into their game--not for sport, certainly--just to broaden their self defense skills.  I think it'd be a nice synergy.

Or how about if TKD'ers learned a proper way to defend a shot and a double leg takedown?  Here in the midwest there are an AWFUL lot of wrestlers who can take a TKD'er down with little effort, and once there on the ground, humiliate him.

Wouldn't it be zippy if a TKD'er took some of those hyung movements in which he's so well schooled and adapted them to some Filipino weapons training?  Sort of like those hundreds of wonderfully open minded Europeans did in Denmark last Easter at their training camp.  And...ohmigosh...in the next room they were learning some Kenpo!

But that's beneath you.  

That's your story, anyway.  Make sure you stick to it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 28, 2005)

Steve,

The fact that I am taking Aikido means that I am interested in expanding my horizons a bit. But just like Bruce Lee, you get bent out of shape because I'm not expanding my horizons in a way that you think useful. I don't practice Kenpo or Thai boxing because they don't interest me. Do they have their strong points? Sure, but rather than trying to cover all bases, I make my TKD work for me and practice Aikido because it is something totally different yet fascinating. I also don't care whether aikido would work in a UFC ring or not.
 Just because the TKD fighters you mention get beaten in the UFC ring doesn't mean they all would. I've practiced with guys that scared the piss out of me. Guys I was literally afraid to spar because I knew the damage they could do. They might get beaten in a UFC ring. Then again, they might not. Just because the fighters you know are bad examples of TKD power doesn't mean they all are.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 1, 2005)

*MichiganTKD in bold:

The fact that I am taking Aikido means that I am interested in expanding my horizons a bit. But just like Bruce Lee, you get bent out of shape because I'm not expanding my horizons in a way that you think useful. I don't practice Kenpo or Thai boxing because they don't interest me. Do they have their strong points? Sure, but rather than trying to cover all bases, I make my TKD work for me and practice Aikido because it is something totally different yet fascinating. I also don't care whether aikido would work in a UFC ring or not.
 Just because the TKD fighters you mention get beaten in the UFC ring doesn't mean they all would. I've practiced with guys that scared the piss out of me. Guys I was literally afraid to spar because I knew the damage they could do. They might get beaten in a UFC ring. Then again, they might not. Just because the fighters you know are bad examples of TKD power doesn't mean they all are.*

You assume a great deal.

First, I am not getting "bent out of shape" because I think you are expanding your horizons in directions that aren't useful.  I think any art is useful, and would urge anyone to study Aikido, Shotokan, Judo or any other "Do" art that is ethically based.  I find they have technical merit for self defense, are interesting, and have merits in inculcating a person into the history and martial cultures of those arts.  This is, in fact, where I part with many JKD people (not all, as Paulson and Inosanto seem quite respectful of other systems, to name just two of note).  

Anybody who knows me well, and there are a few who post to this forum, can attest to my respect for traditional arts as well as for progressive methods.  I have trained in both classifications of arts and offer the same through my school.  I do not tolerate stylistic bigotry of any form in my students and _constantly_ encourage them to cross train in either traditional or progressive methods...whichever makes the deepest emotional impact upon them.

My grievance isn't with your narrow focus so much as the way you arrogate yourself, MTKD.  Your posture here and elsewhere in dealing with other arts has been supercilious and condescending.  Were you an MMA'er doing the same thing to traditionalists I'd still let fly the hammer.

As for the efficacy of TKD fighters, no doubt there are those who are quite effective.  One of them broke my fibula once.  Another came within an inch of killing me with a spin kick to my unprotected cervical atlas.  The Master I studied with was frightening when angered, and had more than his share of scrapes back in Seoul...as did his peers I came to know.

That said, if you were to magically remove the ravages of age and put them in the MMA ring, these men would do very poorly with standard Tae Kwon Do techniques.  That environment is such that it quickly nullifies the kicking skills of a TKD'er, the reverse punch of a Shotokan adept, and virtually all contemporary Aiki techniques.  Those arts have their place in a self defense context, but not in a ring with professionals who fight across the spectrum of ranges.  To think otherwise is, frankly, delusional.

I do not anticipate this statement will be proven wrong anytime soon.  Clearly, just as all MMA'ers are uncultured peasants, all traditionalists are of such high moral stature that they won't dare sink to the levels of the Octagon and stain their character.  That must be the reason, surely.  

Or not.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisandyz (Mar 1, 2005)

Any martial (military) art should adapt to its surroundings. I was told TKDs high flying kicks were developed to knock opponents off of horses.  I'm guessing back in that day an age, since some of the enemies were mounted high on horses, they felt a need to counter that.  So why not adapt to today's world? Perhaps traditionalists don't enter MMA events beause they know they would have to modify and adapt to the fighting style and that goes outside of thier comfort level. Fighting against other styles doesn't mean you have to learn another art, but it does mean you have to make your art work against your opponent.  Michigan TKD, you say you've made TKD work for you, but If you don't fight, spar, play with people outside your style your only learning how to fight against a mirror of yourself. Can you make your TKD work against things your not familiar with? Maybe, maybe not, but you will never know (until its too late) if you don't share outside of your system. Sometimes people think of "sharing" as somebody giving you new techniques to add, but the best sharing comes from the interaction, the communication of movement and your reactions. 

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a  hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory  gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor  yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu

When you start believing that the art is the answer, its time to start asking more questions.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 1, 2005)

I'm not going to turn this into a "Why don't you fight UFC?" debate. Because I don't want to, that's why. UFC is just glorified grappling anyway. Do you honestly think that fighting in open tournaments or UFC matches is the way to determine the effectiveness of your art? I might as well just go outside and start picking fights with people to test myself. All open tournaments do is provide a snapshot of how you do with a particular person that moment in time.
I'll say this again (and type slowly so you guys can understand): I do not practice Tae Kwon Do to enter open matches, UFC/Pride/K-1 fights, or be a streetfighter. If someone else wants to, fine. I don't have to agree with it, but respect their right to do. It's their body. It's one thing to learn how these fighters operate. It is perfectly acceptable to want to know how a judo student, or a grappler, or a Thai boxer thinks so that you better understand them. It is quite another to frequently fight in open tournaments and the others to test yourself. Just because it is helpful to understand how a streetfighter thinks doesn't mean I need to hang out with and associate with them. Otherwise I run the risk of becoming one of them.
Those who stare too long into the abyss should take care that the abyss does not stare back at them.


----------



## arnisandyz (Mar 1, 2005)

You say its acceptable to want to know how a judo student, or a grappler, or a Thai boxer thinks so that you better understand them. But how do you learn this if you don't associate with them?  Through books or videos?


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 1, 2005)

".....But how do you learn this if you don't associate with them?..." 

Excuse me, but I think its time for you guys to quit blowing smoke up each others' pants-leg. From where I stand I don't see that anyone is particualrly concerned about what they practice as much as dominating the other person and coming out looking like they are right. I have seen way too many of these "discussions" and it always comes out the same way..... round and round and round. Know how I know this? Because when someone says "here is what I believe", folks simply will not accept that statement. Nope. First you have to challenge it, and then you have to make the person explain himself. But even THAT is not enough! Its not as though you really want to HEAR what the other person is saying so you tell him he is wrong (regardless of what he says) and ask for an explanation ---- another one--- one that will be more acceptable to you. 

I have this theory about many of these discussions. You know how they say that you will "fight as you have trained?" Well I have this idea that people here will "communicate" as they train. If you get used to banging away until the other person gives in or leaves, thats your idea of "winning"--- indicating that you were right all along. Some of what we have here really isn't a discussion in the sense of exchanging information. What we have here is competition with the substitution of words and phrases for technique. 

Now, why am I carrying-on like this? Because I think that in the past people would rather do this sort of petulant bickering back and forth than actually discuss things. Bickering is the Lazy Mind's substitute for productive communication. This is also why I have become less and less disposed to participate in these kinds of threads. They go nowhere in the end and nothing is gained along the way that improves the Martial Arts. Now, here are a couple of clues. 

a.) Michigan said he was not interested. Actually it doesn't matter why-- he just isn't. What part of "no" is it you don't understand?

b.) This is a forum set aside for a Korean MA-- in this case TKD. Grappling isn't a part of TKD and isn't likely to become part of TKD. Maybe you think it should be. Thats fine for you, but as I write this it isn't part of TKD. 

c.) Maybe there are redeeming features to grappling and NHB competition. Fine. My suggestion would be to discuss those attributes where such things have a forum. Otherwise it begins to look like you are evangelizing inappropriately. 

d.) If this is actually to be a discussion then I sense that there needs to be an exchange of facts and information. Everything else to date is opinion. Since this is a TKD forum maybe that information base needs to focus more on TKD. Can't see too many commonalities between TKD and grappling. If you know some, lets get on with the exchange of information. Otherwise, whats the point? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## arnisandyz (Mar 1, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> ".b.) This is a forum set aside for a Korean MA-- in this case TKD. Grappling isn't a part of TKD and isn't likely to become part of TKD. Maybe you think it should be. Thats fine for you, but as I write this it isn't part of TKD.
> 
> Since this is a TKD forum maybe that information base needs to focus more on TKD. Can't see too many commonalities between TKD and grappling. If you know some, lets get on with the exchange of information. Otherwise, whats the point?
> 
> ...


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 1, 2005)

Dear Arnisandyz: 

 Exactly!! The thread started off about sharing and maybe some people want to and others don't--- I really don't know. But I swear that if we let this thread run long enough ----No #### _{mod. note - edited according to MT profanity policy}_---- somebody would come up with something like "my art shares better than YOUR art!!" Now just to show you how things COULD have gone--- consider this. 

 1.) Nobody has actually talked about "how" you could make a sharing happen. By this I mean not planning the event, but what sort of things could you find in common so the "sharing" wouldn't be all one-sided. After all nobody wants to go to an event and get nothing but information about how THEIR art doesn't work, right? 

 2.) Nobody had actually taken time to examine those areas of commonality among the various arts represented during the discussion. What I am hearing are generalities built on thoughts like "BJJ is all on the ground" and "TKD is all with the feet" and "Hapkido is all about joint lock". I'm not saying people have stated these things they just seem like themes to me and could use some adjusting to make for a better discussion. 

 3.) Nobody actually discusses what they could learn from someone else. Rather it seems more along the lines of "this is how your art is deficient". For example, a ground fighter could use some help on how to acquire targets in a situation involving multiple attackers. A TKD person could use some help in making and recovering from commited strikes and kicks. A Hapkido person could use an updated application of material against more modern and committed assaults against thoroughly resistent partners. 

 These are just things we COULD have been talking about and, for myself, I'M not even really invested in the topic. Imagine what you guys who are truely engaged in this stuff would come up with !?! FWIW. 

 Best Wishes, 

 Bruce


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 1, 2005)

I believe sharing is fine as long as you don't loose focus on your Art. as was stated earlier this is a TKD forum asking a question about sharing info. I regularly talk to a Kung Fu gentleman we are good friends in the MA world but we never discuss why we think are Art is better in fact we talk about the differences and stances and Kata or forms Or Poomse for us TKD'ers. We always talk about training methods that we both share in and how to get the best out of ours Kids and adults. I belive this thread was started to giscuss these items and not about UFC cage fighting.Gladetohear has broughtup some good point here and matbe everybody can learn from it. GOD BLESS AMERICA


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 2, 2005)

*glad2bhere in bold:


a.) Michigan said he was not interested. Actually it doesn't matter why-- he just isn't. What part of "no" is it you don't understand?*

Yet rather than move on from that simple "no" he takes great pains to justify his stance by taking snide swipes at other arts and martial artists.  I, for one, have little tolerance for this.

*b.) This is a forum set aside for a Korean MA-- in this case TKD. Grappling isn't a part of TKD and isn't likely to become part of TKD. Maybe you think it should be. Thats fine for you, but as I write this it isn't part of TKD. * 

Bruce, check the name of the thread please.  Regardless of the forum it is set in, the topic is "Sharing with other arts."  It didn't specifically limit those arts to the Korean peninsula.  MichiganTKD started this thread with the following statement:

_"Do you think it is proper for an Instructor in, say, Tae Kwon Do, to share his Art with Instructors of other styles and hang out with them?

I have read numerous posts about well known Instructors who didn't hesitate to reach and share with other martial artists."_

Note that he uses the phrase "say" prior to Tae Kwon Do, indicating that was merely one example of any number of arts.  By inference one can see that this thread could have been started in a number of different forums on MartialTalk and still been valid.  It is debating the idea of an ecumenical approach to the martial arts and _sharing with other martial artists from other arts._

*c.) Maybe there are redeeming features to grappling and NHB competition. Fine. My suggestion would be to discuss those attributes where such things have a forum. Otherwise it begins to look like you are evangelizing inappropriately. * 

The issue is not merely grappling and NHB methodologies.  Any art would apply here.  The notion of whether TKD or a traditional art would survive in an MMA setting is, confessedly, a distraction.  I also consider it a moot point as none to date has thus survived.  Insofar as "evangelizing," please see my comments concerning MichiganTKD's indisputable assessment of his style.

*d.) If this is actually to be a discussion then I sense that there needs to be an exchange of facts and information. Everything else to date is opinion. Since this is a TKD forum maybe that information base needs to focus more on TKD. Can't see too many commonalities between TKD and grappling. If you know some, lets get on with the exchange of information. Otherwise, whats the point? * 

Again, see the topic of the thread.  If the Mods wish to move it to another area, that's their call. 

As for commonalities or lack thereof between TKD and grappling, or for that matter, TKD and Aiki or Aiki and Kenpo...that is the point of the thread, is it not?  There are few commonalities, hence the need for sharing and a search for possible synergy.

I call attention to MichiganTKD's most revealing statement in the opening salvo of this thread:

_"It's not that I as a TKD Instructor can't respect other styles (usually), but because each style wants to be number one and has its own etiquette and customs, I don't think TKD Instructors do themselves any favors by teaching and associating as TKD Instructors with other stylists."_

This clearly indicates that he views TKD as the pinnacle and the apex of all the martial arts here, regardless of his dabbling in Aikido.  Given time I'm sure he would elevate Aikido's status accordingly to number two.  

Why he does this is clear to me, given the nature of the posts he's made throughout MartialTalk.  Others can come to their own conclusions from reading them.  Many will find their emanations are revealing, if unsavory.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 2, 2005)

Dear Steve: 

Honestly, I cannot find fault with any of your observations-- not one. You are very correct in each and every one of the points that you mentioned. The point I was stressing is whether or not the arts are well served in debating the views and opinions or in discussing the techniques and information. For instance, if Michigan wants to raise the issue of being "allowed" to do something, do we want to discuss the values that guide allowing this or that, or do we want to discuss which of those values is better or worse, or which is "right" or "wrong"? 

What I am pushing for is probably harder to produce. It seems as though it is always harder to speak in terms of facts and figures rather than generalizations and opinions. What I am advocating is that if we really need to talk about something lets (a.) make sure we are doing it in the correct venue for the correct reasons and (b.) stay with information people can use-- maybe to make decisions for themselves. Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## TigerWoman (Mar 2, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> (a.) make sure we are doing it in the correct venue for the correct reasons and (b.) stay with information people can use-- maybe to make decisions for themselves.



I would agree that this is a fair statement of what is happening.  

I have learned in dealing with my own master, that some people have really set views and are really not open to new ideas, using new ideas, or sharing their own ideas or information.  I have butt my head on the wall with him about this.  But I have learned to be patient and to go about it differently in hopes of someday maybe in his old age of seeing everything in a new light.  I try to go forward positively. Build rather than destroy.

I for one, love Taekwondo. I really don't care that it may not be effective in a MMA encounter.  I love its traditions, its values, its art.  I probably would miss its entirety if I were to go to another art.  I could do Kenpo, or Tai Chi or Aikido,  but I would miss TKD, because that is where my heart is, where I started a martial art.  It is a way of life for me.  It has become deeply ingrained.  I would expect that with most if not all masters of the art.

Now for sharing, as I mentioned before, not all people share...maybe they have fear of something changing, being taken from them.  I share a little of my knowledge of TKD as well as MichTKD does. But I cannot really share the total experience.  For that you need to put in the time.  One cannot learn a few kicks and say I know TKD, anymore than a few joint locks, and say I know Hapkido.  Neither can it be combined for then we fear, the joy of the art will be lost.  I, like MichTKD, want to keep this treasure intact.

But as we have already, we can share the differences in uniforms, in protocal, blocks, kicks and punches, even street self defense; but we cannot divide and combine our art with others.  It is our "way".  TW


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 2, 2005)

Dear Tigerwoman: 

Great post. You and I probably come out of the same place. Hapkido is my art and I accept it warts and all. I probably present a pretty silly picture cutting air with my sword, or batting away at a target with a staff. And I will be the first person to admit that Hapkido has only the most basic of ground-fighting material. Yet, it is my art of choice and I have no intentions of changing. NOW, I WILL say this.  Our Brown Belt material (for instance) has a range of chokes. I know those chokes pretty well. If someone wanted to know these chokes I could teach them. And if someone observed my chokes and could make suggestions for performing those chokes with greater efficiency and effectiveness I would be willing. What I would not do is drop the material I practice because it was somehow antiquated or unacceptable to another arts' approach. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## DragonFooter (Mar 2, 2005)

I think we should analyse this video then make some conslusions

http://www.tkd.risp.pl/Juras_HL_Extreme.wmv
:uhyeah:


----------



## TigerWoman (Mar 2, 2005)

Wow, he is awesome! What nationality?   Thanks Dragonfooter.  TW


----------



## DragonFooter (Mar 2, 2005)

He's from poland I believe. The ring match clip is a MMA competition.


----------



## arnisandyz (Mar 2, 2005)

I think anybody who has a good grasp on thier art should be able to intermingle with martial artists outside of thier style without fear of being "poisoned", or changed.  its like religion.  I was raised as a Catholic. I have dated the opposite sex that was Baptist, Lutheran, Jewish, etc and have even attended some masses at their Church, but I'm still Catholic. I haven't been converted.  I did listen to what the other denominations had to say and they are not so different.  

A big part of sharing is WHO you share with. You have to feel comfortable, a brotherhood that shares a like goal. otherwise it becomes a competition like Michigan TKD said. I have come across people that do not want to be associated with people outside their school.  We had a big "Martial Arts Day Celebration" where each school did a demo. One school did a demo involving Escrima sticks. After the demo I went up to the instructor and commented positively on his demo. (He had seen our schools demo earlier that morning so he new I was an Arnis practioner). All I recieved was a yeah, thanks as he walked off. It was obvious he did not want to even speak with me for whatever reason. Perhaps he thought  that I was going to challenge him or try and show him up, but in reality I was opening my door to him in friendship as we shared a common bond. My goal was not to change him or better him, but to share and learn.

In case you are wondering why I am here, in a TKD forum giving my input. I also have a second degree in TKD. So I come from two different schools of thought on sharing. TKD which is somewhat closed and Arnis which is very open.


----------



## TigerWoman (Mar 2, 2005)

Hey, there is always hope!  I learned today in class, that as 2nd, I will be learning more grappling techniques!  Problem is though, is that my master has to learn them first!  But a glimmer of hope, as I "suggested" wanting to learn more about six months ago and actually got shot down. 

Also, chokes would be good too, Master Simms, as I couldn't choke out a willing 6'4" guy if my life depended on it (tried with his help too).  And I have upperbody strength.

Maybe MichTKD or HHJH knows how much does traditional TKD, get into all this normally across the board?  Or is this unusual?  

I noticed on that clip from Dragonfooter that he was fighting a Judo stylist-uniform- as well.  So he must have cross trained some. It took some time to load, but it was well worth it. Really awesome.  Unstoppable. TW


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 2, 2005)

I know my sabomnim says his own background is 70% TKD and 30% Hapkido and  that when we reach BB in TKD he will cross train us directly in Hapkido.

I also know that in forms we do Taegeuk and in sparring we use olympic rules, but in self-defense we use things that I think are somewhat traditional TKD, somewhat borrowed from Hapkido and maybe some flavors of Judo as well.  I don't know enough to say but my instructor did once say that in self-defense, you use what works, period


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 2, 2005)

Dear TW: 

"...Also, chokes would be good too, Master Simms, as I couldn't choke out a willing 6'4" guy if my life depended on it (tried with his help too). And I have upperbody strength........." 

If you are talking about strangling a 6-footer for air, you are probably right. However, if you are talking about cutting the bood supply to the brain, I think you might be surprised.

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 2, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Tigerwoman:
> 
> Great post. You and I probably come out of the same place. Hapkido is my art and I accept it warts and all. I probably present a pretty silly picture cutting air with my sword, or batting away at a target with a staff. And I will be the first person to admit that Hapkido has only the most basic of ground-fighting material. Yet, it is my art of choice and I have no intentions of changing. NOW, I WILL say this.  Our Brown Belt material (for instance) has a range of chokes.




As I've indicated in my earlier posts, I wouldn't expect you or Tiger Woman to drop your material, and certainly not because others thought it antiquated or unacceptable.  And, as I've stated, traditional arts have a place on the self defense spectrum (if not on the MMA mat) and might serve well in providing a structure and frame of ethics to the student.  I don't deny this.

If you seek to keep the technical aspects of your art essentially unchanged and locked in stone, that too has merit to a point.  I'll call that "archiving."  It has historical benefits.

But we have seen the progressive arts themselves enter into the debate of the archival methods versus the modern.  Witness the debates between the JKD people over this issue.

Archivists intend to keep their art essentially unchanged, the reasons for this vary.  I perceive at least these two:

1.  _They wish to keep it the way it has been passed down through generations._  This might have a noble purpose in seeking to perserve tradition, but it is an impossible goal.  The archivist can not know that the art he is inheriting is identical to the one practiced four generations earlier, and likely it is not the same art in form or function due to either evolution (modification by practitioners), degradation (errors of transmission, execution, or interpretation), or cross-pollination (synthesis from other systems by those who don't hold fast to the archival philosophy).  

This motive gives authority and mystique to a system by making it seem old, or even ancient.  In truth it is no more ancient than the headmaster of the system, and is likely re-inventing itself constantly, for the reasons listed above.

2.  Practitioners derive a certain affirmation from following or pepetuating_"The One True Way."_  This can be sincere and reasonably harmless to dowright cultic.  I have seen both.  

It ought be noted that both students and teachers play into this mindset, no matter how dysfunctional it might be.  The former attempts to earn passage into the "inner circle" of the instructors, and the latter revel in their status over the junior belts.  This heirarchy is not always thus abused, but enough so as to merit mention.

"The One True Way" followers often elevate a long dead master to nearly demi-god status; are apt to do so with a living master in their chain of command; aspire to that status for themselves as witnessed by their disdain and/or abuse of juniors; and don't hesitate to denigrate other arts as being beneath them.  This latter trait of trash-talking, as I've said, is also found among Progressives and MMA'ers to varying degrees.

The point I'm making is this, Bruce:  Keep practicing your techniques, antiquated or not.  Keep fast to your ethical principles.  I don't begrudge you any of that, nor do I disdain it as some Progressives might.  

But when a person states--as MichiganTKD did--that they don't want to share with other arts, when justifying this they need take a care they don't look with disdain at other systems or those who freely cross train.  Their motives become instantly suspect and rightly so.  

A separate issue here is the question of traditional arts and their efficacy in an MMA environ.  That's to be debated in another thread, and I offer it up for meat, though it is an oft served dish.  I invite MichiganTKD to further his claims there, given that he isn't inclined to back them up in any practical fashion.  He doesn't want to, of course.  It's beneath him, he's said.  It wouldn't prove anything, he claims.  

And so it goes.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 2, 2005)

Tigerwoman,

I don't know of many Tae Kwon Do black belts in our organization who practice choking someone out, unless it is part of what they need to know for their job. We have at least one prison guard in our ranks, and I would not be surprised if he did know a couple of choking techniques. To my knowledge, guards and law enforcement officers cannot strike suspects or prisoners.
For the rest of us, learning chokes is something that we would do strictly on our own if we were inclined, similar to learning a weapon. The organization does not teach it, you do it on your own. And don't bring it to class! Myself, I am not inclined to practice them. I dislike getting that close to someone who may have a knife or gun on their person. Learning to escape them is another matter.

Steve,

I never claimed traditional martial arts were BETTER than MMA, but I prefer them. Winning UFC, NHB, or K-1 matches is not the ultimate test of a martial art. If it were, aikido, tai chi, and who knows how many more would not exist. Their practitioners do not care about UFC matches. I certainly don't. I do know that TKD was used originally in Korea by the police and military against armed gangs and rioters. So it must have some use. As far as I know, a knife is a knife, a gun is a gun, and someone trying to kill you doesn't care where they are.
You challenge for me to back up my words with action is no different than a schoolyard protagonist who tries to bait people into fighting him. Certainly not the mark of a person who claims 5th Dan in Tae Kwon Do.


----------



## Adept (Mar 2, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> If you are talking about strangling a 6-footer for air, you are probably right. However, if you are talking about cutting the bood supply to the brain, I think you might be surprised.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Bruce


 Indeed. An air choke on someone like that means you have one or more hands tied up, while he has up to a minutes air in his lungs and both hands to wreak havoc on you. A blood choke can take them out in seconds, by cutting off the air to the brain _directly_.

 It helps to think about how a choke works. Byt stopping the air getting to the lungs, you cut off the air to the brain, and so it shuts down. But only after it has exhasted all the air currently in the bloodstream and currently in the lungs. If you cut off the blood to the brain directly, then it doesnt matter what their lung capacity is, they only have a few seconds to get you off.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 2, 2005)

Let's contrast some quotes here,,,

*MichiganTKD in bold:

Post #146: I never claimed traditional martial arts were BETTER than MMA.... * 

Now...let us look at the following condradictions to the quote above.

*Post #118: I mean superficial because all these guys do is train to fight other fighters in a controlled ring environment. To that end, instead of being students of a martial art, they pick and choose selected techniques from various styles to help them become better fighters. They do not care about etiquette, history, background, manners, or how/why a technique developed. All they care about is learning a few moves from different styles to become better fighters.*

*Post #122:  Being a good UFC fighter means nothing.* 

*Post #122:  Honestly, I've watched Pride and K-1 matches just to see how good these guys really were. You know what? It almost put me to sleep. Two guys with no footwork or movement, focusing on punching, and kicking the legs once in a while. That's supposed to be exciting? * 
*
Post #122: They certainly are not martial arts or kicking experts. It's just PKA for the modern era.*

So...you don't think traditional arts are BETTER than MMA.  You minimize and degrade MMA because you think they're on equal footing with traditional arts?

My God.  I think I've just found the first person to hybridize relativism with absolutism.

*You challenge for me to back up my words with action is no different than a schoolyard protagonist who tries to bait people into fighting him. Certainly not the mark of a person who claims 5th Dan in Tae Kwon Do.*

I wasn't challenging you to a _fight_, sunshine.  I was challenging you to a _debate_...while observing your clearly stated and repeated reluctance to try out your skills against an MMA fighter.  

No, my challenge wasn't like a schoolyard _protagonist_.  Nor was it like a schoolyard _antagonist_, which is what you meant to say (the protagonist, MTKD, is the good guy).  My challenge was no different than any so laid down by any in our culture who demand action over words.  Back it up, or can it.  

I offer an indictment, and perhaps a summation of all I've written on this topic here and elsewhere:  

You, MichiganTKD, don't share with other arts out of a deep rooted insecurity that your art--or you-- will be found lacking.

You minimize these other arts and martial artists as a reflection of that insecurity.

That insecurity has manifested itself in the past with your insulting dismissal of the opinions of the junior TKD ranks here on MartialTalk.

You veil this insecurity behind a facade of veneration of the martial traditions of respect, humility, and manners.  I have yet to see any display of these virtues in your posts here, and this has been reflected in your dismal lack of positive reputation points.  You have over eight hundred posts and only recently made it "in the green."


As for my claim to a 5th dan, feel free to dispute it.   How can I expect any less of you?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 2, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> <cut>
> As for my claim to a 5th dan, feel free to dispute it.   How can I expect any less of you?
> 
> Regards,
> ...



Steve,

You mean Mr MichiganTKD, had the nerve to throw his personal morals, beliefs, values and insights on someone else? Wow! I cannot believe that. No way. So, he is willing to judge you, and cannot stand it when others question him about his attitude or judge him. Hmmmm more contradiction.

I just cannot believe it. 

I am just stunned. 
 :idunno:


----------



## DuneViking (Mar 2, 2005)

Hoo boy . . . shucks folks, all I can say is its great to read all the positive stuff peoples a'been saying here, whether for or agin sharing. A big pat on the back to all that 'av r'sisted the temptation to bite!!! IMHO that is what part of what honor and humility are about, that is what good character enables one to do, and for me, sharing thoughts and ideas with those who are wiling to do so has helped, both with techniques, and philosophically. 

Hey, if you do not want to share, OK. Please, though, allow me to do so. I think as long as I do not interfere with you or impede your efforts to study as you wish, I should be allowed to to the same. 

:soapbox:


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 2, 2005)

Steve,

I never said you weren't 5th Dan, I just said you don't act like one. I can throw my values, beliefs, morals etc. at you if I want. They're called opinions. You can agree or disagree with me. You apparently disagree. 

Now, I don't share or hang out with other stylists because of some deep rooted insecurities about my art. Trust me. I've seen fellow students execute some of the most powerful techniques I've ever seen. The fact that we don't go to open tournaments or challenge MMA doesn't take away from that. We are not into thuggery. If you want to go to open tournaments and hang out with MMA out of some deep seated fear that your Tae Kwon Do is lacking in some areas, that's your prerogative. As a traditional student, I follow traditional rules. One being I am a Tae Kwon Do student and scholar and I stay within the Tae Kwon Do community. I would expect nothing less from a traditional karate, kung fu, or aikido student. We have nothing against other arts, but they are not our scene. As aikido students, our class practices and promotes aikido. We do not practice or "hang" with non-aikido students.

Going to open tournaments or similar events to test your art is no different than getting into streetfights to test your technique. Anyone who advocates these methods is, in my opinion (there's that word again!), a thug pure and simple. A junior black belt who is curious about how a style works is one thing. An Instructor who represents his art is quite another.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 2, 2005)

_*MODERATOR'S NOTE:

 Please keep the discussion polite and respectful level.

 -Georgia Ketchmark
 -MT Moderator*_


----------



## Marginal (Mar 3, 2005)

DragonFooter said:
			
		

> I think we should analyse this video then make some conslusions
> 
> http://www.tkd.risp.pl/Juras_HL_Extreme.wmv
> :uhyeah:



I'm pretty sure stomping on folks is frowned upon in ITF competition...


----------



## TigerWoman (Mar 3, 2005)

Can we not accept that MMA and traditional arts are two different animals?  Those that want mixed-breeds, go for it.  Traditional/closed curriculum arts will change anyway, but it will be more slowly.  Slow and sure is better than fast and whoops, what did we do?  

This does not need to be an attack of one individual, you might as well attack me as well, as I feel the same about my art that its curriculum shouldn't change quickly.  As to opinion, everyone has a right to that.  Those that are in traditional arts want the rules, etiquette, morals and teach the same, so that we use it judiciously.  We don't teach those that wouldn't.  We don't go look for fights.  We use it for defense only.  Those that are into the "sport" type of TKD are not even into looking for serious damage-its a chess game.  TKD, traditionally is a lifestyle not a club membership.

Some of the MMA are in-between this.  Some have belts, rules, etiquette, some have none of that.  Its just teach the technique to whoever, up to the instructor.  But the extreme of this is the no-holds barred ring fighting or calling people out to prove who's art or regimen is better.  Whoever wants this, that's your perogative, but that's not what traditional martial arts is about--we don't enjoy fighting for fighting's sake or to prove we are better than someone else.  

I hope, gentlemen, that you can agree to disagree and leave it at that.  This is not a forum to attack individuals for their opinion and neither is it to denigrate another's choice of regimen. TW


----------



## DragonFooter (Mar 3, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure stomping on folks is frowned upon in ITF competition...


I pretty much agree with you. ITF competition will also frown on ground work as well. 
Pretty much from what i gather from the video is this. One, Taekwon-do can survive in a ring match. Two, Taekwon-do can be a champion in a MMA setting if he\she trains in basic grappling\groundwork techniques.
Three, Taekwon-do techniques does work!:uhyeah:


----------



## Miles (Mar 3, 2005)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> I hope, gentlemen, that you can agree to disagree and leave it at that. This is not a forum to attack individuals for their opinion and neither is it to denigrate another's choice of regimen. TW


Blessed are the peacemakers, TW, for they shall inherit the earth. 

The name of the thread was "sharing."  Many have "shared" their views, which might not be "shared" by others. 

Miles


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 3, 2005)

Look, I think there are a few things to consider when we speak of sharing arts.

 I think it is important to keep arts separate - especially during training time, because each style has (I hope) specific training methods and exercises and curriculi structured to forward the progression of its students.

 That said, I also think those seeking real defense and tactical training would not be wise to limit their training to one style unless that style is so all-encompassing that the student would not likely be missing anything. There are few styles like this and one would probably find this instruction in a teacher who has been there, done that ... and that, and that, and that, and that, and so on.

 I also think it is important to define the purpose a school's headmistress or headmaster has in sharing her/his knowledge - some instructors lean towards preserving tradition, others towards self-defense, others towards competition, etcetera.

 The psychology of why traditionalists need tradition or seek tradition is a discussion that will continue to open and irritate wounds as well as bruise egos as will the comparison of this to why others seek self-defense or competition.

 Honestly, we all come to the field with different seeds for the garden. Perhaps if we take the time to enjoy the fruit and smell the blossoms we'd spend less time arguing and more time learning and enjoying.

  Peace.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 3, 2005)

And a salad is always better when there is variety in the ingredients.  One can perfect the Lettuce, but it takes the tomato to make the contrast obvious and enjoyable.

(Ok, no more posting before lunch.)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 3, 2005)

*And a salad is always better when there is variety in the ingredients.  One can perfect the Lettuce, but it takes the tomato to make the contrast obvious and enjoyable.*

But you only use walnuts when adding a raspberry vinaigrette, damn it.  Anybody that does otherwise isn't really a chef.  Not even a mere cook.  They're at best a prep cook without any sense of a refined palate.   

*Blessed are the peacemakers, TW, for they shall inherit the earth.*

But not the oil and mineral rights thereto.

*This does not need to be an attack of one individual, you might as well attack me as well, as I feel the same about my art that its curriculum shouldn't change quickly.*

You missed my point entirely, if you're referring to me, Tigerwoman.  Again, I have no problem if you don't want to share.  In defending this stance you've never attacked another style nor another martial artist.  As far as I recall, you've never demonstrated anything other than the values your art professes.  And I certainly don't have any problem with that.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## TigerWoman (Mar 3, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You missed my point entirely, if you're referring to me, Tigerwoman.  Again, I have no problem if you don't want to share.  In defending this stance you've never attacked another style nor another martial artist.  As far as I recall, you've never demonstrated anything other than the values your art professes.  And I certainly don't have any problem with that.



No I didn't miss your point, later I supported it, ie. denigrate, but archaic is a word too, it's opinion. Whether right or wrong it is opinion. Everyone's opinion should be respected, not liked particularly, or agreed with, but respected. I respect both of your opinions too and agree with parts of it too.  I can see where both of you are coming from and where you are going, as do others. Peace. 

I share plenty, wouldn't mind teaching others TKD technique and have on this forum. But I don't want TKD itself to change quickly, that's not about sharing but identity. Sharing--or splitting our art into techniques only, joining them with throwing, knees, elbows, grappling, etc. is not our art that's making it into something else--Taekwonhapkiaikijuijitsu-do. Not many have the time or talent to do all the arts, well.   I personally want to learn more about grappling but I can leave it too.  The thing I like about the arts is that each seems to attract like minds and body types.  To each his own. There's room for all.  TW


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 3, 2005)

One thought on Traditional Arts verus MMA.

 I'm a musician, I play bass guitar; I used to play both bass and lead guitar but my bass playing was better, but the split concentration slowed me down on both sides. I dropped playing guitar with any seriousness and now I'm a pretty good bass guitarist; better then if I was still trying to do both.

 I guess the thought is that traditional arts were actually designed for a purpose of combat, so I would be loathe to say 'it's not sufficient' until I was sure I'd adequately explored that full range of what the art teaches.

 In the same time I could learn to kick and grapple, I think I could learn to kick much better. As is being talked about in another thread about punch mechanics, proper form and proper body movement is imperative. TKD uses very specific and precise body motions to gain speed, and therefore power, into the weapon striking surface. Can I master the philosophies of TKD in regards to power and strategy and body movement and then say 'not good enough' and move on to something else? I don't think I could. More importantly, I'm not sure someone could with any traditional art.

 I think that's an important part; it's not that TKD does not want to embrace grappling or clinching or whatever. It's simply that TKD has a philosophy of combat and grappling is outside of the direction of that approach so to embrace grappling would be a distraction. Not that grappling is bad, just that it's...elsewhere, philosophically.

 Case in point, when watching grapplers versue strikers in an open match, I keep seeing grapplers shoot forward to grab the legs/thighs of their opponents to take them down. This works in grappling, but from a TKD point of view, it's suicidal to get your head down like that and expose your back and neck. Not that either is 'wrong' or 'right', they just come from different philosophies of how to engage the enemy. 

 So, do I spend some time learning to shoot in like that and some time learning to keep my back straight and stay upright for maximum balance and power in a leg strike? They are a bit contridictory and I don't think I could be *really* good at either. I also suspect that being *really* good at one would make you less dependent on the other.

 One of the few matches I saw on that silly UFC reality show (I call it silly because reality show soap operas are, to me, silly in general) you had a grappler against a striker (mostly with hands); the striker wasn't hittig that hard or that well and the grappler was able to shoot in and take the opponent down. To me, if the striker had better technique, it would not have been that easy for the grappler to take him down.

 I think there becomes a mentality of "well, I have to do A, B, and C because A is not complete and B is not sufficient in it's own and.." The perception I think comes from two sources. First, people trained in A often don't train against people trained in B so in a match of A versus B, A doesn't know how to respond to B and loses and people think A is not good enough and they need to add B to their repetoire. Then that leads to the situation that people are training in both A and B, but because of the split concentration in themselves, and maybe the conflicting philosophies between A and B, they never really master either one. So they think they *need* both because they are not really skilled enough in either one. For example, you learn kicking and you learn grappling; you learn kicking for distance strikes and grappling for when the opponent gets in past the strikes to grab you. Now, if you had really mastered the kicking, it's possible that an opponent would never get in past the kicks to need to grapple. *Especially* if, in your learning to master kicking, you practiced *against* grapplers so you would know how they attack and how to counter their attackes with your striking.  What little I've seen of mixed matches always has me wondering why, when they drop their head and shoulders, most grapplers don't end up with their heads kicked into the next ring and the best I can guess is that's it's because most kick based strikers don't train/spar against opponents who are going to do that 

  I may be oversimplifying but the gist is that:

 A) Each art has a combat philosophy and different art's philsophies may be contradictory. Training in several may at, at best, slow down mastery of one and at worst, lead to conflicting approaches.
  B) Mastering one art can be as sufficient as profficiency in several.
  C) To master an art, train against people from other arts.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 3, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> One of the few matches I saw on that silly UFC reality show (I call it silly because reality show soap operas are, to me, silly in general) you had a grappler against a striker (mostly with hands); the striker wasn't hittig that hard or that well and the grappler was able to shoot in and take the opponent down. To me, if the striker had better technique, it would not have been that easy for the grappler to take him down.


There was more going on there than a poor striker vs a grappler. The striker got impatient. Tha's what let the grappler win by getting takedowns and then sitting on the other guy. That striker has a record of 17-1, so apparently his striking does work fairly well when he's not so completely taken out of his game. 



> What little I've seen of mixed matches always has me wondering why, when they drop their head and shoulders, most grapplers don't end up with their heads kicked into the next ring and the best I can guess is that's it's because most kick based strikers don't train/spar against opponents who are going to do that


A grappler worth his salt will only be shooting in like that when they perceive an opening, and know they are in range. Kicking them at range is one thing. Giving away your base is another thing entirely.   

That aside, there's no reason to divorce TKD from grappling. Shotokan has anti grappling elements, TKD started with 'em as well. Still don't entirely beleive the folks that insist it's vital to reserve the most basic grappling elements like breakfalls etc for Black Belts.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 3, 2005)

_There was more going on there than a poor striker vs a grappler. The striker got impatient._

I guess I should've said 'poor execution of technique'.  17-1 against what kind of opponents?  Not skill wise but style wise.  Was he used to/skilled against grapplers or just other strikers?

I think that if you go beyind sparring in your art and are interested in mixed-art sparring or concerned about self-defense then it's worth learning defenses against other styles of attacks.  I don't have the time to really learn to grapple, but I think it would be good to learn how grapplers attack and how to defend against them, and even to train against them.

_A grappler worth his salt will only be shooting in like that when they perceive an opening, and know they are in range._

OK, here's a serious question but how does a grappler know he is range?  Or how does he get in range?  I know in my TKD sparring our range and our safe zone is much longer than, say, boxing.  Offensively, a hop-to roundhouse or front kick can hit a target quite a distance away.  Defensively, since you know your opponent can strike fast from a distance, you tend to react, either with a counter, an evasion, or a block, pretty quickly.  I guess I dont understand how a grappler could get close enough into range faster enough to get the arms around the thighs against a skilled TKD opponent who *knew* that's how grapplers attack and trained for it.

Not meaning to be denigrating, I just don't understand how it could/would be done...so the only thing I can think of is that it's simply something that the TKDers are not used to/don't expect/don't train for.


_That aside, there's no reason to divorce TKD from grappling. Shotokan has anti grappling elements, TKD started with 'em as well._

Actually, in our self-defense training, we train against various kinds of grasps, chokes, etc.....but interestingly enough, we use mostly TKD based techniques; a lot of strikes and a lot of striking blocks (like an inner block to the tricep).  Kinda TKD-based defense against non-TKD attacks


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 3, 2005)

Fearless Freep,

I believe along those lines myself. I don't have a problem with understanding the basics of other styles (grappling, throwing, joint locks etc.) so that you understand how to break out of them. It might also be a matter of simple curiosity. When I was in school, the exchange students were seen as exotic because they weren't from the same area as the rest of us. Simple curiosity.
However, there is a difference between being acquainted with basic techniques from other styles so that you can counter them, and openly sharing with other styles out of "martial arts brotherhood". 
Tae Kwon Do is a stand up striking style. It is not complemented by judo, aikido, jujitsu, grappling etc. because the philosophy and mechanics are different. Again, knowing the basics as a method of countering them is acceptable. Openly sharing your art and consistantly hanging out with a student of a different style is not. How do you he is not going to use that knowledge against you down the road? You think you are sharing in the "martial arts brotherhood", and he is examining your technique and delivery for weaknesses while he smiles at you and tells you how great you are.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 3, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> [I guess I should've said 'poor execution of technique'.  17-1 against what kind of opponents?  Not skill wise but style wise.  Was he used to/skilled against grapplers or just other strikers?


Since they were MMA competitions, probably a mix of both.



> I don't have the time to really learn to grapple, but I think it would be good to learn how grapplers attack and how to defend against them, and even to train against them.



Which was what that striker was trying to do.



> OK, here's a serious question but how does a grappler know he is range?  Or how does he get in range?  I know in my TKD sparring our range and our safe zone is much longer than, say, boxing.



Depends. A safe zone for a head punch is only marginally closer than the area where you can successfully land a kick tothe head. Also ask yourself this, how hard is it to close and jam a kick?

The grappler knows he's in range by vitrue of drilling. In a MMA setting, they're also trained and conditioned to take hits while closing that gap. If you're going to stick out a kick, that's a potential opening. (True for any attack) Nothing says the grappler has to mindlessly rush in. 



> Offensively, a hop-to roundhouse or front kick can hit a target quite a distance away.



The question is, will it stop a shoot? If not, it didn't accomlpish anything that'll change the outcome of the takedown except that the TKD guy'll be on one leg when the gap's closed.



> Defensively, since you know your opponent can strike fast from a distance, you tend to react, either with a counter, an evasion, or a block, pretty quickly.  I guess I dont understand how a grappler could get close enough into range faster enough to get the arms around the thighs against a skilled TKD opponent who *knew* that's how grapplers attack and trained for it.



It's likely the grappler also knows what to expect from a TKD stylist. 



> Actually, in our self-defense training, we train against various kinds of grasps, chokes, etc.....but interestingly enough, we use mostly TKD based techniques; a lot of strikes and a lot of striking blocks (like an inner block to the tricep).  Kinda TKD-based defense against non-TKD attacks



Kinda odd. We train hold breaks, chokes, throws etc in my orginazation. Neat that you know that they're absolutely not real TKD techniques. All of those are also considered TKD, and they have been present since the org's founding. Makes me wonder just how much truer one flavor of TKD is over another vs it just being some guy's random preference vs the One True Way somewhere along the line.

Not that you're wrong in your perception. I'm just pointing out that it's kinda hard to take the whole purity issue seriously when you're trying to affix the label to a moving target.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 3, 2005)

*MichiganTKD in bold:*

*Tae Kwon Do is a stand up striking style. It is not complemented by judo, aikido, jujitsu, grappling etc. because the philosophy and mechanics are different. *

The Koreans I studied with would differ with you, as do I. I find they compliment each other nicely.  Where one leaves off, the other picks up.  I've tested this, I've integrated it.  Others have as well.

*Again, knowing the basics as a method of countering them is acceptable. * 

Well, you gotta share to get that down.  To learn how to defend a shot, you have to have someone shoot in on you that knows what he's doing.  You likely won't get that in your standard dochang or dojo or kwoon.

*Openly sharing your art and consistantly hanging out with a student of a different style is not. * 

Wow.  Now we have parameters on who we socialize with.  So I should not have gone to the visitation for the father of one of our Kali instructors last Sunday?  I ought to avoid having coffee with a Muay Thai instructor because I might be tainted by the association?   God forbid someone should see me with those folks...is that it?

*How do you he is not going to use that knowledge against you down the road? You think you are sharing in the "martial arts brotherhood", and he is examining your technique and delivery for weaknesses while he smiles at you and tells you how great you are.*

The parallels with racism here are astounding.  Its as if you're establishing color lines and racial purity tests.

I keep thinking how Tim Hartman and I were welcomed warmly in Denmark.  The Tae Kwon Do people there (very, very traditional, I might add) welcomed us with warmth and an unsurpasssed level of hospitality.  They were receptive to what Tim had to show.  Quite the martial brotherhood...quite like that I've become accustomed to here in my own school.

And they acted as if they had nothing to fear.

Oddly, the Muay Thai people, the Kali people, the CSW, T'ai Chi, BJJ, Judo, Capoeira people I associate with don't fear me for what I might use against them, MTKD.  Nor I them.  We base our relationships upon genuine respect that is free of paranoia.

We break bread together.  We go to the birthdays of each other's children.  We attend the wakes of each other's family members when they pass on.  We visit each other in the hospital and each other's family members when they're in the hospital.  And I don't doubt for a moment if push came to shove we'd back each other up in a moment of crisis.

Okay.  Moving on...

When there is a discrepancy between what you know and believe and incoming new information, it is called cognitive dissonance.  When people get overloaded by this dissonance they reject any new learning.  

Leon Festinger first documented this when he was doing studies into an end-times cult.  When the promised day didn't come, the die-hards rationalized it away, saying the world was saved by the devotion of the faithful.  

Contrast this to a person of faith who is secure in his beliefs to the point of fearlessly sitting down with people of other religious traditions...without judgement.  These people are not as rare as we think, nor as common as many of us would like.  

I could say the same for the martial arts.  Secure and paranoia-free open minded martial artists are not as rare as we think, nor as common as many of us would like.  But there are a few.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 3, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I could say the same for the martial arts.  Secure and paranoia-free open minded martial artists are not as rare as we think, nor as common as many of us would like.  But there are a few.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve



I like this statement.


----------



## Adept (Mar 4, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> However, there is a difference between being acquainted with basic techniques from other styles so that you can counter them, and openly sharing with other styles out of "martial arts brotherhood".


 Okay, this is where I'm going to jump on you for some answers. 

 What is this difference, and apart from your personal choice, why do you consider it to be important. If I, as a TKD black belt was to associate with Jujitsu people and boxing people, as I do, you would either think less of me, or consider my actions to be unsavory (sp?) in some way?



> Tae Kwon Do is a stand up striking style. It is not complemented by judo, aikido, jujitsu, grappling etc. because the philosophy and mechanics are different.


 Like Steve, I would strongly disagree. I find solid 'ground game' arts compliment TKD and other 'stand up' styles very well. Of course the mechanics are different. Rolling around on the ground is, by necessity, different to standing up and striking. The philosophy is a personal thing, and each student should take care of that for themselves.



> Again, knowing the basics as a method of countering them is acceptable. Openly sharing your art and consistantly hanging out with a student of a different style is not.


 Why not?



> How do you he is not going to use that knowledge against you down the road? You think you are sharing in the "martial arts brotherhood", and he is examining your technique and delivery for weaknesses while he smiles at you and tells you how great you are.


 He may very well. It would, in fact, be my goal to point out said weaknesses for both his and my benefit. By knowing my weaknesses I can take steps to limit them, and by knowing how to look for a weakness, the person I am sharing with becomes a better martial artist. Do you not teach your students how to identify a weakness in their opponent and exploit it? Why should I take a different approach because my 'student' has a background in a different art?


----------



## Adept (Mar 4, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> A) Each art has a combat philosophy and different art's philsophies may be contradictory. Training in several may at, at best, slow down mastery of one and at worst, lead to conflicting approaches.


  Well, it depends. 

  Firstly, all you are learning are movements. Increasing the range of movements too quickly will increase the amount of time it takes to learn each one. On the other hand, once you've learned a movement, it only takes a few minutes a day to 'keep it up'. Once you've learned how to punch and kick, learning how to grapple and apply submision holds will not cause your kicking and punching skills to deteriorate.

  Instead of learning two different instruments, as you used in your example, it's like learning a lot of different songs for one instrument. Once you can play that instrument well, you can play it well. Learning different songs doesn't make you play your other songs badly, so long as you don't let them get rusty, but it does mean you have a wider selection so you can play at birthdays, weddings, funerals and parties.

  Similarly, you can learn other techniques without impairing the ones you already know, so long as you don't let them get rusty.



> B) Mastering one art can be as sufficient as profficiency in several.


  Well, no one can ever really agree on what should be in one single art. It varies from one organisation to the next, and often varies wildly within organisations. One TKD instructor might include chokes, throws and joint locks as part of the white belt syllabus, while another TKD instructor two towns over insists that there is no grappling in TKD at all. Some arts include a wider range of techniques than another.

  And of course there is the other thing - why do we train? If all we want is to learn a traditional art for its own sake then obviously mastering any single art is the ultimate goal. If adding to our RBSD repertoire is the goal, then taking a spread of techniques from several arts is probably better than sticking religiously with one style.



> C) To master an art, train against people from other arts.


  Again, we are left to define 'master'. If all we want to do is compete with Olympic rules then training against greco-roman wrestlers isn't going to further that goal, for example.


----------



## arnisandyz (Mar 4, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with understanding the basics of other styles (grappling, throwing, joint locks etc.) so that you understand how to break out of them.
> 
> However, there is a difference between being acquainted with basic techniques from other styles so that you can counter them, and openly sharing with other styles



The problem with trying to "understanding the basics" so you can counter them is flawed if you don't have somebody that truely understands that style help you. I would assume since  you don't associate with people out of your style you pick up your information from reading books, watching movies or videos, etc. Tell me, can you learn the essence of TKD from reading a book?

A good example of why "understanding the basics" as you say is flawed...
KNIFE. A majority of TKD schools have some level of knife defense. They fit thier empty-hand mentality into defending the knife. However if you have somebody very skilled in the knife show you how he would cut you, a light would go off and you would probably re-evaluate your defenses. To fully understand how to counter, you need to understand the technique to the point of it being real. You can't just "play" grappler so your TKD buddy can kick you in the head or "play" the part of a knife wielding bad guy, you have to become him.


----------



## Adept (Mar 4, 2005)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> You can't just "play" grappler so your TKD buddy can kick you in the head or "play" the part of a knife wielding bad guy, you have to become him.


 Well put.

 Live, resisting opponents with drills grounded in reality. In terms of self defense this point cannot be over-emphasised.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 4, 2005)

_Again, we are left to define 'master'. If all we want to do is compete with Olympic rules then training against greco-roman wrestlers isn't going to further that goal, for example._

Mostly I meant 'master' in the sense of the capability to fight successfully against a variety of skilled and unskilled opponents. At least for this context since we are talking about the difference between TMA and MMA.

Not from a view that TMA or MMA is better or worse; just thinking of how to be effective.  My thinking is that if you want to be successful against both trained and untrained opponents you can either get pretty good at A, B, or C or get *really good* at A, and by 'really good' that would include understanding at least how B and C attack and defend and how to use A against them.

I think TMA take a bad rap as being 'incomplete' but I think that is really because a lot of training in TMA is incomplete.  I think TKD in particular suffers from this because since TKD has become such big business in sport, a lot of people only train it for sport..being point sparring and/or olympic-style sparring against other TKDers and on the one hand that's not really effective against other disciplines but on the other hand that doesn't really encompass all that TKD can do.   So...TKD gets a bad rap, at least in the MMA, UFC, self-defense circle, but one sorta of it's own making.  One I think that is deserved if all your train for is TKD sparring, but not deserved if you train TKD for combat/self-defense against non-TKD opponents, skilled and unskilled.

Any TMA, whether foot-striking-emphasis like TKD, hand-striking, wresting emphasis like Judo, etc.. has philosophies of how to achieve effectiveness.    TKD, for all the spinning, is a very linear striking art, as opposed to another striking art that may use more circular motion.  To get a lot of power in the linear strike requires a lot of practice and focus on particular techniques.  Or let me put it another way to get a *lot* of power, consistantly and regularly and automatically and reliably requires a *lot* of practice and repetition and self-analysis and self-adjustment.  So, on the one hand to get a really good kick requires a lot of time practicing and if you split your time between kicking drills and submission drills, your kick will never be as good as it can be, but you will have submission holds in your repetoire; on the other hand, if you focus on kicking drills and really mastering the technique, you won't knw submissions but your kicks will be devestating.

I don't think one way or the other is really right or wrong; I think it's just a matter of what you want to do, how you want to get there, and then a matter of how hard and well you train at it.

I would guess, though, that if you want to go the MMA route than you *really* need to go the MMA route and get as broadly versed as possible.  I would think that you will never be really as good a kicker as someone focused on TKD or really as good as a wrestler focused on Judo or....so you need to have the extra breadth of skills.  On the other hand, if you are going to go with a TMA approach then you *really* need to go fullforce on the TMA because if you are going to pit your X art against someone's Y art then you had better be good enough in X to *keep* the fight in X because if it gets in Y territory, you will be in trouble, unless you can get it back to X

Just thinking out loud...


----------



## arnisandyz (Mar 4, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _
> 
> So, on the one hand to get a really good kick requires a lot of time practicing and if you split your time between kicking drills and submission drills, your kick will never be as good as it can be, but you will have submission holds in your repetoire; on the other hand, if you focus on kicking drills and really mastering the technique, you won't knw submissions but your kicks will be devestating._


_

I'm still going to teach my daughter how to rollerskate, even though she rides a bike. I'm still going to teach her how to paint even though she uses crayons, and I'm going to be happy when my daughter brings home strait "A"s on her report card (according to your philosophy because she is doing 5 or 6 different subjects she should be averaging "C"s  in all of them)._


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 4, 2005)

_
 I'm still going to teach my daughter how to rollerskate, even though she rides a bike._

 If she is to be a really, really good rollerskater, as in a competitve skater, then she will probably not also going to be the same caliber as a bicyclist.

 Painting and crayons use the same philosphy of color and shape and placement, and the same skills of eye-hand coordination, just different media.

 Getting A's in math and reading are just the beginning of the learning. If she can get a PHD in Math and in Literature at the same time, splitting her concentration between two different discplines and still attaining to the higest levels simultaneously, then I'd be impressed.

 Anyone with the time can go through the ranks in two different MAs simulataneously; getting in a match against someone who focuses solely on one art is a different story, otherwise you'd see more MMA artists entering TKD sparring matches and winning and into boxing matches and winning there as well because they are so good at both.

 Very, *very* few people can split attention between two different athletic discplines and be more than just adequate or maybe even pretty good. A few have done it in baseball and football at the highest levels; but most people end up focusing on one over the other and being really good at one and ok at the other. World record triatheletes are world record triatheltes, not world record swimmers and world record marathoners.

 When you life is on the line, you can be really good at a bunch of skills or really great at one skill. My only point is that both are valid, if you understand what it's going to take of you when your life is on the line and train accordingly

 I guess my point is not that I think the MMA style is wrong, or the TMA approach is right, or vice versa; just that there is value to each and each has strengths and tradeoffs and it's not a matter that one is 'better' than the other but simply that if you take an approach, you should know what your goals are (self-defense? mixed art sparring?  single art sparring?) and understand how your approach works in those goals and train accordingly.  I think you can train MMA for self-defense, I also think you can train TKD for self-defense; as long as you know what's going to happen and you train your skills against that


----------



## DuneViking (Mar 4, 2005)

*Posted By TigerWoman : *
*I share plenty, wouldn't mind teaching others TKD technique and have on this forum. But I don't want TKD itself to change quickly, that's not about sharing but identity. Sharing--or splitting our art into techniques only, joining them with throwing, knees, elbows, grappling, etc. is not our art that's making it into something else--Taekwonhapkiaikijuijitsu-do.* 

Nice and fresh viewoint. 
I support the idea of sharing, and my purpose in such _is_ self defense. I do not want to, nor would I, change my basics or forms or other traditonal aspects of TKD. They are what makes it TKD. 

Perhaps this is where I might offer a different viewpoint-opinion. I like to share to find what works to preserve life, protect my loved ones, and if practicable, not injure the offender. This is all kept separate in the realm of self defense, where I think it belongs. This allows preservation of one's particular art/style while still building up and enhancing the brotherhood within the arts and making self defense more effective. 

How cool would it be _not_ to teach a student a technique known to work because its non-traditional to one's particular art/style, only to have that be the cause of injury to that student. 

LOL, while that wording may be a mouthful, its the point I seek to share. 

Furthermore, what about _philosphy_, if a bit of wisdom gets through and accomplishes your task, who cares if its from another style? _Is that difference worth having a student fail at public school, or helping them steer clear of drugs or trouble with peers or parents? _

I would suggest to weigh the ultimate goal against what the cost of getting there is. It has been said (paraphrased of course) *"perfection of character is the ultimate goal, all schools have this in common, nothing else is significant"* So heck, if you want to not share, ok. You want to tell me to not share, OK. I will share with those I wish, regardless of what I might be told by such a person. I can find my gold nugget of knowledge. The day I stop looking for it, is the day that its time to leave the arts. Of course, my opinion is like a backdoor-everybody has one!!! :drinkbeer Guinness anyone?


----------



## DuneViking (Mar 4, 2005)

HardHeadJarHead post 166Nice Job!!:asian:


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 4, 2005)

The Western mentality is different from the Oriental mentality, and I don't mean that in a racist way.

The Western mentality is to try as many things as possible, be social, and congregate. It is perfectly acceptable to have 10 different irons in the fire. If you practice martial arts with a Western mentality, you undoubtably feel this way. Anything other than a cursory acceptance of Eastern manners is seen as worthless and contradictory to Western thought.
Because we in the West are not used to following one path, we see nothing wrong with practicing 4 different martial arts at once. It doesn't matter that you are only getting a superficial experience with them. 
Also, different arts have different mentalities. The FMA mentality is different than the CMA mentality. The KMA mentality is different from the JMA mentality.
For example, I see many photos of Filipino stylists with their arms around each other in brotherhood. You would NEVER see a traditional Tae Kwon Do stylist doing that. We believe in distance between ourselves and others. Some see that as aloof and elitist. That's the way we are. A judo stylist may think nothing of being in close proximity with other judoka, because they practice close contact all the time. A TKD stylist will always keep distance from everyone else. it doesn't matter whether in the dojang or in life. A non-traditional student may not understand that, but that's the way it is. It's got nothing to do with feeling TKD is superior, it's the traditional TKD mindset. Now, if a TKD student from a different organization wants to consistantly share with other styles and join some Soke organization, that's their prerogative. America is the land of choice. Even if I don't agree with the choice made, I abide by the right to do it. A student from my organization is another matter. My organization, my rules.
 My choice is to abide by traditional Korean TKD philosophy, as opposed to American philosophy. That means, instead of storefront classes, open tournaments, colored uniforms, and charging $100/month, I stay with the traditional Tae Kwon Do philosophy-don't worry about money, simple uniform, and TKD being a personal Way for you as opposed to associating with every stylist that comes around. I also accept traditional Korean TKD philosophy warts and all. I practice a traditional martial art, I follow it's rules. That is my way.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 4, 2005)

My friends are who my friends are, and my trust in them, or lack, goes far beyond just whether or not I tell them about a particular TKD approach or technique for fear they will some day use it against me.

 TKD was not designed as a sport against fellow TKD sparrers, it was designed as a way of fighting against people; skilled or unskilled from different backgrounds.

 As such a TKD practioner, to be complete, needs to be able to face people from other disciplines, and to do so requires knowing how they are going to attack. You can learn that the painful or deadly way by getting your butt kicked over and over until you glean the principles (or die), or you can join a school, read a book, ask one.

 There's nothing secret in TKD that cannot be learned from a book, fom joining a class, from google.

 No art has a monopoly on the truth of their art. TKD specializes in hard linear strikes, especially with the feet. If someone from another art learns a body mechanic allowing for a harder foot strike, you can be sure that TKD will adapt it, either eagerly in a desire to improve, or begrudgingly in embarassment of watching TKDers get beat at their own game.


 ---

 I'm not concerned with sharing of arts from the point of view of a traditional approach to the art being some how sullied, or for fear that what I share may come back to get me.  I'm just cautious that before I say to myself 'my (traditional) art is not sufficient', that I have really explored the full depth of what that art entails and can offer and my expresson of that art is as complete as I can make it and that any failing in the art is systemic to the art and not just a reflection of incomplete training, mine or anyone else's


----------



## Adept (Mar 4, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Very, *very* few people can split attention between two different athletic discplines and be more than just adequate or maybe even pretty good. A few have done it in baseball and football at the highest levels; but most people end up focusing on one over the other and being really good at one and ok at the other. World record triatheletes are world record triatheltes, not world record swimmers and world record marathoners.
> 
> When you life is on the line, you can be really good at a bunch of skills or really great at one skill. My only point is that both are valid, if you understand what it's going to take of you when your life is on the line and train accordingly


 But when you begin to break it down, even themost strict of TMAs has you learning several different things at once. You learn your pattern movements, you learn how to kick, how to punch, a few different blocks and a few different strikes. You can learn all of these at once without impairing the learning process.

 Martial arts is not like earning a Phd. There is only so much to know, and it can be learned in a matter of weeks. What takes time is getting really good at what there is to know. But, once you _are_ good at it, you don't have to keep re-learning it. Once the body mechanics are ingrained, a 30 minute bag work three times a week is enough to keep the skills alive. That  leaves a lot of time to learn something else.

 You wont see a champion marathon runner become a champion pole-vaulter and a champion boxer at the same time. Not because it is impossible to learn one while learning the others, but because the skills and training required to be competitive at a high level are counterproductive and very time consuming. After all the training for the marathon there is simply no time left for anything else.

 Martial arts is slightly different, and it helps if you think of them as such. Rather than TKD and Jujitsu, simply think of them as martial arts. In that way, the training and conditioning of one helps the other. Knowing how to punch and how to kick is great, and learning how to grapple and use submissions is not going to make your punches or kicks weaker unless you stop focusing on them.


----------

