# Why TKD is not effective for self defense and sometimes rejected



## pnoy_kickfighter (Jun 24, 2005)

I hear stories of martial artists who have switched to different martial arts because they got whupped and their previous art was TKD. It's really bothering me and kind of losing my faith not only in TKD but also in the martial arts


----------



## arnisador (Jun 24, 2005)

It's all about how you train it. That makes a much bigger difference than the art itself. Before switching, consider cross-training in something that complements your art. Do you need grappling? Work on aliveness and attributes? Weapons? Pick something that'll help--Judo, Boxing, whatever.


----------



## still learning (Jun 24, 2005)

Hello,  TKD does a lot of competition fighting, works for them in the arena.

 Street fighting anything goes, no rules, no two fights will be the same.  Once someone come in full force swinging,slugging away,most of us are not prepare for a fight to start. So when the other starts our minds are going " IS this happening? "  Marc the animal has some good thoughts on this.  You may want to get his books and others like it. ...............Aloha


----------



## MJS (Jun 25, 2005)

All arts have something to offer, and things will have their strong and weak points.  Arnisador made some great points!!  Its going to come down to how you're training.  What are your goals in the arts?  If SD is your goal, then your training needs to be geared to that.  You may also consider cross training or cross referrence other arts, to help round out your skills.

Mike


----------



## silatman (Jun 25, 2005)

A good martial artist can make an average art outstanding whilst a bad one can make an outstanding art very average.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 25, 2005)

I would tell you to not lose faith and certainly dont give up on TKD for what anybody says.  People that usually put other systems down, usually cant fight using their particular style of practice to begin with.  If you do want to try something new then look around and see what you like, maybe you are just not all about kicking and want to try something else, but simply because someone says something about TKD shouldnt be enough for you to lose faith in it.  I run into people that critque EPAK every now and then.  Some just want to learn how a particular move would be executed, others want to make it look like if their form of Kenpo is the original source although they cant document a word of it.  Just ignore those kinds of people, if it works for you, and if you like it, if you feel good about going to your particular dojang, then thats all that matters.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 25, 2005)

There are TKD practitioners out there that I'd be inclined to just leave alone.  I have to agree with the previous thoughts here - if you're having difficulty feeling confident in your attributes, its time to switch up the way you train.  This doesn't necessarily mean the art.  Maybe the dojo, though......


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 26, 2005)

pnoy_kickfighter said:
			
		

> I hear stories of martial artists who have switched to different martial arts because they got whupped and their previous art was TKD. It's really bothering me and kind of losing my faith not only in TKD but also in the martial arts


As others have mentioned, it depends entirely upon HOW you train and WHO you train with. Your profile mentions boxing. If you've spent any serious time in a boxing gym, you probably have good hand techniques. Add TKD kicking, although self-defence applications require lower kicks than point sparring, and all you are lacking technique-wise is some grappling and groundwork. Don't switch styles at the drop of a hat. TKD is not a homogenous style - it ranges from hardcore and practical to the overly commercial and sport oriented.  Also, get a book such as Sanford Strong's "Strong on Defense" and study it. Assault prevention and escape is far more important in most situations than is superior unarmed ability.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 26, 2005)

People will compare apples to oranges, sometimes claiming that "Tae Kwon Do isn't good for defensive purposes, Jiu-Jitsu is good for defensive purposes" and so forth.  I will take it one step further, though, and not only compare apples to apples, but rather try comparing winesaps to granny smith apples.

Tae Kwon Do can be rather diverse.  Some schools of Tae Kwon Do teach techniques are well-balanced, incorporating a good mixture of hand and footwork, even some grappling, while some schools try to optimize their students for things such as Olympic-style competition, while ignoring the use of grappling, and even discouraging the use of handwork.  

It's no secret that if you try to rely on Olympic-style fighting techniques, trying to kick almost all of the time, going for risky high kicks, then you're going to be in trouble against a skilled opponent.


----------



## jkdhit (Jun 26, 2005)

in my opinion, i have to agree with cross training. most tkd schools today wont teach you actual combat but they'll train you for competitions. if you're looking for something with a lot of power then try something like kickboxing, boxing, muy thai, qigong, etc


----------



## Shane Smith (Jun 26, 2005)

Any martial art will do if you will.


----------



## Han-Mi (Jun 26, 2005)

It's about the fighter not the style


----------



## pnoy_kickfighter (Jun 27, 2005)

I balance my time in the bixing gym and in the dojang. I've got into some fights( I didnt intend to ) and the push kick is my best weapon. Would BJJ be a good idea to learn grappling


----------



## Marginal (Jun 27, 2005)

Couldn't hurt. OTOH, depending on your age and location, a school wrestling team might be a cheaper way to get in some grappling exp.


----------



## searcher (Jun 27, 2005)

Han-Mi said:
			
		

> It's about the fighter not the style


AMEN, to that!!!!

Typically people streotype that because the WTF has Olympic ties that it can't be effective.    Most of the time if a person gets the crap kicked out of them they don't want to take the blame for being a bad fighter so they blame it on the training they received.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 27, 2005)

Yes, BJJ is a great way to learn grappling, but as suggested, wrestling may be cheaper!


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 27, 2005)

That is a very good point above, especially if you are still in high school, you could probably take up wrestling without having to leave TKD, and it would be cheaper.


----------



## Jerry (Jun 28, 2005)

> It's all about how you train it. That makes a much bigger difference than the art itself.


 "The art is irrellevent" is, I think, one of the biggest myths propigate in martial arts (like the "size doens't matter", and "register hands as deadly weaopns" myths). Of course the art matters.

Of course, the art is part of "how you train". I would be impressed to see a person training by regular limited-rules sparring against people of various arts who was still doing something which resembeled the TKD cirricculum.



> I hear stories of martial artists who have switched to different martial arts because they got whupped and their previous art was TKD. It's really bothering me and kind of losing my faith not only in TKD but also in the martial arts


 There are a couple of different factors involved here. Despite my comment above, there most certainly is the problem of training emphasis, but from the instructor and by the student.

But let me start by discussing TKD as a fighting art. I took up martial arts originally becuase going to a gym was boring. For a variety of reasons, TKD was my first art. The cirriculum for TKD (WTF/ITF/ATF) simply isn't focused on fighting. The focus on kicks, the poor handwork, the complete lack of grappling skills, the essentially non-existant weapon skills, the use of flashy but low-percentage techniques (takes a long time to move a foot 9 feet), the tendancy towards point sparring, in armor, without footgear, etc. 

TKD makes some amazing gymnasts, and certainly can be used effectively combatively; but the attempt to make a true fighting art out of it is more of an after-thought than anything else. 

Because of all of these factors (poor choice of technique, lack of experience in limited-rules fighting, lack of experience fighting people of other styles), TKD practitioners do not tend to fair well against similarly skilled members of many other arts.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 28, 2005)

Jerry no disrespect here towards you but you are putting all TKD together please leave Olympic or point sparring out of the mix. traditional TKD teaches joint locks take downs and some weapontry. I relize there are alot of TKD school that teaches nothing but the above mention but there are some school that teaches traditional TKD.
Terry Lee Stoker


----------



## KyleShort (Jun 28, 2005)

Jerry makes a very good point though.  The vast majority of TKD schools teach just as he mentions.  Yes of course such an observation of TKD is stereotyping and does not apply to all dojangs, but sterotypes serve a valuable roll.  It is all about probability here.  If you were to simply pick a TKD school out of the phone book, there is a greater probability that you will find a school like Terry describes than one that is focused on hard core combat.  The same is true for most generic Karate schools.

And of course someone can train train their TKD in a realistic, combative way...but that person would be the exception, not the rule.  A hard core fighter could beat someone down with a Pepsi can or Billy Blank's signature Tae Bo...but again, the exception.  

All in all TKD is not a good art to study for self defense if you were to consider this holistically.  In other words, if someone I cared about were to ask me what art to study if they want to protect themselves I would not suggest TKD because they would likely not end up at a self defense / combat oriented school.

Now if you do study TKD and want to be the exception...just engage in friendly sparring with Boxers, MMA, Jeet Kune Do, Kickboxers etc. and asses your gaps...spend a lot of time on the heavy bag and take it from there.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 28, 2005)

Kyle why is it everybody lumps all TKD together, I started out in Okinawa Karate and swicthed over to TKD in the early eighties my old Dojaang ephasis self defense and ground work we try to bring this to the table at my Dojaang, you need to remember the golden rule of self defense never ever under estimate your potential fow. I'm not saying I'm the greates and maybe I bring some of my old Okinawa Karate to the table once in a while but I know if push comes to solve I'm able to do damage to someone but that has not happen in years wisdom comes with age I guess.

Terry


----------



## Marginal (Jun 28, 2005)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Kyle why is it everybody lumps all TKD together,


Because it's easy and nobody cares enough to bother researching outside of whatever preconceptions they've already generated. (For example, if you throw a low kick, you're just doing MT now, not TKD. Even though olympic sparring rules don't define TKD, they somehow magically always do. Whatever.)


----------



## Jerry (Jun 28, 2005)

> Jerry no disrespect here towards you but you are putting all TKD together please leave Olympic or point sparring out of the mix. traditional TKD teaches joint locks take downs and some weapontry. I relize there are alot of TKD school that teaches nothing but the above mention but there are some school that teaches traditional TKD.


 I don't believe that there is such a thing as "traditional TKD"; and I'm referring to the official ITF, WTF, and ATF ciriculums. There are some very basic standing joint-locks in the post-dan material in most of those, but the problems I mentioned remain.

That said, there are many Hyung which trace a liniage back farther than TKD, or which have incorporated non TKD material in the more recent past... and I'm not trying to make a blanket commentary on what ever school with a TKD label does... that would be foolhardy.

If someone can point me back to an "original TKD", I'm more than happy to look at it and revise my conclusions regarding this accordingly (giving an older system precedenct over the three main styles taught today), but I'm not aware of one existing.



> Now if you do study TKD and want to be the exception...just engage in friendly sparring with Boxers, MMA, Jeet Kune Do, Kickboxers etc. and asses your gaps...spend a lot of time on the heavy bag and take it from there.


 A suggestion I strongly second. The proof, as they say, is on the floor. If you are doing well against thaiboxers and MMA fighters and grapplers in limited-rules play, then you are doing well.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 28, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> I don't believe that there is such a thing as "traditional TKD"; and I'm referring to the official ITF, WTF, and ATF ciriculums. There are some very basic standing joint-locks in the post-dan material in most of those, but the problems I mentioned remain.



Basic standing joint locks have been color belt material in the ITF for ages now. Where are you getting this stuff?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 28, 2005)

The art _does_ matter, but people don't always appreciate how much how you train matters.

As to TKD, it's true that not everyone teaches Olympic TKD...but it's also true that if you walk into a random TKD school in the U.S. then there's a 90% chance it's doing sport TKD. (Statistics made up on the sport here.) It's hard to find self-defense oriented TKD i the U.S., in my experience.


----------



## pnoy_kickfighter (Jun 29, 2005)

I have two questions. Why does TKD puts emphasis on olympic sparring a lot? Second, can anyone point me to the nearest TKD school near Seattle that does self defense


----------



## Adept (Jun 29, 2005)

pnoy_kickfighter said:
			
		

> Why does TKD puts emphasis on olympic sparring a lot?


 I honestly don't know. I guess it's the thrill of competition and the glory of winning and being acknowledged as a state or area champion.

 Personally, the whole competition aspect holds no allure for me.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 29, 2005)

The main part of why is simple Korea wanted to be recognize as it wn stand alone country and deplyed so nany instructors all over the place to developed there stronghold on this type of MA and\ Western civilazation sweeped it up and made it the sport it is today. Korea knew if it got America behind them they Olympics was in the near future and would give them there noteraty they where looking for.

Terry


----------



## Jerry (Jun 29, 2005)

> Basic standing joint locks have been color belt material in the ITF for ages now. Where are you getting this stuff?


 My knowledge of ITF would be the weakest of the three, having trained in a WTF school and having had the most access to WTF and ATF material. 

My knowledge of ITF in specific comes primiarily from a large number of articles on and by ITF practitioners over the years I was involved in WTF. If they teach joint-locks sooner, I was unaware and stand corrected. Do you know where I can find a copy of the ITF syllibus?

The problem, unfortunately, remains. While I'm well aware of ITF's greater focus on fighting, the general criticism applies equally well (unless, in the past 15 years, they have completely abandoned their cirriculum in favor of another).


----------



## arnisador (Jun 29, 2005)

pnoy_kickfighter said:
			
		

> Why does TKD puts emphasis on olympic sparring a lot?


 It's been every effective for them as a business model. The sport aspect draws people in, and for parents it seems like less-violent self-defense for their children.

 Plus, it's nice to have your own Olympic sport! That must be appreciated in Korea.


----------



## bignick (Jun 29, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> My knowledge of ITF would be the weakest of the three, having trained in a WTF school and having had the most access to WTF and ATF material.
> 
> My knowledge of ITF in specific comes primiarily from a large number of articles on and by ITF practitioners over the years I was involved in WTF. If they teach joint-locks sooner, I was unaware and stand corrected. Do you know where I can find a copy of the ITF syllibus?
> 
> The problem, unfortunately, remains. While I'm well aware of ITF's greater focus on fighting, the general criticism applies equally well (unless, in the past 15 years, they have completely abandoned their cirriculum in favor of another).


 We are a WTF school and basic joint locks and other basic self defense techniques are introduced within the first couple days of training...


----------



## Jerry (Jun 29, 2005)

> We are a WTF school and basic joint locks and other basic self defense techniques are introduced within the first couple days of training...


 They exist neither in Poomsae 1, nor in the white-belt test requirement under WTF.

Further, going to the WTF's website (www.kukkiwon.or.kr) and looking at the "basic techniques"  (http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/eng/tkskill/kibon.asp?div=3), which are the requirement for 1st Dan; I find no mention of grappling technique. 

Further, I have a copy of one of Jhoon Rhee's books on TKD (covering the first three gups), which includes a "self defense" section. There is no grappling in it, and the response to being grappled include things like the lunge-punch.



Even more telling is looking at the rules for sparring in WTF (http://www.wtf.org/site/rules/competition.htm#11). Illegal acts include:- Falling down 

- Grabbing, holding or pushing the opponent 
- Pretending injury 
- Butting or attacking with knee 
- Hitting the opponents face with the hand 
- Attacking the fallen opponent 
- Throwing down the opponent by grappling the opponents attacking foot in the air with the arm or by pushing the opponent with the hand 
​Grappleing (to use one example) is not in the pre-Dan poomsae, is not in the official curriculum for Dan1 testing, and is not allowed in sparring. On what do you base the claim that it is sufficiently emphasized in the art? Because your school does it? I'm not talking about your school, I'm talking about TKD.I appriciate the enthusiasm for one's art, and I appriciate that schools attempt to have different emphasis. I know a Karate school here that used to say "Kempo"... the instructor hasn't changed, and I've seen more than one Hapkido school that said TKD on the door. In point of fact, TKD used to be in the states as "Korean Karate". The moral of this story is that a sign on a door, or even an affiliation does not an art make. 

There are some problems with the foundational material of TKD from a fighting perspective (rarely can I make a case that a spinning kick is a good idea, for example); and the official cirriculum and training rules are woefully limited. 

I know it may seem otherwise, but I'm really not trying to bash TKD; but I am trying to be honest about where it is focused and what it can and cannot do.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 29, 2005)

The WTF site just lists minimum basics it appears to me.  I would venture to say each school organization has a different set of basics and requirements in addition to that. It is up to each master on what his curriculum is and what he tests for.  I know one large org alsto WTF, here in Minnesota does alot of tumbling. We don't.  We do alot of self-defense though, which includes locks, grabs, chokes, standup and ground grappling to some extent. So they could very well teach grappling at a white belt level.  It depends on the focus of the master or grandmaster. TW


----------



## pnoy_kickfighter (Jun 29, 2005)

At my WTF school we do self defense as part of the curiculum. But our sparring is sport type. Our Instructor shows us self defense techniques to use in case of emergency. What are the factors that could tell me if a certain technique can be used in a real fight situation


----------



## bignick (Jun 29, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> They exist neither in Poomsae 1, nor in the white-belt test requirement under WTF.


 Just because something is not in the requirements for a rank does not mean it is not taught. And most schools have their own requirements and test as such. Simple takedowns like sweeps and hip throws start to be taught and are required for testing at the orange belt level for adults in my school. 



			
				Jerry said:
			
		

> Even more telling is looking at the rules for sparring in WTF (http://www.wtf.org/site/rules/competition.htm#11). Illegal acts include:- Falling down
> 
> - Grabbing, holding or pushing the opponent
> - Pretending injury
> ...


 Please see my signature for a response to this. And Judo competition allows no striking, but it is present in the art of Judo. The rules of competition do not define an art. 



			
				Jerry said:
			
		

> Grappleing (to use one example) is not in the pre-Dan poomsae,


  I guess that will depend on who's teaching and how they interpret the form...


----------



## Marginal (Jun 29, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> My knowledge of ITF in specific comes primiarily from a large number of articles on and by ITF practitioners over the years I was involved in WTF. If they teach joint-locks sooner, I was unaware and stand corrected. Do you know where I can find a copy of the ITF syllibus?


 
I know the USTF syllabus (which was largely used in the US up til the ITF fracturing) can be had off www.ustf-itf.com for ~$10. Also the ITF color belt patterns feature releases from grabs, clinches etc. http://www.itf-online.com/mastersclass.htm (I've heard that this DVD set contains such applications for grappling elements from the patterns etc.) 



> The problem, unfortunately, remains. While I'm well aware of ITF's greater focus on fighting, the general criticism applies equally well (unless, in the past 15 years, they have completely abandoned their cirriculum in favor of another).



Your general criticism was: "ITF does not practice standing joint locks until Black Belt". You're willing to say it still holds up even though you don't know what the cirriculum actually is, or if there's one at all?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jun 29, 2005)

Well, my TKD instructor also taught Hapkido.

There was a separate self defense curriculum.

Will this still be considered as TKD?


----------



## Jerry (Jun 30, 2005)

> The WTF site just lists minimum basics it appears to me. I would venture to say each school organization has a different set of basics and requirements in addition to that. It is up to each master on what his curriculum is and what he tests for.


 The sentiment of this response is repeated several times. It would be entirely possible for an instructor to teach the requirement for TKD then ignore it and teach Akido the rest of the time. This would not be TKD, which is the only thing I am trying to comment on.



> Please see my signature for a response to this. And Judo competition allows no striking, but it is present in the art of Judo. The rules of competition do not define an art.


 They tell you a great deal about the art. Judoka are not known for the striking skills they get from Judo.



> Your general criticism was: "ITF does not practice standing joint locks until Black Belt". You're willing to say it still holds up even though you don't know what the cirriculum actually is, or if there's one at all?


 No, my general criticism was:
"The cirriculum for TKD (WTF/ITF/ATF) simply isn't focused on fighting."​Even with a cirriculum that added counter-grapples or hip-throws to drills or step-sparring, that criticism remains. I've supported that with far more than a lack of grappling work. Where is your weapons sparring (have you ever tried your knife/anti-knife work against an FMA practitionr? How does the ITF teach to escape a mount? What's your basic approact to multiple-attackers? How much sparring time do you put into hand work against resisting opponents? How much of your grappling work do you put against resisting opponents? How much time have you spent trying your technique where opponents are allowed to grapple / sweep / attack the limbs? 

And that's mostly dealing with training regemine. It's possible for a school teaching TKD to allow all that, though I doubt that the people involved would long practice TKD as a response.

To hit a single criticism, TKD spends way to much time on one leg. Follow the shoulder on any spinning kick (a *really* good mule kick being the occasional exception) and you are behind the kicker. A simple lift-kick up the middle (leg, groin, whatever you connect with works) trumps any slower front kick from the cirriculum. The axe kick is a horrible idea combatively as you are trying to move your foot about 12 feet while standing within arms-reach of your opponent. 

The balance is high, the mobility is low, the "blocks" in the cirriculum are horrible combative ideas (hell, they are taught to be done with only one bone in the forearm; I've personally seen the fractures of that bone in TKD play from "light contact with pads"). Realisitically, the counter-grappling skills are not existant (I'll point you at any NHB venue you like. How did TKD fare? How would it have been different "on the street"?). Where *in the official cirriculum* is falling? fighting from the ground? how about just fighting in heavy clothing?



> Jerry no disrespect here towards you but you are putting all TKD together please leave Olympic or point sparring out of the mix. traditional TKD teaches joint locks take downs and some weapontry.


 And I intend no disrepect towards anyone either, nor towards TKD, but could you please provide a reference or support? What is the "traditional TKD" response to being under the mount? What's their knifework like? How do they deal with a liftkick? Have they abandoned "blocking", turning their backs, and most of the kicking in "olympic TKD"? If so, how are we discussing the same art? If not, how does my commentary not apply?

I don't dislike TKD, but I'm not going to believe it is something it is not because its important to people. If there's a good, combative TKD, I'd love to see it. In my several years in TKD, and more than a decade in martial arts, I have not.

PS. Thanks for the ITF links. I'm not likely to buy anything, but I'm going through the site now.


----------



## KyleShort (Jun 30, 2005)

To those who replied to my post...you missed my point entirely.  Terryl965, if you read my post closer you will see that I do believe TKD and many other arts can and do produce great self defense.  The point that I was making is that, as arnisdor noted, the vast majority of TKD schools in America (at least on the west coast where I have experience) do not emphasis hard combat / self defense training.

You're art can even go so far as to teach a plethora of self defense techniques, but as the old adage says, you perform as you practice.  If all you ever do is point spar to the protected chest and head, you will not pull out your self defense techniques when the hammer drops.  It is conditioned response...reflexes.  You might "know" low kicks and joint locks, but there is a difference between knowing and internalizing, ingraining.

Regardless, techniques don't make an art self defense worthy anyway.  I know quite a few Hapkidoists that can't fight.  My money, in general, would fall to Boxers, Judoka, BJJ, Wrestlers etc. simply because of their traininig methodology.

The funny thing is that I started my training in TKD...got to brown through two different schools...did very well in tournaments...I even used it to defend myself on a few occasions.


----------



## bignick (Jun 30, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> The sentiment of this response is repeated several times. It would be entirely possible for an instructor to teach the requirement for TKD then ignore it and teach Akido the rest of the time. This would not be TKD, which is the only thing I am trying to comment on.


 Why not? You seem to be lumping together all TKD into one category, the WTF alone is a worldwide organization with millions of participants and to say there is uniformity even within one group is preposterous.  I can't make general claims about TKD, because I don't represent TKD as a whole, I can only represent what I was taught and how my school works, to do any more would be disingenous.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 30, 2005)

KyleShort said:
			
		

> To those who replied to my post...you missed my point entirely. Terryl965, if you read my post closer you will see that I do believe TKD and many other arts can and do produce great self defense. The point that I was making is that, as arnisdor noted, the vast majority of TKD schools in America (at least on the west coast where I have experience) do not emphasis hard combat / self defense training.
> 
> You're art can even go so far as to teach a plethora of self defense techniques, but as the old adage says, you perform as you practice. If all you ever do is point spar to the protected chest and head, you will not pull out your self defense techniques when the hammer drops. It is conditioned response...reflexes. You might "know" low kicks and joint locks, but there is a difference between knowing and internalizing, ingraining.
> 
> ...


 Kyle I'm not missing your point at all the thread evolve into my response, as far as your comment about condition response please my friend all SD is speculation it is about action and re-action and over my forty years between Okinawa Karate and Judo along with my TKD I can honestly say that you can not train yourself for self defense only you train so you are in a position to handle the action when and if it ever comes your way with a re-action. Kyle we would have to dis-agree on what is best because as you have said it not the Art but the man or woman behind said Art, I have meet so many people from so many Arts and seen great ones and Bad ones that could not get themself out of a wet paper bag if they had too. I see you was from a sport school in TKD great we teach the sport to the childern and they like the competition which is great and wheen they get old enough and mature enough I will teach them proper SD from my way of thinking, right or wrong this is my opion, we teach basic SD to the child so they can get away if need be but only enough to hopefully help them to get away.
I respect your point of view and I have enjoyed this post and look forward to some more responses. I hope your life is a happy journey.
Terry L Stoker


----------



## Karushi (Jun 30, 2005)

Use what you have learned from TKD and move to something new because the more options you have the better. Also never lose faith in martial arts. NEVER.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 30, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> The sentiment of this response is repeated several times. It would be entirely possible for an instructor to teach the requirement for TKD then ignore it and teach Akido the rest of the time. This would not be TKD, which is the only thing I am trying to comment on.



Which is just silly. Any time TKD goes beyond the WTF sparring rules you like to frequently list, you claim that anything outside of that isn't TKD. (Neat way to button up that TKD is X box I guess. )



> No, my general criticism was:
> "The cirriculum for TKD (WTF/ITF/ATF) simply isn't focused on fighting."​




My apoligies. You've made so many threadbare generializations that I lost track.



> Even with a cirriculum that added counter-grapples or hip-throws to drills or step-sparring, that criticism remains.


All of that's already there, so adding it wouldn't change much, you're right.



> I've supported that with far more than a lack of grappling work. Where is your weapons sparring (have you ever tried your knife/anti-knife work against an FMA practitionr?



So you have to be attacked with knifes/weapons against a FMA practitioner to in order to ever know how to fight? There are very few arts on their own that cover your requirements (more like none) do you also strongly reccommend that people avoid Kenpo, Shotokan, MT (no weapons, or mount excapes) BJJ, etc?



> How does the ITF teach to escape a mount?



How many ways are there?



> What's your basic approact to multiple-attackers?



So... You're saying this isn't covered? Please explain.



> How much sparring time do you put into hand work against resisting opponents?


Pretty much every time we spar.



> How much of your grappling work do you put against resisting opponents?



Couldn't have gotten through testing without demonstrating that. 



> And that's mostly dealing with training regemine. It's possible for a school teaching TKD to allow all that, though I doubt that the people involved would long practice TKD as a response.



Yes. "And now, Mr. Stabby!" would make folks wonder. 



> To hit a single criticism, TKD spends way to much time on one leg. Follow the shoulder on any spinning kick (a *really* good mule kick being the occasional exception) and you are behind the kicker. A simple lift-kick up the middle (leg, groin, whatever you connect with works) trumps any slower front kick from the cirriculum. The axe kick is a horrible idea combatively as you are trying to move your foot about 12 feet while standing within arms-reach of your opponent.



Great. (Not sure why you think those are presented as self-defense moves tho.) You still seem to be arguing purely from the standpoint of WTF rules sparring. 



> Where *in the official cirriculum* is falling? fighting from the ground?



Falling's a green belt requirement. Ground fighting's a 3rd Dan reqirement. 



> What's their knifework like?


One would hope there's no knifework. TKD's not a weapons oriented MA.



> Have they abandoned "blocking",


During sparring, yes. 

http://www.tkd.risp.pl/Juras_HL_Extreme.wmv Hmm... link's dead. Anyone know an alternate source? (Interesting 'cause it shows ITF sparring, and the same guy in a MMA ring... Oh well.) 



> I don't dislike TKD, but I'm not going to believe it is something it is not because its important to people. If there's a good, combative TKD, I'd love to see it.



In all honesty, you haven't looked that hard.​


----------



## bignick (Jun 30, 2005)

It's time like these when I wish MichiganTKD was still here...yeah, he could be an ***...but he knew his stuff...and it was always great listening to his rants on subjects like this...


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 30, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> It's time like these when I wish MichiganTKD was still here...yeah, he could be an ***...but he knew his stuff...and it was always great listening to his rants on subjects like this...


I agee whole hearted with this statement!!


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jun 30, 2005)

The statement that if you would just pick a TKD school out of the phone book, you will wind up with the sport version, I would have to agree with. The so-called real TKD or Old School Dojang is a very rare commodity. Most of the people that started back in the day are at the Senior level of society. I would venture to say that not very many are still active or teaching. NOTE HERE!----operative word(s) is MOST!........

My personal opinion is that anything of a competition nature, envolving the martial arts, does a serious dis-service to both the art and the student. To quantify that statement, remember the adage, "You fight like you train". In addition, I'm sure we have all witnessed the bad attitudes and lack of humility and the heavy lack of respect, while watching the proceedings at a tournament. It has even gone so far as to cheat, just to win a lousy piece of plastic. Is that really what TKD or the arts are all about?


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 30, 2005)

Please training for tournament and trainig for the outside world is two different aspect of MA, you can do both and become effient in them and please do not say no I can give you a houndred or so people that have done both and did just fine with them.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jun 30, 2005)

"Please training for tournament and trainig for the outside world is two different aspect of MA, you can do both and become effient in them and please do not say no I can give you a houndred or so people that have done both and did just fine with them."

Two different aspects..........That's the main point of "You fight as you train".

I too can defer to many who have found that their TKD training was found to be lacking. Way to many people questioning TKD's validity in the street and other's recounting stories of TKD people getting beat in a real fight.

Remember, we are speaking of TKD overall. At your school, you may very well be able to share with your students the difference between the gym and the street, but unless the individual can grasp the correct mindset (difficult to do for many) between the two, it becomes a mute point. Not to sound overly obtuse, but I find the statement of "give you a hundred or so people that have done both and did just fine", difficult to palate.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 30, 2005)

_*Mod. Note. 
  Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

  -G Ketchmark (shesulsa)
  -MT Senior Moderator-*_


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 30, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> _*Mod. Note. *_
> _*Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.*_
> 
> _*-G Ketchmark (shesulsa)*_
> _*-MT Senior Moderator-*_


Mam if for any reason I sounded not politeful or respectful I'm sorry I try to watch how I say things. My humble apologies.
Terry Lee Stoker


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jun 30, 2005)

*Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.*

Dually Noted! although I don't feel that either myself or Mr. Stoker has overstepped any boundaries. We merely offered opinions.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 30, 2005)

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> Dually Noted! although I don't feel that either myself or Mr. Stoker has overstepped any boundaries.


  (Emphasis added.) Love the pun!


----------



## KyleShort (Jun 30, 2005)

Mr. Stoker, I smile.  You are a genuine and pleasant fellow, thanks   I agree that we can disagree and though I feel my point valid, I submit that your point can be every bit as valid, if not more given your experience.


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 1, 2005)

KyleShort said:
			
		

> Mr. Stoker, I smile. You are a genuine and pleasant fellow, thanks  I agree that we can disagree and though I feel my point valid, I submit that your point can be every bit as valid, if not more given your experience.


Thank You KyleShort I do agree with alot of what you have said and I relize that in general the Micky Dees' of TKD is speading like a wildfire in the middle of summer, I can remember when this was a Art form and it was appreciated by the masses, now adays people assume everybody is like that one day all us oldtimers will be gone and the sport will grab it and finally just remove it from the Art all together. I'm hoping some of my students will find a niche and keep things the old way but who knows maybe one of my three son's, anyway I look forward to more post on this matter and to see everybody views.
Terry Lee Stoker


----------



## Jerry (Jul 1, 2005)

Apologies, but I've moved around a couple of your points to lump similar ones together. As it is, I'm unhappy with the "line-response-counter" nature of the post which both lowers clarity and tends to lean to "did not, did too"-type arguments. The purpose of rearranging has been to make more cohesive responses in a smaller area, and I hope I've preserved the intent of your post despite this.



> Why not? You seem to be lumping together all TKD into one category, the WTF alone is a worldwide organization with millions of participants and to say there is uniformity even within one group is preposterous. I can't make general claims about TKD, because I don't represent TKD as a whole, I can only represent what I was taught and how my school works, to do any more would be disingenous.


 And I cannot discuss 500,000 schools I have not seen, though I have discussed problems with the core material (such as techniques like the ax kick) which cannot be remedied by addition of more material.

There are standardized bodies, and I'm happy to discuss them individually as far as my knowledge goes. Of the three, the ITF has been traditionally seen as the most combative; though I can only presume this is still the case.



> Which is just silly. Any time TKD goes beyond the WTF sparring rules you like to frequently list, you claim that anything outside of that isn't TKD. (Neat way to button up that TKD is X box I guess. )
> [...]
> In all honesty, you haven't looked that hard


 You lack any sort of positive claim here. Instead of just telling me I'm wrong, why don't you tell me what you think TKD actually is in a manner that we can discuss it's performace as a fighting art? As to looking, I'm here now, why don't you show me or point me at reasources?



> My apoligies. You've made so many threadbare generializations that I lost track.


 Passive aggressive "backhanded apology" with no probative value 



> All of that's already there, so adding it wouldn't change much, you're right.
> [...]
> So you have to be attacked with knifes/weapons against a FMA practitioner to in order to ever know how to fight? There are very few arts on their own that cover your requirements (more like none) do you also strongly reccommend that people avoid Kenpo, Shotokan, MT (no weapons, or mount excapes) BJJ, etc?


 These are both straw-man logical fallacies. I've already reiterated my base criticism, though I believe the latter one may be unintentional.

I am not claiming that one needs to have been attacked by an FMA practitioner with a knife in order to have a fighting art. I am suggesting that those in TKD who believe they have a fighting art do play knife-work with an FMA practitioner. The result of such play, I assert, will be the illustration to the TKD practitioner that his art has no good knife or counter-knife skills.

I further assert that an art with no knife skills is not a combative-focused art.

Similarly, playing with a BJJ practitioner will allow a TKD practitioner to find out if he has effective grappling skills. Again, I do not assert that such play is neccessairy in order to be studying a fighting art, rather that the results of such play are telling of the nature and ability of the art in question.

This goes back to the original poster's question of why people will abandon TKD in favor of another art. In my case, and in many cases, it's because I interacted with some other arts and found mine lacking in a manner which I could not easily shore-up.



> How many ways are there?


 I have no idea. What I do know is that the mount is a common position that groundfighting arts, and many amitures will seek out... having a response to it would seem to be indicitive of a combative (or grappling sport) art, and a lack of a response of a non-combative art.



> So... You're saying this isn't covered? Please explain.


 Explain the question? I'm asking what your approach is to multiple attackers. I don't know a more simple way of asking it. I do realize it's something of a broad question, and I'm certainly not asking for a dissertation on multiple-attacker fighting. I'm merely attempting to establish whether you've got an art with a considered, reasonable approach to the problem or not. It's not an uncommon scenerio for a fight, and so I would expect any fighting art to have a response to it.



> Pretty much every time we spar.
> [...]
> Couldn't have gotten through testing without demonstrating that.
> [...]
> Falling's a green belt requirement. Ground fighting's a 3rd Dan reqirement.


 Not under WTF rules (unless you would like to count punching at each other's chest-plate). I'm more interested in grappling / counter-grappling (and better still, striking which is inclusive of it).

There has been a near-universal agreement about "realistic training". Unless you wish to dispute that in reality, people push and grab, I'd like to know how much sparring time is spent on that. How much time to you spend sparring with an opponent who is also trying to win where grappling is allowed?



> Great. (Not sure why you think those are presented as self-defense moves tho.) You still seem to be arguing purely from the standpoint of WTF rules sparring.
> [...]
> During sparring, yes. [blocking has been abandoned]


 Why are they presented at all? Why would you train over and over something you would disctinctly avoid in a fight? They teach blocking, have it in the forms, then tell you to not ever do it?



> One would hope there's no knifework. TKD's not a weapons oriented MA.


 My point exactly.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 1, 2005)

(Out of respect to the mods, I edited this down.)



			
				Jerry said:
			
		

> There are standardized bodies, and I'm happy to discuss them individually as far as my knowledge goes. Of the three, the ITF has been traditionally seen as the most combative; though I can only presume this is still the case.


Even though you were perfectly willing to lump every single TKD org into the same boat only two posts back...



> Explain the question?


Yep. Why do you seem to think that nothing's taught on the issue of multiple attackers?



> Not under WTF rules


Ah. Well then. This solves all the issues I had with your broad claims regarding the ITF.



> Why are they presented at all? Why would you train over and over something you would disctinctly avoid in a fight? They teach blocking, have it in the forms, then tell you to not ever do it?


They don't distinctly avoid them, most issues are covered in sparring with your basic hands up position and stonewalling. That's also not saying that the blocks absolutely are not used in sparring. Things change depending on the dynamics of the situation. Would I go out of my way to deliver a down block? No. 



> My point exactly.


The real point is, very few arts are complete. You don't take BJJ for its striking for example. I don't see you leaping up and down regarding the combative flaws inherent there. Seems like you've created your own set of strawmen to push around. "TKD must be complete, if it is not, then it is not a combative art. Please test this by challenging other arts that are also not complete combative systems to determine if TKD is suitable for self defense purposes."


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jul 1, 2005)

So, the basis of TKD as used for defense is upon three factors;

* Teacher Ability

* Student Ability/Determination

* Tactics used/taught/learned


Is this correct?


----------



## MJS (Jul 1, 2005)

The majority of TKD schools that I have seen focus on the sport aspect.  However, I'm certianly no authority on TKD and I do not know what the various ones...WTF, ITF, etc.....teach, so I really can't comment on what is/is not taught.  That being said, everyone will have different goals in mind when they're searching for an art to train in.  All arts, in one way or another, have things that they are stronger in than others.  If someone wants to round out their skills, they can cross train or cross referrence other arts.  In addition, I really don't see what all the fuss is about.  I see the same thing in the Kenpo world.  Org. A teaches slightly different than org. B, and the people from A say that B is not teaching true Kenpo.  My question is: Why does it bother people so much?  If you're not taking TKD, have no interest in TKD, then why worry what is being taught?

Mike


----------



## Marginal (Jul 1, 2005)

Silly. TKD doesn't have a huge representation in MMA. Therefore it's everyone's business.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jul 1, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> The majority of TKD schools that I have seen focus on the sport aspect. However, I'm certianly no authority on TKD and I do not know what the various ones...WTF, ITF, etc.....teach, so I really can't comment on what is/is not taught. That being said, everyone will have different goals in mind when they're searching for an art to train in. All arts, in one way or another, have things that they are stronger in than others. If someone wants to round out their skills, they can cross train or cross referrence other arts. In addition, I really don't see what all the fuss is about. I see the same thing in the Kenpo world. Org. A teaches slightly different than org. B, and the people from A say that B is not teaching true Kenpo. My question is: Why does it bother people so much? If you're not taking TKD, have no interest in TKD, then why worry what is being taught?
> 
> Mike


Because it the age-old idea-

Comparing and preferences


----------



## MJS (Jul 1, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Because it the age-old idea-
> 
> Comparing and preferences



True.  People will compare A to B all the time.  Its the same old argument with a different dressing.  

Like I said...if someone prefers not to take TKD, why be concerned with whats being taught?  Ultimately it won't effect you at all.

Mike


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jul 1, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> True. People will compare A to B all the time. Its the same old argument with a different dressing.
> 
> Like I said...if someone prefers not to take TKD, why be concerned with whats being taught? Ultimately it won't effect you at all.
> 
> Mike


Becasue those want to compare, critque, boast, and campaign via politics.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 1, 2005)

A little late in the game but one thing that occurred to me early on in the conversation was the difference between power and speed in various attacks.

 A jab is faster than a reverse punch, which is faster than a 'haymaker'.  Now, the power of all three is inversely proportional to the speed.  So you can ask two questions.  "Why not just throuw all jabs so that they are too fast to block and evade?"  or "Why not just throw all 'haymakers' since they have the power to knock someone out?"  The answer to the first question is that they may not be powerful enough to do enough damage.  The answer to the second is that they are slow and easy to see coming.  So, the real answer is that you use them in combinations based on the situation and the response.  You use a quick jab or two to distract, and come in with the reverse punch; maybe a jab to the face and a punch to the stomach.

 So, carry that on to kicks.  Some kicks are faster than others, but some are a lot more powerful.  A spinning back kick is slower than a reverse punch, but has a big impact.  Even in sport sparring, you don't often see people opening up with spinning kicks; they are usually either counter moves or secondary moves.  Same with fighting, a spinning back kick might not be a very smart opening move, but it would  probably be pretty effectve as the second or third stike in a combination that started off with a hand stike *if* the situation presented.

 And that's the big 'if'.  A huge swinging fist won't work on an opponent that's ready for a hand strike.  An elbow strike doesn't work against someone out of range.  Both can be very effective if used at the right time when your opponent is in a certain position or condition.  Same with all strikes.  Same with high kicks or spinning kicks or whatever.

 It's all a matter of a) having attacks that work for a variety of conditions and b) knowing when to use them. 

 Any art looks weak if the artist(s) only has a few attacks and they are not well used.  Any art looks strong if  the artist(s) has a good variety and good execution


----------



## arnisador (Jul 1, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Why does it bother people so much? If you're not taking TKD, have no interest in TKD, then why worry what is being taught?


 My guess is the unspoken reason for many is an interest in discussing the value of kicking vs. punching n general and in high kicking as a self-defense strategy more particularly.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 4, 2005)

pnoy_kickfighter said:
			
		

> I hear stories of martial artists who have switched to different martial arts because they got whupped and their previous art was TKD. It's really bothering me and kind of losing my faith not only in TKD but also in the martial arts


The answer is simple. People train in the martial arts for 3 reasons.
1.Self Defence
2.Sport
3.Fitness
Most TKD schools train for sport, not self defence. Although training for sport has alot of good self defence in it, the training is geared for sport. There is nothing wrong with training for sport, its all about what you want out of the arts. If your wanting self defence i recomend you train in muay thai and brazillian jiu jitsu. Thats just my personal choice for self defence, there are alot of other good arts out there. 
You see the cardio kickboxing schools all the time, those are geared for fitness, not self defence. However there are some good things you will get out of the cardio thing for self defence.
You just need to ask yourself, WHAT DO I WANT OUT OF MY MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING? 1 2 or 3?


----------



## Jerry (Jul 5, 2005)

> Even though you were perfectly willing to lump every single TKD org into the same boat only two posts back...


 I made generalized statements about things common in all three orginizations. It's been asserted that some of those generalizations are inaccurate in regards to one of the three. I'm happy to discuss if there was an error, and where that error was... as soon as I find someone interested in discussing TKD. You do not appear to be such a person as you are far more interested in discussing me.



> Yep. Why do you seem to think that nothing's taught on the issue of multiple attackers?


 I did not make a claim whether something was taught on MA. I asked "What's your basic approact to multiple-attackers?"

Please answer the question or do not respond to it.

While you are at it, please answer some of the other questions I posed:
"Where is your weapons sparring (have you ever tried your knife/anti-knife work against an FMA practitionr? How does the ITF teach to escape a mount? What's your basic approact to multiple-attackers? How much sparring time do you put into hand work against resisting opponents? How much of your grappling work do you put against resisting opponents? How much time have you spent trying your technique where opponents are allowed to grapple / sweep / attack the limbs?"​While you are at it, you may want to see if you have a response to some of my actual criticisms:

To hit a single criticism, TKD spends way to much time on one leg. Follow the shoulder on any spinning kick (a *really* good mule kick being the occasional exception) and you are behind the kicker. A simple lift-kick up the middle (leg, groin, whatever you connect with works) trumps any slower front kick from the cirriculum. The axe kick is a horrible idea combatively as you are trying to move your foot about 12 feet while standing within arms-reach of your opponent. 

The balance is high, the mobility is low, the "blocks" in the cirriculum are horrible combative ideas (hell, they are taught to be done with only one bone in the forearm; I've personally seen the fractures of that bone in TKD play from "light contact with pads"). Realisitically, the counter-grappling skills are not existant (I'll point you at any NHB venue you like. How did TKD fare? How would it have been different "on the street"?). Where *in the official cirriculum* is falling? fighting from the ground? how about just fighting in heavy clothing?
​


> They don't distinctly avoid them, most issues are covered in sparring with your basic hands up position and stonewalling. That's also not saying that the blocks absolutely are not used in sparring. Things change depending on the dynamics of the situation. Would I go out of my way to deliver a down block? No.


 Me: Have they abandoned "blocking"
You: During sparring, yes. 

Are they abandoned or are they "used based on the dynamics of the situation"? 

If abandoned:
Why are they presented at all? Why would you train over and over something you would disctinctly avoid in a fight? They teach blocking, have it in the forms, then tell you to not ever do it? ​If used:
the "blocks" in the cirriculum are horrible combative ideas (hell, they are taught to be done with only one bone in the forearm; I've personally seen the fractures of that bone in TKD play from "light contact with pads"). ​


> The real point is, very few arts are complete. You don't take BJJ for its striking for example. I don't see you leaping up and down regarding the combative flaws inherent there. Seems like you've created your own set of strawmen to push around. "TKD must be complete, if it is not, then it is not a combative art. Please test this by challenging other arts that are also not complete combative systems to determine if TKD is suitable for self defense purposes."


 BJJ is not at issue here as it is not the topic... though I've been known to take BJJers to task as well. 

I've made some very specific criticisms of TKD as a combative art, not simply on the lack of focus in areas, but on poor choices in tactic (flying, spinning, and blocking). You've done very little to address the criticisims. You've complained that I don't know what I'm talking about, but never corrected me. You've complained that I'm lumping, but not illustrated how a different organization solves the critique. You've flip-flopped on some issues (such as bloacking), ignored other issues in favor of what you can take offence at, and gotten to the point that I can essentially respond to your posts without having to write new material. For the sake of everyone else, I'm likely to cease responding unless there is some indication this will be an actual discussion of the topic. Note that in your entire post you put exactly *one* comment on topic ("blocks are not saught, nor are you put in a position that lends to making them, but not distinctly avoided by you").

And BTW: BJJs solution to the boxing problem is to put the boxer on his back. Their punching is more than sufficient to "gound and pound", and they put a great deal of effort and energy into training to survive that entry.


----------



## Jerry (Jul 5, 2005)

> So, carry that on to kicks. Some kicks are faster than others, but some are a lot more powerful. A spinning back kick is slower than a reverse punch, but has a big impact. Even in sport sparring, you don't often see people opening up with spinning kicks; they are usually either counter moves or secondary moves. Same with fighting, a spinning back kick might not be a very smart opening move, but it would probably be pretty effectve as the second or third stike in a combination that started off with a hand stike *if* the situation presented.


 Actually the spinning back-kick is the one spinning kick I've seen as a good option . It's certainly a valid line of thought, and requires what becomes a very subjective answer: It's quite true that there are times to sacrifice speed for power (and vice, versa)... why there are crosses as well as jabs, why there are (occasionally) swings like haymakers. The question becomes whether the anology holds to spinning kicks. We know that it's not going to work _ad infinitum_, that an ultimately powerful technique with no speed at all will never connect, and that an iltimately-fast technique with no power at all will have no effect. I believe / assert, that the vast majority of the kicking I'm discussing (ax kicks, spinning heel kicks, etc) fall into the same group as hand attacks like spinning backfists... things that rarely work in sparring within the art, and essentially never when playing with people from other arts. They are slow enough (and equally important, slow with your back turned while standing on one leg) that they are "low probability" choices that carry a very high risk, and therefore unsited for a fighting art.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2005)

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-MJS
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Marginal (Jul 7, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> I made generalized statements about things common in all three orginizations.



Except that it's not true. 



> I did not make a claim whether something was taught on MA. I asked "What's your basic approact to multiple-attackers?"



Why ask unless you think nothing is presented?



> While you are at it, please answer some of the other questions I posed:
> "Where is your weapons sparring (have you ever tried your knife/anti-knife work against an FMA practitionr?​




Answered already. TKD's an empty handed art. There is no weapons sparring. (Weird you ask this when you responded to this exact response already. It's like it registered, but managed also not to make any impression at all.) There are knife/weapons seminars and tactics and techniques come up in self defense segments. 



> How does the ITF teach to escape a mount?


Bridge.



> What's your basic approact to multiple-attackers?


Stacking. (Not the wrestling term.) 



> How much sparring time do you put into hand work against resisting opponents?


Already answered. EVERY TIME WE SPAR.



> How much of your grappling work do you put against resisting opponents?


Periodically. Necessaray to practice since a self defense demonstration is required when testing for 1st dan.  



> How much time have you spent trying your technique where opponents are allowed to grapple / sweep / attack the limbs?"


See above.



> While you are at it, you may want to see if you have a response to some of my actual criticisms:


Where you claim that WTF rules sparring is not a valid self defense technique? Not applicable since ITF does not employ that rule set, nor are axe kicks, flying kicks etc presented as sensible (or even good) self defense tools.ITF style TKD does tend to encourage a deeper base as well. 



> The balance is high, the mobility is low, the "blocks" in the cirriculum are horrible combative ideas (hell, they are taught to be done with only one bone in the forearm; I've personally seen the fractures of that bone in TKD play from "light contact with pads"). Realisitically, the counter-grappling skills are not existant (I'll point you at any NHB venue you like. How did TKD fare? How would it have been different "on the street"?). Where *in the official cirriculum* is falling? fighting from the ground? how about just fighting in heavy clothing?


 I've seen TKD'ers fare well in smaller venues. (LIke the avi I tried to link to would've illustrated. 



> Are they abandoned or are they "used based on the dynamics of the situation"?


Both. 



> the "blocks" in the cirriculum are horrible combative ideas (hell, they are taught to be done with only one bone in the forearm;



All of them? Really? This is why I say you have to stop arguing from generializations and actually get some detail before you make wild (and false) claims.



> BJJ is not at issue here as it is not the topic... though I've been known to take BJJers to task as well.


It is since your only real criticism is that TKD's not a complete combatitive system. As I'm not making, and will not make the claim that it is, (I am merely arguing that it's still useful for self-defense purposes, and that you know nothing about the ITF) arguing against TKD as a complete system while asking me to defend it only as a complete system when there are plenty of viable arts out there that are also not complete systems is nothing but a poorly disguised double standard. It's also totally pointless since you're trying argue against garbage you think I should be saying rather than what's been said. 



> I've made some very specific criticisms of TKD as a combative art,


No, you've made generialiations based on olympic rules sparring. You make no distinction between differing competition rules between the various orgs (else you wold not have asked if hands are used against resisting opponents etc) As your mind was made up 15 years ago, further discussion's pointless. 



> You've done very little to address the criticisims.


If you say so.



> You've complained that I don't know what I'm talking about, but never corrected me.



I beleive I did point out that there was a standardized stand up grappling syllabus for color belts in my org. 

I beleive this contradicts your previous assertion that no major TKD org teaches such techniques before BB. 



> You've complained that I'm lumping, but not illustrated how a different organization solves the critique.


ITF sparring rules allow punches to the face, and scores hand techniques consistently in competition, (which encourages their use). I beleive I've already pointed out that we do regularly employ hand techniques against a resisting opponent during sparring. 



> You've flip-flopped on some issues (such as bloacking),


I've said nothing about "bloacking" at all. What I said about blocking hasn't confused anyone but you. 

Basic sparring typically involves a standard hands up boxeresque stance. If a situation arises where the stonewall tactics are disrupted, those blocks from a pattern may emerge. You're getting huffy because I won't put the way we train into your particualr logic trap. It's not dithering. It's just how it is. Sorry if that doesn't match with your preconceptions. It's not a question that has a binary approach. Call it flip-flopping if you like. That don't make it so. 



> ignored other issues in favor of what you can take offence at, and gotten to the point that I can essentially respond to your posts without having to write new material.


Yeah, you pretending I never answered your questions was an incredible feat of arguer's acumen. 



> For the sake of everyone else, I'm likely to cease responding unless there is some indication this will be an actual discussion of the topic.


Silly request given that you had no intention of engaging in any better discussion than "TKD is (list of fallacoius preconceptions and third hand info)."



> Note that in your entire post you put exactly *one* comment on topic ("blocks are not saught, nor are you put in a position that lends to making them, but not distinctly avoided by you").


If you're going to paraphrase, at least get the gist correct. 



> BJJs solution to the boxing problem is to put the boxer on his back.


I asked what a BJJ guy would do vs a knife wielding FMA player. I don't care what a BJJ guy does against a boxer.



> Their punching is more than sufficient to "gound and pound", and they put a great deal of effort and energy into training to survive that entry.


Great. We know what happened in UFC 1 now. Answer my question. You haven't yet. Since you haven't, obviously I am right. (You think this is productive conversation?)​


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jul 7, 2005)

In short, Ive seen TKD martial artists perform well and not so well, in bar room brawls, some leading into the street.

It is not entirely the art.

Versitility in many martial arts is the key.


----------



## Jerry (Jul 7, 2005)

Restricting to where you've actually discussed the topic:



> Answered already. TKD's an empty handed art. There is no weapons sparring. (Weird you ask this when you responded to this exact response already. It's like it registered, but managed also not to make any impression at all.) There are knife/weapons seminars and tactics and techniques come up in self defense segments.


 OK. TKD has no appriciable anti-weapons work. This is one example of it's lack of combative focus.





> Bridge.


 Can you point me to an ITF source that shows the cirriculum for escaping the mount? Or is this a "my school does it" thing?"Taekwondo is famed for its employment of leg and jumping techniques, which many believe distinguishes it from martial arts such as Karate or Kung Fu. The rationale behind this is that the leg is the longest and strongest weapon a martial artist has, and kicks thus have the greatest potential to strike without retaliation. Despite this, hand techniques, and at the higher levels, some grappling and anti-weapon techniques are taught and emphasized (which techniques are taught vary from instructor to instructor)." - http://www.ukmao.co.uk/enc_taekwondo.asp

​"some grappling" is taught "at higher levels"... perhaps they have no idea what they are talking about either?"Though practitioners of grappling martial arts have a clear advantage once the fight hits the ground, a competent tae kwon do practitioner wouldn't allow that to happen. Furthermore, unlike grappling, which requires full contact with the opponent, tae kwon do practitioners can deliver a knock-out kick from several feet away." 

 "As well, some grappling techniques that are found in TKD lean toward aikido more than true grappling." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taekwondo
​"[TKD], unlike grappling" - Another source with no clue I suppose? Recall that both of these people are TKD practitioners promoting the system.

 Could you please actually point me to a grappling cirriculum in a major TKD body? I've still not seen it.


> Stacking. (Not the wrestling term.)


 What is it, in your term?



> Periodically. Necessaray to practice since a self defense demonstration is required when testing for 1st dan.


 So grappling, sweeping, and limb attacks are an "add on" for a first-dan test, but not part of regular work?



> Where you claim that WTF rules sparring is not a valid self defense technique? Not applicable since ITF does not employ that rule set[


 A fair response. Let's look at the ITF sparring rules (trimmed down from http://www.itf-information.com/information10c.htm).

Targets: Front and side of head. Front of torso above the navel to the base of the neck.

 Disqualifications: Heavy contact

 Fouls: [font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]biting/scratching/clawing, [/font][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]attacking with the knee, elbow or forehead,[/font][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif] attacking a fallen opponent[/font]

 Warnings: holding/grabbing/pushing,[font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif] sweeping, [/font][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]faking a blow, pretending to be injured to gain an advantage[/font] ​ Considering that you fight how you practice, let's look at these. You are only allowed to punch and kick, and only to the head and chest of an opponent facing you. You cannot blind-side (nor need worry about it), there are no knees, no elbows, no grapples, no limb attacks, no feints, no decoys, no shoves, no sweeps, and no heavy contact. 



 This is why TKD is not a combative art... because it does not train to be one. The syllibus is, I believe, far less comprehensive that you assert (I don't believe that ITF TKD has a ground-grappling syllibus, but invite you to prove me wrong), and the sparring is far to restrictive to be reasonable. 


> nor are axe kicks, flying kicks etc presented as sensible (or even good) self defense tools.ITF style TKD does tend to encourage a deeper base as well.


 So you teach them and then tell people not to use them? Again it underscores my point about being non-combative.



> I've seen TKD'ers fare well in smaller venues.


 Can you suggest a reson why they are unheard of in larger venues open to mixed arts?



> Both.


 So blocks are both never used and used sometimes? That would be a neat trick.



> All of them? Really? This is why I say you have to stop arguing from generializations and actually get some detail before you make wild (and false) claims.


 There are four primary blocks in the TKD cirriculums. They are the "down, up, inward, and outward" (figures 2, 6, and 14).

_**MODERATOR NOTE:  IMAGE REMOVED DUE TO VIOLATION OF IMAGE POSTING POLICY - G KETCHMARK / SHESULSA**
_ 



> It is since your only real criticism is that TKD's not a complete combatitive system.


 Actually, I'm responding to a question regarding why TKD is rejected as a self-defense art. I've pointed out both the large holes in the cirriculum (grappling, weapons work, ground work), as well as the basic flaws in the approach (blocking, spinning attacks, ax kicks) to illustrate why many leave TKD for other arts on the grounds of it not being "effective for self-defense".



> I beleive I did point out that there was a standardized stand up grappling syllabus for color belts in my org.


 He would bleed to death.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 7, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> Restricting to where you've actually discussed the topic:
> 
> OK. TKD has no appriciable anti-weapons work. This is one example of it's lack of combative focus.


Thanks for repeating what I just stated. At least your kinda paying attention. 



> Can you point me to an ITF source that shows the cirriculum for escaping the mount?


 Why did you ask if you didn't really want an answer?

 [irrelevant WTF quotation snipped]

 [/indent]"some grappling" is taught "at higher levels"... perhaps they have no idea what they are talking about either?"

 Are they even ITF? 



> "As well, some grappling techniques that are found in TKD lean toward aikido more than true grappling." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taekwondo


Not especially meaningful given how hoshin sul is presented.

 [/quote]"[TKD], unlike grappling" - Another source with no clue I suppose? Recall that both of these people are TKD practitioners promoting the system.[/quote]You're still not bothering to differientiate between orgs. 



> So grappling, sweeping, and limb attacks are an "add on" for a first-dan test, but not part of regular work?


A testing requirement's not an add on. 



> Disqualifications: Heavy contact


Laxly enforced.



> Fouls: [font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]biting/scratching/clawing, [/font][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]attacking with the knee, elbow or forehead,[/font][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif] attacking a fallen opponent[/font]
> 
> Warnings: holding/grabbing/pushing,[font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif] sweeping, [/font][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]faking a blow, pretending to be injured to gain an advantage[/font]


Yep. In sparring. 



> Considering that you fight how you practice,


 Nope. Sparring's not the sum total of practice.  



> I don't believe that ITF TKD has a ground-grappling syllibus, but invite you to prove me wrong


Don't care since I never said it did. You generically asked for a mount escape.



> So you teach them and then tell people not to use them? Again it underscores my point about being non-combative.


You keep getting it wrong. It's like you can't read. 



> There are four primary blocks in the TKD cirriculums. They are the "down, up, inward, and outward" (figures 2, 6, and 14).
> _**MODERATOR NOTE:  IMAGE REMOVED DUE TO VIOLATION OF IMAGE POSTING POLICY - G KETCHMARK / SHESULSA**_


Wow. Another WTF source.


----------



## Jerry (Jul 7, 2005)

You didn't answer a single question. You didn't point me to a single requested reasource. You didn't link me to any ITF grappling, you didn't link me to a single other type of block, you didn't address the complaint that these score points put TKD in the "non-combative" group.

Your posts seem to contain primarily a mix of "we don't do that", and slurs. I took a look at your last 5 posts (the past 3 pages) and found not one single referral to an ITF (or any body's) cirriculum. You did not cite or link to a single bit of source material. You rarely, if ever, discussed my claims (such as the problems with blocking), merely asserted they were wrong.

Actually, the blocking issue would be an excellent example of your complete lack of saying anything (we've had two threads on it).

*Me:*  Have they abandoned "blocking", 
*You:* During sparring, yes. 
*Me:* They teach blocking, have it in the forms, then tell you to not ever do it?
*You:* That's also not saying that the blocks absolutely are not used in sparring.
*Me:* Are they abandoned or are they "used based on the dynamics of the situation"? 
*You:* Both. 
*Me:* So blocks are both never used and used sometimes? ​At this point you stopped responding. You've never clarified whether blocks are abandoned or in use (you've given me contrary information). You also never answered the question of why they are taught (if they are not used) nor delt with the problem of them (if they are)... here's the conversation on the problem with them.

*Me:*  the "blocks" in the cirriculum are horrible combative ideas (hell, they are taught to be done with only one bone in the forearm; I've personally seen the fractures of that bone in TKD play from "light contact with pads")
*You:* All of them? Really?
*Me:* There are four primary blocks in the TKD cirriculums.  (I link to a Poomse to illustrate)
*You:* Wow. Another WTF source.​Note that you did not link to an ITF source. You did not offer up any other blocks. You did not support a reason why these four blocks were not "foundational" (making the critique relevent whether others exist or not). In short, you mocked me but put up absolutely nothing in response.

This has just gotten assinine. Your not talking about TKD at all, you are just talking about my posts... and you are doing so without reference, without support, and without contributing. If you would like to discuss the subject at hand, I'm happy to, but I'm done simply bickering.


----------



## searcher (Jul 7, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Becasue those want to compare, critque, boast, and campaign via politics.


And don't forget marketing strategy.   If you have 2 schools competing for students and one is TKD then there will be style bashing.   This can occur more often than not with the large number of TKD schools.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jul 7, 2005)

If I may, the WTF lists only a Minimum core for promotion. It allows the school/instructor to formulate the full curriculum for his/her school. They even go so far as to show self defense techniques for consideration. But nowhere is it written, that they dictate what should or should not be taught in this venue. I would assume that the ITF's (3), would be somewhat similar.

http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/eng/TKskill/kyor...i=304&serial=63 
These are not the best in the world, but they may offer some practical value for what TKD can do. 

:asian:


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jul 7, 2005)

Moderator Warning
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Sheldon Bedell
-MT Moderator-


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 7, 2005)

I'll further state that Tshadowchaser's warning is the THIRD warning in this thread.  

 Any further disrespectful, impolite conversation and this thread will be locked.  

 FINAL WARNING!

 G Ketchmark / shesulsa
 MT Senior Moderator


----------



## Marginal (Jul 7, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> This has just gotten assinine. Your not talking about TKD at all, you are just talking about my posts... and you are doing so without reference, without support, and without contributing. If you would like to discuss the subject at hand, I'm happy to, but I'm done simply bickering.


Last post before I update my ignore list. I will not argue about what the ITF does vs WTF sources you provide. It's an utter waste of time. It doesn't work on any level. This has been my complaint against your info from post 1. Again, apoligies if this upsets you.  

Burden of proof does not fall to me when you're the one who made the initial claim.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jul 9, 2005)

pnoy_kickfighter said:
			
		

> I hear stories of martial artists who have switched to different martial arts because they got whupped and their previous art was TKD. It's really bothering me and kind of losing my faith not only in TKD but also in the martial arts



My background was in American style of TKD (it was bastardized ITF), I also studied other systems along ther way and I've switched to the Filipino martial arts.  However I still practiced and taught over the years the American TKD only I blended in anything that worked when it came to self defense training  in the classes I taught.

Bottom line I believe two things will help in SD training.
1) Proper attitude (be serious about it, study about it, explore other arts and adapt similar techniques into your personal SD training).

2) Don't believe the hype or the marketing that this system or that is supreme (no matter if it is karate, TKD, BJJ, Muay Thai, or any of the filipino systems) system and by taking that system you cannot be defeated by anyone. 

Why does TKD have a bad rap sometimes in SD?  I submit it is because of the above 2) points.  Poor attitude among teachers and students in regards to SD training.  And the belief that their system is the best and it will defeat all comers.

A couple of weeks ago I went to a test at a TKD school (Amercianized version) and in all honesty the self defesne section was the weakest part of the whole test.  I saw techniques that wouldn't work on a resisting opponent, no attitude in them, and poor responses.  20 years ago I went to a (Korean) TKD school and was told that they believe in kicking to the head for SD because the leg had more power than the hand and therefore you could KO the assailent easier.

However the TKD training I recieved from my instructor we were taught to fight and use anything to win in self defense.  So when taken to the ground we sought out the eyes.  Standing upright we used sweeps, TDs, Muay Thai leg kicks, elbows, locks whatever it took.

Mark


----------



## CuongNhuka (Aug 2, 2005)

the main reason that taekwondoka (i think) is because teakwon do focuses on high kicks and in training that is free style their is little to no similaritly to real life situation. what is a real life situaton? for most that means kicking the gut and punching the head. both of which are frond upon in taekwondo freestyle. now donn't get me wrong some taekwondoka train in very realistic situations. taekwondo, in general, is really only good against other teakwondoka. know if you were to train in korea, then very few people would be able to much against you here in the states. why? the reason is when they spar, you donn't score a point unless you acculy knok your opponent back with the force of your kick. now personaly, i don't like point sparring at all, but what ever floats your boat.

sweet Brighit bless your blade

john


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 3, 2005)

coungnhuka said:
			
		

> know if you were to train in korea, then very few people would be able to much against you here in the states. why? the reason is when they spar, you donn't score a point unless you acculy knok your opponent back with the force of your kick.
> john


This is the second thread in which you've made this claim.  However, I must respectfully disagree.  About a 2 years ago, one of the guys at our studio had his nephew staying with him for a visit so he brought him in to the studio.  The nephew grew up in Korea and was a 2nd-black in TKD.  His technique looked good.  However, when it came time to spar, he got beaten by _everyone_ in the class (green and brown-belts).  His repertoire consisted of fancy high-kicks and little or no hand technique whereas us nasty Kenpo guys kick to the groin and punch people.  

Now I realize that you can't judge an entire group of practicioners by one individual (and I have nothing against this guy) however, his material was obviously not "up to snuff."  Others might argue that it wasn't a fair comparison because the systems were/are so different.  To me however, that's exactly the point.  If an individual gets thoroughly "stomped" by people that are still playing by quite a few rules, how is he/she going to fare when dealing with someone that's not abiding by any?

BTW: spell-check is your friend   

edit to add:  I'm not interested in debating the "TKD for self-defense" issue, I was just responding to the "blanket statement" I referenced.  No offense to any TKD practicioner was implied.


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2005)

coungnhuka said:
			
		

> the main reason that taekwondoka (i think) is because teakwon do focuses on high kicks and in training that is free style their is little to no similaritly to real life situation. what is a real life situaton? for most that means kicking the gut and punching the head. both of which are frond upon in taekwondo freestyle. now donn't get me wrong some taekwondoka train in very realistic situations. taekwondo, in general, is really only good against other teakwondoka. know if you were to train in korea, then very few people would be able to much against you here in the states. why? the reason is when they spar, you donn't score a point unless you acculy knok your opponent back with the force of your kick. now personaly, i don't like point sparring at all, but what ever floats your boat.
> 
> sweet Brighit bless your blade
> 
> john



I have to go with Kenpotex on this one.  Martial Arts training, while it should give you the edge over someone, does * not * turn people into Supermen.  While the training overseas may be a little more hardcore, it does not make you invincible.

Mike


----------



## RichK (Aug 3, 2005)

Whew, this thread went all over the place. let me see if I can make a few tags while trying to remember all the post. That means no bashing me if got lost amongst all the petty bickering. Original post about why people are switching from TKD. Someone posted about 3 reasons why people train, that explains why someone may get into one style and jump ship, because it may not even be for them. I saw all "TKD" posts which is still a generalization, what about the subsids like Moo Duk Kwon, Tang Soo Do, Hapkido....... Back in 1980 I started TKD with the empasis in Moo Duk Kwon. My instructor learned it while stationed in Korea. We had great empasis on SD. The generalization that TKD is sport is a GENERALIZATION. Have you ever visited or worked out with the ROK TKD guys? If not then don't say TKD is geared towards sport. Here in the states the majority of that is true but there are still schools that teach quite a bit of the other items that were hit on. And I don't want to hear anything about "then it's not TKD". So what the heck is MMA??? (Yes, I do know the answer to that) Just because there is a TKD sign on the door means they can't teach anything else but ITF, ATF or WTF curiculum? Just because there is no compitetion in Aikido, and people rant there are no hand strikes (which there are) because we do not aggresssively show them, means I can not apply it on the street in a SD situation. I have always hated the football coach statement of "you play like you train", because that is not completly true for everyone. So yes I can state that the comments about doing something on the mat and doing them on the street is a generalization. Name me one MA that trains everyone to smash a nose (yes mine has been broken very bad during sparring) or break bones (all of my toes have been broken with most being 2 or more times, very badly bruised ribs, dents all along both shin bones and a dislocated shoulder) during training so they can do it on the street in an SD situation? If that were the case how many parents would leave their children in class, how many schools would still be open? I have trained in numerous MA's because I, read again "I", A-had to because of moving around every few years and B-because I wanted to diversify my training. I teach two styles, one traditional and one not because I enjoy them along with all of the MA's. I will speak with anyone interesed in babling about MA and will learn from anyone that is willing to show me something new and different.
   Yes I will admit that most of the TKD schools nowadays, maybe I shouldn't say most but most of the major chain type, are "white dot focus" schools...hehe couldn't resist. Meaning that they teach the young ones that "if you hit someone with one punch or one kick to the head with a large exhale of air making this noise the fight will stop". Well sorry but there are too many variables, plus if you hit me in the head you will A-hurt yourself B-make me laugh at you or C-tick me off (yes I am saying I have a hard head). So I guess TKD schools can't (oops a four letter word) teach outside of the MINIMUM GENERAL GUIDELINES? So I guess any school that teaches anything different from the way Mr. Ugh Lumphead-Rex originally taught it is wrong. "But wait you can't say that because my MA has only been around for 50 years". So you are telling me that you can not change or teach anything different now because Mr 50 Years Ago Founder wrote it down on a piece of paper and all of his students made thier own organizations now and have written thier own interpretations and magazine articles for someone else to quote????? That's absurd! Sorry for the long babble but I have heard this kind of mine is better than yours crap for 25 years and there are others here who have heard it longer.


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2005)

RichK said:
			
		

> Just because there is no compitetion in Aikido, and people rant there are no hand strikes (which there are) because we do not aggresssively show them, means I can not apply it on the street in a SD situation.



You have a good point.  As long as its being trained, one would think that it'd be able to be applied.




> I have always hated the football coach statement of "you play like you train", because that is not completly true for everyone. So yes I can state that the comments about doing something on the mat and doing them on the street is a generalization.



If someone is practicing techniques and their partner always punches to the side of the head, rather than at the intended target, stops short of making contact, offers little to no resistance, etc., that person is going to begin to develop false assumptions in their training.  People who assume that because the technique worked in the dojo, that the same technique is going to work when someone is hell bent on taking their head off, is going to be in for a surprise.  The person on the street is not going to stop their punch.  That being said if some resistance was given or contact made, I would imagine their training would be different.




> Name me one MA that trains everyone to smash a nose (yes mine has been broken very bad during sparring) or break bones (all of my toes have been broken with most being 2 or more times, very badly bruised ribs, dents all along both shin bones and a dislocated shoulder) during training so they can do it on the street in an SD situation? If that were the case how many parents would leave their children in class, how many schools would still be open?



Another good point.  It always used to amaze me when people would bring their kids in for their lesson.  They would sit there watching their child do an eye poke, hammerfist to the nose, kick to the groin, and their eyes would be popping out of their head.  They'd have a look on their face like, "Oh my God, my child is doing these violent strikes?"  Well, NEWS flash for them.  If they think that their small child is going to be able to do some wrist lock on an adult, they'd stand a better chance of poking them in the eye.

As far as adding in that little bit of realism to the training.  Of course we're not actually going to break someones neck, take an eye or break an arm, but with the proper gear and some imagination, we can create that real feeling to our training.


Mike


----------



## Jerry (Aug 4, 2005)

> That means no bashing me if got lost amongst all the petty bickering.


 No problem here. I'm far more interested in critiquing / discussing points of a post than the person posting.



> I saw all "TKD" posts which is still a generalization, what about the subsids like Moo Duk Kwon, Tang Soo Do, Hapkido


 Those would be MDK, TSD, and Hapkido, not TKD. What about them? They are seperate arts.



> The generalization that TKD is sport is a GENERALIZATION. Have you ever visited or worked out with the ROK TKD guys? If not then don't say TKD is geared towards sport.


 This is very vague. I know that I've made some very specific critiques of TKD as a fighting art. Can you tell me how the critique is invalid or how it does not apply to TKD pratitioners in Korea?



> And I don't want to hear anything about "then it's not TKD". So what the heck is MMA??? (Yes, I do know the answer to that) Just because there is a TKD sign on the door means they can't teach anything else but ITF, ATF or WTF curiculum?


 They may teach Greco-Roman wrestling if it suits their tastes... however it would not be TKD.



> Just because there is no compitetion in Aikido, and people rant there are no hand strikes (which there are) because we do not aggresssively show them, means I can not apply it on the street in a SD situation.


 Most schools of Akido use atrikes only as Atemi (distractions). One premise of Akido is that the attacker is in a loosing position... so training to attack would defeat the premise.



> I have always hated the football coach statement of "you play like you train", because that is not completly true for everyone. So yes I can state that the comments about doing something on the mat and doing them on the street is a generalization. Name me one MA that trains everyone to smash a nose (yes mine has been broken very bad during sparring) or break bones (all of my toes have been broken with most being 2 or more times, very badly bruised ribs, dents all along both shin bones and a dislocated shoulder) during training so they can do it on the street in an SD situation?


 Name one boxer that doesn't train boxing. I train to break bones. There are things I do in practice (mostly involving speed) to avoid it actually occuring in play. 

But to say that you will act in a fundamnetally different way under stress than you have in practice is not supported by the facts. A wrestler is not likely to suddenly start kickboxing under stress. He will do what he knows.

Similarly, the problem faced by TKD is the use of hard blocks, high kicks, and very restrictive rules of sparring; as well as only dealing with opponents under such limiting rules. I find no reason to believe that a TKD practitioner, having spent hundreds of hours learning to defend his chest but not his knee, will sudennly defend his knees with proficiency.



> So you are telling me that you can not change or teach anything different now because Mr 50 Years Ago Founder wrote it down on a piece of paper and all of his students made thier own organizations now and have written thier own interpretations and magazine articles for someone else to quote????? That's absurd!


 You may change anything you like... though you may not be discussing TKD any longer.


----------

