5 reasons TaeKwonDo as a system (not individual techniques) breaks down in a Muay Thai ring

[Axiom]

No style is better than another style. It's not the martial art, it's the martial artist that is important.

You say that, but If I had a nickle for every dejected, bitter TKD black belt, I would be a millionare by now. I have never seen such a polar reversal in opinion from former students. The bashing is almost as prevelant from former students, completely disillusioned. I have never seen anything like that by people who did boxing or BJJ, that it was a complete waste of time.

If there is some boxing or BJJ bashing, I would like to see it. And yes, both are of course far from complete systems, but the approval rating is so much higher.

 

[drop bear]

You say that, but If I had a nickle for every dejected, bitter TKD black belt, I would be a millionare by now. I have never seen such a polar reversal in opinion from former students. The bashing is almost just as much from former students themselves, completely disillusioned. I have never seen anything like that by people who did boxing or BJJ, that it was a complete waiste of time.

If there is some boxing or BJJ bashing, I would like to see it. And yes, both are of course far from complete systems, but the approval rating is so much higher.

You are not handed as big a bag of false hope when you start though. You go to training and just get mauled by everyone for years. None of this taking out five guys with sick skills buisness.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You say that, but If I had a nickle for every dejected, bitter TKD black belt, I would be a millionare by now. I have never seen such a polar reversal in opinion from former students. The bashing is almost as prevelant from former students, completely disillusioned. I have never seen anything like that by people who did boxing or BJJ, that it was a complete waste of time.

If there is some boxing or BJJ bashing, I would like to see it. And yes, both are of course far from complete systems, but the approval rating is so much higher.

I think much of that comes from two factors: 1) a huge number of people trained in TKD (and TKD offshoots) over a 2-3 decade period (perhaps longer - just my length of awareness of its popularity), and 2) some over-promising by instructors. Add to that the fact that some TKD competition uses rules that reward combat-ineffective tactics, and you get a number of folks who are rightfully dissatisfied. Note that this is not a definitive problem with the sytem of TKD, but with how it was marketed and delivered (including, I suspect - like some areas of Karate - some premature instructors).

 

[Tez3]

Then I win the testosterone award for this one

I doubt it.

 

[DaveB]

Maybe if people put forward arguments instead of attacks on my person, I would actually concider them. RTKD objected that their footwork is not that of modern WTF and ITF competitors, but I'm not at all certain that the old-school styles would fare any better. I suspect the opposite actually. One style is too light off their feet, the other is just plain average , some would say "slow" .

Then you should go back over the thread as there are a great many comments and replies that are about your argument. I think i've written two, neither was replied to.

Also consider how you present yourself. Spouting "facts" that are gross generalisations and not even polite about it when contested. If you want discussions to stay on topic try it yourself.

And yet this keeps happening.

Oh please.

 

[DaveB]

That's been argued though. There are certain styles that are not as good as other styles; I think it's a fair argument that both TKD and MT are better than no touch chi jutsu, or a lot of modern wushu, which is meant more as performance than fighting. Meanwhile there are styles such as Ameridote that are clearly much better than their alternatives.

But the kind of pedantry needed to introduce no-touch jutsu into a conversation about fighting styles just drags the conversation down (not calling you a pedant). And if an art is known to exist primarily for purposes other than fighting then it too is a waste of time to discuss.

Frankly we all know what we mean when we say fighting arts etc, and discussion of the outliers just acts as a false equivalence for the actual arts like wing chun or tkd that the usual suspects wish to denigrate.

It is dog whistle discussion.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I do believe however that a modern day TaeKwondo master with a natural ability to fight (that is to say mentality and skillset that go hand in hand) would beat the Muay Thai guys from 1964 that the Kyokushi team beat, due to the superior athlete syndrome. I would like to think that athletes got that much better that even an outsider, like a TKD guy, would win against someone from the 60s, if the TKD guy was sent back in a time machine.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Nor do TaeKwondo guys

Speak for yourself.

 

[DaveB]

You say that, but If I had a nickle for every dejected, bitter TKD black belt, I would be a millionare by now. I have never seen such a polar reversal in opinion from former students. The bashing is almost as prevelant from former students, completely disillusioned. I have never seen anything like that by people who did boxing or BJJ, that it was a complete waste of time.

If there is some boxing or BJJ bashing, I would like to see it. And yes, both are of course far from complete systems, but the approval rating is so much higher.

Because they are sports. Boxers do not go around trying to fight in tkd tournaments and expecting to win.

The issue that might arise there is obe of people being sold a sport while expecting an all conquering martial art. Also training incorrectly for said expectations.

But when you learn that landing a front kick and drilling front kick technique are not the same thing you can see how an art can be applied to the situation you want just by altering the training.

In fact to me, participation in games like muay thai, boxing matches or mma are ideal ways to train your karate or tkd or wing chun.

Also its really not just tkd, its all traditional arts that pulled in generations with awesome movie fights but were not trained or practiced enough to cope with mma.

The disillusioned are everywhere. Most just need to adjust how they train.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Maybe if people put forward arguments instead of attacks on my person, I would actually concider them. RTKD objected that their footwork is not that of modern WTF and ITF competitors,

So stating facts is a personal attack to you is it?

 

[drop bear]

But the kind of pedantry needed to introduce no-touch jutsu into a conversation about fighting styles just drags the conversation down (not calling you a pedant). And if an art is known to exist primarily for purposes other than fighting then it too is a waste of time to discuss.

Frankly we all know what we mean when we say fighting arts etc, and discussion of the outliers just acts as a false equivalence for the actual arts like wing chun or tkd that the usual suspects wish to denigrate.

It is dog whistle discussion.

Unless they share common traits. Like unrealistic feed back.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unless they share common traits. Like unrealistic feed back.

And that takes us back to the question of whether training flaws are inherent in the art. I would argue they are not, even if they become ubiquitous within it.

 

[Axiom]

The criticism of TaeKwonDo (traditional schools included) is a lack of flow in the system compared to certain Kung Fu styles, undue time given to flexibility and kicking (instead of a more pragmatic approach). Unrealistic and restrictive sparring formats. Incoherence. Non-resisting self defence training. Those are reoccuring themes.

 

[Tez3]

I doubt it.
View attachment 21007

This is Ian Freeman.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The criticism of TaeKwonDo (traditional schools included) is a lack of flow in the system compared to certain Kung Fu styles, undue time given to flexibility and kicking (instead of a more pragmatic approach). Unrealistic and restrictive sparring formats. Incoherence. Non-resisting self defence training. Those are reoccuring themes.

I'm curious - why the comparison to CMA now? The OP was about the effectiveness of TKD in a MT-format competition.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

But the kind of pedantry needed to introduce no-touch jutsu into a conversation about fighting styles just drags the conversation down (not calling you a pedant). And if an art is known to exist primarily for purposes other than fighting then it too is a waste of time to discuss.

Frankly we all know what we mean when we say fighting arts etc, and discussion of the outliers just acts as a false equivalence for the actual arts like wing chun or tkd that the usual suspects wish to denigrate.

It is dog whistle discussion.

I was using them as extremes for my point, but I still think the point in general stands. Regardless of how much dedication you put towards an art, if the art/school is not teaching effective martial arts (which they may claim to be...I know wushu schools that do), then it is not as good as the other styles.

 

[Axiom]

I'm curious - why the comparison to CMA now? The OP was about the effectiveness of TKD in a MT-format competition.

Because the criticism is very specific to TKD. It's not just MMA glory seekers who reject it.

 

[Tez3]

The criticism of TaeKwonDo (traditional schools included) is a lack of flow in the system compared to certain Kung Fu styles, undue time given to flexibility and kicking (instead of a more pragmatic approach). Unrealistic and restrictive sparring formats. Incoherence. Non-resisting self defence training. Those are reoccuring themes.

So you don't think TKD is worth training basically.

 

[Axiom]

So you don't think TKD is worth training basically.

Depends on your objectives. I have no ambitions and it keeps me in shape.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends on your objectives. I have no ambitions and it keeps me in shape.

Then why do you keep complaining about it and pointing out what you perceive as flaws?