Are you really training in Taekwondo?

[Tae Kwon Doughboy]

What they teach at my school works for me, no matter what it's called. I'm in it for my health. Anything else is gravy.

 

[Miles]

Usually such a shift comes into play when the strategic focus of a style shifts. For example, TKD's a empty handed striking art with the core concept that the legs are superior weapons to the hands.

So if you're teaching a version of Taekwon Do that features mainly grappling and/or punching, it's hard to qualify that as TKD anymore. You could try to still call it TKD, but it'd probably confuse more people than anything else.

Now, I think we are getting somewhere. From my albeit limited perspective, Jujitsu contains Judo, but Judo is a separate art unto itself and has become more known as martial sport (much like some view TKD). There was a stategic focus shift away from striking (which in Judo it is called atemi-waza and usually taught after blackbelt) and an emphasis on sport though both contain grappling/throwing/jointlocks.

In TKD, for sake of discussion (there may certainly be more), lets say there are 4 separate divergent paths of evolution: TKD-kwan style (i.e. utilizing original hyungs-pyung ahn, bassai, etc.), ITF (pre and post sine-wave), and WTF. Are pre-sine wave ITF and TKD-kwan stle closer in strategic focus (to quote Marginal) than both post-sine ITF and WTF?

Miles

 

[Miles]

What they teach at my school works for me, no matter what it's called. I'm in it for my health. Anything else is gravy.

Come on TKDoughboy, don't give up so easily! You must exercise your mind too!

Miles

 

[Zepp]

I think "strategic focus" is a good term Marginal. I may steal it in the future.

Are pre-sine wave ITF and TKD-kwan style closer in strategic focus (to quote Marginal) than both post-sine ITF and WTF?

I think the answer is yes. In the past, the ITF has put more of an emphasis on continuous sparring (and I know some ITF instructors still do), which is something it would have had in common with most of the older kwan styles.

Something else I'd like to say since it's on topic: This hasn't been brought up in this thread, but it has been said before that the TKD-kwan styles aren't really TKD because the forms practiced don't contain "Korean kicking." To me, this point of view ignores that kicking of all kinds is an integral part of kwan-style training. The skills practiced in forms don't define a style by themselves.

 

[Marginal]

In TKD, for sake of discussion (there may certainly be more), lets say there are 4 separate divergent paths of evolution: TKD-kwan style (i.e. utilizing original hyungs-pyung ahn, bassai, etc.), ITF (pre and post sine-wave), and WTF. Are pre-sine wave ITF and TKD-kwan stle closer in strategic focus (to quote Marginal) than both post-sine ITF and WTF?

Not a whole lot changes when sine wave's introduced in terms of the focus IMO. It's still an empty handed striking art that focuses on superiority of the leg over the hand.

Are they truer to what TKD should be, or was? Couldn't say. TKD, is more or less an umbrella term as I see it. There's room for minor changes in focus without it becoming another animal entirely. You might like a Manx better than a Maine coon, but they're still both cats.

 

[Adept]

As Bruce Lee said about JKD (which is a strangely similar scenario):

"It's just a name. Please dont fuss over it"

As far as I'm concerned, if the training I'm recieving is satisfying, then I dont care what it is called. And I dont care what other people call their styles, either.

Thats why I list myself as MMA, not TKD, even though my primary style was TKD, or at least heavily influenced by it.

 

[TigerWoman]

My question is at what point are evolutionary paths between these "styles/forms" so disparate that they become different arts? (i.e. Judo from Jujitsu, Hapkido from Jujitsu, Taekwondo from Shotokan Karate, etc.) Again, I apologize to anyone offended, that was surely not my goal.

Those mentioned are already separate arts. You separated Taekwondo into separate segments of style. Kwan style, ITF-pre-sine, ITF-post-sine, (is there a ITF present-sine?), and WTF. Even with in each of those are different styles-Kwan, Chung Do, etc.. WTF, I have found is varied too. Sure they follow Kukkiwon guidelines but just looking at requirements, every master teaches differently and has different focus-sport or traditional or both like in our school. Just like any college, they are not all the same and the same titled courses in one college will get you a different education than another but basically the same.

So this is the bottom line, as long as whatever Taekwondo you teach, if some kind of standard results, similar black belts, it is Taekwondo. I would like to know what that standard is too. Why are some masters are so easy and some so hard. Why are some breaking standards eased for those with small hands and not others for bad knees? Why do some have to do two forms for BB test but others ten? Or do no sparring for testing? If you are a sport TKD school, do you not require traditional standards as well -poomse, one-steps etc.? It all comes down to the master/owner of the dojang. Lineage/teach what you know and know what works and then it becomes individualized. The question is-- is it really becoming divergent or becoming a melting pot? TW

 

[terryl965]

TW some Master as you put it ephisis on the conditioning aspect of TKD along with the self defense, one steps, and sparring, along side Poomse. On the other hand it's more about stategic fighting I.E. Olympic style which is the new thing right now and has been since the mid 80's, these types of school really do not focus on the above mention as much, kinda like a breeze in the night. Alot of instructor of the sport really emphisis on breaking because they don't teach the others, to me a break means nothing, in no way does it prove your abilities of TKD it's a show and tell for school and converstation. Breaking is a show stopper but with all the way you can doctor a break is a break a break! Just my soap box I'll get off it now thanks Terry.

 

[Miles]

Those mentioned are already separate arts. You separated Taekwondo into separate segments of style. Kwan style, ITF-pre-sine, ITF-post-sine, (is there a ITF present-sine?), and WTF.

(heavy editing by Miles) The question is-- is it really becoming divergent or becoming a melting pot? TW

Yes, those mentioned are separate, but one sprang/evolved from the other. To illustrate what I was originally thinking, if I add Western Boxing to any of the separate styles of TKD, I think I still have TKD. If I add Brazilian Capoeria however, don't I have something different?

The separations within TKD are my own (which may or may not be exclusive) and as you noted (in a portion of your post I edited there are differences within each of my separations. As such the separations are artificial.

To answer your question, I think that TKD is becoming more divergent (which is why I asked the question). Is this good or bad or neither?

Miles

 

[Miles]

As Bruce Lee said about JKD (which is a strangely similar scenario):

"It's just a name. Please dont fuss over it"

As far as I'm concerned, if the training I'm recieving is satisfying, then I dont care what it is called. And I dont care what other people call their styles, either.

Thats why I list myself as MMA, not TKD, even though my primary style was TKD, or at least heavily influenced by it.

Yes, this discussion is academic as each individual has the ability (consciously or subconsciously) to "adopt what is useful."(to counter your BL quote In that sense each of us has their own style.

Miles

 

[Miles]

Something else I'd like to say since it's on topic: This hasn't been brought up in this thread, but it has been said before that the TKD-kwan styles aren't really TKD because the forms practiced don't contain "Korean kicking." To me, this point of view ignores that kicking of all kinds is an integral part of kwan-style training. The skills practiced in forms don't define a style by themselves.

Agreed-the Korean kicks may not have been in the TKD-Kwan stle forms (which were after all basically Okinawan) but they were present in the sparring and (as you point out) the basic training-was that a sufficient shift in strategic focus to be a different art? I'd say yes.

Miles

 

[Miles]

.........Alot of instructor of the sport really emphisis on breaking because they don't teach the others, to me a break means nothing, in no way does it prove your abilities of TKD it's a show and tell for school and converstation. Breaking is a show stopper but with all the way you can doctor a break is a break a break! Just my soap box I'll get off it now thanks Terry.

Different topic, but I totally agree with you Terry-I have seen folks breaking wafer-thin boards using all kinds of jumping back-flipping kicks. IMHO, they were demonstrating gymnastics, not TKD. It looked cool, but those kicks couldn't stop a 60lb 7yr old yellow belt (or break a 1in pine board).

Miles

 

[TigerWoman]

To answer your question, I think that TKD is becoming more divergent (which is why I asked the question). Is this good or bad or neither?

Time will tell. Whether they will be around with a following or not. I don't see anyone strong emerging from my club to carry it on, if that's a sign. What I get from a disappearance of the older black belts is that it is too much work, there is no work ethic or even motivation to go further. So our requirements were dumbed down. If everybody follows this trend though, it will be seen for what it is, ineffective. If it is ineffective, the art will disappear and possibly weed out the bad teachers/dojangs.

Now that the fact that traditional arts are being dissected and changed into taekwonjitsu who knows? Probably depends on the leader of the style if it flys. Then there are MMA people who combine everything. So theoretically we have 200 substyles and combination styles, it seems to me to be heading toward all MMA. I for one, would like to learn more than just Taekwondo has to offer but get stopped. So I would have to look elsewhere, train in another art. How to you keep them separate? It sounds like its going to be a melting pot to me. Good or bad? Probably neither. I truly love Taekwondo, the art, the way it is taught. I would hate to see it changed. But the world is changing and as the demand, whether for pretend martial arts (kids and tournaments), or more for self defense, or competitive fighting, the arts will adapt IMO. TW

 

[TigerWoman]

Different topic, but I totally agree with you Terry-I have seen folks breaking wafer-thin boards using all kinds of jumping back-flipping kicks. IMHO, they were demonstrating gymnastics, not TKD. It looked cool, but those kicks couldn't stop a 60lb 7yr old yellow belt (or break a 1in pine board).

Miles

I wouldn't categorize all breaking like that. Our dojang has never used demo boards that are 1/2". Up to my test, the breaks were hard, see the breaking threads. Demo is for demo sake. Breaking in tests and tournaments are completely different. TW

 

[XxTKDPenguinxX]

Okay... here is a thought (and if it was alreadt touched on, please forgive).

Taekwondo. A Korean martial art, we all agree. To say that if we don't do this poome-sae, or what have you, or we do this style, and so on, we are or are not practicing real taekwondo.

I'm obviously one who disagrees with this. I am learning a style that has been handed down though the years. A style that has come frome Korea. The Grand Master has taught countless Korean military personnel for the Korean government before coming to America.

If a technique that I am taught is the same in Korea as it is anywhere else, it is taekwondo. If I am doing a poome-sae that has similar, or exact techniques as the original was created... it is taekwondo.

I study "The way of the hand and foot" THAT is Taekwondo.

 

[Miles]

I wouldn't categorize all breaking like that. Our dojang has never used demo boards that are 1/2". Up to my test, the breaks were hard, see the breaking threads. Demo is for demo sake. Breaking in tests and tournaments are completely different. TW

TW, I didn't categorize all breaking to be of that ilk (gymnastic kicks on wafer-thin boards).

Breaking should be a test of skill and power. What I was describing was done skillfully but with questionable power and therefore to create the "illusion" of power, wafer boards were used.

Miles

 

[TCA]

You mentioned Olympic Style TKD (full Contact) as if it were the only full Contact competition in TKD. In the 1970's, with point fighting, I remember that we were allowed full Contact to the body and medium to the head (if under black belt). We had no head gear, chest protectors, or any padding on the bottom of our feet. To me, it hurt more. But that's just me...Have a great day and certainly no disrespect.

 

[Miles]

You mentioned Olympic Style TKD (full Contact) as if it were the only full Contact competition in TKD. In the 1970's, with point fighting, I remember that we were allowed full Contact to the body and medium to the head (if under black belt). We had no head gear, chest protectors, or any padding on the bottom of our feet. To me, it hurt more. But that's just me...Have a great day and certainly no disrespect.

No apologies needed TCA. I remember when Jhoon Rhee's Saf-T equipment first came out and everyone was wondering would it make the sparring safer or more dangerous. We sparred with just the foot and hand pads-no hogu or head gear and it was contact. I don't know about the point fighting now whether it is with or without contact.

Miles

 

[Marginal]

*Bump for JM*

 

[JanneM]

Thanks marginal.
I might be just too lazy to look up to these older posts.

[QUOTE="jim tindell on new WTF sparring rules]I don't know any of the Taeguk forms, and I still have a Kukkiwon certificate.[/quote]
If you have been certifyed in the 60's I think it is ok. But you still can't say you practise taekwondo today as it is ment to bee practised today. If you got yor certificate some times after the taeguks have been introduced then I think you should ask your teacher the name of the art you are practising. (Now I'm just plain evil...)

As Miles said in the start of this thread. You can't find any schools in Korea that does anything but Kukkiwon and WTF originated tekwondo and nothing else. In my oppinion Kukkiwon guidelines are most efective arguments in this debate. Kukkiwon regures taguks Palgwes are known in Kukkiwon and you can eaven find modern instructionals for palgwes by kukkiwon but they are not in reguirements of promotions.