Dazed and confused

Yes they are about 9-1 sport vs traditional, I see your point...

So, until that changes, people are probably going to keep thinking what they are. Now, everyone will have their preferance, and it sounds like you're teaching both, so I'm assuming at least in your school, someone will have 2 options....sport or traditional. Do you mix the 2 or keep them seperate?

As I said, I'm not a TKD guy, but it seems to me, much like with everything else in the arts today, that people will go with the current flavor. Pre-1993, it was rare that you saw many schools offering some sort of grappling/BJJ program. Enter the UFC, and what did you see? Every school on the block was offering BJJ. So, if sport is the more popular flavor, then people will cater to the public.

Just my .02. I may be wrong on this, but again, its just my observation. :)
 
They are two different styles, so they have to be in two different classes.
 
http://martialarts.about.com/od/mmaandufc/a/topmmakicks.htm

The above link is a sample what kicks can do in MMA. Then there were TKD Maurice Smith's baseball bat leg kicks in the early days of MMA.

TKD is legit (!), like all ferocious striking styles once proficient. I liked the joint locks/controls there, which many may be unaware exist.

I think the reason people are confused is:

1) MMA's model for success makes traditional stand-up styles appear ineffective.

2) People's focus on being prepared for all situations (multiple attackers standing on wooden poles in raging swamps with active harbor mines floating by).


,,,,, :bomb:, ,, ,,,, :matrix: :bomb:,,,, ,,, ,,

The multiple attackers with weapons is a serious task to prepare for, however. If one can get have some sort of approach practiced (add in some seminars of renowned instructors...Tim Larkin's an excellent one...practice), survival with only cuts and bruises is extremely possible in less taxing one attacker scenarios.

All of the arts need some cross over IMO, but their basis is never in question.
 
Back
Top