Direction
- Thread starter FearlessFreep
- Start date
N
NotQuiteDead
Guest
No, but there is no denying that the techniques were taken from other places. I don't see why that's so hard to accept.
If you saw someone throw a jab-cross combo, cover up and close in to get a body lock and then take his opponent down with a valley drop (as described on that website, exactly the same as that video), and then start to ground and pound his opponent would you say he's doing tae kwon do? I wouldn't.
Marginal
Senior Master
What's hard to accept is you speaking for Choi.NotQuiteDead said:
Using a name with no knowledge of what was or wasn't said, what was or wasn't trained and capping it off with "Well, Choi never intended that/Choi didn't do that." is absurd. Your presumptions did not build TKD in any way. Stop pretending they are interchangeable.
Techniques taken from other places? That's how TKD developed in the first place. Shotokan, Judo, Taekyon, HKD all have influences in varying degrees. Came from other places? Doesn't matter it they're present in the cirriculum now.
Adept
Master Black Belt
As I got more and more into the martial arts, it seemed to me that a lot of time could be wasted trying to classify what styles and techniques and names should belong to which art. The words of Bruce Lee leapt off the page when I read Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and echoed what I'd always felt about martial arts. A punch is just a punch, a kick is just a kick. Unless people start growing extra arms and legs, there is only one style of fighting.
To me, the names we use to describe martial arts are just adjectives. Taekwondo just means "We use a lot of kicks, and don't do much groundfighting". If you try and start classifying and clarifying beyond that, people get upset. On this thread already we've had people complaining that jabs, hooks and crosses aren't part of TKD. Well, I've used punches in TKD that were jabs, hooks and crosses in all but name. Does that mean that I must invent a new art to encompass those punches?
Thats the main reason I simply refer to myself as a mixed martial artist. I don't want to get into arguments about what style I use, and what techniques I can use as part of that style and what ones I cant.
To me, the names we use to describe martial arts are just adjectives. Taekwondo just means "We use a lot of kicks, and don't do much groundfighting". If you try and start classifying and clarifying beyond that, people get upset. On this thread already we've had people complaining that jabs, hooks and crosses aren't part of TKD. Well, I've used punches in TKD that were jabs, hooks and crosses in all but name. Does that mean that I must invent a new art to encompass those punches?
Thats the main reason I simply refer to myself as a mixed martial artist. I don't want to get into arguments about what style I use, and what techniques I can use as part of that style and what ones I cant.
Miles
Senior Master
Perhaps not originally, but Taekwondo has "absorbed what is useful." In fact, there is a 3-tape instructional series with Coach Kim, Sei Hyuk (who is Samsung teach coach and is very famous in Korea) in which the jab and cross are demonstrated. They are not performed exactly as in boxing but very close.NotQuiteDead said:
As far as grappling is concerned, the TKDTutor site says that grappling is not inherent in TKD but one could consult a grappler for good training in case a fight goes to the ground.
Miles
N
NotQuiteDead
Guest
Where did I ever try to speak for Choi? I asked if you really thought it was likely that Choi thought of the jab, cross, hook, and uppcercut and then happened to pick the exact same names for them without ever knowing anything about boxing. It's absurd to think that's even possible. As for that other quote, I said it was my guess. If you can't comprehend the difference between someone's guess or opinion and stating what they believe is a fact, then maybe you should take up another hobby instead of talking on message boards.
Boxing, JKD, etc. may be in your curriculum, but in my experience it's not standard tae kwon do. What's really odd is that the "vital grappling" section is exactly the same as what is described in the military combatives video, even though that video is less than 10 years old (probably a lot newer than that actually). Did the head of some TKD federation come train with the US military recently and decide that their way of getting into a clinch and the basic takedown from their level 1 combatives training is now standard TKD?
Adept,
I have no problem with people using techniques that aren't part of their 'core' art, I don't care about styles. I just think it's ridiculous for a "tae kwon do" website to take techniques from books, clips, and other sports without giving them any credit. Then you have people like Marginal that still try to say it's tae kwon do even when I linked to a clip that proves it's more of an ecclectic website than anything.
Watch this link and then read this page. Then try and tell me that site isn't just taking stuff from other places.
Digger70chall
Yellow Belt
fearless and notquitedead need to hold hands or something, all this hostility between the two of them is silly. MMA people will always try to get at TKD because it's not that effective in their particular sport. It has rules and regulations and weight classes just like any other sport of boxing or TKD. The MMA always has the benefit of not owning up to any particular style so he has nothing to defend...they can "use whatever works best" or train in multiple aspects, that's great if you are only doing this to pummle somebody the quickest or defend yourself against a single attacker in a cage. But honestly if you only want to defend yourself you can spend the 700 bucks for a nice kimber and get your permit. I started TKD not for the sport but for the training and dedication, their ideals are great standards to live up to and the people i meet are great. It shouldn't be a big leap of faith for both of you to realize that we are going to see things in entirely different light but neither MMA or TKD can prepare you for everything you may encounter in life. This went way off topic 
all i really wanted to say was that the army infantry movie wouldn't work for me and that background on their site made my eyes water up.
all i really wanted to say was that the army infantry movie wouldn't work for me and that background on their site made my eyes water up.
Marginal
Senior Master
That's when I aksed you if changing the name from hook punch to angle punch changes the mechanics of the punch.NotQuiteDead said:
My point being, the label doesn't especially matter as long as the technique's mechanics are the same. If there's a more understood terminology already existing, why wouldn't people adopt it over time? Even the Shotokan books by Nakayama mention jabs etc. It's not like people weren't aware of the terms, or the techniques. You say hooks were taken from boxing. There are only so many ways to deliver a punch.
Why keep invoking the name of a man you know nothing about?
Do you have any TKD experience? Any ITF/USTF/TAGB etc experience?
If you'll notice, TKD tutor has an extensive biblography section. They're not really saying "Look. It's TKD!" Besides that, TKD tutor disses sine wave. Someone who presumes on what Choi knew every other post ought to know what he'd think of that site.
N
NotQuiteDead
Guest
Digger70chall,
This has nothing to do with whether or not I like tae kwon do. I said I think it's odd for a website claiming to show tae kwon do to discuss techniques that are clearly not tae kwon do without giving credit to their original source.
Marginal,
This has nothing to do with whether or not I like tae kwon do. I said I think it's odd for a website claiming to show tae kwon do to discuss techniques that are clearly not tae kwon do without giving credit to their original source.
Marginal,
Then why switch from Japanese terms to Korean ones? When tae kwon do was founded the Japanese terms (kata etc.) were already being used...Marginal said:
He founded the art. I bring up the founder of an art when I am discussing why I think it was founded, it only makes sense.Marginal said:
ITF.Marginal said:
Really?Marginal said:
tkdturor said:
Neither Jun Fan Gung Fu: Seeking the Path of Jeet Kune Do nor the military combatives program are listed in the references pages.tkdtutor said:
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
From tkdtutor (emph. mine)
Otherwise just take it up with the site author. It's a useful source of information and other than that nobody else *here* really cares about what you are complaining about
Otherwise just take it up with the site author. It's a useful source of information and other than that nobody else *here* really cares about what you are complaining about
N
NotQuiteDead
Guest
I wasn't trying to make a big deal about it, I made a single short comment. I only continued to discuss it because people here (mainly you) kept trying to claim that the non-tkd stuff was still from tae kwon do. Obviously you thought it was an issue because you kept arguing.
If I cared enough to want it changed I would have emailed the author; obviously I don't.
If I cared enough to want it changed I would have emailed the author; obviously I don't.
N
NotQuiteDead
Guest
LOL, how am I hiding behind his name? The only time I brought him up in this thread I asked one question: do you really think Choi thought up the jab, cross, hook, and uppercut as well as the exact same names used in boxing on his own (although he spoke Korean and generally things in tkd have Korean names...)?
I haven't been claiming Choi said or did anything. There is a big difference between saying, "My guess is that he wouldn't be fighting anything like Choi had in mind when he created TKD" (which is what I said) and saying, "He wouldn't be fighting anything like Choi hand in mind when he created TKD" (which is what you imagined when trying to read my post).
N
NotQuiteDead
Guest
...and I qualified my post as an opinion, so I wasn't putting words into Choi's mouth or claiming that I speak for him. What was your reason for quoting me about that again?
N
NotQuiteDead
Guest
What are you on about now? The only time I brought him up in this thread all I said was that Choi didn't invent the jab, cross, hook, and uppercut as well as their English names. Many tae kwon do teachers may teach them but that doesn't mean they haven't been borrowed from boxing.
I don't know why you have such a problem with me, but there is no need for you to follow me around on this forum with your petty arguments that don't take into account the context of my posts (such as the fact that I'm posting my opinions and don't claim to speak for Choi). Maybe you need a grammar lesson or two so you can distinguish between an opinion and a statement that is believed to be a fact?
Regarding my comment about people not fighting like I think Choi probably had in mind when he created tkd, do you think this was his vision of a tae kwon do fighter?
-Standing in a stance somewhere between a boxing stance and a muay thai stance, with very little weight on the front foot so low kicks can be checked.
-Covering or slipping rather than blocking to defend against strikes.
-Rarely using any punches other than the jab, cross, hook, uppercut, or a wild right.
-Rarely kicking anywhere but the thigh, and doing so with the shin rather than any part of the foot.
-Being ready to sprawl at all times (I don't recall ever seeing a sprawl in a form, but I may be wrong...).
-Clinching when the opportunity arises.
-Training extensively on the ground to use the guard and other positions to set up submissions or strikes.
That's how the majority of people who compete in mma fight and train. If someone trained in tae kwon do wanted to be successful they would have to be ready to check low kicks and sprawl at all times, and be well versed in the clinch because (especially in the cage) it's hard to keep backing away from someone trying to get close to you. All styles have to be adapted to be used successfully in mma, why would tae kwon do be any different?
I don't know why you have such a problem with me, but there is no need for you to follow me around on this forum with your petty arguments that don't take into account the context of my posts (such as the fact that I'm posting my opinions and don't claim to speak for Choi). Maybe you need a grammar lesson or two so you can distinguish between an opinion and a statement that is believed to be a fact?
Regarding my comment about people not fighting like I think Choi probably had in mind when he created tkd, do you think this was his vision of a tae kwon do fighter?
-Standing in a stance somewhere between a boxing stance and a muay thai stance, with very little weight on the front foot so low kicks can be checked.
-Covering or slipping rather than blocking to defend against strikes.
-Rarely using any punches other than the jab, cross, hook, uppercut, or a wild right.
-Rarely kicking anywhere but the thigh, and doing so with the shin rather than any part of the foot.
-Being ready to sprawl at all times (I don't recall ever seeing a sprawl in a form, but I may be wrong...).
-Clinching when the opportunity arises.
-Training extensively on the ground to use the guard and other positions to set up submissions or strikes.
That's how the majority of people who compete in mma fight and train. If someone trained in tae kwon do wanted to be successful they would have to be ready to check low kicks and sprawl at all times, and be well versed in the clinch because (especially in the cage) it's hard to keep backing away from someone trying to get close to you. All styles have to be adapted to be used successfully in mma, why would tae kwon do be any different?
Marginal
Senior Master
Versus...?NotQuiteDead said:
Boxing employs no blocks? No plamed jabs in your world eh? Covering's always been employed in the sparring though.
Backfist and hammer fist too.
The shin's listed as an alternate attacking tool, and the nerve cluster's well known.
That wasn't really a priority on anyone's list til 1990.
Demonstrated in color belt forms-as the primary application no less.
Minimal focus.
Not relevant to the discussion. The question was, what's TKD's direction? The direction can be changed. It's not defined by random people coming from outside the art trying to outguess what the founder's intentions were, and then using that half-baked hash of presuppositions to state that "If you do X, then it's not TKD."
It's tiresome to have to argue against this kind of elaborite strawman.
