We've gone three pages and you still have not responded. Since you frequently appeal to personal experience and first hand knowledge, am I to assume that in this case you have none?
You may make whatever assumption you'd like. I was involved in other threads yesterday and didn't follow this one very closely.
You took a swipe at the pioneers of an art that I have practiced for almost forty years. Which is fine; this is the internet and people do that. But if you're going to do that, then please have the courtesy to respond the questions that I asked you on the topic.
To begin with, you keep using that phrase, 'took a swipe'. No, I made an assestment based upon my perception that doesn't always agree with your perception. It isn't always going to be favorable to 'seniors and pioneers' as I don't choose to venerate them as some have chosen to do. I see the positive they've done (in whatever art) as well as the negatives, political in-fighting, lying, cheating etc. Btw, I'd have a respectful, but straight-forward discussion with any of them FTF. And I have.
First and foremost, what firsthand, if any, experience do you have with the forms that you say are just reworked karate kata?
Yes, I do. As well as forms from other arts. That is exactly why I take the position I've taken. In my opinion, and based upon my experience, they are 'childrens' karate forms. In otherwords, they have taken, what I refer to as childrens karate, and put together a set of forms based upon that limited perspective. And these forms have suffered further by attempts to disregard what information they contain and make them even flashier. For example, you may see in competitions someone performing a very high kick, when the form called for a mid-level kick. Why? Well cause it 'looks' better of course and may impress the judges. Regardless of the fact that a very high kick is generally a very low % in terms of effectiveness and the mid-level kick would have been effective due to the set up that preceded it.
More so, I always make a point to ask (for any art that uses forms) what a particular movement means. What it's practical combative purpose is suppose to be. The general response is a blank stare. But if I get lucky enough, occassionally I get someone that can explain, in their experience, what a movement is suppose to be. 99.9% of the time though it is what I call a 'childrens karate' answer. 'Oh, that's a high block' or 'that's a low block to defend against a kick' etc. Really? You don't see the shoulder lock takedown in that movement or the balance displacement principle it is explaining? How about the movement that is suppose to block my incoming kick with your forearm? Do you really want to pit the radial bone, the smallest in the forearm against my shin bone? Does that sound like a fair trade-off? Wouldn't that movement perhaps be a little more condusive to perhaps a hammer fist strike to the attacker's lower body from a grappling position?
That is why I catagorically state that TKD kata 'can' effectively show the principles of locks, throws, ground-fighting, balance displacement etc etc etc etc. But the majority of TKD practitioners don't know its there. They don't know its there becasue their instructors don't know the information is there. The instructors don't know it's there because in my opinion, most of the seniors/pioneers didn't know it was there...though some did. But that type of stuff isn't as easily taught, particuarly to children who quite frankly don't really need to know how to choke someone out or rip the muscle off the bone. So it isn't commercially viable.
If someone is into TKD for sport, fellowship, social networking, discipline or a hobby then they really wouldn't be interested in the 'deeper' stuff. But for those that are, TKD can be virtually the same as 'practical' Karate, Jujutsu, Hapkido etc.
That's my perspective of the forms. Bottom line is that there is much more to them than just a boring, cookie-cutter, class-filler requirement to get the next colored belt.
) to the valid point you are making.
