Feedback for AIKIA, Independent TKD

[MJS]

Disco-

Thank you for your input! I, like you, am just an outsider looking in at this thread. I do not study TKD and am not a part of Mr. Beasleys org. A few things I'd like to add to your post. As far as his first post, it appeared to me that it was not a promo. but simply making an attempt to tell people about his org. and get some feedback, comments, etc. I believe that there is a section of advertisements on MT, and that if the mod/admin. team thought it should be moved, that they would have done so. Again, everybody is different, so how one person interprets it, I'm sure will be different from the next.

Mike

 

[Aikia]

Mike,
Thanks for comming to my rescue, again. My intent was simply to receive input. I don't beleive I left a web site address, and I certainly am not trying to recruit members from this forum. My appologies if I am in error. I have learned a lot from this thread. I know now that I represent the left wing liberal contingent of the TKD party. I am on the exact opposite side when it comes to political issues. That's funny. Maybe we can all be more accepting in the future.
It also occurs to me that my introduction to TKD in 1968 perhaps set the stage for my liberal bias. Mr. Kim was also a judo black belt. When we needed to throw or hold the opponent on the ground we used judo. Mr. Lee was for some reason skilled in western boxing. His assistant Mr. Davis ( primary teacher) prefered boxing style punches. We used boxing at close quarters and made punishing contact. Few made it to black belt.
I started out as a TKD black belt who was taught to supplement the natural limits of TKD with skills from other arts. In close I was a boxer, on the ground I was a judoka of sorts. Anything standing up and at a kicking distance was TKD. Come to think of it, I haven't changed much at all. I have continued to carry on the traditions taught to me in a very militaristic manner some 36 years ago. And by the way we called the art Korean Karate back then.
I only intended to complete this one thread. Thank you to the members for the response.
Jerry Beasley

 

[Marginal]

I started out as a TKD black belt who was taught to supplement the natural limits of TKD with skills from other arts. In close I was a boxer, on the ground I was a judoka of sorts. Anything standing up and at a kicking distance was TKD. Come to think of it, I haven't changed much at all. I have continued to carry on the traditions taught to me in a very militaristic manner some 36 years ago. And by the way we called the art Korean Karate back then.
I only intended to complete this one thread. Thank you to the members for the response.
Jerry Beasley

The really interesting thing is, plenty of TKD students and instructors in previous threads in this forum have said they endorse crosstraining or they've simply introduced extra material into their cirriculims to expand a student's TKD training and make it effective at more ranges.

Despite this "great break" with tradition, they managed to say such things without polarizing the forum in the process. It's interesting that you elected to compare traditionalists to supporters of Arafat, and then adopted the stance of the liberal in the face of MichiganTKD's avatar while calling him a conservative. It's somewhat accurate terminology usage, but it's also loaded language that's designed to generate the negative responses you thrive on bemoaning. That way, nobody can disagree with any of your methods or approach to TKD (or simply, prefer their own) without appearing close-minded.

 

[Miles]

I've sat back and watched this thread unfold. A few overviews.........
Cross training has always been practiced, even by the old masters. As for TKD not being adequate for CQC, I will agree that what is being taught today in many dojangs is sorely wanting. But that was not the case in the early days when TKD first entered our shores. ....
Not meant to disrespect any of the parties involved, just offering a seperate viewpoint. :asian:

Disco is absolutely correct.

MichTKD, you should be aware that GM PARK, Hae Man worked at the Blue House with GM JI, Han Jae (Sin Moo Hapkido). I know of several students of GM PARK, Hae Man who have very good hapkido skills (talking first hand experience, so to speak). Also, the Korea Yudo College (now Yong In University, I believe), had many graduates who had backgrounds in TKD and Yudo.

Miles

 

[ghostdog2]

I was just browsing thru the site when I came on this thread. When read all at once and by an outsider to TKD, it's hard to see what all the fuss is about. The original post was @ 7 lines long and asked only for input and constructive criticism. Wow. It went downhill from there.
Common to many threads in this section is the complaint that TKD is not correctly perceived, has a bad reputation, doesn't get enough respect, etc., etc. With respect to all involved, this thread seems a text book example of the TKD "community" at war with itself; which may explain all of the above. Just a thought.

 

[MichiganTKD]

Miles,

I'm not arguing that fact. It is well known that many Tae Kwon Do people are also versed in Hapkido, since they developed about the same time in the same region. I'm taling about having a camp or seminar with Tae Kwon Do Instructors who are also certified in JKD, grappling, MMA, etc. Talk about scattering your energy! Any one of those subjects would demand considerable attention and devotion. And now you want someone who is a Tae Kwon Do Instructor, JKD Instructor, MMA Instructor, AND kickboxing Instructor? Sorry, don't buy it. How good are they really going to be? I'd rather have someone who has devoted their life to one area but knows that area like nobody else. THAT person would earn my respect. Otherwise, it's just buffet martial arts. Take a little helping of each serving without really getting too much into it.
And regarding "Cane Grandmaster" Mark Shuey. Who exactly certified him as a "cane Grandmaster", or is this a title he bestowed on himself to sell more videotapes in Black Belt Magazine?

 

[bignick]

I was just browsing thru the site when I came on this thread. When read all at once and by an outsider to TKD, it's hard to see what all the fuss is about. The original post was @ 7 lines long and asked only for input and constructive criticism. Wow. It went downhill from there.
Common to many threads in this section is the complaint that TKD is not correctly perceived, has a bad reputation, doesn't get enough respect, etc., etc. With respect to all involved, this thread seems a text book example of the TKD "community" at war with itself; which may explain all of the above. Just a thought.

The problem is that there is not really such a thing as a "TKD community"...WTF, ITF, ATA and countless other independent practioners and small organizations. All doing there own thing, practicing different forms. Even within the WTF, some schools do palgwes, other schools do taeguks I believe some practice forms from other organizations as well. Tae Kwon Do has just become a catch-all phrase used to describe a Korean or Korean based/influenced martial art with large emphasis on kicking. Which is why there are various, ahem, polite differences in opinion from different students of the "art".

 

[terryl965]

The problem is that there is not really such a thing as a "TKD community"...WTF, ITF, ATA and countless other independent practioners and small organizations. All doing there own thing, practicing different forms. Even within the WTF, some schools do palgwes, other schools do taeguks I believe some practice forms from other organizations as well. Tae Kwon Do has just become a catch-all phrase used to describe a Korean or Korean based/influenced martial art with large emphasis on kicking. Which is why there are various, ahem, polite differences in opinion from different students of the "art".

Not all TKD'ers are like that the true TKD'ers are about justice to there roots. Traditional are not sport orientated and vice versas, very few are able to see the common thread between both aspect. In the 40 some odd years I've been envolved in the Art of Karate and TKD i have never talked down to another TKD'er, may not always agreed with them but excepted there views and beliefs. Not my place to judge just to accept. WTF, ITF, ATA just have there own take about TKD, they have yet to understand we are all toghether wheather we like it or not. MY HUMBLE OPION....

 

[Miles]

The problem is that there is not really such a thing as a "TKD community"...WTF, ITF, ATA and countless other independent practioners and small organizations. All doing there own thing, practicing different forms. Even within the WTF, some schools do palgwes, other schools do taeguks I believe some practice forms from other organizations as well. Tae Kwon Do has just become a catch-all phrase used to describe a Korean or Korean based/influenced martial art with large emphasis on kicking. Which is why there are various, ahem, polite differences in opinion from different students of the "art".

This is a problem BigNick. It is a problem that the Kwans sought to correct in the early 60's and what the Kukkiwon is still trying to correct. The overwhelming majority of students world-wide practice what many call "WTF" TKD. The Kukkiwon has courses to teach instructors so that they are all teaching the same thing-a standardized way of performing techniques/terminology/poomsae/granting rank. TKD should not be a catch-all phrase, but a uniformly performed martial art.

Independent? I have no problem with cross-training. In another thread, I mentioned my first (very positive) experience in Modern Arnis. But, when I am teaching TKD (which by the way also has a standard spelling: Taekwondo), I try to stay as close to the Kukkiwon standard as possible.

Miles
(now getting off his soapbox to go teach class

 

[Adept]

Tae Kwon Do Instructors who are also certified in JKD, grappling, MMA, etc. Talk about scattering your energy! Any one of those subjects would demand considerable attention and devotion. And now you want someone who is a Tae Kwon Do Instructor, JKD Instructor, MMA Instructor, AND kickboxing Instructor? Sorry, don't buy it. How good are they really going to be?

The only thing a multi-skilled person like this would be lacking in would be the hubris surrounding each style. The patterns, the idiosyncracies of movement, the protocol, etc. Now I agree that someone might not be the greatest in any single art, but one does not have to be the greatest to impart knowledge. To claim because they learn multiple styles that they cannot effectively teach any of them is asinine. It is like saying a boxing coach who also plays tennis and golf cannot effectively coach boxing. It makes no sense.

 

[TigerWoman]

A black belt in Taekwondo has learned the basics and then becomes an assistant instructor, learning how to teach. By the time he becomes a master, he knows details of forms, to be able to answer every question that could be thrown at him. He also has become a master of the technique and is also able to show that in any situation. Even a second degree is not that. I would think Hapkido, Kung Fu, Kenpo Karate are similar in that passing the black belt mark does not qualify you to teach much. The quality isn't there YET. So for a teacher to profess he is proficient in TKD, etc, etc. art just because he has spent 4 years in each or has taken a few years and learned the basic kicks and made up a curriculum of sorts from a smattering of each does not present each art to the student at it's fullest potential. A master in TKD has spent roughly 19-20 years minimum and that's learning alot after reaching that 1st dan. Would you rather learn TKD, Boxing & Jujutsu etc. from a one college student or a seasoned pro who had his degree, of one art? Its totally your choice, you get what you pay for. TW

 

[Adept]

You dont have to be good at something to teach it. You only have to know how it is done, not be able to do it yourself.

To be honest, I consider patterns and individual art idiosyncracies to be a waste of time. Patterns are a good way to get a CV workout, and they can help you imporve on your balance and power, but any patterns are good for that. You dont need to learn the TKD ones, then the Kenpo ones, then the Karate ones. Once you have learnt the best kick for a situation, that kick can be applied in any art or style. For example, a sidekick is a sidekick in Karate, TKD, JKD, Muay Thai or Jujitsu. If it is the best kick for the situation, then use it. To have someone tell you "that is not how we do that kick in this style" is counter-productive. If the kick you already know is just as effective, then it doesnt matter if the foot on the ground is turned to 90 degrees or 180 degrees. Little things like that, the little things that seperate most styles, are usually a waste of time.

Having said that, it all depends on your training goals. If you want to become a proficient martial artist, then the little differences between arts are irrelevant when they do not add effectiveness to your fighting. If you want so specialize in one thing (and suffer because of it, IMHO) then learning the ins and outs of a single style for 20 years might be your thing. But you will never be as well rounded as a cross-trained generic martial artist. A good fighter must be able to fight at long range (kicks) , medium range (punches) short range (elbows and knees) in the clinche and on the ground. Very few styles will teach you all those, and the ones that do often leave parts out. It is imperative to cross train to become as effective as you can.

 

[TigerWoman]

A good fighter must be able to fight at long range (kicks) , medium range (punches) short range (elbows and knees) in the clinche and on the ground. Very few styles will teach you all those, and the ones that do often leave parts out. It is imperative to cross train to become as effective as you can.

Taekwondo has this conception of only being able to fight at long range. That conception shows that the art is not really "known". We fight inside as well. I think jumpbacks, crescents and twists are inside? Plus the fakes, and spins we do to get inside. And punches, knifes, ridge, hammerfist, head, fingers, elbows, knees, sweeps, locks, in the clinch, and yes we do some ground. We do streetfighting defenses too. I have left alot out. So what you don't know about TKD is what I do know, and I'm only a 2nd dan level. And if you can't handle yourself in form, have the strength, balance, agility to do those kicks correctly and actually knock somebody out then whats the point of fighting? And I do know there is considerable more because I see the difference. But only a master would know, and that is the point. TW

 

[Adept]

I think jumpbacks, crescents and twists are inside?

I would call them medium range techniques myself.

I have left alot out. So what you don't know about TKD is what I do know, and I'm only a 2nd dan level.

I've spent eight years in TKD. I know about the techniques you've mentioned. What I am getting at is that TKD is not a complete art. While it does incorporate clinche work, ground work, locks and holds, sweeps and even the odd throw, it does not do them as effectively as other styles. TKD grappling and clinche work is no-where near as effective as Jujitsu or BJJ, for example.

And if you can't handle yourself in form, have the strength, balance, agility to do those kicks correctly and actually knock somebody out then whats the point of fighting?

I'm not sure what your point is here. I mentioned patterns as a good way to develop and maintain fitness, balance and agility. You can also learn those things from sparring, shadow boxing, basic technique work, anything really. I enjoy doing my patterns, I find it a very cathartic thing to do. But I do not believe they are necesary for being a good martial artist.

And I do know there is considerable more because I see the difference. But only a master would know, and that is the point. TW

I think I agree. To be a master of a single art you must devote yourself to it. However, I do not believe that only a master of a single art can be a great martial artist (which I do not believe you have stated either) nor do I believe that devoting yourself to a single art is a good idea, or better than extensive cross-training.

 

[TigerWoman]

I would call them medium range techniques myself.

And close is hugging? No they are close range.

I've spent eight years in TKD. I know about the techniques you've mentioned. What I am getting at is that TKD is not a complete art. While it does incorporate clinche work, ground work, locks and holds, sweeps and even the odd throw, it does not do them as effectively as other styles. TKD grappling and clinche work is no-where near as effective as Jujitsu or BJJ, for example.

No art is the end all. If its a ground fight, we TKD'ers would be hurting. But then we train to not be in that position too. Not a woman's cup of tea. The Jujitsu guys would be hard put to defend against a flying sidekick too. But a TKD master, least the one I'm thinking of would probably knock you out or do major damage before you got anywhere near grappling and he's actually pretty good in locks and takedowns. Least for a smaller guy, he got the 6'4" guy who's a 2nd dan in TKD and Karate. Its all technique and he's quite good. I've had 8+ years in it too and still am a beginner, I feel, especially when I got to black belt and realized slowly what I didn't know.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I mentioned patterns as a good way to develop and maintain fitness, balance and agility. You can also learn those things from sparring, shadow boxing, basic technique work, anything really. I enjoy doing my patterns, I find it a very cathartic thing to do. But I do not believe they are necesary for being a good martial artist.

They are a necessary and good way to learn strength, balance and agility coming into the martial arts. Those that can't do them usually denounce them. Those that can, usually love them as they have given them much. They are a way to learn and you don't even need a partner. And when you do them correctly to a standard or better they are effective in judging your own work. Ever tape yourself and watch? It is a form of sparring, technique work that is exacting. If I can throw a high double sidekick and snap and leave it out there for second, that training would be just as effective in sparring.

I think I agree. To be a master of a single art you must devote yourself to it. However, I do not believe that only a master of a single art can be a great martial artist (which I do not believe you have stated either) nor do I believe that devoting yourself to a single art is a good idea, or better than extensive cross-training.

I too, agree with cross-training in other art(s) after the master level. We already have alot in our curriculum already that others would say is "cross-training" and that's enough until master level. If I had started this at a much earlier age, I would have wanted to do Jujutsu, Kung fu, Hapkido or Kenpo. But those that teach it should be at a master-read proficient pro- level, or their lack of complete training will be evidenced in their students as it slowly gets muddled in the waters. TW

 

[Marginal]

Common to many threads in this section is the complaint that TKD is not correctly perceived, has a bad reputation, doesn't get enough respect, etc., etc. With respect to all involved, this thread seems a text book example of the TKD "community" at war with itself; which may explain all of the above. Just a thought.

Oh please. As if you wouldn't say the exact same thing to any practitioner of a TMA.

 

[DoxN4cer]

Jerry,


First, Michael DePasquale is NOT a Tae Kwon Do Instructor. He teaches some Hapkido/Hwa Rang Do/Whatever else system.

Michael DePasquale (Sr and Jr) is a Jujutsu man.

Michael De Alba is a Hwa Rang Do guy.

 

[MJS]

The only thing a multi-skilled person like this would be lacking in would be the hubris surrounding each style. The patterns, the idiosyncracies of movement, the protocol, etc. Now I agree that someone might not be the greatest in any single art, but one does not have to be the greatest to impart knowledge. To claim because they learn multiple styles that they cannot effectively teach any of them is asinine. It is like saying a boxing coach who also plays tennis and golf cannot effectively coach boxing. It makes no sense.

Well said and I agree 100%! It is possible to have someone train in more than 1 art at the same time. I don't advocate crosstraining though until you've reached at least brown in your base art first.

A black belt in Taekwondo has learned the basics and then becomes an assistant instructor, learning how to teach. By the time he becomes a master, he knows details of forms, to be able to answer every question that could be thrown at him. He also has become a master of the technique and is also able to show that in any situation. Even a second degree is not that. I would think Hapkido, Kung Fu, Kenpo Karate are similar in that passing the black belt mark does not qualify you to teach much. The quality isn't there YET. So for a teacher to profess he is proficient in TKD, etc, etc. art just because he has spent 4 years in each or has taken a few years and learned the basic kicks and made up a curriculum of sorts from a smattering of each does not present each art to the student at it's fullest potential. A master in TKD has spent roughly 19-20 years minimum and that's learning alot after reaching that 1st dan. Would you rather learn TKD, Boxing & Jujutsu etc. from a one college student or a seasoned pro who had his degree, of one art? Its totally your choice, you get what you pay for. TW
Yesterday 07:32 PM

Why does the TKD student have to wait until BB to understand the details in the forms?? Shouldn't they have been learning that all along? A 2nd degree has not mastered the basics of a tech? Ooook.....then when does that happen?? By the time a student reaches BB level, they should be quite capable of defending themselves in an attack!! They sholdn't have to wait 20 yrs. in order for that to happen. As for teaching...thats usually a requirement for BB. I started helping around Brown.

We fight inside as well. I think jumpbacks, crescents and twists are inside?

In a clinch situation, I really don't see how a jumpback is going to work?? :idunno: An explaination would be helpful!

The Jujitsu guys would be hard put to defend against a flying sidekick too. But a TKD master, least the one I'm thinking of would probably knock you out or do major damage before you got anywhere near grappling

Ummm...ok :idunno:

Mike

 

[Marginal]

Why does the TKD student have to wait until BB to understand the details in the forms??

Not all have to. It's up to the instructor. Some beleive that learning grappling etc before BB makes your kicks worse somehow. (Shrug)

Shouldn't they have been learning that all along? A 2nd degree has not mastered the basics of a tech? Ooook.....then when does that happen?? By the time a student reaches BB level, they should be quite capable of defending themselves in an attack!!

At least in the USTF, they keep introducing moves at 2nd degree. Can't instantly master a tech and all that. Still you should be able to defend yourself with what you've learned up to that point.

In a clinch situation, I really don't see how a jumpback is going to work?? :idunno: An explaination would be helpful!

I think the idea here is that you hit them with a retreating jump kick when they try to close the distance. Bill Wallace had success with a retreating jumping back kick against karate fighters that were trying to get inside his kicking range for example.

That aside, TKD does have techniques for when you are in clinch range. Whether you train them is the main question. If you just leave it as a technique in the pattern unexamined it's not gonna do you a whole lotta good. There are at least two clinches followed by knees in the ITF color belt patterns for example. Not too useful on their own, but if the concepts are trained outside the pattern...

 

[MJS]

Not all have to. It's up to the instructor. Some beleive that learning grappling etc before BB makes your kicks worse somehow. (Shrug)

Thank you for the reply! I guess what I was referring to here was being able to understand what you're doing in the forms. What is this move for, etc. I find that its useful to know in the event you're teaching the form and the question is asked of you. That, and also because it helps the person doing the form understand it better.

At least in the USTF, they keep introducing moves at 2nd degree. Can't instantly master a tech and all that. Still you should be able to defend yourself with what you've learned up to that point.

Agreed! Even in Kenpo, techs. additions, etc. are still taking place at 2nd, but again, I was ref. to understanding the basics of the tech.

I think the idea here is that you hit them with a retreating jump kick when they try to close the distance. Bill Wallace had success with a retreating jumping back kick against karate fighters that were trying to get inside his kicking range for example.

Thanks again! In this position, I was referring to once the clinch has already been attained, not during the process of moving in. I do see what you're ref. to though.

That aside, TKD does have techniques for when you are in clinch range. Whether you train them is the main question. If you just leave it as a technique in the pattern unexamined it's not gonna do you a whole lotta good. There are at least two clinches followed by knees in the ITF color belt patterns for example. Not too useful on their own, but if the concepts are trained outside the pattern...

:asian:

Mike