How are you going to make TKD better?

[JadeDragon3]

To improve TKD you have to get rid of these organizations that want to govern over it. All these organizations want is your money and try to tell you the schools how to operate. It shouldn't be like that. If you own a kung fu school you can run it however you want and you don't have to pay any dues (money) to any stupid organizations like the American Tae Kwon Do Association or the International Tae Kwon Do Federation. Its a money making racket.

 

[TKDHermit]

To improve TKD you have to get rid of these organizations that want to govern over it. All these organizations want is your money and try to tell you the schools how to operate. It shouldn't be like that. If you own a kung fu school you can run it however you want and you don't have to pay any dues (money) to any stupid organizations like the American Tae Kwon Do Association or the International Tae Kwon Do Federation. Its a money making racket.

Then there wouldn't be any standard. Anyone can do some kind of thing and call it Taekwondo. Which is how some people use Karate as a generic term, no?

 

[hkfuie]

Belonging to an organization is a choice. I don't belong to an organization. Well, now I belong to a jujitsu org, but that has nothing to do with my TKD. It's a choice in TKD, just as it is in any style. TYG we have a choice! Some people like orgs.

 

[exile]

Then there wouldn't be any standard. Anyone can do some kind of thing and call it Taekwondo. Which is how some people use Karate as a generic term, no?

The same for most MAs, TKDH. TKD is unusual in having such institutionally controlled, top-down oversight. And I don't notice that the quality of karateka (or CMAists or...) is, on average, any worse than that of TKDers. I personally don't want a standard imposed from abroad (with, as has often been noted, not much actual quality control being exerted); I'd much rather see individual schools compete on the basis of their curricula, instructor competence and so on. In the end, that's what's going determine the quality of instruction in any case.

Take a look at this article for a very persuasive case against hierarchical top-down control of any MA, even though it's specifically directed to karateka. Every component of Redmond's argument applies equally to TKD. Having large-scale organizational oversight doesn't make high quality inevitable, and not having it doesn't entail low quality. The two have very little to do with other in the MA world, from what I can tell. My feeling is that the original premise of the OP is the correct one: improving TKD is a matter of individual commitment and responsibility. It's something the individual practitioner/instructor decides to do. I don't believe that orgs can make TKD better, but TKDists themselves can.

 

[StuartA]

OUT. [haesan**]

**i wasnt sure about how this was used, whether only at the end of class or what, until the korean national demo team came. in their command recording for their demo they used 'haesan' after performing segments like poomsae.

AFAIA "Haesan" means "Dismissed"

Stuart

 

[zeeberex]

There seems to be a lot of MT threads which have as an underlying theme the eventual downfall of TKD due to ego/money/organization/politics/you-name-it.

If TKD fails, it will be because of a lot of individuals failed. My question to each of you is "How are YOU going to make TKD better?"


I'll answer my own question. I silently take an oath before each class pledging that I will try to do my best to teach my students in the best way that I know. I want them to work hard, play hard, and enjoy each other's company. I try to be an example to them by showing them I am still a student, that I still need to improve, that I can improve.

Return the art to it's roots.
F****K all the organizations and the politics, and throw out all the mcdojangs, they're just in the way
De-emphasize sport altogether and return to the roots of the art and rediscover it.

 

[JadeDragon3]

Then there wouldn't be any standard. Anyone can do some kind of thing and call it Taekwondo. Which is how some people use Karate as a generic term, no?

Sure there would be a standard. It would be up to the TKD school to make sure that that standard is met. Take a look at kung fu. There is no governing body over it and there are 1000's of excellent kung fu schools. Look at teachers like Doc Fai Wong, Dr. Yang Jwin Ming, and Master Tat Mau-Wong. It's people like this that make sure that standards are met. And there are many more teachers like them that aren't as famous such as Grandmaster Tsai or his son Master Tsai. Also Grandmaster Wing Loc Ng, Master Dennis Brown, etc.....
These men are true masters and they make sure that standards in thier schools are met. It should be the teacher who makes sure that standards are met. This is how TKD should be. I have heard many people speak badly about how TKD school's only objective is to make money. Less emphasis should be placed on money or at least make it appear that way.

 

[miguksaram]

Sure there would be a standard. It would be up to the TKD school to make sure that that standard is met.

Whose standard? That school's standard? If there is not global standard then you are relying on individual standard.

Take a look at kung fu. There is no governing body over it and there are 1000's of excellent kung fu schools.

Actually there are governing bodies over Kung fu. IKF comes to mind right off the bat.

Look at teachers like Doc Fai Wong, Dr. Yang Jwin Ming, and Master Tat Mau-Wong. It's people like this that make sure that standards are met.....These men are true masters and they make sure that standards in thier schools are met. It should be the teacher who makes sure that standards are met.

Who is to say that their standards are correct? (note: I have much respect for these sifus, I am merely trying to make a point) I brought this up before so I will again. Let's look at Sifu Lueng Ving Tsun vs. Sifu Cheung's Wing Chun. Which one is correct? They each have a different standard yet come from the same root. Result is you have a lot of confusion of what is right and wrong in this community which also results in watered down versions of the art.

I have heard many people speak badly about how TKD school's only objective is to make money. Less emphasis should be placed on money or at least make it appear that way.

Piss poor argument here. Any school that opens up in a commercial setting is there to make money. Unless you are teaching you in your basement or at the park district/YMCA for free, you are basicly teaching to make money. This is any art, not just TKD.

 

[miguksaram]

Return the art to it's roots.
F****K all the organizations and the politics, and throw out all the mcdojangs, they're just in the way
De-emphasize sport altogether and return to the roots of the art and rediscover it.

Ok, then we need to change it back to shotokan karate and not allow children to take any classes until they are 16 years or older. Even if there are younger kids in the class they will work out and be treated like adults even when sparring. After all that is the roots of TKD.

 

[BrandonLucas]

Ok, then we need to change it back to shotokan karate and not allow children to take any classes until they are 16 years or older. Even if there are younger kids in the class they will work out and be treated like adults even when sparring. After all that is the roots of TKD.

I don't understand why the approach has to be this drastic...

I don't attend a dojang that's under any organizations. We practice ITF TKD, but it's not "updated" ITF...and we do just fine. What I'm learning is effective for what I need, with or without an organization backing me.

As far as what I would do to make TKD better, I would try to spread the knowledge that the sport-style sparring in TKD is not a valid way to defend yourself in SD situations. I would make it very clear that the sport aspect and the self defense aspect are 2 very different animals. Not to take anything away from either aspect, but the difference between the 2 should be made clear to the students that join. I have talked to a few in the past who didn't understand this concept: They sincerely thought that by throwing jump-spinning hook kicks to the head, they could win a fight..and they didn't understand why they needed to keep their hands up.

Just my thoughts.

 

[exile]

Who is to say that their standards are correct? (note: I have much respect for these sifus, I am merely trying to make a point) I brought this up before so I will again. Let's look at Sifu Lueng Ving Tsun vs. Sifu Cheung's Wing Chun. Which one is correct? They each have a different standard yet come from the same root. Result is you have a lot of confusion of what is right and wrong in this community which also results in watered down versions of the art.

OK, so now we come to what I think is a crucial subtext in the OP question: to make something better, you must improve it—make is 'more correct', if you like, but how do we know what 'more correct' is if we don't know what is correct in the first place?

To me this question is the true, hard crux. I used to be a downhill ski instructor, and we also were preoccupied with questions of technical correctness; but there was a difference. Everyone agreed that technical perfection would consist of those techniques which gave absolutely maximum results with a minimum of movement, and we actually had a test for that: it was called, success in racing. The great breakthrough in downhill ski technique came when the ski schools finally recognized that form has to follow function, that the best technique was that which let you do the most with the least, that this was what the racers were constantly pursuing, and that any discovery made by racers on one team would quickly be picked up by those on another and within a year or two—like windtunnel engineering's effect on automobile design in the last twenty years—everyone would be doing the same thing through the gates... till the next big breakthrough. In the early days, the Austrian Ski Federation tried to get a 'patent' on what was called counterrotation, and market it as a 'national skiing style' (everyone had to try to look like Stein Ericksen), but it turned out that the Austrian racers abandoned counterrotation, pretty as it looked (in those days, anyway) five to ten years before crowds at Sun Valley did and adopted the lean, efficient lateral weight transfer and other techs that the French had discovered. The point is, national 'branding' took a serious back place to engineering efficiency. And as ski instructors our job was to keep up with the measurable 'best practices' that were coming off the ski slopes in the form of racing results.

The picture in the MAs is vastly different, because there's nothing comparable to ski racing that yields an objective metric for efficiency. Tournament competition isn't remotely comparable, because the rules of competition in a sport MA contest have very little to do with the on-the-ground realities of street combat, so that it's totally implausible to say that tournament results correspond to engineering 'best practices' in the way that, in skiing, races do (where you have the skier, a set of obstacles to negotiate, not at all unrelated to what you'd encounter on any given skiable hill without any race going on) and a finish line, and the best engineering practices get you through those obstacles most efficiently. Style has no part in ski racing; but style, and national branding, has a huge amount to do with what different versions of the MAs, or even different versions of the same MA, teach. The question, how do you know which one is correct, is at the heart of the matter: ITF, WTF, TSD, Subahk-Do, and various sport karate styles all impose different tournament sparring rules—none of them, so far as I'm aware, any closer to actual violent street conflict conditions than any other—and there is therefore no way that I can see to answer the question, which standard is correct, regardless of whether its an individual school or a large organization.

To determine 'which is correct', you would, so far as I can see, have to set up test conditions that served the same function for skiing that the problem of getting through a fixed course in minimum time serves for skiing. And that would probably be something about survival success in highly realistic simulations of street combat, along the lines that the British Combat Association instructors do. But absent something along those lines, I don't see how anyone's definition of correctness can be taken as battle tested, except relative to completely artificial, stylized conventions of engagement, which is what tournament rules for any sport MA style are. But those conventions are not, for the most part, rooted in anything like the conditions of violent civilian combat.

 

[miguksaram]

I don't understand why the approach has to be this drastic...

I guess I am just tired of hearing people talk about "roots" of TKD without really examining what that means.

I don't attend a dojang that's under any organizations. We practice ITF TKD, but it's not "updated" ITF...and we do just fine. What I'm learning is effective for what I need, with or without an organization backing me.

That's fine. You don't need to belong to any org at all to be good. I know a lot of people who don't belong to orgs and are good martial artist.

As far as what I would do to make TKD better, I would try to spread the knowledge that the sport-style sparring in TKD is not a valid way to defend yourself in SD situations. I would make it very clear that the sport aspect and the self defense aspect are 2 very different animals. Not to take anything away from either aspect, but the difference between the 2 should be made clear to the students that join. I have talked to a few in the past who didn't understand this concept: They sincerely thought that by throwing jump-spinning hook kicks to the head, they could win a fight..and they didn't understand why they needed to keep their hands up.

Just my thoughts.

Which is cool. I guess for myself, I would try to make TKD better one student at a time. I enjoy every aspect of martial arts...sport, form, traditional, etc. I would continue to keep myself well rounded each individual student achieve their goals in the martial art regardless of what they might be. The art is comprised of the individual. So l just want to be a positive change for that individual.

 

[JadeDragon3]

Whose standard? That school's standard? If there is not global standard then you are relying on individual standard.

Actually there are governing bodies over Kung fu. IKF comes to mind right off the bat.

Who is to say that their standards are correct? (note: I have much respect for these sifus, I am merely trying to make a point) I brought this up before so I will again. Let's look at Sifu Lueng Ving Tsun vs. Sifu Cheung's Wing Chun. Which one is correct? They each have a different standard yet come from the same root. Result is you have a lot of confusion of what is right and wrong in this community which also results in watered down versions of the art.

Piss poor argument here. Any school that opens up in a commercial setting is there to make money. Unless you are teaching you in your basement or at the park district/YMCA for free, you are basicly teaching to make money. This is any art, not just TKD.

First part of your post......If a schools doesn't have high standards then thats in your benifit because people (students) will come to your school for lessons. They will see that you are giving them better quality.

Second part of your post......http://www.internationalkungfu.com/
Yes there is a organization that tries to unify all kung fu styles with the purpose of promoting it in a positive way. This organization in no way tells a owner of a school what his curriculum has to be nor does it tell the school how to run it. This org. sponcers tournament and seminars mainly for the purpose to promote CMA. If I were a member they would not tell me I have to teach this kick at this belt level or this form at that belt level. In kung fu it is up to the Sifu what should be taught and at what sash level.

Third part of your post.....Why does one person's standards have to be wrong and the other one's right? Why can't both standards be right? If what both of the two say and teach work then it appears that both are correct.

And finally to your fourth part of your post......Yes money is important but it shouldn't come across to the student that it is your sole motivation. I think that TKD schools have become so commercialized and have all these gimmicks (suggested by these organizations) to bring in money for the school. I've seen things such as you have to buy this patch and that patch for your uniform if you want to advance to your next belt. I've seen one gimmick for birthday parties where for a mere $150 they provide a cake, a game, and a movie for the person having the birth day. It just seems to be to much OBVIOUS concentration on making money. Don't get me wrong, I know its a business and you have to make money in order to survive but don't make it look like thats all it is to you. It makes the whole art look bad. And yes I know there are some bad kung fu schools as well that are out for the buck. I know this and admitt to this. Thats why when I teach I make sure my standards are high so that people will see the quality they are getting.

 

[miguksaram]

To determine 'which is correct', you would, so far as I can see, have to set up test conditions that served the same function for skiing that the problem of getting through a fixed course in minimum time serves for skiing. And that would probably be something about survival success in highly realistic simulations of street combat, along the lines that the British Combat Association instructors do. But absent something along those lines, I don't see how anyone's definition of correctness can be taken as battle tested, except relative to completely artificial, stylized conventions of engagement, which is what tournament rules for any sport MA style are. But those conventions are not, for the most part, rooted in anything like the conditions of violent civilian combat.

Loved this. The test group would be interesting to see, because you have to take into consideration tall vs. short, fat vs. skinny vs. bulky. Then you have to take into physical limitations as well. What works for one doesn't work for all. MA is very complicated when you thinking about it in terms of scientific study groups like you are proposing. But still love the point you are making.

 

[exile]

Loved this. The test group would be interesting to see, because you have to take into consideration tall vs. short, fat vs. skinny vs. bulky. Then you have to take into physical limitations as well. What works for one doesn't work for all. MA is very complicated when you thinking about it in terms of scientific study groups like you are proposing. But still love the point you are making.

Yeah, I know, it would be very hard to actually realize in practice—and it would be something of a bloody mess, literally, if the simulation was too realistic. The BCA has the reputation for some very... severe training protocols. But they're trying, in what's clearly an informal, seat-of-the-pants way, to work out a realistic metric for combat efficiency. To do it to the level of lab conditions in biomechanics and physiology research—yes, that would be ridiculously hard to implement.

 

[JadeDragon3]

Here is a link to IKF which someone brought up in a previous post.

http://www.internationalkungfu.com/Rules_and_Regulations_IKF.pdf

No where does it state that any of its members have to teach a certain way or have to have any specific thing on a black sash test. It also does NOT tell or suggest how to run a martial art school. It does NOT give advice on how to raise money for your school.

Click on the above link to find out what this org. does.
This is what TKD should have or something like it.

 

[ellies]

There seems to be a lot of MT threads which have as an underlying theme the eventual downfall of TKD due to ego/money/organization/politics/you-name-it.

If TKD fails, it will be because of a lot of individuals failed. My question to each of you is "How are YOU going to make TKD better?"


I'll answer my own question. I silently take an oath before each class pledging that I will try to do my best to teach my students in the best way that I know. I want them to work hard, play hard, and enjoy each other's company. I try to be an example to them by showing them I am still a student, that I still need to improve, that I can improve.

Agreed!!

 

[TKDHermit]

AFAIA "Haesan" means "Dismissed"

Stuart

Yeah I know, but I wasn't sure if it was used only to dismiss a class or something, or to generally dismiss people in various situations, like for example, after finishing what they have to do in grading, or performance, or whatever.

 

[Miles]

Sure there would be a standard. It would be up to the TKD school to make sure that that standard is met. ....
These men are true masters and they make sure that standards in thier schools are met. It should be the teacher who makes sure that standards are met. This is how TKD should be. I have heard many people speak badly about how TKD school's only objective is to make money. Less emphasis should be placed on money or at least make it appear that way.

Off topic, but with or without organizational affiliation/support/hierarchy, it will ALWAYS be up to the individual instructor to ensure standards are met.

 

[terryl965]

Off topic, but with or without organizational affiliation/support/hierarchy, it will ALWAYS be up to the individual instructor to ensure standards are met.

Tes so in essence we can never ever make sure everybody is following the standards. Which is too bad for all martial arts, just not TKD.