Knees and elbow
- Thread starter terryl965
- Start date
RED
Blue Belt
Most of the forms in TKD are made up of hand techiques. IMO I think it is a misconception that TKD is all foot work. I think students often practice and focus on the kicks because of the nature of the style, but blocks and strikes are key movements in TKD also. Not all the schools I've been to have focused on foot work. My first school taught elbow strikes early in the belts. Knee strikes, although not as crutial in some schools, where taught in other schools I've attended, and can be found in the form sets.
Ground work skills are where TKD (IMO) ...fall...short. I've had a couple instructors teach kicking from the ground, but that's all. I believe that TKD students, like most MA students, need supplimental training to make a person well rounded Martial artist.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with this, but not wanting to drag this down "that" road, I'll leave it at that.
Though it was my intent to start knee and elbow training earlier, I haven't found incorporating this at an early stage to be a productive thing. The earliest that I've had a student effectively grasp it and not interfere with other aspects of their training is Black Belt. Of course, that could be due to my innadiquacies as an instructor, but it is what it is. I'm a huge believer of learning and maintaining the basics (kicking, blocking, punching)first and formost.
tellner
Senior Master
It's a matter of emphasis. Exile, with all due curmudgeonly respect you can pretty much guarantee that any TKD school's elbow and knee skills are rudimentary compared to, say, a Thai boxing gym's. And Gemini, similarly when it comes to ground work. Unless they've been supplementing big time there isn't a TKD dojang on the planet that will be in the same class as a decent submission wrestling, dog boxing or harimau training hall. Their training is built around the ground. In Karate/TKD it's an add-on.
It's not TKD bashing. It's simply that while TKD isn't "all kicks" its primary weapons are not the close-in ones. And the ground is not one of its specialties.
It's not TKD bashing. It's simply that while TKD isn't "all kicks" its primary weapons are not the close-in ones. And the ground is not one of its specialties.
The general take on the ground is, you shouldn't have let yourself get there in the first place. Definitely, we don't train the ground. The thinking is, you can spend training time on groundwork, or you can spend the time sharpening your skills so that anyone who comes in on you to try to get you there will be severely punished for doing so. Strategic consistency has a lot going for it (hedgehog/fox sort of comparison), so I'm inclined to stick with the general TKD line so far as the ground is concerned.
But we do work on elbow strike from multiple directions, and train CQ techs. Our—rather unorthodox—view of kicks is that they're best used to low targets on an attacker whom you've already subject to controlling moves; sometimes the kick sets up a followup strike—an low-kick attack on the assailant's knee results in an automatic, reflexive throwing back of the head, exposing the neck to a rising forearm throat strike (aka, in Itosu-code, as an `upper block'.)
I'm afraid that unless TKD schools start reemphasizing the CQ techs, and pulling away from the combat-absurd long-distance kicking repertoire that many of them do teach nearly exclusively based on tournament sparring point-scoring rules, they are going to finally merit all the disparaging rot that people say about TKD. And there really isn't any need to go to other arts for combat-effective methods; they're already all there, in TKD's Shotokan foundations. They just need to be revived and trained by instructors who believe that close-quarters self-defense is why we have martial arts in the first place....
Though I do not interpret your post as TKD bashing, I do feel it's based on lack of thorough knowledge and again will respecfully disagree. I think this kind of statement is do more to TKD instruction being "trimmed" over the years and unfortunately I understand how you may have come to this conclusion. You don't have to travel far to find a school imcapable of teaching the art in its entirety. I have learned many things that are "add on" to TKD, such as the sword. This is not TKD at all, but Hae Dong Gumdo. However, elbows, knees and submissions are most certainly a part of our art. If your experience has not taught you this, I'm sorry. But let's not confuse the two. MT sport allows knees and elbows while WTF style TKD sport does not, but to imply our traditional training doesn't incorportate it to a degree where one is capable of using to defend themselves is just plain incorrect.
Shaderon
Master of Arts
I'm not a Dan rank, but our school DOES teach elbow strikes, I don't know about knee strikes as such but I have seen a 1st Dan do a knee strike to the solar plexus as part of a semi-free sparring routine. They are not taught and practiced as much as foot and hand strikes but I feel more time is spent on foot and hand strikes because of the increased difficulty in getting accuracy and power in them for a low grade. On hitting a pad with my fist I can't get as much power in it as when I hit it with my elbow, so therefore I know I need more practice hitting it with my fist. If I hit an assailant with my elbow in the face or neck, I can pretty much say he'll go down... if I hit him with my fist... right now, he'd probably shake himself and hit me back.
I've done elbow strikes against a pad and in fixed sparring, in fixed sparring we go for accuracy, against the pad, power... but it IS done.
We don't do groundwork at all at our level, I've heard it's done some at Dan Rank level, but to me this is just hearsay, I've not seen it.
I've done elbow strikes against a pad and in fixed sparring, in fixed sparring we go for accuracy, against the pad, power... but it IS done.
We don't do groundwork at all at our level, I've heard it's done some at Dan Rank level, but to me this is just hearsay, I've not seen it.
We do both elbow and knee strikes; they are included in the Ch'ang H'on pattern set, are practiced in class, and used in line drills and step sparring. They are not legal for use in free sparring, because our rules require hand and foot strikes - and elbows and knees are not hands and feet. Therefore, people who only watch us spar might have the impression that we do not use those techniques.
tellner
Senior Master
"Traditional TKD" is basically Shotokan with a couple add-ons. It certainly has knees and elbows. But to say that it specializes in them to a degree that puts it on a par with (for instance) Muay Thai or Cimande is simply incorrect. Those systems specialize in that range and the tools for that range. TKD - and I have a little bit of knowledge here - has them as an add-on and a remnant. It's not not the Art's specialty. Sera has kicking. That doesn't mean our kicking is in the same league as TKD's.
Let's put it this way. What ranges and empty hand tools does TKD absolutely suck hind teat at? If you say "Nothing, we have it all!" we can pretty much discount everything else that is said on the subject. Nobody is good at everything. Every system has something in which it is deficient. Aikido striking and weapons work are lame by the standards of striking arts or Kendo. Sera ground grappling doesn't exist. Wing Chun's long range is rudimentary. I put it to you that while short-range techniques may exist in TKD (WTF, ITF, etc. etc. etc.) they are more often taught as technique or mentioned in forms than they are bread-and-butter stuff that is worked all the time in many different ways.
Let's put it this way. What ranges and empty hand tools does TKD absolutely suck hind teat at? If you say "Nothing, we have it all!" we can pretty much discount everything else that is said on the subject. Nobody is good at everything. Every system has something in which it is deficient. Aikido striking and weapons work are lame by the standards of striking arts or Kendo. Sera ground grappling doesn't exist. Wing Chun's long range is rudimentary. I put it to you that while short-range techniques may exist in TKD (WTF, ITF, etc. etc. etc.) they are more often taught as technique or mentioned in forms than they are bread-and-butter stuff that is worked all the time in many different ways.
Miles
Senior Master
We do elbows and knees at every class. They are kibon-basics. We do pad drills with both. They are in poomsae (elbow-TG#5 which is green belt level, knee-TG#7-red belt level). We use them in one-steps, however, we don't use them (intentionally
) in free-sparring. The purpose for these techniques is to hurt your opponent.None, unless you consider breakfalling "groundwork" (which I do not).
Miles
Ummm. That's just a bit of an over simplification, don't you think?
I'll agree with that at face value.
Maybe it's a question of terminology. It seems to me that you refer to something either as an add-on or a specialty, one extreme to another, where I don't really feel it's either. Knees and elbows are a common part of "traditional" TKD curriculum. No, they're not a "specialty" or "signature" of the art, but they're commonly practiced, quite lethal and again, most certainly not an add-on.
Again, for the most part I'll agree with this at face value, but I'd like to add a few thoughts.
Knees and elbows in TKD don't have to be the "specialty" of the art to be effective. Just because something isn't as visible in one art as compared to another hardly means it's ineffective, which was the whole purpose of the thread in the first place, no? I'll also add that I believe in most cases (again, just my personal opinion) that if something, anything sucks, it more likely due to the practitioner's failure to execute than the art, which brings me to this.
At face value, this is a true statement, but I look at this a bit different. I would say that if I'm better at one single thing than you are at the 2 dozen things you know, I'm more likely to win. I would more likely say that every system offers has something which can be extrordinary and offers more than necessary to defend ones' self. In a confrontation between to opponents of different styles, it's the practitioner who's better at his art (or imposing his will) that will be victorious over the other. If you're better on the ground and I'm better standing...see where I'm going here? And this isn't just in regards to Taekwondo. I feel this is true in ANY art.
In several areas I agree with what you've said, but in others, I'll have to say we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Regardless, I've enjoyed heariing your opinion and thank you for sharing it.
Regards,
