Almost all the bases have been reviewed and opinions offered and they are all correct in their assessments. Now lets offer a slightly different venue.
The TKD practicioner who wishes to seperate him/her self from the ever present Mcdojo's and the sport orientated Dojang's that have no self defense criteria incorporated. We've all seen the discussions on this subject, but now what happens when this practicioner, who has the suggested collective knowledge and time vested under the TKD banner, now decides to venture forth and attempt to distance themselves from the aforementioned labeled venues? Should they continue to use the label TKD and add something to it, "Combat TKD", "Original TKD", "Old School TKD" or something similar, or should they just rename what they intend to teach to totally remove the often placed stigma that's associated with todays TKD? Can or should they revert back to the origins of TKD, when the majority of Korean MA's were under the Tang Soo Do Heading? Should they go back even further and call it Shotokan or should they just make up a new name and call it whatever they have knowledge in? For example, a blend of TKD and Hapkido, which for many "old school" practicioners was the norm and call it.......HapTaeDo or perhaps JuTaeDo for those that have some Judo in their background. Do you feel that they are doing a dis-service to their original art or has their art done a dis-servise to them?
Starting a new discipline, regardless of what the motivating force is, does not automaticly offer fame and fortune. It may stroke some ego's, but ego's are soon deflated as are wallets.
I just wanted to touch on this briefly, because it's a great point, and it made me stop and think for a moment before I decided to respond.
If the TKD practitioner wishes to open a school, but does not want to be associated with the "McDojang" and "Sport" stigmas, then I would say it's all in how they teach the class. You can't change the perception of how the public views TKD in general (although I would love to change it), but you can change how the public would view a particular school.
Let's say that the TKD guy opens a dojang of his own. Instead of belonging to an organization, he chooses to stay independant, and does not charge outlandish fees for classes. He also does not require students to buy anything other than the uniform and very basic safety gear for sparring. The uniform is standard from 1 company, so that all the students will have the same uniform, but the safety gear for sparring can be purchased from wherever the best deal can be found, and is not required to be purchased through the school.
As far as instruction goes, he concentrates on the SD aspects of the art, and doesn't get too caught up in pushing students into tournements, but does allow them to compete if they choose to do so. He doesn't rush students through the ranks, but instead makes sure that the material is fully learned before allowing them to test.
If he follows through properly, he can remove himself from the stigma of "crappy" TKD by providing the "proof in the pudding", to quote Bill Cosby.
<quote>So what about someone who studies... say...
Tae Kwon Do, but throws in some japanese weapons, opens a school and claims they are teaching "ninjitsu"
or someone with a background in a couple schools/styles of Karate but opens a school for "Kung Fu"
Both of those examples are things I've run into... Thats clearly silly, yes?
Or what about a school that teaches what they claim to teach, but then have somthing like a "Ninja Night" for the kids and teach them "ninja skills" like sneaking around or "shuriken throwing" with toy ninja stars? Is that sort of thing really "acceptable practice" for an art?<quote>
As far as this goes...
I don't have a major problem with schools that offer extra-cirricular options to the core art...but they should be advertised as that, and not all packaged together in a "shiny new art" or renamed under an older art.
If someone wants to teach TKD and then teach a few ninja moves on the side, great...but please don't mix the 2 names or add in the ninja moves to the TKD cirriculum. It should be a TKD class, and then, if the student
chooses to learn something extra, then the option's there. I think the mistake people make is that they decide that it's going to be a new addition to the set-in-stone cirriculum.
For a wrong example:
Billy Bob teaches "TKD Concepts", which is TKD at the core with "ninja concepts" added in. When his students reach yellow belt, they not only learn how to correctly perform a spinning side kick, but they also learn how to properly throw smoke bombs, and will be tested on their ability to correctly perform both techniques before being allowed to pass to green belt. If the spinning sidekicks are perfect, but the student cannot properly throw the smoke bomb, then the student must remain a yellow belt until the next testing period.
For a proper example:
Billy Bob teaches TKD during the afternoon and early evening classes, and has one late evening class twice a week dedicated to "Ninja training 101", in which students learn how to throw smoke bombs. The class has a different uniform, and is offered as a seperate class than the regular TKD class, and is not required for testing in the TKD cirriculum.
Like I said before, I really don't have a problem if a school does this as an extra benefit type of thing...that may be a great idea to keep the younger kids interested, by saying that they can't join the extra class until they earn a certain rank in the core art...
But unless you have an extensive background in more than 1 art, and would be able to teach them seperately if you were required, and you find out how to combine both arts to create something that is truly unique, you don't need to rename what you already know.
I mean, seriously, Tae Bo was terrible enough, but at least they didn't try to market that as an actual self defense course.
