Tae Kwon Do in MMA

[Digger70chall]

I honestly can't believe this has gotten to 100 posts. If you want to practice MMA practice MMA...if you want to practice olympic TKD practice that, if you want "traditional" TKD then find that.

this question could've just as easily been about MMA in TKD, or I've played basketball for 20+ years, do you think i can make the transition to figure skating?

If you want to become a UFC champ then sure you probably won't be competing in the olympics TKD the same year...they are different sports and have to be treated as such, not to say it's not impossible for somebody to train in TKD and then dominate the UFC it's not as likely as a wrestler though.

 

[Marginal]

That's what's so annoying about this discussion. Nobody disagrees with that. It's just people talking past each other, crossed wires etc.

For example, the ITF rule set enables a specific approach to sparring. It has its limitations.

1)No full contact.
2)Back's an illegal target.
3)Hitting below the belt's illegal.
4)No grabbing.

All of those rules contribute to the sparring featured in the video provided. Not having to worry about being grabbed etc, will greatly alter what can be gotten away with etc.

However, change some of those sparring rules, and a different beast will emerge.

1)Full contact, but you can't punch to the head
2)Punches don't really count.
3)No striking below the belt
4)No grappling

Changing the rules still produces a result that anyone'd recognize as TKD, but it does bear a different flavor. You can make the case that both rule sets produce an inefficient striker with a collection of bad habits that aren't condusive to success in a ring. But the differing rule sets don't produce the same collection to bad habits, so "factually" lumping them together fails unless you're overgenerializing.

The basic point a lot of the pro-TKD people are making in here is, if you change the rule set around yet again to something like:

1)Reduce the invalid target areas to the groin, knees, and throat
2)Allow full contact
3)Allow clinching and takedowns

That'd still produce someone who practices TKD. You're just changing the sparring rules, not reinventing the system. (Notice I didn't toss groundfighting in there as well since TKD has limited applications once there, and I'm not pretending that TKD's complete.)

That's why I have a problem with the suggestion that all TKD -regardless of rule set- creates the exact same fighter. That's also why I find the arguments about the patterns being the true intention of TKD's appearance and how a TKD practitioner will fight to be totally baseless.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

That's what's so annoying about this discussion. Nobody disagrees with that. It's just people talking past each other, crossed wires etc.

For example, the ITF rule set enables a specific approach to sparring. It has its limitations.

1)No full contact.
2)Back's an illegal target.
3)Hitting below the belt's illegal.
4)No grabbing.

All of those rules contribute to the sparring featured in the video provided. Not having to worry about being grabbed etc, will greatly alter what can be gotten away with etc.

However, change some of those sparring rules, and a different beast will emerge.

1)Full contact, but you can't punch to the head
2)Punches don't really count.
3)No striking below the belt
4)No grappling

Changing the rules still produces a result that anyone'd recognize as TKD, but it does bear a different flavor. You can make the case that both rule sets produce an inefficient striker with a collection of bad habits that aren't condusive to success in a ring. But the differing rule sets don't produce the same collection to bad habits, so "factually" lumping them together fails unless you're overgenerializing.

The basic point a lot of the pro-TKD people are making in here is, if you change the rule set around yet again to something like:

1)Reduce the invalid target areas to the groin, knees, and throat
2)Allow full contact
3)Allow clinching and takedowns

That'd still produce someone who practices TKD. You're just changing the sparring rules, not reinventing the system. (Notice I didn't toss groundfighting in there as well since TKD has limited applications once there, and I'm not pretending that TKD's complete.)

That's why I have a problem with the suggestion that all TKD -regardless of rule set- creates the exact same fighter. That's also why I find the arguments about the patterns being the true intention of TKD's appearance and how a TKD practitioner will fight to be totally baseless.

Well said. Good, open-minded, independent thinking. Salute

 

[tomthlee]

The problem here stems from your horrible definition of an anecdotal argument.

If that was going on in my instructor's Dojang, I'd be more inclined to accept it as fact. But it must because you've seen it a few times, and that means it applies to all TKD practitioners.

That's an anectodal argument you're presenting. Not a factual one.

2. Weak insults aside, I've never seen markers differentiating opponents beyond a strip of cloth intersted into the back of the belt.

Finally, bear in mind that I'm questioning the claim that the whole of TKD looks like olympic rules sparring. This is not about TKD's performance in MMA. I already stated that TKD's in a no-win situation in that respect. You will not shame me into allowing you lazy generializations however.

Addressing your lack of knowledge of your own martial art isn't a weak insult. It's a valid argument against your credibility.

Is a piece of cloth around the body really considered a hogu? A piece of cloth that, when striked, will make the popping sound that occurs in WTF matches? Just because it doesn't fit in with your "world view" of what a marker is, doesn't mean that it's not a marker. It serves no other purpose than to differentiate the fighters.

So you admit that practitioners in your dojang fight properly, using a reasonable punch-kick ratio and covering as a stand-up MMA fighter does. All the flailing, Chun Li kicks, and happy go lucky sparring doesn't go on in your gym. Please post some pictures of live sparring action at your gym. Or even better, video.

Crap, I forgot... the TKD practitioners I've met on this forum only like to tell stories.

Tom

 

[tomthlee]

That's what's so annoying about this discussion. Nobody disagrees with that. It's just people talking past each other, crossed wires etc.

For example, the ITF rule set enables a specific approach to sparring. It has its limitations.

1)No full contact.
2)Back's an illegal target.
3)Hitting below the belt's illegal.
4)No grabbing.

All of those rules contribute to the sparring featured in the video provided. Not having to worry about being grabbed etc, will greatly alter what can be gotten away with etc.

However, change some of those sparring rules, and a different beast will emerge.

1)Full contact, but you can't punch to the head
2)Punches don't really count.
3)No striking below the belt
4)No grappling

Changing the rules still produces a result that anyone'd recognize as TKD, but it does bear a different flavor. You can make the case that both rule sets produce an inefficient striker with a collection of bad habits that aren't condusive to success in a ring. But the differing rule sets don't produce the same collection to bad habits, so "factually" lumping them together fails unless you're overgenerializing.

The basic point a lot of the pro-TKD people are making in here is, if you change the rule set around yet again to something like:

1)Reduce the invalid target areas to the groin, knees, and throat
2)Allow full contact
3)Allow clinching and takedowns

That'd still produce someone who practices TKD. You're just changing the sparring rules, not reinventing the system. (Notice I didn't toss groundfighting in there as well since TKD has limited applications once there, and I'm not pretending that TKD's complete.)

That's why I have a problem with the suggestion that all TKD -regardless of rule set- creates the exact same fighter. That's also why I find the arguments about the patterns being the true intention of TKD's appearance and how a TKD practitioner will fight to be totally baseless.

Those arguments aren't baseless. They have been proven by fact. What's baseless is your vision of what TKD could be if it were a full contact event. I'm not saying it's a bad vision, but it's baseless on many counts.

1. It hasn't happened yet. An official TKD match has never been fought with those rules.
2. It's unlikely that the head honchos (whoever the leaders are of ITF and WTF or even... ATA) would sanction it or even approve of it as a legitimate taekwondo event.

Once again, it's a great vision for TKD because San Shou kung-fu did the same thing and had success with it. They adopted the boxing ring, created a stand up fighting event that's more or less full contact, and even permitted the use of throws and suplexes. This gives San Shou practitioners a strong argument to support their art having success in MMA when mixed with grappling training. There are plenty of photos and videos showing San Shou practitioners using legitimate striking and defending/covering tactics.

However, the idea of a full contact TKD event is still just a vision. It hasn't been done yet. Personally, I'd love to see it happen, but I doubt that it will anytime soon.

 

[Marginal]

I'm not saying it's a bad vision, but it's baseless on many counts.

1. It hasn't happened yet. An official TKD match has never been fought with those rules.
2. It's unlikely that the head honchos (whoever the leaders are of ITF and WTF or even... ATA) would sanction it or even approve of it as a legitimate taekwondo event.

Once again, it's a great vision for TKD because San Shou kung-fu did the same thing and had success with it.

Not to mention the full contact varieties of karate... I'm not claiming it's being done now. I'm claiming that amending the rules would discourage the development of certain bad habits. (Chun Li kicking etc.) The only way it'd be baseless is if the techniques are totally unsuitable for such a sparring environment.

However, the idea of a full contact TKD event is still just a vision. It hasn't been done yet. Personally, I'd love to see it happen, but I doubt that it will anytime soon.

Probably won't be adopted by any major org. Nobody says they have to always train under offical rules though. Not to mention splinter groups and/or schools.

 

[NotQuiteDead]

I'm sure there have been full contact tkd competitions before...

That's why I have a problem with the suggestion that all TKD -regardless of rule set- creates the exact same fighter. That's also why I find the arguments about the patterns being the true intention of TKD's appearance and how a TKD practitioner will fight to be totally baseless.

Of course the rule set changes how someone will fight. I am, however, confused about your comment on the patterns.

When a technique found in a pattern is criticized, that criticism is often written off because many people think that patterns are not supposed to be related to fighting in any way. They do, however, contain many of the techniques those same people do fight with, in addition to the ones they wouldn't. Why would someone invent a pattern that they believed contained both useful and useless techniques?

A lot of people think that Iain Abernethy is doing a great job explaining the applications of karate kata. I think that is how karate was intended to be used... and seeing how the idea for the original tkd patterns came from shotokan I don't see why they wouldn't represent the way TKDists were meant to fight.

Going back to the low block briefly (and by low block I do mean low- the waist-height block found in many patterns), what practical purpose does it serve as a block? There are better ways to deal with attacks to your lower abdomen, groin, and thighs that don't expose your face. For example, there are movements in Yu-Sin that resemble the way you would check a low kick in muay thai.

 

[Marginal]

Uh, yeah.. But you've already stated that there are no alternate applications. Why keep trying to have a conversation you don't want to actually have?

 

[NotQuiteDead]

I said I don't think the forms were meant to have infinite applications, but rather just a few that would actually be practiced. If something is specifically called a "low block", I doubt it was intended to be an elbow strike, joint lock, grip break, takedown, etc. as well... Unfortuneately some people I've talked to, when asked how their training would help them deal with a given situation, claim that a random movement could be adapted in a such a way that you could deal with said situation, even though they don't practice that "application".

 

[Shu2jack]

I will give you three direct applications of the low block, two from personal use.

1.) A weapon be thrusted at your abdomen by a person committed to the attack. Move you body out of the center line as you knock the attack in the other direction.

2.) When sparring, a front kick is a typical move seen. Using the previous method I mentioned, the low block can be used to knock your opponent's foot off target and leave him off balance if timed correctly. I use this sucessfully in sparring.

3.) If you want to use the block exactly as seen in the form, have somone grab your right hand. From there execute a left low block. The grabbed hand will pull back as you hit your attacker's hand that grabbed you. This is better used in situations where a more damaging technique is not called for. I have used this on people who have grabbed my wrist.

I won't get into another argument on form application and such. You seem to have your own views of what forms are, are not, and what they should be with no intention of changing your mind. You asked for application though and here you are.