oftheherd1
Senior Master
I think the issue may revolve around how an art is taught, in regards to how complete it is...or isn't. I'll use TKD, again, as an example. The majority perception of the art of TKD is that it is a striking art...predominately a kicking art. Also that it is in large part a sport martial art. And in many venues this would be a spot on description of the art. Nothing wrong with that at all if this is what is desired for the student. I think we could all readily agree that it isn't a complete art in regards to what other arts offer i.e. grappling, ground etc.
However
TKD, just like its Karate uncle can also be taught as a grappling art, a ground defense art, and edged weapon art, a baton art, a locking art, a throwing art etc. I do it all the time, I just use the term Kong Soo Do instead of TKD. I'm one of those instructors who believe that kata (forms) contain a wealth of information in regards to practical fighting (read self-defense) that cover all of the above in addition to striking and kicking. Now not everyone wants this in their training and certainly many practice the arts for different reasons than self-defense. But for those that wish a fighting art (again read self-defense) TKD or Karate or a plethora of other arts can be taught as a very complete art. It depends upon the knowledge base of the instructor(s) and the goals of the school/student base.
I totally agree with the bolded/underlined text. I always thought it strange that I wasn't taught that when I took TKD. Some things that seemed strange, or of no practical effect, were often explained as something for art. I wasn't even told that forms are also often to learn multiple attacker defense.
What always amazes me is how many teachers don't know that. No wonder so many students scoff at the idea.