The raise and fall of TKD

[Kwan Jang]

I think that in modern western society, the interest and value of the purely combative applications has diminished. As instructors, the life skills and often the fitness benefits we offer are our most valuable commodity to the vast majority of the general public. What percentage of the population would invest their time and effort in becoming a "human weapon"? Probably 1-5%. What percentage of the population would have a serious interest in better fitness, character education for their children, and working on a success-building program that helps to achieve self-actualization? The numbers come up geometrically, I would think (especially aroung the time of New Year's resolutions).

OTOH, I believe that those of us who were raised and trained with the combative elements of the art at the forefront know their importance and value. I also believe that we have an obligation to not only keep these elements alive, but also to help them evolve and grow. We have years (and for many of us) decades of experience that the person coming in off the street doesn't, so as they progress, hopefully we can steer/guide them towards value they didn't realize they were missing. The public doesn't see things through "black belt eyes". Being in business, we would be foolish to tell our market what it wants. As instructors though, we would be remiss in our duty if we didn't try to steer our students in the way that we thought was best. Sometimes it can be tricky in trying to find the balance, especially regarding each individual student.

IMO, a good enough instructor can teach both the character/life skills aspects AND the realistic combative/SD aspects of the arts effectively (Both the -do and the -jitsu). They are not truly in opposition to one another. The key is simply to teach each student at the level that they are mentally, physically, and emotionally capable of at the time. I don't think anyone would argue that it would be appropriate to teach a young child (L'il Dragon:4-7 yr. olds) how to crush windpipes. There are many on these forums that have argued that at that age, children should not be trained in martial arts at all. Yet I have seen countless children that have gained enormous value from their training and then progressed into becoming great adult martial artists.

This concept is not just limited to children either. Many adults are like the ones previously mentioned in an earlier post. Despite being adults, they were, at that point of their martial arts education at least, emotionally and mentally unprepared to go beyond the sport and fitness applications of the arts. How many times were adults told growing up that it was wrong to hit someone? Getting past that barrier is often harder than getting them over the fear of being hit for many people. OK, start them out on a pad or a bag, let them become comfortable and confident with that first.

There is nothing wrong with putting a heavier emphasis on sport training and fitness in the early stages of training. The "live" training hasn't hurt Judo, Muay Thai, BJJ or MMA in being effective arts. Also, if you are (as an example) a WTF school, you may want to include more than just olympic-style sparring or point sparring for a ITF school. Teaching the life skills that many people, especially parents, are looking for just requires that as instructors we are well educated in this area and are organized and effective in teaching this. Along with the sport, we can also concurrently add in drills that incorperate the more combat-oriented techniques, adrenal stress training, ect. that would help to make them more effective, but do it in progressive stages.

 

[exile]

I think that in modern western society, the interest and value of the purely combative applications has diminished. As instructors, the life skills and often the fitness benefits we offer are our most valuable commodity to the vast majority of the general public. What percentage of the population would invest their time and effort in becoming a "human weapon"? Probably 1-5%. What percentage of the population would have a serious interest in better fitness, character education for their children, and working on a success-building program that helps to achieve self-actualization? The numbers come up geometrically, I would think (especially aroung the time of New Year's resolutions).

OTOH, I believe that those of us who were raised and trained with the combative elements of the art at the forefront know their importance and value. I also believe that we have an obligation to not only keep these elements alive, but also to help them evolve and grow. We have years (and for many of us) decades of experience that the person coming in off the street doesn't, so as they progress, hopefully we can steer/guide them towards value they didn't realize they were missing. The public doesn't see things through "black belt eyes". Being in business, we would be foolish to tell our market what it wants. As instructors though, we would be remiss in our duty if we didn't try to steer our students in the way that we thought was best. Sometimes it can be tricky in trying to find the balance, especially regarding each individual student.

IMO, a good enough instructor can teach both the character/life skills aspects AND the realistic combative/SD aspects of the arts effectively (Both the -do and the -jitsu). They are not truly in opposition to one another. The key is simply to teach each student at the level that they are mentally, physically, and emotionally capable of at the time. I don't think anyone would argue that it would be appropriate to teach a young child (L'il Dragon:4-7 yr. olds) how to crush windpipes. There are many on these forums that have argued that at that age, children should not be trained in martial arts at all. Yet I have seen countless children that have gained enormous value from their training and then progressed into becoming great adult martial artists.

This concept is not just limited to children either. Many adults are like the ones previously mentioned in an earlier post. Despite being adults, they were, at that point of their martial arts education at least, emotionally and mentally unprepared to go beyond the sport and fitness applications of the arts. How many times were adults told growing up that it was wrong to hit someone? Getting past that barrier is often harder than getting them over the fear of being hit for many people.OK, start them out on a pad or a bag, let them become comfortable and confident with that first.

There is nothing wrong with putting a heavier emphasis on sport training and fitness in the early stages of training. The "live" training hasn't hurt Judo, Muay Thai, BJJ or MMA in being effective arts. Also, if you are (as an example) a WTF school, you may want to include more than just olympic-style sparring or point sparring for a ITF school. Teaching the life skills that many people, especially parents, are looking for just requires that as instructors we are well educated in this area and are organized and effective in teaching this. Along with the sport, we can also concurrently add in drills that incorperate the more combat-oriented techniques, adrenal stress training, ect. that would help to make them more effective, but do it in progressive stages.

Good points, KJ!

The part I've bolded is what several people have argued to be the most important problem MA instructors face in bringing the practical SD aspect of the art to the fore in their classroom instruction. The idea of doing it slowly and gradually, getting people used to actually striking things, hard, is probably the best way to get across that barrier, that (for many people) almost unthinkable taboo on inflicting violence on someone else (even someone who's trying to hurt you).

It's something that requires a lot of careful planning, I would think. It probably doesn't hurt to start people out doing light sparring, simply as a means to get them to be willing to make physical contact in a combative fashion with another person. The trick is not to let it stay at that point, but ramp up the level of intensity in the application of force; otherwise there's the danger that the student will get hung up at a less effective level of striking force. At one point you probably have to bite the bullet and start using the kind of realistic-scenario training methods, with suitable padding for most people, to allow them to carry out full-force counterattacks. I think there are probably a variety of ways, but it has to be something that the instructor believes in, and thinks of as a valuable part of the student's training regime. But a lot of instructors, for whatever reason, seem reluctant to cross that threshold, at least with most of their students (even leaving aside the younger ones, whom most of us wouldn't want to teach serious destructive techniques to in any case...).

 

[tellner]

Self-defense is certainly in the top three reasons why most people start studying a martial art. Heck, even the Krav Maga people who are famous for promoting the physical fitness side market their system as an effective self-defense system first and foremost.

Now if by the term "combat" you mean something other than SD, I agree with you.

It may be the reason they say they want to start. I'm not so sure anymore that it is the real reason. And a lot of the ones who want it don't want it enough to pay the very real price that it can require. I don't mean that they're wimpy or lazy. Lord knows I'm both most of the time. I mean that you have to confront some pretty ugly parts of the human psyche and be able to exercise some of them yourself. That's why there's so much of the "totemic solution to violence" out there.

A lot of people are willing to "defend themselves" in the abstract. The specifics can cause a lot of nervous giggles and foot shuffling. I've seen it in everyone from eighteen year old college freshman women to police officers who had a number of years on the job. Most adults are pretty reluctant when it comes to serious violence. Disinhibiting them is usually the hardest part of the job.

 

[tellner]

The part I've bolded is what several people have argued to be the most important problem MA instructors face in bringing the practical SD aspect of the art to the fore in their classroom instruction. The idea of doing it slowly and gradually, getting people used to actually striking things, hard, is probably the best way to get across that barrier, that (for many people) almost unthinkable taboo on inflicting violence on someone else (even someone who's trying to hurt you).

Another part is getting them used to being hit. You don't do that by punching them. You do it by having them hold pads for other people in the class. It's one of those sneaky teaching things that pays off down the line. We usually progressed from striking to takedowns to groundwork. Each stage got physically and emotionally closer. Every phase was a boundary crossed. And at each stage they learned to deal with more resistance.

It's something that requires a lot of careful planning, I would think.

That has to be the understatement of the millennium. If you don't know what you're doing or misread the situation or go too slow or two fast you can completely screw up a group of students and traumatize a few of them in serious ways.

It probably doesn't hurt to start people out doing light sparring, simply as a means to get them to be willing to make physical contact in a combative fashion with another person. The trick is not to let it stay at that point, but ramp up the level of intensity in the application of force; otherwise there's the danger that the student will get hung up at a less effective level of striking force.

In a short term course you won't have time for much sparring. And they will hold back or go too hard. That's where the padded attacker stuff comes in handy. They don't have to hold back. They aren't trying to hurt their friends. The anonymous, faceless attacker is a lot easier to disassemble.

There's always a three-legged race between knowledge, understanding and intensity. They all have to advance at the right pace, and you can't work all of them at the same time.

But a lot of instructors, for whatever reason, seem reluctant to cross that threshold, at least with most of their students (even leaving aside the younger ones, whom most of us wouldn't want to teach serious destructive techniques to in any case...).

There are good reasons. Proper supervision is one. Control - the students' control - is another. Emotional trauma is another one.