TKD and Everyone Else

[Tez3]

not always

I despise MMA and a gag everytime i hear "BJJ"

why?

not because I am insecure in my arts

i shudder when i hear MMA or BJJ because i think it is a very FLAWED system for self defense, yet when you try to point that out, people invariably try to shove the UFC (a flawed and stacked contest from the 1st one till now) in your face. It gets old. But then, i dont go out of my way to trash them either. So maybe i dont fit what you were talking about.

Why on earth do you think MMA is for self defence? it's not, it's a sport. UFC? it's only one business, one promotion among many, it's not MMA per se.

 

[SageGhost83]

Sounds like relativism.

That's walking down a dangerous road to say that, 'if you critique my style you must be insecure in your own.'

Not exactly. It is the fact that most people who 'critique' a style are just bashing it because they either can't do it themselves or they have an incomplete view of it because they don't practice it themselves or they haven't been training in it enough to truly understand it. If they were giving an honest critique of the style then they would see that it is really no better or no worse than any other style and that it comes down to how you, the individual, utilizes it. So the insecurity does not come from the critique, it comes from the propensity of someone to continuously criticize and/or mock another style when they don't practice that style and/or they practice another style. Exactly what business is it of theirs concerning what style you or I practice or why we practice it? They should have something better to do than to just sit around and trash someone else's style, and if they truly were satisfied with their own style and didn't feel threatened in some way, shape or form, then they would focus on their own style and not worry about what others are doing or why they are doing it. Most of the so-called 'critiques' come from people who don't even practice or have never even practiced the style that they are so quick to trash.

 

[tellner]

Neo, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Or if you want to get biblical some carpenter from Nazareth said something a couple thousand years ago about beams and splinters.

Almost all of your posts have been about how fake and "rigged" and artificial MMA is. MMA is very upfront about the fact that it is a sport. It's a rough, athletic, demanding sport. It's got fewer restrictions than any combat sport I'm familiar with in the developed world. To succeed at it you have to be able to deal with any range from ground grappling to clinching to kickboxing against a wide variety of the body's natural weapons. It makes no bones about the fact that it is a sport with safety rules, but it offers more effective self defense skills than almost all of the "traditional", "street fighting", "deadly", "warrior" so-to-speak martial arts out there.

You do a sport that is very consciously and specifically rigged to make sure that only people from a very limited background (WTF TKD as prescribed by the Korean government) can compete successfully. Only high kicks to the head and the big black dots on the chest protector. No grabbing or grappling. No effective punching. No clinching. No knees. No elbows. No ground work of any sort. The entire back of the body doesnt' exist - in fact I used to have a video where He Il Cho "Man of Contrasts" spent a lot of time telling the viewer to turn around and show his back if he got in trouble because it was off target. And so on. And you complain about how MMA isn't "realistic" and has too many rules.

The most "traditional" versions are Japanese Karate and a little bit of Chinese martial arts all with the serial numbers filed off and a big Korean flag pasted on top. And even they are deficient in these skills. The more knowledgeable people here spend a lot of time reverse engineering forms to try and find a glimmer of grappling, the faintest whiff of how to defend against weapons and echoes of how close quarters work might have been done. If they figure it out it's almost always because they've seen similar things in other arts and can draw a genealogical connection between the two.

TKD is in its decline as the premier combat sport. Before TKD it was Karate, Boxing, Judo or Wrestling. Today it's MMA. A generation from now it will be something else. That's the way the world works. But your hypocrisy on the subject and your willingness to cut your own sport infinite slack while picking at the tiniest perceived flaws in the competition is unworthy and unconvincing.

 

[Kacey]

Everyone's always will to say "my school's not like that". If that's the case, why does the majority opinion exist?

Because the schools that are like that are big, flashy, pay for a lot of advertising, and garner a reputation that their quality deserves - and as with many other topics, many people enjoy talking about those people, the ones who make us look bad - and like it or not, news is generally about the bad things, not the good ones, as well as being about things that are different from usual; that's why gossip is a favorite past time for so many people.

Until the change is visible to the vast majority of the martial arts world, it's not really going to matter. The majority opinion of TKD will be the accurate one, and the few outlying schools that differ will be largely irrelevant.

I agree. But like anything else, it's the bad apples that get all the press, because that's a better story... whether it's representative of the majority or not - and often because it's not; it's the minority events that are "news".

 

[terryl965]

Kacey you are right on, Thank you for that post.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Because the schools that are like that are big, flashy, pay for a lot of advertising, and garner a reputation that their quality deserves - and as with many other topics, many people enjoy talking about those people, the ones who make us look bad - and like it or not, news is generally about the bad things, not the good ones, as well as being about things that are different from usual; that's why gossip is a favorite past time for so many people.


I agree. But like anything else, it's the bad apples that get all the press, because that's a better story... whether it's representative of the majority or not - and often because it's not; it's the minority events that are "news".

The situation is not helped by the fact that bad is easy. You don't have to do things right, you don't have to remember anything, you can make it up if you need it. The list goes on. And, of course, people do things the way they are taught so the situation perpetuates itself.

 

[PHElwood]

Isn't it funny how there is such criticism and cynicism against TKD? I mean how so many folks out there will never train in TKD, but they "know everything about it?:hb:

Hi ellies,
It's the same with the style of tai chi that I'm studying. Others on this forum who don't do the same style seem to be completely cynical about the organization where I take classes... and very critical too- putting down both the form and the instructors (and I've been with taking classes long enough to have formed my own opinion that this is good organization with instructors I respect) So I'm a little disappointed with some of the comments. But the forum I tried before (martial arts forum on Google) was much worse. At least, from what I've read so far on the MA forum, most members here are civil, and many have been very welcoming. So I guess I'll just try not to pay attention to the ones who seem to have their own ax to grind.

Regards, LPE

 

[neoinarien]

Neo, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Or if you want to get biblical some carpenter from Nazareth said something a couple thousand years ago about beams and splinters.

Almost all of your posts have been about how fake and "rigged" and artificial MMA is. MMA is very upfront about the fact that it is a sport. It's a rough, athletic, demanding sport. It's got fewer restrictions than any combat sport I'm familiar with in the developed world. To succeed at it you have to be able to deal with any range from ground grappling to clinching to kickboxing against a wide variety of the body's natural weapons. It makes no bones about the fact that it is a sport with safety rules, but it offers more effective self defense skills than almost all of the "traditional", "street fighting", "deadly", "warrior" so-to-speak martial arts out there.

You do a sport that is very consciously and specifically rigged to make sure that only people from a very limited background (WTF TKD as prescribed by the Korean government) can compete successfully. Only high kicks to the head and the big black dots on the chest protector. No grabbing or grappling. No effective punching. No clinching. No knees. No elbows. No ground work of any sort. The entire back of the body doesnt' exist - in fact I used to have a video where He Il Cho "Man of Contrasts" spent a lot of time telling the viewer to turn around and show his back if he got in trouble because it was off target. And so on. And you complain about how MMA isn't "realistic" and has too many rules.

The most "traditional" versions are Japanese Karate and a little bit of Chinese martial arts all with the serial numbers filed off and a big Korean flag pasted on top. And even they are deficient in these skills. The more knowledgeable people here spend a lot of time reverse engineering forms to try and find a glimmer of grappling, the faintest whiff of how to defend against weapons and echoes of how close quarters work might have been done. If they figure it out it's almost always because they've seen similar things in other arts and can draw a genealogical connection between the two.

TKD is in its decline as the premier combat sport. Before TKD it was Karate, Boxing, Judo or Wrestling. Today it's MMA. A generation from now it will be something else. That's the way the world works. But your hypocrisy on the subject and your willingness to cut your own sport infinite slack while picking at the tiniest perceived flaws in the competition is unworthy and unconvincing.

Tellner,

Wow, that's a lot of accusations all of which are patently false.

Can you point to a single place where I, "cut [my] sport infinite slack"?

No. Because I don't cut TKD slack. I think it's rather incomplete and lacking in a number of ways, many of which are important.

Maybe you should be more careful before posting with such vitriol.


Also, "Almost all of your posts have been about how fake and "rigged" and artificial MMA is." That simply is not true. I simply pointed out that MMA has a lot of restrictive rules and many people have the false perception that MMA is 'anything goes' and you can reference MMA to 'prove' what systems work, etc. I'm sorry if you missed this delicate, though obvious point that I repeated numerous times throughout.

 

[neoinarien]

Not exactly. It is the fact that most people who 'critique' a style are just bashing it because they either can't do it themselves or they have an incomplete view of it because they don't practice it themselves or they haven't been training in it enough to truly understand it. If they were giving an honest critique of the style then they would see that it is really no better or no worse than any other style and that it comes down to how you, the individual, utilizes it. So the insecurity does not come from the critique, it comes from the propensity of someone to continuously criticize and/or mock another style when they don't practice that style and/or they practice another style.

Well, I certainly agree with you SageGhost83 that it may often be the case in practice though certainly it is not a uniform rule (and I think you'd agree with that).

As a brief example, I rip on TKD for a number of things although I used to practice it for a decade. Also, I think it would be fair (although I have never boxed) to objectively say that boxing is an incomplete art when it comes to addressing all aspects of self defense (yes, I know, boxing is a sport not a self defense art specifically... though I'm sure someone will rip me for saying that anyways). Nonetheless, despite boxing is more of a sport it is still a valid criticism. I don't see the sense of, nor am I saying that you did/are-doing it because I don't think you are, making ad hominem attacks (see tellner) on an individual rather than dealing with the arguments made prima facie.

 

[SageGhost83]

Well, I agree that it may often be the case in practice though certainly it is not a uniform rule.

As a brief example, I rip on TKD for a number of things although I used to practice it for a decade. Also, I think it would be fair (although I have never boxed) to objectively say that boxing is an incomplete art when it comes to addressing all aspects of self defense (yes, I know, boxing is a sport not a self defense art specifically... though I'm sure someone will rip me for saying that anyways). Nonetheless, despite boxing is more of a sport it is still a valid criticism. I don't see the sense of (see Tellner...), nor am I saying that you did/are-doing it because I don't think you are, making ad hominem attacks on an individual rather than dealing with the arguments made prima facie.

And here we go - if you think that boxing is purely a sport then you don't know much about boxing to begin with. There is "sport" boxing, which is shown on television, then there is "real" boxing where there are no fouls and grappling and even groundfighting are included. So no - it wouldn't be fair, it would be just another blanket statement made by somebody who really doesn't know what they are talking about concerning a particular art, and it is also a very narrowminded and uninformed criticism. TKD gets criticised a lot, but yet there are people who have successfully utilized it in a self defense situation. So, since it has proven useful and effective by individuals living in this modern age against modern threats, where does the criticism come in (other than the mcdojo's and flashy dashy stuff :lol2? Now, don't take it personally because I am not trying to attack you personally - I am attacking a common misperception. Many people criticise based on a very shallow understanding of an art, or the art doesn't work for them so they trash it despite the fact that the art works perfectly for others. If you don't like an art that's one thing, but to bash an art and be disrespectful toward it when doing such a thing isn't furthering anyone's cause in any way is just plain ignorant and juvenile. If you don't have anything nice (or at least constructive, for crying out loud) to say, then perhaps speech is not the best option. (and again, the *you* is not addressing you specifically, it is a general *you*)

 

[theletch1]

[playnice]Jeff Letchford[/playnice]

 

[exile]

There is "sport" boxing, which is shown on television, then there is "real" boxing where there are no fouls and grappling and even groundfighting are included.

Iain Abernethy has written some informative stuff about the history of boxing, some of which, interestingly enough, is based on research that Jack Dempsey (yes, the Jack Dempsey) carried out on the 19th c. bare-knuckle boxers and their complex fighting system, which, if I recall correctly, did indeed have striking. grappling and groundfighting components in it. Sport boxing definitely represents a reduction in the range of techs employed by the old, old timers...

... but even so, there's something about modern boxing which gives it, in many quarters, credibility of a kind that a lot of other combat sports don't have: training for a fighting distance which is realistic in terms of what will happen to you in street violence. Boxers, unlike exponents of a lot of ring sports that developed from TMAs, don't define the default fighting distance in the six-to-eight foot range; it's way closer than that, and boxers train for that range, which is the other half of the equation. Staying in very close, doing evasion and making yourself feel at home within knockout range of the other guy requires a kind of mindset that strikes me as very distant from the typical training distance of sport TKD/karate/whatever.

 

[neoinarien]

And here we go - if you think that boxing is purely a sport then you don't know much about boxing to begin with. There is "sport" boxing, which is shown on television, then there is "real" boxing where there are no fouls and grappling and even groundfighting are included. So no - it wouldn't be fair, it would be just another blanket statement made by somebody who really doesn't know what they are talking about concerning a particular art, and it is also a very narrowminded and uninformed criticism. TKD gets criticised a lot, but yet there are people who have successfully utilized it in a self defense situation. So, since it has proven useful and effective by individuals living in this modern age against modern threats, where does the criticism come in (other than the mcdojo's and flashy dashy stuff :lol2? Now, don't take it personally because I am not trying to attack you personally - I am attacking a common misperception. Many people criticise based on a very shallow understanding of an art, or the art doesn't work for them so they trash it despite the fact that the art works perfectly for others. If you don't like an art that's one thing, but to bash an art and be disrespectful toward it when doing such a thing isn't furthering anyone's cause in any way is just plain ignorant and juvenile. If you don't have anything nice (or at least constructive, for crying out loud) to say, then perhaps speech is not the best option. (and again, the *you* is not addressing you specifically, it is a general *you*)

Sage,

Thank you for the clarification (specifically, "If you don't like an art that's one thing, but to bash an art and be disrespectful toward it when doing such a thing isn't furthering anyone's cause in any way is just plain ignorant and juvenile. If you don't have anything nice (or at least constructive, for crying out loud) to say, then perhaps speech is not the best option.") I agree 100% there.

Qualification
However, just because someone, sometime, somewhere has utilized art X to defend themselves does not mean that the art is all that great. It could be that what they were doing was pretty bad and they just got lucky whereas they would lose the same fight 99 times out of 100. While I agree that most criticisms of other MA's are bad faith and/or bad taste, I would be worried about disclaiming all criticism, some of which is done in good faith and good taste, as invalid.

Re. the boxing sidebar:
I think boxing can be practiced as either a sport, or self defense (hence why I said "specifically", since it can be practiced either way). While I cannot claim any special knowledge on boxing, it was my impression from speaking with others who do box, that boxing is exclusively hand striking (I should have been more specific, I was not addressing kick boxing, etc).


Anywho: I agree, less the qualification above.

 

[SageGhost83]

Qualification
However, just because someone, sometime, somewhere has utilized art X to defend themselves does not mean that the art is all that great. It could be that what they were doing was pretty bad and they just got lucky whereas they would lose the same fight 99 times out of 100. While I agree that most criticisms of other MA's are bad faith and/or bad taste, I would be worried about disclaiming all criticism, some of which is done in good faith and good taste, as invalid.

Ah, I think I get what you are saying now. You are saying that, while there are a lot people who criticise arts for the reason that I mentioned, not all people criticise all arts for that reason - sometimes the criticism is more than warranted and it comes from the very people who hold high ranks in the system, and sometimes it is not exactly criticism, it is a painfully honest observation. Maybe, constructive criticism from deeply knowledgeable individuals? That is what I think that you are saying, but I am not trying to put words in your mouth, my friend :asian:. You are 100% right in that regard - sometimes the criticism is in good faith, and it is a "good criticism" hinting at the need for the art to continue to grow. In this day and age, however, the bulk of the criticism is in bad faith, and that is what I was addressing in my earlier posts. I see what you are saying about art x, but what about the *many* people who have successfully utilized it to defend themselves? We can't just write that off as a fluke. I believe that we could make that argument for any style because victory is never a guarantee even under the best of circumstances. Anybody can get lucky with any style, anybody can win with any style, and anybody can lose with any style. That is why we say that it comes down to the individual, not the style. The style doesn't fight, the individual does. I was also saying that the style does work for some people and that it doesn't work for others. It is the latter that seems to be the harshest critics even though they overlook the very real results of the former. Most "evidence" that is shown of TKD being ineffective usually involves someone who is just plain horrible at the style going against someone who excels at their own style (and vice versa, of course). I have met some Taekwondoin who couldn't fight their way out of a Mcdonalds against the hamburglar, and I have met some Taekwondoin who could hold their own against just about anyone. In the end, I think that it all comes down to what the individual martial artist seeks in their own training and where they want to go in the arts, be it hobby, professional competition, self defense, or what have you.

 

[neoinarien]

In this day and age, however, the bulk of the criticism is in bad faith, and that is what I was addressing in my earlier posts.

Yep, agreed.

I think that in this day and age, especially on the internet, most criticism is done in bad faith and often in very bad taste often resorting to pointless ad hominem attacks (as we have seen in this thread).

But yeah. We're on the same page.

 

[Dave Leverich]

...Boxers, unlike exponents of a lot of ring sports that developed from TMAs, don't define the default fighting distance in the six-to-eight foot range; it's way closer than that, and boxers train for that range, which is the other half of the equation. Staying in very close, doing evasion and making yourself feel at home within knockout range of the other guy requires a kind of mindset that strikes me as very distant from the typical training distance of sport TKD/karate/whatever.

Awesome information Exile, thanks!

One thing I've found in MMA vs the traditional arts I've done was the different ranges, rather than being a long/short/touch range... it's all of them depending on the fighters and relative positions. In TKD of course, most of what I did was that long long range, but in stand-up MT/Boxing etc, it's that, then the closer danger range (leg kicks/jab etc).

I know it's kind of a tangent, but if anyone watched Machida this weekend against Ortiz, just watch his distancing and him cutting the angles, it's like a seminar in using distance.

 

[YoungMan]

Does anyone really think TKD fighters start out at a much greater distance than other fighters. Other than being a little farther away than boxers, isn't really isn't that great of a distance.
The important difference is that when a TKD fighter tries to close the gap or rush in (the way MMA or boxers tend to), he usually finds himself on the receiving end of a well placed kick before he can close the gap.
Unlike MMA fighters or boxers who try to rush in so they can hammer you with punches and grapple, TKD fighters will not let you get that close. I've seen TKD fighters try to rush in and get KO'd. Believe me, TKD fights are not intentionally designed to prohibit punching contact (except to the face. WTF fighters do not wear hand pads. Do you really want a bunch of guys with broken noses and open wounds walking around?) The fighting style makes it very difficult to that.

 

[exile]

The important difference is that when a TKD fighter tries to close the gap or rush in (the way MMA or boxers tend to), he usually finds himself on the receiving end of a well placed kick before he can close the gap.
Unlike MMA fighters or boxers who try to rush in so they can hammer you with punches and grapple, TKD fighters will not let you get that close.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? For street violence, you are not going to be in a TKD ring match governed by WTF scoring rules, right? Street altercations are initiated very close, toe to toe or closer, most commonly with a grab or push or something coming right up to you, so what does it matter to a TKD-trained person what another TKD person would do to you under well-regulated tournament conditions, if you get someone within two feet of you looking to get in the sucker punch??

The point is that, as people who monitor these things have found over and over again, steet violence typically starts at very close range and if anything gets closer. The 'gap' is already closed by the time the first punch is thrown. All you're doing here is reinforcing the point that tournament TKD conditions do not match up well with realistic violence settings... and I have the impression that that's something most people are already in general agreement with. The TKD the ROK marines and commando units used in two horrific wars wasn't anything like WTF-rules sparring. And if I'm not mistaken, the point of the OP has to do with the fact that TKD is constantly criticized for not being SD-effective, not with the abilities of its tournament athletes, eh?

 

[SageGhost83]

Yep, agreed.

I think that in this day and age, especially on the internet, most criticism is done in bad faith and often in very bad taste often resorting to pointless ad hominem attacks (as we have seen in this thread).

But yeah. We're on the same page.

I think that this is a good example of the criticism in good faith that you are talking about:

Excerpt 1 (p. 88, Kung Fu Tai Chi Magazine, June 2008)
Now some members of the old guard are withdrawing their support for modern Wushu. Ma Xianda said, "Following 1949, we have been following the path of flowery Wushu and that caused a lot of damage to Wushu." Zhao Changjun, arguably the next top modern Wushu Champion right after Jet Li, said, "modern Wushu is a failure."

Excerpt 2 (p.88, Kung Fu Tai Chi Magazine, June 2008)
Wu Bin, coach of the Beijing Wushu Team and Jet Li, asks, "is this Wushu? Is this martial arts? What is authentic?...If your Jingqishen (essence, energy, spirit) is not good enough, then this is not Wushu."

When people of that skill and experience criticise portions of their own art in good faith then it doesn't fit the whole insecurity thing, it is an honest critique of the style by some of its top proponents. Looks like I will have to reevaluate some of my own views. Thanks for the revelation, growing is part of being a good martial artist :asian:.

 

[SageGhost83]

The TKD the ROK marines and commando units used in two horrific wars wasn't anything like WTF-rules sparring.

That is what I have come to believe, too. I don't buy that high, flashy kicks were a devastating weapon in the age of the automatic rifle and the sniper rifle. I think TKD was a valuable tool for the ROK, but like you, I think that ROK TKD was just a tad different from what most TKD schools teach these days (WTF).