I would say anyone competing at a black belt division at USAT JOs or Nationals would be an elite competitor. That used to be the definition of "Elite", someone who competed at USTU National Events.
OK. I'm afraid I don't have as handy of an objective criterion to designate who is elite in my book for people from other disciplines.
I've mentioned Kono Sensei and Gushi Sensei. Yamada Shihan is in good shape for his age. Richard Amos Sensei. Byung In Lee Kwan Jang. And so on. The majority of the noted teachers in virtually any style I can think of all are fit people, even if they are older and naturally have slowed down.
I believe that is where Jean Lopez and Paris Amani got the name from for their dojang. I don't know how many self defense types there are out there doing Taekwondo, and of that group, how many are running marathons. I would think that is rare. From what I see out there, the ones who focus on "self defense", at least in Taekwondo, tend to be out of shape.
Does John Pelligrini still count as a TKD guy? I recently met him and he was in pretty decent shape to my eye. He certainly wasn't Foot Fist Way material.
I don't think we can generalize. Drive to any large city with a good assortment of martial arts schools and we'll see instructors come in all shapes and sizes. Yes, I've seen my share of out-of-shape guys. I've also seen guys who still look like nails. And I know of at least 2 MA instructors that run marathons.
Are the training primarily for self defense, or for other reasons? I would think the practitioners who are in their sixties and seventies are training primarily for other reasons. I know I will be training for other reasons when I am that age.
I think both gentlemen would agree with you. Most people who have stayed in the arts for a time eventually have different motivations for training. You'd hope that people would learn how to defend themselves to an adequate level early on.
At the same time, as an instructor, I think it's important for my students, particularly colored belts, to focus on attaining SD skills foremost. It is fine to me if they want to learn how to protect themselves - in fact, it is my preference otherwise they are not a good fit to learn from me with my methods given my chosen focus.
You are still young. Give it ten, fifteen, twenty years. I would like to hear your perspective then.
It would be something if in 20 years I could tell you what I think. May it be so.
The majority of students at Taekwondo schools in the US train primarily for reasons other than self defense or competition, even though there are probably at least some elements of self defense and competition training in their regular workouts. That is why I think the whole "sport vs. self defense" is wrong, because most people don't train for either of those reasons. Taekwondo was meant to be an art of inclusion; once we start labeling taekwondo schools as this or that, sport or traditional or self defense or whatever, we start excluding people with that label. Taekwondo is Taekwondo, no matter what the focus of the instructor or the school.
I understand where you are coming from with this.
At this time my perspective is different. We all have finite time in which to accomplish our goals. Since passing on usable fighting skills is my utmost priority, I feel the curriculum I teach must match that goal, and when prospective students come to my door, it's very useful to use descriptions like self-defense oriented or pattern-based or traditional because they explain what I do very well.
Even if we accept your definition that those that include "sport" training is a "sport school", if you ask anyone at any highly competitive dojang, you will learn that maybe 10 or 15% of the student body are actively focused on national or international competition, if that. For instance, if a dojang which has 300 members sends 30 competitors to a tournament, then that is a large turnout. And what about the other 270 members? Do we still lump everyone together and say "he comes from a sport school", when in fact he or she never competes? I would think that in order to qualify as a "sport school", then the majority of members have to be competing on a regular basis. Using that as the definition, I can only come up with two schools that do that.
Do the other 270 members train in something completely different? I'd like to see a granular breakdown of what they do exactly. (Not that I am asking or challenging you to provide one - this comment is by way of illustration.) It's a matter of what they are doing with their time. If you point spar a lot in class, regardless of the intent to compete in a tournament, you're doing sport MA. If you worry more about aesthetics when performing forms than intent or application, you're doing sport MA.
I think any hinderances that come from competition training can easily be overcome, that the benefits of increased ability and qualities far outweighs any "bad habits" that some may think have arisen.
Maybe. Maybe not. I'll give an example from tennis since we both play. I learned tennis with an eastern forehand grip since I was taught a classic attacking game with an intent to finish the point at the net. This made sense in the old days since everyone had those wooden racquets and unless you were a rare talent like Borg, it was pretty tough to hit clean winners off the ground with your woodie. Nowadays with the racquets and copolymer strings available, it's almost suicide to come to net against the young guns. So, I've added a semi-western forehand to get more topspin so I could hang in the back court with these guys and wait more judiciously for the right time to come in.
It wasn't easy learning my new forehand. The grip and swing path is very different feeling compared to the classic forehand. The contact point is different, as is the follow-through and even the footwork! And they are both forehand strokes hit off the same side! It was a long time before I could use the new stroke in a match without getting clobbered, and in fact my old technique hindered me since they built off of that old stroke. Approach shots, return of serves, etc... those likewise were entirely new shots when I wanted to use the new forehand grip.
I think the analogy comes through for MA activities also. You train in something long enough you will groove in certain brain pathways that make the activity easier, but it will make others undoubtedly tougher. Some people can adapt readily, others can't; so it makes sense to train in what you consider important rather than a generic assumption that just acquiring attributes of speed and movement will help you.
That is basically how it evolves, right? Personally, I wasn't into tournaments all that much growing up. I did martial arts to learn how to fight. I wanted to be able to handle myself against anyone, no matter how big, fast, strong, or scary they were. There is something to be said for going against someone mano a mano that is appealing to me. They are throwing their all at you, land you have to respond, adapt and overcome. I like that challenge. I still do. It was only later when I found how easy it is to beat most people up did I evolve into trying to understand and "get" Olympic style sparring. It look years to understand that one, much longer than it took to learn how to "defend" myself. Frankly, I still feel like I don't understand it to the level that I could or should.
From my perspective, Olympic sparring is a 'new' thing with constantly evolving conditions such as the electronic scoring. Small wonder that it takes a while to get a grip on it, and as the sport evolves, the competitor and coach had better do it too.
I think it is fair to say that SD study is more static, although arguably it is also more vast.
