What have you borrowed/stolen from other Arts?

[IcemanSK]

There is a phrase in TKD that "if it worked on me yesterday, it's TKD today." Those of us who have been around TKD have seen this to varying degrees. I'm curious what you have borrowed from other Arts that you've incorporated into your program. Also, do you acknowledge it's origin, or do you called it a TKD technique? In addition, do you use any equipment that "traditionally" are a part of other Arts?

I've also trainied in boxing & full contact rules kickboxing. I stole the jab & cross from boxing for my class. I've also started using Muay Thai pads in my class. Since my class in mobile, I can't have heavy bags (even wavemasters) in class. My students didn't have anything hard to kick or punch. Now with the Thai pads, they can hit something that isn't quite as soft as a kicking shield or paddle. It makes for better technique.

 

[terryl965]

Well I am like my GM if it works and I use it, I call it TKD. One of the problems we have is it was all stolen or borrowed in the first place so why change a great way of building the Art of TKD, I have had ground fighting in my TKD for twenty years but yet it looks like Jujitsu and Judo so it was taken and put in. I believe if you find it useful and want to bring it inside the school your students does not care if it was Karate, TKD, Jujitsu or Kung Fu and I have the same mindset.

 

[newGuy12]

I'm not a teacher, so I can steal anything I wish these days, just not bring too much attention to it. I steal the American Kenpo self defense techniques. Awesome!

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have stolen so much from other arts I now practice CMA instead of TKD

Sorry couldn't resist, I'll go now...But I DID use to train TKD...honest I did.

 

[terryl965]

I have stolen so much from other arts I now practice CMA instead of TKD

Sorry couldn't resist, I'll go now...But I DID use to train TKD...honest I did.

Lovely Xue :asian:

 

[exile]

Well I am like my GM if it works and I use it, I call it TKD. One of the problems we have is it was all stolen or borrowed in the first place so why change a great way of building the Art of TKD, I have had ground fighting in my TKD for twenty years but yet it looks like Jujitsu and Judo so it was taken and put in. I believe if you find it useful and want to bring it inside the school your students does not care if it was Karate, TKD, Jujitsu or Kung Fu and I have the same mindset.

Great point, Terry. The old masters and the founders were pragmatists, every one of 'em. Doctrinal purity was something they couldn't afford, not if it meant giving up a powerful weapon and thereby ceding to the other guy a major advantage. Stylistic purity is a real luxury—if a good tech works, who in their right mind is going to reject it because it's not strictly according to code, so to speak? As you say, all of the MAs grew that way....

There's a saying I've heard in music: Good composers imitate, great composers steal. Don't see why it doesn't work for us as well, eh?

 

[Twin Fist]

I teach TKD kata and basics, but I start adding kenpo elements at gold belt, and by black belt my students will know a LOT of kenpo theory. While I have included all the TKD techniques required, i have ADDED lots of new elements, with the full approval of my Master.

Why?

TKD's weakness is hand techniques and lack of "flow"
Kenpo's weakness is kicking and power

My goal is to produce the most well rounded martial artists possible

 

[SageGhost83]

Stylistic purity is a real luxury—if a good tech works, who in their right mind is going to reject it because it's not strictly according to code, so to speak? As you say, all of the MAs grew that way....

Try telling the Bujinkan guys that :rofl:! Kidding aside, you are right and I agree 100% - every style has burrowed from another style at some point and incorporated techs from another system into it. That is the beautiful thing about martial arts - they are alive and they are growing. I believe that stylistic purity is more of a modern thing where most of the people train for ego purposes and such. I mean, not that it didn't matter back then, but I think we make it a bigger issue today than people did back then. It is best to add to your own personal repetoire and make your own arsenal that much better.

 

[newGuy12]

by black belt my students will know a LOT of kenpo theory.

Inside the punching range, or a little closer, the American Kenpo techniques can be blistering fast! Everyone should see these motions!

 

[ellies]

I could not agree with you more, I started learning and adding Kenpo to my TKD and the improvements are so awesome. As fore your answer....my exact thoughts.

Train hard love all!

I teach TKD kata and basics, but I start adding kenpo elements at gold belt, and by black belt my students will know a LOT of kenpo theory. While I have included all the TKD techniques required, i have ADDED lots of new elements, with the full approval of my Master.

Why?

TKD's weakness is hand techniques and lack of "flow"
Kenpo's weakness is kicking and power

My goal is to produce the most well rounded martial artists possible

 

[exile]

I teach TKD kata and basics, but I start adding kenpo elements at gold belt, and by black belt my students will know a LOT of kenpo theory. While I have included all the TKD techniques required, i have ADDED lots of new elements, with the full approval of my Master.

Why?

TKD's weakness is hand techniques and lack of "flow"
Kenpo's weakness is kicking and power

My goal is to produce the most well rounded martial artists possible

I've often thought that the kenpo 'flow' drills are an extremely valuable training tool, in that they keep you working a move or two ahead, which you really need to do in an actual fight. It's like in slalom ski racing: if your mind is no further ahead than the gate you're in, you're in big trouble and will either blow out of the course or have to slow down to fix your line to the point where you might as well not have bothered entering in the first place. The whole concept in karate of muchimi is the smooth flow of the same limb from being the attacking weapon to the controlling weapon that sets up the strike by the other limb, and so on and on. That concept is there all right, but it's not really trained in a lot of TKD schools, even where many of the very same techs are used. I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is one of the very worst effects of the Olympic-rules competition stress in TKD—the choppiness of the kind of training you do: throw a tech, evade the counter out of range, circle a bit, feint, come in for an opening, back out again... the worst possible way to approach the rhythm of real combat, where every strike had better set up the next one so that you get that final disabling strike in fast. The kenpo people seem to understand that point very well—though they also have tournaments, apparently... I guess it's not a huge component of the art the way it is in TKD and, increasingly, in karate.

Try telling the Bujinkan guys that :rofl:! Kidding aside, you are right and I agree 100% - every style has burrowed from another style at some point and incorporated techs from another system into it. That is the beautiful thing about martial arts - they are alive and they are growing. I believe that stylistic purity is more of a modern thing where most of the people train for ego purposes and such. I mean, not that it didn't matter back then, but I think we make it a bigger issue today than people did back then. It is best to add to your own personal repetoire and make your own arsenal that much better.

Absolutely. I just don't think the 'style police' were as nearly as big a part of the scene as they seem to be these days, in some quarters (e.g., I've had people tell me that if you use elbows, you're not doing TKD. So then, what are the elbow strikes there for in the Palgwes, for example? I can think of at least three where elbows are a major component, especially Palgwe Pal Jang, where there are exactly two kicks and elbow techs play a major role in the rest of the nearly thirty remaining moves. The answers I've gotten range from some muttered nonsense about 'that's old TKD, not the art as it really is is today' to the remarkable claim that the hyungs are just decorative nostalgia in TKD and are really technically unimportant). I know that even way back, Shuri and Naha in Okinawa had significant rivalries over their styles, but my guess is, æsthetics and stylistic correctness had a much lower priority then than they have now.

I have to say, that kind of thin-lipped purism strikes me as something that dilettantes love to indulge in, like the old 'red wine doesn't go with fish' nonsense spouted by people who've never had had a glass of nice Beaujolais with a healthy slab of barbecued Alaskan king salmon. Real wine pros know that most of those old rules are largely superstitions, and real MA pros, I'm equally sure, are happy to use whatever comes to hand, whatever the approved manuals tell them. But there's this mystification of style in the MAs that we've lumbered ourselves with, for some reason...

 

[YoungMan]

Other than some joint locks from aikido for self defense, I've never incorporated techniques from other styles in my training or taught them. Although, to be fair, the breakfalls are handy to know.
Nothing against Kempo or other styles, but never felt the need to incorporate them.

 

[Twin Fist]

Other than some joint locks from aikido for self defense, I've never incorporated techniques from other styles in my training or taught them. Although, to be fair, the breakfalls are handy to know.
Nothing against Kempo or other styles, but never felt the need to incorporate them.

good thing, if you added anything else to your system, your black belt tests would last a weekend instead of 8 hours......LOL

 

[Deaf Smith]

Half of what I do isn't TKD. ALL the kicks are TKD, but the hands I picked up from a wide range of arts. Yes Kenpo, boxing, Hwa rang do (my teacher is a black belt in that as well as a master at TKD and Hapkido), and Shotokan.

My feelings are like this. Master your base art. I really don't care what it is, but get to a higher rank of Dan and understand it. Then branch out and explore! There are lots and lots of ways to do things.

I once broke my right hand and found out I was a pitiful shot with my left (not to mention real hard to spar with a cast on it!) So I learned to shoot left handed well.

I've had one or the other leg dinged up from time to time and I found once one is dammaged you can't kick with it, nor stand on it to kick with the other!

So learn your hands and feet both well. Branch out and enjoy the arts. I promise, you won't ever learn everything there is to know!

Deaf

 

[Manny]

Well where I borrowed moves is in self defense, I borrowed some punches from boxing, sweeps, take downs from aikido/judo, and wrist and elbow control (locks) from ikido.

In one step sparring I use sweeps and take downs and amazed the kids in my class cause they were taught to just block (defense) and counter punch or counter kick.

Manny

 

[punisher73]

Hmmm, guess I have to disagree with this somewhat to a certain degree.

1) I see people stealing "intellectual" property from MA's and then saying it was in their art all along. Especially work on precontact psychology, etc. People like Bruce Siddle and Tony Blauer that spent ALOT of time and money to incorporate their ideas. Many of which are so well known today that people don't realize where they came from.

2) I don't see anything wrong with adding to your base art, BUT if you use a jab/cross you learned from boxing, then it's a jab/cross from boxing and should be told as such. If you see a technique you like and the concept and movements are VERY similiar to something you have then that is different. MOST striking styles have a front punch and a rear punch that are very similiar to the jab/cross so it's not too much a stretch. Or, if you look to see how other styles use a particular weapon. For example, exile used the example of "elbows" in TKD. You aren't brining in a new weapon, you are understanding more of it's use in your own arts context. If I add a jab/cross combo to aikido is it still aikido, or is it my own ryu-ha (version) of aikido and should be labeled as such?

Yes, old masters incorporated things from other styles into their own style, but guess what? They then called what they did something else because it WASN'T that style anymore. Acknowledge your core roots and base but be honest if you are incorporating other ideas into your curriculum.

Even if you take something and modify it for your use, for example, the kenpo techniques. Acknowledge that, and state that the idea was sparked from style X, but it has been adapted to fit within our methodology.

 

[jim777]

We use a lot of Hapkido, but we don't pretend it's anything other than Hapkido. The students are told before their tests, "Make sure your Hapkido is ready!". There is a section on the sheets we hand out describing what they need for their next test that clearly marks out the Hapkido in the same way as blocks, kicks, and strikes. For example. We feel it is important for their overall self defense, so it's included it in our curriculum.

 

[Kacey]

We also use a fair amount of Hapkido, and the students (mine, anyway) are aware that that's where it came from. It complements the TKD nicely.

 

[jim777]

It does Hapkido and TKD really are a great fit. I wonder if the board's karateka feel the same about arts like Shotokan or Kyokushin (or Seido) and Aikido....but I digress :lol:

 

[MeatWad2]

Here's a question...don't all arts have something in common with another? Wouldn't that mean that every GrandMaster of a style at some point, has stolen from someone else? I don't see it as that at all. I would prefer to see it as expanding the horizon of the arts. Take something like Kenpo for instance. It has elements of other styles, but yet, it's its own style. I wouldn't say anyone stole from another art to make it their own...I would just say they added to the arsenal.