you must add grappling to your curriculum. 95 % of fights end on the ground. Therefore if you can't fight on the ground you can't fight. Every HKD class we have takedowns and subs mixed in with our sparring. The only way to spar realistically is to allow what would really happen in a fight. Maybe not allow huge slams but get your students comfortable enough if they get taken down they can pull guard and get themselves to a position where they can defend themselves.

I agree 100% on this. However, I dont have the grappling experience to just "add it" to the curiculum. I can teach some sweeps/takedowns, and some basic ground defense, but as far as full blown grappling goes...not hardly.

I am more focusing on the things that already exist in TKD, to increase it SD viability.

TKD has much of its roots in Shotokan from my understanding. Of course I havent finished reading the thread I mentioned in the 1st post either. Talk to kwoww over on that thread.

Some interesting reading from the Martial Arts History Project: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3897


Let me sum it up for those who don't like to read long threads:


"Although its roots can be somewhat traced back to ancient Korea, it is a historic fact that Taekwondo as an organized art is relatively modern. In fact, the only documented history begins in the mid 1900's."

Wrong sir, TKD can not be traced back to ancient Korea at all. TKD is, was and always will be an off shoot of Okinwin Karate. Now you can trace TKD to ancient Okinawin arts, but that is it. There were arts indengenious to Korea, but, again, they were lost in time to due to two main factors: 1) Korea adopted Confucianism as the countries religion. This brought about the big down fall of Korean martial arts. People who practiced any type of fighting art were thought of as low life gangsters. Even the folk of taekkyon (which so many TKD poeple swear is the grandfather of TKD) was pretty much stopped. 2) Japanese occupation squashed most if not all documentation of any other Korean fighting systems that were still being practiced. Any art that was allowed to be practiced was Japanese. This is not theory, this is fact. Check out Korean history books.


Edit: Sorry about the thread derail, but things like this have to be pointed out if this forum is going to thrive and not become a haven for BS.

I agree 100% on this. However, I dont have the grappling experience to just "add it" to the curiculum. I can teach some sweeps/takedowns, and some basic ground defense, but as far as full blown grappling goes...not hardly.

I am more focusing on the things that already exist in TKD, to increase it SD viability.

Well I tell my students that low kicks have a higher percentage of landing in a real fight. I emphasize knees and elbows. Honestly though I tell my students to really think before they act. If they pull a knife and all you risk is losing property then give it up. You getting stabbed isn't worth it over a couple of bucks.

I smell what you are stepping in Abe. However, it would be better discussed here..


http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=50936

you must add grappling to your curriculum.

No, you don't really have to. If your system is a striking system then you should focus on striking and not worry about crappling. For those who want to learn to fight on the ground the answer is... crosstrain don't crapple.



95 % of fights end on the ground.
Source? Or is this just like the lava and broken glass that makes bjj ineffective for teh str33t?


Therefore if you can't fight on the ground you can't fight.
Probably quite a few Muay Thai fighters, Boxers, and Kickboxers who would disagree with you.

Honestly before I worried about introducing takedowns to a TKD curriculum I would work on fighting in the clinch. A system does not have to be everything. Rather just focus on being good at what it does. In TKD's case this would be a striking system.

Honestly before I worried about introducing takedowns to a TKD curriculum I would work on fighting in the clinch. A system does not have to be everything. Rather just focus on being good at what it does. In TKD's case this would be a striking system.


Clinches lead to a takedown. So takedown defense needs to be taught.

Of course that is assuming that TKD is a viable striking art for SD. I dont feel that in its most popular incarnation it is.

No, you don't really have to. If your system is a striking system then you should focus on striking and not worry about crappling. For those who want to learn to fight on the ground the answer is... crosstrain don't crapple.



Source? Or is this just like the lava and broken glass that makes bjj ineffective for teh str33t?


Probably quite a few Muay Thai fighters, Boxers, and Kickboxers who would disagree with you.

Honestly before I worried about introducing takedowns to a TKD curriculum I would work on fighting in the clinch. A system does not have to be everything. Rather just focus on being good at what it does. In TKD's case this would be a striking system.

The 95% I heard from Don Wilson at a seminar a few years back. I currently study BJJ along with HKD. I incorporate BJJ into our program. I don't kids in my HKD class getting taken down and beaten up because I have seen it happen so many times. I wrestled from Junior high through college so I know it happens to people who only know a standup game. Look at the UFC as an example. Kongo a striker didn't have a ground game and he was dismantled because he could never figure to get back to his feet. A fighting system needs to be complete to be effective.


Not saying you need to be an expert but you certainly need basics in everything.

I have requested help with this discussion from a Pro fighter that also happens to know a thing or two hundred about TKD.

I have to go to beddie pie now, so I will catch up later.

I forgot that the OP was talking from an SD perspective so my apologies. However, I still think that we shouldn't try to make TKD into something that it isn't. I don't really see it as a striking system geared towards self defense much less the framework to base a complete system on even if it was.

Teaching BJJ or Judo as a supplement is great, but I don't think it should be called TKD.

I think the first step toward modifying TKD for self defense is to actually enforce existing rules in competition awarding points for body shots and penalzing turning the back or 'falling on purpose' after or during a technique.

Sigh, why do the stupid kids always come out on TKD threads?!?


TKD was always a sport martial art,

- Not true, TKD started as a method of teaching hand to hand to newly enlisted soldiers. The sport aspects came later.


and the SD application has always been secondary.

- See above.


After all, much of it is derived from Taekyon, which, like TKD, was, is, and always will be a sport.

- ****, TKD is derived from everything and anything. The guys who developed it had always said so. There was no mystery behind why it resembled so many other MAs, it was because it was intentional.


I learn Hapkido as well at my TKD school, though we don't do as much as you do, panthersix. We don't do takedowns with the kids at lower belts, but at BB level we do some highly effective self-defense techniques for if you're, say, being accosted at an ATM or entering your car (where any punk with a knife can just take your money/car and leave). In t3h str33t, TKD and Hapkido really aren't very useful, simply because of the style.

- I'd say the issue comes more with the inability of the person although the style itself contains inherent flaws due to the continual watering down that has happened over the last 15 years or so.

To answer oldman's question, I think the issues with TKD are primarily based in the focus of the 'sport'. Originally it was intended as a quick H2H crash course for soldiers and it was assumed that you would continue your training later. When you look at TKD's biggest application right now it is in movies. TKD is so easy to teach to people who with a reasonably small amount of athleticism can make it look easy.

I am waiting on a copy of Stuart's book so I'll refrain from commenting further on that till I've seen the book.

TKD

I forgot that the OP was talking from an SD perspective so my apologies. However, I still think that we shouldn't try to make TKD into something that it isn't. I don't really see it as a striking system geared towards self defense much less the framework to base a complete system on even if it was.

Teaching BJJ or Judo as a supplement is great, but I don't think it should be called TKD.

Im not talking about teaching Judo, or BJJ as a part of the curriculum. I clearly stated in the opening post that I am NOT qualified to do either. Besides, then it wouldnt be TKD would it?

If someone wants to be a GOOD grappler, then they should crosstrain, in Judo/BJJ/Wrestling. For those who dont have the time/inclination to crosstrain, then why not teach the things that are already there.

I am talking about more actively teaching the knees, elbows, grabs, and low kicks that are currently there. Any ground stuff, would simply be ( as I stated earlier) how to get them off of you. Takedowns already exist in TKD, but arent taught, or concentrated on due to TKD's popular sport aspect. TKD practitoners, at the very least should be taught how to prevent a takedown, or know what it is like to taken to the ground. This will prevent the inevitable "freak out" when it does (and it will) happen.

There are a myriad of different TKD styles, not just the Olympic style.

I think the first step toward modifying TKD for self defense is to actually enforce existing rules in competition awarding points for body shots and penalzing turning the back or 'falling on purpose' after or during a technique.

When you say "awarding points for body shots" what do you mean? I am not aware that body shots dont score. In some competitons, its 2 points for kicks, one point for punches.

Some have 2 points for kicks to the head, one point for body shots. I havent ever seen a tourney where body shots didnt count at all. I have been to/participated in/ won/judged at, quite a few.

As to the falling down. I think that if you dont land with some kind of balance/control then the point shouldnt count. This of course leaves things open to ALL types of arguments.

I assume you mean that if you start counting things like elbows and knees then people will begin to learn them. Yet, if they learn them for a point system of competition then they will become watered down too. While it is a step in the right direction, it is a SMALL step forward.

However, we arent talking about applying SD to tournaments. We are talking about better exploring and teaching the existing SD applications of TKD. The tourney changes are not as important.

Make the changes, then pressure test them. Throw out what doesnt work. If need be then a new TKD style can be formed, much like there are many different styles of Karate. It can be explained to would be practitioners as a less traditional/sport oriented style of TKD.

Some of this is discussed by Stuart Anslow in his book.

When you say "awarding points for body shots" what do you mean? I am not aware that body shots dont score. In some competitons, its 2 points for kicks, one point for punches.

A LOT of competitions either do not score punches to the body, or (like the one I competed in last year) only score reverse punches to the body (and sometimes then, ONLY if you kihap).

A LOT of competitions either do not score punches to the body, or (like the one I competed in last year) only score reverse punches to the body (and sometimes then, ONLY if you kihap).

I guess it alls comes down to style differences.

I agree. From what I've seen it's all WTF comps that don't score punches to the body. I don't know much at all about ITF comps.