Is the issue with TKD, or the schools that claim to teach it.

Is the issue being that TKD is ineffective because it fails to teach fundamental sparring concepts, or is something else missing as well?


The answer to your question is "All of the above".

I read the above two posts (the second being a response to the first) in Beorn's thread about TKD not being Pokemon, and remembered a conversation I had with my brother-in-law about cars.

I'm not into cars, but he is. He was telling some story about a car or truck being heavily modified, so I asked him, "At what point is a car not the same car anymore due to modding?" He didn't quite know how to answer, so I asked more specific questions:

You get a car stock from the factory. Say, a Honda Civic. Then, you paint it. Same car?

Same car.

You change the rims and tires. Same car?

Same car.

You reupholster the interior. Same car?

Same car.

You replace the engine with the engine from a Viper. Same car?

Same car.

You replace the entire power train and exhaust system. Same car?

Same car.

So what would you have to change to make it a different car? What would you have to change such that you are no longer able to call it a Honda Civic?

His answer was the entire original frame.

So, if the "issue" with TKD is the art itself AND the schools that teach it, and it is "ineffective" because it fails to teach fundamental sparring concepts AND it is inherently missing something, then I wonder what TKD's "foundation" really is. If the fundamentals come from the foundation, and the foundation is supposedly "good", then how would you get back to that original frame and make TKD better (in general) without changing it so much that you could no longer call it "TKD"? How could you fix it without replacing it with Muay Thai (or whatever), as so many people have already suggested?

I guess my question is really four-fold:

1) What is the issue inherent in the art itself and what is the art's foundation?
2) What are the fundamental sparring concepts that should be taught (which build off of the foundation)?
3) What is missing?
4) After 1-3 are corrected, will TKD look like another style to the point where it will be difficult to differentiate them?

YES I know this is a rehash, but I've had questions specifically about the foundation of TKD floating around in my head for awhile, and haven't seen any threads about it.

I'm actually interested to see where this goes. Nice post Tangent! I feel that since TKD is originally from Karate that an effort should be made to return it to its original state especially when it comes to sparring. Something more akin with Kyokushin would be a step in the right direction.

1) What is the issue inherent in the art itself and what is the art's foundation?

What is it that you want Taekwondo to be?


2) What are the fundamental sparring concepts that should be taught (which build off of the foundation)?

They are already taught in good schools. Distancing, timing, evasive manuevering.


3) What is missing?

This can only be answered once you've answered #1.

I'm actually interested to see where this goes. Nice post Tangent! I feel that since TKD is originally from Karate that an effort should be made to return it to its original state especially when it comes to sparring. Something more akin with Kyokushin would be a step in the right direction.

Thanks, like I said, these questions have been floating around in my head for awhile now.


What is it that you want Taekwondo to be?

Hmm. I want TKD to be an effective, realistic, stand-up striking style and an art that produces people commonly capable of defending themselves against practitioners of other similarly effective styles. Also, an art that produces people that can not only compete against practitioners of other styles, but who can also be competitive in rulesets other than Olympic TKD. Though this may be an aside, I don't personally think that TKD is any of these things now.

I hope for a further response from you on this one.


They are already taught in good schools. Distancing, timing, evasive manuevering.

Ok, I get that. I may come back to this later depending on how this conversation goes.


This can only be answered once you've answered #1.

You have intrigued me enough such that, if this were a television show, I would tune in for the next episode.

...Hmm. I want TKD to be an effective, realistic, stand-up striking style and an art that produces people commonly capable of defending themselves against practitioners of other similarly effective styles. Also, an art that produces people that can not only compete against practitioners of other styles, but who can also be competitive in rulesets other than Olympic TKD. Though this may be an aside, I don't personally think that TKD is any of these things now...

The similarly effective styles would be the ones from the kickboxing family than (Muay Thai, Full-Contact, Sanda, Savate, Kickbox, Seidokaikan, Kyuk Too Ki).

Since Kyokushin is starting to look more and more like Muay Thai in a gi.
Taekwondo should start to look as Savate in a dobok.

And no this is not nutriding the Savate (I prefer a dobok above an unitard anyday).
I always liked (still do) Taekwondo, especially that the kicks generate their power from speed. And just that characteristic is also found in Savate.
So when the politics in the KMA-scene became too much, I started to look around for another art that had some familiar feel.

$0.02

I'm actually interested to see where this goes. Nice post Tangent! I feel that since TKD is originally from Karate that an effort should be made to return it to its original state especially when it comes to sparring. Something more akin with Kyokushin would be a step in the right direction.

I have thought that too, but my problem is that I also agree with der when he says what TKD is about;


Distancing, timing, evasive manuevering.

I would prefer that it look more like the full contact knockdown shotokan tourneys that get posted on here sometimes. Some variation of that, preferably continuous, I think would be awesome.

Since Kyokushin is starting to look more and more like Muay Thai in a gi.
Taekwondo should start to look as Savate in a dobok.

Man! It's REALLY FUNNY that you say that! Maybe a week ago, I had a conversation with a friend in which I stated that, in my opinion, Savate is like a combination of TKD and Muay Thai. Essentially kickboxing rules with more kicks and emphasis on evasiveness.

Interesting OP...I'm reminded of a thought problem I once heard.

Say you have a ship the S.S. Example. Over the years, every piece of wood is replaced, is it still the S.S. Example?

Now, say you have the S.S. Exemplar. Over the years, every piece of wood is replaced, but you take each old piece down the road and put them back together again until you have an entire new ship. Which one is the S.S. Exemplar?

You can do the same thing with cells and the human body.

To my mind, continuity is inherently important when looking at these types of things. The entity that we started with, until it is fundamentally altered is the entity that we continue to have.


Hmm. I want TKD to be an effective, realistic, stand-up striking style and an art that produces people commonly capable of defending themselves against practitioners of other similarly effective styles. Also, an art that produces people that can not only compete against practitioners of other styles, but who can also be competitive in rulesets other than Olympic TKD. Though this may be an aside, I don't personally think that TKD is any of these things now.

Given your criteria above, many arts can be TKD...MT fits all of the above criteria (for argument's sake). If you were to stipulate that it had to be all of the above AND competitive in the Olympic TKD rule set, then you've got a defining point, a unique element that is going to shape a fundamentally unique art...some aspects might stack up less favorable against other arts by some metrics, but at least it's its own thing.

Congratulations Tangent... you're the first person to notice that

Interesting OP...I'm reminded of a thought problem I once heard.

Say you have a ship the S.S. Example. Over the years, every piece of wood is replaced, is it still the S.S. Example?

Now, say you have the S.S. Exemplar. Over the years, every piece of wood is replaced, but you take each old piece down the road and put them back together again until you have an entire new ship. Which one is the S.S. Exemplar?

You can do the same thing with cells and the human body.

To my mind, continuity is inherently important when looking at these types of things. The entity that we started with, until it is fundamentally altered is the entity that we continue to have.

Given your criteria above, many arts can be TKD...MT fits all of the above criteria (for argument's sake). If you were to stipulate that it had to be all of the above AND competitive in the Olympic TKD rule set, then you've got a defining point, a unique element that is going to shape a fundamentally unique art...some aspects might stack up less favorable against other arts by some metrics, but at least it's its own thing.

So, if continuity is important here, then what was TKD's original foundation? Was it simply "karate with less punches and more kicks"? Was it, even more simply, distancing, timing, and evasive maneuvering?

You're definitely right that, given the criteria I mentioned, many arts can "fill that spot". And part of this is, I think, still being able to call it TKD when you change it (or revert it back to its foundation).

I guess it's worth mentioning that I'm not completely convinced that any art could be all of the above AND competitive in the Olympic TKD rule set. But before anyone says, "Oh yeah? YOU go spar an Olympic TKD gold medalist and see if you don't get smashed to ****," I know already, but that's not really the point.


Congratulations Tangent... you're the first person to notice that

I had never really thought about it, nor heard it before.

But hey, thanks a ton for your valuable contribution. I've got a challenge for you, one that I think will really push you to new heights: make your next post even BETTER than this one was! Can you do it?! Can you rise to the challenge?!

The problem is "evolution".

The foundation of Taekwondo is Shotokan, but not the Shotokan of today. It was the Shotokan of the 20's, 30's and 40's.

While there are schools still around that teaches/practise "traditional" Shotokan, the "traditional" stands more on the customs in the Dojo than the style itself. Even they couldn't stop "evolution".
What is good in a way, since martial arts/combat sports should be a "living" thing, that constant evolves to adapt itself to the present times.

Going back to the foundation isn't possible since the foundation doesn't exist anymore (you can't de-extincted an animal species by breeding one that has the same looks. extincted species=/=new bred species).

So evolution is the only natural way to go: keep the strong parts, adapt/replace the weakness.
But to do that you have to know for which type of "environment" the style needs to adapt.
In this case it would be the Olympic ruleset and to stand ground against SEA kickboxing styles.
This would mean:
- keep the kicks
- keep the distancing, timing, evasive manuevering
- add boxing techniques (adapted for kicking styles)
- add face punching
- add low-kicks, checks, etc...

- I don't think adding shins, knees or elbows would be a good idea. The purpose is to evolve Taekwondo without losing it's "soul", not making a Muay Thai clone.

agai my $0.02

Hmm. I want TKD to be an effective, realistic, stand-up striking style and an art that produces people commonly capable of defending themselves against practitioners of other similarly effective styles.

Why?


Also, an art that produces people that can not only compete against practitioners of other styles, but who can also be competitive in rulesets other than Olympic TKD. Though this may be an aside, I don't personally think that TKD is any of these things now.

You do realize that's like saying "Karate sucks".

Sigh...

Click here (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2237833&postcount=1)

Why?

Well, I want it to be a stand-up striking style because, as far as I know, that's what it was intended to be when it was created, and I like that.

I want it to be effective and realistic so that training in it will give "normal" people the largest chance within the framework of the individual techniques to defend themselves in real-life altercations.

I want it to produce people that are capable of defending themselves against other effective styles so that if one of these other practitioners tries to fight them, they will have at least an equal chance of surviving as their attacker.

Basically, within these desires, I want people to realistically learn how to defend themselves on their feet and still be able to walk away from a "real fight" NOT wishing they had been training boxing, or Muay Thai, etc.


You do realize that's like saying "Karate sucks".

Sigh...

Click here (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2237833&postcount=1)

No, I didn't realize. Did I just describe Karate or something?

I saw that video when you originally posted it (or at least when you posted it a long time ago). Honestly, I like it, but it looks a lot like Kyokushin. Is this ultimately what you're getting at? That TKD's foundation is just karate, so that's what it should look like?

Ah, I'm starting to see what you're saying, I think. TKD is just karate, so to say that it isn't effective against other styles is like saying "karate sucks," which clearly isn't the case with an art like Kyokushin. Olympic TKD stuff aside, is this what you mean?

Well, I want it to be a stand-up striking style because, as far as I know, that's what it was intended to be when it was created, and I like that.

I want it to be effective and realistic so that training in it will give "normal" people the largest chance within the framework of the individual techniques to defend themselves in real-life altercations.

I want it to produce people that are capable of defending themselves against other effective styles so that if one of these other practitioners tries to fight them, they will have at least an equal chance of surviving as their attacker.

Why?


Ah, I'm starting to see what you're saying, I think. TKD is just karate, so to say that it isn't effective against other styles is like saying "karate sucks," which clearly isn't the case with an art like Kyokushin. Olympic TKD stuff aside, is this what you mean?

No.

Why?

because he wants it to be a self defense / martial art instead of a sport?

because he wants it to be a self defense / martial art instead of a sport?

You were not asked.