TKD's "Foundation"

**Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs** · Posted On: 10/27/2009 5:07am

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

***DerAuslander*** · Posted On: 10/27/2009 8:40am

Originally Posted by Tangent

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?

Originally Posted by Tangent

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

**Tangent** · Posted On: 10/27/2009 10:14am

Originally Posted by DerAuslander108

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.

Originally Posted by DerAuslander108

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

Sigh...

Click here

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?

***DerAuslander*** · Posted On: 10/29/2009 9:35am

Originally Posted by Tangent

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?

Originally Posted by Tangent

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.

**lefi** · Posted On: 10/29/2009 10:45am

Originally Posted by DerAuslander108

Why?

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

***DerAuslander*** · Posted On: 10/29/2009 11:55am

Originally Posted by lefi

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

You were not asked.

**Suprore** · Posted On: 10/29/2009 12:00pm

Originally Posted by DerAuslander108

What is it that you want Taekwondo to be?

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

can i try? Or is this a one person thing?

**Tangent** · Posted On: 10/29/2009 3:00pm

Originally Posted by DerAuslander108

Why?

Errr... well... I think it's important for people to be able to defend themselves. If the art doesn't give them that ability, then it's a waste of their time. If it DOES give them that ability, but not as efficiently as another art, then training in it may not be a total waste of their time... but they could definitely be spending their time more efficiently by training in that other art. That's where my desire of a comparison to another art comes from.

As for the sport aspect, I think it's good for the art. Few would claim that pursuing the sport of boxing will leave you defenseless. Right now, the sport of Olympic TKD isn't designed in such a way as to promote the right fighting habits, so I also want the sport to change in such a way that does.

If what you're ultimately getting at is "why do I have desires concerning TKD at all", then I don't know. I don't really have any stake in TKD, I guess. I AM trying to ask what TKD's original foundation is, though, so my stake is at least as deep as that question.

I'm still intrigued, despite all the "whys", and still want to know what your opinion is on the original question. Or, what exactly the hell you're getting at. Either would suffice, I suppose.

Originally Posted by DerAuslander108

No.

Then I don't understand what you mean when you point out that what I said is similar to saying "Karate sucks".

**lefi** · Posted On: 11/02/2009 6:56am

Originally Posted by DerAuslander108

You were not asked.

oooh, can we pretend this is some kind of magical internet forum where multiple people can interact?

just to be clear, the answer to your question was obvious. you're just being obtuse.

**MaverickZ** · Posted On: 11/02/2009 1:48pm

Tae kwon do does not exist in the way you, Tangent, assume it does. It is not a thing you can mold and shape. It's not a thing you can talk to and not a thing you can make into something you want. There is only what you do. And what you call that is entirely arbitrary.