TKD often boasts a military heritage, but it hasn't been taught to many (if any) infantry units outside Korea since the 50s and 60s. Not to boast, but when I joined the infantry at 18, I could kick better than most people. But then I got my head smashed in by another recruit (who was a very handy boxer) after I stole all his Mars bars. Our "hand to hand combat" training consisted of the bayonet assault course (which we did maybe twice at most), boxing after hours, and weekend pub fights. I once asked the toughest guy I know, an ex-Royal Marine who tried out for UKSF Selection* and who has done close protection for many years, what his preferred self-defence strategy is. His answer (more or less) was, "Shoot him. If my weapon is dry or jams, stab him. If neither of those work, find the biggest rock I can and break open his skull." *He never says if he passed or not. Which probably means he did.
You see that's what I'm getting at. If we accept that the syllabus is the core (a useful definition I think) then IMHO that core should be REALLY well formulated and designed to give a thorough grounding in all aspects of TKD. Nothing to master or expert level but equally nothing left out or at beginner level. One thing I've thought about for years is defining what a 1st dan black belt should be able to do and divide that up into progressive chunks that build on each other. That should be the core syllabus.
I remember reading Iain Abernethy saying that when he designed his syllabus, he started by deciding how he wanted his black belts to move, then worked from there. It would be interesting to see it. Most TKD is specifically designed to be very inclusive though, and nothing wrong with that, so in some ways I don't mind a very basic syllabus. It also let's people do their own thing to some extent, which suits me
I am a long time TKD practitioner who isn't really pleased with the direction TKD has taken over the past decade. That said, I think the bigger issue than 'improving Taekwondo' is in defining what it will be in the future. The perennial ITF vs WTF arguments have borne this out over the years with a perceived 'self defense vs sport' arguments. I think one key thing is that Korea (South mostly, but the North too) have adopted 'Taekwondo' as a cultural art, especially with the sandblasting of its background and so on. To that end, I think the trapping are still important: the 'v-neck' uniform is VERY distinctive and identifiable (and to be fair, the ITF white 'gi-like' dobok with half black trim is distinctive too). I think TKD should keep some sort of uniform like those... the new bright colored/nation specific ones blunt the Korean nationalism inherent in the art. Use of Korean terminology and dan ranking too are part of the cultural package and should be retained. In all honesty, I don't think non-Korean students really spend TOO much time learning a few terms and it does add to the cultural package. I'd keep all that stuff too. As far as content goes, I would argue that the patterns should stay... arguments aside about where they come from, I think all of the groups of patterns (ITF, WTF, ATA, etc) have evolved enough to be fairly distinct to the art. I would prefer perhaps fewer patterns in general and if I were 'King', I would rework them all to actually reflect the sparring techniques (+ rules) and footwork that is sued in sparring and/or self defense. I've always liked the sparring in 'old school' WTF, with the trembling shock and 'full contact' to a limited number of areas. I thought the confines of the rules helped build good fighters who could give and take hard shots with true fear of being knocked out all while keeping it relatively safe. Within a good school, there was no reason you couldn't broaden the rules to allow hands to the face, low kicks and so on once you built the core skills within the sparring rules. Later, you could even add throws, sweeps, and ground techniques after they learned control with the standup. I liked the more openness of the ITF sparring as far as targets but didn't like the lower level of contact. No reason that can't be built in. That said, I despise the route that the Olympic style sparring has gone... especially with the electronic scoring. I fear this is a bigger danger to the art than anything else. TKD has been known as a devastating striking art, but how it is performed in the Olympics (arguably the biggest exposure to non TKDists), it comes across as weak and ineffective. From the self defense side, this has always been an issue. The strict WTF schools generally just skipped it and ITF schools long ago built in some Hapkido and 50's era combatives to flesh it out. The first question is whether Taekwondo wants to be a 'self defense art' or a patterns/sport art. If the answer is the latter, then that's what I would focus on. For self defense, it needs to come to grips with the modern world and build in extensive training in awareness/avoidance, legal issues and levels of force, and then complement the striking style with some ground defense, ground survival, and ground grappling (at least at a basic level). Whether this is worth it or not really depends on what the school is selling and to whom. It's hard to keep a school afloat today and kids programs bring in a lot of money. There's no reason a patterns and sport sparring version of TKD shouldn't sell well to the masses AND keep some level of respectability to where students at a proficient level (say 1st dan) have a good standup striking style, footwork, stamina, and ability to give and take hard shots. I think TKD has done this but is getting away from it. If if drifts too far, it may lose what it has.
I suggested to go back to cross over gi type doboks but they could still have black trim for black belts to make them different to straight karate gis. Actually I've thought for a while now there should be a "cross-training" gi and/or dobok. Still styled like a karate gi or dobok with freedom of movement for striking but built strong enough to withstand some clinch work, grappling and clothing grab training (although not as robust or thick as a judo gi or BJJ kimono). For karate/TKD students that wish to retain the traditional "look" but versatile enough for the modern generation of students to train holistically without fear that their gi/dobok is gonna rip when someone tries a collar choke or lapel grab defence (for example).
I agree completely. The V-necks are very nice for sport sparring rules but terrible when grabbed and pulled. There's no reason a nice crossover dobok can't be used that is strong and still has enough distinctiveness to please the culturally sensitive.
Do you really need to change the system to make it "Better" or are you changing it to provide more of what you want? reasonable minds can differ as to what is better. How many hours in the day and how much energy cab you devote to a system? General Choi's system has lots of stuff. If all you want is self defense, don't waste time on a traditional MA System. If all you want to do is compete in a martial discipline, MMA or whichever sport you choose, don't waste time with the entire system. On the other hand if you feel you have a need for something your core system lacks than supplement your training. Royce Gracie and some others in his family did not change Gracie JJ when they needed to hone their striking skills or learn how to fight against people using certain skills they cross trained, they dd not change Gracie JJ.
I think this is very valid and well said. In my opinion, people nowadays are (or should be) much better informed as to what systems and schools offer and what's out there. People have more time and money to spend on luxuries such as choosing where to train and freedom to cross train. If TKD isn't offering them what they want, it isn't that hard to find what they want if they look.
that also semi highlights how military systems are not the best for civies and why a few of the ones that market to the military have civilian varients to make it mroe applicable. I belive i saw a quote which is basically "in a civilian style you dealw ith the knife of a attacker. Ina military style you deal with the attacker and knife" renforced by one in the fairbairns book (belive that one was also) which is basically "these moves are to either get you a weapon from the enemy or defend you until you can find one or get your weapon". Not that its bad because i really want to learn sword and knife fighting and the like. They also exclude fitness as well since the peopela r emeant to ebudnergoign solider training therefor get their fitness from that (taking into cosndieration pre entry things) and they also get the disipline from that. Just put it this way, i would TKD A LOT more if i got to learn how to use a staff or bayonet fighting etc. shame i cant do HEMA for the 18th-20th centuary though.
I submit that TKD is an empty hand system. If you learn to use weapons that is outside the TKD syllabus. Nothing wrong with that so long as you don't call it TKD.
↑ "Weapons would make it better, since its meant to be a "military" style. TKD often boasts a military heritage, " it is one thing to claim some military heritage and another to claim something is a "Military System" if the latter is intended to imply it is somethings troops learn for combat. TKDs development thru the 29th infantry division which developed and dispatched demo teams and instructors throughout the world is well documented. So the heritage is undeniable. Notwithstanding the anecdotal story of Nam Tae Hi battle on Yongmun Mountain Tae Hi Nam, I would hope that no one thinks for a moment that an empty hand system is realistic for military combat situations.
Yeah. There's a saying, in the USMC I think, which Not really a thing anyone can do if someone does exactly that and calls it TKD.
Right, you can call a tail a leg, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. But at the end of the day a dog still has only 4 legs.
Anyone stupid enough to genuinely think a dog's tail is a leg should not be teaching. It is up to the instructor to decide what material the student should learn; it is up to the student to decide if they want to continue learning that material. For example: if I decide to teach Filipino weaponry in my TKD class, and test them on it during gradings, then quite simply I can. TKD purists elsewhere have no say in the matter.
We are talking past each other, my point is not clear or we will agree to disagree. My posts were not about whether or not anyone can teach whatever they want. It also had nothing to do with being a purist or not. It only involves whether or not something is accurately labeled. Since you use the Filipino weapon analogy, what would you think of someone who was using Kali / Arnis / Escrima sticks, and calling what they were using TKD weapons?
Thank you. We can now agree to disagree on what bothers us. I feel instructors have an obligation to accurately pass along information. When students learn they have not received accurate information, it should only reflect badly on that particular instructor. Sadly it reflects badly on others as well.
