*Lights Blue touch paper* Right guys, I realised I hadn't started a thread in a long time, so thought I would get to work on one . When I first started TKD I was always told about the continual development of the art of TKD to improve it. Now since I've been around for a while now, I have seen the some techniques changed, some improved and different methodoligies of teaching and training slowly fiilter through - (especially thanks to my exposure to the higher levels of competition). There now comes a point where 90% of the most influential developers of TKD are either dead or no longer actively developing the art. However, some groups are pushing new techniques and training diffferent styles and techniques while still calling themselves TKD'ists. Most notably the Polish ITF are including more and more grappling techniques to the syllabus and training them for use in a MMA sporting environment - yet still calling thmeselves practioners of TKD. In my perfect world 20 years down the line TKD will still have the techniques that inherently make it TKD (high kicks, spins etc) but will also include things it has hasn't really touched on -groundwork, clinchwork etc. My question is this, if this were to be the case everywhere would you still consider yourself as doing TKD as a TMA? What about 1000 years from now, (if it is still around )? Is it possible to include 'missing' elements from the syllabus and rebrand TKD as 'New and Improved' and still include what essentially makes it TKD? As always, keep the heid and post your answers on the postcards below. Your friendly neighbourhood Topic Mod, Tosh
Yep, I'm hardcore TKD but I think that it has gone too far along the sport lines with some ridiculous, unlinked self-defence techniques being put in because don't understand the point of patterns. Ditto, we're getting both JuJitsu, BJJ and Submission instructors up to show us how to grapple in the near future (and will continue to do so). I feel that this is especially important since attending a grappling seminar with a JKD instructor (sorry, I've completely forgotten his name) who actually had someone in a classic walking stance, with chambered fist, whilst holding them down in a grappling situation. I still kick myself for not taking a photo! Why 20 years? Why not just a couple? Or are you talking about TKD AS A WHOLE rather than some TKD clubs? All the more so. going on an historical basis, everything that we're 'putting back in' was there. It's just that it was taken out over the years both deliberately and through ignorance along with the public perception of TKD as a sport. Now that grappling, pressure points (had to say it! ), low-line kicks, etc are being put in I would say that it's getting more traditional than ever. Practical TKD, taking TKD back to its roots (TM). Of course, it's going to take a long time as we have to learn the skills that have been lost. I believe that this 'can do' attitude will start to win back some of the respect that TKD has most certainly lost. Of course, there will always be those who want to go along the sport lines and that's fine, the good thing is that people will be able to make the choice as to whether to go along the sport or the traditional lines and still be able to train in TKD. Damn, see above But it's not 'New and Improved', it's back to the roots.
Note the words 'perfect world', so I include the perception of TKD from within the MA community too 'New and Improved'? , that's just my good TKD marketing skills coming to the fore to attact new members. .
I think that with people such as us wanting to see 'New and Improved' TKD, with associations such as PMA (sorry to had to mention it! ) encouraging such people to get together and network and with the proliferation of the internet that, over the years, the general perception of TKD will improve. Or course, there will always be the hardcore TKD people who view this sort of thing as heretical and would like nothing better than to burn us at the stake, but ho hum that's martial arts
If its new then nothing like it has come before. If its improved the something has, but wasn't up to standard. Which is it? I think TKD should retain the traditional values that make it TKD, spins, high kicks etc. But there should be some other aspects that come in to improve and evolve. Was it not Gen Choi Hong Hi who said words to the effect of "Here I leave Taekwon-Do as an image of man in the 20th Century". {I'm off to find the corrct quote} To me this kind of statment means that as man evolves, so should TKD, in order to give a reflection of man.
It's the old Vanilla/ Cherry Coke problem isn't it! Not exactly Coke - but Vanilla blows and cherry rocks! (well IMO anyway ) One is new & improved the other is new but rank! This is what I mean, shouldn't we be evolving then? Or as Matt suggests re-discovering our roots more actively?
Simply put, that IS the syllabus for Taekwon-Do. There was grapling, throws, locks etc in the original syllabus, but no1 teaches it.
I train under PUMA and we have started to do some ground fighting and they are trying to come up with a syllabus for ground fighting. We have also started a syllabus for weapons, all based on ITF TKD patterns. Try chon-ji using nunchucks or bo!
Our tkd system has boxing style punches added to it and some jj in it. We have the option to do full out bjj though which I am doing. At black belt we have the option to do full contact with low kicks. I plan on teaching the tkd I am taught with bjj added to it. I guess I am going to call it freestyle tkd.
I really wish you PUMA guys would open a club here in Wales. I watched you PUMA guys at last years SENI, was really kool but breaking was like a 1mm board, was rather sad I thought.
This is a great idea, I'm going to start exploring this a little bit more and try to incorporate this into our Kali training
Jidokwan has always incorporated grappling and ground fighting into its teaching syllabus. The founder of Jidokwan spent time studying Judo and added what he learned in Judo to his method of TKD. The school of Han Moo Kwan of TKD can also be seen many times to add grappling aspects to it.
I'm oof to a weapons session later tonight. I'll be having a look at Chon-Ji using nunchuck. The Bo is interesting, as is the bokken. The twin knives/short swordsis impressive. The thing is that most empty handed techniques are weapons techniques - just without a weapon
My question is this, if this were to be the case everywhere would you still consider yourself as doing TKD as a TMA? I've never really understood the distinction between TMA and MMA (beyond the rather trivial "forms are bad" debate) , so I'd have to answer yes to this one. What about 1000 years from now, (if it is still around )? 20 years or 1000 years, what's the difference? Is it possible to include 'missing' elements from the syllabus and rebrand TKD as 'New and Improved' and still include what essentially makes it TKD? Suppose you start with Judo and then add kicks and strikes. Does it stop being Judo? Some people would say yes, because "Judo is about grappling only". So if you define an art by what it doesn't have, then including "missing elements" makes it a different art. But it's clear that even in this less-than-ideal world, lots of people (including me) don't agree that "TKD is about striking only". So what exactly makes TKD essentially TKD? High or spinning kicks? If a karateka starts doing high kicks does that make him a TKDist? Or perhaps it's the tiny stylistic differences that some people like to claim are definitive (karate roundhouse is like this, TKD roundhouse is like that)? A paraplegic might not be able to do any of the kicking techniques--but if he goes to a TKD dojang why would you not call what he does TKD? Frankly I think what makes something TKD is the act of identifying it as that. There's the tradition thing--anything that accepts that it has developed out of what was TKD is still TKD. And there's the mental thing--we think we do TKD, even if someone watching from outside might have a different opinion. In the ideal world where every martial art has evolved/rediscovered its roots/is "complete" (hem, hem) the real differences between them will not be found in the techniques themselves, but in what the practitioners choose to identify themselves as.
I agree with this and want to teach bjj and tkd combined in the future and adding some more techniques from other arts. The hard part for me is the name. I want to call it tkd and improve tkd honestly. Change sparring rules (my school allows punches to the face and thighs at higher lvls not many tkd schools do that) I am still unsure if what I will be teaching should be called tkd. What does identify an art really? I think it may be some of it's trademark kicks such as a jump spinning sidekick or heel kick. I will be keeping those in for fun. I have a ton of fun doing them and I'm good at them.
