Your idea of "real" Taekwondo / Tae Kwon Do / Taekwon-do

People have posted something similar in threads all over this forum so I thought I'd create a central place to ponder this idea...

What is your idea of genuine TKD? Not which association you're affiliated to, who you train with or who your master is - but what you think a martial artist should be practising (mental and/or physical) in order to be a TKD-er.

Here's my idea of a genuine TKD curriculum:

- Conditioning (lots of it)
- Flexibility training
- Pad and bag work
- Sparring (one-, two-, three-, semi-free and free)
- Breaking
- Patterns
- Pattern applications ("bunkai", if you will)
- Self-defence
- Weapons (traditional and non-traditional)
- Sports psychology
- Dietary information

I would say removing any of these points would stop the art being TKD. But I think adding stuff that is useful would be beneficial. If you were to add anything to this list, what would it be? How would you expand upon / change the items I've included in the list?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Peace :hat:

 

Since TKD does focus a great deal on kicking, I would think that practitioners should train for situations in which their kicks are caught or they are taken down, so a little bit of grappling and ground work is something I would like to see.

While I love the high kicks, I would also like to see some low (below the belt) kick application--such is good for the street and still keeps the kicking spirit of TKD.

Superfoot, wouldn't you also like to see a little bit of dancing?

 

"Street" :woo:

 

Dark Belt,

Har bloody har

 

Superfoot, you would seriously not call a class taekwondo unless it taught dietary advice and weapons?

 

I think the discipline & mental strength through the DO should play a key part in helping to develop a more holistic life. I also feel TKD is a weaponless art of SD.

 

Moosey,

That's right

 

Is that based on any historical evidence that taekwondo would originally have included dietary training and weapons training under General Choi?

I'm not having a go at you, I'm just suprised that you would say these are *fundemental* to TKD rather than welcome extras.

 

I might be making this up here, but I'm sure I remember there being weapons defence in Gen. Choi's encyclopaedia... but I guess if not, they are additions I believe would make TKD more "realistic" at least.

I know some TKDers on here include groundfighting and pressure points in their teachings, which I would accept, but I think some would also disagree.

 

Which weapons Superfoot?

 

there are, but not in that sense. they are their from an attackers POV to display 'anti-weapons' techniques.

Stuart

Ch'ang Hon TKD has ground defense but they are very limited (kick off the floor type of thing) and its far removed from the BJJ/Judo rolling approach.. which is better - so i would call that addition. PP's could come under the vital points category, but they are not as indepth as say what Matt, Paulol or Rick Clark do.

But thats Ch'ang Hon TKD.. other systems may have included various things.

Stuart

 

Yes weapons DEFENSE, but not the use of weapons, especially for offense. He was dead set against that. He would say that if you got a stick, he would get a knife & then you would get a bat or metal pipe, so he would get a gun, then you would get a shot gun, he would get a machine gun & cannon, tank etc etc. He advocated turning your body into a weapon by forging & conditioning, which he was obbessed with himself. Your body you always had with you. Weapons you may not have access to. I also heard some say that he saw the destruction, death 7 mayhem caused by weapons, so he offered TKD for peace.

The groundfighting & pressure points are all there. I think many leave it out as it is simple & they don't fight free sparring, but rather they spar using sports contest rules, which limit way to much to be as effective for SD. He demanded that students work under realisitc conditions, unfortunately few followed that direction. Free sparring is when oponents are free to use all available means under realistic conditions (with obvious & necessary restirctions.) Tournament sparring is much different.

 

Thank you for clearing up those points for me guys

Vimtoforblood,

I guess what I meant by weapons was defence against stick, knife and gun attacks. Though I'd be seriously tempted to throw in offensive tactics (at least with the stick and knife) into the mix.

 

I would like to see some emphasis on weapons. At my school, there is some light work done in Nunchakus and the Bo. This usually comes at the upper levels.

Of course, in typical self-defense work, I would think knives, etc. would be introduced.

The dietary stuff also seems very fitting to me, too.

 

I would go at this from a completely different direction and start to look at what TKD offers (or wants to offer) that other arts don't.
Then try and come up with some sort of mission statement that defines TKD in very basic terms. Try and condense TKD into what sort of "flavour" it is.

When I think of that the first thing I come up with is kicking.
TKD is known for it's dynamic kicking (whether you agree with that or not is another debate I feel).

So the mission statement might be...

"TKD is an art that tries to offer powerful and decisive striking techniques as the primary attacking option with the emphasis on kicks in that mix."

I then apply that mission statement to fighting as a whole as see what is needed to make that tactical structure "work".

As inspiration a fighter like Cro-cop is clearly useful. He fights with kicking as his primary "tactic" (as part of a striking orientated approach) and then bolsters that with support skills that are geared towards steering the fight back into his field of expertise.

So he has very good evasive footwork (both in and out and laterally).
He almost never "trades" but picks his shots and moves in and out.
He has an excellent sprawl and is good at breaking from a clinch which makes him hard to take down.
When he does land a telling shot he is very sharp in following it up.
He has good spacial and ring awareness and that makes him hard to corner (combined with his footwork of course)
When he is taken down his ground game is geared towards minimising offense while trying to regain his feet.
His ground game is also good enough that he can throw strikes with commitment and venom knowing that he won't be sunk if it fails and he ends up on the deck.

That to me starts to build up a wider suit of support skills that TKD as a style needs to embrace in order to remain effective when applied against a wider fighting community.
Kicking is fine...but can't stand in isolation from the skills that make it viable when the biased rules of TKD comps are taken away.

Obviously that would also be backed up by telling you what to eat for tea.

 

I think when applied in reality ''Real'' TKD should be kept basic and very agressive.

The difference of opinion seems to come in about how to train to be like this.

I personaly take Muay Thai as a model and train my TKD striking in a similar way even if I take something out of a pattern.I dont find the all TKD ways of training that I have come across satisfying enough for reality but I do enjoy going and training.Some trainings good,some is just dated In my opinion.

I also train in a place that uses MMA as way of training so get grappling and clinching from their and use that to interpret things out of patterns. And its not sports specific MMA.
I think personaly TKD should just add grappling and clinching as a seperate thing ,if its going to ,as other styles have tried and tested and developed ways to train.
Most of the originals has Judo or Yudo black belts as far as I know so it fits into the original idea of TKD taking the best of its time and incorporating it in.Now we should take the best of our time.

 

In terms of self-defense we've had people use TKD. But it has never been anything very complicated. More like they hit the person a couple of times and it is over.

As much as I enjoy grappling I don't think it is necessary for self-defense. I just don't see things getting so complicated with an attacker that I think to myself, "I'm going to go for the triangle. If he postures up I'll switch to armbar. I'll also look for the oomplata if buries his arm..." Just like I don't see myself trying a jump spinning hook kick in a self defense situation. But still it is fun to do while sparing.

Don't get me wrong, but I think grappling definitely would help in a SD situation. But I think the grappling I'd use would be something fast and simple.

Still I think sport style grappling is extremely fun and great exercise (similar to sport style TKD sparring).

 

As much as I enjoy grappling I don't think it is necessary for self-defense.

As you know...grappling isn't defined by technique.
Grappling is merely physically controlling a person (or attempting to stop being physically controlled by that person).
Therefore it is VERY applicable to SD.

 

I think I understand what he means by grappling. He's talking 'grappling' as in the Dictionary sense, as opposed to 'Grappling' which tends to be the way that BJJ people etc write it.

I teach 'grappling' as in the dictionary, but it's not Grappling like what they do. It's hard to explain myself, but when I speak to Grapplers they seem to mix up Spider Guards and fancy moves with 'getting the gosh darn off the ground as quickly as possible, whilst hopefully inflicting damage'.

So yes, add grappling, but stay away from the Ground-orienated type of Grappling.