TKD Changes

[terryl965]

What has been some of the most practical changes in TKD over the last twenty five year in your opinion and why have those changes been good or bad for TKD?

[WMKS Shogun]

Well, obviously, Tae Kwon Do got more practical once I started training in it! HAHAHAHAHA! Just kidding. Maybe one day in the future someone will list me as a significant factor in the current state of Tae Kwon Do (hopefully for the better). In all seriousness, TKD getting into the Olympics has been 'practical' for the spreading of the art, though not necessarily good or bad in my opinion. Other changes.....of late in many dojangs there has been a rededication to bringing back the traditional side and self defense techniques as opposed to only the sportive aspects.

[tellner]

What do you mean by "the traditional side"? Do you mean doing the Korean equivalent of kata, forms of etiquette or something else entirely?

[IcemanSK]

My experience in 25 years has seen a lot of changes. When I started, headgear was not widely used. I recall it starting about 1986. In the dojang where I started, v-neck doboks were optional.There was a period there guys at tournaments would wear their cups on the outside of their pants.

On the none fashion/protection front: Where the kihaps are in the Tae Geuk poomsae have changed several times. That's what I can up with off the top of my head.

[Kwan Jang]

Well, I've seen the pendulum swing in a direction that I didn't approve of. The change from Olympic TKD fro more of a power-based "knock out as the goal, but I can win on points" type of combative sport to a game of who can slap the hogu with a round or cut kick the quickest. Also, how many schools have lost the combative roots of TKD or teach it as an effective self defense system or martial art.

Luckily, it finally appears that at least in a decent percentage of schools, that pendulum is starting to swing back i a more positive direction. Even the WTF is making at least some reforms, so there is hope.

[exile]

Well, I've seen the pendulum swing in a direction that I didn't approve of. The change from Olympic TKD fro more of a power-based "knock out as the goal, but I can win on points" type of combative sport to a game of who can slap the hogu with a round or cut kick the quickest. Also, how many schools have lost the combative roots of TKD or teach it as an effective self defense system or martial art.

Luckily, it finally appears that at least in a decent percentage of schools, that pendulum is starting to swing back i a more positive direction. Even the WTF is making at least some reforms, so there is hope.

I hope you're right, KJ. It's an uphill battle though, because so many of the the people who start TKD probably do so in part on the basis of the images of the art that have been presented along the lines of Olympic foot-fencing. It'll take a generation or two, I suspect, for different images of TKD to get established...

[Jai]

I have seen massive amounts of changes in TKD, some good, some bad. I see TKD on the down swing currently with the fly by night schools, I am pleased to see alot of these schools do not last long. Alot of schools that do manage to stay around reform to a point, so there is hope for them. I hope things pick up in general and TKD turns around. One can hope!

[DArnold]

What has been some of the most practical changes in TKD over the last twenty five year in your opinion and why have those changes been good or bad for TKD?

The fall of the USTF and then the fall of the ITF.

[terryl965]

The fall of the USTF and then the fall of the ITF.


Sir why do you feel this way?

[Laurentkd]

[quote=IcemanSK;873967]There was a period there guys at tournaments would wear their cups on the outside of their pants.
quote]

This is one change that I think has been a GREAT one!!! There is nothing less appealing than watching a guy walk around with a cup and jock on the outside of his pants! I am so glad that you don't see that like you used to! :)

[Laurentkd]

Luckily, it finally appears that at least in a decent percentage of schools, that pendulum is starting to swing back i a more positive direction. Even the WTF is making at least some reforms, so there is hope.

This site has done a lot to help me realize there are others out there also trying to swing back! I hope that in the next few years we see even more of this, especially in our TKD media as a world-wide movement of sorts.

[foot2face]

What has been some of the most practical changes in TKD over the last twenty five year in your opinion and why have those changes been good or bad for TKD?

I would have to say that the inclusion of sparing gear has been one of the most practical changes for TKD. I believe TKD more than other traditionally inspired MAs has embraced the use of protective equipment while sparring. At my school we geared up from head to toe and often joked how we resembled astronauts with head gear, some face-cages, mouthpieces, chest protectors, forearm pads, gloves, cups, shin pad and foot gear. When ever I described how we geared up at my school to some one from a different style or even "old school" TKDers they would typically mock me for being soft and then tell me how they sparred with no gear, that just sounded crazy to me. My master was a believer in the philosophy that if you want to be good at fighting then you have to fight. At my school we sparred every class, hard, with little restrictions and not much holding back. The only exception was the week before a promotion in order to avoid the possibility of injury that was still present even with all the protective gear. The protective equipment allowed us to spar with an intensity approaching a real fight, without it I believe we would have had to hold back too much, pulling all of our strikes or restricting them to very specific locations for safety (developing habits which I believe are counter to real SD) if not, we would run a much higher risk of seriously hurting a training partner or accumulating injury that would later hinder out ability to train and fight.

[jim777]

The fall of the USTF and then the fall of the ITF.

Are you saying these were practical, or good, or bad, or just making note?

[DArnold]

Sir why do you feel this way?

I think it is good as the amount of corruption was staggering.
From the ashes shal arise a phoenix.
Sometimes things have to fall apart to get better and these had gone about as far as they could go in their present state.

[DArnold]

I would have to say that the inclusion of sparing gear has been one of the most practical changes for TKD. I believe TKD more than other traditionally inspired MAs has embraced the use of protective equipment while sparring. At my school we geared up from head to toe and often joked how we resembled astronauts with head gear, some face-cages, mouthpieces, chest protectors, forearm pads, gloves, cups, shin pad and foot gear. When ever I described how we geared up at my school to some one from a different style or even "old school" TKDers they would typically mock me for being soft and then tell me how they sparred with no gear, that just sounded crazy to me. My master was a believer in the philosophy that if you want to be good at fighting then you have to fight. At my school we sparred every class, hard, with little restrictions and not much holding back. The only exception was the week before a promotion in order to avoid the possibility of injury that was still present even with all the protective gear. The protective equipment allowed us to spar with an intensity approaching a real fight, without it I believe we would have had to hold back too much, pulling all of our strikes or restricting them to very specific locations for safety (developing habits which I believe are counter to real SD) if not, we would run a much higher risk of seriously hurting a training partner or accumulating injury that would later hinder out ability to train and fight.

My master was a believer in the philosophy that if you want to be good at fighting then you have to fight.

Did this mean that to be good at fighting you needed pads?

Many would disagree with you as most that fight with pads have no concept of focus. Once you get good, the pads are insignificant as I could hurt you with or without them. They usually give students a false sense of security and have nothing to do with fighting. You may consider blocking as a higher premium!

[foot2face]

My master was a believer in the philosophy that if you want to be good at fighting then you have to fight.

Did this mean that to be good at fighting you needed pads?

Many would disagree with you as most that fight with pads have no concept of focus. Once you get good, the pads are insignificant as I could hurt you with or without them. They usually give students a false sense of security and have nothing to do with fighting. You may consider blocking as a higher premium!

Do you need pads to be good at fighting? Absolutely not, but you need to fight! The issue is not one of focus but one of intensity. Fights are violent, chaotic and take place at a much quicker pace then many can handle. One needs to become accustomed to this level of intensity if they are going to rely on their skills to protect them. As I mentioned before, at my school we sparred hard. We weren't trying to collect points or work on our footwork and distancing, our goal was to learn how to quickly overwhelm and dominate our adversary with a barrage of fast and powerful strikes as well as defend against someone who is bombarding us with aggression. When training like this the protective equipment is not insignificant, it saved many of us from serious injury. Did people get hurt, yes, but the difference was often between a bad bruise or a break, an injury were one can continue to train within a week or an injury requiring several weeks of recovery before one can continue training. Another thing to consider is that it's not the well focused blow that one needs to worry about while sparring but the awkward shot that doesn't quite hit the mark. One of the few targets we weren't allowed to hit was the throat, but accidents still happen. Someone would aim for the chin but mid punch their opponent would move and get it on the throat. Now I don't know about you but if I were to accidentally get hit in the throat I'd much rather it be with a soft, cushy glove then with bare knuckles, especially if those knuckles were conditioned to punch through a big stack of boards.

When my master was young, MA training was rigorous and the sparring was very intense. The possibility of seriously harming a fellow student or getting seriously hurt was a consequence of training that only the dedicated few were willing to accept, but as TKD grew in popularity this aspect of training was frowned upon. Many considered it to be uncivilized. I believe that the introduction of protective equipment has allowed current TKD practitioners to reintroduce a vital aspect of training that was once abandoned.

[Kacey]

I have to say I disagree. I've seen many fights of the type you describe both with and without pads - and the opponents who fought without pads had better focus, higher intensity, and more power than those who have only ever fought with pads. Just because you're wearing pads doesn't mean that you have to beat the crap out of your opponent to be intense, to show focus, or to demonstrate power; instead, it means that you have to be able to place your technique exactly where you want it, without considering potential damage to the target, because you know, through intensive practice, that you can hit any point you want, without relying on 1/2" of foam rubber to protect your partner against your mistakes.

Here's something to demonstrate what I mean, an exercise my instructor repeats on a regular basis. Face a partner, and, full speed and full power, punch at your partner's belt knot, 10 times. Touch every time. Then, still full speed and full power, punch at your partner's solar plexus, 10 times. Touch every time. Then, still full speed and full power, punch at your partner's nose, 10 times. Touch every time. This is focus. If you can do this exercise on a stationary target, change to a moving target. Expect to get hit a few times - after all, it's a martial arts class, and you're fighting - you're going to get hit, right?

Now, if you think the above exercise can't be done, then you're right - for yourself, anyway, because as long as you tell yourself it can't be done, your belief in that will prevent you from doing it. I didn't think it could be done until I saw it demonstrated, and now my students do the same exercise - and not just with punches, but with other hand strikes and kicks. They can spar both with and without pads, and the level of intensity doesn't change; in fact, they're more likely to be careless when wearing pads than not, because of the false sense of security that pads provide.

I believe that the introduction of protective equipment has allowed current TKD practitioners to reintroduce a vital aspect of training that was once abandoned.

And yet... they are a primary reason why so many MAists in other styles look down on TKD as watered down, and over-emphasizing the sporting aspect over the defensive aspect. And if you think people can't get hurt when you're wearing pads - think again... Pads aren't for students - they're for insurance companies.

[foot2face]

And yet... they are a primary reason why so many MAists in other styles look down on TKD as watered down, and over-emphasizing the sporting aspect over the defensive aspect.

Who cares what MAists in other styles think, they don't define TKD for me. MA practitioners have always made up reasons to denigrate different styles and methods. If you listened to all the detractors no one would practice any style because they're all useless.




Here's something to demonstrate what I mean, an exercise my instructor repeats on a regular basis. Face a partner, and, full speed and full power, punch at your partner's belt knot, 10 times. Touch every time. Then, still full speed and full power, punch at your partner's solar plexus, 10 times. Touch every time. Then, still full speed and full power, punch at your partner's nose, 10 times. Touch every time. This is focus. If you can do this exercise on a stationary target, change to a moving target. Expect to get hit a few times - after all, it's a martial arts class, and you're fighting - you're going to get hit, right?


I have seen this before but it was a simple demonstration of control not a training exercise. You mention full speed and full power but not full contact. Why would you spend your time practicing punching at your adversary and not through them. This sounds like exactly the type of exercise I mentioned in my earlier post, one that develops bad hobbits that are counter to SD, such as instinctively punching just short of your target.

Please understand I do not wish to insult you, I'm sure you and your instructor are quite capable of defending yourselves. All I am trying to say is that I'm positive that the manner in which we sparred at my school contributed significantly to my ability to defend myself and I don't believe we could have sparred as we did (without a much higher rate of serious injury) if not for the protective gear.

[newGuy12]

I will chime in. I prefer to spar without the pads. That is how I was taught, and we learned to focus because of that. The skill of a student can improve to the point where they can discern EXACTLY how much penetration they give to the target!

Now, that said, it is also okay to occasionally don the pads and to use them to get used to the "tournament ways". But, day to day, no. No pads are needed. Control is needed.

I will say that some students would use the shin pads, the cotton ones that would also cover the top of the foot. I have used those, because the bones in the foot get bruised! But, they are not needed, in my estimation.

Now, some new students today may wish for the pads, but, after they get used to the sparring, and become accustomed to the contact (they become desensitized, they are no longer scared of it!), then, its okay, they will realize they are not necesary.

[tellner]

Who cares what MAists in other styles think, they don't define TKD for me. MA practitioners have always made up reasons to denigrate different styles and methods. If you listened to all the detractors no one would practice any style because they're all useless.

Sometimes the criticisms are worth investigating. People said "Thai boxing has lousy handwork" thirty or forty years ago. They were right. Muay Thai incorporated better punching and became much better than it had been.

[Laurentkd]

Here's something to demonstrate what I mean, an exercise my instructor repeats on a regular basis. Face a partner, and, full speed and full power, punch at your partner's belt knot, 10 times. Touch every time. Then, still full speed and full power, punch at your partner's solar plexus, 10 times. Touch every time. Then, still full speed and full power, punch at your partner's nose, 10 times. Touch every time. This is focus. If you can do this exercise on a stationary target, change to a moving target. Expect to get hit a few times - after all, it's a martial arts class, and you're fighting - you're going to get hit, right?


Great discussion thus far! Just to add more fuel to the fire.... do your students do this from day one? Surely some sort of training is nessecary before a student is able to punch at full speed full power to a partners's nose and touch it every single time without breaking it. What type of training is done to make a student able to do this? Maybe that is where training with pads should come in. For those first few times when mistakes surely happen, until a student becomes fairly accurate. Then, shed the pads and do the same drill with a student who now knows the basices of how it should be done. Thoughts?

[Omar B]

Well, I've seen the pendulum swing in a direction that I didn't approve of. The change from Olympic TKD fro more of a power-based "knock out as the goal, but I can win on points" type of combative sport to a game of who can slap the hogu with a round or cut kick the quickest. Also, how many schools have lost the combative roots of TKD or teach it as an effective self defense system or martial art.

Luckily, it finally appears that at least in a decent percentage of schools, that pendulum is starting to swing back i a more positive direction. Even the WTF is making at least some reforms, so there is hope.

Yeah, I see what you mean man. I've been looking around for a new dojang and all I see are people sparring nott for acuraccy and hitting their mark but for putting their foot up there the quickest. Kicks with no power, just speed yet they couldnt hurt a fly with it. I have yet to fins myself a school that focuses on the martial art and on fighting more.

[Kacey]

I have seen this before but it was a simple demonstration of control not a training exercise. You mention full speed and full power but not full contact. Why would you spend your time practicing punching at your adversary and not through them. This sounds like exactly the type of exercise I mentioned in my earlier post, one that develops bad hobbits that are counter to SD, such as instinctively punching just short of your target.

Please understand I do not wish to insult you, I'm sure you and your instructor are quite capable of defending yourselves. All I am trying to say is that I'm positive that the manner in which we sparred at my school contributed significantly to my ability to defend myself and I don't believe we could have sparred as we did (without a much higher rate of serious injury) if not for the protective gear.

I can stop an inch away; I can stop on the target; I can stop an inch in; I can stop farther than an inch in. I choose - because I have developed my focus with my tools - not with my tools covered with 1/2-1" of foam. If you can do it with pads - but not without - then what's the point? You teach yourself, and your students, to focus with the pads included, so what happens when you take the pads off? Can you adjust your focus? If you can - great for you! But if you can't... you're doing yourself a disservice.


I will chime in. I prefer to spar without the pads. That is how I was taught, and we learned to focus because of that. The skill of a student can improve to the point where they can discern EXACTLY how much penetration they give to the target!

Now, that said, it is also okay to occasionally don the pads and to use them to get used to the "tournament ways". But, day to day, no. No pads are needed. Control is needed.

I will say that some students would use the shin pads, the cotton ones that would also cover the top of the foot. I have used those, because the bones in the foot get bruised! But, they are not needed, in my estimation.

Now, some new students today may wish for the pads, but, after they get used to the sparring, and become accustomed to the contact (they become desensitized, they are no longer scared of it!), then, its okay, they will realize they are not necesary.

This is what I was getting at, yes!


Great discussion thus far! Just to add more fuel to the fire.... do your students do this from day one? Surely some sort of training is nessecary before a student is able to punch at full speed full power to a partners's nose and touch it every single time without breaking it. What type of training is done to make a student able to do this? Maybe that is where training with pads should come in. For those first few times when mistakes surely happen, until a student becomes fairly accurate. Then, shed the pads and do the same drill with a student who now knows the basices of how it should be done. Thoughts?

My students start about a foot away, as white belts, so they can get used to aiming at a live target. The required distance gets smaller and smaller as they get higher in rank; by red belt they should be touching the target.

[DArnold]

Great discussion thus far! Just to add more fuel to the fire.... do your students do this from day one? Surely some sort of training is nessecary before a student is able to punch at full speed full power to a partners's nose and touch it every single time without breaking it. What type of training is done to make a student able to do this? Maybe that is where training with pads should come in. For those first few times when mistakes surely happen, until a student becomes fairly accurate. Then, shed the pads and do the same drill with a student who now knows the basices of how it should be done. Thoughts?

This is the phylosophy of Musashi.
The only thing there is is the cut.

I fight everyone (white belt through senior) as if they were a danger to me.
Every technique I throw is to take someone out (full speed, full power).
When you practice this way the only thing you need to change is the focus pt.
You never control a technique with speed (unless you want to learn how to throw slow techniques).

Only where you put the focus pt.
Most of the time with pads on people flail and think the pads will protect them.
Frankley if you practice any different with pads on than without, I feel you are wasteing your time.

Now where problems with instruction comes in is that this (practicing without pads) must be stress tested in order for it not to be a waste of time also!

[Laurentkd]

My students start about a foot away, as white belts, so they can get used to aiming at a live target. The required distance gets smaller and smaller as they get higher in rank; by red belt they should be touching the target.


Ah-ha! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Laurentkd]

What do you think about using pads for kids versus adults? Our kids always wear pads no matter what for safety. For adults, if we are training for a tournament we wear them and spar using tournament rules, if we aren't then we don't. There are some adults who will still put on some shin guards, and most will still wear a mouthpiece (accidents do happen and my folks spent good money to give me these straight pearly whites!). So basically it is up to the adult to decided to take the risk or not (I believe there is risk to any martial art training). But I think we should keep kids as safe as possible when making contact with each other (or coming close to making contact).

Kacey, do you train kids the same way you have talked about here?

[Kacey]

Kacey, do you train kids the same way you have talked about here?
I train all my students the same way. I will say, however, that the YMCA where I teach limits the class to 10 and older. For younger students, it often takes longer to get to the "touch" level - but they still get there.

[foot2face]

I can stop an inch away; I can stop on the target; I can stop an inch in; I can stop farther than an inch in. I choose - because I have developed my focus with my tools - not with my tools covered with 1/2-1" of foam. If you can do it with pads - but not without - then what's the point? You teach yourself, and your students, to focus with the pads included, so what happens when you take the pads off? Can you adjust your focus? If you can - great for you! But if you can't... you're doing yourself a disservice.


I think we are butting heads needlessly. I never intended to criticize your training methods just share my own. So please allow me to clarify my position. At my school we operated under the belief that when attacked and confronted with the violent chaos of a fight, thought goes out the window and a person relies on instinct. In a situation like this you do what you train. When sparring we attempted to simulate the pressure of an attack and come as near as possible to a real fight. Our goal was simple, hit your opponent as fast, as hard and as many time as you can without getting hit. While sparring like this, protective equipment is a huge assets. A good pair of boxing gloves and a mouthpiece turn what would have been a broken nose and a few loose teeth into a small trickle of blood. A good chest protector turns what could have been a broken rib into a bruise. Many students, myself included, suffered injuries that would have been far more severe if not for our protective equipment. I am aware that sparring gear is some what controversial, with some considering the use of protective equipment a sporting gimmick not necessary in a TMA, but there are school who use them in a far more practical fashion and find them to be an invaluable training aid.

[Kacey]

I think we are butting heads needlessly. I never intended to criticize your training methods just share my own. So please allow me to clarify my position. At my school we operated under the belief that when attacked and confronted with the violent chaos of a fight, thought goes out the window and a person relies on instinct. In a situation like this you do what you train. When sparring we attempted to simulate the pressure of an attack and come as near as possible to a real fight. Our goal was simple, hit your opponent as fast, as hard and as many time as you can without getting hit. While sparring like this, protective equipment is a huge assets. A good pair of boxing gloves and a mouthpiece turn what would have been a broken nose and a few loose teeth into a small trickle of blood. A good chest protector turns what could have been a broken rib into a bruise. Many students, myself included, suffered injuries that would have been far more severe if not for our protective equipment. I am aware that sparring gear is some what controversial, with some considering the use of protective equipment a sporting gimmick not necessary in a TMA, but there are school who use them in a far more practical fashion and find them to be an invaluable training aid.

I don't think I'm quite making myself clear. What do you do when you don't want to do as much damage as possible? I choose the amount of damage I want to inflict, because there are times when full-out hit them as hard as possible is not the appropriate choice - for example, I've been in a few situations at parties when someone who was drunk enough to be stupid would start "trying" things, to see what I'd do, but I can choose to pull the technique, still full speed, still full power, still capable of causing damage should I choose to do so, by changing my focus point. I don't aim for people when I spar - I aim for a series of moving points, which just happen to be attached to a person. Any person off the street can hit hard - and that seems to be what you're focusing on, and it's not what I focus on. I can hit plenty hard, and when it's been appropriate, I've done so - but I can also pull my technique when someone startles me into a reaction and not hurt someone I don't want to injure.

If you're training for nothing but all-out, do the most damage every time you throw a technique, and your goal is to avoid hurting your opponent solely because he's wearing pads - then enjoy! My goal is different than yours - to be able to startle, scare, wound, maim or kill as I choose, and thus my training methods are different as well.

[exile]

I think we are butting heads needlessly. I never intended to criticize your training methods just share my own. So please allow me to clarify my position. At my school we operated under the belief that when attacked and confronted with the violent chaos of a fight, thought goes out the window and a person relies on instinct. In a situation like this you do what you train. When sparring we attempted to simulate the pressure of an attack and come as near as possible to a real fight. Our goal was simple, hit your opponent as fast, as hard and as many time as you can without getting hit. While sparring like this, protective equipment is a huge assets. A good pair of boxing gloves and a mouthpiece turn what would have been a broken nose and a few loose teeth into a small trickle of blood. A good chest protector turns what could have been a broken rib into a bruise. Many students, myself included, suffered injuries that would have been far more severe if not for our protective equipment. I am aware that sparring gear is some what controversial, with some considering the use of protective equipment a sporting gimmick not necessary in a TMA, but there are school who use them in a far more practical fashion and find them to be an invaluable training aid.

f2f, it sounds to me as though you're talking about the full-scale, no-limit violence training that people like Iain Abernethy, Geoff Thompson and the British Combat Association guys , and Peyton Quinn's scenario training all use. Here you are training effective kata bunkai (or, the way some of the UK TKD people do it, hyung boon hae) to do maximum damage; the model isn't contest sparring but a sudden street attack where there's a premium on taking your attacker out asap, if need by by massive, traumatic tissue damage (full power hammer fists to the temple, full power knifehand strikes to the throat, breaking-force palm-heel strikes to the assailant's collar bone). Your objective is survival at all costs, which may involve extreme levels of damage to your attacker. And to acquire that ability, you need to train the total responses you expect to apply in that situation... which you obviously can't do unless 'uke' is padded enough that you will not kill him or her with the strikes that you're training.

Am I correct in interpreting the passage I've bolded in your above quote as a reference to something along those lines?

[foot2face]

I don't think I'm quite making myself clear. What do you do when you don't want to do as much damage as possible? I choose the amount of damage I want to inflict, because there are times when full-out hit them as hard as possible is not the appropriate choice - for example, I've been in a few situations at parties when someone who was drunk enough to be stupid would start "trying" things, to see what I'd do, but I can choose to pull the technique, still full speed, still full power, still capable of causing damage should I choose to do so, by changing my focus point. I don't aim for people when I spar - I aim for a series of moving points, which just happen to be attached to a person. Any person off the street can hit hard - and that seems to be what you're focusing on, and it's not what I focus on. I can hit plenty hard, and when it's been appropriate, I've done so - but I can also pull my technique when someone startles me into a reaction and not hurt someone I don't want to injure.

If you're training for nothing but all-out, do the most damage every time you throw a technique, and your goal is to avoid hurting your opponent solely because he's wearing pads - then enjoy! My goal is different than yours - to be able to startle, scare, wound, maim or kill as I choose, and thus my training methods are different as well.

If I did not want to do as much damage as possible than I would not use TKD. I was taught that TKD was an all or nothing fighting system. Holding back is the surest way to failure. We viewed the use of TKD like the use of a weapon. When you life is on the line and you shoulder you rifle you don't shoot to startle, scare, wound or maim. It's deadly force or don't press that trigger. When you have to use your TKD you don't hold anything back you either explode on your adversary with violence or you don't, no middle ground. My master know this approach wasn't appropriate for every situation so he supplemented our training with a little Hapkido and Judo, giving us a less violent option for defending ourselves.

[foot2face]

f2f, it sounds to me as though you're talking about the full-scale, no-limit violence training that people like Iain Abernethy, Geoff Thompson and the British Combat Association guys , and Peyton Quinn's scenario training all use. Here you are training effective kata bunkai (or, the way some of the UK TKD people do it, hyung boon hae) to do maximum damage; the model isn't contest sparring but a sudden street attack where there's a premium on taking your attacker out asap, if need by by massive, traumatic tissue damage (full power hammer fists to the temple, full power knifehand strikes to the throat, breaking-force palm-heel strikes to the assailant's collar bone). Your objective is survival at all costs, which may involve extreme levels of damage to your attacker. And to acquire that ability, you need to train the total responses you expect to apply in that situation... which you obviously can't do unless 'uke' is padded enough that you will not kill him or her with the strikes that you're training.

Am I correct in interpreting the passage I've bolded in your above quote as a reference to something along those lines?

I'm sorry, I can't speak much on the men above. I never heard of them before coming to this board. I was just describing the way we sparred at my school and as far as I can tell that's the way my master has always done it since he came from Korea. Their does seem to be some similarities. This was not how we trained boon hae though. I wrote in other threads how we divided H2H combat into two categories 1) SD/anti-smothering/anti-grappling and 2) "fighting". The applications of our poomse were used to counter techniques that would stifle our ability to "fight" and were trained a little differently. The sparring I spoke of was used to hone our "fighting" skill. A round would typically last for ten seconds then we would switch partners. It was spontaneous with no set movements. Our goal was to agress on our adversary with extreme violence, taking as little damage as possible, in order to effect a fast knockout.

[DArnold]

If I did not want to do as much damage as possible than I would not use TKD. I was taught that TKD was an all or nothing fighting system. Holding back is the surest way to failure. We viewed the use of TKD like the use of a weapon. When you life is on the line and you shoulder you rifle you don't shoot to startle, scare, wound or maim. It's deadly force or don't press that trigger. When you have to use your TKD you don't hold anything back you either explode on your adversary with violence or you don't, no middle ground. My master know this approach wasn't appropriate for every situation so he supplemented our training with a little Hapkido and Judo, giving us a less violent option for defending ourselves.

I would think a less violent option would be to learn how to control your technique, thus making it a versital weapon.

This is the only thing that differentiates anyone with training from anyone else on the street.

If you don't have control with a pistol do you go out and buy a rifle?
And if you don't have control with a rifle do you go buy a cannon?

[foot2face]

I would think a less violent option would be to learn how to control your technique, thus making it a versital weapon.
In a dojang, while preforming a demo or when sparring with a low belt it's called control but in a fight it's called holding back. No master I've ever met recommended holding back while in a real fight.


This is the only thing that differentiates anyone with training from anyone else on the street.
I disagree. The only thing that differentiates anyone with training from anyone else on the street is skill. The skill to quickly and efficiently neutralize your adversary, something my training methods allowed me to do.


If you don't have control with a pistol do you go out and buy a rifle? And if you don't have control with a rifle do you go buy a cannon?
I'm pretty sure I can't buy a cannon in my state, but if I could I would. As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as overkill, especially if it's my life that's on the line.

It is clear that we have a difference of opinion when it comes to training methods and fighting philosophy. I hope that these differences will lead to a friendly but vigorous discussion. I'm looking forward to having a hardy debate.

Thanks - Foot2Face

[Cirdan]

In a dojang, while preforming a demo or when sparring with a low belt it's called control but in a fight it's called holding back.

No. This is what is called skill.

If you can control your own movements then you can take on your opponent using skill. If you can`t, your only option is force.

[DArnold]

No. This is what is called skill.
If you can control your own movements then you can take on your opponent using skill. If you can`t, your only option is force.

His assumption is that every situation is the same and in every situation you need to kill your oponent.

However, not so in real life!

As the saying goes you don't swat a fly with a cannon.

Skill is only viable when used with your brain.

As my instructor taught me...

EVEN A BAD KICK OR PUNCH CAN HURT YOU
So assuming that skill is the end-all-be-all is a fatel mistake.

[DArnold]

In a dojang, while preforming a demo or when sparring with a low belt it's called control but in a fight it's called holding back. No master I've ever met recommended holding back while in a real fight.


I disagree. The only thing that differentiates anyone with training from anyone else on the street is skill. The skill to quickly and efficiently neutralize your adversary, something my training methods allowed me to do.


I'm pretty sure I can't buy a cannon in my state, but if I could I would. As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as overkill, especially if it's my life that's on the line.

It is clear that we have a difference of opinion when it comes to training methods and fighting philosophy. I hope that these differences will lead to a friendly but vigorous discussion. I'm looking forward to having a hardy debate.

Thanks - Foot2Face

So you can think of no instance, as you say, "in a real fight" where you wouldn't want to kill your opponent?

[FearlessFreep]

Only having skimmed a few later messages here...

Could you be meaning a difference between "holding back" and "holding back"?

There is "holding back" in terms of how much power you put into a technique, which I think is a mistake in a 'real life' situation

And there is "holding back" in terms of what techniques you use an dhow you apply them, which is pretty much legally required.

Sidekick a guy to the gut, go full force, no holding back. But you may not want to spin hook the guy to the jaw unless the danger of the situation really warrants it, or snap that wrist once you have them controlled with the wrist lock or....

[foot2face]

So you can think of no instance, as you say, "in a real fight" where you wouldn't want to kill your opponent?
Who's talking about killing? I never advocated they killing of one's opponent. All I'm saying is that when I'm in a fight I want to hit my adversary as hard as possible. I don't understand why a practitioner of a hard-style striking system relating their preference to...strike hard, is so controversial. Some people train in order to control the amount of force they deliver to their target others train to maximize it. I'm the latter, that's all.


His assumption is that every situation is the same and in every situation you need to kill your oponent.

However, not so in real life!


It's not that I think every situation is the same, and I certainly don't assume you always need kill your opponent. It's just that I take my TKD skills very seriously and have a high standard as to when to apply them. If the standard is met then the situation is serious, calling for a stern response. Here's something I wrote in another thread entitled Where's your line? Perhaps it will help you understand where I'm coming from.


While in class my master would give us short lectures about philosophy, personal conduct and such. One of the things he told us was that before you use your TKD ask yourself two questions:

1) Is what your fighting for worth killing for? Any physical altercation, no matter how seemingly benign, can escalate to a point of extreme violence where you will have to take a life! You must also take into account the unintended consequences of your actions. You may kick someone in the leg, intending only to sweep them to the ground but they may fall bad breaking their neck or cracking their scull on the pavement. Now you've just killed a person.

2) Is what your fighting for worth dying for? Basically the flip side of what was mentioned above.

If you answer no to either, walk away, you'll live a longer and happier life. If you answer yes to both, you can fight hard with a clean conscious and show no mercy.

If you are, however, jumped or mugged or just randomly attacked, your attacker has answered yes to both for you. In which case you immediately kick them into the ground and sort things out when you are done!

[Kacey]

Who's talking about killing? I never advocated they killing of one's opponent. All I'm saying is that when I'm in a fight I want to hit my adversary as hard as possible. I don't understand why a practitioner of a hard-style striking system relating their preference to...strike hard, is so controversial. Some people train in order to control the amount of force they deliver to their target others train to maximize it. I'm the latter, that's all.

Define "fight". There are lots of situations I can imagine in which I would need to defend myself without wanting to "hit my adversary as hard as possible", as you put it. If someone grabs me, I want to make them let go, as quickly as possible - but that doesn't necessarily mean hitting as hard as I can - it depends on the situation. From a legal standpoint, I want to do the least I possibly can to get out of the situation; doing more than that could lead to me being prosecuted - the law mandates a reasonable response - and hitting someone as hard as possible is not always a reasonable response. For example, I've been "attacked" by drunken men in bars - I don't want to hit them as hard as possible; it makes them puke :)


It's not that I think every situation is the same, and I certainly don't assume you always need kill your opponent. It's just that I take my TKD skills very seriously and have a high standard as to when to apply them. If the standard is met then the situation is serious, calling for a stern response. Here's something I wrote in another thread entitled Where's your line? Perhaps it will help you understand where I'm coming from.

I don't disagree with the above - but this part of your rationale was not stated previously, and is very relevant to the discussion. I take my TKD skills very seriously too - but I train to respond appropriately, which means I can deliver different levels of response. If you understand that different scenarios require different responses, then we are agreeing using different terminology; if you think you can only use TKD for a serious situation, then you are missing a wide range of possible response scenarios in which your TKD could be used just as well - but with less force in some situations than others.

[newGuy12]

I always think of it in this way: There is a way to "model" kicks in the mind (now, this may just be in MY mind, but it does occur to me):

To kick a target is to give energy to it, to do WORK (in the physics sense) on the target. I can kick to either:

1) BREAK the target (deform it, smash it)

or

2) MOVE it (endow it with some translational energy, some change in position).

Now, say there is some scenario such as this: Some nice person is standing talking to me. Bear with me, this could take many different forms, but I give only specific ideas... We are, in, say, a warehouse, and the person does not notice a mass that is starting to fall down. I have no time to explain to the person. I wish to simply move them out of the way from the falling box/crate/whatever.

Okay, then, I can kick this nice person. But, I can minimize the HARM (deformation/injury) to them. I can kick them near the CENTER OF MASS in such a way as to MOVE them to a different place. Instead of rupturing some internal structure or breaking some rib, say, I need to make the person ACCELERATE across the floor.

With this TKD this can be accomplished! You can kick the opponent into another opponent, or into traffic, say, or down a flight of stairs/out the window/into the swimming pool (it does not matter).

OR, likewise, you can kick the nice person OUT OF THE WAY of harm (again, this is just an example!).

You do not always wish to kick to give some SHOCK, break something.

This type of difference in "energy" (for lack of better words). I believe that it comes from practice with INTIMATE CONTACT with targets. One develops a certain "feeling" for the kicking motions/energy transmission.

Now, it *MAY* be that I am nothing but a foolish middle aged man having some delusional ideas, but I swear to you, that is one way that these kicks are modeled in my mind.





Regards,

Robert

[foot2face]

Define "fight". There are lots of situations I can imagine in which I would need to defend myself without wanting to "hit my adversary as hard as possible", as you put it. If someone grabs me, I want to make them let go, as quickly as possible - but that doesn't necessarily mean hitting as hard as I can - it depends on the situation.
If the situation didn’t call for me to hit my adversary as hard a possible then I wouldn’t hit them at all, period. Why risk escalating the situation by striking? If you don’t perceive a serious threat wouldn’t it be preferable not to introduce a higher level of violence, especially if it can be avoided? In a situation like this I would rely on a technique or tactic other than striking.

From a legal standpoint, I want to do the least I possibly can to get out of the situation; doing more than that could lead to me being prosecuted - the law mandates a reasonable response - and hitting someone as hard as possible is not always a reasonable response.
A light punch or a hard kick are both considered assault. Striking someone is a violent act weather it’s hard or not. As I mention before, I have a high standard as to when I would resort to violence, part of that is due to the legal consequences. However, if that standard is met and I feel my safety or the safety of someone around me is in serious jeopardy then I will act, legal consequences be dammed. Many of the black belts at my school were LEOs. Every one of them had a story of a fellow officer who was killed or seriously injured in the line of duty because he
under reacted when face with a dangerous situation. Those who were fortunate enough to survive told them they acted as they did because they feared the legal ramifications of a more forceful response. These black belts taught me to refrain from the use of violence as best I can, but if the situation should arise where the use of violence is necessary then use it completely, don’t hold back. With regards to TKD this meant don’t hit anyone unless they absolutely needed hitting and if they needed hitting, hit them hard and don’t stop until their unconscious. They told me “it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.”

I don't disagree with the above - but this part of your rationale was not stated previously, and is very relevant to the discussion.
Forgive me, I didn’t think it was relevant. Remember, I entered this conversation by simply advocating the use of protective equipment while sparring. I did not foresee it evolving into the discussion it has become.

I take my TKD skills very seriously too - but I train to respond appropriately, which means I can deliver different levels of response. If you understand that different scenarios require different responses, then we are agreeing using different terminology; if you think you can only use TKD for a serious situation, then you are missing a wide range of possible response scenarios in which your TKD could be used just as well - but with less force in some situations than others.
I find this approach a little troubling. I just don’t feel comfortable with hitting someone unless they really needed to be hit, even if I reduced the force of my blow or selected a less vulnerable target. Striking is too unpredictable, you never know how someone will react to being hit. I wouldn’t want to invite all the unintended consequences that accompany striking someone if it wasn‘t absolutely necessary. For example, there is a thread in another forum about a young girl who killed a boy with a little punch to the chest. It was a simple school yard fight. Can you imagine the horror of killing someone like this, especially if there was no real threat of serious harm, you were just trying to dissuade them from taking a course of unappreciated action. I’ve also witnessed occasions where someone tried to get the point across, “don’t mess with me,” by landing a blow, not an overly aggressive shot but forceful enough to send the message. Half the time this worked, with the person who got hit deciding they didn’t want any and walking away. The other half of the time they snapped, and violently attack the person who hit them. In one instance, pulling a knife and attempting to gut the other man. This situation could have been avoided if the original striker would have refrained from hitting or, if they felt striking was the only option, by going all they way and knocking their adversary out before they have the opportunity to seriously harm them. It’s taking the middle ground that led to trouble. The way I see it, you’re either in a dangerous situation where you need to hit, so hit hard, or the situation isn’t really dangerous, so don’t make it dangerous by hitting.
I hope I have explained my position a little better. I’m looking forward to your response.

All the best - F2F

[Kacey]

Here's the part I'm not sure I made clear: my TKD skills include a good chunk of Hapkido, as well - and there are time when releases, pressure points, controls, and throws are more applicable to a situation than hand and foot strikes, and many of those techniques are lower on the intensity scale than hand and foot strikes.

In addition - to return to the original question of protective gear - I can punch and kick at someone with sufficient focus to stop at the tip of the other person's nose... and there have been occasions when that has provided enough of a demonstration to prevent the need to go further; having someone suddenly throw a full speed, full power punch at your face and stop on the tip of your nose is an attention-getter. I attained that level of focus by training without protective gear - now, certainly, there are times when I do use protective gear, for various reasons (tournament rules, insurance regulations, juniors who have not yet attained a sufficient level of control, etc.) - but I also do a fair amount of without pads; after all, how often are you attacked while wearing your sparring gear?

Also, if you've only been hit by someone wearing pads, then no matter how hard you've been hit, you don't know what it's like to be hit barehanded - I've experienced both, and I have to say that, no matter how hard someone hits you wearing pads, being hit barehanded is worse. The pads, by their very nature, spread the power to a larger surface, thereby reducing the intensity of the strike somewhat. And if you've never hit someone barehanded (or barefooted - although the foot pads we use don't cover the sole of the foot, so for some kicks it doesn't matter) then you are less likely to understand how to use the correct surface of your fist - specifically, the first two knuckles, closest to the back of the hand - to inflict the maximum damage, because it's much harder to use a tool that small while wearing hand pads; even if you do it correctly, it's hard to tell, either as striker or receiver.

[Hollywood1340]

Pads or no pads, in the end if your not trained to take ANY kind of shot, the first one will be the worst. At least hit each other every now and then. :)

[foot2face]

Here's the part I'm not sure I made clear: my TKD skills include a good chunk of Hapkido, as well - and there are time when releases, pressure points, controls, and throws are more applicable to a situation than hand and foot strikes, and many of those techniques are lower on the intensity scale than hand and foot strikes.
You didn’t make this clear at all. You consistently referred to your ability to “control” the amount of force you deliver with a blow so that you can use your striking across a variety of situations, appropriately. A practice I consider to be impractical and somewhat dangerous.


In addition - to return to the original question of protective gear - I can punch and kick at someone with sufficient focus to stop at the tip of the other person's nose... and there have been occasions when that has provided enough of a demonstration to prevent the need to go further; having someone suddenly throw a full speed, full power punch at your face and stop on the tip of your nose is an attention-getter.
I’ve always thought that displays like this are rather silly. It’s one thing to exude confidence, letting them know you not an easy target, but to go into a demo of your MA skills in order to intimidated a would be attacker. It’s just not my way. It also doesn’t seem that safe or smart to me. I liken it to trying to intimidate someone by flashing you holstered piece when their’s is already drawn. Why give them the heads up?


I attained that level of focus by training without protective gear - now, certainly, there are times when I do use protective gear, for various reasons (tournament rules, insurance regulations, juniors who have not yet attained a sufficient level of control, etc.) - but I also do a fair amount of without pads;…
I attained focus by training with protective gear. The type of focus that allows me to remain calm and in control when faced with violent aggression, someone really trying to hit me, hard. There was no sporting aspect to the training in my school. When we donned our protective gear it was to reduced the likelihood of injury when hit, which it did.


…after all, how often are you attacked while wearing your sparring gear?
Shows what you know. I sport a full suit of armor 24/7. Besides, how often are you attacked while barefoot wearing a dobak?


Also, if you've only been hit by someone wearing pads, then no matter how hard you've been hit, you don't know what it's like to be hit barehanded - I've experienced both, and I have to say that, no matter how hard someone hits you wearing pads, being hit barehanded is worse. The pads, by their very nature, spread the power to a larger surface, thereby reducing the intensity of the strike somewhat. And if you've never hit someone barehanded (or barefooted - although the foot pads we use don't cover the sole of the foot, so for some kicks it doesn't matter) then you are less likely to understand how to use the correct surface of your fist - specifically, the first two knuckles, closest to the back of the hand - to inflict the maximum damage, because it's much harder to use a tool that small while wearing hand pads; even if you do it correctly, it's hard to tell, either as striker or receiver.
It’s not as if I had no contact training without pads. At my school we did weapon conditioning, were we would hit various target barefooted and bare fisted. We also practiced body conditioning, where one would pose in various stances, front stance, horse back stance, fighting stance and so on, while another BB would hit you. There was a high level of control that allowed for safety. The person getting hit stood very still, they knew when, where and with what they were getting hit. While sparring, part of our goal was to simulate the random chaos of being violently attacked. Under these conditions extra precautions have to be taken, i.e. protective equipment.

I hope you haven’t taken any of my comments as being mean spirited. If you could see my face it would have a friendly smile not a mocking sneer. :)

Be well- F2F

[Kacey]

Obviously, what you're doing works for you - but I know too many people who can do exactly what you describe as "the random chaos of being violently attacked", except they do it full speed, full power, with balance, focus, and control, and they don't use - or need - pads. Unless you've seen it done, it's hard to understand, and harder to comprehend.

[MikeSlisher]

FWIW, I started my martial arts career in 1974 and received my 1st Dan in ITF TaeKwon-Do in October of 1978.

In those days, TaeKwon-Do and Tang Soo Do were the only martial art schools in a 50 mile radius of where I lived with there being only one GM for each style. TKD had (Robert) B.C. Yu and TSD had Sun Hwan Chung, both out of Kalamazoo, MI with both having satellite schools in my area.

We did not use any safety gear for sparring, no pads or chest protectors. Punches were not only allowed to the head, they were taught as the most effective head strikes. Pad started coming on the scene somewhere around '77 IIRC.

Tournament sparring was light to medium contact to the body, no contact to the head.

Korean arts were virtually ignored in the national press. The big MA magazines were Black Belt and Karate Illustrated. Black Belt covered aikido, judo, and other arts with a few articles on the Chinese styles as Bruce Lee's movies and the tv series Kung Fu were gaining popularity. The movie Billy Jack engendered a few articles on Hapkido and Bong Soo Han, but that was pretty much it for Korean arts for quite some time.

TKD advertised itself as "Korean Karate" on storefronts. Most everyone knew what karate was, but they had no clue what TaeKwon-Do was.

Gradually over the years TKD gained recognition, but karateka looked down on it as a weak imitation of their arts.

With Bruce Lee and the beginning acceptance of mixed martial arts like Jeet Kune Do, many top ranked national martial artists began promoting full contact tournaments and organizations. Hand techniques from boxing were mixed with Korean kicking techniques (IMHO) and used for the matches with effect. Bill "Superfoot" Wallace proved that kicking could be used effectively for these full contact matches. TKD capitalized on that to bring the art further into the mainstream MA world.

For a long time Tang Soo Do maintained that their art was NOT TaeKwon-Do despite superficial similarities. I can seem to recall Grandmaster Chung making that point many times... that he taught Tang Soo Do, not TKD, and that TKD was inferior to TSD.

ITF fell out of favor. WTF, with the South Korean government's backing successfully became an Olympic sport.

After being out of the MA scene pretty much entirely for five years, I understand that TKD is now THE single most popular martial art being taught in the United States.

For those of you who may not have the decades worth of experience THAT is probably the single largest change that I would say. WOW!!! What has "my" art come too when that Japanese karate stuff is playing second fiddle????:ultracool

[The Boar Man]

What has been some of the most practical changes in TKD over the last twenty five year in your opinion and why have those changes been good or bad for TKD?

Terry

Speaking in a general sense, not limited to just TKD.

1) The emphasis on kids, when I started in 1981 there weren't many kids classes and the schools were opened mainly in the evenings. Now with trying to get the younger kids (market) schools are staying open longer and run more of like a business.

2) The starting of running schools as a business and not just as a hobby. Adopting business practices in schools, thinking about the customer, marketing (besides just a yellow page ad or a sign on the door) etc. etc.

3) The invention and use of sparring gear (leading to students safety)

4) The opening up the mindset of the schools in regards to self defense. This has lead to schools teaching different arts i.e. grappeling, arnis, weaponery, hapkido, etc. etc. in TKD schools.

5) The resurrgence of learning about forms and the applications of the forms. Which I think has been great for the more traditional TKD schools.

These are just some of the changes over the last 25-35 years that have occured in the MAs and TKD in general.