Article: The TKD Billion Dollar Smokescreen

[Independent_TKD]

I am absolutely sick of the TKD haters out there. In my area, a local MMA school criticizes TKD in its yellow pages add for crying out loud! Websites like Bullshido.com have a grand old time bashing TKD. It's really ridiculous.

As far as TKD goes, at least practitioners have to follow some kind of prescribed curriculum. I see UFC wannabe thugs opening up schools all over the place. Go figure. TKD is getting bashed by a bunch of jacks-of-all-trades, masters-of-none!

 

[Anywilds]

5. Tae Kwon Do is Karate - False - even though the founders of these Kwans trained in Japanese styles, it is it's own transformation and a 100% sport. Again in the early and mid 1980's when Tae Kwon do's martial arts regulation failed in NJ and was not passed, they decided to use other misleading marketing to purposefully confuse the public. They began putting "Karate" on the Dojangs (Tae kwon Do schools) and "Self Defense" with no other reference to Tae Kwon Do until someone actually signed up for classes. Very deceptive snd not proper to lie to the public, but who will say anything - it's america! Finally in the late 1980's and early 1990's they went further by Naming the schools "Martial arts academy". They even changed the name of existing schools so that the name would have the words Martial art in it. They also began using slogans like "Say no to drugs and yes to Tae Kwon Do" or "The Martial arts are for everyone" then using the 7 Virtues of Bushido to help promote (Courage, honor, Justice, Courtesy, truthfulness, Benevolence & Loyalty) - It is excellent that they wanted to use the 7 virtues but ONLY if they really intended on teaching it as well, when you promote cockiness, allow rudeness, are only out for more money and do not discipline or try to teach the virtues - what good is it to mention it? It was used only to get students in to sign up because it sounds good when marketing. Tae kwon Do is the furthest thing from a Martial art and to see False marketing to deceive the public and create revenue makes me feel ill, as it has for almost 30 years.

He forgot to throw in that after the regulation failed Tae Kwon Do funded a series of movies in the 1980's called "Karate Kid" in order to purposefully grow the interest in Martial Arts. Since they had all ready deceitfully changed the names of every school in the US, popularity of Tae Kwon Do was on the rise. Even though no one knew it was actually Tae Kwon Do.:boing2:

He also complained about Wikipedia - well how about naming a website devoted against the ttle of the site? Why not just be a real man and have a website like www.TaeKwonDo-is-not-Martial-Arts.com (Not an actual site - I think)

I guess as I get a little older I do not let myself get bent out of shape from a fanatics view point. I am just living my life, trying to be happy and enjoying the good times. Taking TKD wether it is a martial art, sport, jazzercize, yoga, pillates or whatever he wants to call - it is still very enjoyable to me. I respect my instructor and her ability, and at this point that is what matters. I am learning and progressing and getting in just a little better shape each month. Just my 2 cents from a newbie.

 

[Carol]

Why not just be a real man and have a website like www.TaeKwonDo-is-not-Martial-Arts.com (Not an actual site - I think)

Because there is no profit in that. He's aiming to have TKD times pony up some cash to shut up that domain name.

 

[Boomer]

Please forgive my ignorance...

I was under the impression (far before reading this article) that TKD is a "martial sport". There is nothing wrong with that. I participate in MMA and various forms of kickboxing, and I know that it is a sport. It is performed in a controlled environment with a referee, a timer, a doctor, etc.

Though I do agree the "hitler" thing is hard to swallow, I am unsure what the argument is here.

 

[Kacey]

Please forgive my ignorance...

I was under the impression (far before reading this article) that TKD is a "martial sport". There is nothing wrong with that. I participate in MMA and various forms of kickboxing, and I know that it is a sport. It is performed in a controlled environment with a referee, a timer, a doctor, etc.

Though I do agree the "hitler" thing is hard to swallow, I am unsure what the argument is here.

TKD is a martial art, like many of the other martial arts currently practiced. It has a sporting aspect, also like many of the other martial arts currently practiced. That TKD has a sporting aspect does not mean it has ceased to be a martial art - although that is what the author is arguing.

 

[DArnold]

For a sense of perspective and more information on Master Christian Whitney, pioneer and Grand Master 10th Degree Black belt of Genshinryu and likely author of the site not to confused with TaeKwonDo Times, his school's website is at http://www.genshinkidojo.com/ as well as his bio at http://www.dojos.com/genshinkidojo/index.htm

I just want to briefly point out a few things.

The controversial history of TKD has been discussed at length on MT and elsewhere. It appears the nameless author's biggest argument is that people haven't been completely honest about the history of TKD and that it hasn't been around long enough to be a martial art. So that leads me to ask, "When does TKD reach 'the age of majority?"

But, the 'anonymous' author has some of the same problems with TKD that many TKDin have with black belt factory schools and six year olds getting 2nd dan (let alone first dan!). There is no disagreement that these things happen, but how does this keep TKD from being a martial art?

Sure there are TKD competitions. For these competitions rules are imposed and only a subset of the complete martial art is employed. Again, how does this keep TKD from being a martial art?

Disclaimer: TKD is one of my MARTIAL ARTS.

When does a Martial art become a Martial art?
Quite simple actually.
Descarte - I think, therefore I am.
At what point did TKD become a martial art - at day one!
An organization is, because it is!

This sounds the same as those who think knowledge and respect are tied to a belt. Juniors usually look for some single answer, line drawn in the sand litmus test. (I still call my instructor Sir even though he doesn't have his belt on. When he takes his Belt off he somehow, does not lose any knowledge or ability. If you get kicked out, or leave an organization at what time do you loose all your knowledge?)

Those who tout "it is" from the roof tops are usually trying to prove their validity or gain security about what they do.

Those who tout "it isn't" are usually trying to sell something or are insecure in what they do.


Now I have a bigger bone to pick.
If TKD is taking over the world and making all this money.
Shouldn't I have at least gotten a cupon?

WHOA

 

[Miles]

Those who tout "it isn't" are usually trying to sell something or are insecure in what they do.

Amen Brother Arnold!

Miles

 

[Balrog]

Amusing article. Full of sour grapes by the bucketfull. It sounds like it was written by someone who failed his testing for yellow belt.

 

[DArnold]

Amen Brother Arnold!

Miles

You know there are TKD organizations out there that have added a sixth tenet.

Courtsey, Integrity...
.
..
...
...
....
.....
......


SHOW ME THE MONEY

 

[Boomer]

TKD is a martial art, like many of the other martial arts currently practiced. It has a sporting aspect, also like many of the other martial arts currently practiced. That TKD has a sporting aspect does not mean it has ceased to be a martial art - although that is what the author is arguing.

I'm going to continue to stir the pot...surprise. Just for the sake of argument and my own curiosity...what makes it a martial art? Is it used in battle? Do you learn to fight in street clothes? Are you taught to maim or kill if necessary?

I recently went to a 3 day camp and met some pretty hardcore fellows who study pencak silat. Every technique they showed ended in killing or maiming your opponent, especially the bladed weaponry.
There was a kali group there (I think their school was called Sayoc) and they were borderline militia. All of their techniques were geared toward pure survival and/or killing the opponent.

Those were some intense martial artists.

Honestly I really want to understand why so many are upset about this...is it just a problem of semantics?

You may proceed with the flameage

 

[exile]

I'm going to continue to stir the pot...surprise. Just for the sake of argument and my own curiosity...what makes it a martial art? Is it used in battle? Do you learn to fight in street clothes? Are you taught to maim or kill if necessary?

This whole question is getting a little stale, from repetition (it's been chewed over in many prior threads)... but consider this: TKD is the only martial art that was ever made the national standard for an entire military. It was the military H2H combative system of the RoK in two horrific wars, in which it was successful enough that in the Vietnam war, the Viet Cong field command directed VC troops to avoid hostile engagement with RoK soldiers at all costs, specifically because of the latter's skill in TKD (an interesting fact reported in Time magazine in a 1966 issue, documented in Stuart Anslow's recent book on bunkai for the ITF tuls). It is, as I say, the only TMA fighting system, so far as I know, to have been taught to an entire national military cadre. And those techs are still there, latent, in TKD patterns. At the Battle of Tra Binh Dong, in 1967, the 11th Division RoK Marines shattered an assault by a much larger North Vietnamese force, repelling them with heavy casualties in a day of savage close-quarter fighting in which many of the enemy were killed by empty-hand techs (Anslow's book also includes a description of the battle that appeared in the US Marine Corps newsletter during that same year). And in both wars, the RoK Tiger commando units were feared, and justly so, by enemy combatants, in large part because of their skill in lethal CQ combat. I really don't see what more anyone could reasonably ask for!

II recently went to a 3 day camp and met some pretty hardcore fellows who study pencak silat. Every technique they showed ended in killing or maiming your opponent, especially the bladed weaponry. There was a kali group there (I think their school was called Sayoc) and they were borderline militia. All of their techniques were geared toward pure survival and/or killing the opponent.

Let me put this as delicately as I can: whatever the techs you're talking about were `geared toward', the RoK military actually left around 250 dead NV soldiers on the Tra Binh Dong battlefield, many of them with necks broken as a result of their bad judgment in deciding to engage the RoK forces in CQ combat. And the RoK forces did the same kind of thing repeatedly in both the Korean and Vietnam wars in smaller actions. If you want battlefield efficiency and killing capability, TKD has a track record with very few rivals.

Those were some intense martial artists.

No doubt. But I don't see how the Korean development of karate which TKD and Tang Soo Do represent is negatively reflected upon by the fact that there are intense FMAists.

Honestly I really want to understand why so many are upset about this...is it just a problem of semantics?

I'm not sure what `this' is intended to refer to. If it's a matter of people supposedly being upset about other people's often severe misconceptions of the street efficacy that TKD can deliver... no, I really don't think that's true. People are misinformed about all sorts of things, but all that means is that they're unaware of the actual state of affairs. People who know what kind of damage TKD (or any of the other karate-based arts, for that matter) can inflict on an attacker are probably going to roll their eyes and shake their heads at some of the views held by people who don't know better, but what's to be upset about?

As far as `semantics' goes... the semantics of a sentence is simply what that sentence means. I don't see how this can be an issue in the current discussion. TKD is a martial art in precisely the same sense that Shito-ryu, or Gojo-ryu, or Shotokan, or Isshin-ryu, or any of the other kinds of karate are, of any of the CMAs or FMAs for that matter: a systematic set of fighting techniques. How does semantics enter into the discussion?

You may proceed with the flameage

Why would anyone flame any of this, Boomer? What's at issue is a matter of fact, and the fact is that TKD as a skill set contains techniques that can be brutally effective, or even lethally so, in self-defense apps. Does everyone who studies TKD train it like that? No way. Does everyone who studies Shotokan train it like that? No way. Does everyone who studies Silat/Arnis/Southern Mantis/.... train it like that? No way. But it's there, if you train it for that purpose.

So what's at issue?

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Exile, I always enjoy your posts.

Not least of all because I wish I'd said that!

 

[exile]

Much appreciated, FD!

 

[Makalakumu]

Even Olympic TKD is a martial art. This sport draws on many different combat traditions and it has innovated a whole bunch of techniques that make it really exciting to do and watch. Even though it has a greatly reduced applicability in CQ combat, I think that it remains a martial art in much the same way kendo does.

 

[exile]

Even Olympic TKD is a martial art. This sport draws on many different combat traditions and it has innovated a whole bunch of techniques that make it really exciting to do and watch. Even though it has a greatly reduced applicability in CQ combat, I think that it remains a martial art in much the same way kendo does.

I agree. There's a spectrum here. You're right to underscore the point that it's not an either/or thing, that there's a kind of continuous gradation from the Krav Maga end of things to, well, the kendo end. (I myself think that the line ends before you get to sumo... but I could be wrong about that!)

 

[Boomer]

Exile,
Very informative! I appreciate your tolerance of my lack of knowledge of the art. Thank you for breaking it down in detail. I had no knowledge of the military applications and such.

As far as `semantics' goes... the semantics of a sentence is simply what that sentence means. I don't see how this can be an issue in the current discussion. TKD is a martial art in precisely the same sense that Shito-ryu, or Gojo-ryu, or Shotokan, or Isshin-ryu, or any of the other kinds of karate are, of any of the CMAs or FMAs for that matter: a systematic set of fighting techniques. How does semantics enter into the discussion?

The semantics I was referring to was the question of the term "martial art". The definitions of which are varied from one person to another, not to mention one dictionary to another.

Even Olympic TKD is a martial art. This sport draws on many different combat traditions and it has innovated a whole bunch of techniques that make it really exciting to do and watch. Even though it has a greatly reduced applicability in CQ combat, I think that it remains a martial art in much the same way kendo does.

This though, I have to completely disagree with. Martial sport, definitely, but not martial art. I've tried kendo before, and the instructor there also taught iaido/kenjutsu. He made distinctions between the two that one was the sport of fencing, the other was an art of killing.

Even I recognize that my training in MMA is a martial sport. There is a controlled environment, a referee, limited legal techniques, etc. Could it translate to martial art for defense "out there"? Sure. Is that its intended purpose? Nope.

My whole thing is: you DO what you TRAIN.
If you train to fight in a cage, you probably won't be using eye gouges and groin shots in a real altercation, because your reactions are what you've recorded in your muscle memory and training.

 

[Sukerkin]

Your last point there is a good one, Boomer :tup:

That's not to imply that your other points are not good too, just that I'm responding to that bit .

"you DO what you TRAIN" is certainly true but it is also true that the more that you train changes what you can do.

This is where, as far as I see it, those who detest kata are not fully grasping the nettle (this is on topic, bear with me). If you perceive kata as a sequence of techniques that is executed with precision each and every time, regardless of circumstance, then the obvious conclusion is that kata are useless because that particular circumstance will hardly ever arise in the real world.

However, kata, in time, are the vehicle that ingrain techniques into spinal reflex but do not, if your teacher trains you well, ingrain the sequence. So, when it comes to a real, blood and teeth, fight, you employ the fragments of kata that you need in that circumstance.

That's the whole point of training i.e. that you use what is necessary when it is necessary without the slow-mo forebrain having to get involved.

This applies just as well to those arts that are somewhat denegrated as 'sports' rather than 'arts' (I said I'd get back to the topic ). If trained properly, then someone who is a student of a 'sport' can kick-butt just as well as one who is a student of an 'art'. It's the trained properly part which is the key.

Rote repetition of moves will not suffice without visualisation. A martial-sport practitioner who trains with visualisation is just as capable of applying their techniques on the fly with a "Non-Broken-Nose" as the prize as anyone else.

It's a question of intent and application. A kick to the head in competition is a practical solution to scoring points. A kick to the knee in a dark alley is a practical solution to not getting your head kicked in. Regardless of whether you train in an art or a sport, the ability to make that change of focus is down to the person rather than what they study.

 

[Boomer]

It's a question of intent and application. A kick to the head in competition is a practical solution to scoring points. A kick to the knee in a dark alley is a practical solution to not getting your head kicked in. Regardless of whether you train in an art or a sport, the ability to make that change of focus is down to the person rather than what they study.

Well said.

 

[arnisador]

There's a lot to agree with in the (strident) article, and also material that's exaggerated. I'm always glad to see someone be honest about the relatively brief history of TKD as a separate art from Karate.

As to martial art vs. martial sport, I feel it's more the latter than the former but I know it is the former to some, the latter to others, and both to many...and I don't find anything at all odd about that.

 

[exile]

Exile,
Very informative! I appreciate your tolerance of my lack of knowledge of the art. Thank you for breaking it down in detail. I had no knowledge of the military applications and such.

I don't think your post reflected lack of knowledge of the art itself, Boomer; I'd never say that. The military history of TKD is something different, and it hasn't been well publicized—certainly, the contemporary RoK government agencies that have driven TKD's public `persona' in the tournament competition direction haven't dwelt very much on this aspect of its history. The reason why it's important, though, is that if you look at the text which this whole thread is based on, the `TKD smokecreen' text, it's quite clear that the author, whoever s/he is, is actually unaware of this history. The extreme claims that are made there overlook this important aspect of TKD's history, and that fact alone undercuts the essay's credibility to a substantial degree. My feeling is, if you're going to say, `X isn't Y and never has been', as the author of that essay does, you really had better know the history of X in detail, well enought to be sure of that claim—or you're going wind up with egg on your face. That's why it doesn't reflect badly in the least on you that you were unfamiliar with this phase of TKD's history—as I say, many TKD practitioners aren't—but it does reflect badly on the chap who wrote the `smokescreen' essay. He's making strong claims about TKD's history, apparently without enough background knowledge to do so accurately. That kind of thing comes back to bite you...

The semantics I was referring to was the question of the term "martial art". The definitions of which are varied from one person to another, not to mention one dictionary to another.

Right, I see what you were getting at. I think, if you look at the technical core of TKD, you'll notice that it does share a huge proportion of techniques with its Shotokan ancestor, and has a common strategic core, which is recoverable from a careful `deciphering' of the hyungs. As I say, not everyone trains TKD that way, and this has led I think to the main confusion—identifying the whole art with just one manifestation (admittedly, a very lucrative, highly publicized manifestion) of its skill set—the WTF Olympic-rules tournament version. But there are plenty of other ways to do TKD. And as I say, sport karate, to say nothing of the XMA manifestation of karate, represent parallel developments to the skewing of TKD's combat content for ring point-scoring purposes. My own sense is (there was a big thread debate about this general question a few months ago), TKD is a `martial art' under most reasonably nonsectarian definitions of the expression.

This though, I have to completely disagree with. Martial sport, definitely, but not martial art. I've tried kendo before, and the instructor there also taught iaido/kenjutsu. He made distinctions between the two that one was the sport of fencing, the other was an art of killing.

I'm way out of my depth on kendo; I'll defer to others here—I happen to think that the do/jutsu distinction is probably a sharper and more pointed distinction than the art/sport distinction in terms of self-defense applicability. Kendo is definitely a -do activity; there are other -do systems which I think can be trained as jutsus—TKD being one, TSD being a closely related other one, and the same for what used to be called `karate-do', now just `karate'. It's the training conditions that determine the degree of application to combat effectiveness.

Even I recognize that my training in MMA is a martial sport. There is a controlled environment, a referee, limited legal techniques, etc. Could it translate to martial art for defense "out there"? Sure. Is that its intended purpose? Nope.

My whole thing is: you DO what you TRAIN.

If you train to fight in a cage, you probably won't be using eye gouges and groin shots in a real altercation, because your reactions are what you've recorded in your muscle memory and training.

There is indeed widespread agreement on this point, at least here on MT! I think that people are increasingly coming to understand that the way in which you train a fighting system, and the conditions you assume, are crucial for determining the SD usefulness of that system.

Your last point there is a good one, Boomer :tup:

That's not to imply that your other points are not good too, just that I'm responding to that bit .

"you DO what you TRAIN" is certainly true but it is also true that the more that you train changes what you can do.

This is where, as far as I see it, those who detest kata are not fully grasping the nettle (this is on topic, bear with me). If you perceive kata as a sequence of techniques that is executed with precision each and every time, regardless of circumstance, then the obvious conclusion is that kata are useless because that particular circumstance will hardly ever arise in the real world.

However, kata, in time, are the vehicle that ingrain techniques into spinal reflex but do not, if your teacher trains you well, ingrain the sequence. So, when it comes to a real, blood and teeth, fight, you employ the fragments of kata that you need in that circumstance.

That's the whole point of training i.e. that you use what is necessary when it is necessary without the slow-mo forebrain having to get involved.

This applies just as well to those arts that are somewhat denegrated as 'sports' rather than 'arts' (I said I'd get back to the topic ). If trained properly, then someone who is a student of a 'sport' can kick-butt just as well as one who is a student of an 'art'. It's the trained properly part which is the key.

Rote repetition of moves will not suffice without visualisation. A martial-sport practitioner who trains with visualisation is just as capable of applying their techniques on the fly with a "Non-Broken-Nose" as the prize as anyone else.

It's a question of intent and application. A kick to the head in competition is a practical solution to scoring points. A kick to the knee in a dark alley is a practical solution to not getting your head kicked in. Regardless of whether you train in an art or a sport, the ability to make that change of focus is down to the person rather than what they study.

Sukerkin's post here reflects my own views about all this: every fighting system contains a technical core which, trained for SD purposes, can probably be ramped up into a full-fledged effective fighting system. You can't be totally unrealistic about it; you need to modify the techs of your art to the appropriate fighting range, for sure. But the most serious mistake of the `smokescreen' essay, I believe, is that it denies the possibility of using the technical core of TKD (which is still very similar to that of various styles of karate that gave rise to it) in a street-effective way at close quarters. It overlooks not only the military history of TKD, but the more general point you yourself made about training and doing—the idea that if you want your art to do something for you, you can indeed achieve that, but you have to gear your training to that objective.