Brief Rant

[TKDKid]

So, I'm tired of hearing people say negative things about any given art. Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, Tai Chi Chuan, or what have you. When someone spews these sorts of things it's always based on no more than a few hours of observance at a single school. It just drives me up the wall.
Ofcourse, for the most part, the people here see the good that all arts have to offer, I'm just talking about the general MA public of which I'm sure we represent a small percentage. It just frustrates me to no end to hear someone say that TKD is useless for self defense when I know good and well that if I threw out my other training and relied on TKD alone I could easily defend myself against the average attacker.
Or that all Tai Chi is good for is old people exercise...give me a break. Don't get me wrong, I'm not flaming anyone here, it's just something that's been building up for a while and I needed somewhere to vent it.
I guess what tops it off is an article I read in the November 2005 issue of Black Belt Magazine. The article is by Bill Wallace on page fifty-two. He is writing about the merits of a few different punches used in boxing/ kickboxing and how they could be beneficial to many different arts. I agree. In fact, many of the punches he writes about are included in our basic TKD curriculum.
What really gets me though is his closing statement:
"If you were to start with two people of equal size, weight, build, strength, mentality and stamina, and have one do a month of boxing and the other a month of martial arts, the first time they faced off, the boxer would beat the tar out of the karateka. Why? For one thing, white belts almost never spar during their first month of training. If the do spar, they generally don't know what they're doing because chances are all they practiced during that first month was the reverse punch and front kick."

I have a great respect for Bill Wallace. I think he is an extrordinary martial artist with a knowledge I can only hope to attain, but seriously, what the heck? I don't know what karate schools he's been to, but at my TKD school our white belts learn well more than just the reverse punch and front kick their first month. I don't really remember being a white belt myself, it's been too long ago, but when my younger brother was a white belt he knew a pleathera of techniques and was sparring quite proficiently by the end of his first month.
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is don't make assumptions. We all know there are McDojos out there that make a mockery of pleanty of different arts, and we're all biased toward our primary art, no matter how much we refuse to admit it. But please, until you've found a reputable school of a certain art and spent a considerable amount of time in it, don't say that the given art is deficient, because it probably isn't

 

[Jonathan Randall]

So, I'm tired of hearing people say negative things about any given art. Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, Tai Chi Chuan, or what have you. When someone spews these sorts of things it's always based on no more than a few hours of observance at a single school. It just drives me up the wall.
Ofcourse, for the most part, the people here see the good that all arts have to offer, I'm just talking about the general MA public of which I'm sure we represent a small percentage. It just frustrates me to no end to hear someone say that TKD is useless for self defense when I know good and well that if I threw out my other training and relied on TKD alone I could easily defend myself against the average attacker.

What really gets me though is his closing statement:
"If you were to start with two people of equal size, weight, build, strength, mentality and stamina, and have one do a month of boxing and the other a month of martial arts, the first time they faced off, the boxer would beat the tar out of the karateka. Why? For one thing, white belts almost never spar during their first month of training. If the do spar, they generally don't know what they're doing because chances are all they practiced during that first month was the reverse punch and front kick."

I sympathize with your frustration. Too many people take MMA competitions as the end-all in martial arts and look down on any art that doesn't have a UFC or Pride Champion to its credit. Also, many people of low self-esteem feel that in putting something or someone down they build themselves up.

I do have to, respectfully disagree with your take on Bill Wallace's article, however. Hate to say it, but he's right. I've done both boxing and TKD and there simply was no comparison between the two in the first six months to a year of training. Ultimately, TKD has many more possibilities - but it SIMPLY TAKES LONGER TO AQUIRE PROFICIENCY IN TRADITIONAL ARTS. Bill Wallace wasn't disrespecting Karate and TKD, IMHO, he was simply stating a phenomena observed by many who have cross-trained in both arts.

 

[MJS]

So, I'm tired of hearing people say negative things about any given art. Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, Tai Chi Chuan, or what have you. When someone spews these sorts of things it's always based on no more than a few hours of observance at a single school. It just drives me up the wall.
Ofcourse, for the most part, the people here see the good that all arts have to offer, I'm just talking about the general MA public of which I'm sure we represent a small percentage. It just frustrates me to no end to hear someone say that TKD is useless for self defense when I know good and well that if I threw out my other training and relied on TKD alone I could easily defend myself against the average attacker.
Or that all Tai Chi is good for is old people exercise...give me a break. Don't get me wrong, I'm not flaming anyone here, it's just something that's been building up for a while and I needed somewhere to vent it.

IMHO, alot of it comes down to how the art is being trained, and what the person viewing the art wants to get out of their training. For example: If someone is looking for more of a MMA oriented art, they might look at the kata/forms and feel that there is no value in them. The list can go on and on, but I think you'll see what I'm talking about. Jon Randall made a great point in his post as well.

I guess what tops it off is an article I read in the November 2005 issue of Black Belt Magazine. The article is by Bill Wallace on page fifty-two. He is writing about the merits of a few different punches used in boxing/ kickboxing and how they could be beneficial to many different arts. I agree. In fact, many of the punches he writes about are included in our basic TKD curriculum.
What really gets me though is his closing statement:
"If you were to start with two people of equal size, weight, build, strength, mentality and stamina, and have one do a month of boxing and the other a month of martial arts, the first time they faced off, the boxer would beat the tar out of the karateka. Why? For one thing, white belts almost never spar during their first month of training. If the do spar, they generally don't know what they're doing because chances are all they practiced during that first month was the reverse punch and front kick."

I have to agree with Mr. Wallace on this point. Comparing boxing to the arts, is like comparing an apple to an orange. I think we'd find more boxing schools that have students sparring than we'd find a MA school having a white belt spar. Is it done in some places? Sure.

I have a great respect for Bill Wallace. I think he is an extrordinary martial artist with a knowledge I can only hope to attain, but seriously, what the heck? I don't know what karate schools he's been to, but at my TKD school our white belts learn well more than just the reverse punch and front kick their first month. I don't really remember being a white belt myself, it's been too long ago, but when my younger brother was a white belt he knew a pleathera of techniques and was sparring quite proficiently by the end of his first month.
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is don't make assumptions. We all know there are McDojos out there that make a mockery of pleanty of different arts, and we're all biased toward our primary art, no matter how much we refuse to admit it. But please, until you've found a reputable school of a certain art and spent a considerable amount of time in it, don't say that the given art is deficient, because it probably isn't

A very good quote comes to mind here: "Quality over Quantity!" In boxing, there are your basic jab, cross, hook, and uppercut. I dont think I have to tell you the number of strikes/kicks there are in the arts. Now, this is not to say that by having more 'tools' we are not going to be good fighters, but it does take time to perfect everything.

I too, don't think that there was any disrespect on his part by what he said.

Mike

 

[arnisador]

If people want quick self-defense, I tell them to go to a boxing gym.

For the longer term, when one includes the possibility of armed or multiple assailants, there are better options, I feel.

As to some arts being better than others--the instructor/training makes the most difference. But, martial arts differ--some are better for some people or purposes, others for other people or purposes. Is there really no way to recommend between Aikido and Tae Kwon Do? One mightbe better for a given person, but it seems that as a thought experiement we could pick 100 people at random, train have in each, evaluate them against a certain suite of attacks, and see which is better against that suite? You could pick a suite of attacks that would highlight the advantages of either, but if it represented typical street situations--wouldn't one have to come out on top?

I believe that training makes the biggest difference by far. But, I do also believe that some arts are better for some purposes, or for some sizes/shapes/personalities/etc., than others.

I'm not disagreeing with your rant for the most part; people do make snap judgments about an art based on one bad school. They generalize and forget what a big difference a good, or bad, instructor makes.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Because most schools of "Karate" do not have full power sparring or holsd it till a student is well versed in the arts, I would tend to agree that a boxer would have the advantage in the early stages of his training. Remember the old saying "If you've never been punched full force in the face you don't knw how you will react when it happens".
I think that is a good reason why the boxer is better prepared in the early stages, he has been punched with force while the aveage "karate" person may have had no contact or verry limited contact in the same time period.

 

[tradrockrat]

To insert yet another cliche -


No one system has the answer. Who YOU are makes a big difference in how effective the art may be. However, I have to agree with Mr. Wallace because he's talking about facing the two novices off in a sport application (fight). This is the ONLY thing a boxer trains for - from day one. It's NOT a martial art - it's a martial sport. There is a huge difference. Nothing has served me better in the ring than my boxing training.

 

[Flying Crane]

Some good comments have been posted here, and I think they have helped to put things into perspective, but I understand your base gripe.

When I was younger and a strictly Kenpo guy, I had a poor opinion of Tae Kwon Do. Then, in college, I met a student from Mexico. He was a Tae Kwon Do guy, and his goal was to be on the Mexican Olympic team (don't know if he ever made it). I got together with him a few times to work out, and when we sparred, he kicked my butt, plain and simple. He was fast, aggressive, hit hard, and had a very good technical command. This is when I began to realize that it is not the art that is better, but rather the person who is better at what he does. It was a real eye-opener.