Does taekwondo needs cross-training to complete it

[Earl Weiss]

It is an arbitrary demarcation. That said, I've got to question any curriculum that waits until 3rd dan and up to introduce close range combat material. Thoughts?

What curriculm waits until then?

 

[dancingalone]

Hmm, is it more icredible to use the term novice, than those that use the term "Master " when the entire syllabus has not been learned?

Aside form refining your material after 4th Dan do you not continue to have greater insight into the techniques?

I actually don't like the term "Master" at all and I don't use any titles other than 'Sensei'. Outside of class, I am Alex or Mr. XXXX. I am a fourth dan that has been authorized to teach on my own without supervision by my own instructor. That's simple as it can get.

Regardless of my personal status, I do feel even a lowly first dan should have a clue about what his system tries to accomplish. It would be tragic if our theoretical first dan merely knew a conglomeration of punches and kicks but possesses no framework behind which to use them.

I am not sure what you learned under Jhoon Rhee, since he has had different systems including Chang Hon, but a clue to what was missing from how he taught that system was the fact that it only had 20 of the 24 patterns. Kind of like learning the alphabet and leaving out 4 letters.

Yep, less patterns. Of course without any real applications to speak of, the forms aren't too meaningful anyway other than as an exercise of coordination, discipline, and perhaps idle tradition. Like I said, in the old Jhoon Rhee system it wasn't any big deal to learn some new patterns. It's not like they were really used to teach fighting concepts, nor were any of the other drills even remotely connected to the hyung.

 

[Earl Weiss]

The same is true in martial arts. Just what have we been practicing all this time if it is to not gain fighting skills?

Respectfully said.

If your only goal is to learn fighting skills then learning a martial art is a huge waste of time.
Now that I have yyour attention we would of course have to define"Martial Art"

"We" (meaning the collective "WE" not necessarily you and I) would first have to agree on the definition. Not likely .

For my thoughts see: http://371078645507472465-a-1802744...GJGBN38fxpDFjv0sfIlaiuQv8adaI=&attredirects=0

Not asking you to accept my point of view. Only to get wghere I am comiong from when I say, if you only want to fight, don't learn a martial art. You are looking for something that would be better off called a "Martial Science" Art is irrelevant.

 

[dancingalone]

What curriculm waits until then?

I clarified in #37 that I referred to a hypothetical system. Hopefully no such infamy actually exists.

I am curious about what techniques Chris referred to when he said you'd not be getting an accurate portrait if you just looked at cumulative 1st dan material.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Are we talking WTF or ITF?

Perhaps it is a big assumption to think that you can complete a martial art system like Taekwon-Do?

This may be a nitpicking remark, but there is no WTF taekwondo. The WTF neither certifies nor creates requirements that satisfy certification. The WTF establishes a rule set under which athletes compete. This rule set has caused athletes to adopt a number of practices that are not otherwise found in taekwondo (hands down, backward leaning upright stance, predominance of high kicks and a distinct lack of punches. This does not dictate a taekwondo curriculum; only a rule set that really, anyone can compete under, even karateka or athletes with other martial arts backgrounds.

You have Kukki taekwondo, which consists of taegeuk and palgwe forms, with taegeuk forms being the required and palgwe forms being recognized as Kukkiwon, but not required. There is a fairly minimal set of standards in addition to those forms.

The Kukkiwon establishes a set of standards, not a curriculum. School owners then build their curriculum around those standards.

The Kukkiwon exists to certify dan grades of schools on the basis that all Kukkiwon yudanja have learned material that is required in those standards. School owners can (and do) teach material in addition to those minimum standards. Things like bunhae, grappling, weapons forms, etc. are all over and above those standards.

In this sense, Kukki taekwondo was never meant to be complete. It was meant to define the area of overlap between different schools that needs to be there in order to certify a portable rank. Nothing more.

Daniel

 

[Earl Weiss]

I clarified in #37 that I referred to a hypothetical system. Hopefully no such infamy actually exists.

I am curious about what techniques Chris referred to when he said you'd not be getting an accurate portrait if you just looked at cumulative 1st dan material.

You asked a very simple, straightforward and legitmate question. However, it would take a great deal of time and space to answer thoroughly. I will explain why. In the 15 volume set , each pattern is preceded by a section of "new Techniques" for the pattern. Of course to what degree they are "New" is a matter of degree. It may simpley be an open hand version of a closed handed technique, or a technique seen before performed in a different fashion or at a different level (or something much different such as a "Sweeping Kick") but then you need to understand where in another volume the parmaters are explained as having an open hand facilitates a grab, and from there determine how that might be used.

So, to review the 14 patterns from first Dan onward and list all the techniques which did not previously appear, as well as explanations as to technical parameters and applications would be a monmentous task.

 

[dancingalone]

If your only goal is to learn fighting skills then learning a martial art is a huge waste of time.
Now that I have yyour attention we would of course have to define"Martial Art"

"We" (meaning the collective "WE" not necessarily you and I) would first have to agree on the definition. Not likely .

For my thoughts see: http://371078645507472465-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/ntkdacad/files/TheMArtialQuestionSept.2002TKDTimes.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqVeQPVXRTftkcqL1p-_RFZzhQaF8nxleh1dXFj1a6LeZvF0VXxVCNOGbHqGPg_mM83-Qz2ltqLKAb6kc5hJLEYqLzFGxNqdh0aBt2L9CEr0cXJtJ0jjYnmLYuXtMhsqY09W7fMAHvmALs9jTllun2cdkNIcVxHnLjiLY0ydwTsfvs8EfNjBrfvl-vebTv3F3bN9IKdv4zB1XUW4OoF_gGJGBN38fxpDFjv0sfIlaiuQv8adaI%3D&attredirects=0

Not asking you to accept my point of view. Only to get wghere I am comiong from when I say, if you only want to fight, don't learn a martial art. You are looking for something that would be better off called a "Martial Science" Art is irrelevant.

Yes, interesting article, but a quick glance reveals a rather arbitrary classication by you. A Martial Science is in your words a "physical activity that uses striking, grapplying or both and may include weaponry and joint or pressure point manipulation." It also is "concerned solely with skills necessary for surviving a physical threat, protection of oneself or others, and the ability to control or destroy an opponent as efficiently as possible."

Well, Goju-ryu has all of these, some in greater measure than others but elements are all present: striking, grapplying or both and may include weaponry and joint or pressure point manipulation. However, Goju-ryu is generally taught as karate-DO, so while I tend to a more fighting art interpretation than some other teachers, I do concede that fighting skills are not the only goal of the system. There are certain things like dojo kun, meditation, and the attempt to develop harmony and balance in karate that likewise make its practice more than kicking and punching.

So is Goju-ryu a martial art or a martial science? I think it defies your neat classification as indeed many other arts probably do. The emphasis on self-improvement or self-defense varies by school and teacher instead of art/system.

I would be remiss to my students if I didn't emphasize that the acquisition of useful self-defense skills are the primary reason we train. Hopefully that's true for TKD teachers too.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Really?

Yeah.

By 1st dan, one should have been well-acquainted with the fighting concepts of the system. One can certainly learn more techniques into the black belt ranks, but it should all build on the philosophies that should have been taught from day one.

Built on, sure. By first dan, however, I'd argue that one doesn't fully understand the philosphies (at least not to the extent that a person who has been training for 20 years or so can).

You originally said:

Oh, I expect we'll get the usual 'TKD is a complete art if taught properly' remarks, so let's dispense with that red herring entirely.

I suggest people post their curriculum up to first dan.

BY doing so you cut off any sort of discussion of curriculum after 1st dan while belittling the idea of TKD being a complete art if taught correctly. My point is that if you're going to look at an art and see if it's complete or not you'd be better served looking at the art in toto instead of just looking at what would amount to, at least form an ITF persepctive, perhaps high school.

If you're saying there are many more requirements in ITF TKD after 1st dan that dramatically transmute the art, I'd be less than impressed as someone tenured in martial arts. It is of course your system however.

Transmute the art? No, not really. But do people come to a better understanding of the principles of TKD after training longer? Sure. Are the things in the syllabus that appear after first dan building on what has preceded them? Yes, obviously. Do they contradict the previous principles? No. Do they add insight into what you've already done while teaching you more stuff? Yes.

It could be all of those things. This topic is fairly broad after all about whether cross-training is needed to complete TKD.

Then my answer stands. If you reduce "complete" to grappling then no TKD isn't complete. If anything else I've mentioned is important then you're free to make whatever judgement you want.

By the way, that's pretty incredible to me that you in the ITF consider a 3rd a novice black belt. Are high dan ranks so common then?

No, quite the opposite, all things considered.

In Goju-ryu karate, I am a yondan (4th) and I have learned all the material in my system. As I progress upwards in rank, it's just a matter of refining what I have been given already as well as service to the art.

The ITF syllabus tops out at 6th dan. Hence being considered a "master" at 7th and above.

When I studied TKD and I attained 2nd dan in the old Jhoon Rhee system, it was understood that I pretty much had everything under my belt too. Other than a few new hyung there wasn't anything else to learn, and given the lack of form application work, it's not like it was any big deal to memorize a handful of new patterns.

I'm sure that was accurate for the system you studied but, as I have pointed out before, there's more than one style of TKD and making generalizations from one's background to the art as a whole isn't necessarily going to yield accurate results. In other words, when it comes to talking about TKD maybe empty your cup a little.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

This may be a nitpicking remark, but there is no WTF taekwondo.

Yeah, technically the same could be said about ITF Taekwon-Do. As such it doesn't exist. It's more proer to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But ITF TKD and WTF TKD are just easy to use short hand terms for people (maybe WTF'ers could start calling it KK TKD since that would be more accurate). As long as people know that I don't see a problem with it. YMMV, of course.

Pax,

Chris

 

[dancingalone]

Transmute the art? No, not really. But do people come to a better understanding of the principles of TKD after training longer? Sure. Are the things in the syllabus that appear after first dan building on what has preceded them? Yes, obviously. Do they contradict the previous principles? No. Do they add insight into what you've already done while teaching you more stuff? Yes.

Well, Chris, this might just be a potato, potatoe semantic, but I submit your assertion about missing out on the full portrait of TKD if you cut off at 1st dan is actually incorrect then. We all develop better understanding of our art after more practice. If nothing has substantially changed in how ITF TKD chooses to handle a specific combat situation (technique and tactic) beyond 1st dan, then 1st dan in fact serves fine as a cut-off point for discussion.

I'm sure that was accurate for the system you studied but, as I have pointed out before, there's more than one style of TKD and making generalizations from one's background to the art as a whole isn't necessarily going to yield accurate results. In other words, when it comes to talking about TKD maybe empty your cup a little.

Empty my cup? Huh? We all have different systems and are coming together to discuss them in common. Obviously, we will have different perspectives based on our experiences coming in. In your case, you've stated ITF TKD is not a complete system if we want to talk about grappling elements. Fair enough. That's the topic of discussion, and it seems yes, if you study ITF style and you want to add grappling you'll have to do somewhere else to get it. Good information for all.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yeah, technically the same could be said about ITF Taekwon-Do. As such it doesn't exist. It's more proer to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But ITF TKD and WTF TKD are just easy to use short hand terms for people (maybe WTF'ers could start calling it KK TKD since that would be more accurate). As long as people know that I don't see a problem with it. YMMV, of course.

Pax,

Chris

Generally, Kukkiwon tkd is called Kukki taekwondo. WTF is a rule set. My point was not so much to nit pick about the difference, but to point out that firstly, there is one, and that neither the WTF rule set nor Kukki taekwondo is intended to be fully complete.

In absorbing the Kwans, the Kukkiwon established a set of forms that could be used commonly between schools of all kwan lineages, and codified the overlap. This insured (or was intended to) that a black belt from one school would have enough overlapping skills to be considered a black belt in any other school who's kwan had signed onto the Kukkiwon. The assumption was that each kwan already had what they considered to be a complete system of some kind in place (complete within itself, not all encompassing).

WTF sparring was created to have tournaments that were visually and technically different from Karate tournaments. By its very nature, it cannot be complete. What is commonly called Olympic TKD is essentially sport tkd under WTF rules. If one must identify WTF taekwondo, that would be it. But WTF taekwondo is not a martial art. It is a martial sport designed to be interesting, challenging, and fun (and I believe that it is all three), not a comprehensive self defense art.

Daniel

 

[chrispillertkd]

Well, Chris, this might just be a potato, potatoe semantic, but I submit your assertion about missing out on the full portrait of TKD if you cut off at 1st dan is actually incorrect then. We all develop better understanding of our art after more practice. If nothing has substantially changed in how ITF TKD chooses to handle a specific combat situation (technique and tactic) beyond 1st dan, then 1st dan in fact serves fine as a cut-off point for discussion.

Then I guess we'll just have to disagree. I didn't learn prone defenses in a systematic way until after I was a first dan, for instance. Did what I learned change underlying principles of TKD? No. But it certainly built on what I already knew and added to it new things.

Empty my cup? Huh?

Yes. If you equate TKD with what you learned and think that completing the syllabus at 2nd dan like you did covers the entirety of TKD then I'd suggest that is an innaccurate picture of TKD as a whole. The stuff I've posted has been apparently an inadequate attempt to present a wider picture of what TKD is (at least some of it), despite your arbitrary cut off point of 1st dan.

Pax,

Chris

 

[dancingalone]

Yes. If you equate TKD with what you learned and think that completing the syllabus at 2nd dan like you did covers the entirety of TKD then I'd suggest that is an innaccurate picture of TKD as a whole. The stuff I've posted has been apparently an inadequate attempt to present a wider picture of what TKD is (at least some of it), despite your arbitrary cut off point of 1st dan.

I'm not sure how this changes what I said above at all. We all have different perspectives. That's a given and shouldn't even be a sticking point. You spoke for your piece of TKD and I did for mine. End of story.

Then I guess we'll just have to disagree. I didn't learn prone defenses in a systematic way until after I was a first dan, for instance. Did what I learned change underlying principles of TKD? No. But it certainly built on what I already knew and added to it new things.

How long after first dan? Second, third, fourth? I would humbly suggest that's something that should be placed in the geup rank material. The ability to defend and get up from a prone position seems fairly key to me in a street fight.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I'm not sure how this changes what I said above at all. We all have different perspectives. That's a given and shouldn't even be a sticking point. You spoke for your piece of TKD and I did for mine. End of story.

I think you're missing my point, but never mind.

How long after first dan? Second, third, fourth? I would humbly suggest that's something that should be placed in the geup rank material. The ability to defend and get up from a prone position seems fairly key to me in a street fight.

I was a seocnd dan when the bulk of that material made it's appearnace. I had learned bits and pieces when I was a first dan, but this material as a whole came later.

Your opinion on what should go where in a MA's syllabus is interesting but irrelevant to the original topic of this thread ("completeness" of TKD as a MA). I can only assume in your own style they get into a ground game at a fairly low rank given your opinion.

As for it being a key ability in a street fight, I suppose that would depend on whether or not you buy into the Gracies' stats about 90%+ fights ending up on the ground (that was based on law enforcement figures, which tend to go prone due to cuffing the suspect, after all). It's certainly a good ability to have, but I'd say knife work would be more helpful (and easier) to acquire. YMMV.

Pax,

Chris

 

[dancingalone]

I think you're missing my point, but never mind.

Chris, am I wrong in detecting a bit of snippiness on your part? If so, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I am outspoken and it's hard to convey tone through the written word.

I was a seocnd dan when the bulk of that material made it's appearnace. I had learned bits and pieces when I was a first dan, but this material as a whole came later.

Your opinion on what should go where in a MA's syllabus is interesting but irrelevant to the original topic of this thread ("completeness" of TKD as a MA). I can only assume in your own style they get into a ground game at a fairly low rank given your opinion.

I teach defenses against a mounted opponent as early as 7th kyu. My choice - it's not something typically done in other dojos of the same style that I've visited. As for relevance, it's certainly connected. One of the biggest criticisms made against TKD and similar striking arts are their perceived ineffectiveness on the ground. I'm no Gracie, but yeah I think colored belts need exposure to this material early and often.

As for it being a key ability in a street fight, I suppose that would depend on whether or not you buy into the Gracies' stats about 90%+ fights ending up on the ground (that was based on law enforcement figures, which tend to go prone due to cuffing the suspect, after all). It's certainly a good ability to have, but I'd say knife work would be more helpful (and easier) to acquire. YMMV.

No, I don't use that stat for my reasoning. I know from my own observation that fights frequently are started with a tackle or a sucker punch or a grab (usually as a prelude to a sucker punch). At least one of those attacks can end with you on the ground, so it seems like a good idea to practice defending and getting up, so you can use all your cool striking/takedown techs.

Knife defense is good too. I actually start that around 7 kyu too.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

How long after first dan? Second, third, fourth? I would humbly suggest that's something that should be placed in the geup rank material. The ability to defend and get up from a prone position seems fairly key to me in a street fight.

In our hapkido curriculum, defending and getting up from a prone position comes at the very end of the geub ranks, after which the student is a dan bo for a while before testing for first dan.

It all depends I suppose on how much material is being covered. Realistically, there is much more material to be learned in a standing position than in a prone position, and it is not unreasonable (though nor is it necessary) to require students to master those techniques first. From what I understand, the Chang Hon system has a fairly full hoshinsul program as well as forms, one steps, three steps, and all of the various specific techniques to learn, so something is inevitably going to be at the tail end.

Either every potentially useful technique is covered in the geub ranks and the student is a colored belt for longer or once the student is conversant in the stand up curriculum, they get their first dan in less time and learns the seated/prone defense as a dan grade, with the same quantity of material covered in the same period of time. It is simply a question of when the black belt is awarded.

Considering that Kukki taekwondo does not even have seated/prone techniques required in their standards, it does not surprise me that the Chang Hon system puts it after black belt.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

It all depends I suppose on how much material is being covered. Realistically, there is much more material to be learned in a standing position than in a prone position, and it is not unreasonable (though nor is it necessary) to require students to master those techniques first.

Unreasonable, no. That said, reasonable minds can also disagree. The popularity of grappling systems only continues to grow. It would be a mistake to not expose one's students at an early point to some of the more common situations they might face.

From what I understand, the Chang Hon system has a fairly full hoshinsul program as well as forms, one steps, three steps, and all of the various specific techniques to learn, so something is inevitably going to be at the tail end.

Yeah, I'd love to get a look at that. I have some of the volumes of the Encyclopedia but I didn't really see what I was looking for. I believe I will purchase the CD-Rom version and check it out. Of course, that begs the question, does the Encyclopedia contain the hoshinsul program?

 

[dortiz]

"From what I understand, the Chang Hon system has a fairly full hoshinsul program"

Yes, General Choi was smart enough to bring in a top Hapkido Master for this.

 

[dancingalone]

Yeah, I'd love to get a look at that. I have some of the volumes of the Encyclopedia but I didn't really see what I was looking for. I believe I will purchase the CD-Rom version and check it out. Of course, that begs the question, does the Encyclopedia contain the hoshinsul program?

Hmm, I checked my indices again tonight. Looks like the answer is a big "Nope". The hoshinsul must be unpublished material, at least in terms of the Encyclopedia.

 

[Kyosanim]

Back in my day (Pre-Olympic) “real” TKD it didn't need anything.... but I have been away for a very long time... did somebody lose part of it someplace

Yes we seem to have misplaced A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to the knee and elbow strikes? The brutal kick grapples? The you punch me I poke your eye out philosophy? Real TKD is no joke, and should not be taught to children like this ATA ********.