Discussion in 'Tae-Kwon-Do' started by kwon 17, Jul 5, 2005.
That would be instruction, not philosophy of the art.
Another disconnect is 60% or more time devoted to hand striking and blocks in "basics", yet 80% emphasis on kicking when we spar due to the rules, with punching techniques getting a subordinate position and blocks left out altogether. This applies to both ITF and KKW.
Not only is there a disconnect but also an inconsistency which permeats TaeKwonDo. Traditional Karate curriculums are more coherent in this respect.
I will also add that the arts excellent body mechanics for kicking cannot compensate for the deficiencies above, especially not in a live action setting where things get diluted anyway. The strong cards are not impactful enough, simply.
But some things are better in the TKD culture of training than in other traditional martial arts such as power training (mitts practise) and early exposure to extensive kicking . I still remember my frustrations doing Shotokan for 6 months and barely kicking. I don't even know if we did anything but front kick. And we also never hit anything.
So those back kick KOs in the UFC were just staged? Were they CGI?
You have a couple of valid points (disconnect between forms and sparring), but you also have a lot of false information, and you have a lot of conclusions that are just too far of a leap.
Are there issues with TKD? Yes. But here you say pretty much everything is useless, which means you're just bashing the art. I can't tell is you're trolling or just genuinely this ignorant.
No I pointed to things that make Taekwondo better than traditional Karate training IMO. You are given tools but the sweet science is not there nu because what you do in one area has a very little connection to another.
Ok. That doesn't mean it's all useless. There are definite benefits from everything you do in class.
For example, a boxer isn't going to skip rope or do pushups and situps in the middle of a match. But those definitely help prepare him for the match.
I've had instructors yell for minutes on end about improper stances, arguing about degrees, all that nonetheless goes out the window once we spar and take a side on stance.
Depends on how you look at it. Culture evolves over time. There is the culture of origin, which has some influence. But so does the culture in which it is taught. Jiu Jitsu is heavily influenced by Japanese culture, which in turn influences the curriculum, the philosophy, and the training methods. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is influenced by its Japanese origins as well as Brazilian sensibilities and culture, which in turn has a lot of influence over the curriculum, philosophy, and methods. BJJ is, as a result, very different from Japanese Jujutsu, and even from Judo. BJJ taught in America is different from BJJ taught in Brazil. The culture in the USA is different, the instructors are different, and so the culture evolved, shaping the curriculum, philosophy, and the training methods. This isn't monolithic, even within the same style, and in spite of any efforts to preserve the cultural integrity of the art.
I was gonna mention Japanese jujutsu as a prime example of something that could have been equivalent to BJJ or Sambo if they trained live resistance, free grappling, and full contact. So the training affects the art indeed.
Jeez so now you have an issue with Shotokan to...you are the kind of person I’d hate to have in any club of mine...because you’re a know it all. Everything someone says to you you have an argument or a comeback for . Those people are usually impossible to teach
When I spent 3 months in YMCA Karate class, one day I asked my Karate instructor the following:
A: Why do I have to do push up, sit up, running around the room in the class? I can do all those at home.
B: Not everybody will train at home.
- I go to school to learn, and come home to train.
- Others may go to school to train, and come home to rest.
IMO, to kick/punch on heavy bag is part of the homework. One should not spend his school learning time for that.
You do realise not everyone has the space or the money for a heavy bag right?
Cool story, bro.
To put a fine point on it, I think culture alone can influence the style. I mentioned Judo and BJJ. They are much more alike than Japanese Jujutsu and BJJ, but there are still significant differences that can be attributed to culture.
That said, I agree with you that how a style is trained matters significantly. I've posted at length about it, and I'm sure no one is interested in hearing me rehash it again. Suffice to say, I think if you train a style for an application, two things happen. First, the style will become more effective in that application. Second, the style will evolve to become well suited for the application. These sound similar, but aren't quite the same. For example, if you train TKD and apply those skills in MMA, your TKD skills will improve and you will become better at MMA. Second, your TKD will evolve, because you will find that some of your TKD skills work better in that context than others.
Some people view this as support against application (the 'we train for self defense' cohort). I think it's just the opposite, which is a strong argument for as much diverse application as possible, based on your goals. Rulesets focus training. They are only limiting if you confine yourself to one ruleset.
Not sure how it can be attributed to culture since judo had much more groundwork emphasis in Kimuras time.
That doesn't automatically justify every training method though.
You can't say Kata works just because push ups work.
They are different things.
A reminder about style bashing seems to be in order. Here at Martial Talk, we don't want to get into the whole mess of trying to decide which style is best -- because each has good and bad. And that's whether we talk techniques/principles, training methodology, particular schools, or individuals. We can discuss and compare styles in a friendly manner, without bashing styles -- or each other.
A lot of what kata does is build muscle connections for the movements you will use, and build the balance and coordination that is important for those kicks.
My opinion is if you try and use it as a teaching tool, it's going to leave you wanting (as its left me), but there is definitely value in them.
That's why I compared it to those other exercises. Because the stances build balance, leg strength, and flexibility; and the way you perform the techniques builds the speed you will use them at. There are other ways to train these, sure. But kata does a pretty good job.
But teaching bashing can serve a purpose in that the other side can make their case. So far I haven't really seen that though so maybe they simply have different objectives than the average student who pays..
Yeah, if you use them! The point is you don't unless it's against an untrained assailant.123
Separate names with a comma.