karate/ taekwondo differences

[Last Fearner]

I will notice them, I practice them, but I would never use them for SD, where the combat range is in the range of a foot to a foot and half or so.

Long range kicks are for long range. A street attack usually begins close up,

These are some of the points where exile and I disagree. I am aware that some fights begin at close range, but have seen many that build up with talk, insults, and threats to the point that a trained fighter can easily keep their opponent at some distance. Many physical altercations begin with the antagonist getting right in your face and yelling threats, even bumping chests or pushing with their hands before actually striking or attacking. If you haven't taken the cues by then, and created some distance for safety, then you are asleep at the wheel.

Some fights begin with little or no warning, but I would not put those in the majority. Even when a fight has begun at close range, I take quick steps to change that fact, thus it is rare that the fight is going to end in those first few seconds of initial close range assault (save a lucky sucker punch, which could happen), and anyone would be foolish to remain in that close range unless that is the area in which you are dominant.

The point is, range isn't something that the art lets you decide on; it's determined by the situation and the nature of the attack, and the fighting system better provide tools to let you operate in those ranges (and keep the fight in the range that the system is strongest in).

Exile, perhaps I am misreading this, but it seems a bit contradictory within itself. First you said that range is determined by the situation and not the art, but then you say the art must have the tools to "keep the fight in the range that the system is strongest in." I agree that the art teaches skills to maneuver to various ranges, and environment might influence or restrict these options (IE: pinned against a wall, in a confined space, back to a busy street, etc.), but in most cases, I believe we have enough room, and the ability to maintain at least a 3 to 6 foot range where the opponent gets hit if they violate that distance. I keep the range in my control when I fight.

From what I`ve seen some Taekwondoists tend to shout part of the name of their art a lot during training.

...Trainer: Are you having fun?
Class: Tae Kwon!...

.... Or is it a remaint from when the art was taught in the millitary?

Actually, you are quite close there. From what I understand, it was General Choi Hong Hi who began this practice. He was pushing very hard for the term "Taekwon-Do" to replace the other common terms in use. Even if people continued to use some of the old names, he wanted Taekwon-Do to become the "umbrella" name under which all other Korean systems would be organized.

When General Choi introduced Taekwon-Do to the Korean military, he required all of the soldiers to respond with a loud shout of "Taekwon" every time they came to attention. This helped to promote a sense of unity among those training in Taekwondo, and was part of his campaign to spread the word, and make the term popular - - and it worked. He also used this practice during any of his Taekwon-Do classes in the Military and in his Oh Do Kwan.

These days, many schools do the same thing, or use different terms in response to instructor commands. Some simply say "Yes, Sir!" (or Ma'am). At my school, we teach students to say "kamsahamnida" (thank you) every time they bow. Sometimes, we do drills where students yell "Chung-Do" to promote the spirit of the Chung Do Kwan. Sr. Grandmaster Sell has started promoting the term "Chung-Do" as meaning something extreme, or exceptional as in a technique, a type of form, or a student's positive attitude or success in anything.

I believe these kinds of expressions differ a bit from the "kia" confusion. When non-Asians (particularly in America that I know of) were first taught to yell, they found the concept difficult, and the communication between foreign instructors strained. Thus, they were told to "kia" or in Korean terms, to "kiphap" which means to yell. Some early participants decades ago, were actually told to yell the word "Kihap!" In the ATA, there were many misunderstandings and lax correctness of terms, pronunciations, spellings and their meanings that still carry over to instructors today.

It is silly for a person to shout the word "YELL" in English, thus it is equally strange for a Korean to hear someone yell "Kihap!" However, yelling terms of identity, like "Taekwon" is similar to an Army platoon from Delta Company yelling "Delta" when they come to attention, or a football team shouting "Go Bears" or "Touchdown" when they break from a huddle.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

I was told it was a part of the art being brought over to help give instint recognition to the Art from Korea. They added this yell for these command so people would chime those words over and over. To give the impression that the Art was the most extreme art out there in those days. I really do not know how true it is but GMKim said this was as close as he could remember.

Which GM Kim is this Terry?

 

[exile]

Exile, perhaps I am misreading this, but it seems a bit contradictory within itself. First you said that range is determined by the situation and not the art, but then you say the art must have the tools to "keep the fight in the range that the system is strongest in."

I'm thinking here of the fact that usually a street fight progresses from shoving range to the `intechange of limbs' distance to possibly grappling/ground contact. And I'll freely admit that neither Karate or TKD are great at the latter, because they operate from a different strategic plan: they're striking arts that reward being able to deliver strikes—hand/arm and leg both—when the defender is vertical; they do give you tools to handle ground situations, but those tools are designed to help you get off the ground, whereas wrestling, judo and jiujitsu spend a good deal of time training for control and destruction on the ground. When I say that the art should provide means to keep within the strongest range for that art, I'm thinking about how a TKDist/TSDist or karateka will handle the case of someone who shoots in low to get the defender on his back. This is a scenario you often see people bringing up against the striking arts: how do you keep from going to the ground (my own take on this is that the defender should train the use of elbow strikes to the neck vertebræ to handle this kind of attack, and I've read really good analyses of defense against that kind of attack by other striking-art practitioners). Given that you aren't looking for the fight, and have only so much input as to where it will begin (short of announcing to unpleasant-seeming types that if they get within five feet of you, say, you're going to preemptively attack them—not recommended!), it's much better to keep the fight at the striker's prefered range, allowing your skills of deflection, control and movement to inside or outside to damage the attacker, than to allow the fight to get too close for striking and have to reestablish that range from the ground, or a clinch, or something like that. That was what I was getting at. Definitely, the situation finds you, you don't get to set it up in advance, but since it can move quickly to less and less comfortable range (from a striker's point of view) the idea was just that a striking art needs to be able to keep the range from shrinking past the point where the main techs of the art are effective.

My impression is that there are Okinawan styles which are rather more comfortable at the `interchange of limbs' range, with a heavy use of tuite methods, throws and other jiujitsu-like techniques. So far as Sean's observations about range preference go, though, I was thinking specifically about Japanese karate styles vis-à-vis TKD/TSD, and here I think both the Japanse and Korean arts are most comfortable at—and have the greatest number of technical elements devoted to—the same general striking range. The discussion grew out of Sean's suggestion that TKD and karate inherently possess different fighting ranges; based on the kinds of tools they train, however, at least in my experience with friends and instructors in both, it seems to me that people in both are trained to operate over the same distances.

I agree that the art teaches skills to maneuver to various ranges, and environment might influence or restrict these options (IE: pinned against a wall, in a confined space, back to a busy street, etc.), but in most cases, I believe we have enough room, and the ability to maintain at least a 3 to 6 foot range where the opponent gets hit if they violate that distance. I keep the range in my control when I fight.

My own (admittedly limited) experience with fights and threats of attack have mostly involved confined spaces where more than a couple of feet would be a considerable luxury. Tables, chairs and the vertical poles of subway care represent some of the main obstacles I've encountered, and very sudden initiations where it only become clear that there was very, very bad trouble incoming when the would-be assailant was within arm's length.

 

[stoneheart]

My impression is that there are Okinawan styles which are rather more comfortable at the `interchange of limbs' range, with a heavy use of tuite methods, throws and other jiujitsu-like techniques. So far as Sean's observations about range preference go, though, I was thinking specifically about Japanese karate styles vis-à-vis TKD/TSD, and here I think both the Japanse and Korean arts are most comfortable at—and have the greatest number of technical elements devoted to—the same general striking range. The discussion grew out of Sean's suggestion that TKD and karate inherently possess different fighting ranges; based on the kinds of tools they train, however, at least in my experience with friends and instructors in both, it seems to me that people in both are trained to operate over the same distances.

And that's a great qualifier to throw in. All karate is not the same. Traditional Okinawan karate specifically addresses close range combat. Other variations of karate that are more tournament-oriented may teach the long range aspect to the exclusion of everything else. In general, I have found Japanese and Korean arts to fit this mode more with Wado-Ryu (a Japanese style) a notable exception.

 

[exile]

And that's a great qualifier to throw in. All karate is not the same. Traditional Okinawan karate specifically addresses close range combat. Other variations of karate that are more tournament-oriented may teach the long range aspect to the exclusion of everything else. In general, I have found Japanese and Korean arts to fit this mode more with Wado-Ryu (a Japanese style) a notable exception.

Javier Martinez' and Mark Bishop's work both spotlight the very close-range applications of Okinawan systems (my impression is that the Naha styles and Uechi-Ryu were especially known for their grappling/throwing techs).

Still, some caution is probably in order here, because you have to distinguish sports applications of any style from combat applications, and as Iain Abernethy points out in his book Karate's Grappling Methods:

Karate possesses a great many close range techniques but they are rarely practised. The main reason for this is that close range technique will not score points in the competitive environment...

The type of karate sparring that forms the basis of modern day competition was originally designed as a training method ot emphasise the importance of quickly disabling an assailant through well-placed strikes to weak points.​

He later cites Funakoshi's comment in Karate-Do Kyohan that `in karate, hitting, thrusting, and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are included', a view repeated by Egami, and shows how serious throws and ground applications are found in `cross-the-board' katas such as the Pinans, Bassai, Naihanchi and Rohai.

I get the sense that what's involved is that certain styles have perhaps a greater percentage of active participants in tournament competition than other styles do. If that's the case, then the problem isn't the lack of technical resources but the way in which training is carried out. It could well be that the Okinawan-based dojos, and Wado-Ryu, from what you've said, just don't view tournament competition as nearly as important to train for as other styles might.

But I think that could well be true for KMA dojangs as well....

 

[Last Fearner]

Thanks for clearing up what you were meaning about ranges. I think the important thing for Taekwondoists to remember is that the use of long range kicking and close range strikes is an advantage to be used but should not become a crutch. KMA and Karate do contain joint locks, throws, and grappling, and we must train in them regularly, with strong resistance from training partners, to ensure we can be effective at any range.

If that's the case, then the problem isn't the lack of technical resources but the way in which training is carried out. It could well be that the Okinawan-based dojos, and Wado-Ryu, from what you've said, just don't view tournament competition as nearly as important to train for as other styles might.

But I think that could well be true for KMA dojangs as well....

I agree that this is a valid observation. Many modern schools might have lost some of their complete content, or might intentionally focus on sport, fitness, or fun, but I believe in training for real-life street-combat survival first, and sports second.

 

[chinto]

And that's a great qualifier to throw in. All karate is not the same. Traditional Okinawan karate specifically addresses close range combat. Other variations of karate that are more tournament-oriented may teach the long range aspect to the exclusion of everything else. In general, I have found Japanese and Korean arts to fit this mode more with Wado-Ryu (a Japanese style) a notable exception.

as some one who studies an Okinawan style I have to agree in general with this. I am sure that there is some diferences in instructors and such, but in the style I study we work a lot on close range and intermediat range techniques.
In a self defence situation I would sugest that close range is where you can do a lot of damage and get damaged fast! I would also sugest that the longer a fight lasts the more danger you are in of a fatal out come to you .. as some one who may not be as skilled can get lucky. the old Okinawan masters designed and developed the art of Karate for self defence where your life was the prize! In short the one still alive at the end or a few seconds to say 30 seconds was the winner!! this may be harsh, nasty, but the reality of a real self defence situation where the assailant wants to take your life.

 

[chinto]

Thanks for clearing up what you were meaning about ranges. I think the important thing for Taekwondoists to remember is that the use of long range kicking and close range strikes is an advantage to be used but should not become a crutch. KMA and Karate do contain joint locks, throws, and grappling, and we must train in them regularly, with strong resistance from training partners, to ensure we can be effective at any range.



I agree that this is a valid observation. Many modern schools might have lost some of their complete content, or might intentionally focus on sport, fitness, or fun, but I believe in training for real-life street-combat survival first, and sports second.

yep in the dojo I train in, that is an Okinawan style , we do train in the locks and throws and graples and other techniques as well as the strikes and kicks that most do.

 

[Cirdan]

Not so fast, Cirdan! Aren't you forgetting something... like, Osu!!! bellowed out at top volume every 4.3 seconds in a lot of dojos? There's a very funny analysis of the misuse of this expression in North American dojos by Rob Redmond on the 24fightingchickens Shotokan site, here.

Thanks for pointing that out exile. The Osu! is thankfully not used much around here and I had in fact forgotten about the whole silly business. The one time I met a Karateka who shouted Osu! at me every five seconds I just replied with a calm Onegai shimazu and Domo arigato gozaimashita after. :asian:

 

[exile]

Thanks for pointing that out exile. The Osu! is thankfully not used much around here and I had in fact forgotten about the whole silly business. The one time I met a Karateka who shouted Osu! at me every five seconds I just replied with a calm Onegai shimazu and Domo arigato gozaimashita after. :asian:

LOL! He probably couldn't understand why you were being merely polite and not getting into the manic spirit of the thing. I'm wondering if Redmond's little essay on the misuse of `Osu' by people trying to recreate what they imagine a Japanese dojo to be has had a sobering effect on the Shotokan community here—a fair number of karate people read the 24fightingchickens site.

In my school we never bark `Taekwon!!!!' at each other, so I was kind of surprised to find out that people actually did this...

Thanks for clearing up what you were meaning about ranges. I think the important thing for Taekwondoists to remember is that the use of long range kicking and close range strikes is an advantage to be used but should not become a crutch. KMA and Karate do contain joint locks, throws, and grappling, and we must train in them regularly, with strong resistance from training partners, to ensure we can be effective at any range.

I wonder how much of that is people, even those who actually know the close-in techs, only teaching a subportion of the full syllabus because that's what they believe their clientele is interested in. If enough people get into TKD with the expectation that the whole story is Olympic-style point-sparring, then a rational marketing strategy would be to focus on just those techniques that stay in the distant range. It's not good for the art, but it might well be good for business. Unless the owner/chief instructor feels a certain obligation to the art that goes beyond the bottom line on the balance sheet, there could be a lot of oversimplification of the considerable technical diversity in these arts.

I agree that this is a valid observation. Many modern schools might have lost some of their complete content, or might intentionally focus on sport, fitness, or fun, but I believe in training for real-life street-combat survival first, and sports second.

Yes, exactly.

as some one who studies an Okinawan style I have to agree in general with this. I am sure that there is some diferences in instructors and such, but in the style I study we work a lot on close range and intermediat range techniques.
In a self defence situation I would sugest that close range is where you can do a lot of damage and get damaged fast! I would also sugest that the longer a fight lasts the more danger you are in of a fatal out come to you .. as some one who may not be as skilled can get lucky. the old Okinawan masters designed and developed the art of Karate for self defence where your life was the prize! In short the one still alive at the end or a few seconds to say 30 seconds was the winner!! this may be harsh, nasty, but the reality of a real self defence situation where the assailant wants to take your life.

This ties into the same point. But remember, in North America we have I think a deeply different view of things from that of people in these Asian societies during the past couple of centuries. At some level, we believe that our first and main line of defense, of personal safety, is determined by an institutional network—law enforcement agencies, a hierchical court system, professional governmental prosecutors acting as our advocates, and an extensive network of prison—that serves as a deterrent to the increasingly anonymous crime which threatens our security. As cash becomes less and less used, the vast bulk of crime is carried out in increasingly nonviolent ways—we are far more likely to have credit-card fraud or identity theft happen to us than a violent mugging. So people's background assumptions about personal security in 20th c. N.America are probably very different from those in 19th c. Shuri or mi-20c c. Seoul, where for most people, none of these things I've mentioned were true: you were responsible for your own survival, law and enforcement were pretty scarce unless you were one of the privileged wealthy, and violent street crime and gang activity were quite visible. I suspect that things were much the same, in this respect, in Korea, China, Okinawa, Japan and the rest of Asia, where our TMAs come from. So that entail, almost, a very different view of the MAs: not as essential SD tool, life-preservers in a dangerously violent everyday world, but as a recreational activity, a sport, a fitness regime, and maybe, for some people, a reliable tool for self-defense—but my experience has been that a lot of the MA business is driven by these other perceived benefits. For a lot of kids, especially, MAs seem to be a kind of alternative to gymnastics, inspired by MA movies. The difference in world view translates into a difference in actual practice, pretty much inevitably...

 

[terryl965]

Which GM Kim is this Terry?

GM Gin KIm he is out of California, he is a 9th Dan Kukkiwon certified from the Oh Do kwan side. Great guy, strickly old school TKD.

 

[chinto]

This ties into the same point. But remember, in North America we have I think a deeply different view of things from that of people in these Asian societies during the past couple of centuries. At some level, we believe that our first and main line of defense, of personal safety, is determined by an institutional network—law enforcement agencies, a hierchical court system, professional governmental prosecutors acting as our advocates, and an extensive network of prison—that serves as a deterrent to the increasingly anonymous crime which threatens our security. As cash becomes less and less used, the vast bulk of crime is carried out in increasingly nonviolent ways—we are far more likely to have credit-card fraud or identity theft happen to us than a violent mugging. So people's background assumptions about personal security in 20th c. N.America are probably very different from those in 19th c. Shuri or mi-20c c. Seoul, where for most people, none of these things I've mentioned were true: you were responsible for your own survival, law and enforcement were pretty scarce unless you were one of the privileged wealthy, and violent street crime and gang activity were quite visible. I suspect that things were much the same, in this respect, in Korea, China, Okinawa, Japan and the rest of Asia, where our TMAs come from. So that entail, almost, a very different view of the MAs: not as essential SD tool, life-preservers in a dangerously violent everyday world, but as a recreational activity, a sport, a fitness regime, and maybe, for some people, a reliable tool for self-defense—but my experience has been that a lot of the MA business is driven by these other perceived benefits. For a lot of kids, especially, MAs seem to be a kind of alternative to gymnastics, inspired by MA movies. The difference in world view translates into a difference in actual practice, pretty much inevitably...[/quote]


yes for most perhaps. but some of us have had the experiance of personal self defence on a very serious basis. those of us who do may have a similer veiw of the situation.


ALSO.. *** NOTE** the supreem court of the Untied States of Amarica has found that the Police have NO DUTY to protect you!! their duty is to Investgate a Crime that Has Allready happend for the District Atterny to Prosicute! this is a finding and ruling of the court so LAW. ....


Please remember that under that ruleing that you have a duty and the obligation to defend yourself. ..... I know its not politicaly correct to point it out; But it is the law and the truth.

If I am attacked by some one ever I will use that as part of my defence when I use what I train in to defend myself from that attacker.

 

[exile]

This ties into the same point. But remember, in North America we have I think a deeply different view of things from that of people in these Asian societies during the past couple of centuries. At some level, we believe that our first and main line of defense, of personal safety, is determined by an institutional network—law enforcement agencies, a hierchical court system, professional governmental prosecutors acting as our advocates, and an extensive network of prison—that serves as a deterrent to the increasingly anonymous crime which threatens our security. As cash becomes less and less used, the vast bulk of crime is carried out in increasingly nonviolent ways—we are far more likely to have credit-card fraud or identity theft happen to us than a violent mugging. So people's background assumptions about personal security in 20th c. N.America are probably very different from those in 19th c. Shuri or mi-20c c. Seoul, where for most people, none of these things I've mentioned were true: you were responsible for your own survival, law and enforcement were pretty scarce unless you were one of the privileged wealthy, and violent street crime and gang activity were quite visible. I suspect that things were much the same, in this respect, in Korea, China, Okinawa, Japan and the rest of Asia, where our TMAs come from. So that entail, almost, a very different view of the MAs: not as essential SD tool, life-preservers in a dangerously violent everyday world, but as a recreational activity, a sport, a fitness regime, and maybe, for some people, a reliable tool for self-defense—but my experience has been that a lot of the MA business is driven by these other perceived benefits. For a lot of kids, especially, MAs seem to be a kind of alternative to gymnastics, inspired by MA movies. The difference in world view translates into a difference in actual practice, pretty much inevitably...

yes for most perhaps. but some of us have had the experiance of personal self defence on a very serious basis. those of us who do may have a similer veiw of the situation.

Yes, no question—but as I say, those of us who have been in that position are not representative. I mentioned somewhere else that according to statistics assembled by a clinical psychologist (who is also a high-ranking TKDist) in the current Black Belt, the odds of being subject to a heart attack are 43 times greater than the chances of being injured in a violent crime; and there are similar numbers for diabetes, certain cancers and other lifestyle-based illnesses. It's like the numbers for shark attacks: in any given year, according to figures collected by the Vancouver Aquarium, more people are killed by being struck on the head by falling coconuts or crushed by soda machines that they're trying to get their jammed Coke bottles from than by shark attacks. So that means that a proportionally small percentage of MAists are actually subject to street violence. (You could say, well, MAists are healthier and fitter than the background, but from what I've seen, I'm not so sure about that). So MAists who've been in dangerous altercations (and thereby formed the attitude that MAs should be SD-oriented first and foremost) are almost certainly in a distinct minority. And cultural attitudes tend not to reflect minority perspectives.

ALSO.. *** NOTE** the supreem court of the Untied States of Amarica has found that the Police have NO DUTY to protect you!! their duty is to Investgate a Crime that Has Allready happend for the District Atterny to Prosicute! this is a finding and ruling of the court so LAW. ....


Please remember that under that ruleing that you have a duty and the obligation to defend yourself. ..... I know its not politicaly correct to point it out; But it is the law and the truth.

If I am attacked by some one ever I will use that as part of my defence when I use what I train in to defend myself from that attacker.

I don't know that political correctness comes into it... I suspect that most people of any political stripe would regard someone who argues that you should let yourself be beaten up and physically damaged by an attacker (and then wait for the court system to incarcerate the guy for a year or so after plea-bargaining) as a nutter. The primary impulse wired into us is survival; it would be hard to make a case that you shouldn't defend yourself, no matter what political axioms you were starting from. I think the major factor is that the market for street-useful MAs is just not there, because the middle class people who are the bread and butter of the MA business don't enounter nearly enough personal violence on a daily basis to make it profitable for the industry to emphasize SD applications in their curricula...

 

[chinto]

I don't know that political correctness comes into it... I suspect that most people of any political stripe would regard someone who argues that you should let yourself be beaten up and physically damaged by an attacker (and then wait for the court system to incarcerate the guy for a year or so after plea-bargaining) as a nutter. The primary impulse wired into us is survival; it would be hard to make a case that you shouldn't defend yourself, no matter what political axioms you were starting from. I think the major factor is that the market for street-useful MAs is just not there, because the middle class people who are the bread and butter of the MA business don't enounter nearly enough personal violence on a daily basis to make it profitable for the industry to emphasize SD applications in their curricula...[/quote]

yep, but I have to say there are some real nutters as you call them out there that think that some how you should not be allowed a weapon or training in any thing that might be "Violent".

In our local schools if there is an altercation, both students go to jail. ( juvinile hall enless over 17 I understand). this is regardless of who started it, or who was defending themselves or any of the other sercomstances. I am not a student or a parant..(thank god) but I find this attitued that meany of the schools and some others who are raising our youth rediculious! So unfortunently "Nutty" as it sounds and is in fact, it is actualy being practiced by some in authority!~

 

[exile]

In our local schools if there is an altercation, both students go to jail. ( juvinile hall enless over 17 I understand). this is regardless of who started it, or who was defending themselves or any of the other sercomstances. I am not a student or a parant..(thank god) but I find this attitued that meany of the schools and some others who are raising our youth rediculious! So unfortunently "Nutty" as it sounds and is in fact, it is actualy being practiced by some in authority!~

I agree. This is crazy. Collective punishment is ethically hateful. By that logic, both the lynch mob and its resisting, would-be victim all should be sent to the slammer. Furthermore, schools in the past typically have done a rotten job protecting kids from bullying. I don't know to what degree this has changed in general, but until fairly recently, in many schools there is a kind of pseudo-Darwinian attitude to the violent harassment of one child by another. I tend to think this was an implicit policy set by school officials, maybe following dictates from their local boards of education, to minimize interventions that could lead to legal wrangling, and would require a lot more monitoring than overworked teachers have time and resources to carry out. Incidents like Columbine may have been a wake-up call in the K–12 education world about the dangers of casting a blind eye to bullying, I don't know...

But regardless of where all that comes from, I think that again, the numbers probably don't add up to a perception by middle class parents that their kids need to learn—and have the right to use—technical MAs specifically for SD purposes. A lot of MA schools stay in the black through their programs aimed at schoolkids, emphasizing sparring and technique performance in a vacuum of combat application. I suspect that both TKD and karate are in the same boat in this respect. I'd like to bet any amount you name that Krav Maga programs have a way higher percentage of adult participants than the plain-vanilla dojo or dojang....

 

[FieldDiscipline]

I'd like to bet any amount you name that Krav Maga programs have a way higher percentage of adult participants than the plain-vanilla dojo or dojang....

I certainly think that is the case.

Thanks BTW Terry for your reply.

 

[chinto]

I agree. This is crazy. Collective punishment is ethically hateful. By that logic, both the lynch mob and its resisting, would-be victim all should be sent to the slammer. Furthermore, schools in the past typically have done a rotten job protecting kids from bullying. I don't know to what degree this has changed in general, but until fairly recently, in many schools there is a kind of pseudo-Darwinian attitude to the violent harassment of one child by another. I tend to think this was an implicit policy set by school officials, maybe following dictates from their local boards of education, to minimize interventions that could lead to legal wrangling, and would require a lot more monitoring than overworked teachers have time and resources to carry out. Incidents like Columbine may have been a wake-up call in the K–12 education world about the dangers of casting a blind eye to bullying, I don't know...

But regardless of where all that comes from, I think that again, the numbers probably don't add up to a perception by middle class parents that their kids need to learn—and have the right to use—technical MAs specifically for SD purposes. A lot of MA schools stay in the black through their programs aimed at schoolkids, emphasizing sparring and technique performance in a vacuum of combat application. I suspect that both TKD and karate are in the same boat in this respect. I'd like to bet any amount you name that Krav Maga programs have a way higher percentage of adult participants than the plain-vanilla dojo or dojang....

yep that is provably true of meany dojos and dojangs.. the one I study at does teach self defence to the few kids we have.. but of course the instructor is carefull what is tought and to wich kid and when it is tought to that kid. but there is NOT a Vacuum of combat applications at our dojo THANK GOD! I would not be a student there if there were.

 

[exile]

yep that is provably true of meany dojos and dojangs.. the one I study at does teach self defence to the few kids we have.. but of course the instructor is carefull what is tought and to wich kid and when it is tought to that kid. but there is NOT a Vacuum of combat applications at our dojo THANK GOD! I would not be a student there if there were.

Right, I feel the same way. Our instructor is very conscious of the combat content of our hyungs and of the need to link realistic SD training with these forms... but it's all too true that there are very few places that will do that, and even fewer which will teach that approach to kids. My own feeling is, you don't have to give a child the full monty on SD and `hard' techs in order to get them thinking along the right lines about practical application. Showing them just a bit, as your instructor does, from what you say, can definitely be enough, as long as it's made clear to the child that everything they're being taught will ultimately have SD payoffs, even if those payoffs aren't going to be made clear just yet.

So this is another area where I think that the differences between Karate and TKD—which do exist and shouldn't be denied—are nonethless a lot less prominent than the similarities. Both arts (or families of arts, might be a more accurate way of thinking of them) have been increasingly marketed primarily to children for business reasons, and the effect has been to dilute the combat content of both arts in similar fashion. In both arts, there are always a few dedicated instructors who buck this trend and teach the `hidden content' of the art (suitably modified for children's use; but it's still taught, just as you say). My hope and belief is that as time goes on, there will be more such instructors and schools.

 

[chinto]

Right, I feel the same way. Our instructor is very conscious of the combat content of our hyungs and of the need to link realistic SD training with these forms... but it's all too true that there are very few places that will do that, and even fewer which will teach that approach to kids. My own feeling is, you don't have to give a child the full monty on SD and `hard' techs in order to get them thinking along the right lines about practical application. Showing them just a bit, as your instructor does, from what you say, can definitely be enough, as long as it's made clear to the child that everything they're being taught will ultimately have SD payoffs, even if those payoffs aren't going to be made clear just yet.

So this is another area where I think that the differences between Karate and TKD—which do exist and shouldn't be denied—are nonethless a lot less prominent than the similarities. Both arts (or families of arts, might be a more accurate way of thinking of them) have been increasingly marketed primarily to children for business reasons, and the effect has been to dilute the combat content of both arts in similar fashion. In both arts, there are always a few dedicated instructors who buck this trend and teach the `hidden content' of the art (suitably modified for children's use; but it's still taught, just as you say). My hope and belief is that as time goes on, there will be more such instructors and schools.

I certianly hope that over time meany more dedicated instructors will buck the trend to sportify and dumb down the SD and COMBAT content in their classes.

that is not to say that you would teach say a kid 9 or 12 the same way or even the same amount of the bunkai and SD aplications there in as you would an adult or even say a 16 or 17 or 18 year old.

but it is the sensei's responsibility to not "make a frankanstine student".

 

[Zhan Mu Si]

Historically, they're very closely related, with TKD strongly influenced by Shotokan. Karate doesn't have the high kicks however and usually has less of an emphasis on sport aspects than TKD. Karate emphasizes punching more than kicking, TKD usually the other way around or at least nearer to 50-50. Usually you get some weapons training in karate but not always in TKD.

I would agree with most of that, though disagree with the high kick comments. It is very true that TKD concentrates alot more on kicks than they do on punches but I think it's too easy to assume Karate works the other way. Shotokan Karate has a multitude of kicks, any of which can be performed at head level (any higher than your opponants head and it's not needed)

TKD form is very similar and seems to be largely based on Shotokan 'Kata', so in form/kata the difference is very small. Obviously as already mentioned, punching in Karate is a big deal, possible more than TKD.

Another point previously made was looking at the sport aspect of TKD. Karate can have a very active sport side to it, this depends on the association that the Shotokan club falls under. What association was it, btw?

The difference in Shotokan from many other Karate systems and TKD systems is that Shotokan is intended to be a very hard, external system. There is little to no deflections. Either totally avoid the strike or take the strike and turn impact into devistation. When Shotokan was founded by Funakoshi Sensei all of its original basic blocks were developed as breaking techniques. A trational Karate-Ka would conition their arms, fists, fingers, wrists and so forth so that even the most basic of blocks would disable their attacker by means of bone breaking, with little (if any) damage to the Karate-Ka. Obviously today Shotokan Karate in classes in the west does not have the brutality it once did. But that is in a class.. many Karate-Ka's still take conditioning very seriously and as a result of learning the correct technique in class, can apply to it devastating effect in the real world. There are also a whole range of open hand and finder techniques in Shotokan Karate, I've not come across much more than nukitae (knife hand strike) in TKD though could be there, I just have not seen them.

Another large difference ( of which many find hard). Is that Shotokan is trationally practised very low to the ground. Strong, low, pounding stances are the secret to Shotokan. "Beware of the shotokan man. Why, Because he trains low". Training logo gives you increbible speed and power when stood up right. You'd train low, stand high in real situations by which time you are well prepared with huge leg muscles and excellent speed.

No doubt I'm slightly bias to Shotokan as it has long been a passion of mine, though I have tried and give merrit to many other systems. Many shotokan classes today do not train as hard as I would like, though that being said some still find it hard. I feel TKD is an excellent system for those wishes to practise marial arts in a fun, friendly, sincier enviroument that don't want to walk out of each lesson with bruised forearms and the rest. Shotokan is a great system for the same sincier enviroument possible slightly more trational. TKD is a bit more standardised than Shotokan though still has plenty of trational and diversity there to interest you.

Just my 2 cents..
Cheers