Sharing with other Arts

[FearlessFreep]

One thought on Traditional Arts verus MMA.

I'm a musician, I play bass guitar; I used to play both bass and lead guitar but my bass playing was better, but the split concentration slowed me down on both sides. I dropped playing guitar with any seriousness and now I'm a pretty good bass guitarist; better then if I was still trying to do both.

I guess the thought is that traditional arts were actually designed for a purpose of combat, so I would be loathe to say 'it's not sufficient' until I was sure I'd adequately explored that full range of what the art teaches.

In the same time I could learn to kick and grapple, I think I could learn to kick much better. As is being talked about in another thread about punch mechanics, proper form and proper body movement is imperative. TKD uses very specific and precise body motions to gain speed, and therefore power, into the weapon striking surface. Can I master the philosophies of TKD in regards to power and strategy and body movement and then say 'not good enough' and move on to something else? I don't think I could. More importantly, I'm not sure someone could with any traditional art.

I think that's an important part; it's not that TKD does not want to embrace grappling or clinching or whatever. It's simply that TKD has a philosophy of combat and grappling is outside of the direction of that approach so to embrace grappling would be a distraction. Not that grappling is bad, just that it's...elsewhere, philosophically.

Case in point, when watching grapplers versue strikers in an open match, I keep seeing grapplers shoot forward to grab the legs/thighs of their opponents to take them down. This works in grappling, but from a TKD point of view, it's suicidal to get your head down like that and expose your back and neck. Not that either is 'wrong' or 'right', they just come from different philosophies of how to engage the enemy.

So, do I spend some time learning to shoot in like that and some time learning to keep my back straight and stay upright for maximum balance and power in a leg strike? They are a bit contridictory and I don't think I could be *really* good at either. I also suspect that being *really* good at one would make you less dependent on the other.

One of the few matches I saw on that silly UFC reality show (I call it silly because reality show soap operas are, to me, silly in general) you had a grappler against a striker (mostly with hands); the striker wasn't hittig that hard or that well and the grappler was able to shoot in and take the opponent down. To me, if the striker had better technique, it would not have been that easy for the grappler to take him down.

I think there becomes a mentality of "well, I have to do A, B, and C because A is not complete and B is not sufficient in it's own and.." The perception I think comes from two sources. First, people trained in A often don't train against people trained in B so in a match of A versus B, A doesn't know how to respond to B and loses and people think A is not good enough and they need to add B to their repetoire. Then that leads to the situation that people are training in both A and B, but because of the split concentration in themselves, and maybe the conflicting philosophies between A and B, they never really master either one. So they think they *need* both because they are not really skilled enough in either one. For example, you learn kicking and you learn grappling; you learn kicking for distance strikes and grappling for when the opponent gets in past the strikes to grab you. Now, if you had really mastered the kicking, it's possible that an opponent would never get in past the kicks to need to grapple. *Especially* if, in your learning to master kicking, you practiced *against* grapplers so you would know how they attack and how to counter their attackes with your striking. What little I've seen of mixed matches always has me wondering why, when they drop their head and shoulders, most grapplers don't end up with their heads kicked into the next ring and the best I can guess is that's it's because most kick based strikers don't train/spar against opponents who are going to do that

I may be oversimplifying but the gist is that:

A) Each art has a combat philosophy and different art's philsophies may be contradictory. Training in several may at, at best, slow down mastery of one and at worst, lead to conflicting approaches.
B) Mastering one art can be as sufficient as profficiency in several.
C) To master an art, train against people from other arts.

 

[Marginal]

One of the few matches I saw on that silly UFC reality show (I call it silly because reality show soap operas are, to me, silly in general) you had a grappler against a striker (mostly with hands); the striker wasn't hittig that hard or that well and the grappler was able to shoot in and take the opponent down. To me, if the striker had better technique, it would not have been that easy for the grappler to take him down.

There was more going on there than a poor striker vs a grappler. The striker got impatient. Tha's what let the grappler win by getting takedowns and then sitting on the other guy. That striker has a record of 17-1, so apparently his striking does work fairly well when he's not so completely taken out of his game.

What little I've seen of mixed matches always has me wondering why, when they drop their head and shoulders, most grapplers don't end up with their heads kicked into the next ring and the best I can guess is that's it's because most kick based strikers don't train/spar against opponents who are going to do that

A grappler worth his salt will only be shooting in like that when they perceive an opening, and know they are in range. Kicking them at range is one thing. Giving away your base is another thing entirely.

That aside, there's no reason to divorce TKD from grappling. Shotokan has anti grappling elements, TKD started with 'em as well. Still don't entirely beleive the folks that insist it's vital to reserve the most basic grappling elements like breakfalls etc for Black Belts.

 

[FearlessFreep]

There was more going on there than a poor striker vs a grappler. The striker got impatient.

I guess I should've said 'poor execution of technique'. 17-1 against what kind of opponents? Not skill wise but style wise. Was he used to/skilled against grapplers or just other strikers?

I think that if you go beyind sparring in your art and are interested in mixed-art sparring or concerned about self-defense then it's worth learning defenses against other styles of attacks. I don't have the time to really learn to grapple, but I think it would be good to learn how grapplers attack and how to defend against them, and even to train against them.

A grappler worth his salt will only be shooting in like that when they perceive an opening, and know they are in range.

OK, here's a serious question but how does a grappler know he is range? Or how does he get in range? I know in my TKD sparring our range and our safe zone is much longer than, say, boxing. Offensively, a hop-to roundhouse or front kick can hit a target quite a distance away. Defensively, since you know your opponent can strike fast from a distance, you tend to react, either with a counter, an evasion, or a block, pretty quickly. I guess I dont understand how a grappler could get close enough into range faster enough to get the arms around the thighs against a skilled TKD opponent who *knew* that's how grapplers attack and trained for it.

Not meaning to be denigrating, I just don't understand how it could/would be done...so the only thing I can think of is that it's simply something that the TKDers are not used to/don't expect/don't train for.


That aside, there's no reason to divorce TKD from grappling. Shotokan has anti grappling elements, TKD started with 'em as well.

Actually, in our self-defense training, we train against various kinds of grasps, chokes, etc.....but interestingly enough, we use mostly TKD based techniques; a lot of strikes and a lot of striking blocks (like an inner block to the tricep). Kinda TKD-based defense against non-TKD attacks

 

[MichiganTKD]

Fearless Freep,

I believe along those lines myself. I don't have a problem with understanding the basics of other styles (grappling, throwing, joint locks etc.) so that you understand how to break out of them. It might also be a matter of simple curiosity. When I was in school, the exchange students were seen as exotic because they weren't from the same area as the rest of us. Simple curiosity.
However, there is a difference between being acquainted with basic techniques from other styles so that you can counter them, and openly sharing with other styles out of "martial arts brotherhood".
Tae Kwon Do is a stand up striking style. It is not complemented by judo, aikido, jujitsu, grappling etc. because the philosophy and mechanics are different. Again, knowing the basics as a method of countering them is acceptable. Openly sharing your art and consistantly hanging out with a student of a different style is not. How do you he is not going to use that knowledge against you down the road? You think you are sharing in the "martial arts brotherhood", and he is examining your technique and delivery for weaknesses while he smiles at you and tells you how great you are.

 

[Marginal]

[I guess I should've said 'poor execution of technique'. 17-1 against what kind of opponents? Not skill wise but style wise. Was he used to/skilled against grapplers or just other strikers?

Since they were MMA competitions, probably a mix of both.

I don't have the time to really learn to grapple, but I think it would be good to learn how grapplers attack and how to defend against them, and even to train against them.

Which was what that striker was trying to do.

OK, here's a serious question but how does a grappler know he is range? Or how does he get in range? I know in my TKD sparring our range and our safe zone is much longer than, say, boxing.

Depends. A safe zone for a head punch is only marginally closer than the area where you can successfully land a kick tothe head. Also ask yourself this, how hard is it to close and jam a kick?

The grappler knows he's in range by vitrue of drilling. In a MMA setting, they're also trained and conditioned to take hits while closing that gap. If you're going to stick out a kick, that's a potential opening. (True for any attack) Nothing says the grappler has to mindlessly rush in.

Offensively, a hop-to roundhouse or front kick can hit a target quite a distance away.

The question is, will it stop a shoot? If not, it didn't accomlpish anything that'll change the outcome of the takedown except that the TKD guy'll be on one leg when the gap's closed.

Defensively, since you know your opponent can strike fast from a distance, you tend to react, either with a counter, an evasion, or a block, pretty quickly. I guess I dont understand how a grappler could get close enough into range faster enough to get the arms around the thighs against a skilled TKD opponent who *knew* that's how grapplers attack and trained for it.

It's likely the grappler also knows what to expect from a TKD stylist.

Actually, in our self-defense training, we train against various kinds of grasps, chokes, etc.....but interestingly enough, we use mostly TKD based techniques; a lot of strikes and a lot of striking blocks (like an inner block to the tricep). Kinda TKD-based defense against non-TKD attacks

Kinda odd. We train hold breaks, chokes, throws etc in my orginazation. Neat that you know that they're absolutely not real TKD techniques. All of those are also considered TKD, and they have been present since the org's founding. Makes me wonder just how much truer one flavor of TKD is over another vs it just being some guy's random preference vs the One True Way somewhere along the line.

Not that you're wrong in your perception. I'm just pointing out that it's kinda hard to take the whole purity issue seriously when you're trying to affix the label to a moving target.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

MichiganTKD in bold:

Tae Kwon Do is a stand up striking style. It is not complemented by judo, aikido, jujitsu, grappling etc. because the philosophy and mechanics are different.

The Koreans I studied with would differ with you, as do I. I find they compliment each other nicely. Where one leaves off, the other picks up. I've tested this, I've integrated it. Others have as well.

Again, knowing the basics as a method of countering them is acceptable.

Well, you gotta share to get that down. To learn how to defend a shot, you have to have someone shoot in on you that knows what he's doing. You likely won't get that in your standard dochang or dojo or kwoon.

Openly sharing your art and consistantly hanging out with a student of a different style is not.

Wow. Now we have parameters on who we socialize with. So I should not have gone to the visitation for the father of one of our Kali instructors last Sunday? I ought to avoid having coffee with a Muay Thai instructor because I might be tainted by the association? God forbid someone should see me with those folks...is that it?

How do you he is not going to use that knowledge against you down the road? You think you are sharing in the "martial arts brotherhood", and he is examining your technique and delivery for weaknesses while he smiles at you and tells you how great you are.

The parallels with racism here are astounding. Its as if you're establishing color lines and racial purity tests.

I keep thinking how Tim Hartman and I were welcomed warmly in Denmark. The Tae Kwon Do people there (very, very traditional, I might add) welcomed us with warmth and an unsurpasssed level of hospitality. They were receptive to what Tim had to show. Quite the martial brotherhood...quite like that I've become accustomed to here in my own school.

And they acted as if they had nothing to fear.

Oddly, the Muay Thai people, the Kali people, the CSW, T'ai Chi, BJJ, Judo, Capoeira people I associate with don't fear me for what I might use against them, MTKD. Nor I them. We base our relationships upon genuine respect that is free of paranoia.

We break bread together. We go to the birthdays of each other's children. We attend the wakes of each other's family members when they pass on. We visit each other in the hospital and each other's family members when they're in the hospital. And I don't doubt for a moment if push came to shove we'd back each other up in a moment of crisis.

Okay. Moving on...

When there is a discrepancy between what you know and believe and incoming new information, it is called cognitive dissonance. When people get overloaded by this dissonance they reject any new learning.

Leon Festinger first documented this when he was doing studies into an end-times cult. When the promised day didn't come, the die-hards rationalized it away, saying the world was saved by the devotion of the faithful.

Contrast this to a person of faith who is secure in his beliefs to the point of fearlessly sitting down with people of other religious traditions...without judgement. These people are not as rare as we think, nor as common as many of us would like.

I could say the same for the martial arts. Secure and paranoia-free open minded martial artists are not as rare as we think, nor as common as many of us would like. But there are a few.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

I could say the same for the martial arts. Secure and paranoia-free open minded martial artists are not as rare as we think, nor as common as many of us would like. But there are a few.

Regards,

Steve

I like this statement.

 

[Adept]

However, there is a difference between being acquainted with basic techniques from other styles so that you can counter them, and openly sharing with other styles out of "martial arts brotherhood".

Okay, this is where I'm going to jump on you for some answers.

What is this difference, and apart from your personal choice, why do you consider it to be important. If I, as a TKD black belt was to associate with Jujitsu people and boxing people, as I do, you would either think less of me, or consider my actions to be unsavory (sp?) in some way?

Tae Kwon Do is a stand up striking style. It is not complemented by judo, aikido, jujitsu, grappling etc. because the philosophy and mechanics are different.

Like Steve, I would strongly disagree. I find solid 'ground game' arts compliment TKD and other 'stand up' styles very well. Of course the mechanics are different. Rolling around on the ground is, by necessity, different to standing up and striking. The philosophy is a personal thing, and each student should take care of that for themselves.

Again, knowing the basics as a method of countering them is acceptable. Openly sharing your art and consistantly hanging out with a student of a different style is not.

Why not?

How do you he is not going to use that knowledge against you down the road? You think you are sharing in the "martial arts brotherhood", and he is examining your technique and delivery for weaknesses while he smiles at you and tells you how great you are.

He may very well. It would, in fact, be my goal to point out said weaknesses for both his and my benefit. By knowing my weaknesses I can take steps to limit them, and by knowing how to look for a weakness, the person I am sharing with becomes a better martial artist. Do you not teach your students how to identify a weakness in their opponent and exploit it? Why should I take a different approach because my 'student' has a background in a different art?

 

[Adept]

A) Each art has a combat philosophy and different art's philsophies may be contradictory. Training in several may at, at best, slow down mastery of one and at worst, lead to conflicting approaches.

Well, it depends.

Firstly, all you are learning are movements. Increasing the range of movements too quickly will increase the amount of time it takes to learn each one. On the other hand, once you've learned a movement, it only takes a few minutes a day to 'keep it up'. Once you've learned how to punch and kick, learning how to grapple and apply submision holds will not cause your kicking and punching skills to deteriorate.

Instead of learning two different instruments, as you used in your example, it's like learning a lot of different songs for one instrument. Once you can play that instrument well, you can play it well. Learning different songs doesn't make you play your other songs badly, so long as you don't let them get rusty, but it does mean you have a wider selection so you can play at birthdays, weddings, funerals and parties.

Similarly, you can learn other techniques without impairing the ones you already know, so long as you don't let them get rusty.

B) Mastering one art can be as sufficient as profficiency in several.

Well, no one can ever really agree on what should be in one single art. It varies from one organisation to the next, and often varies wildly within organisations. One TKD instructor might include chokes, throws and joint locks as part of the white belt syllabus, while another TKD instructor two towns over insists that there is no grappling in TKD at all. Some arts include a wider range of techniques than another.

And of course there is the other thing - why do we train? If all we want is to learn a traditional art for its own sake then obviously mastering any single art is the ultimate goal. If adding to our RBSD repertoire is the goal, then taking a spread of techniques from several arts is probably better than sticking religiously with one style.

C) To master an art, train against people from other arts.

Again, we are left to define 'master'. If all we want to do is compete with Olympic rules then training against greco-roman wrestlers isn't going to further that goal, for example.

 

[arnisandyz]

I don't have a problem with understanding the basics of other styles (grappling, throwing, joint locks etc.) so that you understand how to break out of them.

However, there is a difference between being acquainted with basic techniques from other styles so that you can counter them, and openly sharing with other styles

The problem with trying to "understanding the basics" so you can counter them is flawed if you don't have somebody that truely understands that style help you. I would assume since you don't associate with people out of your style you pick up your information from reading books, watching movies or videos, etc. Tell me, can you learn the essence of TKD from reading a book?

A good example of why "understanding the basics" as you say is flawed...
KNIFE. A majority of TKD schools have some level of knife defense. They fit thier empty-hand mentality into defending the knife. However if you have somebody very skilled in the knife show you how he would cut you, a light would go off and you would probably re-evaluate your defenses. To fully understand how to counter, you need to understand the technique to the point of it being real. You can't just "play" grappler so your TKD buddy can kick you in the head or "play" the part of a knife wielding bad guy, you have to become him.

 

[Adept]

You can't just "play" grappler so your TKD buddy can kick you in the head or "play" the part of a knife wielding bad guy, you have to become him.

Well put.

Live, resisting opponents with drills grounded in reality. In terms of self defense this point cannot be over-emphasised.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Again, we are left to define 'master'. If all we want to do is compete with Olympic rules then training against greco-roman wrestlers isn't going to further that goal, for example.

Mostly I meant 'master' in the sense of the capability to fight successfully against a variety of skilled and unskilled opponents. At least for this context since we are talking about the difference between TMA and MMA.

Not from a view that TMA or MMA is better or worse; just thinking of how to be effective. My thinking is that if you want to be successful against both trained and untrained opponents you can either get pretty good at A, B, or C or get *really good* at A, and by 'really good' that would include understanding at least how B and C attack and defend and how to use A against them.

I think TMA take a bad rap as being 'incomplete' but I think that is really because a lot of training in TMA is incomplete. I think TKD in particular suffers from this because since TKD has become such big business in sport, a lot of people only train it for sport..being point sparring and/or olympic-style sparring against other TKDers and on the one hand that's not really effective against other disciplines but on the other hand that doesn't really encompass all that TKD can do. So...TKD gets a bad rap, at least in the MMA, UFC, self-defense circle, but one sorta of it's own making. One I think that is deserved if all your train for is TKD sparring, but not deserved if you train TKD for combat/self-defense against non-TKD opponents, skilled and unskilled.

Any TMA, whether foot-striking-emphasis like TKD, hand-striking, wresting emphasis like Judo, etc.. has philosophies of how to achieve effectiveness. TKD, for all the spinning, is a very linear striking art, as opposed to another striking art that may use more circular motion. To get a lot of power in the linear strike requires a lot of practice and focus on particular techniques. Or let me put it another way to get a *lot* of power, consistantly and regularly and automatically and reliably requires a *lot* of practice and repetition and self-analysis and self-adjustment. So, on the one hand to get a really good kick requires a lot of time practicing and if you split your time between kicking drills and submission drills, your kick will never be as good as it can be, but you will have submission holds in your repetoire; on the other hand, if you focus on kicking drills and really mastering the technique, you won't knw submissions but your kicks will be devestating.

I don't think one way or the other is really right or wrong; I think it's just a matter of what you want to do, how you want to get there, and then a matter of how hard and well you train at it.

I would guess, though, that if you want to go the MMA route than you *really* need to go the MMA route and get as broadly versed as possible. I would think that you will never be really as good a kicker as someone focused on TKD or really as good as a wrestler focused on Judo or....so you need to have the extra breadth of skills. On the other hand, if you are going to go with a TMA approach then you *really* need to go fullforce on the TMA because if you are going to pit your X art against someone's Y art then you had better be good enough in X to *keep* the fight in X because if it gets in Y territory, you will be in trouble, unless you can get it back to X

Just thinking out loud...

 

[arnisandyz]

So, on the one hand to get a really good kick requires a lot of time practicing and if you split your time between kicking drills and submission drills, your kick will never be as good as it can be, but you will have submission holds in your repetoire; on the other hand, if you focus on kicking drills and really mastering the technique, you won't knw submissions but your kicks will be devestating.

I'm still going to teach my daughter how to rollerskate, even though she rides a bike. I'm still going to teach her how to paint even though she uses crayons, and I'm going to be happy when my daughter brings home strait "A"s on her report card (according to your philosophy because she is doing 5 or 6 different subjects she should be averaging "C"s in all of them).

 

[FearlessFreep]

I'm still going to teach my daughter how to rollerskate, even though she rides a bike.

If she is to be a really, really good rollerskater, as in a competitve skater, then she will probably not also going to be the same caliber as a bicyclist.

Painting and crayons use the same philosphy of color and shape and placement, and the same skills of eye-hand coordination, just different media.

Getting A's in math and reading are just the beginning of the learning. If she can get a PHD in Math and in Literature at the same time, splitting her concentration between two different discplines and still attaining to the higest levels simultaneously, then I'd be impressed.

Anyone with the time can go through the ranks in two different MAs simulataneously; getting in a match against someone who focuses solely on one art is a different story, otherwise you'd see more MMA artists entering TKD sparring matches and winning and into boxing matches and winning there as well because they are so good at both.

Very, *very* few people can split attention between two different athletic discplines and be more than just adequate or maybe even pretty good. A few have done it in baseball and football at the highest levels; but most people end up focusing on one over the other and being really good at one and ok at the other. World record triatheletes are world record triatheltes, not world record swimmers and world record marathoners.

When you life is on the line, you can be really good at a bunch of skills or really great at one skill. My only point is that both are valid, if you understand what it's going to take of you when your life is on the line and train accordingly

I guess my point is not that I think the MMA style is wrong, or the TMA approach is right, or vice versa; just that there is value to each and each has strengths and tradeoffs and it's not a matter that one is 'better' than the other but simply that if you take an approach, you should know what your goals are (self-defense? mixed art sparring? single art sparring?) and understand how your approach works in those goals and train accordingly. I think you can train MMA for self-defense, I also think you can train TKD for self-defense; as long as you know what's going to happen and you train your skills against that

 

[DuneViking]

Posted By TigerWoman :
I share plenty, wouldn't mind teaching others TKD technique and have on this forum. But I don't want TKD itself to change quickly, that's not about sharing but identity. Sharing--or splitting our art into techniques only, joining them with throwing, knees, elbows, grappling, etc. is not our art that's making it into something else--Taekwonhapkiaikijuijitsu-do.

Nice and fresh viewoint.
I support the idea of sharing, and my purpose in such is self defense. I do not want to, nor would I, change my basics or forms or other traditonal aspects of TKD. They are what makes it TKD.

Perhaps this is where I might offer a different viewpoint-opinion. I like to share to find what works to preserve life, protect my loved ones, and if practicable, not injure the offender. This is all kept separate in the realm of self defense, where I think it belongs. This allows preservation of one's particular art/style while still building up and enhancing the brotherhood within the arts and making self defense more effective.

How cool would it be not to teach a student a technique known to work because its non-traditional to one's particular art/style, only to have that be the cause of injury to that student.

LOL, while that wording may be a mouthful, its the point I seek to share.

Furthermore, what about philosphy, if a bit of wisdom gets through and accomplishes your task, who cares if its from another style? Is that difference worth having a student fail at public school, or helping them steer clear of drugs or trouble with peers or parents?

I would suggest to weigh the ultimate goal against what the cost of getting there is. It has been said (paraphrased of course) "perfection of character is the ultimate goal, all schools have this in common, nothing else is significant" So heck, if you want to not share, ok. You want to tell me to not share, OK. I will share with those I wish, regardless of what I might be told by such a person. I can find my gold nugget of knowledge. The day I stop looking for it, is the day that its time to leave the arts. Of course, my opinion is like a backdoor-everybody has one!!! :drinkbeer Guinness anyone?

 

[DuneViking]

HardHeadJarHead post 166Nice Job!!:asian:

 

[MichiganTKD]

The Western mentality is different from the Oriental mentality, and I don't mean that in a racist way.

The Western mentality is to try as many things as possible, be social, and congregate. It is perfectly acceptable to have 10 different irons in the fire. If you practice martial arts with a Western mentality, you undoubtably feel this way. Anything other than a cursory acceptance of Eastern manners is seen as worthless and contradictory to Western thought.
Because we in the West are not used to following one path, we see nothing wrong with practicing 4 different martial arts at once. It doesn't matter that you are only getting a superficial experience with them.
Also, different arts have different mentalities. The FMA mentality is different than the CMA mentality. The KMA mentality is different from the JMA mentality.
For example, I see many photos of Filipino stylists with their arms around each other in brotherhood. You would NEVER see a traditional Tae Kwon Do stylist doing that. We believe in distance between ourselves and others. Some see that as aloof and elitist. That's the way we are. A judo stylist may think nothing of being in close proximity with other judoka, because they practice close contact all the time. A TKD stylist will always keep distance from everyone else. it doesn't matter whether in the dojang or in life. A non-traditional student may not understand that, but that's the way it is. It's got nothing to do with feeling TKD is superior, it's the traditional TKD mindset. Now, if a TKD student from a different organization wants to consistantly share with other styles and join some Soke organization, that's their prerogative. America is the land of choice. Even if I don't agree with the choice made, I abide by the right to do it. A student from my organization is another matter. My organization, my rules.
My choice is to abide by traditional Korean TKD philosophy, as opposed to American philosophy. That means, instead of storefront classes, open tournaments, colored uniforms, and charging $100/month, I stay with the traditional Tae Kwon Do philosophy-don't worry about money, simple uniform, and TKD being a personal Way for you as opposed to associating with every stylist that comes around. I also accept traditional Korean TKD philosophy warts and all. I practice a traditional martial art, I follow it's rules. That is my way.

 

[FearlessFreep]

My friends are who my friends are, and my trust in them, or lack, goes far beyond just whether or not I tell them about a particular TKD approach or technique for fear they will some day use it against me.

TKD was not designed as a sport against fellow TKD sparrers, it was designed as a way of fighting against people; skilled or unskilled from different backgrounds.

As such a TKD practioner, to be complete, needs to be able to face people from other disciplines, and to do so requires knowing how they are going to attack. You can learn that the painful or deadly way by getting your butt kicked over and over until you glean the principles (or die), or you can join a school, read a book, ask one.

There's nothing secret in TKD that cannot be learned from a book, fom joining a class, from google.

No art has a monopoly on the truth of their art. TKD specializes in hard linear strikes, especially with the feet. If someone from another art learns a body mechanic allowing for a harder foot strike, you can be sure that TKD will adapt it, either eagerly in a desire to improve, or begrudgingly in embarassment of watching TKDers get beat at their own game.


---

I'm not concerned with sharing of arts from the point of view of a traditional approach to the art being some how sullied, or for fear that what I share may come back to get me. I'm just cautious that before I say to myself 'my (traditional) art is not sufficient', that I have really explored the full depth of what that art entails and can offer and my expresson of that art is as complete as I can make it and that any failing in the art is systemic to the art and not just a reflection of incomplete training, mine or anyone else's

 

[Adept]

Very, *very* few people can split attention between two different athletic discplines and be more than just adequate or maybe even pretty good. A few have done it in baseball and football at the highest levels; but most people end up focusing on one over the other and being really good at one and ok at the other. World record triatheletes are world record triatheltes, not world record swimmers and world record marathoners.

When you life is on the line, you can be really good at a bunch of skills or really great at one skill. My only point is that both are valid, if you understand what it's going to take of you when your life is on the line and train accordingly

But when you begin to break it down, even themost strict of TMAs has you learning several different things at once. You learn your pattern movements, you learn how to kick, how to punch, a few different blocks and a few different strikes. You can learn all of these at once without impairing the learning process.

Martial arts is not like earning a Phd. There is only so much to know, and it can be learned in a matter of weeks. What takes time is getting really good at what there is to know. But, once you are good at it, you don't have to keep re-learning it. Once the body mechanics are ingrained, a 30 minute bag work three times a week is enough to keep the skills alive. That leaves a lot of time to learn something else.

You wont see a champion marathon runner become a champion pole-vaulter and a champion boxer at the same time. Not because it is impossible to learn one while learning the others, but because the skills and training required to be competitive at a high level are counterproductive and very time consuming. After all the training for the marathon there is simply no time left for anything else.

Martial arts is slightly different, and it helps if you think of them as such. Rather than TKD and Jujitsu, simply think of them as martial arts. In that way, the training and conditioning of one helps the other. Knowing how to punch and how to kick is great, and learning how to grapple and use submissions is not going to make your punches or kicks weaker unless you stop focusing on them.