Direction

[Marginal]

The jab, cross, hook, and uppercut are from boxing. You think really Choi came up with four punches that are exactly the same punches in boxing, and then somehow thought of names that are exactly the same their boxing counterparts?

You really think they're that unique? Does calling it an angle punch rather than a hook somehow negate the mechanics?

The self defense portion of TKD has always been a stylistic grab bag in TKD regardless.

 

[NotQuiteDead]

You really think they're that unique? Does calling it an angle punch rather than a hook somehow negate the mechanics?

No, but there is no denying that the techniques were taken from other places. I don't see why that's so hard to accept.

If you saw someone throw a jab-cross combo, cover up and close in to get a body lock and then take his opponent down with a valley drop (as described on that website, exactly the same as that video), and then start to ground and pound his opponent would you say he's doing tae kwon do? I wouldn't.

 

[Marginal]

No, but there is no denying that the techniques were taken from other places. I don't see why that's so hard to accept.

What's hard to accept is you speaking for Choi.

Using a name with no knowledge of what was or wasn't said, what was or wasn't trained and capping it off with "Well, Choi never intended that/Choi didn't do that." is absurd. Your presumptions did not build TKD in any way. Stop pretending they are interchangeable.

Techniques taken from other places? That's how TKD developed in the first place. Shotokan, Judo, Taekyon, HKD all have influences in varying degrees. Came from other places? Doesn't matter it they're present in the cirriculum now.

 

[Spookey]

Marginal,

Can you get me caught up to this point. Especially related to your last post!

TK!
SpooKeY

 

[Adept]

As I got more and more into the martial arts, it seemed to me that a lot of time could be wasted trying to classify what styles and techniques and names should belong to which art. The words of Bruce Lee leapt off the page when I read Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and echoed what I'd always felt about martial arts. A punch is just a punch, a kick is just a kick. Unless people start growing extra arms and legs, there is only one style of fighting.

To me, the names we use to describe martial arts are just adjectives. Taekwondo just means "We use a lot of kicks, and don't do much groundfighting". If you try and start classifying and clarifying beyond that, people get upset. On this thread already we've had people complaining that jabs, hooks and crosses aren't part of TKD. Well, I've used punches in TKD that were jabs, hooks and crosses in all but name. Does that mean that I must invent a new art to encompass those punches?

Thats the main reason I simply refer to myself as a mixed martial artist. I don't want to get into arguments about what style I use, and what techniques I can use as part of that style and what ones I cant.

 

[Miles]

I'm not talking about similarities, I'm talking about them using the exact same terms for the exact same thing. 'Step and slide', 'push step', 'pendulum step', etc. come right out of that book. The 'vital grappling' is exactly the same as what is described in that link I posted. The jab, cross, hook, and uppercut are not TKD terms.

That site may be primarily about TKD, but a lot of the stuff on there is obviously not tae kwon do.

Perhaps not originally, but Taekwondo has "absorbed what is useful." In fact, there is a 3-tape instructional series with Coach Kim, Sei Hyuk (who is Samsung teach coach and is very famous in Korea) in which the jab and cross are demonstrated. They are not performed exactly as in boxing but very close.

As far as grappling is concerned, the TKDTutor site says that grappling is not inherent in TKD but one could consult a grappler for good training in case a fight goes to the ground.

Miles

 

[Marginal]

Marginal,

Can you get me caught up to this point. Especially related to your last post!

TK!
SpooKeY

He's offered up other Choi gems in other threads. For example:

If someone who trains in only TKD for striking does well in MMA using TKD techniques then I wouldn't argue that his TKD training helped, but my guess is that he wouldn't be fighting anything like Choi had in mind when he created TKD.

Which would be fine if he had any notion of what Gen Choi proposed, taught, put into the encyclopedia etc.

 

[NotQuiteDead]

What's hard to accept is you speaking for Choi.

Where did I ever try to speak for Choi? I asked if you really thought it was likely that Choi thought of the jab, cross, hook, and uppcercut and then happened to pick the exact same names for them without ever knowing anything about boxing. It's absurd to think that's even possible. As for that other quote, I said it was my guess. If you can't comprehend the difference between someone's guess or opinion and stating what they believe is a fact, then maybe you should take up another hobby instead of talking on message boards.

Boxing, JKD, etc. may be in your curriculum, but in my experience it's not standard tae kwon do. What's really odd is that the "vital grappling" section is exactly the same as what is described in the military combatives video, even though that video is less than 10 years old (probably a lot newer than that actually). Did the head of some TKD federation come train with the US military recently and decide that their way of getting into a clinch and the basic takedown from their level 1 combatives training is now standard TKD?

Adept,
I have no problem with people using techniques that aren't part of their 'core' art, I don't care about styles. I just think it's ridiculous for a "tae kwon do" website to take techniques from books, clips, and other sports without giving them any credit. Then you have people like Marginal that still try to say it's tae kwon do even when I linked to a clip that proves it's more of an ecclectic website than anything.

Watch this link and then read this page. Then try and tell me that site isn't just taking stuff from other places.

 

[Digger70chall]

fearless and notquitedead need to hold hands or something, all this hostility between the two of them is silly. MMA people will always try to get at TKD because it's not that effective in their particular sport. It has rules and regulations and weight classes just like any other sport of boxing or TKD. The MMA always has the benefit of not owning up to any particular style so he has nothing to defend...they can "use whatever works best" or train in multiple aspects, that's great if you are only doing this to pummle somebody the quickest or defend yourself against a single attacker in a cage. But honestly if you only want to defend yourself you can spend the 700 bucks for a nice kimber and get your permit. I started TKD not for the sport but for the training and dedication, their ideals are great standards to live up to and the people i meet are great. It shouldn't be a big leap of faith for both of you to realize that we are going to see things in entirely different light but neither MMA or TKD can prepare you for everything you may encounter in life. This went way off topic all i really wanted to say was that the army infantry movie wouldn't work for me and that background on their site made my eyes water up.

 

[Marginal]

Where did I ever try to speak for Choi? I asked if you really thought it was likely that Choi thought of the jab, cross, hook, and uppcercut and then happened to pick the exact same names for them without ever knowing anything about boxing.[/b]

That's when I aksed you if changing the name from hook punch to angle punch changes the mechanics of the punch.

My point being, the label doesn't especially matter as long as the technique's mechanics are the same. If there's a more understood terminology already existing, why wouldn't people adopt it over time? Even the Shotokan books by Nakayama mention jabs etc. It's not like people weren't aware of the terms, or the techniques. You say hooks were taken from boxing. There are only so many ways to deliver a punch.

If you can't comprehend the difference between someone's guess or opinion and stating what they believe is a fact, then maybe you should take up another hobby instead of talking on message boards.

Why keep invoking the name of a man you know nothing about?

Boxing, JKD, etc. may be in your curriculum, but in my experience it's not standard tae kwon do.

Do you have any TKD experience? Any ITF/USTF/TAGB etc experience?

I have no problem with people using techniques that aren't part of their 'core' art, I don't care about styles. I just think it's ridiculous for a "tae kwon do" website to take techniques from books, clips, and other sports without giving them any credit. Then you have people like Marginal that still try to say it's tae kwon do even when I linked to a clip that proves it's more of an ecclectic website than anything.

If you'll notice, TKD tutor has an extensive biblography section. They're not really saying "Look. It's TKD!" Besides that, TKD tutor disses sine wave. Someone who presumes on what Choi knew every other post ought to know what he'd think of that site.

 

[NotQuiteDead]

Digger70chall,
This has nothing to do with whether or not I like tae kwon do. I said I think it's odd for a website claiming to show tae kwon do to discuss techniques that are clearly not tae kwon do without giving credit to their original source.

Marginal,

That's when I aksed you if changing the name from hook punch to angle punch changes the mechanics of the punch.

My point being, the label doesn't especially matter as long as the technique's mechanics are the same. If there's a more understood terminology already existing, why wouldn't people adopt it over time? Even the Shotokan books by Nakayama mention jabs etc. It's not like people weren't aware of the terms, or the techniques. You say hooks were taken from boxing. There are only so many ways to deliver a punch.

Then why switch from Japanese terms to Korean ones? When tae kwon do was founded the Japanese terms (kata etc.) were already being used...

Why keep invoking the name of a man you know nothing about?

He founded the art. I bring up the founder of an art when I am discussing why I think it was founded, it only makes sense.

Do you have any TKD experience? Any ITF/USTF/TAGB etc experience?

ITF.

They're not really saying "Look. It's TKD!"

Really?

Read First!

WELCOME TO TKDTUTOR!

TKDTutor is a repository of Taekwondo information. It exists to educate the world about the martial art of Taekwondo.

Disclaimer. TKDTutor only presents the educational aspects of Taekwondo training; any physical training should be conducted under auspices of a certified Taekwondo instructor.

Neither Jun Fan Gung Fu: Seeking the Path of Jeet Kune Do nor the military combatives program are listed in the references pages.

 

[FearlessFreep]

From tkdtutor (emph. mine)

References to Karate. Taekwondo claims to be a Korean martial art. While its origin was in Korea, its roots were in Karate the founding masters studied while Japan occupied Korea during the first half of the twentieth century. Also, most martial arts are related since they have the same purpose—to defeat an aggressor with the empty hand. Therefore, TKDTutor will use information from various styles of Karate and other martial arts as it relates to Taekwondo.

Sources. Information presented in TKDTutor has been learned or collected by myself during over 30 years of training in Taekwondo and other martial arts. Some of the information is from personal experience and some is from other sources, such as books, magazines, Internet, etc. This is not a scholarly research document with footnotes/endnotes to original sources, but, where I know the sources of information, I have noted them at the end of the associated web page and have listed them the References page.

Otherwise just take it up with the site author. It's a useful source of information and other than that nobody else *here* really cares about what you are complaining about

 

[NotQuiteDead]

I wasn't trying to make a big deal about it, I made a single short comment. I only continued to discuss it because people here (mainly you) kept trying to claim that the non-tkd stuff was still from tae kwon do. Obviously you thought it was an issue because you kept arguing.

If I cared enough to want it changed I would have emailed the author; obviously I don't.

 

[Marginal]

He founded the art. I bring up the founder of an art when I am discussing why I think it was founded, it only makes sense.

Even when his presented views don't match yours, and you're still hiding behind the name? Getting a lotta mileage outta that "informal" TKD exposure.

 

[NotQuiteDead]

Even when his presented views don't match yours, and you're still hiding behind the name? Getting a lotta mileage outta that "informal" TKD exposure.

LOL, how am I hiding behind his name? The only time I brought him up in this thread I asked one question: do you really think Choi thought up the jab, cross, hook, and uppercut as well as the exact same names used in boxing on his own (although he spoke Korean and generally things in tkd have Korean names...)?

I haven't been claiming Choi said or did anything. There is a big difference between saying, "My guess is that he wouldn't be fighting anything like Choi had in mind when he created TKD" (which is what I said) and saying, "He wouldn't be fighting anything like Choi hand in mind when he created TKD" (which is what you imagined when trying to read my post).

 

[Marginal]

I haven't been claiming Choi said or did anything. There is a big difference between saying, "My guess is that he wouldn't be fighting anything like Choi had in mind when he created TKD" (which is what I said) and saying, "He wouldn't be fighting anything like Choi hand in mind when he created TKD" (which is what you imagined when trying to read my post).

Well, yes. One's a statement of opinion, the other's a statement of opinion qualified as an opinion.

 

[NotQuiteDead]

...and I qualified my post as an opinion, so I wasn't putting words into Choi's mouth or claiming that I speak for him. What was your reason for quoting me about that again?

 

[Marginal]

If Choi's actual opinions have no relevance to your comments, why do you keep using his name?

"I'm sure Choi didn't intend X..."

 

[NotQuiteDead]

What are you on about now? The only time I brought him up in this thread all I said was that Choi didn't invent the jab, cross, hook, and uppercut as well as their English names. Many tae kwon do teachers may teach them but that doesn't mean they haven't been borrowed from boxing.

I don't know why you have such a problem with me, but there is no need for you to follow me around on this forum with your petty arguments that don't take into account the context of my posts (such as the fact that I'm posting my opinions and don't claim to speak for Choi). Maybe you need a grammar lesson or two so you can distinguish between an opinion and a statement that is believed to be a fact?

Regarding my comment about people not fighting like I think Choi probably had in mind when he created tkd, do you think this was his vision of a tae kwon do fighter?

-Standing in a stance somewhere between a boxing stance and a muay thai stance, with very little weight on the front foot so low kicks can be checked.

-Covering or slipping rather than blocking to defend against strikes.

-Rarely using any punches other than the jab, cross, hook, uppercut, or a wild right.

-Rarely kicking anywhere but the thigh, and doing so with the shin rather than any part of the foot.

-Being ready to sprawl at all times (I don't recall ever seeing a sprawl in a form, but I may be wrong...).

-Clinching when the opportunity arises.

-Training extensively on the ground to use the guard and other positions to set up submissions or strikes.

That's how the majority of people who compete in mma fight and train. If someone trained in tae kwon do wanted to be successful they would have to be ready to check low kicks and sprawl at all times, and be well versed in the clinch because (especially in the cage) it's hard to keep backing away from someone trying to get close to you. All styles have to be adapted to be used successfully in mma, why would tae kwon do be any different?

 

[Marginal]

Regarding my comment about people not fighting like I think Choi probably had in mind when he created tkd, do you think this was his vision of a tae kwon do fighter?

-Standing in a stance somewhere between a boxing stance and a muay thai stance, with very little weight on the front foot so low kicks can be checked.

Versus...?

-Covering or slipping rather than blocking to defend against strikes.

Boxing employs no blocks? No plamed jabs in your world eh? Covering's always been employed in the sparring though.

-Rarely using any punches other than the jab, cross, hook, uppercut, or a wild right.

Backfist and hammer fist too.

-Rarely kicking anywhere but the thigh, and doing so with the shin rather than any part of the foot.

The shin's listed as an alternate attacking tool, and the nerve cluster's well known.

-Being ready to sprawl at all times (I don't recall ever seeing a sprawl in a form, but I may be wrong...).

That wasn't really a priority on anyone's list til 1990.

-Clinching when the opportunity arises.

Demonstrated in color belt forms-as the primary application no less.

-Training extensively on the ground to use the guard and other positions to set up submissions or strikes.

Minimal focus.

That's how the majority of people who compete in mma fight and train.

Not relevant to the discussion. The question was, what's TKD's direction? The direction can be changed. It's not defined by random people coming from outside the art trying to outguess what the founder's intentions were, and then using that half-baked hash of presuppositions to state that "If you do X, then it's not TKD."

It's tiresome to have to argue against this kind of elaborite strawman.