Does taekwondo needs cross-training to complete it

[Earl Weiss]

Let's refocus though. What do we mean by exist within the art? Is there any validity to the statement that TKD has this or that, if in main the majority of TKDist never practice it?
.

It is absolutley valid. It is not the fault of any creator of the system if people choose to neglect or omit elements of the system.

I submit that it is very sad having had Chang Hon practitioners come to my school and when I sometimes ask why they do something a certain way they don't have any answer. It would be one thing if reasoeable minds disagreed on the answer, but to have no idea what any reason might be particularly when available texts contain the material is very sad.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

It's all opinion.

Equally valid reasons for teaching ground defense from the start are:

1) lets beginners study it when they are in true beginner's mind and can perhaps benefit from being without prior prejudice/conception
2) obvious application for rape/bullying scenarios
3) opportunity to ingrain whole body movement whether you want it to originate from legs or hips

1 and 3 I think are equally valid.

2 I will disagree with as supporting an absolute need in the early stages. Avoidance of going to the ground is much, much more important in both of these scenarios, especially rape. Also rape and bullying are very, very different scenarios and really do not belong grouped together. I will say that the get off of the ground and defend on the ground is much more crucial in a rape scenario because baring highly unusual circumstances, the goal of the attacker is to render the victim prone.

Bullying covers such a broad spectrum of things that prone/ground defense only addresses a fraction of it. From my years in school, stand up skills were where it was at in dealing with bullies. My kids feedback is that, at least in Mont. County, bullying is primarily verbal. The physical is limited mostly to pushing and shoving, due to the school system handing out suspensions to both parties for any sort of physical altercation. Both have indicated that stand up is still the primary need. Seems like cyber bullying is a bigger issue these days than physical bullying, not to mention concerns of weapons.

In fact, weapons being brought into altercations has been a bigger issue than fist fights in the high school my kids attended. Thankfully, neither of my kids have been the targets of bullying to any real degree. My eldest sent the 'school bully' home with a bloody nose in middle school and the two became friends shortly after. My younger son's one encounter with a bully was limited to pushing and shoving with my son punching him. Teachers were spied and the two separated and the bully has gone after other targets.

On the other hand, we have had one student commit suicide over cyber bullying, one student killed by another with a baseball bat after a football game, and both kids were stuck in school under lockdown due to one kid attempting to knife another. The intended victim received a minor facial cut when all was said and done. All of this being the reason that I had mentioned defensed against weapons being slightly more important in my opinion.

Once again, my opinion.

I will state that I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

I would agree that what might considered ground grappling as a defense is virtualy non existant. However, there are many simple defenses to ground attacks that would be considered illegal in many ground grappling matches.

Such material is surely invaluable. But I also think it necessary to understand mounted defense where the assumption is that someone is already on top of you and he's got you pinned.

Pelligrini in his system came up with a catchy slogan "Don't grapple, survive". Can an EXPERIENCED grappler avoid or defeat these defenses? Possibly, if they train for them. But still, the non grappling defenses are very effective albeit "illegal" for competition.

I'm very interested in this. I writing a brief review of a few of his Combat Hapkido dvds that I will post here. Based on the little I know about the system however, I thought he did teach some elements of grappling.

This link certainly gives that impression. http://www.masterfrydefense.com/hapkido.htm

" Combat Hapkido contains a complete Ground Grappling program. "

 

[dancingalone]

2 I will disagree with as supporting an absolute need in the early stages. Avoidance of going to the ground is much, much more important in both of these scenarios, especially rape. Also rape and bullying are very, very different scenarios and really do not belong grouped together.

I will say that the get off of the ground and defend on the ground is much more crucial in a rape scenario because baring highly unusual circumstances, the goal of the attacker is to render the victim prone.

Bullying covers such a broad spectrum of things that prone/ground defense only addresses a fraction of it. From my years in school, stand up skills were where it was at in dealing with bullies. My kids feedback is that, at least in Mont. County, bullying is primarily verbal. The physical is limited mostly to pushing and shoving, due to the school system handing out suspensions to both parties for any sort of physical altercation. Both have indicated that stand up is still the primary need.

I don't think so. There are certainly more ways bullying can manifest itself, but in the end both rape and bullying are about a despicable person exerting power over the victim. It is not too hard to imagine bullying taking place as someone giving another the old 'swirlee' treatment or just forcibly pinning down a victim to the floor for some slaps or other unpleasant treatment.

Seems like cyber bullying is a bigger issue these days than physical bullying, not to mention concerns of weapons.

In fact, weapons being brought into altercations has been a bigger issue than fist fights in the high school my kids attended. Thankfully, neither of my kids have been the targets of bullying to any real degree. My eldest sent the 'school bully' home with a bloody nose in middle school and the two became friends shortly after. My younger son's one encounter with a bully was limited to pushing and shoving with my son punching him. Teachers were spied and the two separated and the bully has gone after other targets.

On the other hand, we have had one student commit suicide over cyber bullying, one student killed by another with a baseball bat after a football game, and both kids were stuck in school under lockdown due to one kid attempting to knife another. The intended victim received a minor facial cut when all was said and done. All of this being the reason that I had mentioned defensed against weapons being slightly more important in my opinion.

Yes, it is such a bright, bright world we live in, isn't it.

Weapon defense is important too and it too should start at an early stage.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I'm very interested in this. I writing a brief review of a few of his Combat Hapkido dvds that I will post here. Based on the little I know about the system however, I thought he did teach some elements of grappling.

This link certainly gives that impression. http://www.masterfrydefense.com/hapkido.htm

" Combat Hapkido contains a complete Ground Grappling program. "

I went to a ICHF Seminar that featured Bill Wallace. Another part of the seminar, were the ICHF guys who developed the grappling Defense system. Their t-Shirts had the mantra "Don't grapple, survive". My impression of their approach is based on material from the seminar.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yes, it is such a bright, bright world we live in, isn't it.

Weapon defense is important too and it too should start at an early stage.

Interestingly, one of the reasons that European fighting men were not known for their unarmed combat but are definitely known for sword work and other sorts of weapon work is that the training assumption then was that everyone wrestled and had fistfights, so the general idea was that everyone had some kind of base for fighting without a weapon. Weapons training, however, was done early precisely because it was not natural.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

Interestingly, one of the reasons that European fighting men were not known for their unarmed combat but are definitely known for sword work and other sorts of weapon work is that the training assumption then was that everyone wrestled and had fistfights, so the general idea was that everyone had some kind of base for fighting without a weapon. Weapons training, however, was done early precisely because it was not natural.

Daniel

Most Okinawan karate schools teach kobudo as well, generally starting 1 or 2 kyu ranks after the unarmed material is first introduced to a beginner. It's assumed as a matter of course that kobudo will reinforce your empty hand technique and vice versa. I buy into it as the way you thrust out a tonfa for example is the same way you should straight punch with karate technique: relaxed shoulder, elbows tucked in, etc.

I like to teach knife defense at the exact same starting point.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yes, the Goju world is less than homogeneous, although I believe TKD is similarly diverging.

Diverging? Not as an art.

If anything, it is paring down and homogenizing even more. The sport is the juggernaut. It has more or less subsumed the Kukkiwon. The other juggernaut is the commercial school that focuses on the rah-rah-ataboy stuff, after school programs, and blackbelt clubs, with adult classes that focus on forms, one steps, and WTF sport but with very little in practical SD.

Schools that do not conform to this model are either independents or ITF. Cannot say regarding other areas, but at least in the DC Metropolitan area, you would be hard pressed to find an ITF school (I know of one).

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

Diverging? Not as an art.

If anything, it is paring down and homogenizing even more. The sport is the juggernaut. It has more or less subsumed the Kukkiwon. The other juggernaut is the commercial school that focuses on the rah-rah-ataboy stuff, after school programs, and blackbelt clubs, with adult classes that focus on forms, one steps, and WTF sport but with very little in practical SD.

Schools that do not conform to this model are either independents or ITF. Cannot say regarding other areas, but at least in the DC Metropolitan area, you would be hard pressed to find an ITF school (I know of one).

Daniel

In my area, it's ruled by ATA, ITA, independents, KKW, and then ITF in that order. I wasn't even aware of the ITF resources until last year when Mr. Weiss posted a few links/names. I also don't see much of the Olympic rules sparring fallout here. While the local KKW-affiliate Korean master is an awesome TKDist, he doesn't coach a competition team at all.

To me that's actually quite a bit of diversity, and several of the TKD schools in town share floor space with BJJ, judo, wing chun, and silat teachers, resulting in cross-sharing of ideas AND students. This will inevitably affect TKD, one person at a time as these open-minded people eventually grow and start teaching themselves. I like to think that I am doing my part to add to TKD by teaching kobudo and bunkai based on my understanding of the shorin-ryu kata to students at my friend's TKD school.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

When I say the art, I am referring to how it is steered by the major organizations. In the US, that is the Kukkiwon and the ATA. That translates to mostly sport/competition oriented schools or commercial schools that focuses on the rah-rah-ataboy stuff, after school programs, and blackbelt clubs, with adult classes that focus on forms, one steps, and WTF sport but with very little in practical SD.

Ultimately, the independents will be strong in some areas and weaker in others.

Also, independents often stick to what they were doing before they became independent. Most independents come out of larger organizations, so they may continue to practice in the idiom of the Kukkiwon, ATA, ITF, or whomever.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

When I say the art, I am referring to how it is steered by the major organizations. In the US, that is the Kukkiwon and the ATA. That translates to mostly sport/competition oriented schools or commercial schools that focuses on the rah-rah-ataboy stuff, after school programs, and blackbelt clubs, with adult classes that focus on forms, one steps, and WTF sport but with very little in practical SD.

Ultimately, the independents will be strong in some areas and weaker in others.

Also, independents often stick to what they were doing before they became independent. Most independents come out of larger organizations, so they may continue to practice in the idiom of the Kukkiwon, ATA, ITF, or whomever.

Daniel

Fair enough. I still have optimism for taekwondo because I primarily fall in with the independent view, where the system itself is not dogmatic and it can and will absorb other influences as needed to improve itself.

Believe it or not, the ATA does a good job of that. Where they fall down is that they are overly commercial with the accompanying low standards. They also out of concern for liability err too far on the side of caution so it can be difficult to find hard contact under their roof.

I don't really have too much of a beef with the local KKW guy. He teaches a lot of kicking and their sparring is largely sans hands, but they practice hard and the spirit is good. He's honest about what type of school he's running (mostly kids) and he knows enough hapkido to teach it if he had an audience for it.

Never met either of the ITF guys in the area so I can't comment on them. We've mentioned their hoshinsul curriculum developed by a hapkido master by the request of General Choi, so I am excited to look it over. I am curious if what is published in the Encyclopedia is comprehensive or whether it is just a sampling of techniques. (Directed more to Chris or Mr. Weiss.)

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Honestly, I don't have a beef with any of the orgs. Each one meets a different need.

The ATA, and many schools in other organizations, all tend to fit the same mold in the US because they are all going after the same customer, which is suburban families and kids.

I don't even have a beef with the WTF/Olympic sport taekwondo, though I still think that a name change is in order, lol.

I figure that if I don't like it, then I need to put my money where my mouth is and open my own school. Or find another art.

In the end, I ended up taking up hapkido and have devoted my efforts there, though I still go to taekwondo class with my son and I still practice the forms as part of my personal training (what can I say? I like the forms). For my sportive inclinations, kumdo/kendo more than fills that need.

Daniel

 

[Earl Weiss]

Never met either of the ITF guys in the area so I can't comment on them. We've mentioned their hoshinsul curriculum developed by a hapkido master by the request of General Choi, so I am excited to look it over. I am curious if what is published in the Encyclopedia is comprehensive or whether it is just a sampling of techniques. (Directed more to Chris or Mr. Weiss.)

I am only familiar with the ITF commonly referred to as ITF V. As far as I know there is no Ho Sin Sul curriculum for the ITF (or the otehr 2 for that matter.) The USTF which was the USA governing body for the ITF until 2002 does have a Ho Shin Sul Curriculum. I do not know if the current governing bodies have a curriculum. So, the techniques in the encyclopedia are not a curriculum in that I don't believe it specifies that certain things are taught at certain ranks.

In the same vein, much of the ITF syllabus is not really set out as a curriculum other than certain patterns are learned at certain ranks, (and therefore the techniques contained therein must be learned before the pattern) as are certain types of sparring. Much of the actual curriculum as to what techniqyes are taught when are left to the discretion of the instructor or local orgs.

 

[dancingalone]

I am only familiar with the ITF commonly referred to as ITF V. As far as I know there is no Ho Sin Sul curriculum for the ITF (or the otehr 2 for that matter.) The USTF which was the USA governing body for the ITF until 2002 does have a Ho Shin Sul Curriculum. I do not know if the current governing bodies have a curriculum. So, the techniques in the encyclopedia are not a curriculum in that I don't believe it specifies that certain things are taught at certain ranks.

In the same vein, much of the ITF syllabus is not really set out as a curriculum other than certain patterns are learned at certain ranks, (and therefore the techniques contained therein must be learned before the pattern) as are certain types of sparring. Much of the actual curriculum as to what techniqyes are taught when are left to the discretion of the instructor or local orgs.

I see. I was hoping for a fairly solid breakdown of specific techniques taught at each gup/dan level when I peruse the Encyclopedia... Still, I thank you for the information.