Journey OF a new style...

[JowGaWolf]

This thread might meander a bit. I'm stewing through a lot of thoughts and emotions right now.

Thread title is an obvious nod to the other thread that's been alive for several years now, the thread content is heavily based on the news I posted about in the TKD forum. To sum up: I am testing this week for my 4th degree black belt under my old TKD Master, and I just found out yesterday that I will not be getting that recognition by the organization. It will help to have a rubber-stamped 4th degree from someone higher rank in TKD, but I believe this may be the end of my TKD progression. It's definitely the end of my relationship with my former Master, and I'm not optimistic about establishing under another Master or under the organization myself based on the difficulties I have had over the past few years trying to find someone for this role.

I'm honestly at the point that I don't even want to call it Taekwondo anymore, and I feel I may be better served taking the Korean culture out of the designs completely. I'm not Korean, and I have very little connection to Korea or Korean culture. From everything I've seen and heard, Koreans don't have much respect for Americans (because we're lazy and undisciplined), and so I'm not so sure I should be putting them on a pedestal, when they wouldn't do the same for us. My approach is going to be much more American either way, and this would just solidify that.

I'm starting to run through some of the questions now about how I would want to run a new style. For those that don't know me, I have roughly 15 years of TKD training, 8 years of HKD, 3 years of BJJ, and a bit of wrestling, Muay Thai, and MMA. I've been around the block a bit. My initial thoughts are that I would want to take TKD, add the ground-fighting and remove the politics. But I'm starting to look at what else is there. So I'm taking things piece-by-piece. I know at the very least I want to have kicks (and sparring and tricking built around the kicks), and that I want to have ground fighting. But I'm not so sure on other things, such as: strikes (other than kicks), weapons, self-defense. Do I want to have a uniform or not? What do I want to name the art, and what effect would that have on my designs? Do I want to have forms?

Then there's the questions of what I do for my students. Do I have a belt system they can be promoted through or just teach technique? What do I do about tournaments for students who want to compete, when we're not really a part of any established style? Do I try to go more of the "Do" route and overtly teach things like confidence and discipline, or do I go more of the "Jitsu" route and focus on the martial art itself?

Then there's the questions of what I do for myself. I'm currently active in BJJ and I'm teaching cardio kickboxing, but I'm not active in a traditional martial art. What am I going to do to continue to learn and improve at the TKD side of things? If I do have a rank system, what am I going to do for my own personal rank progression, so that my students do not run into a ceiling where they cannot be promoted?

It's a scary proposition. Opening a school in an art that people know is risky enough. Opening a school in an unknown art is a bigger risk. I don't want folks to just bypass me because I look like another Master Ken, the guy who created his own art with "all of the strengths, none of the weaknesses; master of all, worst of none".

I don't know that this is the route I'm going to go down. I remember someone on here (I think it was Buka) suggested it a long time ago. But I am thinking it may be my best option if I want to open my own school.

Way too much worry. Way too much. You are going to spin yourself into a nasty web of over analysis. I truly hope the next words that I say will help you.

I'm going to break it down bit by bit in hopes of putting your mind at ease.

To sum up: I am testing this week for my 4th degree black belt under my old TKD Master, and I just found out yesterday that I will not be getting that recognition by the organization. It will help to have a rubber-stamped 4th degree from someone higher rank in TKD, but I believe this may be the end of my TKD progression. It's definitely the end of my relationship with my former Master, and I'm not optimistic about establishing under another Master or under the organization myself based on the difficulties I have had over the past few years trying to find someone for this role.

If you don't have a 4th degree belt then settle with what you have and teach what you know. People will ignore rank for the most part as long as you know what you are doing. The only people who are going to care about belts are the ones who care about belts. Most people will want to train for exercise and or self-defense. Do a good job in giving them those skills then in your belt rank won't matter. It's a black belt and that will be good enough for most people.

I'm honestly at the point that I don't even want to call it Taekwondo anymore, and I feel I may be better served taking the Korean culture out of the designs completely. I'm not Korean, and I have very little connection to Korea or Korean culture. From everything I've seen and heard, Koreans don't have much respect for Americans (because we're lazy and undisciplined), and so I'm not so sure I should be putting them on a pedestal, when they wouldn't do the same for us.

This is your bitterness. Go through it and get over it. Make sure you go through those stages of disappointment and feelings of betrayal and then be done with those types of feelings. This will be harmful with any future martial arts teaching you want to do. People will be able to pick up that bitterness and no one is going to like it or take your side because of it. Does it suck? Yes. I've been through it myself. But you can't let it rot you out.

First and foremost, the multiple arts must work in conjunction and be intertwined with each other. For example, if I'm teaching X style karate and tell my students if they find themselves on the ground, here's some BJJ moves you can do, I am NOT teaching a hybrid system. I could do those BJJ moves without even knowing karate.

It won't matter. Hybrid is just the name that someone gives a martial arts system a total package approach. Teach it separately and it will stay. Teach it together meaning TKD learn BJJ in a TKD class then it's going to turn into a Hybrid even if you don't want it to.

I'm starting to run through some of the questions now about how I would want to run a new style. For those that don't know me, I have roughly 15 years of TKD training, 8 years of HKD, 3 years of BJJ, and a bit of wrestling, Muay Thai, and MMA. I've been around the block a bit. My initial thoughts are that I would want to take TKD, add the ground-fighting and remove the politics. But I'm starting to look at what else is there. So I'm taking things piece-by-piece. I know at the very least I want to have kicks (and sparring and tricking built around the kicks), and that I want to have ground fighting. But I'm not so sure on other things, such as: strikes (other than kicks), weapons, self-defense. Do I want to have a uniform or not? What do I want to name the art, and what effect would that have on my designs? Do I want to have forms?

Teach what you know. As for names US Ai to help your thought process. There's no need to wreck your brain on naming now. Use Ai. It's a tool. For example: Groundflow Taekwondo. It took all of 5 seconds for Ai to point me in that direction and my head didn't hurt.

Then there's the questions of what I do for my students. Do I have a belt system they can be promoted through or just teach technique? What do I do about tournaments for students who want to compete, when we're not really a part of any established style? Do I try to go more of the "Do" route and overtly teach things like confidence and discipline, or do I go more of the "Jitsu" route and focus on the martial art itself?

It's your school and your rules. You are familiar with belts. If you are black belt in TKD then provide a belt system for TKD and not BJJ. If you are teaching hybrid then you can provide your own belts under your own system. If you are teaching under someone else's standards, then provide belts for TKD.

Opening a school in an art that people know is risky enough. Opening a school in an unknown art is a bigger risk. I don't want folks to just bypass me because I look like another Master Ken, the guy who created his own art with "all of the strengths, none of the weaknesses; master of all, worst of none".

None of these matters. It's all going to be a challenge, and these are the least of the issues you'll run into .

The other thing I'm thinking is abandon the idea of starting my own school, and instead keep working in IT/cybersecurity and train BJJ at night. Just focus on that for my martial arts career. I would like to "retire" from IT in the next few years and focus solely on martial arts. I don't think I can do that with BJJ. But it may be the best option for me.

Follow your passion before you get too old.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm considering "Tae Kwon Jitsu". Although I'm not the first to come up with that.

Looks like I should have read the entire post. It looks like you may be using Ai to help you, which is good. Keep using it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Her'es what CoPilot thinks
Looking at Skribs’ concerns, several of them seem bigger in his mind than they might actually be in practice. Here’s how they break down:

Major, Justified Concerns (Truly Big Issues)​

These concerns directly impact his ability to run a martial arts school or shape a new style:

1. Legitimacy & Recognition – This determines how seriously students and other martial artists will take his system.
2. Risk of Opening a School – Financial stability and student recruitment are real challenges.
3. His Own Martial Arts Growth – If he stops training under a formal system, he risks stagnation.
4. Career Path vs. Martial Arts Commitment – The decision between IT security and running a school will shape his future lifestyle.

Smaller Issues (Overthinking, Can Be Easily Adjusted)​

These concerns are important but flexible and likely won’t be as difficult as he expects:

1. Structure of the New Style – Forms, belts, and tournament participation can evolve as he goes.
2. Naming & Branding – A name matters, but the quality of instruction matters more.
3. Identity & Cultural Connection – He can still teach TKD fundamentals even if he removes Korean traditions.

Concerns That Might Not Matter Much at All​

These worries probably won’t have a big impact, and he may be spending too much time on them:

1. Students Caring About Governing Bodies – Most beginner students won’t care about official affiliations.
2. Perception of Other Martial Artists – If he trains hard and teaches well, his system will speak for itself.

So, while he’s rightfully cautious, he’s putting too much weight on some concerns that will naturally work themselves out. The real challenge is whether he’s fully committed to making this transition. Everything else is adjustable with time.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Her'es what CoPilot thinks
Looking at Skribs’ concerns, several of them seem bigger in his mind than they might actually be in practice. Here’s how they break down:

Major, Justified Concerns (Truly Big Issues)​

These concerns directly impact his ability to run a martial arts school or shape a new style:

1. Legitimacy & Recognition – This determines how seriously students and other martial artists will take his system.
2. Risk of Opening a School – Financial stability and student recruitment are real challenges.
3. His Own Martial Arts Growth – If he stops training under a formal system, he risks stagnation.
4. Career Path vs. Martial Arts Commitment – The decision between IT security and running a school will shape his future lifestyle.

Smaller Issues (Overthinking, Can Be Easily Adjusted)​

These concerns are important but flexible and likely won’t be as difficult as he expects:

1. Structure of the New Style – Forms, belts, and tournament participation can evolve as he goes.
2. Naming & Branding – A name matters, but the quality of instruction matters more.
3. Identity & Cultural Connection – He can still teach TKD fundamentals even if he removes Korean traditions.

Concerns That Might Not Matter Much at All​

These worries probably won’t have a big impact, and he may be spending too much time on them:

1. Students Caring About Governing Bodies – Most beginner students won’t care about official affiliations.
2. Perception of Other Martial Artists – If he trains hard and teaches well, his system will speak for itself.

So, while he’s rightfully cautious, he’s putting too much weight on some concerns that will naturally work themselves out. The real challenge is whether he’s fully committed to making this transition. Everything else is adjustable with time.

The only thing I don't agree with here is
Legitimacy & Recognition – This determines how seriously students and other martial artists will take his system.

If you are going to set your own path then the only Legitimacy is " Do you know your stuff" and "Can you use your stuff." Beyond that very few people care about who taught you. Talking about your own Martial Arts experience and training is going to be key. Sort of like IT Security. After a certain point they don't care where you learned it. They just want to know your experience and if you can do what you say you can do. Which I would assume would be to train students so that they give visible and functional results.

I have no belt or sifu recognition but people were still more than happy to be trained by me. Give that some thought.

 

[Badhabits]

Not saying this is your case, but a bit about "hybrid" arts and those who say their art "combines" others. I put those words in quotes because just because you teach other arts in whatever proportion, DOESN'T mean you've invented a new hybrid system. I think to fit that description, some other elements must be present.

First and foremost, the multiple arts must work in conjunction and be intertwined with each other. For example, if I'm teaching X style karate and tell my students if they find themselves on the ground, here's some BJJ moves you can do, I am NOT teaching a hybrid system. I could do those BJJ moves without even knowing karate.

Now, if I teach my karate to set up a takedown, positioning me to apply a rear naked choke or arm bar (for the moment pretending my karate style doesn't already have such a move), I'm getting closer to a hybrid as the two arts are somewhat working together. There is a flow between the two.

A possible point of contention is that if I'm grappling BJJ style on the ground, it is difficult to employ my karate. I can flow A > B as described above, but not B > A. Does this detract from the "hybrid" label?

I like metaphors and food , so I'll use them in this example: I have a cafe that serves burgers and Japanese udon soup. I don't think you can say I serve Japanese American fusion cuisine. There's no fusion. But if I marinate the burger in the soup broth and serve it with shiitake mushrooms and daikon radish in the bun and call it an "udon burger," it's now approaching "fusion." (It may not approach "delicious" but that's beside the point.)

How about if I grill the mushrooms and daikon and throw a beef patty into to soup with a dash of ketchup? Now I've got "hamburger-udon soup." The fusion flows both Japanese > American and also American > Japanese. I'm serving fusion cuisine.

I'm just saying these points and others, IMHO, need to be considered when talking about combined/hybrid/mixed arts, or laying claim to a new "system."

Nah the style isn't a hybrid. The BJJ is taught as a sort of separate "add on" to the the main style. The governing association has BJJ instructors as well as the instructors of the main style. Instructors can get certified to teach both under the governing body. Every so often we have guest instructors come in and teach BJJ in addition to other seminars etc. But in no way have they tried to "blend" them. In class when doing groundwork, our instructor will make it clear if we're practicing self defense groundwork vs BJJ sport groundwork. If we're doing self defense and start rolling like a jujitsu match, he'll come over and stomp on you or start stabbing you with his rubber knife lol.

 

[MadMartigan]

My approach is going to be much more American either way, and this would just solidify that.

I can sympathize with your predicament, as it's one that I've seen repeated far to many times (some in person and vicariously through others).

There are far too many 'masters' out there who just look at their students as passive revenue streams... doing shady things like taking cuts of test fees for tests that they had no involvement in, etc.

As for your conundrum about how much korean culture to include, the following 2 videos from Iain Abernathy have some very good and nuanced thoughts on that topic which you may find useful.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Nah the style isn't a hybrid. The BJJ is taught as a sort of separate "add on" to the the main style. The governing association has BJJ instructors as well as the instructors of the main style. Instructors can get certified to teach both under the governing body. Every so often we have guest instructors come in and teach BJJ in addition to other seminars etc. But in no way have they tried to "blend" them. In class when doing groundwork, our instructor will make it clear if we're practicing self defense groundwork vs BJJ sport groundwork. If we're doing self defense and start rolling like a jujitsu match, he'll come over and stomp on you or start stabbing you with his rubber knife lol.

This is common. I think in general people take pride in knowing the difference between the systems they train. It highlights their knowledge and experience it doesn’t take away from it. A person who trains multiple systems will have a perspective that a person who only trains one doesn't have. It makes the person more informed and not less informed.

That's why Skribs shouldn't worry about it. Skribs has enough knowledge to walk his own path I. terms of teaching TKD. I think most of his frustration is about not being recognized for the knowledge and skills he has. Which is different than running a school. Don't do martial arts to be recognized or acknowledged . Do it for the passion.

 

[Badhabits]

Totally agree. I've had a teacher who just named his school (insert name)'s Martial Arts. The guy had ranks in a couple of arts, you didn't get belts recognized by an association with him but he was a good teacher and a good fighter, loved doing karate. Learned a lot from that guy early on, still think about him.

 

[windwalker099]

A person who trains multiple systems will have a perspective that a person who only trains one doesn't have. It makes the person more informed and not less informed.

look at it differently, having went through some of the processes myself

In my path I have found, a person can only truly embody one system, others may be adapted, but always through the lens of how they’ve already trained to move. Learning another system depending on depth of training often involves letting go of what one knows, retraining if possible the way the body moves.


Most systems were created within a specific framework: cultural, practical, and shaped by evolving needs and insights.

Those who assemble methods coherently are like composers. They don’t just collect techniques,they craft structure, context, and principle. Sometimes they refine tradition; other times they create a new genre by reweaving what already exists.

Most people are players ,some exceptional, few are composers.
A composer doesn’t need to be the best performer.

A composer also sees the difference, between someone skilled at executing a piece… and someone who understands why that piece exists at all.

 

[JowGaWolf]

look at it differently, having went through some of the processes myself

In my path I have found, a person can only truly embody one system, others may be adapted, but always through the lens of how they’ve already trained to move. Learning another system depending on depth of training often involves letting go of what one knows, retraining if possible the way the body moves.


Most systems were created within a specific framework: cultural, practical, and shaped by evolving needs and insights.

Those who assemble methods coherently are like composers. They don’t just collect techniques,they craft structure, context, and principle. Sometimes they refine tradition; other times they create a new genre by reweaving what already exists.

Most people are players ,some exceptional, few are composers.
A composer doesn’t need to be the best performer.

A composer also sees the difference, between someone skilled at executing a piece… and someone who understands why that piece exists at all.

When a person learns piano then learns guitar then they open their minds and do not train Guitar with the mindset of playing the piano.

Martial arts can be the same way. I can only see what you described when the movement is similar. Then someone is going to have that issue. Jow Ga and BJJ are different enough where that issue probably won't exist. BJJ and wrestling would have the issue definitely TKD and Karate.

But over all I don't think what you are saying is different its just another aspect that exist when training more than one Martial arts system.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Totally agree. I've had a teacher who just named his school (insert name)'s Martial Arts. The guy had ranks in a couple of arts, you didn't get belts recognized by an association with him but he was a good teacher and a good fighter, loved doing karate. Learned a lot from that guy early on, still think about him.

I've met and seen teachers who had "Great Papers" but were clueless about application" Rokas from Martial arts Journey fits that description early after "Quitting Aikido."

I've also seen people who were good in martial arts but horrible teachers. It that case it does matter how good they are or their lineage if they stink as a teacher.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

a person can only truly embody one system,

If you only train 1 system, will you be able to develop your punching speed that you can throw 6 punches within 1 second?

1. right uppercut,
2. left hook,
3. right hook,
4. left uppercut,
5. right jab,
6. left cross.

This is one of my favor punching combo. I believe 6 punches within 1 second can be the human's limitation.

Also, when you throw those 6 punches, which MA system are you training? Do you truly care at all?

 

[Xue Sheng]

If you only train 1 system, will you be able to develop your punching speed that you can throw 6 punches within 1 second?

1. right uppercut,
2. left hook,
3. right hook,
4. left uppercut,
5. right jab,
6. left cross.

This is one of my favor punching combo. I believe 6 punches within 1 second can be the human's limitation.

Also, when you throw those 6 punches, which MA system are you training? Do you truly care at all?

1) I doubt that is possible in 1 second. That would be 0.166666667 seconds per punch
2) if it is, I doubt they have any power

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

1) I doubt that is possible in 1 second. That would be 0.166666667 seconds per punch
2) if it is, I doubt they have any power

Most people can do 4 punches within 1 second. If you can do 5 punches within 1 second, you are very fast. IMO, 6 punches per second should be the human maximum limitation.

Many years ago, a guy named 李民新 Li Ming_Xin from Taiwan 七巧拳 claimed he could throw 6 punches within 1 second. A tiger craw guy in NYC knocked him down within 8 seconds.

When you do fast punching combo, you don't have enough time to "compress". fast punch won't be your powerful punch.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

a person can only truly embody one system,

Do you need to train more than 1 MA system? If you train Taiji all your life, will you be able to do a "hip throw"? The answer is no. The reason is simple. The Taiji system just doesn't contain "hip throw". You may say, "I don't need to learn hip throw". If you say that, someone can also say, "I don't need to learn Taiji".

Which is more important? Taiji or hip throw? Why do we have to make that choice? Why not just train both at the same time?

 

[Buka]

The only thing I don't agree with here is
Legitimacy & Recognition – This determines how seriously students and other martial artists will take his system.

If you are going to set your own path then the only Legitimacy is " Do you know your stuff" and "Can you use your stuff." Beyond that very few people care about who taught you. Talking about your own Martial Arts experience and training is going to be key. Sort of like IT Security. After a certain point they don't care where you learned it. They just want to know your experience and if you can do what you say you can do. Which I would assume would be to train students so that they give visible and functional results.

I have no belt or sifu recognition but people were still more than happy to be trained by me. Give that some thought.

I agree. I was in the Arts for a long time. Not once did anybody ever ask who taught me.
They watched a few classes and joined up anyway.

I trained in a lot of dojos. Not once did I ever ask them who taught them.

 

[skribs]

1. Structure of the New Style – Forms, belts, and tournament participation can evolve as he goes.

I want to be really careful about changing my curriculum. One of the most frustrating things about my TKD master is that he changes the curriculum quite often. Granted, I would be different in how I approach it. But I'd be frustrated with myself if I do the things to others that frustrated me when done to me.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I want to be really careful about changing my curriculum. One of the most frustrating things about my TKD master is that he changes the curriculum quite often. Granted, I would be different in how I approach it. But I'd be frustrated with myself if I do the things to others that frustrated me when done to me.

That's fair. Just give yourself more credit and accept the reality that some changes in your curriculum may need to occur for the benefit of the type of students you attact. The changes may not be in what you teach but when you teach it. When I was teaching I had to add extra things in order to help students grasp how to sweep. For me, sweep is easy as drinking water but for many its an advanced technique.

So while I learned sweeping as a beginner. I pushed it back to advances as a teacher until students could grasp the basics for it. The sweep motion was easy when done as forms but in application they struggled.

What will eventually happen is that you'll have to make changes that you didn't plan on for the purpose of being a better teacher and not giving up on students. You strike me as someone who would try to get students to perfection.

Just give yourself enough flexibility to adapt as needed and look at it more as a positive than a negative. Once you get a good group then you'll naturally make fewer changes as their skills improve.

Also keep in mind that changes like this are because multiple students are having the same difficulty. Don't change the current for 1 or 2 students.

 

[skribs]

That's fair. Just give yourself more credit and accept the reality that some changes in your curriculum may need to occur for the benefit of the type of students you attact. The changes may not be in what you teach but when you teach it. When I was teaching I had to add extra things in order to help students grasp how to sweep. For me, sweep is easy as drinking water but for many its an advanced technique.

So while I learned sweeping as a beginner. I pushed it back to advances as a teacher until students could grasp the basics for it. The sweep motion was easy when done as forms but in application they struggled.

What will eventually happen is that you'll have to make changes that you didn't plan on for the purpose of being a better teacher and not giving up on students. You strike me as someone who would try to get students to perfection.

Just give yourself enough flexibility to adapt as needed and look at it more as a positive than a negative. Once you get a good group then you'll naturally make fewer changes as their skills improve.

Also keep in mind that changes like this are because multiple students are having the same difficulty. Don't change the current for 1 or 2 students.

My approach is more of what I'm calling a Framework than a Curriculum. In my experience in TKD schools, the curriculum is comprehensive. There are techniques and combinations, forms (official, unofficial, and mini forms) as well as memorized self-defense or one-step sequences. Each belt will have a handful of categories and each category has a number of techniques and sequences listed step-by-step in excruciating detail. The scope of the curriculum makes it difficult to retain, and the problems with my Master were the details of the techniques changed from time-to-time (and whenever they changed, it was treated as the student being incorrect instead of as a change).

To combat the problems with the verboseness, I'm planning to do a curriculum that is much more about what topics should be covered at each belt level than a specific list of techniques. For example, a normal TKD school (or "normal" by my experience, anyway) would have these green belt kicking techniques:

1. Front kick, double punch
2. Roundhouse kick, elbow-chop-punch
3. Side kick, step-behind side kick
4. Roundhouse kick, back kick, hammerfist strike
5. Axe kick, double punch, axe kick again

Whereas my curriculum would be more along the lines of: green belts learn head kicks. That gives instructors a lot of flexibility with how they create drills, combos, and sequences.

That's what my curriculum looked like when I was planning on staying with Kukkiwon and using their forms. What I'm playing around with right now is fixing the issue I (and others) have with the TKD forms, which is the disconnect between the TKD forms and the rest of the curriculum. If I design the forms around the curriculum, and I include in each form the kinds of techniques I want taught at that belt level, then I can do a few things:

• Instructors only need to know the forms to know what techniques are appropriate for each level, instead of having to know both the form AND the types of techniques. For example, instead of green belts learning head kicks, green belts learn the kicks that are in Form #5 (which happen to be head kicks).
• Students can focus their practice on the forms, instead of trying to practice the punch combos, kick combos, forms, jump kick combos, punch defense, kick defense, and grab defense techniques.
• Testing can focus on the forms and application of techniques, instead of testing on a bunch of memorized items. Any individual techniques I want to see during testing, I will see in the forms.

The only potential issue is that it will make the forms more difficult if I am using them in this way. In every school I've trained, the forms are relatively easy. However, if I look at other styles of martial arts (I'm specifically thinking of ATA TKD and Kung Fu), I find "Form #1" tends to be a lot more complex than the Kibon #1, Kicho Il Bu, Taikyoku Shodun (essentially the same form with different names) that are just iterations of down block and punch.

So I trade memorizing 6 easy things (5 easy categories + 1 easy form) vs. memorizing 1 form that is more difficult. I think it would simplify things.

At that point, my curriculum would include:

1. Foundational items that are shared across belts (terminology, etiquette, basic flow of class, some basic movements like ducking and jumping)
2. Forms (which contain my striking curriculum for each belt/level)
3. Grappling skills (which contain a category that each level will focus on)
4. Sparring (combining the striking and/or grappling into a sport-focused application)
5. Self-defense (combining the striking and/or grappling skills into a practical combat application)

This is much easier than my previous curriculum, which also included strikes, blocks, kicks, jump kicks, and footwork as items that needed to fit into the framework. I can put all of those into the forms, and the verbosity of my curriculum is halved.

 

[windwalker099]

Do you need to train more than 1 MA system? If you train Taiji all your life, will you be able to do a "hip throw"? The answer is no. The reason is simple. The Taiji system just doesn't contain "hip throw".

Some may not agree that Taiji lacks hip throw.
example:

Really depends on what your interest is.

The strategies, and the methods built on those strategies, in some branches of Taiji are quite unique. They’re often counterintuitive and difficult, if not impossible to integrate even among taiji styles, more so with other systems while still maintaining the core principles and focus some styles are known for.

Why that is... not really the topic here.

It’s like comparing Mantis and Tibetan White Crane: nearly opposite in strategy and application. White Crane is also quite fast, though it’s not usually described in terms of “speed” like Mantis is. The timing, rhythm, delivery are expressed differently.

Each system reflects a different way of seeing and solving the problem.