old school/clasic tkd

[miguksaram]

The majority of TKD may not train for SD because the majority of TKD schools don't know what SD training actually is. That isn't meant to be a slam on anyone. But judging from the comments I generally see here in the TKD section, there are only a handful of people that understand what SD training methodology is and why sport training is the polar opposite.

You are basing this opinion on what? The majority of the TKD schools in America, the world or the few that you have visited? You are then judging an entire art based on a internet message board? Yes, there are TKD schools, well martial art schools in general, that have no clue about SD. They base their training off of simple theoretical scenarios about how a person may or may not come at you. However, to post that the "majority" do not know, based on a limited exposure to TKD schools does a deservice. At best I would have put "The majority of the TKD schools I have encountered and trained in have shown me that they do not know about real SD"...whatever real SD would means to you.

What we really need is a member of Martial Talk to chime in that has trained in both venues. A member that knows the methodology of each venue. A member that has actually used the martial arts against violent, resisting, determined attackers..oh say a few hundred times successfully. If only we had a member like that willing to face all the one-liner attacks from the same people in hopes that a few will actually see the point he's trying to make. If only we had a member like that willing to speak out from experience and not theory.

Oh wait....that's me :ultracool

No I'm not thumping my chest. No, I'm not special. No, I'm not bullet proof. No, I'm not better than anyone else. But yeah, I've got an opinion and the experience to back it up. Yeah, I've taught over a thousand high liabilty professionals, many of which now teach, many of which have used what I taught to save themselves or another in violent altercations. And yeah, I'm willing to take the flack from the peanut gallery in order to stand up for something that can help someone in a crisis situation over something likely to get them hurt or killed.

Now let's have some more jabs and one-liners from the gallery :uhyeah:

I would almost take that seriously if you could start explaining your in-depth knowledge and exposure to modern TKD training methods. Who did you train with and for how long? What did you see as a hindrance to "real SD" training? Why do you feel that modern training is no good for SD support?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I'm surprised as a LEO that you do not see the positives of modern training methods. Are you telling me you use the same method of investigations and firearms training as a LEO that they did 40 or 50 years ago?

You're using one thing to prove another Jeremy. Please don't do that. Some aspects of 'modern' training can be fully functional. But sport/SD TKD has nothing to do with law enforcement firearms or investigations training.

Again, I would like to know how you feel your experience in modern TKD training methods have hindered your "old school" training? What modern TKD training methods did you use specifically, where did you learn them and from who?

Okay, let's take a look at this. I'm going to repost from last year so I don't have to retype;

For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.

To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).

• Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
• The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
• The opponent is unarmed.
• The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
• Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
• The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
• You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
• If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
• There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.

As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

• Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
• Factors such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
• Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
• You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
• There are no rules.
• There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
• The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
• The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
• The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
• There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
• The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
• To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
• The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.

When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;

• Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
• Do they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential conflice. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
• Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
• Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
• Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
• Is the student required to observe certain rules?
• Do your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
• Do your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
• Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
• Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
• Do we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand on someone’s head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike. That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not he'll actually be knocked out.
  
  This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or nose.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it and touching on some of the topics during class time.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop? Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities? Considerations can include;

• Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
• A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
• A proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly applied.
• Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
• The attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick, distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
• Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.

Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained.

That is hopefully a good start for consideration/discussion. Be safe.

Take a look at what I've written, with an open mind and with the understanding of the perspective I'm coming from. From there we can disect the list(s) and compare. Thank you.

 

[miguksaram]

You're using one thing to prove another Jeremy. Please don't do that. Some aspects of 'modern' training can be fully functional. But sport/SD TKD has nothing to do with law enforcement firearms or investigations training.

The situation is different but the concept is the same. The type of training methods you used as a LEO have evolved to where old school methods, while possibly still effective, have been rendered obsolete in some aspects. LEO's have found more modern training methods to help them deal with a more modern world and the dangers and challenges that it carries. This the same when training in TKD. We have evolved the type of training to build better eye hand coordination, reflex speed, etc.

 

[miguksaram]

Take a look at what I've written, with an open mind and with the understanding of the perspective I'm coming from. From there we can disect the list(s) and compare. Thank you.

I do understand where you are coming from. However, even "old school" training did not train in the methodology that you are speaking about here. While there are reality based systems such Krav-Maga or Systema and even RMCAT, and I respect them and enjoy training in systems similar to them, they are still in a controlled environment. In other words I can step into any of these training seminars or schools and know that I do not have to fear getting any serious life threatening situation. Please explain how modern training methods in TKD hinders the development of this type of SD training. Please explain how "old school" training is better. If you could explain using information based on your own experience in modern training methods of TKD, including amount of time trained and who by, that would really help me understand your position a lot more.

As for a instructor that is well versed in the law, they exist in TKD and other traditional martial arts as well. There are many LEO's that are instructors. I personally have a junior who is an FBI agent who trains our adults.

 

[Gemini]

What we really need is a member of Martial Talk to chime in that has trained in both venues. A member that knows the methodology of each venue.

I have trained in both and have absolutely no problem with agreeing with what you're saying. It seems to me though that responses are still combining modern training methods vs. older traditional methods, with focused/specific training vs. an a wider curriculum. Or maybe I'm the only one confused.

Take a look at what I've written, with an open mind and with the understanding of the perspective I'm coming from.

Unfortunately, people don't generally do this and read only what they want to read. I just don't have a desire to participate in what will no doubt turn into another "Which is better, SD Taekwondo vs Sparring Taekwondo" thread.

 

[miguksaram]

I have trained in both and have absolutely no problem with agreeing with what you're saying. It seems to me though that responses are still combining modern training methods vs. older traditional methods, with focused/specific training vs. an a wider curriculum. Or maybe I'm the only one confused.

I have trained in both as well, which is why I keep asking how modern training methods hinders SD practice.

Unfortunately, people don't generally do this and read only what they want to read. I just don't have a desire to participate in what will no doubt turn into another "Which is better, SD Taekwondo vs Sparring Taekwondo" thread.

I agree especially since I do not believe SD TKD vs Sparring/Sport TKD....TKD is TKD with different avenues to it.

 

[mastercole]

You are basing this opinion on what? The majority of the TKD schools in America, the world or the few that you have visited? You are then judging an entire art based on a internet message board? Yes, there are TKD schools, well martial art schools in general, that have no clue about SD. They base their training off of simple theoretical scenarios about how a person may or may not come at you. However, to post that the "majority" do not know, based on a limited exposure to TKD schools does a deservice. At best I would have put "The majority of the TKD schools I have encountered and trained in have shown me that they do not know about real SD"...whatever real SD would means to you.

I have visited, and trained in Kukkiwon Taekwondo schools in the majority of states in the US. Also visited and trained at schools Mexico, Korea, and Europe. Simply take the Cleveland area, there are about 20 Kukkiwon schools within an hours drive of me. Ohio has about 5 major cities with roughly the same amount of schools. Roughly 100+ in the state. Times 50 states, 5,000+ Kukkiwon schools just in the USA. At the schools I visited, most were into full contact training methods. That's real self defense. I did not see an fake scenario/situation/survival training going on, just hard training and hard hitting. Of course one would have to have actually trained in modern methods to know that.

I would almost take that seriously if you could start explaining your in-depth knowledge and exposure to modern TKD training methods. Who did you train with and for how long? What did you see as a hindrance to "real SD" training? Why do you feel that modern training is no good for SD support?

Guess that won't be forth coming

 

[Kong Soo Do]

The situation is different but the concept is the same. The type of training methods you used as a LEO have evolved to where old school methods, while possibly still effective, have been rendered obsolete in some aspects. LEO's have found more modern training methods to help them deal with a more modern world and the dangers and challenges that it carries. This the same when training in TKD. We have evolved the type of training to build better eye hand coordination, reflex speed, etc.

It isn't the same Jeremy. Often times it is a matter of equipment changes. As an example, when I first started I had a six-shoot S&W .38 Special and NO speed loaders. Now I have a Glock 21 .45ACP and two spare mags, a Taser, O.C. spray etc. Training had to change as the equipment changed. OTOH, H2H training from an old school perspective already contained many/most of the elements some consider 'modern' which I've described above.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Please explain how modern training methods in TKD hinders the development of this type of SD training. Please explain how "old school" training is better.

Alright, let's take a look at some of the training. Let me ask you about the sparring that is performed in your school. Could you tell me what it is like? How does it start, how does it end? What is the rule set? What do they wear? Please put anything in that you feel is important as well. This isn't to put you on the spot, from there we can make a comparison. Thank you.

 

[mastercole]

I have trained in both and have absolutely no problem with agreeing with what you're saying. It seems to me though that responses are still combining modern training methods vs. older traditional methods, with focused/specific training vs. an a wider curriculum. Or maybe I'm the only one confused.

I am of the opinion that is someone is not training on the in-ground talyunbong (Makiwara), they are not training old school Taekwondo. I started training in the 1960's, it was all old school. And I did not learn from a book or black belt magazine Today, I still train on the talyunbong. That is as old school as you can get, and I say, that modern training methods are superior. I have been to Korea (many, many times), training with the original old school great grandmasters, who developed Taekwondo. Most now near 90 years old. They say modern methods are superior to what they trained back in the old days. What more does one need to know?

Unfortunately, people don't generally do this and read only what they want to read. I just don't have a desire to participate in what will no doubt turn into another "Which is better, SD Taekwondo vs Sparring Taekwondo" thread.

My whole life was one big street self defense lesson and not as a LEO who can carry a stick, taser, gun, mace and is backed up by other LEO's and the law, but as a civilian who was running the streets of one of Americans most dangerous cities, in the most dangerous sections, and involved in dangerous violent conflict on a regular basis. 99% of self defense is street smarts. The kind you get from growing up in the streets. No one can teach you that, especially a LEO. A good solid martial arts training program is only about 1% of self defense, and to qualify for that, it has to be a modern training program that is based in full contact training.

Of course a person would have to actually experience real, violent self defense situations as a civilian, and actually trained in full contact to even begin to understand that. Otherwise they will just try to throw out a bunch of jargon and argument to support their flawed position.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Unfortunately, people don't generally do this and read only what they want to read.

I know. I'm doing this because at some point, someone might read this thread and understand the information I've offered and the difference. I think it's worth the hassle.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Wow. I wake up this morning and we are into page 4 or 5. Kong soo do, you make way too much sense. Be careful feeding the usual trolls though

 

[GlassJaw]

Yes, there are TKD schools, well martial art schools in general, that have no clue about SD.

I have heard that such schools exist--and I don't for a moment doubt it. Perhaps I have been fortunate not to have encountered any myself.

It is hard to ignore that TKD is an art developed from/for the structured training in fighting techniques. (This is probably true of all "martial arts"--since that is arguably the definition of the term.) Most martial arts do stray from an SD focus, but few lose that connection altogether (Tai Chi and Capoeira are possibly examples of that). Even so, every student knows what it was originally developed for.

The SD training that I have seen in schools usually does, indeed, begin with the slow, form-focused learning/practice of specific techniques (one-step sparring is an example). What varies is the degree to which this is followed by full-speed, no-time-to-think, react-or-get-beaten applications training.

I liken Olympic-style TKD sparring to Olympic fencing. Fencing is a game, the object of which (poking the tiny scoring zone) has little to do with the object or conditions of a real sword fight (slicing the heck out of an opponent). No sharpened edges; only the tip counts. Likewise, the object of WTF sparring has little to do with that of street brawling. No knees or elbows; only the feet really count. They are games developed from the martial art training. Indeed, they are, themselves, martial art training exercises. But such games are not the martial art itself. And TKD sparring is not TKD, merely a part of it.

As to schools changing with the times. . .despite having some ancient roots, the martial arts as we know them are modern. TKD included. It is still young and is still evolving. (Granted, that by no means insures that it continues to improve as it evolves, just that we should recognize that it is not static.)

 

[GlassJaw]

I am still conected to Jido Kwan, I visit my ex master frequently but as a friend and my actual master knows this, and as some one told me NO PUEDES ESTAR CON EL DIABLO Y CON DIOS AL MISMO TIEMPO ASI QUE TOMA UNA DESICION translation.... make a desicion... you can't be with god or the devila at the same time .....

There is no devil in this. You respect both masters.

Your current master has invested much into you. (And vice versa, I'm sure.) He probably relies on you.
(And vice versa, I'm sure.) Abandoning him is, of course, not something you should do lightly--that would, indeed, be disloyal (and also disrespectful of your relationship).

Perhaps you owe it to him to explain your situation. He already knows you still have great respect for your first master. Explain how you feel that returning to Master Alvite would just be a better fit for the direction you wish to grow. Give him a chance to address it. If he can understand your situation, either things will improve where you are or you will be able to let him down easier if you then decide to move on. For that matter, you may wish to seek Master Alvite's advice on it, too.

Your choice is not between two masters, it is between being loyal to one and being true to yourself.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Wow. I wake up this morning and we are into page 4 or 5. Kong soo do, you make way too much sense. Be careful feeding the usual trolls though

Yeah I know :uhyeah:

Drives up the sale of popcorn though opcorn:

 

[Gemini]

How about you? Are you a KKW certified master who has taught KKW classes and has attended and judged KKW competitions? Have you competed at a KKW competition, and if so, have you won any trophies? What exactly is your experience with the modern competition training methods such that you can intelligently speak of about its ineffectiveness in preparing students for self defense situations?

Actually since I can answer yes to all of the above (except I've only won medals, not trophies ), I'll inject something.

Your question above states "competition" training. I don't remember this being a specific discussion for the topic. For the sake of responding though, I would most certainly argue that while competition training does in fact, provide a higher quality of training in some aspects, it also offers some disadvantages in others. It's for this very reason that I incorporate sparring in my training curriculum, but don't limit it. To keep it simple, I'll point out what I feel is the obvious.

Taekwondo offers techniques that are not allowed in competition, right? If your training involves only sparring techniques, then you're not practicing other techniques, such as knee/elbow strikes, submissions, etc. Most SD practitioners I know are equally effective with their hands as well as they are with their feet. Additionally, fighting from a lock as well as on the ground, both offensively and defensively. They have a very large comfort zone and can apply effective technique in a wide range of scenarios.

I'm a strong believer that sparring increases student understanding of their physical capabilities. I believe a student that practices sparring is going to achieve a higher understanding of capability including situation awareness, body language, range, timing and power to name a few. However, practicing in only a controlled environment, focusing primarily on kicks, inherent disadvantages include limited ability to properly execute a wider array of techniques that are not part of a sparring curriculum. While you can argue this point all day long, the fact remains that I (personal experience) have never met a practitioner that can excel at both just as I have never heard of a competitor that competes and medals in Sparring and forms at the highest levels.

In other words, a sparring practitioner can defend himself and a self defense practitioner can compete. But if you're going to relay on the SD practitioner to medal and the sparring practitioner to defend you, you're playing against the odds. Train for whichever meets your needs, and be realistic in your expectations. This is true with anything. If you're going to specialize in something, it's going to come at the expense of something else.

Back to Manny's OP, his sabumnim was not ready to do that.

 

[puunui]

In other words, a sparring practitioner can defend himself and a self defense practitioner can compete. But if you're going to relay on the SD practitioner to medal and the sparring practitioner to defend you, you're playing against the odds. Train for whichever meets your needs, and be realistic in your expectations. This is true with anything. If you're going to specialize in something, it's going to come at the expense of something else..

I will take the full contact competitor over the self defense focused guy ten times out of ten. Full contact competitor (which is what we train for in the modern training methods) trains to go all out and hit full force, something that self defense expert peyton quinn advocates is one of the most important aspects of self defense training. If you go to one of his camps, a large portion is devoted to defending against the bullet man, striking the bullet man as hard as you can. peyton is an advocate of high adrenaline full contact training.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Actually since I can answer yes to all of the above (except I've only won medals, not trophies ), I'll inject something.

Your question above states "competition" training. I don't remember this being a specific discussion for the topic. For the sake of responding though, I would most certainly argue that while competition training does in fact, provide a higher quality of training in some aspects, it also offers some disadvantages in others. It's for this very reason that I incorporate sparring in my training curriculum, but don't limit it. To keep it simple, I'll point out what I feel is the obvious.

Taekwondo offers techniques that are not allowed in competition, right? If your training involves only sparring techniques, then you're not practicing other techniques, such as knee/elbow strikes, submissions, etc. Most SD practitioners I know are equally effective with their hands as well as they are with their feet. Additionally, fighting from a lock as well as on the ground, both offensively and defensively. They have a very large comfort zone and can apply effective technique in a wide range of scenarios.

I'm a strong believer that sparring increases student understanding of their physical capabilities. I believe a student that practices sparring is going to achieve a higher understanding of capability including situation awareness, body language, range, timing and power to name a few. However, practicing in only a controlled environment, focusing primarily on kicks, inherent disadvantages include limited ability to properly execute a wider array of techniques that are not part of a sparring curriculum. While you can argue this point all day long, the fact remains that I (personal experience) have never met a practitioner that can excel at both just as I have never heard of a competitor that competes and medals in Sparring and forms at the highest levels.

In other words, a sparring practitioner can defend himself and a self defense practitioner can compete. But if you're going to relay on the SD practitioner to medal and the sparring practitioner to defend you, you're playing against the odds. Train for whichever meets your needs, and be realistic in your expectations. This is true with anything. If you're going to specialize in something, it's going to come at the expense of something else.

Back to Manny's OP, his sabumnim was not ready to do that.

Excellent post. To take this a step further, in regards to sparring;

• Do the opponents begin the sparring immediately, or is there a time prior to the physical conflict that verbal de-esculation skills can be attempted and practiced?
• Is there an opportunity to evade or escape?
• Do either have the option and/or ability to use improvised weapons?
• Can either attempt to use cover and/or concealment?
• Can several of the opposition have 'friends' join the conflict so that multiple opponents are now in the equation?
• Is the same footwear always worn?
• Are both parties required to abide by the same rules?
• Any chance of going to the ground?
• Any chance the 'good guy' can do a gross motor skill 'stun and run'?
• Do they spar in all lighting conditions, including dim light conditions?
• Do they always spar on a dry, level surface or are slopes and alternative surfaces utilized like the parking lot, grass etc?
• Is a uniform and/or belt always worn, or regular street clothes.
• Is the sparring session begun at a pre-arranged time or is one party completely surprised (read typical ambush)?
• If a mistake is made, or a strike connects do the opponents continue or do they reset their positions and start again.
• Are they always started in a standing position, facing each other? Or can one be on the ground at a postiton of disadvantage at the start?
• Do they always train inside the school or can they train out in the parking lot between a couple of parked cars, a ditch, an elevator, a stairway, an alley etc?

These are just some of the considerations that may separate the two methodologies. This is what I'm talking about and that old school, in my experience (and not just TKD) addresses.

 

[mastercole]

Actually since I can answer yes to all of the above (except I've only won medals, not trophies ), I'll inject something.

Your question above states "competition" training. I don't remember this being a specific discussion for the topic. For the sake of responding though, I would most certainly argue that while competition training does in fact, provide a higher quality of training in some aspects, it also offers some disadvantages in others. It's for this very reason that I incorporate sparring in my training curriculum, but don't limit it. To keep it simple, I'll point out what I feel is the obvious.

Taekwondo offers techniques that are not allowed in competition, right? If your training involves only sparring techniques, then you're not practicing other techniques, such as knee/elbow strikes, submissions, etc. Most SD practitioners I know are equally effective with their hands as well as they are with their feet. Additionally, fighting from a lock as well as on the ground, both offensively and defensively. They have a very large comfort zone and can apply effective technique in a wide range of scenarios.

I'm a strong believer that sparring increases student understanding of their physical capabilities. I believe a student that practices sparring is going to achieve a higher understanding of capability including situation awareness, body language, range, timing and power to name a few. However, practicing in only a controlled environment, focusing primarily on kicks, inherent disadvantages include limited ability to properly execute a wider array of techniques that are not part of a sparring curriculum. While you can argue this point all day long, the fact remains that I (personal experience) have never met a practitioner that can excel at both just as I have never heard of a competitor that competes and medals in Sparring and forms at the highest levels.

In other words, a sparring practitioner can defend himself and a self defense practitioner can compete. But if you're going to relay on the SD practitioner to medal and the sparring practitioner to defend you, you're playing against the odds. Train for whichever meets your needs, and be realistic in your expectations. This is true with anything. If you're going to specialize in something, it's going to come at the expense of something else.

Back to Manny's OP, his sabumnim was not ready to do that.

I think you mean you competed in WTF events, not Kukkiwon events.

Taekwondo has 17 types of sparring and they all have a value in self defense, that covers a lot. However, those 17 types of sparring would be depleted and no where near as effective without #17, which is the only type of Taekwondo sparring that allows for full contact training.

 

[mastercole]

Old school/...... funny thing.

GM LEE Kyo Yoon, founder and still President of Han Moo Kwan said that any of the old curriculum of Han Moo Kwan was deficient compared to curriculum of today, which GM Lee helped develop. He said that Taekwondo improved so fast that there never was a set standard for a Han Moo Kwan system. So whoever is saying they are teaching the old system of Han Moo Kwan is wrong, according the the founder of Han Moo Kwan.