Old School Taekwondo Being Practically All Kicks

[isshinryuronin]

Savate is said to have some of its origin in street fighting. I've never heard a gentleman's street fight among the lower class. I tried to look up traditional savate vs sport savate and so far it's a bunch of kicking and refere ce to the sport and not to the street fight.

Back in the late 60's when Black Belt Magazine was a pure informative TMA publication and not just pages of ads there was an article on savate. At that time, it was referenced as having its base in street fighting with the French docks being a nexus and nothing gentlemanly about it.

Another fact was that many of the experts in the early 1900's were killed in WWl. Perhaps after this time savate became more sport and gentlemanly in nature as the younger post war generation took over.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Back in the late 60's when Black Belt Magazine was a pure informative TMA publication and not just pages of ads there was an article on savate. At that time, it was referenced as having its base in street fighting with the French docks being a nexus and nothing gentlemanly about it.

Another fact was that many of the experts in the early 1900's were killed in WWl. Perhaps after this time savate became more sport and gentlemanly in nature as the younger post war generation took over.

I can see this happening for the simple fact of how Martial Arts in General went from combat to sport.

 

[JowGaWolf]

My last post about Savate

The person in the video below does a similar Jow Ga, Hung Ga, Choy Li Fut, strike which lines up closely to the Chinese influence it is said to have. The part where he throws the two long fist strike and then the kick is a technique that is in the Jow Ga Kung fu beginner form.

Here is a variation of it.

Here's the form. Note the turning around after the kick is similar.

The French

But not to hijack the thread too much. It's really difficult for me to believe that "street fighting", "village fighting." or self defense systems are going to only have one aspect of fighting like punch only, grapple only, kick only. If the system of fighting was developed for the streets or to use against other villages or tribes, then there's going to be a mixture of attacks in it. The only time fighting systems are limited as in only grappling, only kicking, or only punching is when it become sports. This seems to be the pattern.

If a systems has a bunch of illegal blows and or weapons then it's origins probably had punching and the used a fist.

 

[isshinryuronin]

If the system of fighting was developed for the streets or to use against other villages or tribes, then there's going to be a mixture of attacks in it. The only time fighting systems are limited as in only grappling, only kicking, or only punching is when it become sports. This seems to be the pattern.

Exactly so! Early karate had more throws and joint locks than today. Early jiu-jutsu had more strikes. Did karate get its kicks from savate and locks from jiu-jutsu, and did the latter get its strikes from karate? Or did they evolve independently as fighting is fighting no matter the system or geographic origin. This seems to be the case.

Armies just don't rely on tanks, or just airpower, or just infantry - the key is combined arms, and has been throughout the history of actual combat. The more kinds of weapons the better one is equipped to deal with a wide variety of attacks. Sports limits this variety by the nature of rules and this allows specialization of certain types of attacks and weapons. MMA has reintegrated the various facets of fighting into a single sport, but even this has rules that impose some limitations on weapons and targets.

 

[PhotonGuy]

The loopy punches or loopy kicks?

He didn't like how the kicks were too loopy. According to him when they throw a sidekick in Savate they make a big loop with their foot which he didn't like. He also didn't like stuff about their punching techniques. When you throw a punch in Savate you wind up by twisting and in doing so you turn your back to your opponent and he didn't like that. That was just my friend's experience with the art according to him.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Exactly so! Early karate had more throws and joint locks than today. Early jiu-jutsu had more strikes. Did karate get its kicks from savate and locks from jiu-jutsu, and did the latter get its strikes from karate? Or did they evolve independently as fighting is fighting no matter the system or geographic origin. This seems to be the case.

I don't know how early forms of karate and jiu-jitsu might've evolved from each other but karate did not evolve from savate. Karate is a much older art and it's from a different part of the world. I do know karate evolved in a large part from Chinese arts but not from savate.

 

[JowGaWolf]

He didn't like how the kicks were too loopy. According to him when they throw a sidekick in Savate they make a big loop with their foot which he didn't like. He also didn't like stuff about their punching techniques. When you throw a punch in Savate you wind up by twisting and in doing so you turn your back to your opponent and he didn't like that. That was just my friend's experience with the art according to him.

That's probably the Chinese Martial Art influence. The turning is supposed to be used to lure your opponent closer, but I'm not sure how they use it in Savate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They started to disappear from KKW TKD. Lots of us kept them. Some of us even (wait for it...) PUNCH TO THE HEAD.

:gasp:

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

:gasp:

You guys need to talk with a TKD 5th dan instructor I once had.

I had my chin tucked and was told to stand tall.

I answered, "but then you'll get punched in the chin".

She answered, "that;s not allowed"

And of course, I then realised we were practising with 2 different scenarios in mind.

 

[punisher73]

TKD originally was just basically Japanese Shotokan Karate. Gen. Choi and many of the others were blackbelts in it before brining it back to Korea.

But, TKD started to take on its own cultural identity and added things to its kicking arsenal and put a higher emphasis on kicking than punching. TKD (or any other Korean MA, is NOT a rediscovery of a long lost Korean martial art).

I exchanged information/trained with a guy who got his blackbelt in TKD in the early 70's. His instructor was a Korean TKD blackbelt who got his belt in the late 50's/early 60's. When we got to talk about sparring he said that they emphasized using kicks to close the distance and rely on hand techniques to finish it. I found that very interesting since it seemed the exact opposite of what I thought about TKD (keeping distance and using kicks to finish). Just goes to show you that even within a specific style, an instructor can use the tools differently than other instructors.

Famous Urban Myths:

1) Jumping Kicks were designed to knock someone off a horse
2) Kicks were emphasized because the hands were too important to damage and not be able to earn a living
3) Karate punches were designed for a farmer to punch through a Samurai's bamboo armor
4) You must register your hands as lethal weapons

I'm sure the list goes on, but these would probably apply to most Karate based systems in Okinawa, Japan and Korea

 

[JowGaWolf]

You guys need to talk with a TKD 5th dan instructor I once had.

I had my chin tucked and was told to stand tall.

I answered, "but then you'll get punched in the chin".

She answered, "that;s not allowed"

And of course, I then realised we were practising with 2 different scenarios in mind.

That's still not a good answer. lol. You can fight without your chin being tucked in, but the answer should never be, "The reason I don't tuck my chin is because punching the chin is not allowed."

Even if punching to the face is not allowed. All fighting principles should apply. My stance should be in a position that makes it more difficult for me to be kicked in the groin. I should abandon the stance just because sporting or training rules say that groin kicking is not allowed.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You guys need to talk with a TKD 5th dan instructor I once had.

I had my chin tucked and was told to stand tall.

I answered, "but then you'll get punched in the chin".

She answered, "that;s not allowed"

And of course, I then realised we were practising with 2 different scenarios in mind.

That's an excellent summary of the major problem with heavily (or totally) sport-focused schools.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

That's still not a good answer. lol. You can fight without your chin being tucked in, but the answer should never be, "The reason I don't tuck my chin is because punching the chin is not allowed."

Even if punching to the face is not allowed. All fighting principles should apply. My stance should be in a position that makes it more difficult for me to be kicked in the groin. I should abandon the stance just because sporting or training rules say that groin kicking is not allowed.

Well realistically, if you want to win the sporting match you adapt to the rule set. E.g., if you can move faster with your hands lower, then that may be the way to move.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Well realistically, if you want to win the sporting match you adapt to the rule set. E.g., if you can move faster with your hands lower, then that may be the way to move.

I understand adapting, but this seems to be more of acceptance that there is no other way. Maybe instead of moving faster, adapt to the speed.

Here's a real-life example:
One of the students I trained in sparring was super-fast for me. He would attack my stomach and then cut an angle. I kept trying to adjust my body fast enough so that I would be facing him. I couldn't make it happen. I was too slow. I just couldn't turn my angle fast enough.

Then I abandon my quest to try to be faster. I dug into the techniques of the form to see if there was an answer there. I tried it and it worked flawlessly. He still landed the shot to my stomach but he never got away after that. The specific tech which made little sense in training with the assumption, but it made a lot of sense in application. It worked so well, that he stopped doing it. Probably my elbow made his ribs feel uncomfortable or maybe the solid bump knocking him off balance did.

The point is that I did have to be faster I just had to adapt to the speed and not exploit the rules.

Maybe a rising block will prevent a kicking leg from landing on the front of the face or on top of the head.

Maybe a lower stance reduces the strike zone and creates a bigger gap for the opponent to cross.

Maybe hands up will shut down attempts to score on the head. My observation is thst adapting to the rules gave birth to yhinks most wouldn’t qualify as TKD or KARATE.

People just have to be careful not to throw out the system for the sake of rules. A lot of what is acceptable in point sparring today was not acceptable when I took karate and would not be considered as valid strike.

If I were

 

[Hot Lunch]

My last dojo trained on WKF-style kumite once a week. We had to put on the protectors and everything. First part of the class would be training and drills for it, and then the rest would be all sparring.

After giving it some thought, I can't say that success in those types of matches really mean anything. You really don't have to know much of your style's curriculum to be good at it. If someone only showed up once a week for kumite day, and no other days (i.e., not actually learning the curriculum and moving up the belt ranks), they'd be just as good at it as the rest of the class.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I exchanged information/trained with a guy who got his blackbelt in TKD in the early 70's. His instructor was a Korean TKD blackbelt who got his belt in the late 50's/early 60's. When we got to talk about sparring he said that they emphasized using kicks to close the distance and rely on hand techniques to finish it. I found that very interesting since it seemed the exact opposite of what I thought about TKD (keeping distance and using kicks to finish). Just goes to show you that even within a specific style, an instructor can use the tools differently than other instructors.

The reason was more than likely that in the 1950's to early 1970's the image of what TK-D was had not been corrupted by WT style sparring. So, while whatever you were familiar with was not the same "Style" as what those who trained in the Late 1950's - early 1970's was not the same as whatever gave you thought about a system irrespective of having a similar moniker.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well realistically, if you want to win the sporting match you adapt to the rule set. E.g., if you can move faster with your hands lower, then that may be the way to move.

I think a clearer way to say it is if you're only training for a specific sport/ruleset, you should adapt in every way that gives you an advantage - and there's not much reason to train anything that doesn't. It sounds like that's what this instructor was doing - teaching for the sport ruleset. Since tucking the chin doesn't convey an advantage in that ruleset, there's no reason to train it when training only for that ruleset.

Of course, if you're using the sport as part of your training, but hoping to become a better fighter, overall (whether for SD or for other rulesets, as well), you'd want to generally train good fighting habits, even if they don't convey an advantage - and some of them even if they convey a disadvantage in a specific ruleset. (For that latter, you'd probably also spend some time training specifically foir that ruleset to reduce that disadvantage.)

 

[Earl Weiss]

I exchanged information/trained with a guy who got his blackbelt in TKD in the early 70's. His instructor was a Korean TKD blackbelt who got his belt in the late 50's/early 60's. When we got to talk about sparring he said that they emphasized using kicks to close the distance and rely on hand techniques to finish it. I found that very interesting since it seemed the exact opposite of what I thought about TKD (keeping distance and using kicks to finish). Just goes to show you that even within a specific style, an instructor can use the tools differently than other instructors.

The reason was more than likely that in the 1950's to early 1970's the image of what TK-D was had not been corrupted by WT style sparring. So, while whatever you were familiar with was not the same "Style" as what those who trained in the Late 1950's - early 1970's was not the same as whatever gave you thought about a system irrespective of having a similar moniker.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My last dojo trained on WKF-style kumite once a week. We had to put on the protectors and everything. First part of the class would be training and drills for it, and then the rest would be all sparring.

After giving it some thought, I can't say that success in those types of matches really mean anything. You really don't have to know much of your style's curriculum to be good at it. If someone only showed up once a week for kumite day, and no other days (i.e., not actually learning the curriculum and moving up the belt ranks), they'd be just as good at it as the rest of the class.

If that last part is true, then the school wasn't actually teaching - during the other classes - the skills used in kumite (or anything that reinforces them).

So I'd argue you stated it backwards: attending the other classes doesn't really mean anything if your purpose is learning to use the techniques in a chaotic environment.

 

[HighKick]

My last dojo trained on WKF-style kumite once a week. We had to put on the protectors and everything. First part of the class would be training and drills for it, and then the rest would be all sparring.

After giving it some thought, I can't say that success in those types of matches really mean anything. You really don't have to know much of your style's curriculum to be good at it. If someone only showed up once a week for kumite day, and no other days (i.e., not actually learning the curriculum and moving up the belt ranks), they'd be just as good at it as the rest of the class.

If for no reason other than conditioning, that is hard to believe.