Old School Taekwondo vs the new Kukkiwon

[Raistlin]

I know this is going to stir the hornest nest here a bit, but here it goes:

My school and my associated schools identify as "old school". By that I mean the following:

• We train really hard
• We live by the tenets of TKD
• We do train sport TKD as a supplement to our training, but our focus in sparring isn't sport, it is more for practical fighting (striking) skills
• We have a fairly robust self defence curriculum
• Our belt tests are very difficult, having a challenging physical fitness element to them. We do fail people if they do not meet our standard
• On average, it takes students anywhere from 5-10 years to achieve 1st degree black belt. In rare circumstances I have promoted people after 4 years

How many of you identify as "old school" TKD? What percent of the TKD population do you think still trains this way?

At one time, most TKD schools trained this way. Now, there are so many that give out participation ribbons. From my experience, the schools most guilty of this have been Kukkiwon schools. At least in my area. We have a few Kukkiwon schools in my neighbourhood that require their students to test every 3 months whether they know or can perform the required material or not. If you train there, you will have a black belt in approximately 1 1/2 years, whether you want it or not. I know a lot of people view the Kukkiwon as the gold standard, and hear people say that you aren't a legit TKD black belt if you don't have Kukkiwon certification, but it is this sort of thing that has made me not want to have anything to do with them. I'm actually quite proud of the fact that I and those affiliated with me have made the choice to stand firm and not conform to the "new TKD". I do not want to associate with an organization that promotes people to black belt after such as short amount of time. I do not want to associate with an organization that promotes people to black belt when they can't perform even the most fundamental elements of our art. An organization that promotes black belts that couldn't even tell you the name of one of their forms let alone perform them. To me, receiving a Kukkiwon certification would cheapen what I and those affiliated with me have worked so hard for so long to achieve.

I have had "black belts" from these Kukkiwon schools join my school. Some couldn't remember a single form. Those that could, couldn't even perform it to a yellow belt level. They couldn't throw a proper punch. Their basic kicks were at a typical white belt level. It is disgusting to think that someone tied a black belt around their waist. If this is a Kukkiwon school, then I want to stay as far away from that organization as I can.

Am I alone in this sentiment?

I applaud the Kukkiwon in their business success. They have grown to be a huge business entity. They seem to be doing a good job in providing structure and education to their members. They have really fallen down in maintaining their standards. I'm sure my experiences with Kukkiwon schools are not unique to my area. It's really too bad they don't invest some resources into auditing the quality of their member schools. I guess that just doesn't make business sense. They certainly don't want to reduce membership in their organization/business by actually upholding any kind of standard. It's pretty sad because I'm sure there are some great Kukkiwon schools out there.

Rant over.

My intention isn't to start another Kukkiwon bashing discussion. I know that has been talked about many times. I only mention them because they are by far the largest TKD organization on the planet and so arguably they are the biggest influence on modern day TKD. My intention is to get a little insight into how many schools still train and maintain the standards that were set back in the 70's, when all TKD practitioners were pretty tough individuals.

 

[skribs]

I know what you're describing happens at KKW schools, and I have seen bad examples of KKW schools or their students. I've spoken about them in a recent thread. My main school was a KKW school and we didn't have those issues. Even at many schools that have lax quality control, you can still learn decently if you put in the effort to learn what they're teaching.

I think there's a spectrum of schools, and we tend to look at the outliers and see the problems there, and see any similarities in schools closer to the middle as an example of something wrong with them. For example, some schools take 1-1.5 years to get a black belt, and you get it on time. I think it's common for it to take 2-3 years minimum, but 3-5 years for the average student. I think this is normal, but it's easy to look at a minimum 2 year and see how close it is to a mandatory 1.5 year.

For example, there are a couple of things that strike me about what you say.

• Failing people who do not meet your standard - people shouldn't be testing if they're not up to passing standard. If it's common enough to be mentioned, it sounds like your school isn't screening well for tests and is actually doing a disservice to those testing. In my experience, failures should be around 0.1%. If schools require you to test on time, only then should failures be much higher.
• Average of 5-10 years to get black belt. If you're competing in tournaments, then your students are sandbagging. If your blue belt is a 6-year student and they're competing against 1.5-year students, then they're not winning because your school has better blue belts. You're winning because your students have been training 4x as long as the competition. If you're not competing in tournaments, I don't see an issue here.

The thing is, a "black belt" is an arbitrary thing. It means what it means to the person issuing it. It doesn't mean the same thing in every art, every federation, or every school. If your black belt means a 5-year degree, then understand that it means essentially equivalent to a Master's degree, and expect that your black belts should have the level of mastery of a high-level practitioner. If your black belt means a 2-year degree, then understand it means similar to an Associate's degree, and that it's a very entry-level rank and that folks are just basically learning to learn. If your art is like BJJ where it's expected black belt is a 10-year degree, then your black belts should be the equivalent of a post-doctorate, which is why they're called Professor.

 

[Raistlin]

I appreciate your response. to address your comment about failing students:

I have never liked the attitude that a test is just a formality. I know some instructors take this approach. I look at a test as a test. I want them to feel the pressure. I want to see how they perform under pressure. Self defense/steet fighting situations are extremely stressful situations. Although we cannot mimmick the pressures of real life fighting situations, we can do our best to create pressure. Some students crack under pressure, and it is a skill that takes practice to overcome.

We do screen them on their techniques. Failing students isn't something that happens a lot, but it does happen from time to time. Sometimes because of the pressure. Often times the thing that fails them is not being able to meet the physical fitness requirements. For example, we require our orange belts to be able to do 100 push-ups and 100 crunches properly at their test. These are done in 4 sets of 25 throughout the duration of the test. This number increases for each belt level. They are to be done properly. This is communicated very clearly to the students. If they do not train and cannot do the required number of push-ups, crunches, rounds of sparring etc. they do not pass the test. We do make exceptions for injuries and will substitute exercises on a case by case basis. The point is to build discipline, push them to be physically fit, give them incentive to workout at home, and get their bodies fit enough to perform the higher level techniques such as flying side kicks, jump spinning hook kicks etc. without hurting themselves, and so they have enough force in their strikes to actually have an impact on their opponents.

We do compete a lot at tournaments. We compete in sport Karate because I really don't like the direction sport TKD has gone. At sport Karate (open martial arts) events our students compete in open hand forms, weapons forms, team forms, point fighting and continuous fighting. These tournaments are open to all styles. We see TKD, Karate, TSD, Hapkido, Kungfu, Jeetkundo, kickboxing, you name it for striking arts. It is pretty common to take 5-10 years in Karate and Kungfu schools. We have many students who have been competing against some of the same people from other styles right from white belt all the way up to black belt over the span of 7 years or so. We are not at all sandbagging, as that is the standard for many non-TKD styles.

Having said that, I would NOT EVER lower my standards to conform to what everyone else is doing. Instead, I prefer to urge others to raise their standards of promotion. Being a black belt used to mean something in TKD. It used to be the norm that a TKD black belt was extremely proficient, not the exception. Maybe that just makes me a dinosaur to hang onto that level of expectation. If so, so be it. I guess that's why I probably wouldn't fit in at the Kukkiwon

 

[Tony Dismukes]

At one time, most TKD schools trained this way.

I think you might be over-romanticizing the past a bit there.

I started my martial arts path 44 years ago with TKD, although I didn't stay with that art for too long. I remember that when I asked the head instructor about the practicality of some of the moves we were learning his reply was "No worry. You train 2 years, you get black belt, you fight good."

Now maybe that particular school was just a McDojang. But I had friends at the other main TKD dojang in town, and the average time to black belt there was probably about 3 years. One of my college classmates was a 3rd degree black belt at age 20.

There are certainly dojangs which have rank standards similar to yours. I believe @Dirty Dog has a similar timeline and expectations for black belt. But in the over 40 years that I've been training and making friends with practitioners of different arts, I'd have to say that 3 years or so seems to be the average time to black belt in most of the TKD schools that I've encountered.

If by "at one time", you mean more than 40-50 years ago, then I still have my doubts. TKD is only about 70 years old. During at least the first decade or so, the early grandmasters were awarded pretty high ranks fairly quickly. So if there was ever a time when average time to black belt across most schools was 7-8 years, then maybe it was in the 60s? Perhaps some of our older TKD practitioners can comment on that.

 

[HighKick]

I think you might be over-romanticizing the past a bit there.

I started my martial arts path 44 years ago with TKD, although I didn't stay with that art for too long. I remember that when I asked the head instructor about the practicality of some of the moves we were learning his reply was "No worry. You train 2 years, you get black belt, you fight good."

Now maybe that particular school was just a McDojang. But I had friends at the other main TKD dojang in town, and the average time to black belt there was probably about 3 years. One of my college classmates was a 3rd degree black belt at age 20.

There are certainly dojangs which have rank standards similar to yours. I believe @Dirty Dog has a similar timeline and expectations for black belt. But in the over 40 years that I've been training and making friends with practitioners of different arts, I'd have to say that 3 years or so seems to be the average time to black belt in most of the TKD schools that I've encountered.

If by "at one time", you mean more than 40-50 years ago, then I still have my doubts. TKD is only about 70 years old. During at least the first decade or so, the early grandmasters were awarded pretty high ranks fairly quickly. So if there was ever a time when average time to black belt across most schools was 7-8 years, then maybe it was in the 60s? Perhaps some of our older TKD practitioners can comment on that.

Never happened(s). Just never. There may be a few crazy outliers from some kooky instructor, but honestly I would question it Hard.
I have been in TKD since 1982 and have been in and out of all the major derivatives and have never seen or heard of that timeframe.

 

[skribs]

I think you might be over-romanticizing the past a bit there.

I started my martial arts path 44 years ago with TKD, although I didn't stay with that art for too long. I remember that when I asked the head instructor about the practicality of some of the moves we were learning his reply was "No worry. You train 2 years, you get black belt, you fight good."

Now maybe that particular school was just a McDojang. But I had friends at the other main TKD dojang in town, and the average time to black belt there was probably about 3 years. One of my college classmates was a 3rd degree black belt at age 20.

There are certainly dojangs which have rank standards similar to yours. I believe @Dirty Dog has a similar timeline and expectations for black belt. But in the over 40 years that I've been training and making friends with practitioners of different arts, I'd have to say that 3 years or so seems to be the average time to black belt in most of the TKD schools that I've encountered.

If by "at one time", you mean more than 40-50 years ago, then I still have my doubts. TKD is only about 70 years old. During at least the first decade or so, the early grandmasters were awarded pretty high ranks fairly quickly. So if there was ever a time when average time to black belt across most schools was 7-8 years, then maybe it was in the 60s? Perhaps some of our older TKD practitioners can comment on that.

The school I trained at as a kid (1995-1999) it took longer. I don't remember how long it was between stripes, but you had to test for each stripe, there were 3 stripes per belt (meaning 4 tests per belt), and 8 colors. So 32 tests to get your black belt. His attitude was that it was important that if a kid got a black belt at his school, that they really earned it.

If I remember correctly, he was one of the first non-Korean Masters, or at least in that generation. So there was pressure on him to make sure that his students were legitimate. I trained for 4 years and only made it to green belt. But I also don't know that I was testing as fast as possible, like I did later on when I started again as an adult.

 

[HighKick]

The school I trained at as a kid (1995-1999) it took longer. I don't remember how long it was between stripes, but you had to test for each stripe, there were 3 stripes per belt (meaning 4 tests per belt), and 8 colors. So 32 tests to get your black belt. His attitude was that it was important that if a kid got a black belt at his school, that they really earned it.

If I remember correctly, he was one of the first non-Korean Masters, or at least in that generation. So there was pressure on him to make sure that his students were legitimate. I trained for 4 years and only made it to green belt. But I also don't know that I was testing as fast as possible, like I did later on when I started again as an adult.

Just a ridiculous belt/stripe system. Bleeding people along.

 

[MadMartigan]

Never happened(s). Just never. There may be a few crazy outliers from some kooky instructor, but honestly I would question it Hard.
I have been in TKD since 1982 and have been in and out of all the major derivatives and have never seen or heard of that timeframe.

I'm trying to ascertain which timeframe you mean when you say it nearly never happens. If you mean 7-8 years then it definitely happens... especially for young students. A 7 year old joining today in my school (or most any other in my network) would have to train consistently for at least 5 years to even reach a Jr. Black belt.

In my area of North America, the average in all the reputable schools is probably actually around 6-7 years, with some exceptional students making it in 4-5. The fastest I've seen personally over the past 28 years was approximately 4.5 years to 1st dan.

And before you say it's just a few crazy outliers, these are all schools whose instructors are still directly working with, following, and being graded by one of the last living pioneers, GM C.K. Choi (who needs no introduction).

 

[Earl Weiss]

So if there was ever a time when average time to black belt across most schools was 7-8 years, then maybe it was in the 60s? Perhaps some of our older TKD practitioners can comment on that.

In General Choi's 1965 Text he sets forth couple of training schedule to reach Black Belts - Keep in mind that prior to that time it was primarily Military age males:
1. 24 Months - 940 Hours
.
2. 12 Month 1250Hours (Special Class)

 

[Earl Weiss]

• We do train sport TKD as a supplement to our training, but our focus in sparring isn't sport, it is more for practical fighting (striking) skills

Interesting . Do you have sparring that allows:
1. Punching to the head?
2. Kicks below the waist?
3. Grabbing and Grappling?

Those are things not allowed in many T K D Schools.

 

[Raistlin]

Interesting . Do you have sparring that allows:
1. Punching to the head?
2. Kicks below the waist?
3. Grabbing and Grappling?

Those are things not allowed in many T K D Schools.

Hello GM Weiss,

Yes, our school does allow punching to the head in every form of sparring we practice. Our advanced students practice sweeps and leg kicks, grabbing and grappling from time to time to keep them more well rounded, however it is not practiced all the time and not officially part of the curriculum. I have cross trained in various arts over the years and do like to introduce what I feel are some key skills to make my students a little more well rounded and if nothing else, to keep them aware of other techniques they could encounter. They are not required skills for promotion though. We stick to our core TKD curriculum for promotion, which is admittedly a blend of TKD and TSD. We practice both the Pyung Ahn forms and the Palgwe forms.

 

[HighKick]

That is 100% Your systemic protocol. Not the norm in North America. In your system (ATA?), apparently. But do not think that is normative.

 

[Raistlin]

I think you might be over-romanticizing the past a bit there.

I started my martial arts path 44 years ago with TKD, although I didn't stay with that art for too long. I remember that when I asked the head instructor about the practicality of some of the moves we were learning his reply was "No worry. You train 2 years, you get black belt, you fight good."

Now maybe that particular school was just a McDojang. But I had friends at the other main TKD dojang in town, and the average time to black belt there was probably about 3 years. One of my college classmates was a 3rd degree black belt at age 20.

There are certainly dojangs which have rank standards similar to yours. I believe @Dirty Dog has a similar timeline and expectations for black belt. But in the over 40 years that I've been training and making friends with practitioners of different arts, I'd have to say that 3 years or so seems to be the average time to black belt in most of the TKD schools that I've encountered.

If by "at one time", you mean more than 40-50 years ago, then I still have my doubts. TKD is only about 70 years old. During at least the first decade or so, the early grandmasters were awarded pretty high ranks fairly quickly. So if there was ever a time when average time to black belt across most schools was 7-8 years, then maybe it was in the 60s? Perhaps some of our older TKD practitioners can comment on that.

I can only speak from my own experiences. I started training in 1984. At that time I was in a Kukkiwon school. There were lots of black belts being promoted after 2-3 years in that organization, and they were pretty tough black belts. It was very common to see multiple knockouts and broken ribs at the tournaments we attended back then. I moved away from the Kukkiwon affiliated school in 1990 and started training a blend of TKD and TSD. In that organization it takes longer to reach black belt as there is a much robust self defense curriculum than there was in my former school.

I mention the standards set in the 70's only as a reference from my own experiences. My instructor received his black belt in the early 70's and started teaching in 1973. He was a pretty tough martial artist and competitor. I met many of his friends throughout the years that trained in the same era as he did. Although they all came from different schools/organizations, they were pretty tough fighters and produced high quality black belts.

We did always compete in open martial arts circuits as opposed to TKD tournaments so maybe that's where the difference is. We were competing against Karate, Kungfu etc. where it typically takes longer to achieve black belt.

I'm less concerned about time-in-grade requirements than I am about their abillity to perform the techniques. Where did the standards go? If someone can be ready to test for black belt after 2 years then good for them. They need to be proficient though. When they are getting a black belt after 2 years and can't remember 1/2 their forms, can't execute a proper side kick and can't demonstrate a proper forward stance then maybe they should have spent a little more time trying to perfect the fundamentals before wearing that rank.

We occassionally get a "2-year program" black belt show up at our open tournaments. They are the ones that try to register their 9 year old black belt in the black belt division and realize their is no 9 year old black belt division. When they ask the tournament promoter why there isn't a 9 year old black belt division, they are told it is because we typically don't see 9 year old black belts. They get put into one of the 9 year old gup level divisions and still get smoked.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Interesting . Do you have sparring that allows:
1. Punching to the head?

Yes.

2. Kicks below the waist?

Yes.

3. Grabbing and Grappling?

Yes.

Those are things not allowed in many T K D Schools.

Agreed. I think that is a symptom of the sport-focus found in many schools. While it's true that many sporting techniques have perfectly valid application in self defense, it's also true that they are only a small subset of what is possible. And it is FAR more likely that students will be in a sporting situation than self-defense. But it's like choosing to carry a gun. Or put a fire extinguisher in the kitchen. It's far better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
In my opinion, it's better to train with more options. If you're in a tourney, it's simple enough to not use some things you know. It's not so easy to use things you've never practiced.