Taekwondo: Art versus sport

[ACJ]

I didn't say anything about driving at the head, and mostly in Taekwondo matches, even without penalty would that be a good idea.


To practice fighting, yes!

To practice fighting, despite the sport? Not a good idea. To practice fighting using the sport. Good idea.

 

[Archtkd]

Folks I’m fairly new in the community so I hope this does not make me sound silly or sarcastic. I do not really want to offend anyone, but I can’t understand why the passions in this thread have risen so high, bordering on violence.

Aren’t this still the elements of WTF taekwondo, which I have practiced for 23 years abroad and in the U.S? Basic Training (Kibon Dongjak), Self Defense (Hosinsool), Forms (Poomsae), Breaking (Gyupka) and Sparring (Gyorugi)? If we continue to learn and teach those things within the core tenets: Courtesy (Ye Lu), Integrity (Yom Chi), Perseverance (In Nae), Self Control (Guk Gi) and Indomitable Spirit (Baekjul Boogol), are we wrong?

I ask those questions because I own a school in which the bulk of my students are working adults, who want to learn WTF Taekwondo even though they have no intention of going to the Olympics. I also teach seniors (60-plus) and children – no younger than 7 – and they too learn the elements, even though the majority of them are not going to compete in tournaments. I have younger students who are really talented in Olympic style sparring, but they too have to practice the other elements of Taekwondo.

Do I, or must I be forced to call my dojang a traditional or sport TKD school? No. It’s just a WTF style Taekwondo school.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Folks I’m fairly new in the community so I hope this does not make me sound silly or sarcastic. I do not really want to offend anyone, but I can’t understand why the passions in this thread have risen so high, bordering on violence.

I am still trying to figure that one out. I started this thread mainly so that I can tell people to go to it when they raise this debate in every other topic in which they post, regardless of how unrelated that topic may be.

Aren’t this still the elements of WTF taekwondo, which I have practiced for 23 years abroad and in the U.S? Basic Training (Kibon Dongjak), Self Defense (Hosinsool), Forms (Poomsae), Breaking (Gyupka) and Sparring (Gyorugi)? If we continue to learn and teach those things within the core tenets: Courtesy (Ye Lu), Integrity (Yom Chi), Perseverance (In Nae), Self Control (Guk Gi) and Indomitable Spirit (Baekjul Boogol), are we wrong?

This has been my experience as well.

I ask those questions because I own a school in which the bulk of my students are working adults, who want to learn WTF Taekwondo even though they have no intention of going to the Olympics. I also teach seniors (60-plus) and children – no younger than 7 – and they too learn the elements, even though the majority of them are not going to compete in tournaments. I have younger students who are really talented in Olympic style sparring, but they too have to practice the other elements of Taekwondo.

Do I, or must I be forced to call my dojang a traditional or sport TKD school? No. It’s just a WTF style Taekwondo school.

Your student body sounds like that of many schools. Everyone is exposed to the full art and once they have gone through the keub ranks can focus in on whatever aspect it is that interests them most. If they stick around for any length of time, that focus will likely change. Sport tends to be the focus of the young, SD the focus of those over 30, with a forms focus being more of a personal preference: some people just love doing forms, others find them tedious no matter how good they are at it.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

Folks I’m fairly new in the community

Arch, I don't really have a beef with anything you posted. I don't even really have a beef with sport tkd (I support it, just not how it's currently implemented).

I feel like a broken record, but my contention is with those who don't give traditional martial arts enough respect. It seems to be assumed that if you're good at the sport, you'll also be good at the other side, too. I argue that there are entire skill sets within the traditional base that are not practiced at all within the sporting context. The sensitivity needed to execute certain locks and throws are completely different from the sense of timing you develop scoring points with an esoteric kick to the head. This is only one example out of thousands.

I believe I am a skilled martial artist and I spent an entire decade in my youth burning through my trust fund doing nothing but traveling and studying my chosen arts from a handful of good teachers. I say sincerely I could not have attained my current level of skill (not bragging at all, by the way - I don't believe I am exceptionally talented - I just had money and time) and managed to have learned the sport side too to my satisfaction.

So that's my rant. Time is finite. So are effort, creativity, and learning opportunities. Let's be realistic and realize that knowing the choreography to a few patterns along with a few stock defenses to a wrist grab DOES NOT equate to you doing the 'traditional' side well.

 

[dancingalone]

Training in sport develops one set of skills with a fair degree of carry over (conditioning, speed, positional awareness, timing, distance, power, taking hits, balance, etc.) while classical training with focus on SD develops a different set of skills (with a fair degree of overlap). Sport training is really just a subset of traditional training (along with poomse, breaking, hoshinsul, etc.).

Erik, I believe there's actually less overlap than you state from my perspective. For example, I focus a lot of my time teaching stances: purpose, how they fit within the concept of body structure, how they relate to movement, etc. The usual classical stuff you see in any 'old' system that over time teaches you how to avoid blows even when you seemingly didn't move an inch. I don't see any of this in sport sparring, perhaps because it's a fast results environment.

 

[miguksaram]

you cant do them both WELL

they are dimetricly opposed to each other, they both teach habits that DO NOT WORK on the other side.

you CAN do both, but i have YET to see someone that could do both WELL.

Two questions. First and foremost how many people do you know that are elite TKD fighters?

By that definition you can not do two things well can you say say you do good TKD and good Kempo?

 

[bluekey88]

Erik, I believe there's actually less overlap than you state from my perspective. For example, I focus a lot of my time teaching stances: purpose, how they fit within the concept of body structure, how they relate to movement, etc. The usual classical stuff you see in any 'old' system that over time teaches you how to avoid blows even when you seemingly didn't move an inch. I don't see any of this in sport sparring, perhaps because it's a fast results environment.

I disagree with your disagreement I didn't start out in TKD...actually, Aikido is my true base art...morte traditional you aren't going to get. The kinds of things you are talking about as far as using stances and footwork, bodystructure and the like are essential skillsets in sport TKD. In fact, most of the drillign we do is not sparring...it's footwork, movement, avoiding blows without excessive movemnt (jumping back three fett to avoid a kick means you can't counter).

My experience over the last 20 years or so tells me the ovelap is there. In fact, the kids on our comp team are also the same kids that do really well in the traditional stuff. They take directino exceptionally well and are able to wrap their brains around such things as body position to break balance, taking the oppinent's space and the like.

True, time is finite...but alot can be accomplished with the right kind of focus. I don't think particiption...or even focusing on sprt for a time, as abad thing...it's not for everyone, but it certainly isn't the death nell for tkd.

Peace,
Erik

 

[dancingalone]

I disagree with your disagreement I didn't start out in TKD...actually, Aikido is my true base art...morte traditional you aren't going to get. The kinds of things you are talking about as far as using stances and footwork, bodystructure and the like are essential skillsets in sport TKD. In fact, most of the drillign we do is not sparring...it's footwork, movement, avoiding blows without excessive movemnt (jumping back three fett to avoid a kick means you can't counter).

Good to hear from another aikidoist. Do you still practice? I am a deshi under my wife.

As for the commonality within sport TKD and aikido... Well, I respectfully disagree again. Sport TKDists common violate the majority of the rules for creating stability in an effort to create speed and sudden attacks/counters.

I fully expect that you would work a lot of movement patterns in sport TKD. It however is not at all what I am thinking of when I referred to stance work in my post above. What I see is a lot of sliding and lunging both for attack and defense.

My experience over the last 20 years or so tells me the ovelap is there. In fact, the kids on our comp team are also the same kids that do really well in the traditional stuff. They take directino exceptionally well and are able to wrap their brains around such things as body position to break balance, taking the oppinent's space and the like.

The qualities of athleticism and good studentship are valuable anywhere. This is the link to success IMO, it's not necessarily because there is true overlap in material.

True, time is finite...but alot can be accomplished with the right kind of focus. I don't think particiption...or even focusing on sprt for a time, as abad thing...it's not for everyone, but it certainly isn't the death nell for tkd.

Indeed, people can do anything they want with their spare time. I've explained my complaint above already....

 

[bluekey88]

Good to hear from another aikidoist. Do you still practice? I am a deshi under my wife.

Not for some time. I currently do Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, which has a certain aiki falvor to it....in addition to TKD.

As for the commonalities...you are seeing differences in the application of principles. BUT the principles are similar, if not the same. I want to attack when my opponenet is off balance. I want to control the sapce he needs to attack, thus limiting his options. However, because of the ruiles, I can't grab, trip or throw. However, I can use position, footwork, feints, lunges, etc. to implement these principles. Once you understand the principles, it's just a matter of learning how to use thwm within the contraints of the situation. I might lunge in with a flurry of kicks...I might do this after slipping my opponents attack before he can recover. The flurry serves to keep this person off balance and on their heels, and moving backwards towards the edge of the ring where I can then knock them out of the ring with a well placed power kick...thus scoring for the kick and posisbly on them going out of bounds. it's a bit of gamesmanship, but I took their balance, the initiative, the control over their options and capitalized.

I've been of the belief that at the highest levels, the differences between many martial arts are not as great as they appear....many paths leading ot the same destination as it were.

So, there may be less overlap in material...but a lot of overlap in principle, and to me, the principles are more important than the matyerials ultimately.

Peace,
Erik



Indeed, people can do anything they want with their spare time. I've explained my complaint above already....[/quote]

 

[dancingalone]

So, there may be less overlap in material...but a lot of overlap in principle,

I can agree with that. Pax.

 

[ATC]

...my contention is with those who don't give traditional martial arts enough respect. It seems to be assumed that if you're good at the sport, you'll also be good at the other side, too.

I see this more in reverse than I do as you are putting it. Many more seem to disrespect the sport believing that the traditionalist can be more effective at the sport than someone that trains for the sport.

I argue that there are entire skill sets within the traditional base that are not practiced at all within the sporting context...

Yes this is true if taken only in the context of training for the sport alone. But many train both. Yes more time may be given to the sport at a younger age but that may only last for a few years for most. Eventually even the best the sport has to offer comes back to the tradition once his time is up for top level sport. Or they just quit altogether.

Everyone of our sport competitors work on stances, forms, SD, joint locks, breaking, and every other aspect of the so call traditional art. Maybe not to the extent that you do now, but enough as to keep them aware of the art to the point that in a few year that is what they will focus on more.

It is not a sport all now, then bam sport is over now so now focus on art. There is a progression. As the sport career ramps up more and more focus is given to it. And maybe less and less is given to the art. But as the sport career peaks then declines, less and less focus is given to the sport and more and more is given to the art.

So if I were to plot someone’s time on each as a line graph with two lines on the same chart you would see a simple bell curve for each. The lines on the curve would start and rise for some time equally with sport ramping above the art line at some point. After some time the sport line would start to fall and the art line would then over take the sport line.

Just how I see it.

 

[dancingalone]

I see this more in reverse than I do as you are putting it. Many more seem to disrespect the sport believing that the traditionalist can be more effective at the sport than someone that trains for the sport.

I haven't noticed that at all. What I see is one outspoken person who consistently says sport TKD training is ineffective for self-defense, frequently in a brash manner so perhaps you are amplifying his contributions. Meanwhile, look on this thread in contrast for a showcase of my complaint. At least 3 have chimed in that they do both sport and traditional MA, you being one.

Yes this is true if taken only in the context of training for the sport alone. But many train both. Yes more time may be given to the sport at a younger age but that may only last for a few years for most. Eventually even the best the sport has to offer comes back to the tradition once his time is up for top level sport. Or they just quit altogether.

Everyone of our sport competitors work on stances, forms, SD, joint locks, breaking, and every other aspect of the so call traditional art. Maybe not to the extent that you do now, but enough as to keep them aware of the art to the point that in a few year that is what they will focus on more.

At this point, it's probably all about opinion. I simply do not believe there's substantial depth or comprehensiveness in the traditional curriculum of sport schools. It's evident from the discussions here that certain fundamental instruction into the hows and whys are simply omitted in favor of a smorgasbord basket of techniques that are taught in isolation from sparring and from forms.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I see this more in reverse than I do as you are putting it. Many more seem to disrespect the sport believing that the traditionalist can be more effective at the sport than someone that trains for the sport.

I have not seen this, and as hot (and seemingly unquenchable) this topic is, I think that I would have by now if it were a common contention.

Generally, the arguement goes that the traditionalist can be more effective in self defense than someone who just trains for sport.

The other arguement that I have seen is that someone who just trains for sport is not really doing taekwondo.

Daniel

 

[ATC]

I haven't noticed that at all. What I see is one outspoken person who consistently says sport TKD training is ineffective for self-defense, frequently in a brash manner so perhaps you are amplifying his contributions. Meanwhile, look on this thread in contrast for a showcase of my complaint. At least 3 have chimed in that they do both sport and traditional MA, you being one.

Maybe in the thread for this area.

At this point, it's probably all about opinion. I simply do not believe there's substantial depth or comprehensiveness in the traditional curriculum of sport schools. It's evident from the discussions here that certain fundamental instruction into the hows and whys are simply omitted in favor of a smorgasbord basket of techniques that are taught in isolation from sparring and from forms.

You are basing this off of only a few people. Many don't want to know the why, what’s, and how’s. I see it every day in our dojang. Our Sabunim will talk and give all the info needed on the application and principles of techniques and concepts, but most don't even pay attention. They only want to be doing the physical.

I have walked up to many students and asked them to perform a simple task, then when done incorrectly, corrected them. After the correction I asked why is it done this way only to have blank stares. I know the answer and not because I looked it up or got it somewhere else, it was told to us in class, many times. But I pay attention and want to know why. But most don't.

You seem to be one that also wants the knowledge and that is great. Our Sabunim is always telling us black belts, without the knowledge you have nothing. But sadly many don't care.

 

[ATC]

I have not seen this, and as hot (and seemingly unquenchable) this topic is, I think that I would have by now if it were a common contention.

Generally, the arguement goes that the traditionalist can be more effective in self defense than someone who just trains for sport.

The other arguement that I have seen is that someone who just trains for sport is not really doing taekwondo.

Daniel

I agree with everything you just said. And it says to me that most traditionalist disrespect the sport rather than the sport practitioners disrespecting the art.

It may be just my perception and or interpretation but if someone that does not do the sport but only the art for SD, then look at the sport and believe that what they see will not work or can't be applied in an SD situation, and they don't believe that there is any power with any technique or they don't know how to block or protect them self’s from attack, then they must also believe that they can take what they do into the sport ring and make it work. Again this is the conclusion I come to.

 

[dancingalone]

Maybe in the thread for this area.

Pull up a thread for me where someone has said a traditionalist can execute sport TKD better than people who train sport TKD.

You are basing this off of only a few people. Many don't want to know the why, what’s, and how’s.

Actually, I'm basing it on reality. If you practice 2-4 hours a day on just WTF rules fighting, when do you find the time to work the applications contained in the forms in live, randori fashion? When do you find the time to repeat each move a hundred times on each side from a circular blow, from a straight blow, from a charging attack, from a 3/4 pace attack from the back? It's easy to say you can do both without necessarily knowing what goes into making the forms live and breath for you. Everyone says they work applications, but what do they really mean by that?

All of my drills build upon each other by design. Basics flow into kata flows into isolation practice into live randori or kumite. I respect what the word traditional means. At the same time, I know the sporting world is a completely different domain, equally hard in certain aspects. I respect what it takes to do well in that world.

It's tough to serve 2 masters. I'll leave it at that in this post.

 

[dortiz]

"then they must also believe that they can take what they do into the sport ring and make it work"

I have never heard this. I have always said the opposite.

My point is they are different.

Dave O.

 

[dancingalone]

It may be just my perception and or interpretation but if someone that does not do the sport but only the art for SD, then look at the sport and believe that what they see will not work or can't be applied in an SD situation, and they don't believe that there is any power with any technique or they don't know how to block or protect them self’s from attack, then they must also believe that they can take what they do into the sport ring and make it work. Again this is the conclusion I come to.

That's a rather large leap of conclusion to make. How could any traditionalist say they would do well in sport competition when 90% of their techniques and tactics are forbidden?

One of the truisms I am fond of repeating is "You get good at what you practice." You want to be good at sport sparring, practice sport sparring. You want to be good at something else, practice something else.

I don't think you'll find that thread...

 

[ATC]

Pull up a thread for me where someone has said a traditionalist can execute sport TKD better than people who train sport TKD.

Not ignoring this but will take a minute so I want to respond to your following comment first.

Actually, I'm basing it on reality. If you practice 2-4 hours a day on just WTF rules fighting, when do you find the time to work the applications contained in the forms in live, randori fashion? When do you find the time to repeat each move a hundred times on each side from a circular blow, from a straight blow, from a charging attack, from a 3/4 pace attack from the back? It's easy to say you can do both without necessarily knowing what goes into making the forms live and breath for you. Everyone says they work applications, but what do they really mean by that?

All of my drills build upon each other by design. Basics flow into kata flows into isolation practice into live randori or kumite. I respect what the word traditional means. At the same time, I know the sporting world is a completely different domain, equally hard in certain aspects. I respect what it takes to do well in that world.

It's tough to serve 2 masters. I'll leave it at that in this post.

I can only give examples of the people in my dojang or my kids.

My kids get home from school at 2:30 every day.
· From 2:30 until 5:00 they do their homework, eat, nap or whatever they have time for.
· From 5:30 until 6:30 they take class. In this class they do whatever the art teaches them.
· From 6:30 until 8:00 they train for WTF competitions. This is not just sparring constantly but mostly doing drill after drill and drill. They may take 10 minutes at the end to move around a bit but only shadow spar or light contact.
· At 8:00 we (Me included) have Black Belt class. This is a class for only BB. In this class is where we do all of what you talk about. This class has no end time but usually ends between 9:30 and 10:00.
· Even when the class is over we (me and my kids) don't leave for another 30 to 60 minutes, depending on what the kids have to do the next day.
· Saturday is only a single class and that is poomsae class from 8:00 until 10:00. Even though they may do poomsae in their 5:30 class, Saturday is a day to really work the stances and the forms only.
Yes, my kids spend 5 - 6 hours a day in the dojang. During the summer it is more as they go in to the dojang at 2:00 every day and don't leave until 11:00 at night. If there is an upcoming tournament not during the Summer time then a few month before the tournament they will start their day at the dojang at 4:00 instead of 5:30.

During really hard sport training days they may skip the 5:30 class but that will be it. Also after a major tournament they will also have down time from the sport training as well.

It is all up to your level of dedication, but there is more than enough time. Because my kids each started at the age 4 they only know the dojang and think that what they do is normal. To them it is just what the day consists of.

Oh we also get up every Sunday at 6:00AM and run 6 miles in the hills.

I have the luxury of only working until 2:00 myself every day. So I get home from work before my kids get home from school.

 

[dancingalone]

Hey, ATC, never let it be said that I don't think your kids work hard. They clearly do and you're rightfully proud of them. Our differences in opinion are on a macro-level.