As a TKD practitioner I agree with the assessment of the art overwhelming being practiced for sport. If the club has days where real self-defense is practiced then it's fine but all too often the only sparring style practiced is sport competition or worse - testing style no contact, long range for demo purposes.
Watered Down Martial Arts
- Thread starter Champ-Pain
- Start date
StagTown
Yellow Belt
many reasons! headguards, scoreing part of gloves clearly marked, short fight period.......these types of things are imposed when a sport gains olympic status as someones already mentioned fighting to the death is no longer encouraged.
bests stagtown
Shotgun Buddha
Brown Belt
Not exactly. Pankration was really the nastier one of the combat sports back then, injuries and fatalities were common enough, the boxing was pretty brutal but not quite as bad, and the wrestling was comparatively "safe"
In terms of hand protection they mainly wore wraps around their hands.
In terms of sports such as Judo/Boxing being watered down. They may not practice "lethal" techniques, but the techniques they do practice are ones they've pressure tested and performed against resisting opponents on a regular basis. They have an effective bag of tricks that they can perform reliably. Yes the settings and circumstances they might have to perform them under are different, but I'd be wary of underestimating their abilities.
frank raud
Master of Arts
You are describing amateur rules boxing. Headguards are not allowed in professional boxing, althought they are used in sparring. When has fighting to the death ever been encouraged in boxing?
I'm not going to comment on judo, as I do not practice it, but how do you support your statement about taekwondo?
And since when was Olympic taekwondo a style? Last I checked, it isn't. There are taekwondo tournaments that are held under World Taekwondo Federation rules. The Olympics happen to be one of those tournaments. The rules aren't special for the Olympics. In order to compete at that level, a pariticpant has to hold a first dan in Kukkiwon taekwondo, which is much more than just sparring under WTF rules. I have practiced taekwondo since the seventies and must disagree with your assessment.
Neither taekwondo nor judo were originally founded to be used in war. Neither was the Shotokan that strongly influenced taekwondo. If you think that Judo and taekwondo were founded as 'war' arts, then you are unfamiliar with the origins of either art.
Also, you are not using the term 'watered down' correctly. Watering something down means adding water to it to stretch it further, not taking elements away.
Adding weapons to taekwondo is an example of 'watering down' as you are adding something that has no intrinsic value to the art in, ususally in order to stretch the student's enrollement further.
Adding boxing to judo (no idea if anyone is doing this) is watering down: you are adding something to it to stretch the people who might find it appealing or to stretch it to include material that Kano never intended.
As to whether or not that is good or bad is another story.
Removal of techniques is is correctly termed streamlining, simplifying or truncating.
And what was the original motive of 'martial arts training?' And is your question even relevant? Judo and taekwondo are not martial arts if you use the term correctly. Neither one was developed for war.
Daniel
The problem with your statement is that the term, Martial Arts, has nothing to do with aesthetics. It means war sciences or war skills. It has nothing to do with the fine arts.
And the vast majority of people practicing what is called a martial art are practicing something that is either not martial or not martial any longer. Boxing has always been a sport, though the rule set has changed over the course of over a century.
Most 'martial arts' that are popularly practiced were not developed for use on the battlefield.
Those that were are no longer applicable on the battlefield. I practice and teach the "martial" use of the sword. But without a time machine or the disappearance of modern weaponry or some kind of zombie uprising, you won't see swords used in warfare again, probably ever.
Daniel
frank raud
Master of Arts
Originally Posted by frank raud
Why would you consider boxing watered down?
many reasons! headguards, scoreing part of gloves clearly marked, short fight period.......these types of things are imposed when a sport gains olympic status as someones already mentioned fighting to the death is no longer encouraged.
bests stagtown
An interesting read... http://www.hellenism.com/olympics/boxing.htm
frank raud
Master of Arts
From the article Ancient boxing differed in many ways from modern boxing.
That may have something to do with the many centuries between the boxing of Ancient Greece and the modern boxing era. Modern boxing developed from fencing, and has little relationship to the boxing of Ancient Greece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing
Brandon Fisher
Master Black Belt
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 13
Personally I feel martial arts being watered down is a tragedy. Judo was created as a sport from Ju Jutsu however it was still a very brutal art. I am saddened to hear that some of the chokes and throws have been eliminated from judo for the olympics.
More personal to me is the push for on sport karate (whats being called traditional) through the groups trying to get karate in the olympics. They are trying to drastically systemize karatedo which even today in Okinawa it is not. The Okinawan's still teach people to their strengths for the most part and it is acceptable if someone doing kata looks a little different than someone else. The emphasis is still in the bunkai not on the show. At least thats what I saw when I was there last year. As a long time karate practioner (approaching 30 years) it is my believe that the tradition should be what it was created for self-preservation not sport.
Mind you I enjoy getting involved in tournaments and such but I believe the focus for many has gone to the trophy and not bettering oneself as a whole through the training.
As far as a Olympic TKD honestly I think it looks ridiculous and is not even recognizable to traditional TKD which I have a great respect for when it is taught correctly.
Just my .02
More personal to me is the push for on sport karate (whats being called traditional) through the groups trying to get karate in the olympics. They are trying to drastically systemize karatedo which even today in Okinawa it is not. The Okinawan's still teach people to their strengths for the most part and it is acceptable if someone doing kata looks a little different than someone else. The emphasis is still in the bunkai not on the show. At least thats what I saw when I was there last year. As a long time karate practioner (approaching 30 years) it is my believe that the tradition should be what it was created for self-preservation not sport.
Mind you I enjoy getting involved in tournaments and such but I believe the focus for many has gone to the trophy and not bettering oneself as a whole through the training.
As far as a Olympic TKD honestly I think it looks ridiculous and is not even recognizable to traditional TKD which I have a great respect for when it is taught correctly.
Just my .02
Because sport is a subset of art, I believe it's inevitable that what is done in sport is "watered down" or a limited version of the art.
Consider - if we entered tournaments with NO rules whatsoever, and used our art to attempt to hurt, maim, or kill our opponent.. First of all people would die... and the rest would go to jail. Second, the tournament probably wouldn't be much fun.
Consider - if we entered tournaments with NO rules whatsoever, and used our art to attempt to hurt, maim, or kill our opponent.. First of all people would die... and the rest would go to jail. Second, the tournament probably wouldn't be much fun.
OP
Champ-Pain
Blue Belt
- Thread Starter
- #32
1) That may be your opinion but - TKD is what they teach the soldiers in the Korean armed forces (soldiers fight wars)... and Judo is what they teach the police force in Japan - no guns there. Judo came out of JuJutsu, which was used in war... by Ninja and Samurai, alike.
2) Adding water to lemons, makes lemon-ade. Not what I'm talking about. Perhaps I made the wrong analogy. TKD and JUDO have been robbed of very many good techniques that are legit and realistic, and function well in competition as well as in a real street fight... some of which are still being used in other styles, like Wrestling, Sambo and BJJ.
3) It's called San-Chou. Cung Le is the man in this particular sport-M/A style. He beat Frank Shamrock pretty bad in their match a few years ago.
4) For WAR!!!
Personally, I'm not a fan it it but....
Look at kata at a tournament. Notice how they usually have seperate divisions, one for the more trad. oriented kata, and another for the gymnastic routines. OTOH, and no, before someone gets upset, claiming I'm bashing MMA, I'm not, but even things that're done in MMA, have the potential to be modified from how they could be done on the street.
Perhaps what bothers me more, is to see how much some arts have watered down, to cater to the needs of the majority. I say the majority, because IMO, its those people that tend to dictate, depending on the school owner, on whether or not they join school A or B. Let me clarify. If a school is too hardcore, a parent may not want to enroll their kid because they may get hurt, or not get their BB in 1yr, when the kid is 6. A more hardcore, traditional school, while some methods may be toned down, still holds the traditional aspects to it.
I know them only from what I've read. So if I'm reading you right here, TKD was originally designed to be sport and nothing more?
I disagree slightly. Certain elements could be removed altogether due to them not being popular today, vs. back in the day. But as you said here
yes, other things, not really relavent to the art, could be added, thus watering them down.
Yes, soldiers fight wars. And when TKD was developed, soldiers fought wars with guns. Taekwondo was not ever a military art. Just because soldiers train in it does not mean that they are doing so with the intent of using it in combat. American soldiers train in BJJ, primarily to keep their competitive edge up. Nobody expects them to go out and grapple on the battlefield.
I am very familiar with the history of taekwondo. Do not delude yourself into believing that it is anything resembling a war art. It is not. It is a civilian fighting system with roots in Shotokan, which was gendai budo employed in Japanese schools. It never was a war art. Opinion never was a part of it.
Japanese police also practice kendo. However, police are not at war. They are trying to restrain people.
As far as jujustsu, unarmed combat was a very last resort. The primary implements of war, and the primary war arts, all involved weapons. By the time Kano invented judo, Japan had already transitioned to a modern military. Also, saying "jujutsu was used in war" is misleading. Not all jujutsu ryu were used in war. I'm not familiar with what ryu Kano was trained in, but regardless, the judo that he invented was not a military art.
Adding water to soup or wine is watering it down. Not familiar with sambo (not the MA anyway), but wrestling and BJJ are not war arts. Never have been.
I am familiar with Cung Le. Great fighter. I think he broke Shamrock's arm if I recall.
By modern standards, most of the arts discussed on this board are not martial. Many never were. The guy in the Air Force learning to fly a plane and bomb the crap out of a city is learning a martial art. The guy in the dojo learning judo is learning a fight sport. The guy in the dojo learning kenjutsu is learning to keep ancient traditions alive and to preserve them for future generations. The judoka may be able twist you into a pretzel and break you and the kenshi may be able to cut you to ribbons, but neither is learning a skill that has application in war.
Daniel
It is a civilian fighting system. Civilian meaning that it was developed primarily by people outside of the military and it was not developed fur use during any war. The current style of sparring came about in the late sixties or early seventies and if I remember correctly, it was developed by the Jidokwan. Prior to that, and even after that, most taekwondoin fought in karate tournaments under whatever rules they had.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for enriching the curriculum. Adding a well developed weapons curriculum to an unarmed art is fine by me, but as you said, it is not relevant to the art.
Really, when I think of watering down a TKD curriculum, I think of things like Action flex weapons and American Gladiator looking sparring between twelve year olds.
If a school adds weapon forms but never does any drills or any sort of applications, then that is watering down the curriculum as well.
Daniel
OP
Champ-Pain
Blue Belt
- Thread Starter
- #37
1) I would, if the bullets run out.
2) Trying to restrain people may be considered a form of war... or at the very least, a fight. Fighting is war and visa versa.
3) Saying it wasn't is misleading.
4) No, not all - but many were.
Better hope everyone else runs out too and that they don't have knives.
Not unless your speaking coloquially. If you wish to use words differently than the rest of us do, that is your business.
Except that I didn't say that.
Yes, many were. Were being the key part. What ryu did Kano's judo come out of?
Look, you opened this up bashing two popular arts. Your post indicates that you really don't know enough about taekwondo or about what differentiates gendai budo from koryu arts to make the statements that you made with regard to blaming the Olympics.
Other arts have been either simplified or have had techniques removed for safety reasons. Kendo once had horizontal blows to the head and a choke using the do. Those were removed after WWII for safety issue.
Queensbury rules removed a lot from boxing as well.
I don't know why whatever was removed from judo was removed, but modern taekwondo still contains all the cool eye gouges, spear hands, arch hands, knee and elbow strikes, and more material than I have the time to enumerate. And I am speaking of Kukkiwon taekwondo. ITF/Chang Hon taekwon-do never made it into the Olympics and it sparring looks markedly different from WTF, primarilly due to a larger quanitity of hand techniques allowed.
Now, if you want to argue that some, many, or even most, taekwondo schools are truncating the Kukkiwon curriculum (I would say some and would chalk them up to being lousy schools), then that is a different discussion.
Daniel
Originally Posted by Daniel Sullivan
1) American soldiers train in BJJ, primarily to keep their competitive edge up. Nobody expects them to go out and grapple on the battlefield.
2) Japanese police also practice kendo. However, police are not at war. They are trying to restrain people.
3) saying "jujutsu was used in war" is misleading.
4) Not all jujutsu ryu were used in war.
Daniel
My Grandfather fought in the trenches in Europe during WW 1.
My Father engaged in quite a lot of hand to hand combat when operating behind enemy lines in China during WW 2.
Just sayin..
OP
Champ-Pain
Blue Belt
- Thread Starter
- #40
Maybe not - but what I do know, tells me that it's ineffective and useless in a self defense situation... or any other kind of fight - it's laughable in it's current form.
BTW - If you read some of the other member's opinions - many agree with me, on this.
Last edited:
