The WTF site just lists minimum basics it appears to me. I would venture to say each school organization has a different set of basics and requirements in addition to that. It is up to each master on what his curriculum is and what he tests for.
The sentiment of this response is repeated several times. It would be entirely possible for an instructor to teach the requirement for TKD then ignore it and teach Akido the rest of the time. This would not be TKD, which is the only thing I am trying to comment on.
Please see my signature for a response to this. And Judo competition allows no striking, but it is present in the art of Judo. The rules of competition do not define an art.
They tell you a great deal about the art. Judoka are not known for the striking skills they get from Judo.
Your general criticism was: "ITF does not practice standing joint locks until Black Belt". You're willing to say it still holds up even though you don't know what the cirriculum actually is, or if there's one at all?
No, my general criticism was:
"The cirriculum for TKD (WTF/ITF/ATF) simply isn't focused on fighting."
Even with a cirriculum that added counter-grapples or hip-throws to drills or step-sparring, that criticism remains. I've supported that with far more than a lack of grappling work. Where is your weapons sparring (have you ever tried your knife/anti-knife work against an FMA practitionr? How does the ITF teach to escape a mount? What's your basic approact to multiple-attackers? How much sparring time do you put into hand work against resisting opponents? How much of your grappling work do you put against resisting opponents? How much time have you spent trying your technique where opponents are allowed to grapple / sweep / attack the limbs?
And that's mostly dealing with training regemine. It's possible for a school teaching TKD to allow all that, though I doubt that the people involved would long practice TKD as a response.
To hit a single criticism, TKD spends way to much time on one leg. Follow the shoulder on any spinning kick (a *really* good mule kick being the occasional exception) and you are behind the kicker. A simple lift-kick up the middle (leg, groin, whatever you connect with works) trumps any slower front kick from the cirriculum. The axe kick is a horrible idea combatively as you are trying to move your foot about 12 feet while standing within arms-reach of your opponent.
The balance is high, the mobility is low, the "blocks" in the cirriculum are horrible combative ideas (hell, they are taught to be done with only one bone in the forearm; I've personally seen the fractures of that bone in TKD play from "light contact with pads"). Realisitically, the counter-grappling skills are not existant (I'll point you at any NHB venue you like. How did TKD fare? How would it have been different "on the street"?). Where *in the official cirriculum* is falling? fighting from the ground? how about just fighting in heavy clothing?
Jerry no disrespect here towards you but you are putting all TKD together please leave Olympic or point sparring out of the mix. traditional TKD teaches joint locks take downs and some weapontry.
And I intend no disrepect towards anyone either, nor towards TKD, but could you please provide a reference or support? What is the "traditional TKD" response to being under the mount? What's their knifework like? How do they deal with a liftkick? Have they abandoned "blocking", turning their backs, and most of the kicking in "olympic TKD"? If so, how are we discussing the same art? If not, how does my commentary not apply?
I don't dislike TKD, but I'm not going to believe it is something it is not because its important to people. If there's a good, combative TKD, I'd love to see it. In my several years in TKD, and more than a decade in martial arts, I have not.
PS. Thanks for the ITF links. I'm not likely to buy anything, but I'm going through the site now.