Apologies, but I've moved around a couple of your points to lump similar ones together. As it is, I'm unhappy with the "line-response-counter" nature of the post which both lowers clarity and tends to lean to "did not, did too"-type arguments. The purpose of rearranging has been to make more cohesive responses in a smaller area, and I hope I've preserved the intent of your post despite this.
Why not? You seem to be lumping together all TKD into one category, the WTF alone is a worldwide organization with millions of participants and to say there is uniformity even within one group is preposterous. I can't make general claims about TKD, because I don't represent TKD as a whole, I can only represent what I was taught and how my school works, to do any more would be disingenous.
And I cannot discuss 500,000 schools I have not seen, though I have discussed problems with the core material (such as techniques like the ax kick) which cannot be remedied by addition of more material.
There are standardized bodies, and I'm happy to discuss them individually as far as my knowledge goes. Of the three, the ITF has been traditionally seen as the most combative; though I can only presume this is still the case.
Which is just silly. Any time TKD goes beyond the WTF sparring rules you like to frequently list, you claim that anything outside of that isn't TKD. (Neat way to button up that TKD is X box I guess. )
[...]
In all honesty, you haven't looked that hard
You lack any sort of positive claim here. Instead of just telling me I'm wrong, why don't you tell me what you think TKD actually is in a manner that we can discuss it's performace as a fighting art? As to looking, I'm here now, why don't you show me or point me at reasources?
My apoligies. You've made so many threadbare generializations that I lost track.
Passive aggressive "backhanded apology" with no probative value
All of that's already there, so adding it wouldn't change much, you're right.
[...]
So you have to be attacked with knifes/weapons against a FMA practitioner to in order to ever know how to fight? There are very few arts on their own that cover your requirements (more like none) do you also strongly reccommend that people avoid Kenpo, Shotokan, MT (no weapons, or mount excapes) BJJ, etc?
These are both straw-man logical fallacies. I've already reiterated my base criticism, though I believe the latter one may be unintentional.
I am not claiming that one needs to have been attacked by an FMA practitioner with a knife in order to have a fighting art. I am suggesting that those in TKD who believe they have a fighting art do play knife-work with an FMA practitioner. The result of such play, I assert, will be the illustration to the TKD practitioner that his art has no good knife or counter-knife skills.
I further assert that an art with no knife skills is not a combative-focused art.
Similarly, playing with a BJJ practitioner will allow a TKD practitioner to find out if he has effective grappling skills. Again, I do not assert that such play is neccessairy in order to be studying a fighting art, rather that the results of such play are telling of the nature and ability of the art in question.
This goes back to the original poster's question of why people will abandon TKD in favor of another art. In my case, and in many cases, it's because I interacted with some other arts and found mine lacking in a manner which I could not easily shore-up.
I have no idea. What I do know is that the mount is a common position that groundfighting arts, and many amitures will seek out... having a response to it would seem to be indicitive of a combative (or grappling sport) art, and a lack of a response of a non-combative art.
So... You're saying this isn't covered? Please explain.
Explain the question? I'm asking what your approach is to multiple attackers. I don't know a more simple way of asking it. I do realize it's something of a broad question, and I'm certainly not asking for a dissertation on multiple-attacker fighting. I'm merely attempting to establish whether you've got an art with a considered, reasonable approach to the problem or not. It's not an uncommon scenerio for a fight, and so I would expect any fighting art to have a response to it.
Pretty much every time we spar.
[...]
Couldn't have gotten through testing without demonstrating that.
[...]
Falling's a green belt requirement. Ground fighting's a 3rd Dan reqirement.
Not under WTF rules (unless you would like to count punching at each other's chest-plate). I'm more interested in grappling / counter-grappling (and better still, striking which is inclusive of it).
There has been a near-universal agreement about "realistic training". Unless you wish to dispute that in reality, people push and grab, I'd like to know how much sparring time is spent on that. How much time to you spend sparring with an opponent who is also trying to win where grappling is allowed?
Great. (Not sure why you think those are presented as self-defense moves tho.) You still seem to be arguing purely from the standpoint of WTF rules sparring.
[...]
During sparring, yes. [blocking has been abandoned]
Why are they presented at all? Why would you train over and over something you would disctinctly avoid in a fight? They teach blocking, have it in the forms, then tell you to not ever do it?
One would hope there's no knifework. TKD's not a weapons oriented MA.
My point exactly.