Would someone benefit from dropping in on your TKD school?

[skribs]

I guess the younger generation shocks easily. I took no offense from your post. It kind of tickled me. I did come with the required hand pads (a major concession on my part). Not sure how you got the "complaining" vibe. You are looking at this from a viewpoint/mindset much different from my own. "Points" were not the point . I was there to test myself. You can re-read the post, but I'll quote the most relevant part:

Landing strikes using traditional Okinawan methods was more satisfying than playing the modern tournament game of points. I only regret I didn't get a chance for a takedown (probably also "illegal" but what the heck). I was very "disciplined" in the execution of my tactics and technique.

Perhaps our disconnect is due to the time period I was competing as a young black belt (I didn't see ANY blood during this competition) or perhaps my advanced years in the art and life is responsible for my "shocking attitude." Perhaps as you delve deeper into TMA and some of its philosophical concepts over the next 20 or 30 years you will come to understand my position. There is always another side to things.

If you're doing things that are against the rules, it's not really a test of your ability.

Did you do any MMA competitions?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Perhaps our disconnect is due to the time period I was competing as a young black belt (I didn't see ANY blood during this competition) or perhaps my advanced years in the art and life is responsible for my "shocking attitude." Perhaps as you delve deeper into TMA and some of its philosophical concepts over the next 20 or 30 years you will come to understand my position. There is always another side to things.

I find your post somewhat confusing in that you state
"The ref did not review the rules as they used to" .
So was the ref wrong?, or
"I just went ahead and did my thing. "
There is a huge difference between following the rules, or the Ref being wrong, or going to competition and not following the Rules.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I agree with skribs here. If you were not following the rules of the competition, succeeding in doing things that are against those rules isn't proving your ability at all.

If I went into a boxing match I could probably perform a leg sweep pretty easily. I'm not particularly good at leg sweeps, and the guy I'm against may very well be a better fighter than me. But he's not looking out for leg sweeps, and is taking a stance/defending himself with the assumption that I will be following the rules. So he's not exactly a good option to pressure test that move.

Take the same guy, tell him "Okay, we're allowing sweeps and grappling", and all of a sudden it might be much tougher for me to get that leg sweep off.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I find your post somewhat confusing in that you state
"The ref did not review the rules as they used to" .
So was the ref wrong?, or
"I just went ahead and did my thing. "

My goodness. Who implied the ref was wrong? I was just commenting how things have changed in the last 45 years since my last tournament. It's not like I went for the throat, or even the groin (this last a target allowed in all my previous experience but one I assumed was not allowed nowadays). This huge difference in sparring experience and my age obviously a big disadvantage for me but a challenge I willfully undertook. Doing "my thing" only caused me to expend energy (and risk) on non-point techniques, another advantage for my opponent.

There is a huge difference between following the rules, or the Ref being wrong, or going to competition and not following the Rules.

I could have gone to the trouble of researching but didn't. I was not that concerned - you shouldn't be either. I had a rewarding experience, validated my training, the other guy got a medal, and no one got hurt.

 

[Buka]

I honestly find this attitude shocking from someone so experienced in TMA. Just assume what the rules are and then complain when your assumptions were wrong? Not very disciplined IMO.

You’re WAY off on this.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

1. "The speech" Students are told when they drop in or when invited to teach at a school that under no circumstances are they to tell their instructor that they are doing it wrong because I taught something else. However they should try what I am teaching to get the most from the lesson and if they aa relationship with their instructor where they can discuss things privately perhaps they should do that; and 2. They need to execute techniques how their instructor advises.

Of course similarly, the school shouldn't necessarily say the student's different way is "wrong".

A funny corollary is a story a work colleague told me.

As a 6 year old, he transferred to a new elementary school. The teacher called in a speech pathologist out of concern that he wasn't pronouncing his R's.The speech pathologist asked where he was from.

"London, England".

The pathologist was ticked off and told the teacher, "He doesn't have a speech problem. He has an accent".

 

[drop bear]

I agree with skribs here. If you were not following the rules of the competition, succeeding in doing things that are against those rules isn't proving your ability at all.

If I went into a boxing match I could probably perform a leg sweep pretty easily. I'm not particularly good at leg sweeps, and the guy I'm against may very well be a better fighter than me. But he's not looking out for leg sweeps, and is taking a stance/defending himself with the assumption that I will be following the rules. So he's not exactly a good option to pressure test that move.

Take the same guy, tell him "Okay, we're allowing sweeps and grappling", and all of a sudden it might be much tougher for me to get that leg sweep off.

Sort of. We jits for subs rather than points. And it is just a few of us can't be bothered trying to game the system and are not at a level where it matters if we loose.

Rather than just kicking a person in the dick because it's the streets.

 

[Earl Weiss]

My goodness. Who implied the ref was wrong?

This is a quote from your post:

""The ref did not review the rules as they used to"

I took that to mean the Ref was wrong. Somehow I must have given it the wrong meaning. I.e. The ref did not review the rules ergo he was unfamiliar with them and applied them incorrectly.

 

[skribs]

Sort of. We jits for subs rather than points. And it is just a few of us can't be bothered trying to game the system and are not at a level where it matters if we loose.

Rather than just kicking a person in the dick because it's the streets.

The difference here is that you're still playing the game within the rules, even if you're not playing the game as expected.

Someone who has a "sub only" mentality in a BJJ competition isn't going to play the game the same way, and may concede points or avoid points if it seems more productive to set up or defend against a submission. But they're still playing the game.

For example, a "sub only" guy may pull guard and focus on submissions from there. Then if their guard is getting passed, they may try to recover from side control instead of turtling up to prevent points, believing it's easier to recover from side control than from the headlock attacks or back take from turtle. But those are all BJJ competitions.

This would be more like if you were to pull guard and set up a reap, or if your opponent sat down and you just started kicking his legs. And then when you get DQ'd, to complain that the ref didn't tell you the rules before-hand, and it's a technique you were taught in your gym.

The "you can't knee bah here?" video is a perfect example of all of this. Strong language so I'm not going to post it here, but look up "You can't kneebar" on youtube and skip to about a minute in.

 

[Dirty Dog]

This is a quote from your post:

""The ref did not review the rules as they used to"

I took that to mean the Ref was wrong. Somehow I must have given it the wrong meaning. I.e. The ref did not review the rules ergo he was unfamiliar with them and applied them incorrectly.

I read that as meaning the refs didn't go over the ruleset being used with the fighters. Something I think is a good idea, even if the root responsibility lies with the individual.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I read that as meaning the refs didn't go over the ruleset being used with the fighters. Something I think is a good idea, even if the root responsibility lies with the individual.

I don't know if this is still customary practice. I guess not. It used to be. I was surprised when we immediately started sparring without preamble. I was first up, so had little choice but to follow the rules as I knew them. I did refrain from targeting the groin (an easy target for me) figuring this would not be allowed in this modern era. It's all good.

 

[skribs]

I've never been to a tournament where the refs review the rules with the fighters before-hand. This includes Taekwondo (in the 90s and 2010s), wrestling in the 2000s, and BJJ in the 2020s. I've also never seen a referee go over the rules of the fight with someone before the match in professional fights. There might be a high-level overview (i.e. the UFC "Protect yourself at all times, follow my commands at all times"). But the fighters in every tournament I've watched, coached, or participated in has not had referees give briefings to the fighters.

I've been to one where the coaches got a briefing beforehand.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I've never been to a tournament where the refs review the rules with the fighters before-hand. This includes Taekwondo (in the 90s and 2010s), wrestling in the 2000s, and BJJ in the 2020s. I've also never seen a referee go over the rules of the fight with someone before the match in professional fights. There might be a high-level overview (i.e. the UFC "Protect yourself at all times, follow my commands at all times"). But the fighters in every tournament I've watched, coached, or participated in has not had referees give briefings to the fighters.

I've been to one where the coaches got a briefing beforehand.

I have, but my tournament experience is mostly the 70's and 80's.
That being said, I've gone to a couple open tournaments this century. Possibly because there were practitioners from so many different styles, the rules were covered, at least briefly.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I've never been to a tournament where the refs review the rules with the fighters before-hand. This includes Taekwondo (in the 90s and 2010s), wrestling in the 2000s, and BJJ in the 2020s. I've also never seen a referee go over the rules of the fight with someone before the match in professional fights. There might be a high-level overview (i.e. the UFC "Protect yourself at all times, follow my commands at all times"). But the fighters in every tournament I've watched, coached, or participated in has not had referees give briefings to the fighters.

I've been to one where the coaches got a briefing beforehand.

Comparing open karate competition in the 60's and 70's to what you mention is an apples and oranges kind of thing. TKD, wrestling and BJJ (The JKF/JKA which oversees Shotokan in Japan, judo and boxing can be included) are basically specific individual styles with established overseeing authorities to a greater or lesser degree. So, it's natural that those involved in that particular style would be familiar with their established competitive rules.

This was not the case when I competed. There was NO national or cross-style competitive standard or organization regulating how competition was to be conducted. Of course, there were commonly accepted conventions we adhered to such as no throat, eye, or joint strikes, no throws and no excessive contact to the head. Beyond that, what was not allowed for points or safety (if anything else) was variable, including: spinning hooks, flying kicks, elbows, takedowns (1 second to score if allowed), upper back, etc. Pads could be forbidden (usually), optional or required (sometimes in the late 70's). Each tournament could be different. The individual sensei sponsoring the tourney set the rules.

And the bigger tournaments were OPEN to all styles: Shorinryu, goju ryu, kenpo, Shotokan, TKD, even kung fu guys could enter. Even today, do TKD and Shotokan use the same rules and scoring?

Another difference is that karate in those days was not largely a competitive activity. The majority did not go to tournaments at all, some occasionally went, and an even smaller number were dedicated competitors.

These are the reasons rules were always reviewed in the ring for each division before sparring began.

 

[drop bear]

I've never been to a tournament where the refs review the rules with the fighters before-hand. This includes Taekwondo (in the 90s and 2010s), wrestling in the 2000s, and BJJ in the 2020s. I've also never seen a referee go over the rules of the fight with someone before the match in professional fights. There might be a high-level overview (i.e. the UFC "Protect yourself at all times, follow my commands at all times"). But the fighters in every tournament I've watched, coached, or participated in has not had referees give briefings to the fighters.

I've been to one where the coaches got a briefing beforehand.

Fighters are supposed to turn up to that briefing.

 

[skribs]

Comparing open karate competition in the 60's and 70's to what you mention is an apples and oranges kind of thing. TKD, wrestling and BJJ (The JKF/JKA which oversees Shotokan in Japan, judo and boxing can be included) are basically specific individual styles with established overseeing authorities to a greater or lesser degree. So, it's natural that those involved in that particular style would be familiar with their established competitive rules.

This was not the case when I competed. There was NO national or cross-style competitive standard or organization regulating how competition was to be conducted. Of course, there were commonly accepted conventions we adhered to such as no throat, eye, or joint strikes, no throws and no excessive contact to the head. Beyond that, what was not allowed for points or safety (if anything else) was variable, including: spinning hooks, flying kicks, elbows, takedowns (1 second to score if allowed), upper back, etc. Pads could be forbidden (usually), optional or required (sometimes in the late 70's). Each tournament could be different. The individual sensei sponsoring the tourney set the rules.

And the bigger tournaments were OPEN to all styles: Shorinryu, goju ryu, kenpo, Shotokan, TKD, even kung fu guys could enter. Even today, do TKD and Shotokan use the same rules and scoring?

Another difference is that karate in those days was not largely a competitive activity. The majority did not go to tournaments at all, some occasionally went, and an even smaller number were dedicated competitors.

These are the reasons rules were always reviewed in the ring for each division before sparring began.

There's a ton of different BJJ federations that have different rules. For example, in the kid's division in IBJJF, you're not allowed to do leg locks or guillotines. In NAGA, kids are allowed to do straight ankle locks and guillotines (with certain restrictions on how they are performed).

If you train under NAGA rules and go into an IBJJF tournament thinking it's the same thing, you might do an illegal move without knowing it. BJJ was the martial art in the video I mentioned above.

TKD rules are going to vary based on federation. Localized tournaments may have different rules than a high-level tournament. For example, the Jarrell TX TKD Open may be a lot different than the TX WT State Qualifiers.

I'm also curious how you know this is how it's done in all the other tournaments in the era, when you said this was the only tournament you ever did. 100% of your experience is that it's not done that way.

 

[skribs]

Fighters are supposed to turn up to that briefing.

The only one I went to in TKD was specifically for coaches. Even then, only for the head coach of any given school.

In my experience with BJJ, you just show up in time for your weigh-in and then go where you're supposed to. If you're not sure, you have someone (either a parent or a coach) tell you where you need to be. I've been to several tournaments in the last few years, both IBJJF and NAGA, and I've never seen a single fighter get a briefing.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I read that as meaning the refs didn't go over the ruleset being used with the fighters. Something I think is a good idea, even if the root responsibility lies with the individual.

Clearly an example of how I took it to mean something that was not intended. Some organizations assume that everyone knows or should know the rules.

 

[Earl Weiss]

That being said, I've gone to a couple open tournaments this century. Possibly because there were practitioners from so many different styles, the rules were covered, at least briefly.

Same here - open competitions rules reviewed at the start.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Of course similarly, the school shouldn't necessarily say the student's different way is "wrong".

Depends on the situation. A student who does not purport to follow the ITF standard would not be told what they did was wrong, but might be offered information concerning the ITF standard. A student who looks me up because of my ITF credentials might be informed otherwise.
Examples - All involving pattern performance.
1. Student from Czech Republic told execution was incorrect and says :My instructor is Sum Dum Guy, personal student of General Choi, 8th Dan (Outranked me at the time) an he taught me this." I didn't say anything except after class copied picture and text from General Choi's encyclopedia and next class handed it to him saying "Book written by 9th Dan" your instructor loses.
2. Corrected a guy from the Ukraine and he said well some teach the way I do it and some teach what you say. I told him I don't care what some do - The text says this. During a break I see him get his phone and then come up to me and tell me I was correct.
3. Guy from Argentina does something and I say: "I don't know what your instructor taught but I believe the correct way is this." His response is "While I am here you are my instructor so please tell me how you would like it done."