RobRPM2222
Inactive
you're right, that was a bit of hyperbole. Long and short daggers would have actually been lower than swords, same with studded wooden clubs which were used by some peasants.
that's basically what I am saying.
Traditional Korean Arts?
- Thread starter Matt Wallis
- Start date
you're right, that was a bit of hyperbole. Long and short daggers would have actually been lower than swords, same with studded wooden clubs which were used by some peasants.
that's basically what I am saying.
Korean Martial Arts
The link posted earlier to kuk sool won's page probably explained this better, but here goes my quick attempt:
Kuk Sool Won is based upon the traditional martial arts of Korea. It teaches techniques based upon 1) Royal Court martial arts, 2) family, or tribal martial arts, and 3) Buddhist monk martial arts.
The Royal Court martial arts include many of the weapons, and shows a lot of Chinese influence, probably because it was the Chinese that were running the royal court. Weapons used include: sword, spear, short knives, fans, bows, halberds, etc.
Family or tribal martial arts are the simpler weapons, like staffs, rope, etc. These were probably more distinctively Korean than the royal court arts, since they were developed by locals for their own use, not for display in the royal court.
The Buddhist monk arts would include some weapons, such as the cane and short staff, and are where much of the Ki training comes from. You can see differences between the staff techniques of the monks vs. those of the court and tribal within the Kuk Sool Won system itself, which I found interesting.
As far as history, Kuk Sool Won was created from the teachings of many masters in Korea, which were passed on to In Hyuk Suh over 60 years ago, from the time he was a small child until adulthood. He put them all into a single system, called it Kuk Sool Won ( National Martial Art), and started teaching it to others about 40 years ago. The schools are run in a traditional manner, where the students learn some Korean language ( the names for the kicks, punches, etc. ), are encouraged to show proper martial arts etiquette, and all wear black uniforms, etc. There is a rank system, and advancement to black belt usually takes several years of training, usually over 3 years. Further advancement takes even longer.
There's some reference to the hworang, or 'flower-of-youth' in the Kuk Sool Won literature. They were a group of warriors in Korea around the 1500's, I think, maybe even earlier , almost like knights, in that they were trained as fighters, and held to a strict moral code.
When reading about Korean history, I'm struck by its resemblance to Greek history. They were all lumped together as Koreans by others, but it was more like a whole bunch of independent city states, each fighting with and against the other, as well as the Chinese and Japanese.
Note that there was influence both ways between the many cultures in the area, such as Korean sword techniques and technology going to the Japanese, Chinese techniques going to the Koreans, and all of them intermingled at various times.
There are many interesting stories about the Korean peninsula, if you're interested in the martial arts of the area, you would probably like learning more about it.
Gepzo
The link posted earlier to kuk sool won's page probably explained this better, but here goes my quick attempt:
Kuk Sool Won is based upon the traditional martial arts of Korea. It teaches techniques based upon 1) Royal Court martial arts, 2) family, or tribal martial arts, and 3) Buddhist monk martial arts.
The Royal Court martial arts include many of the weapons, and shows a lot of Chinese influence, probably because it was the Chinese that were running the royal court. Weapons used include: sword, spear, short knives, fans, bows, halberds, etc.
Family or tribal martial arts are the simpler weapons, like staffs, rope, etc. These were probably more distinctively Korean than the royal court arts, since they were developed by locals for their own use, not for display in the royal court.
The Buddhist monk arts would include some weapons, such as the cane and short staff, and are where much of the Ki training comes from. You can see differences between the staff techniques of the monks vs. those of the court and tribal within the Kuk Sool Won system itself, which I found interesting.
As far as history, Kuk Sool Won was created from the teachings of many masters in Korea, which were passed on to In Hyuk Suh over 60 years ago, from the time he was a small child until adulthood. He put them all into a single system, called it Kuk Sool Won ( National Martial Art), and started teaching it to others about 40 years ago. The schools are run in a traditional manner, where the students learn some Korean language ( the names for the kicks, punches, etc. ), are encouraged to show proper martial arts etiquette, and all wear black uniforms, etc. There is a rank system, and advancement to black belt usually takes several years of training, usually over 3 years. Further advancement takes even longer.
There's some reference to the hworang, or 'flower-of-youth' in the Kuk Sool Won literature. They were a group of warriors in Korea around the 1500's, I think, maybe even earlier , almost like knights, in that they were trained as fighters, and held to a strict moral code.
When reading about Korean history, I'm struck by its resemblance to Greek history. They were all lumped together as Koreans by others, but it was more like a whole bunch of independent city states, each fighting with and against the other, as well as the Chinese and Japanese.
Note that there was influence both ways between the many cultures in the area, such as Korean sword techniques and technology going to the Japanese, Chinese techniques going to the Koreans, and all of them intermingled at various times.
There are many interesting stories about the Korean peninsula, if you're interested in the martial arts of the area, you would probably like learning more about it.
Gepzo
That's wonderful. Even if all these systems actually existed, how is it that Mr. In Hyuk Suh came to learn all these? From whom?
Ah, I was wondering when "Hwarang" was going to come out. These were a group of noble youths from Shilla Kingdom during the Three Warring States period (circal 7th Century AD). There hasn't been a real "Hwarang" for about 1,000 years. Pretty unlikely that anyone alive today knows anything about Hwarang "martial arts," "Hwarang-Do" notwithstanding. These people are even more ridiculous than those who claim to practice the Greek Pankration (which also died out a LONG time ago).
They were hardly like the ancient Greeks. They did not have city-states or republics, for one thing. There are too many differences to elaborate them all. As for inter-tribal fighting, that went on everywhere, including in China and Japan.
Skorzeny
?
I have a nice picture here, its of a young boy, with Down's Syndrome, running in the special olympics... its very moving, such strength of will, such determination, and a sense of triumph over adversity...
The caption reads: Arguing on the Internet is like Running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
This isn't an argument. I was trying to convey information, and I was doing a bad job of it, apparently.
If Matt Willis wanted to know about Korean martial arts, he's got enough info now to start a more directed search, and I hope he's happy with that.
I'm saddened that some posters have chosen to make this into a soap box for debate about the merits of certain systems.
Peace,
Gepzo
I have a nice picture here, its of a young boy, with Down's Syndrome, running in the special olympics... its very moving, such strength of will, such determination, and a sense of triumph over adversity...
The caption reads: Arguing on the Internet is like Running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
This isn't an argument. I was trying to convey information, and I was doing a bad job of it, apparently.
If Matt Willis wanted to know about Korean martial arts, he's got enough info now to start a more directed search, and I hope he's happy with that.
I'm saddened that some posters have chosen to make this into a soap box for debate about the merits of certain systems.
Peace,
Gepzo
GePZo:
For the record, it happens with everyone, not just Koreans. In fact, in another thread, I am debunking (or more accurately, citing a historian who debunks) Herodotus' fantastical claim of about 300 Spartans standing against 1 million Persians at Thermopylae.
Skorzeny
Forgive me, I am going to be frank about it. You directed us to a Kuk Sool Won advertising site, which patently contained incorrect, and quite frankly, highly fantastical historical information.
We aren't so much debating merits of certain systems as debunking the historically false claims of many Korean systems and instructors.
For the record, it happens with everyone, not just Koreans. In fact, in another thread, I am debunking (or more accurately, citing a historian who debunks) Herodotus' fantastical claim of about 300 Spartans standing against 1 million Persians at Thermopylae.
Skorzeny
Matt Wallis
New member
So what it seems is most likely is that "native" Korean Arts were highly influenced by Chinese MA in pre-Colonial Korea. This makes sense since almost all Korean Arts have an emphasis on kicking, much like Northern Chinese styles. However, even these Korean Arts were suppressed and mostly lost during the Colonial period of Japanese occupation.
My further questions are... What about the "kwans"? (I think that's what they were called.) When TKD was being adopted as the nation Korean Art (the name was being chosen, forms made, etc.) it is my understanding that all the leading Korean martial artists got together to develop this new national art. They were each the head of a "Kwan" or style. Choi Hong Hi's Kwan mostly won out and his art (admittedly very based on Shotokan) won out as the main basis for TKD. This is the history (minus the emphasis on Choi) that the WTF promotes, BTW.
We know Choi studied Shotokan in Japan. And we know he claims to have studied a pre-Colonial Korean Art Tae-kyon. I know there appears to be little or no evidence of Tae-kyon actually existing. But what were these other "styles" being practiced in Korea at the time. They couldn't have all been Shotokan, could they? And if not what were they?
A bit of history... Chuck Norris who studied over there in his time in the military says what he was taught was called Tang Soo Do at the time, though he says that's now Tae Kwon Do. If Tang Soo Do was one of the Kwans that became TKD, what was it? Where did it come from?
Regards,
Matt
My further questions are... What about the "kwans"? (I think that's what they were called.) When TKD was being adopted as the nation Korean Art (the name was being chosen, forms made, etc.) it is my understanding that all the leading Korean martial artists got together to develop this new national art. They were each the head of a "Kwan" or style. Choi Hong Hi's Kwan mostly won out and his art (admittedly very based on Shotokan) won out as the main basis for TKD. This is the history (minus the emphasis on Choi) that the WTF promotes, BTW.
We know Choi studied Shotokan in Japan. And we know he claims to have studied a pre-Colonial Korean Art Tae-kyon. I know there appears to be little or no evidence of Tae-kyon actually existing. But what were these other "styles" being practiced in Korea at the time. They couldn't have all been Shotokan, could they? And if not what were they?
A bit of history... Chuck Norris who studied over there in his time in the military says what he was taught was called Tang Soo Do at the time, though he says that's now Tae Kwon Do. If Tang Soo Do was one of the Kwans that became TKD, what was it? Where did it come from?
Regards,
Matt
Danger Dave
New member
Okay, here we go:
First, all Japanese Karate is based on what Funakoshi brought from Okinawa - that is, Shotokan. It all comes back to that. Second, all of the Kwans appeared after WWII, when the Koreans had become more exposed to Japanese Karate, although they didn't all study under the same teachers, and no two students learn the same thing at the same rate. But what they studied was Japanese Karate, which came from Shotokan. Now, I'm not going to say there was no influence from existing Korean/Chinese arts, but what was left (if anything) were fragments - techniques perhaps, but not an entire art. The ones that started the Kwans certainly didn't forget what they had learned before, but it was overshadowed by the depth & reach of Funakoshi's karate to the point that only 50 years later, no one can prove what came from older Korean styles, what came from Japanese styles & was modified, and what was developed within the Korean schools after the occupation. What is known is that the first kata/poomse/forms taught by the Kwans were the same kata that Funakoshi taught in Japan. That can't be coincidence.
BTW, a better translation of Kwan is "school" not "style". They Kwans were/are very similar in terms of technique, it's mostly a difference in philosophy & emphasis, just like the ryu in Japan.
Basically, what I'm saying is that there is more to a style than just techniques - those come & go, and are changed by each generation of student. A style or school has roots, traditions and a general philosophy about how the techniques are to be used together - something that just isn't documented about any of the Korean "traditional" styles.
BTW, Tang Soo Do is Choi's name for his art/school which he founded, later renamed to Moo Duk Kwan, later Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan. Moo Duk Kwan (which is pretty fragmented, after the ITF/WTF split), Ji Do Kwan, and Chang Moo Kwan are the only three remaining Kwans (out of the 7 who founded the Korea Tae Kwon Do Association, +2 more who joined later), the rest having been disbanded in an effort to unify the Korean martial arts under the World Tae Kwon Do Federation. Tang Soo Do, Tae Soo Do, Kong Soo Do, Tae Kyon - they no longer exist as verifiably separate arts; what they became is TKD.
And, I wouldn't say TKD was based on Choi's style, that's a lot of ITF hype there. It's based on different people's interpretations of Funakoshi's style, modified over the last 50+ years, no matter how hard they try to deny it.
First, all Japanese Karate is based on what Funakoshi brought from Okinawa - that is, Shotokan. It all comes back to that. Second, all of the Kwans appeared after WWII, when the Koreans had become more exposed to Japanese Karate, although they didn't all study under the same teachers, and no two students learn the same thing at the same rate. But what they studied was Japanese Karate, which came from Shotokan. Now, I'm not going to say there was no influence from existing Korean/Chinese arts, but what was left (if anything) were fragments - techniques perhaps, but not an entire art. The ones that started the Kwans certainly didn't forget what they had learned before, but it was overshadowed by the depth & reach of Funakoshi's karate to the point that only 50 years later, no one can prove what came from older Korean styles, what came from Japanese styles & was modified, and what was developed within the Korean schools after the occupation. What is known is that the first kata/poomse/forms taught by the Kwans were the same kata that Funakoshi taught in Japan. That can't be coincidence.
BTW, a better translation of Kwan is "school" not "style". They Kwans were/are very similar in terms of technique, it's mostly a difference in philosophy & emphasis, just like the ryu in Japan.
Basically, what I'm saying is that there is more to a style than just techniques - those come & go, and are changed by each generation of student. A style or school has roots, traditions and a general philosophy about how the techniques are to be used together - something that just isn't documented about any of the Korean "traditional" styles.
BTW, Tang Soo Do is Choi's name for his art/school which he founded, later renamed to Moo Duk Kwan, later Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan. Moo Duk Kwan (which is pretty fragmented, after the ITF/WTF split), Ji Do Kwan, and Chang Moo Kwan are the only three remaining Kwans (out of the 7 who founded the Korea Tae Kwon Do Association, +2 more who joined later), the rest having been disbanded in an effort to unify the Korean martial arts under the World Tae Kwon Do Federation. Tang Soo Do, Tae Soo Do, Kong Soo Do, Tae Kyon - they no longer exist as verifiably separate arts; what they became is TKD.
And, I wouldn't say TKD was based on Choi's style, that's a lot of ITF hype there. It's based on different people's interpretations of Funakoshi's style, modified over the last 50+ years, no matter how hard they try to deny it.
Matt Wallis
New member
Dave,
I practice TKD in the ITF tradition, which explains my Choi-centrism.
I am very much enjoying this discussion. I haven't believed the hype for years, but still really enjoy TKD. I began my study in Chicago under Mr. Jim Langlas who was a student of the late Grand Master Han (sorry, I know there' a billion Korean "Han's" but I can't remember the rest of his name. I'd probably know it if I heard it, though). I eventually moved to St. Louis where I studied under Grand Master Yong Yun Cho, from whom I recieved my 1st Dan. That was about 4 years ago, and though I still train, I haven't trained formally since then (due to several moves). So, hey, I guess that's my "lineage."
Dave, am I confusing you with someone else, or are you yourself a TKD instructor?
Regards,
Matt
I practice TKD in the ITF tradition, which explains my Choi-centrism.
I am very much enjoying this discussion. I haven't believed the hype for years, but still really enjoy TKD. I began my study in Chicago under Mr. Jim Langlas who was a student of the late Grand Master Han (sorry, I know there' a billion Korean "Han's" but I can't remember the rest of his name. I'd probably know it if I heard it, though). I eventually moved to St. Louis where I studied under Grand Master Yong Yun Cho, from whom I recieved my 1st Dan. That was about 4 years ago, and though I still train, I haven't trained formally since then (due to several moves). So, hey, I guess that's my "lineage."Dave, am I confusing you with someone else, or are you yourself a TKD instructor?
Regards,
Matt
Danger Dave
New member
Matt, I'm not an "instructor", I'm only a first dan. I've been involved/training for about 20 years, under the same instructor. He's a rare bird - a caucasian 7th dan WTF/KTA/Chang Moo Kwan Master Instructor. He teaches a small class because he enjoys it, and I train because I enjoy it. At least, when I've had the time between college, work, family, kids, etc, etc... I guess it's a hobby to me more than anything.
Please don't think I've got anything against Choi - he made larger contributions to TKD than just about any other, but I don't think splitting off from the WTF/KTA was good for the art as a whole (neither was busting up the Kwans, but that's another story). The political infighting from those on both sides of the fence was, IMHO, disgusting. When they should have shaken hands, they turned on one another. But, I don't believe I've seen a "friendly" split in any martial arts organization. Politics, ambitions, pride & ethnocentrism are, I think, the biggest reason why the history of TKD before the foundation of the KTA is cloudy, at best.
Please don't think I've got anything against Choi - he made larger contributions to TKD than just about any other, but I don't think splitting off from the WTF/KTA was good for the art as a whole (neither was busting up the Kwans, but that's another story). The political infighting from those on both sides of the fence was, IMHO, disgusting. When they should have shaken hands, they turned on one another. But, I don't believe I've seen a "friendly" split in any martial arts organization. Politics, ambitions, pride & ethnocentrism are, I think, the biggest reason why the history of TKD before the foundation of the KTA is cloudy, at best.
I know I'm dragging this back from the dead, but I found this one immensely interesting. I had always assumed that only Americans called TKD "Korean Karate" and that only because, at the time, Americans assumed that all "martial arts" were forms of "karate." I just started in TKD last week and so far it has been a lot of fun. Before anyone brings it up, I am aware of certain limitations to the art when it comes to "streetfighting." I am resolved to study it for what it can give me--conditioning, discipline, an understanding of range, movement, quickness, balance, speed, and powerful striking techniques. AFTER I become proficient at TKD I will fill in gaps as necessary by cross-training in other arts.
In particular, I wonder about some of the other schools named. If Hwarang-do is dead, and Tang Soo Do became TKD. . . . well, what would one be studying if he walked into a dojang with the following arts on the sign?
Tang Soo Do?
Kuk Sool Won?
Hwa-Rang Do?
HapKiDo?
In particular, I wonder about some of the other schools named. If Hwarang-do is dead, and Tang Soo Do became TKD. . . . well, what would one be studying if he walked into a dojang with the following arts on the sign?
Tang Soo Do?
Kuk Sool Won?
Hwa-Rang Do?
HapKiDo?
Don Gwinn:
Skorzeny
Now, I don't want to engage in "my Kung Fu is stronger than your Kung Fu" routine, but TKD is not really considered by "serious" martial artists as having "powerful striking techniques." Fast, yes. Multiple foot slaps in one kick, yes. Powerful, no. Muay Thai - now there are some powerful striking techniques!
Hwarang-Do is not "dead." There never was Hwarang-Do. There were Hwarang youths (Shilla period noble youths training for war and refined culture) who may have studied to be warriors (swords, spears, bows, etc.) hundreds of years ago. But there was no such thing as Hwarang-Do back then and they certainly did not practice hand-to-hand techniques a la Aiki-Jujutsu.
All Korean derivations of Japanese systems such as Shotokan and Aiki-Jujutsu, that have evolved as they became Koreanized. Nothing more.
Skorzeny
Good points being made for sure. As for taekwondo being over one-thousand years old, of course not. While it is taught that it's origin's go back at least two-thousand years this could be said about most martial arts.
I have found that there is much more alike about the striking arts than there are differences.
There is no art that is better than another. To strike only doesn't work when someone gets passed your guard. Grappling is not so effective when faced with multiple attackers.
Self-defense is not a part-time commitment. To truely benifit from any martial art one must make it their lifestyle, to include staying in good physical condition.
Bruse Lee's Jute Keen Do philosophy summed it up well. Stay in optimal physical condition. Train hard. Use what works for you and throw out that which doesn't. It should be noted however that Bruce Lee had a firm base in Kung Fu. Though he helped revolutionize the way martial arts is approached, (especially in the USA) his jute keen do philosophy did not put a heavy reliance on the tenets of martial arts, which no matter the art, should be it's base.
Martial arts is more about a way of living than it is a way of fighting. To put much emphasis on fighting and little on the moral base is in my opinion, getting away from the real roots of any martial art.
I have found that there is much more alike about the striking arts than there are differences.
There is no art that is better than another. To strike only doesn't work when someone gets passed your guard. Grappling is not so effective when faced with multiple attackers.
Self-defense is not a part-time commitment. To truely benifit from any martial art one must make it their lifestyle, to include staying in good physical condition.
Bruse Lee's Jute Keen Do philosophy summed it up well. Stay in optimal physical condition. Train hard. Use what works for you and throw out that which doesn't. It should be noted however that Bruce Lee had a firm base in Kung Fu. Though he helped revolutionize the way martial arts is approached, (especially in the USA) his jute keen do philosophy did not put a heavy reliance on the tenets of martial arts, which no matter the art, should be it's base.
Martial arts is more about a way of living than it is a way of fighting. To put much emphasis on fighting and little on the moral base is in my opinion, getting away from the real roots of any martial art.
Toadlicker
New member
Having taken a side kick to the liver area from a tae kwon do practitioner, I must disagree. I was holding an air shield, but the center had been worn out to the poing of near uselessness. It took several minutes to recover fully from that one.Side kicks are often telegraphed, though, and thus fairly easy to avoid.
I'll agree that the thai roundhouse usually hits harder. There's more "oomph!" behind it. The point-sparring flip kicks seem to be designed to mildly annoy one's opponent more than anything else.
Toadlicker:
Since then I've met several serious MT students and competitors (some of who trained in Thailand) who really paled the TKD boasts of "powerful striking techniques." I don't even have to go into MT elbows and knees - there are elbows and knees in TKD too, but I have yet to see one TKD practitioner who could use them like MT people can.
Skorzeny
Having trained in TKD for over 10 years (some of which were in ROK), I have taken kicks from the best of the best. As you point out, most TKD demonstration kicks are highly theatrical and are telegraphed too easily. When I say "powerful," I mean "dynamic powerful" as in sparrings or fights. Having trained extensively in TKD, I thought that I knew about "powerful" kicks. Then I had an occassion to spar with a Midwest area Muay Thai amateur champion. When he struck my thigh (lots of nerves!) with his shin, the feeling was, well, nothing I've ever experienced from TKD practitioners. Of course, like many MT practitioners, he can do the neat party trick of breaking a wooden baseball bat over his shin!
Since then I've met several serious MT students and competitors (some of who trained in Thailand) who really paled the TKD boasts of "powerful striking techniques." I don't even have to go into MT elbows and knees - there are elbows and knees in TKD too, but I have yet to see one TKD practitioner who could use them like MT people can.
Skorzeny
To say "I'm not saying my kung fu is better than yours but" and then going on to say that TKD kicks are not as powerful is a statement that sells short all striking arts.
TKD kicks not hard? Where have you trained? TKD has some devastating kicks. (mass+speed = power)
Side kicks too easy to read?.....Sure, if all you are trying to do is stand there and wait to sidekick someone. but when combined with movement and other techniques they are very difficult to read. (especially a sliding side kick off the front leg) "Superfoot" Wallace won a world championship and ALL he used were sidekicks!
Spin heel kicks are difficult to read and will practically take one's head off if not controlled.
Tang Soo Do still exists today (though I do not beleive it is very popular. No, Tang soo do was never a fore-runner of TKD. There were several kwans that formed to create one style eventually to be called taekwondo, hapkido had no part in any of these kwans.
If I had to name one man who is the most responsible for modern TKD I would hands down name General Choi....(and I am a WTF practitioner, though my blackbelts must know all taeguek AND Pal gwe forms)
If I had to pick the man most responsible for bringing TKD to America it would be Jhoon Rhee, my personal hero though is Hee Il Cho, (who is ITF). I believe it would be in the best interests of both the WTF (Dr. Kim) and the ITF (Gen. Choi) if they could resolve their political differences. That and the current USTU scam are the two (and we only have two) political blackeyes in TKD.
TKD kicks not hard? Where have you trained? TKD has some devastating kicks. (mass+speed = power)
Side kicks too easy to read?.....Sure, if all you are trying to do is stand there and wait to sidekick someone. but when combined with movement and other techniques they are very difficult to read. (especially a sliding side kick off the front leg) "Superfoot" Wallace won a world championship and ALL he used were sidekicks!
Spin heel kicks are difficult to read and will practically take one's head off if not controlled.
Tang Soo Do still exists today (though I do not beleive it is very popular. No, Tang soo do was never a fore-runner of TKD. There were several kwans that formed to create one style eventually to be called taekwondo, hapkido had no part in any of these kwans.
If I had to name one man who is the most responsible for modern TKD I would hands down name General Choi....(and I am a WTF practitioner, though my blackbelts must know all taeguek AND Pal gwe forms)
If I had to pick the man most responsible for bringing TKD to America it would be Jhoon Rhee, my personal hero though is Hee Il Cho, (who is ITF). I believe it would be in the best interests of both the WTF (Dr. Kim) and the ITF (Gen. Choi) if they could resolve their political differences. That and the current USTU scam are the two (and we only have two) political blackeyes in TKD.
Well, here's how I see it, and this is why I enrolled in a TKD school. I've talked about learning one art or the other for years, but I've never had the money, the time and the opportunity all at once. So I continued to talk about it and never to do it. Now I'm one of those shooters you've all seen who can shoot pretty well but couldn't run five miles to save my life.
I see a trend emerging, and it is this--the cross-trained fighter who wants to be Bruce Lee or Ken Shamrock, but is a jack of all trades and master of none. Too much emphasis on knowing a little about every system known to man, too much emphasis on having more techniques than everyone else. Too many teenagers who claim to practice five or six arts--when they've actually only attended a few classes in most of them before they got disenchanted that they weren't learning grappling, or locks, or whatever. This approach can be good, but it's worthless to someone who is not already a seasoned, skillful and fit fighter. Therefore, the first order of business is to become truly proficient in one art. THEN you branch out and learn all sorts of neat tricks from other areas.
Frankly, I don't understand the idea that TKD strikes are not powerful. Muay Thai supposedly may have more power in the roundhouse, but the explanation I've been given by practitioners is that the shin is used, the hips are turned quickly during the movement, and the body follows through. That's all great, but what's to stop a TKD practitioner from doing the same thing? I just started, but I've already been admonished several times that I should be turning or switching my hips for more power. I have noticed that it seems like Muay Thai fighters follow through more powerfully. It seems like they generally turn a full circle after the kick. I've also noticed in some MMA competitions that when a kick doesn't connect this provides a big opening for a grappler to shoot. A .44 is more powerful than a .45, but that doesn't mean it would be useless to carry a .45.
What is it that a Muay Thai practitioner does that makes his kick more powerful than a TKD practitioner? If I can find a Muay Thai class around here, I'll probably try it out sooner or later, but for now I'm intent on mastering TKD. I'm not a fool; I'm not going to try to axe kick some punk who pulls a knife on me. If I kick, it will probably be for knees. However, I want to be good at timing and range. I want to be fast. I want to be quick. I want to be accurate. I want to be agile and well-balanced. Once I have those things, the techniques should matter less because I can go out and learn any technique I need. I believe it's the Indian more than the arrow, and a determined man willing to work hard and apply the art to combat in his thinking and in his training can become a proficient fighter in TKD. Many arts have flowery stuff that you would not use against a lethal opponent, and even the good techniques don't work in all situations. You wouldn't do that Muay Thai clinch to deliver knee strikes if the other guy had a knife, would you?
I see a trend emerging, and it is this--the cross-trained fighter who wants to be Bruce Lee or Ken Shamrock, but is a jack of all trades and master of none. Too much emphasis on knowing a little about every system known to man, too much emphasis on having more techniques than everyone else. Too many teenagers who claim to practice five or six arts--when they've actually only attended a few classes in most of them before they got disenchanted that they weren't learning grappling, or locks, or whatever. This approach can be good, but it's worthless to someone who is not already a seasoned, skillful and fit fighter. Therefore, the first order of business is to become truly proficient in one art. THEN you branch out and learn all sorts of neat tricks from other areas.
Frankly, I don't understand the idea that TKD strikes are not powerful. Muay Thai supposedly may have more power in the roundhouse, but the explanation I've been given by practitioners is that the shin is used, the hips are turned quickly during the movement, and the body follows through. That's all great, but what's to stop a TKD practitioner from doing the same thing? I just started, but I've already been admonished several times that I should be turning or switching my hips for more power. I have noticed that it seems like Muay Thai fighters follow through more powerfully. It seems like they generally turn a full circle after the kick. I've also noticed in some MMA competitions that when a kick doesn't connect this provides a big opening for a grappler to shoot. A .44 is more powerful than a .45, but that doesn't mean it would be useless to carry a .45.
What is it that a Muay Thai practitioner does that makes his kick more powerful than a TKD practitioner? If I can find a Muay Thai class around here, I'll probably try it out sooner or later, but for now I'm intent on mastering TKD. I'm not a fool; I'm not going to try to axe kick some punk who pulls a knife on me. If I kick, it will probably be for knees. However, I want to be good at timing and range. I want to be fast. I want to be quick. I want to be accurate. I want to be agile and well-balanced. Once I have those things, the techniques should matter less because I can go out and learn any technique I need. I believe it's the Indian more than the arrow, and a determined man willing to work hard and apply the art to combat in his thinking and in his training can become a proficient fighter in TKD. Many arts have flowery stuff that you would not use against a lethal opponent, and even the good techniques don't work in all situations. You wouldn't do that Muay Thai clinch to deliver knee strikes if the other guy had a knife, would you?
I'm going to beat that drum yet again: It ain't the style, it's the warrior.
Somebody remind me of just how many middle-weight full-contact championships Chuck Norris won using what seems to be regarded by many here as woefully inadequate tae kwon do?
If you're dedicated, mauy thai is an excellent fighting style. If you are a dilletante looking only for buns of steel and a new title to drop at cocktail parties, muay thai ain't worth squat.
On the same paw, someone who trains and dedicates himself to tae kwon do, takes it with a warrior mindset, and learns, then tae kwon do is as effective as any other style out there.
LawDog
Somebody remind me of just how many middle-weight full-contact championships Chuck Norris won using what seems to be regarded by many here as woefully inadequate tae kwon do?
If you're dedicated, mauy thai is an excellent fighting style. If you are a dilletante looking only for buns of steel and a new title to drop at cocktail parties, muay thai ain't worth squat.
On the same paw, someone who trains and dedicates himself to tae kwon do, takes it with a warrior mindset, and learns, then tae kwon do is as effective as any other style out there.
LawDog
eviltravis
New member
The martial arts style wars have erupted once again. What can I say? Each art has it's merit. I have studied for only 15 years, and I still know very little. I have trained with Practitioners of different systems, and found that they all have common elements. Korean, Japanese, Chinese, or even American, they all have shared with one another to add to martial art. I have listened time and again to people who say that "this" art is better than "that" art, or that one kind of training is more effective than another. The time spent on these arguements could have been used to train. Whatever system you choose, train diligently, and you will add to the martial arts. If you are looking for pure martial art style, or technique, your not going to find it here. There is not one single WAY, or, STYLE, or SYSTEM. There is no master sitting on a hill top who has the ultimate training in it's purest form. There is just us.
Perhaps I am bitter - because for over 10 years I was fed too much BS by my esteemed Tae Kwon Do instructors, all high ranking Korean blackbelts. For the record, TKD was my first "martial art." While I lived in East Asia for years (mostly Japan and Korea), I trained in it extensively, earned my black belt at the Kukiwon (World Tae Kwon Do Federation Headquarters) in front of several prestigious Korean masters.
Then I witnessed a highly touted Korean "full-contact" champion get beaten senseless by an amateur Muay Thai competitor while on tour in Thailand. It was like watching a five-year old fight a grown up man. Admittedly, this was under Thai rules (which certainly allows most and perhaps all TKD techniques), but it was certainly illuminating. I thought that this was a fluke. But it happened time and time again, including to me.
Now, to the specifics:
kungfool:
Don Gwinn:
Aside from that, it's all how the training is conducted. Let me use boxing analogy. TKD has a flurry of punching techniques. But, no one familiar with both boxing and TKD would seriously suggest that TKD punching techniques are as powerful or as effective as boxing hand techniques (holding all other variables constant if we could do such a thing). Why? Because boxers train with much fewer constraints on their punching when they train dynamically (sparring), which is where one finds out whether "air" trained techniques work or not. Same story with Thai boxers - they are less constrained when they train dynamically with elbows, knees and shin kicks.
What would you do? Kick the knife accompanied by a big Kihap? We aren't talking about whether Thai or TKD is good for knife-defense as neither has anything to do with such a thing (Thai never pretends to while many TKD instructors do). We were speaking of the relative power of striking techniques between the two.
LawDog:
) more realistic and, yes, powerful. Why? Because they need to be - the exigencies of their competition and training require so - while those of TKD do not.
BTW, show me a TKD guy who can do this (long download, about 16 megs or so, but worth a watch for martial arts fans): http://www.sherdog.com/cgi-bin/highlights.pl?21-VanderleiSilvaLQ.zip
Of course, he is no ordinary human being - he is the "Axe Murderer."
Skorzeny
Then I witnessed a highly touted Korean "full-contact" champion get beaten senseless by an amateur Muay Thai competitor while on tour in Thailand. It was like watching a five-year old fight a grown up man. Admittedly, this was under Thai rules (which certainly allows most and perhaps all TKD techniques), but it was certainly illuminating. I thought that this was a fluke. But it happened time and time again, including to me.
Now, to the specifics:
kungfool:
Mr. Wallace was great at what he did. But how long do you think that he would've lasted in a Thai bout? Not very long.
Don Gwinn:
Because TKD folks aren't taught to roundhouse with the shin! That's why! TKD folks roundhouse with the top of their feet, which is a fairly weak part of the body. Thai uses the shin (okay, a highly callused shin), which can shatter baseball bats.
They can, but they DON'T because that's not how it's taught. Rigid adherence to tradition. Compare that to Jeet Kune Do, which adopts techniques from others (like knees from Thai) when it becomes apparent that some techniques ARE better than others.
Aside from that, it's all how the training is conducted. Let me use boxing analogy. TKD has a flurry of punching techniques. But, no one familiar with both boxing and TKD would seriously suggest that TKD punching techniques are as powerful or as effective as boxing hand techniques (holding all other variables constant if we could do such a thing). Why? Because boxers train with much fewer constraints on their punching when they train dynamically (sparring), which is where one finds out whether "air" trained techniques work or not. Same story with Thai boxers - they are less constrained when they train dynamically with elbows, knees and shin kicks.
And TKD does really well against grapplers? We are speaking of strict striking match here, if you will. But if you must, MT does much better than TKD in MMA in my view.
Sure, that's true. But you also would NOT say that all arts have same percentage of flowery stuff, would you? Obviously some would have more of those than others, wouldn't they?
No I wouldn't. I wouldn't use Thai or TKD with someone with a knife. I'd run first. If I couldn't, I'd attempt to defend myself with a firearm. If I didn't have one, I'd improvise a weapon (something stick-like) all the while trying to evade and escape. If nothing else still, I'd flick out my pocket knife and try to put my limited Arnis training to use, still looking for a speedy exit. And so on and so forth.
What would you do? Kick the knife accompanied by a big Kihap? We aren't talking about whether Thai or TKD is good for knife-defense as neither has anything to do with such a thing (Thai never pretends to while many TKD instructors do). We were speaking of the relative power of striking techniques between the two.
Who is this referring to? As for the whole teenager comment, look no further than TKD, which has done so much to McDonaldize and MTVize martial arts.
LawDog:
Sure, it's the warrior. But his techniques does play a role, no? Polish lancers could have all the elan, bravery and "combat mindset" of super-duper warriors, but could not overcome German Grenadiers or Panzers in 1939. Why? Two main reasons - obsolete equipment (technology) and outdated doctrine (technique). Spirit is a great thing, but not something that can win by itself. The Japanese learned that the hard way.
What if "someone who trains and dedicates himself to MT, takes it with a warrior mindset, and learns" and fights the above guy you cited? Who wins? Obviously the one who trained more effectively and realistically. I am merely arguing that Thai techniques are largely (no absolutes here, just some generalities and simplifications
) more realistic and, yes, powerful. Why? Because they need to be - the exigencies of their competition and training require so - while those of TKD do not.BTW, show me a TKD guy who can do this (long download, about 16 megs or so, but worth a watch for martial arts fans): http://www.sherdog.com/cgi-bin/highlights.pl?21-VanderleiSilvaLQ.zip
Of course, he is no ordinary human being - he is the "Axe Murderer."
Skorzeny