Calling A System Other Then......

When Someone Says "I Practice Karate" or They Post A Sign Saying That They Teach "Karate" But It's Really Tae Kwon Do. Is This Misleading In Your Opinion?

 

It's misleading. Though I can see where the need for that is though. Not so much in the sign but when somebody says "I practice Karate," it could be because they don't want to add confusion or answer questions like "what is that?" if they practice an obscure style. Happens to me all the time with Kajukenbo. It's referred to as Karate sometimes, easier to understand to the general public.

 

With the advertising it's definitely disingenuous. If you're having trouble with the general public figuring out what you do then your branding needs work. There's a reason my full business name includes the words "kung fu." If you're tired of explaining what martial art you practice you don't like it nearly enough Maybe that's just because I really enjoy teaching.

If it is wrong to call Taekwondo karate it's wrong to call the Brazilian evolution of Judo as Jujitsu. TKD comes directly from karate. BJJ is a generation out in stylistic evolution from being Jujitsu. You could argue that it's difficult to divine the subtle stylistic changes in karate and where you really get a separate art but certainly TKD is not karate, and I would argue BJJ is farther from jujitsu than judo and it's official name can be called inaccurate.

 

Saying you are doing one thing and doing another is pretty much the definition of "misleading". Although I agree with goldshifter's point that when dealing with someone who isn't familiar with your martial art, using a familiar term such as karate is more useful.





This is an aside, and feel free to ignore or berate me if I'm out of line, but you seem to be starting a lot of threads to ask questions you seem to already have your own answer to and which tend to get dealt with on MAP fairly comprehensively on other threads. I am curious, why is this? I am not trying to come across as hostile, just genuinely curious about your reasons.

 

The reason why I asked is because I have an acquaintance who teaches Tae Kwon Do but is always "advertising" it as Karate. As a former Tae Kwon Do practitioner, I do have an issue with it but have never brought myself to confront him about it. Primarily because he is my senior & colleague.

 

Ask him to change it to Korean Karate. Then it's not especially inaccurate anymore as it's a Korean evolution of shotokan.

 

Why is Judo called Judo?

What was Judo called when Meada left Japan?

 

What does he say when people ask what kind of karate? I would say that some styles of TKD set within the spectrum of what can be considered "karate", and as Sifu Ben (Can.) says TKD Was developed from karate. I would say calling TKD karate is dishonest but not necessarily misleading - depends on how different peoples expectations are. It would be different if he was advertising it as something clearly different, like kung fu or MMA.

 

In reference to the original question I think it is misleading yes but as has been said it may not be being done fr bad resons. The average joe on the street may have an easier time getting their head around the term karate, as I understand it when tkd first spread out in the west it was often called karate (although that may be rubbish I just made up just think I remember reading it somewhere).

In your friends situation i think calling it Korean karate (or say tkd karate?)would be a good compromise between helping those who don't know to understand what it is and clearly presenting to those who do understand.

saying all that though I thought tkd had a pretty huge profile in the west and some figures of practitioner numbers are astronomical, I'm not sure if it realy needs an introduction any more.

In your area does tkd have a bad reputation from mcdojo/dojang ? Is the term karate more respected in your area perhaps? I'm not making an accusation here or anything just trying to understand their motivation for using the term karate.

 

True it was Kano Jujitsu at one point but I was focusing more on the stylistic changes rather than the naming. Hence my little bit about the fine distinctions in the changes in karate. I think it's as much a question of when a different style becomes a different style as much as simply naming it something different.

Was Kano jujitsu still the same animal as the jujitsu it originated from? Does that warrant a name change at or before the time Maeda went to Japan or only later? The same for the various subdivisions of Karate and the eventual change to TKD. Is it a different style based on objective criteria or because someone decides to change the name?

But in the end it makes no difference to me what anyone calls anything. All that matters is whether they can show me better ways to break people.

 

If you look at very old footage of Judo you can certainly see its roots and looking at footage of various teachers you can see their influences, especially when it comes to the goshin side of things.

Names often reflect the intent or wishes of a founder of a style and I think that is apparent with Judo. Just as the systems of Jujutsu before it that had different labels depending on their time of development so too does Judo reflect it's period of inception.

Kogusoku, koshi no mawari, hakuda, torite and kumiuchi are what most martial artists would recognise as "Jujutsu". Different names reflecting different times and approaches but all falling under the generic umbrella of Jujutsu.

Given that BJJ is basically an off shoot of Judo I don't think that it is disingenuous to affix the label of Jujutsu/Jiu Jitsu to it. The differences are not so great as to see it as some new distinct breed of fighting system, yes it has a slightly different focus but it's still basically just jujutsu at its heart, albeit of the gendai variety.

 

That was really my point. BJJ is an offshoot of Judo/Kano Jujitsu much in the same way as TKD is an offshoot of shotokan. So if calling TKD karate is wrong then you could make the argument that calling BJJ jujitsu is wrong as well. That argument in bold can apply to TKD as well. It really depends on what you think warrants and entirely different stylistic label and I would say that's highly subjective.

You could say:

 

Calling TKD Karate is unhelpful because it conflates two things that, despite coming from the same root, are now pretty different.

Calling BJJ Ju Jitsu is unhelpful because it conflates two things that, despite coming from the same root, are now pretty different. But since the only time you ever hear BJJ called Ju Jitsu is within a context where it could not possibly be confused with JJJ, where is the problem exactly?

 

In this case you're doing it for recognition to the general public due to bad branding not allowing people to recognize what you do... Hence my suggestion to call it Korean karate. You're coming up against self identification which is essentially not any more inaccurate than BJJ's so if it's serving it's purpose and it's accurate enough who cares really.

It's like calling certain Chinese martial arts kung fu. Wushu is technically the accurate term but it's been corrupted by being applied to Chinese gymnastics so you use a slightly inaccurate term to help people differentiate.

 

As with most things, it depends. Motivation makes a big difference. When people ask me where I'm from, I might say "Annapolis." My goal in saying that is to simplify the real answer and give people a easier reference point than "Severna Park, which is located about midway between Annapolis and Baltimore." And even that is a bit simplified. So my goal isn't to mislead people into thinking I'm an Annapolitan. It's simply to give people an answer I think they'll find useful, given that we're talking generalities. "Annapolis" offers an easily accessible point of reference for people not thoroughly familiar with Maryland (or even the United States). "Severna Park" is largely meaningless (unless you happen to be MadMonk108, in which case you're well acquainted with where I grew up).

Same with with martial arts. My first school (in Severna Park) was taekwondo, but named "Kim's Karate." They explained what taekwondo was early on, but as you're driving by on Route 2, "karate" is an easily accessible reference point. "Taekwondo" isn't necessarily. I don't regard that as a deception as much as a handy reference point.

It doesn't always aid comprehension, that said. My primary style is FMA. And frequently the "handy reference point" for FMA is simply "stick fighting." That reference point is actually misleading and gives rise to some significant misconceptions. I don't feel that's true of calling taekwondo karate. I think they're similar enough that it constitutes shorthand versus deception (intentional or otherwise).

 

Pretty much with Ap on this

If people hear I do martial arts they ask "what like kung fu?" and I just say "yes" to keep it simple.

If however they ask "what style" I may elaborate, but even then they sometimes get the puzzled look when you drop JKD until you mention Bruce and then you get "oh, Enter the Dragon stuff?" again i usually answer "yes"

Conversely if I am advertising my art it is MY task to ensure that customers are educated about exactly what they get. Calling TKD Karate is actually not too much of a stretch since the term is pretty generic anyway, but I would still do as SWC Sifu Ben said and affix "Korean" to it

 

That's the thing. It comes down to why someone's asking. If you're at a cocktail party (or whatever) and someone asks you what you do for fun, "kung fu" is an acceptable answer. If it's a potential student, then "kung fu" is a good reference point. But then it's your job as an educator to take them from that initial hook to a more nuanced and accurate idea of what you do and what they'd be doing. That's a pretty standard progression, to my mind.

Also bearing in mind that, when I was doing taekwondo, it was actually a lot closer to karate than I'd say it is today. I've studied a bit of Shotokan as well, since then. And the similarities far outweighed the differences back in the early to mid 80s.

 

Fine, but TKD is maybe a bad example of that as it is pretty well known in its own right. The average person would be more confused by Korean Karate than by TKD.

 

Again depends - it amazes me how many people still only know "kung fu or karate" as descriptors.....although "UFC stuff" is increasingly prevalent