There is a tendency on this forum to seperate the 'style' (TKD etc) and the way that style trains. Sure, not every club is a clone. But to me, it seems silly to seperate the syllabus from the predominant training ethos/methods when defining a style. We all know that boxing is characterised by physical fittness, heavy sparring, pads etc. It is part of what boxing is. TKD is no different. Or is it?
TKD characterised by: Wide range of Kicking techniques, Sparring , Patterns (Kata), Destruction and Flexibility. Various Instructors emphasis on different things. In boxing theres a far narrower base for teaching but still different coaches train different "styles" of boxer. The problem is with TKD having such a large syllabus to teach and every second teacher emphasising on different things you get a dilution of everything. You also need to understand the the level of spitting of the syllabus, at a fundamental level, has only furthered the problem. However I'm having a hard time seeing where this is going other than another. "TKD is all wrong, what are you all doing, post?" What exactely is your point/beef?
TKD nowaday's seem to focus more on TKD'er vs. TKD'er- is it wrong? It is up to what an individual is looking for in a MA. I believe that modern TKD is trying to include a lot of things in a certain length of time, and produces certain "weaknesses." The majority of MA's suffer from this. This art is good at take- downs, but not so good at punching and kicking, that art is good at blah blah blah, etc ***YAWN***.Like I said, too much focus on one or two areas, not enough on another. That's why it is good to crosstrain. Some TKD schools (a lot around here) offer other classes as well- like Hapkido, Yudo, some Judo, so on and so forth.
I dunno in boxing some fighters are more about footwork and stance than punching. I don't really understand the point of this thread.
To a point yes. If the substantial majority of clubs teaching any style are 'a joke' then yes, that style is in general a joke. I wouldn't say the WHOLE style but in general yes. Similarly, where the vast majority of clubs ascribable to a style are excellent and a few are a joke, that style, in general, remains excellent. Muay Thai and Judo being good examples. I'm sure that you could find a few naff clubs but they are, in popular MA opinion, few and far between. All this 'not in my club', mentality. Who are we trying to kid? A style is ultimately only defined by a label -a name. Beyonfd that, how it is trained is every bit a component part as the syllabus.
LOL! Have you considered TKD being one of the most popular could have something to do with it? |Cain|
Yes, and it had to get popular in some way. It wouldn't have become popular if it didn't have something to back it up. And the schools that teach it now you could just call a perversion of real TKD. TKD was taken from some other styles (Soh Bhak Do I think, and TSD?) and made more "sport like". Just like Judo was taken from Jujitsu. Does that mean Judo's also ineffective? PL
I'm not sure of the point either but here's my thought on this...forgive it's late for me and I'm still up.... Most TKD schools I have seen cover kicking, sparring, breaking, defenses, striking, and blocking...so yeah, I guess they're all about the same right? Oh wait...most styles of karate do that too and so does kung fu...omg...all styles are exactly the same. In reality no, a student at Master Wong's school will have a different experience than a student at Master Bob's school and so on and so forth. The same goes with boxing, they cover striking, footwork, sparring but every club is different.....okay, this is starting to get pointless on my part.
So are you saying that a style is defined ONLY by it's differences (if only the name or some traditions) to other styles? So by that reckoning, the patterns, sparring etc that you do at TKD isn't part of TKD? I think that the division between what the style says it does (the syllabus) and what it actually does (the training) is competely artificial and self-serving. Look at it another way. If we had two typical family salon cars. One is a Ford and the other a Skoda. In all, they ain't much different. they have similar features, performance etc. Is the Skoda defined only by it's badge, name and a few features that the Ford doesn't have? If so, then if you removed all the features that where about the same as the Ford; the engine, the boot, the seats etc, would it still be a Skoda car? No, it would be a pile of a few odd pieces of a car. You need the whole thing to be defined as a Skoda car, not just a badge. Poor analogy, sorry.
Errr, you? If it doesn't happen in my club then it doesn't. That includes full NHB sparring as much as it includes people paying for belts. The way I see it is that I would far better learn from all the mistakes that are/have been made and strive to make TKD better for the people I teach it to. Not everyone sees it like this, not everyone does it like this. It is my decision and I could very easily resign myself to the fact it's a lost cause.... instead I don't. I try as hard as I can to effect changes to turn the bad into good, I don't always get it right..... but damn I'm trying.... and until the day comes where I stop enjoying what I do will be the day I quit, not when someone tells me for the umpteenth time "TKD is not effective". "Onward chirstian soldie....." *ahem*
To me, Taekwondo does have certain uniting elements that can be found in every club. For example: (1) Forms... regardless of which set you use. Forms are a good way of learning and practicing TKD techniques in accordance with what students are learning at belt levels. They also help with breathing and rhythm as well as development of power in strikes and blocks. These can also be used for competition. Some clubs may emphasize them more than others, but all (as far as I know) have forms. Along the same note, all clubs practice the basic techniques and sometimes call them basic forms... like practicing isolated stances and strikes. (2) Kicking and striking - TKD really has a wide arsenal of kicks and strikes. In my experience students learn to use these strikes at all levels, from low to high. Some schools may focus on higher strikes for tournament rules and some may spend more time on low kicks. TKD kicks come in many forms from simple to jumping to spining, to doubles... huge arsenal. Also, hand techniques may or may not be heavily emphasized, again depending on what the goals are. For a WTF Sport oriented TKD school, you may not see as many... but then again, they exist in the curriculum. (3) Sparring - TKD schools do a lot of sparring in general. The rules between schools may vary greatly and schools may or may not focus on tournament rules. They may have more or less rules and may use different levels of contact (and pads). But there will be sparring... as a way to try out techniques on resisting opponents. To me, the above three really typlify what can be found in any TKD school, to varying degrees. Also, you might find: (4) Ethical side development - some schools focus on the character development and the Tenets of TKD... it probably won't be right out front, but it should be present... this is part of the underlying philosophy of TKD and desired traits in students of it. (5) Ki development - some schools may have more or less emphasis on Ki development, breathing, meditation and so on. I don't think this is necessarly at every school. (6) Breaking to concentrate power. (7) Self defence - whether simple one-steps or full blown self defence curriculum, this may or may not be emphasized. If you don't think there are any self-defence applications in TKD, check out Marc Tadeschi's Taekwondo book.... amazing. (8) The uniforms and ranking systems with quite a degree of variety. Again, to me, these are the elements of Taekwondo but the percentages will vary greatly school to school and even instructor to instructor. It really doesn't accomplish much to paint broad generalizations of TKD, because in the end it really comes down to the individual school and instructors. I see Taekwondo as a particular style, as defined by the very general aspects above, but for me, the style of Taekwondo I study and teach is a very personal style which includes all of the above and yet is tailored to fit the goals and perceptions of instructor and students alike.
Not in my school mate! :woo: Sorry... Why doesn't it achieve much? When/if we were to go to another TKD club in another town woulfd we go there with a completely blank mind as to what it will be like? How they will train etc? Of course not, we all have a consciousness of what TKD is. And we are pretty much rifght everyttime -a TKD club is much like any other despite small differences. It's the similarities that contribute to the identity not the differences?
Please re-read my previous post. I pointed out what, in my opinion, makes Taekwondo similar across schools and what to expect in nearly every TKD school... which is what it seems like you are getting at in the above quote. My quote: "It really doesn't accomplish much to paint broad generalizations of TKD, because in the end it really comes down to the individual school and instructors." To me, once you move beyond the basic similarities that I listed, the expression of TKD (or any art) in a school is more closely related to how the school and its instructors present it. Different schools will approach the curriculum in different ways and with emphasis on different components. If you come to my school, you will find everything I listed in the previous post... and if you go to another TKD school, you will probably find the same. However the way it is taught and what is emphasized will be very different. Students who go to my master's school find that we focus more on self defence applications and students who go to my master's brother's school will find it more sport oriented. Two TKD schools with very similar roots which express their TKD in very different manners.
It is different as in the ways Thomas has described quite nicely in his post. "Different schools will approach the curriculum in different ways and with emphasis on different components" Also note that many schools also stress the importance of physical fitness testing and a paper test on history & terminology ... neither of which my school uses in its curriculum.
There was a guy in my office searching the building for some 'posh' paper because he wanted to fax a letter to the defendant's solicitor. Fax? Sometimes we cannot see the woods from the trees. Both the syllabus/scope and the way it is trained are part of TKD's identity. Your school may well be different, but within the great scheme of things, most TKD schools are quite similar. To an outsider (informed or uninformed) this is abondantly clear. But to us within TKD it seems more important to differentiate our club from those who we perceieve as less good. Step back.
Patterns are not Katas in TKD they are called poomse. I really get annoyed when it's mixed up like that. (but hey mybe you just put it there to help familiarize what a pattern was and destruction? I think you have the wrong mindset to Taekwondo. Destruction in my mind is no part of Taekwondo whatsoever!
