Again, maybe readers are not understanding what I am writing. I do not think that TKD was like the MMA of today. Rather it was a Mix of the MAs around SK during the 1950s & 60s, when original TKD was being developed & systemized. I do not think that they were on thr ground fighting like MMA does today. If they went to the ground, they did what they had to. But they were stand up & am sure that many after going to the ground wanted to get back up
Don't read into things, it is a matter of semantics. I also stated clearly that if one trained in a MMA of today, even as a sport or with a sport focus, they would probably be much better SD wise, then most, many if not all TMAs, jmo
All I can do is to restate that it was not like the MMA of today. They were standup, that did Hapkido, Yudo, wrestling, boxing etc, with the biggest influence being karate. The Encyclopedia has it all, it is just not implemented much at all, which is beyond sad. Far to many ITFers critique the WTFers for their lack of whatever, but ITFers are also guilty of not doing realistic SD training & focusing too much on Tuls & tournament sports sparring, jmo
Nah, you would know if you were doing hapkido. The only poomse in hapkido was done by kwang sik myung, and of course kuk sool won is poomse intensive. Hapkido is an art all its own. My research for 5th dan was the origin of hapkido and how it was influenced by indiginous korean arts. Really, you should read Dr. Kimm's books on hapkido and tae kwon do. Also, Mark Tadeshi's big thick books on hapkido and tae kwon do are good as well.
I should note again that I am not criticizing the early korean pioneers. In my mind they were tough guys. My korean master is an early pioneer himself. When it was his dojang we had a post with a rope wrapped around it and he would make us punch it. Now in his 70s he'll still hit the makiwara board hard and say, "Like this!" Plus he can still demonstrate break falls as well. It was before my time but those senior to me still tell the story where some idiot came started threatening people and he snatched him in a joint lock and threw the guy out the front door. But from what I can tell the overall training 'back in the day' was pretty much the same as the modern day 'mcdojang' (as people call it). The key difference, however, was the intensity. They didn't go through the motions. Strikes and blocks were practiced hard. The sparring was controlled (as all sparring really is), but bruises were the norm. Personally I don't think we need a complete overhaul. We need to make sure we are keeping that fundamental martial spirit coupled with really good technique practiced with intensity. Then we have something quite good (in my humble opinion).
That is a great post. The requirements were just harder. The whole, "Your check didn't bounce so here is your new belt and certificate." didn't exist. Not that they had different kicks or anything, as you pointed to. No indeed, they just required more precision and intensity. I heard from some of the guys that were around during the pioneering of hapkido. They said you were tested on how well you could take a beat down and survive an endurance test. That weighed equally as much as to how well you performed your techniques. Conditioning was a big deal. I say the art: TKD is fine, just bring back the intensity. Just a thought.
No you missed my point. My free sparring is like what you have described as Hapkido, as is our formal Hoosinsul. I have Dr. Kimm's most recent book that is Titled: History of Korea & Hapkido. He is an amazing man, whose long awaited history of TKD, some 40 years in the making by this Doctor of History (PhD), College/University Professor & Korean GM, will be the best thing yet on the subject
I would add that they say, don't sweat if the check would bounce or clear, just pay cash & it is a done deal! Of course it needs the intensity, spirit, conditioning, but also needs to fight realisitically, not JUST doing your type of tournament sports sparring, BUT add in free sparring, or as Mr. Anslow likes to call it tradtional sparring. Free sparring is where you are free to use all & any avialable means for attack & defense, essentially open combat. Doing this will open up your TKD training to just about anything your collective minds can imagine!
Trial and error is bad when you spend a couple of years testing, refining, etc and stand back and say, "I have now invented this round thing that rolls. I'll make four more and we can carry stuff with them..." IE recreating the wheel is a bad thing. There are lots of good instructionals out there (and lots of good instructors out there willing to share their knowledge). In some ways we are all saying the same thing...except some of us call it 'cross training' while others call it 'original TKD'. But essentially everyone says the same thing and labels it differently. But just to prove we are martial arts nerds we have 100000 posts to argue over semantics.
Hoosinsul was more or less created by Daeshik Kim. A very great martial artist in his own right. His books on tkd poomse are great. Oh, and just as an aforemention, Chang Moo Kwan was originally Tang Soo Do. So our Self-Defense kicked butt so to speak. What makes an art? Easy answer is specialization. You know I am now quite interested in reading this "History of TKD" or "The Killing Art" by Alex, I saw the book at a Border's. Too bad I don't have the 20 bucks to spare to buy it now.
On another topic this came up: http://www.thewaymartialarts.com/media-gallery.html The media gallery shows what an ITF school should be doing, if they are SD centered. Now some may say this is cross training, ok, no debate from me. if you want to call it cross training, feel free. If it is cross training, then once the TKD students incoporate it, it becomes part of the SD of TKD. We incoporate it already, as original TKD is a SD centered KMA, which already mixed in other MAs. If MMA is new, as it appears that it was not in SK during the 1950s & 60s, then we must add it to original TKD today, if this TKD is to remain as effec tive as it can be for SD. It also appears that their instructors have also or continue to cross train: http://www.thewaymartialarts.com/your-instructors.html This is how one can keep their SD & MA up to date, evolving & becoming as effective as possible
Dr. Kim was a great MAist. He was a pioneer. But the term Hoosinsul is Korean terminology for SD or defense of one's self, self protection. He may have made it into so type of federation or society, but Hoosinsul has been part of TKD since the begining. PS Check with your library, maybe they have The Killing Art, where you can read it for free
I am not sure what your saying.It doesnt matter I will just say I think you misunderstand what I mean by trial and error. When I say trial and error I mean the never ending learning of actualy doing. So If I lose I learn by my mistakes..by experience. Thats never ending. EVERY SINGLE spar or fight is a learning experience if I win or lose. Thats trial and error im referring to.
I totaly agree about evolving and that thing becoming part of TKD. What I dont agree on and my pet peeve is the rehasing of TKD with people saying it was already doing this or that when theres no support to say it was. Thats just wrong and false. If I go and train with the Dog brothers and put that into TKD I cant say I am doing original TKD just because theres a reference to some kind of weapon defence or attack in the encyclopedia.
Please understand that original TKD was most definately devised & developed as a Mix of the MAs of the time, 1950s-60s, that were available in SK. The biggest influence being karate. That is simple & all I am saying. If present day MMAs did not appear till the 80s & 90s there was no way that this was part of original TKD & I bever said it was. I do know that original TKD was developed for SD. When it comes to effective SD, anything can & should be part of the training. Now in the 21st century, since we have access now to MMAs, that must & should be part of TKD's SD training. If it is not, then the training offered by those that exclude it will not be as comprehensive as it should for SD.
Isnt it right for martial arts to change and adapt with time anyway. Far to many martial artist obsess with 'doing things the old way' IMHO
I am not sure what is "right" or not. But I say that MAs have most definately evolved over time. This is clear from the reading I have done. In terms of TKD it is clear. When one considers original TKD or ITF TKD, or Chang Hon TKD, the evolution is something that not only I have witnessed but experienced personally. I think a problem comes in when students don't want to adapt & when students cling to more than the traditional aspects that should not change. It is finding the balance IMHO that is hard. For me, SD & one's ability to defend themselves can always improve & should. So if I see something that may work for me or those under my charge, I try my best to adapt & include it. However that is for SD. There are other aspects of my TKD that I would hope stay the way it was left to us by the founder, Gen Choi, again, jom
Doing things the old way I am sorry is the best way. The art of the sword has remained virtually unchanged. The art of the bow, bo staff, virtually unchanged. I stand by my statement of "You do the reps then you know the technique." I think 10,000 per technique out to do it. Look if you can't visualize the technique and feel it during visualization then the technique is no good to you. To put it mildly, I have 200 hapkido techniques. GGM Choi, Young Sool had what 3808? I cant master those. I have however mastered 200. If you have 10 techniques in your tool box and you do them till you drop from exhaustion, then it will be like walking and breathing. Honestly, the reason most people get beat is not from lack of knowledge so to speak. Nope, it is lack of putting forth full effort and committment to that technique. The reverse punch has been done for hundreds of years, the single leg has been done for hundreds of years. Ok, so we know those work right? Exactly.
Adapting is a good thing, but as hkdstl says there is something to be said for repetition. A lot of my younger students ask, "Are we going to do anything FUN today?" And my canned response is, "Yep. We're going to work on FUNdamentals". Note, however, that I am not immune to such thinking. I went to a Sambo seminar taught by the 5+ time Russian champ. I was all excited for learning new stuff...except he didn't really show any new stuff. He showed basic fundamental technique done REALLY REALLY well. And it struck me, as I watched him, that as a beginner in Sambo (only been doing it 4+ years) what I needed was not the gathering of more and more techniques, but the drilling and honing of the ones I only *thought* I knew. Evolution and critical thinking of your art is a good thing. But sometimes what we really need is more of a return to the 'old ways'. Its a balance, as TKDStudent points out.
