What Can You Add/Remove & Still Call It TKD?

Where do you draw the line at adding/removing from TKD?

In my opinion a typical (traditional) TKD syllabus covers these areas:

1. Self defence
2. Patterns
3. Breaking
4. Step-sparring
5. Free sparring

I understand some instructors include more than this in their own class structure (ground fighting, for example). Personally, I would pull patterns from my classes and alter the step sparring format (not teaching at the mo). And I would feel comfortable still calling what I taught "TKD".

But what do you think are the limits on adjusting the syllabus before what is being taught is no longer TKD?

Can TKD live without patterns?

Please discuss :hat:

 

i think patterns are the soul of tkd.not teaching them would be removing the core of the art

 

You could probibly get away with removing step-sparring (3 and 2 step, but not 1 step) as anything else would mean its kick boxing, not TKD anymore IMO.

Stuart

 

I believe it is peoples' unwillingness to let go this antiquated training method that prevents [what I see as necessary] change occuring.

I believe most people only practice patterns because they were told to, and because it's part of the same grading system that has been in place for decades.

If you practice patterns because you enjoy them, fine. But they should be an optional part of the grading system IMO. Making them compulsory is just to act as a filler when a curriculum has no real substance. Again, IMO.

 

In the same vein, then, surely adding clinch work, grappling, low kicks, etc, would constitute MMA, and not TKD anymore?

It's like saying Rain Dancing is the heart of effective medicine. Maybe it was years ago. But now we have antibiotics and innoculations. In TKD terms, I view patterns as Rain Dancing - considered effective years ago, but actually have no correlation to improving fighting effectiveness.

That is the crux of my argument - people saying patterns are a useful tool for improving fighting effectiveness, when in fact they are not (IMO). There are better methods available for what patterns try to achieve, and I believe patterns may even be detrimental to fighting effectiveness (still working on that theory though!).

 

i think patterns are a great way of introducing new techniques to students at a controlled rate.
but apart from that, i can see them as becoming a redundent teaching tool.

 

Personally i think patterns are a good way of improving technique through repetition without having to do thousands of line drills aswell as visualizing either an attack or counter attack to your movments i think the karate word for it is bunkai but i'm not sure.

 

I would like to see TKD take a page from BJJ (as in "Borg Jiu Jutsu-We will assimilate you"). Though I really doubt it will happen. There are far too many people too high up in the various TKD orgs. that are too concerned about preserving a false "2000 years of tradition" to let the art (as a whole at least) evolve and grow the way it should.:bang: C'mon people, 'fess up. We stole and adapted from shotokan; there is nothing wrong with doing the same from boxing, muay thai, and JJ. In fact, many of the early Kwan leaders (Kwan Jang Nims) were also black belts in judo/yudo and hapkido/jujitsu. So most of it is from the traditions of many of the Kwans anyway, if you are someone that feels that is neccesary.

As far as kata/hyungs/poomse are concerned, IF you are learning the combative applications coming from the original kyusho and tuite (keupso), then I feel that this is a worthwhile addition to the training as a practical self defense syllabus. If not, then IMO this is a time buster that people put in as a filler that could be better used for more valuable training. The problem is that at least 95% of the schools out there who do forms have virtually no idea what they are doing and are wasting their time. However, I feel a better solution would be to actually learn the material rather than just drop it.

I do believe that one steps can be of value as a drill similar to using training wheels on new material before taking it "live", but many people stay at this level too long and get caught up in the drill for it's own sake. Breaking to me is of very limited value though it can be useful to get some students past sticking points regarding striking with penetration, overcoming fear, and working on empowerment.

While I hold a master's rank in TKD, I have black belts in other systems as well. TKD will always have a special place in my heart and it is my traditional base, but I don't ever want to be bound by the limitations that others place on it due to their ideas of tradition. Nor do I want that for my students. BTW, I am not "anti-traditional". I greatly respect and honor the character building traits that serve the students (and instructors) in becoming better people. I just don't believe in limiting one's technical base or training to fit any particular stylistic barrier.

 

I would list the physical componets of TKD as follows:
1) Forging & conditioning
2) Fundamental movements
3) Patterns
4) Sparring (6 types, with 1 type having 3 subsets, tournament sparring not included)
5) SD
I wouldn't add or change any of these 5 basic parts. However within each of them, except patterns, changes, additions, deletions, modifications etc can not only happen but should happen. When I started training we warmed up & stretched all the wrong ways. Not to listen to modern physical education science & medical advances would be downright foolish & conter-productive. One can always come up with new fundamental movements. Sparring & SD are essential & the most important physical reason for doing TKD. There is always room for growth & experimentation.
The 1 thing I wouldn't change is the patterns. They are TKD's signature. They are what makes it a SD Art form

 

The patterns/forms help the mental part of TKD. TO perform them good when you are tired near the end of a tough class requires much mental concentration.

 

I would not drop them, but try to teach why the are important & have them done in a more constructive way, jmo, but I do see how so many schools do them, that dropping them that way would make some kind of sense

 

Patterns are an esential part of TKD. they are part of the cycle that the shape of the composition takes the form of. They are also what makes TKD an art of SD. One must realize that there is more to TKD than just SD. Unfortunately in some schools little or no SD is taught or emphasized. While there are certainly more effective ways to learn SD then through patterns, for many & according to original TKD there are more reasons to study TKD

 

TKD was originally developed as a mix of the fighting systems in place at the time for SD. The original TKD I do has all of that which you list above & more. In the 1950s TKD was a MMA. Sadly the emphasis on the sport side for nationalist purposes has caused far too many to lose sight of TKD oringinal form & purpose, jmo

 

1 steps as a part of pre-arranged sparring can & should be eventually done live in a more realistic way imo

 

I also believe the patterns should stay. Maybe it is because I'm 'blinded by tradition', but the fact is they hold a special place in my heart and most of my students really enjoy them as well. I will admit, however, that I favor them in the old more karatesque style rather than sine wave. But again this is a personal bias as this is the way I learned them.

Other than that I think TKD should migrate back to Shotokan with standing sweeps again being a regular part of the curriculum (we do this). However I do not think it should incorporate too much from too many other arts (BJJ groundwork, for example) because there is a danger of the 'jack of all trades, master of none'. When you figure that most students train 2 to 3 days a week they could really be crappy at everything if their training was spread too thin.

 

grapling no.
taekwon-do is a striking art, not a rolly polly olly art.
Takedowns yes.
more strikes yes.
new/more theory yes

 

First of all, that wasnt your question.. yours was what can be taken away and still constitute TKD!!!

Secondly, no they do not turn TKD into MMA because:
a) Clinches are already in TKD (basic, but to a degree)
b) Grappling is already in TKD (Basic,but still there both within and out of the patterns - grappling as in grabbing/locking/throws, not BJJ type floor sparring)
c) Low Kicks are already in TKD

So why would practicing them constitute not being TKD any more? Why would making them better not constitute TKD anymore? Your only argument could be that we (as in my club) allow fighting that is different from competition sparring and allow fights to continue on the floor like MMA - but a) Free Sparring allows grabbing and takedowns etc. and always has, its just been bastardized by the orgs/time to competition fighting, which is why i changed the term for it in my club - but Gen Choi's own description of what free sparring is, aligns with what we do! b) TKD already had fighting off the floor, it was different from what one may term "rolling", and TBH poor in both content and technique - but it was still there and really just needed improvement - which is what we've done!

Saying and actually being are two different things. I (personally) never said patterns were the heart of effective SD - effective SD can be practiced on its own if thats ones main aim. Patterns however are part of TKD (which is what your original question was about) and using them ina more productive way only makes sense to me - and that more productive way IMO, is the way and reason kata were first formulated and the ideals behind them.

they are not IMO either - they are a useful tool for improving SD techniques, so one (hopefully) doesnt have to fight - they can be used 'in-fight' but this isnt the main aim of them IMO. If you want to train to fight - then train to fight as well, as thats what someone will be doing if they have no early counter techniques. Its kinda in the same vein as teaching 'visual awareness' - that doesnt help you fight, it helps you 'not fight' - patterns applications are a closer step to a fight, but not the fight itself!

Stuart

 

An outsiders view. I'm with Mitch here. The really clever idea behind TKD is that in can be enjoyed by so many people at many levels. It's diversity is it's strength. Pity it's not more common to see the extremes of this diversity more, rather than the generic TKD session that most people are used to.

 

Or, you could do something else highly technical, physically exhausting but more relevant to self defense - like 5 minutes of hip throwing, for example.

I think people really need to start snapping out of this idea that somehow separating the 'mental' and the 'physical' is a good thing (or, better, that it is actually possible).