I was wrong

Discussion in 'General Taekwondo Discussions' started by bowlie, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    I have been doing Taekwondo consistently for just over a year now. I was enjoying it, so much I decided that I wanted to teach it. I think it I my duty as a teacher to know that what I am teaching is good. That the techniques work, and have sound explanations. I thought I would go back to the encyclopedia, to find out the 'True art' that General Choi dedicated his life to developing. Sadly, what I have found in the encyclopedia has made me re-think my entire viewpoint in Taekwondo. I previously thought it was a great martial art, watered down by restrictive competitions and mcdojos. I realize now I was wrong, and that even General Choi was indulged in a fantasy world about the effectiveness of the system. I have not got too far into the encyclopedia, because frankly its depressing me, and these are the reasons why.

    Choi states that strength is not needed, and that through impeccable technique, you can beat raw strength. Technique is important, but equally so is strength. There are black belts at my club with impeccable technique, but are smaller and weaker than me. In a real fight, I would have the advantage. It is untrue, and therefore dishonest, to tell people they do not have to be strong to defend themselves. It just adds to the mystical idea that by mastering a martial art one can overcome any opponent, and this simply isn't true. It is living in a fantasy realm.

    His thoughts on patterns. He is wrong. Patterns were used by the original Karate masters as a way of recording techniques in a logical sequence. As tools for developing athletic and physical qualities they have little or no value. As tools for developing technique, they have some value, but no more value than just doing the technique on its own. As a substitute for sparring they have no value. As a way of developing techniques you cant do in other ways... Insane implication. If you cannot demonstrate that technique in other formats, it doesn’t work. Add to that the fact that the original patterns, and the effective techniques they contain, have been altered to make them more aesthetically pleasing makes them ineffective for developing true technique.

    The reaction hand. It comes from the old Karate masters. Ask any Karate or Taekwondo master what the reaction hand is and you will either get people saying this is for power, or because its 'ready to react'. Its not. This is a misinterpretation of the original patterns. It symbolizes grabbing something, an arm to make room for a punch, a head to pull onto a punch. It is part of the close range grappling of the original Karate that has been lost, and just as most Karate instructors today have no clue as to its real use, neither did the people who taught Choi. He states that it is due to 'equal and opposite forces' and to generate power. Thats pretty ropey pseudo-science, and its clear from doing it that there is no significant addition of force, as opposed to using good technique. Certainly not enough to justify sacrificing the protection of having the hand high.

    His emphasis on breaking, leaping and jumping. He talks about how through practising Taekwondo you can learn to break boards 11 feet in the air, or jump over a motorcycle and break a board or other seemingly inhuman feats. I am not doubting the ability of people to do these stunts, just what application they have to self defence. Again there seems to be a focus on supernatural abilities such as punching through concrete or spinning kicking through tiles, and just like the implication that strength is not important, this neglects the reality of fighting. What determines your ability to fight is not how many boards you can break, it is your ability to apply your strikes to a resisting opponent effectively. Its wreaks of mysticism and becoming super human, but completely neglects the things that make a good fighter.

    The belts, uniforms and everything else borrowed from karate. I dont know if this was a throwback to tradition, but belts and uniforms were introduced only about a century ago, when Karate was struggling to survive as a fighting system in Japan, and copied Japanese Jujitsu clubs in becoming a sport. The belts are borrowed from the Japanese school system, and the dobok is a lightweight Gi. Belts and an abstract grading system transfer the focus of the practitioner away from fighting skill, towards a focus on meeting arbitrary criteria. Set clothing I guess helps 'unify' the schools, but there is no real reason for having it, and most of the time these days it is just used by mcdojos to imply tradition and culture and bring in people wanting to learn the mystical arts of ancient kung fu masters, instead of people that just want to learn to defend themselves.

    The self defence techniques show. In one, a woman is being groped by a man on a bench. She stands up, in sitting stance and elbows him in the head. Another, she is being bearhugged. She turns his head to the side, and with no explanation of why, the next picture she is falling from his grasp and jumping front kick him. These things are just insane. And wrong, and these are things I took at random, I didnt just look for examples to back up my point. It really makes it hard for me to take Choi seriously as a master when he is advocating things like that.

    There are plenty more things like this, these reasons are just a few examples. I was really excited about leaning Choi's version of Taekwondo, so that I could learn the whole system. I even wanted to teach it, and I still want to teach a martial art, but its clear to me that Taekwondo as an art is built upon troubled foundations. Everything I have read so far either wrong, or really wrong. I honestly dont know what to do. If I were to teach Karate, I would have a mandate to teach the real, and effective techniques of the art, because I could show how the original masters used them. Taekwondo was built from a lot of different systems, including a bastardized version of Karate, and all the misconceptions, misinformation and down right idiotic things that Katate masters thought in the 50's were passed onto Taekwondo.

    I feel like as a teacher, I would have a responsibility to be teaching the real thing. Something that would help people. Because Choi was so wrong in my opinion the only way I could do that would be to directly contradict what our original master, General Choi said. I really love the art I have been taught, and would love to teach a good system based on Taekwondo. By doing so, I would have to sacrifice 'stylistic purity' in favor of effectiveness, otherwise it would be immoral. I am at a loss as to where I should now go in martial arts. Maybe I will focus solely on boxing. At least I will be free to find the most effective techniques that way, instead of being forced to adhere to techniques that are ineffective, but right, for no other reason than because Choi said they were.
    UK-Student likes this.
  3. Doug Johnson

    Doug Johnson New Member

    All these conclusions after only a year of practice!?!
    UK-Student likes this.
  4. Ndnoakes

    Ndnoakes New Member

    I don't think that Gen Choi says that power isn't important, but that with good technique you can generate more power that you would expect - something that any experienced martial artist will tell you. By using momentum, correct posture, driving from the legs rather than just from the shoulders etc...

    1 year seems a short time to be teaching - have you experience in other styles perhaps?
  5. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Oh im nowhere near ready to teach yet, but its a long term goal I really want to achieve, and the first stage of that is learning about the art itself. This was the first stage of me working towards being a teacher, learning the basics, but I am really disapointed in what I have found.

    I have experience in boxing and BJJ as well, but not a lot.
  6. Ndnoakes

    Ndnoakes New Member

    Well, there's nothing wrong with being ambitious :)

    The theory of generating power through technique is a widely accepted and well documented topic. For example, pivoting on the standing leg in order to drive through with power, utilising body weight & momentum.

    I hope you'll reconsider - have you spoken with your instructor? They may be able to help with understanding better.
  7. amy

    amy New Member

    While it is always good to question not only what you are learning and doing, but why, it's even more important to remember that there is always much more that we don't know. One year is a very short time....pursue the answers to these questions before drawing conclusions and you'll be satisfied no matter what you choose.
  8. Nightwing

    Nightwing Member

    "Choi states that strength is not needed, and that through impeccable technique, you can beat raw strength. Technique is important, but equally so is strength. There are black belts at my club with impeccable technique, but are smaller and weaker than me. In a real fight, I would have the advantage." What General Choi said here is true, impeccable technique CAN beat RAW strength. If technique couldn't beat RAW strength, as in an attack based on NOTHING but strength, then what would be the point of practicing martial arts in the first place. If what you say about strength is true than Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his prime, would be able to whoop Anderson Silva's ass, which obviously wouldn't happen.

    Your assertion that you would have the advantage over others with better technique is backed by nothing more than your own ego. Things like flexibility, endurance and STRENGTH are all ENHANCERS to technique, not replacements for it. An example of this is Rubber Guard in BJJ; it's nothing but a shortcut of steps (chief shortcut is that you don't have to be off center), however, its not a "true" martial art technique because not everyone can do it. Anything that requires a lot of strength, flexibility or endurance (effort) to perform is not a proper technique; this is true in almost all sports or endeavors. Take golf for instance, swinging the club with everything you have doesn't translate to increased or accurate driving of the ball, technique does (its the foundation for later enhancement).

    Your right on his thoughts on patterns being wrong, as well as his view of the reaction hand BUT when you talked about his "emphasis on breaking, leaping and jumping. He talks about how through practicing Taekwondo you can learn to break boards 11 feet in the air...etc," you make this sound like it was Choi's chief aim for TKD, when in fact these things are nothing more than feats made possible by TKD training, not the trainings overall goal.

    As for the self-defense techniques you talk about, I tried finding the "turn the head, front kick" but was unable too (page?), but, regardless I agree with you that Choi was overly concerned with jump kicks as a realistic response to a self-defense situation. With that said TKD is from the 50's and is in some cases is a bureaucracy/business and because of this hasn't moved forward with its approach to self-defense. To this I say "that's your job." Your responsible for yourself and your own training; if you feel that what your learning or how your learning it isn't in line with reality than speak up, train it realistically or find/create a place where you can.

    "Taekwondo as an art is built upon troubled foundations." THIS IS TRUE. I prefer to think of it as a challenge, though, instead of a curse. In my approach to TKD I go back, to go forward. If something doesn't make sense I'll look to Karate or in some cases Taekkyon (grappling video I posted for you) for an answer. And just because I train TKD doesn't mean that I can't study and learn form other martial arts.

    Some people on here have made mention or scoffed at what they view to be your minimum amount of time training TKD, but that type of argument has never made sense to me. The "you don't understand, give it at least a decade" argument doesn't hold up because if somethings wrong from the start then why would it somehow be right at the finish. A lot of what you write leads me to believe that on some level you've become TRAPPED by TKD. By this I mean on you wanted TKD to be a complete art, to able to say that "Yes, TKD is this and has that. This throw is from TKD as is this..." which explains your grappling question and other like posts.

    To be honest its much easier to learn something else that's not built on troubled foundations because you don't have to "work the bugs out," so to speak, and simply train. Because of this I've also asked on numerous occasions, what's the point? Other than that I don't know really what else to say except its obviously your decision and your time/life.
  9. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Page 228 and 229 for the techniques I mentioned. In fact, the 4 techniques on those two pages are all insane.

    I totaly, 100% agree that technique is more important that strength, BUT that doesnt mean we can disregard it. Guess what, Anderson Silva is incredibly strong. But I dont agree that a technique that requires strength is wrong. Even a basic kick, anyone can do it, with perfect technique, but if your weak as a kitten its not really gunna hurt. And when I talk about strength, what im really talking about is one small aspect of power. Not strength as a goal in itsself, but as a constituent part of power. The thing I take issue with is not the statemtent that technique is more important, its the implication that it doesnt matter at all. It does, to be able to effectively protect yourself and the people you love, you need to be able to generate alot of power, and technique is part of that, sure, but so is strength, and to say otherwise is living in a fantasy realm. Similar to my point about the breaking. Taekwondo should not be a pursuit of superhuman feats, we should remain grounded in reality at all times, and work towards our goals. That being realistic self protection, not being able to do a book full of fancy tricks and a technically flawless hooking kick that would fail to hurt a kitten.

    " if you feel that what your learning or how your learning it isn't in line with reality than speak up, train it realistically or find/create a place where you can." This is wholely what I mean to do. If I ever manage to start teaching, I want to teach things that will really work and help people, not be constrained by notions of stylistic purity. Im not sure if I did that it would still be taekwondo though. If I fundamentally disagree with General Choi on so many things, and therefore disagree with so much of the community that agree with him, then I cant really call what im teaching Taekwondo can I? I never ever want to be in a position where im being dishonest to students. Part of that is teaching realistic techniques, and part of that is not calling something Taekwondo when it isnt.

    I dont want anyone to think im saying i have finished Taekwondo after a year. That I have mastered ever aspect of it and found it lacking. I see this as very much the beginning of me starting to learn Taekwondo. I have been training at a Taekwondo club for a year, sure, but I have not been STUDYING the art. With the realization that teaching is something I would love to do, I have decided I first have to learn the art inside out, and im at the very start of that very long road. The thing is, from what I have found, im not sure that road will lead where I want to be. Maybe you are right about me being trapped. I feel like I have a duty to learn and teach a full and effective art, but I feel that by doing so I would be directly contradicting General Choi, and it would no longer be true Taekwondo.

    EDIT: Maybe I will start looking at the teaching of the Kwans, instead of General Choi. Apparently they had differing views, and they were better martial artists, so maybe what they teach will be better.
  10. Nightwing

    Nightwing Member

    "I totally, 100% agree that technique is more important that strength, BUT that doesnt mean we can disregard it. Guess what, Anderson Silva is incredibly strong. But I dont agree that a technique that requires strength is wrong. Even a basic kick, anyone can do it, with perfect technique, but if your weak as a kitten its not really gunna hurt."

    -Anderson Silva may be strong but in the example I gave he's weaker than Arnold and by your reasoning that would put him at a disadvantage, which is not the case. As far as you holding that a technique that requires strength isn't wrong, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't know how you can call something a real martial arts technique if it requires, on some level, strength in order for it to be effective. I can't even think of a martial arts technique that "requires" any amount of strength (the hard contraction of muscles) other than someone physically picking someone up. Techniques require mass, momentum and structure (and in some cases follow through). The only "strength" that's required is the ability to continuously perform the technique; this requirement will actually go down the more you do the technique due to your own bodies quest to do things in the most efficient manner possible. *Perfect technique will always hurt regardless of level of strength.

    "And when I talk about strength, what im really talking about is one small aspect of power. Not strength as a goal in itsself, but as a constituent part of power. The thing I take issue with is not the statemtent that technique is more important, its the implication that it doesnt matter at all."

    -I don't think that General Choi ever implied that that was the case in the first place. I would say that what he meant was simply that a trained person SHOULD be able to beat an untrained one regardless of the differences in their levels of strength. If this wasn't the case, like I said, there would be no reason for martial arts in the first place.

    "If I ever manage to start teaching, I want to teach things that will really work and help people, not be constrained by notions of stylistic purity. Im not sure if I did that it would still be taekwondo though. If I fundamentally disagree with General Choi on so many things, and therefore disagree with so much of the community that agree with him, then I cant really call what I'm teaching Taekwondo can I?"

    -Who is constraining you with notions of stylistic purity? YOU ARE. This is what I meant when I said that you're trapped by the style. Do you think that Ian Abernathy has these same constraints? As for disagreeing with General Choi and the TKD community fundamentally I can only assume your talking about the ways in which they both approach self-defense and how to train for fighting.

    Self-defense wise TKD is concerned with teaching people 3 ways to get out of holds: release, attack and break. All these things are done in the simplest manner possible, if however in the Encyclopedia it shows someone doing a jump kick after the release or whatever I would say that it's only one way in which someone could respond based on the myriad of techniques found in TKD. TKD's and Choi's criteria for things like throws and joint locks is that they have to be easy to do and must be effective immediately; ALL martial arts techniques that meet this KISS requirement can be considered to fall in line with TKD's teachings.

    Fight training, is something else entirely and has been somewhat covered in the thread Distance? Step-sparring (shows technique in a controlled environment=static), semi free sparring (adds a dynamic element=reactions) and actual sparring (dynamic movement and flow); each should be one third of training for all newly introduced techniques, however, once learned semi-free and free sparring are chiefly used to increase flow and dynamic movement. If you disagree with hand placement and footwork CHANGE IT.

    As for patterns, I view them as a collection of moves/movements that can be picked at and sorted to find realistic self-defense techniques. They weren't created with the template Ian Abernathy outlines in his books but they are based on Karate so they still hold on, some level, Karate's approach to self-defense. I personally feel there's a benefit to them.

    *Don't NOT do something simply because you feel that it's not TKD. TKD is a martial art concerned with fighting. If you find yourself doing something that doesn't work for fighting than that something is NOT TKD.
  11. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    A strike is all about momentum, which is speed * mass. The technique you use, its all about movement, brought about by the muscles in your body contracting. The more force they can generate, the quicker, and harder you can preform strikes. Usain bolt is an example of insane speed, and his muscles can contract that quickly because of their strength. Mariusz Pudzianowski even had some MMA success with limited technique due to his overpowering size and strength. Choi states that 'Taekwondo defiantly enables the weak to possess a fine weapon'. being weak limits the force you can generate, and therefore how much you can impart unto your opponent. It is my firm belief that as martial artists we should seek to both perfect technique and maximize strength, as one is less effective without the other. I'm happy to agree to disagree on this.

    I feel like Iain can make claims differing to other karateka because he can then go back and say, the original masters did this too. He was given a mandate by the people who created the art, and so as long as he is true to them, he is being true to the art. Choi is our origional master really, so I feel like I dont have a mandate to start changing things. Because unlike Iain, im not going back to what past masters have done, im inventing new stuff. But maybe your right, maybe thats fine, and that stylistic purity isn't as important as I think.

    As for self defence, in what way is a reverse turning kick to head height (p.229) easy and effective imediatly? It would take months, if not years to develop the flexibility, power and technique to pull that off, and even then, its incredibly risky, and if you are wearing anything resembling normal clothing its impossible anyway.

    I do disagree with hand placement and footwork, and if I was to teach I would change it, but I would feel like im not teaching Taewkondo anymore. Maybe your last statement is what I should cling onto though. Taewondo IS a martial art, and it was created by mixing many other martial arts to (supposedly) find the most effective techniques. Maybe there is my mandate to improve the art, and still call it Taewondo. Thanks, your post has given me lots to think about, even if we don't agree.
  12. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    A discussion is a discussion and all point have some value, however i recomend gaining that deeper knowledge before stating items as previosly stated.
    Understand that yes it takes years to master techniques and years to be a martial artist.
    If true understanding was that easy then the Macdojos would be a good thing.
    E=Mc2 trust me i have seen this effect many times when a giant of a person is destroyed by a smaller person with good knowledge.
  13. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Your right, it does take years to master stuff, and im just at stage one. But I dont understand how E=Mc2 relates to taekwondo? thats a formual for understanding how mass and energy can turn into each other, isnt it?
    John McNally likes this.
  14. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    Not so much turn into each other but are relative to the energy they exist as.

    In martial arts we train the body in many many different ways and if you think about the mass you are moving into the block or other striking arsenal the E=MC2 comes into play.

    A arm of a 6 stone individual using just the arm muscles to punch at lets be modest and say 40mph would be the following basic sum (not exact but example before all the mathematicians jump in :) ) the arm at 1 stone x 40mph = contact weight of 40 stone.
    So with hip twist which utilises at least 85% of body weight even for a novice. so again a basic look at contact mass.
    5.1 stone x 40mph = 204 stone.
    Of course the example i am using is very basic but i would imagine you catch what i am saying.

    TKD focuses on this for every move where possible and also the force of gravity, this is why any technique should be executed with a body drop.

    So its E=MC2 plus G.

    E=MC2 look here: http://relativitycollapse.com/e=mc2.html
    G look here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm

    A basic move that all beginners do to start understanding this is performed in a sitting stance.

    Starting bent legs raise the body by straightening the legs and slightly pulling the hip of the punching side back, then as you let your body drop into the bent leg position you make the punching hip come forward as a middle section punch is executed, the timing of the punch and the end of drop will be at the same time, this will both be completed after making contact with the target.
    To damage penetration of the technique only needs to be 1 cm depending on the target area.

    To understand damage effect, think of an egg if the shell is inverted by by the thickness of its own shell it is broken.

    If an orange is compressed by punch of depth of 1cm it will not crack but squash thus the juices in side will burst from their pods and cause suppleness rather than firmness, this is the basic explanation of a bruise.

    If a rib is struck then the punch will compress the surrounding mass against the rib and with just that little more penetration at speed then the rib will break (as little penetration of 4cm 5.1 stone @Balkal Yop CHagi footsword Side Kick speed of 80mph would be generally sufficient to break the rib) so remember most average turning kicks even at novice would usually reach the speed of 80-90 mph a black belt will usually reach 145mph

    So hip twist = speed mass 2 Contact point = E (energy released)

    Demonstration on kick speed, however a very minor flaw in two kickers technique’s the kick boxer and TKD guy stopped their hip at contact point and the hip should have stopped a little later.

    Chris J likes this.
  15. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    Duplicate message sorry.
  16. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    What you want is very rarely found in taekwondo gyms, unless you train under a master with the same perspective as yourself. You'll probably have to mix your taekwondo education with Muay Thai, BJJ and Krav Maga at the very least, to get all of those areas you mentioned handled. I know this because I am very much in the same position as you are. It is so sad I live far away, I would love to team up with you in order to incorporate the areas that are missing.

    For the belt problem that can be dealt with now. Just let youtube be your judge, do the techniques you feel are mandatory and get some help from a partner, post it on youtube. Then put on a black belt if you must. But knowledge is the one thing that actually matters, and the black belt is just a trap MacDojangs have put out there to make money off of you.
  17. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    It is nothing wrong with their understanding. They start off from doing what they are doing to make money, this is a problem when it comes to martial art, because it isn't designed to be treated that way. Just look at the insane exam costs some of these studios have. Then you need to have childrensgroups to earn enough money, then you need to make the exam requirements easier so that the slow ones can follow up. Then you need to make the lessons less formal and more social to get those types of students happy and so on. In the end you're left with a really good moneymachine and an abomination of a martial art. Then suprevision is stricter because you are widely known, so none of that more experimental sparring, that is too dangerous, let us just have olympic sparring.

    And the poor guy who started the gym and thought it was going to be fun needs to sit in an office the entire day. Dooped by the fastfoodchain who offered him what seemed like a sweet deal. Maybe he just has one lesson each week that he instructs. Maybe he doesn't even get to decide what to teach is students. Fuck that! At least that is how I would feel, I like taekwondo, I like to teach, I hate to sit in an rotten office right next to a gym, that is just torture!

    It is as easy for effective taekwondo to get into a MacDojangs gym as it is for a camel to go through an eye of a needle. You know, those strange gates that looks like a key-hole in Alladin, they are not designed for camels to walk through, unless the camel is very deformed.
  18. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Im a bit rusty from my college science days, but im pretty sure that E=Mc2 has nothing to do with sports. You are not changing the mass of your body into energy, you are using chemical energy already stored in your body. You are using oxygen and a mixture of things like glucose and 'burning' them to provide energy for your muscles, and that creates movement. The force you impart unto your opponent on impact isnt related to that equation at all, it is related to the one I gave earlier and that you used. Momentum = speed x mass. That momentum is the energy you exert on someone. What im saying, is that if you have stronger muscles, they can contract quicker, and increase the speed that your body is traveling. With the example you gave, you might be able to increase it to 45mph through being stronger. Strength is just a measure of the contractile force of the muscles, and this contractile force is what generates movements. Want your movements to be more powerful, increase the power of the muscles generating the force that powers that movement.

    As for the force from going down, that only works if you change it into a forward motion. The force of gravity is straight down, but the striking plane is horizontal. In jack dempsyes book He uses the analogy of a sledge going down a ramp. The downward motion is deflected by the ramp, and changes direction. If you are just going up and down in sitting stance, that force stays directed down. If you fire a bullet out of a gun, and drop a bullet at the same height, they hit the floor at the same time. Because the forces are at 90 degrees they dont affect each other. There is one pushing it forward, and another down. I dont understand how gravity makes a static punch more effective, just a punch moving forwards, when you can drop your weight and then deflect that force forwards with a forwards motion. Its why most people dont use the sine wave.

    The last equation, I just dont understand at all. The force released is the force generated by you (momentum) minus any lost through wastage. This causes pressure on a point depending on how much area its distributed over.
  19. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    More importantly though, I wasnt talking really about specific techniques, but the basis of the art. Choi has the wrong explanations for why we do alot of things, and if I fundamentally disagree with some things like that, why would I waste time doing them that way hoping to be able to force it to work a way it doesnt? I could spend decades doing just patterns, because Choi said they were the best way to develop technique, felxibility, control e.c.t. and i would not be as good as if I had spent that time training properly.

    To seek to understand things that are fundamentally wrong is a dead end, surely?
  20. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    I am fully open to the thought of Choi being wrong and rushed, he isn't a god. What alternative would you present a student with as your way of teaching?
  21. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    If I were to open a gym today it would have two classes. A grading class, where you can drill patterns extensively, do three step, break boards and do fancy kicks. The other would be a pragmatic self defense based class. I would get rid of alot the really fancy kicks in favor of a more rounded system. I would build up a limited library of the most effective techniques for kicking, punching, standing grappling and throwing, and drill these techniques alot.

    Sparring would be split into 3 main types.
    1) Restricted, where you can only use on thing. Like just punching, just kicking and punching, or just throwing
    2) Full, where most techniques are allowed (obviously still with rules, no headbuts or things like that, but all ranges). This would include light sparring, and not at all be heavy sparring all the time.
    3) Self defense based. One example is where one student is the attacker and the other the defender. To win, the attacker has to stay standing for 2 mins. To win the defender has to take him to the ground. This would just be one example.

    I would make it clear to my students that I think Strength and conditioning is important. Every single sport in the world has it, from tennis to fencing, and its not at the expense of technique, its in addition to it. Hopefully I would also become a qualified fitness instructor so I could recommend good programs for people outside of training if they want.

    But, to answer your question succinctly, I would do what Choi said he was going to do in his encyclopedia. Provide an effective self defense system based upon scientific principals. Because despite his claims, that is not what his art is.

    Of course, no art can be perfect. But I would hope to provide a system that would work as a base for people to cross train from.

    The reason I would separate the classes is that I think both are important, but they are very different and should not be confused.

    The reason I started this thread is because I have a very clear view of what a good system should be. Not a fully formed system, but a basic idea about what it should be. Holistic, pragmatic and reality based. Systems like Kudo, samba, sambo. The idea I have in my head is now what Taekwondo is, and im not sure what I should do about that.

Share This Page