June 4, 2002, 06:02 PM | #26 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
|
GePZo:
Quote:
Quote:
For the record, it happens with everyone, not just Koreans. In fact, in another thread, I am debunking (or more accurately, citing a historian who debunks) Herodotus' fantastical claim of about 300 Spartans standing against 1 million Persians at Thermopylae. Skorzeny
__________________
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu |
||
June 7, 2002, 08:56 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2001
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 176
|
So what it seems is most likely is that "native" Korean Arts were highly influenced by Chinese MA in pre-Colonial Korea. This makes sense since almost all Korean Arts have an emphasis on kicking, much like Northern Chinese styles. However, even these Korean Arts were suppressed and mostly lost during the Colonial period of Japanese occupation.
My further questions are... What about the "kwans"? (I think that's what they were called.) When TKD was being adopted as the nation Korean Art (the name was being chosen, forms made, etc.) it is my understanding that all the leading Korean martial artists got together to develop this new national art. They were each the head of a "Kwan" or style. Choi Hong Hi's Kwan mostly won out and his art (admittedly very based on Shotokan) won out as the main basis for TKD. This is the history (minus the emphasis on Choi) that the [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] promotes, BTW. We know Choi studied Shotokan in Japan. And we know he claims to have studied a pre-Colonial Korean Art Tae-kyon. I know there appears to be little or no evidence of Tae-kyon actually existing. But what were these other "styles" being practiced in Korea at the time. They couldn't have all been Shotokan, could they? And if not what were they? A bit of history... Chuck Norris who studied over there in his time in the military says what he was taught was called Tang Soo Do at the time, though he says that's now Tae Kwon Do. If Tang Soo Do was one of the Kwans that became TKD, what was it? Where did it come from? Regards, Matt |
June 7, 2002, 09:29 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 21, 1999
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
Posts: 791
|
Okay, here we go:
First, all Japanese Karate is based on what Funakoshi brought from Okinawa - that is, Shotokan. It all comes back to that. Second, all of the Kwans appeared after WWII, when the Koreans had become more exposed to Japanese Karate, although they didn't all study under the same teachers, and no two students learn the same thing at the same rate. But what they studied was Japanese Karate, which came from Shotokan. Now, I'm not going to say there was no influence from existing Korean/Chinese arts, but what was left (if anything) were fragments - techniques perhaps, but not an entire art. The ones that started the Kwans certainly didn't forget what they had learned before, but it was overshadowed by the depth & reach of Funakoshi's karate to the point that only 50 years later, no one can prove what came from older Korean styles, what came from Japanese styles & was modified, and what was developed within the Korean schools after the occupation. What is known is that the first kata/poomse/forms taught by the Kwans were the same kata that Funakoshi taught in Japan. That can't be coincidence. BTW, a better translation of Kwan is "school" not "style". They Kwans were/are very similar in terms of technique, it's mostly a difference in philosophy & emphasis, just like the ryu in Japan. Basically, what I'm saying is that there is more to a style than just techniques - those come & go, and are changed by each generation of student. A style or school has roots, traditions and a general philosophy about how the techniques are to be used together - something that just isn't documented about any of the Korean "traditional" styles. BTW, Tang Soo Do is Choi's name for his art/school which he founded, later renamed to Moo Duk Kwan, later Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan. Moo Duk Kwan (which is pretty fragmented, after the ITF/[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] split), Ji Do Kwan, and Chang Moo Kwan are the only three remaining Kwans (out of the 7 who founded the Korea Tae Kwon Do Association, +2 more who joined later), the rest having been disbanded in an effort to unify the Korean martial arts under the World Tae Kwon Do Federation. Tang Soo Do, Tae Soo Do, Kong Soo Do, Tae Kyon - they no longer exist as verifiably separate arts; what they became is TKD. And, I wouldn't say TKD was based on Choi's style, that's a lot of ITF hype there. It's based on different people's interpretations of Funakoshi's style, modified over the last 50+ years, no matter how hard they try to deny it.
__________________
I hope these evil men come to understand our peaceful ways soon - My trigger finger is blistering! |
June 7, 2002, 09:51 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2001
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 176
|
Dave,
I practice TKD in the ITF tradition, which explains my Choi-centrism. I am very much enjoying this discussion. I haven't believed the hype for years, but still really enjoy TKD. I began my study in Chicago under Mr. Jim Langlas who was a student of the late Grand Master Han (sorry, I know there' a billion Korean "Han's" but I can't remember the rest of his name. I'd probably know it if I heard it, though). I eventually moved to St. Louis where I studied under Grand Master Yong Yun Cho, from whom I recieved my 1st Dan. That was about 4 years ago, and though I still train, I haven't trained formally since then (due to several moves). So, hey, I guess that's my "lineage." Dave, am I confusing you with someone else, or are you yourself a TKD instructor? Regards, Matt |
June 7, 2002, 11:20 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 21, 1999
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
Posts: 791
|
Matt, I'm not an "instructor", I'm only a first dan. I've been involved/training for about 20 years, under the same instructor. He's a rare bird - a caucasian 7th dan [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]/KTA/Chang Moo Kwan Master Instructor. He teaches a small class because he enjoys it, and I train because I enjoy it. At least, when I've had the time between college, work, family, kids, etc, etc... I guess it's a hobby to me more than anything.
Please don't think I've got anything against Choi - he made larger contributions to TKD than just about any other, but I don't think splitting off from the [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]/KTA was good for the art as a whole (neither was busting up the Kwans, but that's another story). The political infighting from those on both sides of the fence was, IMHO, disgusting. When they should have shaken hands, they turned on one another. But, I don't believe I've seen a "friendly" split in any martial arts organization. Politics, ambitions, pride & ethnocentrism are, I think, the biggest reason why the history of TKD before the foundation of the KTA is cloudy, at best.
__________________
I hope these evil men come to understand our peaceful ways soon - My trigger finger is blistering! |
July 3, 2002, 10:37 AM | #31 |
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: March 9, 2000
Location: Virden, IL
Posts: 5,917
|
I know I'm dragging this back from the dead, but I found this one immensely interesting. I had always assumed that only Americans called TKD "Korean Karate" and that only because, at the time, Americans assumed that all "martial arts" were forms of "karate." I just started in TKD last week and so far it has been a lot of fun. Before anyone brings it up, I am aware of certain limitations to the art when it comes to "streetfighting." I am resolved to study it for what it can give me--conditioning, discipline, an understanding of range, movement, quickness, balance, speed, and powerful striking techniques. AFTER I become proficient at TKD I will fill in gaps as necessary by cross-training in other arts.
In particular, I wonder about some of the other schools named. If Hwarang-do is dead, and Tang Soo Do became TKD. . . . well, what would one be studying if he walked into a dojang with the following arts on the sign? Tang Soo Do? Kuk Sool Won? Hwa-Rang Do? HapKiDo?
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner |
July 5, 2002, 04:00 AM | #32 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
|
Don Gwinn:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Skorzeny
__________________
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu |
|||
July 5, 2002, 12:09 PM | #33 |
Member
Join Date: June 8, 2002
Location: heartland
Posts: 76
|
Good points being made for sure. As for taekwondo being over one-thousand years old, of course not. While it is taught that it's origin's go back at least two-thousand years this could be said about most martial arts.
I have found that there is much more alike about the striking arts than there are differences. There is no art that is better than another. To strike only doesn't work when someone gets passed your guard. Grappling is not so effective when faced with multiple attackers. Self-defense is not a part-time commitment. To truely benifit from any martial art one must make it their lifestyle, to include staying in good physical condition. Bruse Lee's Jute Keen Do philosophy summed it up well. Stay in optimal physical condition. Train hard. Use what works for you and throw out that which doesn't. It should be noted however that Bruce Lee had a firm base in Kung Fu. Though he helped revolutionize the way martial arts is approached, (especially in the USA) his jute keen do philosophy did not put a heavy reliance on the tenets of martial arts, which no matter the art, should be it's base. Martial arts is more about a way of living than it is a way of fighting. To put much emphasis on fighting and little on the moral base is in my opinion, getting away from the real roots of any martial art. |
July 5, 2002, 01:31 PM | #34 | |
Member
Join Date: June 22, 2002
Location: Hotlanta
Posts: 37
|
Quote:
I'll agree that the thai roundhouse usually hits harder. There's more "oomph!" behind it. The point-sparring flip kicks seem to be designed to mildly annoy one's opponent more than anything else. |
|
July 5, 2002, 04:27 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
|
Toadlicker:
Quote:
Since then I've met several serious MT students and competitors (some of who trained in Thailand) who really paled the TKD boasts of "powerful striking techniques." I don't even have to go into MT elbows and knees - there are elbows and knees in TKD too, but I have yet to see one TKD practitioner who could use them like MT people can. Skorzeny
__________________
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu |
|
July 5, 2002, 05:06 PM | #36 |
Member
Join Date: June 8, 2002
Location: heartland
Posts: 76
|
To say "I'm not saying my kung fu is better than yours but" and then going on to say that TKD kicks are not as powerful is a statement that sells short all striking arts.
TKD kicks not hard? Where have you trained? TKD has some devastating kicks. (mass+speed = power) Side kicks too easy to read?.....Sure, if all you are trying to do is stand there and wait to sidekick someone. but when combined with movement and other techniques they are very difficult to read. (especially a sliding side kick off the front leg) "Superfoot" Wallace won a world championship and ALL he used were sidekicks! Spin heel kicks are difficult to read and will practically take one's head off if not controlled. Tang Soo Do still exists today (though I do not beleive it is very popular. No, Tang soo do was never a fore-runner of TKD. There were several kwans that formed to create one style eventually to be called taekwondo, hapkido had no part in any of these kwans. If I had to name one man who is the most responsible for modern TKD I would hands down name General Choi....(and I am a [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] practitioner, though my blackbelts must know all taeguek AND Pal gwe forms) If I had to pick the man most responsible for bringing TKD to America it would be Jhoon Rhee, my personal hero though is Hee Il Cho, (who is ITF). I believe it would be in the best interests of both the [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] (Dr. Kim) and the ITF (Gen. Choi) if they could resolve their political differences. That and the current USTU scam are the two (and we only have two) political blackeyes in TKD. |
July 5, 2002, 05:17 PM | #37 |
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: March 9, 2000
Location: Virden, IL
Posts: 5,917
|
Well, here's how I see it, and this is why I enrolled in a TKD school. I've talked about learning one art or the other for years, but I've never had the money, the time and the opportunity all at once. So I continued to talk about it and never to do it. Now I'm one of those shooters you've all seen who can shoot pretty well but couldn't run five miles to save my life.
I see a trend emerging, and it is this--the cross-trained fighter who wants to be Bruce Lee or Ken Shamrock, but is a jack of all trades and master of none. Too much emphasis on knowing a little about every system known to man, too much emphasis on having more techniques than everyone else. Too many teenagers who claim to practice five or six arts--when they've actually only attended a few classes in most of them before they got disenchanted that they weren't learning grappling, or locks, or whatever. This approach can be good, but it's worthless to someone who is not already a seasoned, skillful and fit fighter. Therefore, the first order of business is to become truly proficient in one art. THEN you branch out and learn all sorts of neat tricks from other areas. Frankly, I don't understand the idea that TKD strikes are not powerful. Muay Thai supposedly may have more power in the roundhouse, but the explanation I've been given by practitioners is that the shin is used, the hips are turned quickly during the movement, and the body follows through. That's all great, but what's to stop a TKD practitioner from doing the same thing? I just started, but I've already been admonished several times that I should be turning or switching my hips for more power. I have noticed that it seems like Muay Thai fighters follow through more powerfully. It seems like they generally turn a full circle after the kick. I've also noticed in some MMA competitions that when a kick doesn't connect this provides a big opening for a grappler to shoot. A .44 is more powerful than a .45, but that doesn't mean it would be useless to carry a .45. What is it that a Muay Thai practitioner does that makes his kick more powerful than a TKD practitioner? If I can find a Muay Thai class around here, I'll probably try it out sooner or later, but for now I'm intent on mastering TKD. I'm not a fool; I'm not going to try to axe kick some punk who pulls a knife on me. If I kick, it will probably be for knees. However, I want to be good at timing and range. I want to be fast. I want to be quick. I want to be accurate. I want to be agile and well-balanced. Once I have those things, the techniques should matter less because I can go out and learn any technique I need. I believe it's the Indian more than the arrow, and a determined man willing to work hard and apply the art to combat in his thinking and in his training can become a proficient fighter in TKD. Many arts have flowery stuff that you would not use against a lethal opponent, and even the good techniques don't work in all situations. You wouldn't do that Muay Thai clinch to deliver knee strikes if the other guy had a knife, would you?
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner |
July 5, 2002, 06:08 PM | #38 |
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
|
I'm going to beat that drum yet again: It ain't the style, it's the warrior.
Somebody remind me of just how many middle-weight full-contact championships Chuck Norris won using what seems to be regarded by many here as woefully inadequate tae kwon do? If you're dedicated, mauy thai is an excellent fighting style. If you are a dilletante looking only for buns of steel and a new title to drop at cocktail parties, muay thai ain't worth squat. On the same paw, someone who trains and dedicates himself to tae kwon do, takes it with a warrior mindset, and learns, then tae kwon do is as effective as any other style out there. LawDog
__________________
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer." --The 13th Warrior Bona na Croin The LawDog Files |
July 5, 2002, 08:57 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2001
Location: montana
Posts: 283
|
The martial arts style wars have erupted once again. What can I say? Each art has it's merit. I have studied for only 15 years, and I still know very little. I have trained with Practitioners of different systems, and found that they all have common elements. Korean, Japanese, Chinese, or even American, they all have shared with one another to add to martial art. I have listened time and again to people who say that "this" art is better than "that" art, or that one kind of training is more effective than another. The time spent on these arguements could have been used to train. Whatever system you choose, train diligently, and you will add to the martial arts. If you are looking for pure martial art style, or technique, your not going to find it here. There is not one single WAY, or, STYLE, or SYSTEM. There is no master sitting on a hill top who has the ultimate training in it's purest form. There is just us.
|
July 6, 2002, 05:58 AM | #40 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
|
Perhaps I am bitter - because for over 10 years I was fed too much BS by my esteemed Tae Kwon Do instructors, all high ranking Korean blackbelts. For the record, TKD was my first "martial art." While I lived in East Asia for years (mostly Japan and Korea), I trained in it extensively, earned my black belt at the Kukiwon (World Tae Kwon Do Federation Headquarters) in front of several prestigious Korean masters.
Then I witnessed a highly touted Korean "full-contact" champion get beaten senseless by an amateur Muay Thai competitor while on tour in Thailand. It was like watching a five-year old fight a grown up man. Admittedly, this was under Thai rules (which certainly allows most and perhaps all TKD techniques), but it was certainly illuminating. I thought that this was a fluke. But it happened time and time again, including to me. Now, to the specifics: kungfool: Quote:
Don Gwinn: Quote:
Quote:
Aside from that, it's all how the training is conducted. Let me use boxing analogy. TKD has a flurry of punching techniques. But, no one familiar with both boxing and TKD would seriously suggest that TKD punching techniques are as powerful or as effective as boxing hand techniques (holding all other variables constant if we could do such a thing). Why? Because boxers train with much fewer constraints on their punching when they train dynamically (sparring), which is where one finds out whether "air" trained techniques work or not. Same story with Thai boxers - they are less constrained when they train dynamically with elbows, knees and shin kicks. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What would you do? Kick the knife accompanied by a big Kihap? We aren't talking about whether Thai or TKD is good for knife-defense as neither has anything to do with such a thing (Thai never pretends to while many TKD instructors do). We were speaking of the relative power of striking techniques between the two. Quote:
LawDog: Quote:
Quote:
BTW, show me a TKD guy who can do this (long download, about 16 megs or so, but worth a watch for martial arts fans): http://www.sherdog.com/cgi-bin/highl...leiSilvaLQ.zip Of course, he is no ordinary human being - he is the "Axe Murderer." Skorzeny
__________________
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu |
|||||||||
July 6, 2002, 05:13 PM | #41 |
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: March 9, 2000
Location: Virden, IL
Posts: 5,917
|
No, I would not attempt to kick a knife from someone's hand. The point is not how TKD deals with a knife (I don't know yet; as I said, I'm a beginner) nor how MT deals with a knife. The point is that you can take any technique out of the context in which it works and then say "see? It doesn't work." I believe in the axe kicks I've been trying so inadequately to perform so far. I may not use them in a fight, but I believe in the flexibility that training them gives me, and I believe in improving my balance and my leg strength. To put it another way, your option of running would probably not work for me, because to put it delicately, I am disgustingly fat. Dunlop and all. Since I started TKD I'm already lighter on my feet and more energetic. I will lose the weight and I will be faster than I've been in a long time, making running an option. Right now, it is not.
Your point about "they could, but they don't is well taken. However, it doesn't invalidate the philosophy I put forward above. The point is, if the big difference is the shin, then when I've mastered the art of throwing a roundhouse with speed, power, accuracy and no telegraph I'll just start throwing them with my shin. If it works better for me, fine. But for right now, it would be silly for me to pester my instructors with questions about esoteric differences like this when I can't even perform a roundhouse properly in their style. The problem is that I am NOT a martial artist by any stretch of the imagination. I am not able to throw even one really good roundhouse kick yet. It would be a lot more productive for me to shut up and train in my TKD sessions than to be looking for the door so I can go out and learn Muay Thai. I believe that mindset would lead to leaving Muay Thai before long in order to study Jiu-Jitsu, and leaving that to study JKD, etc. etc. I don't want that. I want to put my head down and train balls to the wall until I am strong, agile, fast and accurate. A strong, agile, fast, accurate man who applies TKD with a warrior mindset should be just fine. If I need Muay Thai principles, or boxing, or whatever at that point, then I'll go out and find them. But I have to believe that it's easier for a master of one art to borrow from others because he will understand his weaknesses much better. Right now, all I have are weaknesses.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner |
July 6, 2002, 08:52 PM | #42 | ||
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
|
Quote:
Quote:
Having, during my Wandering Through Life, gone toe-to-toe with Emotionally Disturbed Persons having no/nada/zero/zilch training in the finer points of CQC but having an intense and fervent desire to put my fuzzy little butt in the hurt locker; and Having done the Adrenaline Tango with house-mousey mothers protecting their children; and Having the occasional opportunity to Protect the Public by putting under arrest the off-paw random critter who has fried his/her cerebral cortex on meth/crystal cat/formaldehyde/PCP -- It is my studied and firm conviction that in the field of mano-a-mano tussling: style takes a distant third place behind 1)the rabid single-minded desire to stomp a mud puddle in someones butt before walking it dry; and 2) training mindset. Just my two centavos, YMMV. LawDog
__________________
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer." --The 13th Warrior Bona na Croin The LawDog Files |
||
July 7, 2002, 02:51 PM | #43 |
Member
Join Date: June 8, 2002
Location: heartland
Posts: 76
|
lawdog...........very well said.
|
July 7, 2002, 05:09 PM | #44 |
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: March 9, 2000
Location: Virden, IL
Posts: 5,917
|
Lawdog is always worth listening to, and he and Skor have probably lived in more places around the world than any other 10 TFLers together.
Ian is being a bit modest, though. He is the only person I know who has been toe-to-toe with a killer robot assassin and lived to tell the tale.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner |
July 7, 2002, 11:35 PM | #45 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
|
Don Gwinn:
I am in NO WAY knocking your initiation into TKD. In fact, I want to say "good for you" in the loudest way possible. TKD has many benefits and build excellent attributes, and it seems, from what you write, that you will benefit from them. My contention has been with the idea that TKD teaches "powerful striking techniques." Obviously that is a relative statement as, naturally, some systems have more powerful striking techniques than others, but in no way was I suggesting that TKD was useless. One specific point, however: Quote:
LawDog: Quote:
Not all "martial arts" are the same. Not all have same techniques. Not all of them are equally effective (particularly in different contexts). They aren't simply the "same thing" with different nomenclature. A martial art that trains its students to participate in point competitions, form competitions or even highly constrained "full-contact" competitions is unlikely to train its students to effect "powerful" dynamic striking techniques as another that trains its students to survive in a brutal ring match that allows free flowing elbows, knees, punches to the face and kicks to the back of the neck. Certainly I agree with you that fighting spirit is a sine quo non of any kind of fighting, but a body that is full of spirit, but devoid of physical attributes and techniques would be useless, just as technique that is devoid of any physical attribute (let alone spirit, desire, "combat mindset," etc.) would be useless. Don Gwinn (again): Quote:
Skorzeny
__________________
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu |
|||
July 7, 2002, 11:38 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
|
BTW, has anyone checked out the link I listed above (Vanderlei Silva highlights)? Fun to watch, no?
Skorzeny
__________________
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu |
July 8, 2002, 08:37 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 111
|
Skorzeny,
Nice clip |
July 8, 2002, 10:50 AM | #48 |
Member
Join Date: June 8, 2002
Location: heartland
Posts: 76
|
lawdog.....I read your stories....having spent a good part of my life in Texas (not so much the panhandle) I can really enjoy them.....I think you have a style that combines the best of Hunter S. Thompson and Willaim Faulkner........with just a bit of Tim Wilson thown in to get the "good 'ol boy character down pat. Make a book......I'll buy it!
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|