Pro-Taekwondo

[DWx]

Came across this: http://www.pro-taekwondo.com/

Its a professional, full-contact TKD league kinda built the same way as UFC. Looks completely different from the Olympics. Anyone heard of it before?

[Kagerou]

...the 1300-year old martial art originating in Korea in second half of the 20th century developed into a modern combat sport and has even been introduced into the Olympic games.

Originated in the Second-half of the 20th Century.

Puts the originating date ~1950. The name Tae Kwon Do being accepted in 1955.

It's been a short 1300 years these ~58 years, hasn't it?

Is it really this typical to confuse a country's ancestry in the arts--of different names no less--with the establishment of an art centuries later and after large chunks of the previous art were irradiated after Japanese occupation? Especially since most of the arts under the umbrella of a unified name are really conglomerations of Chinese and Japanese styles?

Let's say I have my own island.

That island at one time has a historic system of fighting.

Let's call it "The art of belching", or "Gastritis-do."

But times change--the art is looked down upon, and governmental health regulations add bicarbonate of soda to all pasta to discourage "Gastritis-do" for several decades, if not a centuries--little to no record exists at this time about "Gastritis-do."

After a time, another people invade and forbade the historic system.

But, after re-claiming governmental control, most all info on "Gastritis-do" has disappeared.

So, I create a new art, "The way of throwing cinderblocks", and call it "Block-Chuck-Fu."

"Block-Chuck-Fu" is an amalgamation of the styles of "CinderBlock Drop" from an Island Nation to the North, and "Metal-style Dodgeball" from an Island nation in the South.

The new art, "Block-Chuck-Fu" flourishes for around 50 years--yet I claim it has a lineage of hundreds-to-thousands of years old, constantly referencing "Gastritis-do", but not showing how either are really linked.

Well, this is how I see things.

I do not see the connections between Subak /Taek Kyon and modern Tae Kwon Do, except in the description of Chang Hun Kwon....which is still referenced as a form of "Korean Karate."

It just doesn't make good sense to me, that's all.

Sorry for the long rant.

Regarding this:

http://www.pro-taekwondo.com/index.php?inc=rules

Isn't a two minute round a minute shorter than other sports?

I'm not at sparring-level yet...So, please, excuse my ignorance on the matter.

Excessive number of direct punches, and all other hand punches (hook, uppercut, elbow) shall be penalized by penalty points.

The page says you can win by K.O.

Are you awarded so many points for K.O.?

If so, why not take the point deduction for a hook, uppercut, or elbow if you can go for the win by K.O. or T.K.O.?

Then, there's this:

16.2 Deciding the winner when the match cannot continue due to injury

16.2.1 When it is decided that the opponent is at fault for causing the injury, then the

injured competitor will be declared the winner.

So, you can win by K.O.

But wouldn't that count as an injury to the opponent?

So you win by ruleset, but loose by default?

I don't understand.

It looks sound. However, the ruleset has me confused.

[DWx]

...the 1300-year old martial art originating in Korea in second half of the 20th century developed into a modern combat sport and has even been introduced into the Olympic games.

Originated in the Second-half of the 20th Century.

Puts the originating date ~1950. The name Tae Kwon Do being accepted in 1955.

It's been a short 1300 years these ~58 years, hasn't it?

It does make sense if you punctuate it properly, the first bit should really be a sub-ordinate clause to make it read properly:

Taekwondo, the 1300-year old martial art originating in Korea, in second half of the 20th century developed into a modern combat sport and has even been introduced into the Olympic games.

So what its really saying was TKD originated 1300 years ago but developed into modern combat sport in the 1950s +. This could have been a case of mistranslation too...

Is it really this typical to confuse a country's ancestry in the arts--of different names no less--with the establishment of an art centuries later and after large chunks of the previous art were irradiated after Japanese occupation? Especially since most of the arts under the umbrella of a unified name are really conglomerations of Chinese and Japanese styles?

Let's say I have my own island.

That island at one time has a historic system of fighting.

Let's call it "The art of belching", or "Gastritis-do."

But times change--the art is looked down upon, and governmental health regulations add bicarbonate of soda to all pasta to discourage "Gastritis-do" for several decades, if not a centuries--little to no record exists at this time about "Gastritis-do."

After a time, another people invade and forbade the historic system.

But, after re-claiming governmental control, most all info on "Gastritis-do" has disappeared.

So, I create a new art, "The way of throwing cinderblocks", and call it "Block-Chuck-Fu."

"Block-Chuck-Fu" is an amalgamation of the styles of "CinderBlock Drop" from an Island Nation to the North, and "Metal-style Dodgeball" from an Island nation in the South.

The new art, "Block-Chuck-Fu" flourishes for around 50 years--yet I claim it has a lineage of hundreds-to-thousands of years old, constantly referencing "Gastritis-do", but not showing how either are really linked.

Well, this is how I see things.

I do not see the connections between Subak /Taek Kyon and modern Tae Kwon Do, except in the description of Chang Hun Kwon....which is still referenced as a form of "Korean Karate."

It just doesn't make good sense to me, that's all.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with TKD history but its gets very political about the origins. Yes most of it did come from Japanese and Chinese systems however after the occupation the Koreans were keen to distinguish themselves from Japanese and indeed eradicate Japanese culture from their own. What became TKD was an effort to move away from Karate and to create something of their own in which they could have national pride. Thus they tried to revive TaeKyon and claim that their system of fighting came from this ancient MA. Yet bits of TKD may actually have come from TaeKyon itself. Taking Gen. Choi of the Oh Do Kwan (ITF) for example, it is said that he learnt TaeKyon as a boy from his calligraphy teacher Han Il Dong. He could well have pushed more TaeKyon into his version of TKD.

TKDTutor has a much more detailed history on his site looking at TKD from the Three Kingdoms era to present day, he explains it fair better than I can.

Sorry for the long rant.

Regarding this:

http://www.pro-taekwondo.com/index.php?inc=rules

Isn't a two minute round a minute shorter than other sports?

I'm not at sparring-level yet...So, please, excuse my ignorance on the matter.

I'm assuming its based upon ITF rules as Master Anto-Toni Nobilo is ITF. In ITF you do 2x 2 minute rounds.

Excessive number of direct punches, and all other hand punches (hook, uppercut, elbow) shall be penalized by penalty points.

The page says you can win by K.O.

Are you awarded so many points for K.O.?

If so, why not take the point deduction for a hook, uppercut, or elbow if you can go for the win by K.O. or T.K.O.?

I'm not familiar with this league at all but again I'll assume its built upon ITF rules. If hooks, uppercuts and elbows are penilized, then if you score a KO with it I'd assume you wouldn't win. More likely you'd probably be DQed for it as it was excessive contact with an illegal technique.

Then, there's this:

16.2 Deciding the winner when the match cannot continue due to injury

16.2.1 When it is decided that the opponent is at fault for causing the injury, then the

injured competitor will be declared the winner.

So, you can win by K.O.

But wouldn't that count as an injury to the opponent?

So you win by ruleset, but loose by default?

I don't understand.

It looks sound. However, the ruleset has me confused.

In this case its up to the referee's disgretion. KO probably isn't counted as an injury.. what it probably means is where the attacker is deliberately trying to do something to incapacitate their opponent, like an eye gouge or something. If the technique's perfectly legal and the attacker wasn't necessarily out to incapacitate the loser then I'd assume 16.2 would apply. If you look at this video just before 3 minutes the Korean takes a roundhouse to the head and from then in the end doesn't continue due to injury.

[Throwdown0850]

Looks terrible, and once again, flashy...

[bushido_man96]

There was a Pro-TKD set up several years ago, and it looked very much like Olympic TKD, but without the protective gear, and it had a different points set up. I suppose it would be fun to watch. It definitely sounds like they want to emphasize the kicking aspects.

As far as TKD history goes; it was developed in the 1950s, and is pretty much a derivative of Karate, mainly Shotokan. What are its similarities to the older Korean fighting styles? Probably not a whole lot.