Teaching Karate at MMA gyms...

[DarthPenguin]

An excellent post - really insightful and i 100% agree with your alternative categories. As another example i spent many years training in a taekwondo offshoot which would have branded itself as modern but which i would definitely include within your Preservation category - cross training was massively frowned upon etc.

Another thing which i think the progression based fighting traditions do well is implement the concept of adapting a technique to suit your body type and for it to still be correct - eg performing an armbar slightly differently; a scissor sweep etc. while in a Preservation style this is usually frowned upon more (if sparring/fighting then you get a little more leeway but if you have an ankle issue and perform a sidekick with ball of foot rather than blade of foot you will be told it is wrong rather than an allowable adaptation - even with chamber and kick motion being identical)

[bushido_man96]

Thanks for that layout, Wado Heretic. Lots of really good points here. And you're spot-on about TKD.

[FierceGreenBelt]

On 6/25/2023 at 3:27 PM, Wado Heretic said:

 

Before I continue I am not being expressly critical of Tae Kwon Do. I am simply using it in contract to BJJ because it is relatively young among the Fighting Systems commonly called Traditional. In contract Tae Kwon Do does not have a culture of going outside the world of Tae Kwon Do. The fighting aspect of TKD often amounts to getting good at its competitive format. The forms are learnt to be preserved as forms, but they are very young and do not necessarily apply to effective application. One cannot study its forms as a matter of hoplology and uncover fighting techniques preserved there in. The forms are practiced effectively for the the sake of getting good at the forms and preserving them. But Tae Kwon Do was born out of Okinawan Karate, metamorphised by Japanese demands before it reached Korea, and then modified further by its pioneers. It has inherited knowledge from an ancient tradition, but its traditions are modern.

Thus using these two examples we can see the difference between what people call modern and traditional martial arts. Modern are those Progressive Fighting Arts that put emphasis on progression in effectiveness at what one is trying to be good at. Traditional are those systems where the focus is preserving knowledge as one encountered it, and getting good at the traditions as they are taught. But the truth is it is nothing to do with the age of the the art, and the truth is all Fighting Arts are traditional in that they are all traditions passed down.

Wow, you really covered a lot of ground.  I, however, disagree with many of your points, although I believe they hold validity.

For example.

Point 1. TKD is relatively new but it's base is not.  The opinion that TKD is a relatively new art; while BJJ you believe is very old because of it's roots.  Well TKD's roots trace from Shotokan karate... which traces a back to Okinawan karate... which extends back to the 14th century is it (I'm not a  karate history academic so feel free to comment/edit.)?  And IMHO, BJJ is a 'modernized' form of Judo, with the modernization seeking to address the conventional Judo de-emphasis on ground work.  As well as certain practicality in among technique.  So both BJJ & TKD have a 'modern' genesis; yet hold eastern traditions that extend back many centuries.

Am I a fan of TKD..? me no.  When one takes a broader view of karate tradition, karate, hence it's descendant TKD, broaches much more than the straightforward observations voiced here.

Point 2. The forms ae practiced effectively for the sake of getting good at the forms and preserving them (FALSE).  When I stared karate, kata was emphasized as an important part of the curriculum.  Important for what..?  Well karate is martial art, and it's application self defense... so kata is important for developing what?  Dunno?

I understand that many people question /  forms or kata or poomsae, etc. ... although at all the dojos I have attended, their relevance was never questioned.  How about answering the question of kata with the precept of 'understanding.'  And apply the same to TKD.  Just because TKD, certain orgs, stress a certain kind of competition utilizing kicks, doesn't that benefit the practitioners?  Do that kind of competition eclipse the art... so that I have to say, cross train Muay Thai?

My position.  I don't feel I have to train Muay Thai for squat.  Is Muay Thai a formidable martial art... sure is?  TBT though, karate tradition has an answer for everything... if one thinks about it.  Far from any name on any competition circuit, I have defeated boxers, wresters, kickboxers, judo players, other karateka / 'master' level, including many instructors.  Why? Because they didn't understand the worth of tradition, eastern martial art tradition.  It comes back to understanding.

The progression is martial arts isn't that the Gracie's customized Ju Jitsu,,, 'modernized' Judo.  Judo always had ground work... just became less developed technically.  Judo throws do something different than BJJ takedowns,,, which people complain about BJJ's takedowns not being 'effective' (false).  The only progression is understanding.

TKD is, in fact a complete art, if you think about it.  Realizing that is how I became able to defeat the MMA 'functional,' popularized styles like boxing & Muay Thai, etc.