CrazyAZNRocker Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 I have read many posts on Tae Kwon Do's Ineffectiveness in a real fighting situation. How Tae Kwon Do is only for sports and useless in any other situation. However the facts and statistics of Tae Kwon Do's credibility is far from great. I have read articles explaining how Tae Kwon Do was indeed an art for combat, however the case isn't the same today now. There are indeed many lousy Tae Kwon Do schools that water down the art. Then the question is, how was Tae Kwon Do taught in the time of yesteryear that had made it combat worthy, if it was taught differently? Was it different as it is today, or is it the same. So here is the Topic at hand, and it comes in 2 questions... If in the past, Tae Kwon Do's training ways were different in the past, how different, what were the differences? OR If Tae Kwon Do hasn't changed in its many years of existance, and was doomed for failure in terms of combat, what would you ((the other martial artist)) propose should be done to improve the system, while keeping the traditional roots and integrity of the style? ((meaning the emphasis on stikes, stand up, and the increased use of kicks)) ((I hope this doesn't get moved into the Korean Martial arts forum, I really think that the post will get the most out of it if we can get opinions on many other practitioners.)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjanurse Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 This is just an opinion, not a statement of fact so keep the hackles down! Well first of all Traditional TKD does not have fancy high kicks -except for jump kicks which I beleive were intended to knock soldiers off of horses to "level" the playing field so to speak. All the flashy 360's, 540's, etc. were added later. Secondly, I have found traditional TKD to be as "hard style" as Shotokan with its basic strikes, blocks, stances, kicks. etc. The training just as rigorous and repetitive. "Watered down" or "modernized" TKD is an attempt by some schools to cater to the demands of a society that wants more bang for the buck. HOWEVER, any technique, practiced correctly and repeatedly can be effective in the street regardless of the system it came from when used appropriately. I don't think you can single out any art (as a whole) as better or worse just because there are techniques taught that you wouldn't use in a street fight. Lastly, the goal of martial arts training is peaceful resolution of conflict not streetfighting. You should strive never to put yourself in the position of having to fight but if the situation arises, and you have trained correctly, you will use the appropriate technique-even if it is just to run away ! "A Black Belt is only the beginning."Heidi-A student of the artsTae Kwon Do,Shotokan,Ju Jitsu,Modern Arnishttp://the100info.tumblr.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martialartist1 Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 tae kwon do means the way of kicking fist. i suppose in initial years of tkd development all the kicks were simple jumping kicks, until later when koreans added the 540 kicks, spinning double kicks. e.t.c. tae kwon do can be effective and ineffective. e.g. ages ago i saw a video clip, of tkd guy and muay thai, muay thai totally dominated the fight. its the individual abilities for how good one can be in whatever style. so you can say tkd is better than muay thai, if one uses it more effectively and has had the correct training like only fighting muay thai fighers to get more experience and then eventually one practising TKD will eventually defeat muay thai style. all TKD needs is more modernisation in both combative side and self defense side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of Fighters Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 Not all tkd is bad. for instence, Itf (international tae kwon do federation) style tkd is terrible, and is only ment for sport. Wtf (world tae kwon do federation) style tkd is good for self defence and uses more hand techniques and low kicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBN Doug Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 ((I hope this doesn't get moved into the Korean Martial arts forum, I really think that the post will get the most out of it if we can get opinions on many other practitioners.)) I'll leave it here for now. However, it is because of the "bashing" TKD sometimes gets in this forum that those that practise TKD don't come in here often. And they're the ones you'll get the mst accurate answers from. Kuk Sool Won - 4th danEvil triumphs when good men do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle-san Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Not all tkd is bad. for instence, Itf (international tae kwon do federation) style tkd is terrible, and is only ment for sport. Wtf (world tae kwon do federation) style tkd is good for self defence and uses more hand techniques and low kicks. That's pretty funny considering WTF is the style used in the Olympics and (in my experience) has the least emphasis of effective defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyAZNRocker Posted May 12, 2003 Author Share Posted May 12, 2003 Thanks Doug for understanding, however I'm having faith that there won't be any biased remarks here, for and against Tae Kwon Do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bretty101 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Not all tkd is bad. for instence, Itf (international tae kwon do federation) style tkd is terrible, and is only ment for sport. Wtf (world tae kwon do federation) style tkd is good for self defence and uses more hand techniques and low kicks. That's pretty funny considering WTF is the style used in the Olympics and (in my experience) has the least emphasis of effective defence. I've done 2 years of WTF and 10 years of ITF, I'm with Kyle-san on that one. ITF isn't great, but there is a world of difference between 'traditional' (I use that word lightly, maybe 'old skool' TKD would be more appropriate) and the current forms of Mcdojo TKD which seems all too common. Modern TKD lacks all the disapline it used to have. I think the problem with TKD is it's trying too hard to get away from it's shotokan origins, and is evolving into a soft flowing art (ie fancy freeform kicks, sine-wave and flickiness). Too much soft stuff!!! Just my opinion. Bretty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of Fighters Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 i dont know, maybe I mixed the 2 up and it should be the other way around in my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenStar Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 TKD can be effective, it's all in how you train it. Same goes for all other styles. As for differences, traditional TKD resembles Japanese Karate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts