TKD:Art or Sport?
Kurt MacDonald
this subject, with NO WTF or ITF bashing.
Myself I'm undecided on the matter, both aspects are there depending on what
you want to get out of it, I just want to know is it more art than sport?
Kurt MacDonald
2nd Dan WTF
bambam
get out of it...and where you train.
I know of schools locally who train solely for competition - their fighters
are so fast and flexible - they put me to shame....
however, they are just that fighters - mostly arrogant, brash and with no
appreciation of any other aspect of taekwondo - they merely fight.
However at the other extreme I'm sure their are some very lovely people with
a deep feeling for the finer aspects of taekwondo - who run through their
patterns 50 times a day whilst meditating on the implicit meanings of their
moves...........who wouldn;tlast a moment if anyone where actually attack
them. I am very happy where I train, we seem to have a very nice balance -
we tend to be more 'traditional' than sport but not to the exclusion of the
sporting aspects....
like you said - it depends on what you want....
Thanks
BaM
Kurt MacDonald wrote in message
John Cantin
as an activity tkd is far to large to pigeon hole. there are far to many schools
out there doing so many different things.
ive come across very sport itf schools and very art wtf schools. if you're just
asking about "tkd" in general there is no correct answer
Kurt MacDonald wrote:
> Is TKD an art or a sport? I want to see some opinions from other people on
> this subject, with NO WTF or ITF bashing.
>
> Myself I'm undecided on the matter, both aspects are there depending on what
> you want to get out of it, I just want to know is it more art than sport?
>
> Kurt MacDonald
> 2nd Dan WTF
--
Mr. John Cantin
4th Dan Kyuki-Do, 2nd Dan Judo, 1st Dan JuiJitsu
Head Instructor AKFMAA of Crystal Lake
462 Virginia St. (rt. 14)
Crystal Lake, IL 60014
(815) 455-3888
JK
<kurt...@cancom.net> wrote:
>Is TKD an art or a sport? I want to see some opinions from other people on
>this subject,
* * *
Kurt, no one can satisfactorily answer this question until you clarify the
definitions of "art" and "sport." And even then, the two conditions may not
be mutually exclusive.
My definition of "sport" is a physically demanding activity in which two or
more parties compete against each other, or try to improve upon objective
measurements of their performance. By this definition, I would say yes --
tdk is a sport.
On the other hand, my definition of "art" is a human expression of the
memory of a fleeting inspiration thru media which appeals mainly to the
visual or auditory senses. Since this is a pretty weak definition, you could
probably argue that yes -- tkd is an art; and people would listen.
Using my definitions (i.e., in my opinion), I'd have to say tkd is more of a
sport than an art. On the other hand, I think figure skating is more of an
art than sport.
- JK
Tjworley
sport than an art. On the other hand, I think figure skating is more of an
art than sport.
That is a very interesting comment. Thinking about it for a moment, doesn't an
ice skater perform a "form"? The only difference is that our forms are
designed with the "martial" aspect whereas theirs are strictly art.
Richard Lewis
I'm fairly new to TKD and after my Son and I joined a Traditional School I
started to do some research, out of curiosity, to learn more about TKD in
general. I've read a fair amount in book's and mag's, looked at a lot of web
sites, and discussed TKD with several people who have studied both ITF and
WTF. In my opinion, from the outside looking in, ITF seems to be more
focused on the "art" and WTF seems to be more focused on the "sport". Now
these are generalizations and I'm sure this is not true for every school but
in general it is what I've found thus far. Without trying to sound
derogatory, it does appear that WTF is far more interested in the Olympics
(a sport) whereas most ITFer's just assume stay away from that aspect of it
all. I enjoy a good spare like any one but I'd just assume continue with TKD
for myself and not to try and prove how much better I am than the next guy.
Richard Lewis
7th Kup ITF TKD
Kurt MacDonald
both, and there is that art side to both. Now my question is what comes
first art before sport or vice versa?
You can't make the generalization that WTF's and ITF's teachings are all
that different from each other. I think what has made WTF TKD been seen as
more of a sport is the Olymics and other WTF competitions. As martial
artists we should be able to make that distintion that that is only one
small aspect to the art. I've always said that the the public measures how
good a club is by the quality of black belts they have, because they see a
black belt as the final step and not the beggining of their learning. The
public notices the sparring first, and they make the assumption that a good
club is a club that trained this national champion, but the club just does
sparring. I went to this one tourament and there was this guy fighting in
the blackbelt ring and he was doing TKD for 2 weeks and he was applying for
a WTF black belt, his club practiced a variety of forms, but they don't
spend the time to master one. As I said earlier we as martial artists, and
I emphasize Martial artist, not just a person who just goes to fight, that
we should make that distinction between art and sport eaiser.
Kurt MacDonald
2nd Dan WTF
John Cantin <akf...@mc.net> wrote in message
news:37685D7A...@mc.net...
> both? neither? depends upon your instructor's method.
>
> as an activity tkd is far to large to pigeon hole. there are far to many
schools
> out there doing so many different things.
>
> ive come across very sport itf schools and very art wtf schools. if
you're just
> asking about "tkd" in general there is no correct answer
>
> Kurt MacDonald wrote:
>
> > Is TKD an art or a sport? I want to see some opinions from other people
on
Richard Lewis
How many people joined TKD for the art and how many joined it for the sport?
Martin Arrowsmith wrote in message ...
>
>Kurt MacDonald <kurt...@cancom.net> wrote in message
>news:%1T93.396$Mq1....@monger.newsread.com...
John Cantin
i was 13 when i started, and MA comic books were pretty popular then. when a
school opened in town i was one of the first students. the school was itf but
very sport oriented (i dont think there was a wtf then). i always felt there
was something lacking in the school but never knew what. after graduating from
HS i went off to college and tried shotokan for a year. this i felt was what i
wanted. but i transferred colleges and eventually found kyuki-do (which is what
i now teach) it combines itf style tkd, judo, hapkido, and weapons. its not a
traditional art per se, but taught in traditional ways (ART no SPORT)
one of the other instructors wrote a nice piece on art vs sport
http://www.akfmaa.com/contents.htm it can be found under the philosophy section
Richard Lewis wrote:
--
FightnFish
>How many people joined TKD for the art and how many joined it for the sport?
That's easy! :) Art! Art! Art!
(It's my primary reason, and remains so over the years.)
/ | \\\\\___ o O o
| X(((((( }>( ' 3
\_| /////// //\\
http://members.aol.com/fightnfish/bettasplendens.html (Sorry, spamblocks
installed!)
John Cantin
> and combinations in the forms, is if you're able to visualize the opponent's actions
> clearly when you're walking the form, which is why the teaching of application
> of the form (Bunkai) is so important.
i love choreographing forms. bunkai is a japanese term, does any one know a korean term for the
same? how bout san shin? is there a korean term?
Martin Arrowsmith
Kurt MacDonald <kurt...@cancom.net> wrote in message
news:%1T93.396$Mq1....@monger.newsread.com...
> Is TKD an art or a sport? I want to see some opinions from other people on
> this subject, with NO WTF or ITF bashing.
>
> Myself I'm undecided on the matter, both aspects are there depending on
what
> you want to get out of it, I just want to know is it more art than sport?
>
> Kurt MacDonald
> 2nd Dan WTF
>
>
Having started TKD seven months ago, I feel that it is more of an art to it
if you are serious about it. Some get their black belt and go. Others see it
as a beggining to something a lot more satisfying.
Peter C. Everett
: >How many people joined TKD for the art and how many joined it for the sport?
: That's easy! :) Art! Art! Art!
You sound more like a seal than a fish. ;-)
Enjoy,
Peter C. Everett
Alex
John Cantin heeft geschreven in bericht <376FE336...@mc.net>...
>to long age to remember!
>
>i was 13 when i started, and MA comic books were pretty popular then. when a
>school opened in town i was one of the first students. the school was itf but
>very sport oriented (i dont think there was a wtf then). i always felt there
>was something lacking in the school but never knew what.
So did I.
>after graduating from
>HS i went off to college and tried shotokan for a year. this i felt was what i
>wanted. but i transferred colleges and eventually found kyuki-do (which is what
>i now teach) it combines itf style tkd, judo, hapkido, and weapons. its not a
>traditional art per se, but taught in traditional ways (ART no SPORT)
My thing is that I went to train martial arts because I wanted to be able to defend myself.
The thing is, I never got the feeling that I could do it when I was training TKD.
Only after I started studying Tai Chi, did I become "rooted" (for lack of a better
word) enough to have real strength in my techniques (and this is _after_ also
doing weight training for a time).
Nowadays, after some basic Tai Chi training, I feel I _can_ defend myself with
Taekwondo (and if push comes to shove, I probably will, because it has been
so engrained in my psyche).
But for me, it all had to do with proper body mechanics, which are sadly lacking
in most Taekwondo (and even in most black belts turned out in the West).
To me, TKD has the potential to be a great martial art, but there are most
definitely things that have to be added to it, like stance training, internal strength
training (which is taught in Hapkido, by the way), pressure points (like Chinna)
and application of the forms should be taught foremost, along with the forms
themselves.
The way I see it, the only way you're even remotely going to use the techniques
and combinations in the forms, is if you're able to visualize the opponent's actions
clearly when you're walking the form, which is why the teaching of application
of the form (Bunkai) is so important.
Also, if you're taught these combinations against a real opponent, you can filter
out the applications which don't work for you, because of height, weight, etc.
The way I see it, is that rather than expanding Taekwondo in width (i.e., adding
techniques or weapons to it), it should be expanded in depth (i.e., the forms
should be explored for applications and pressure points, and internal training
[which is vaguely there if you read books by Richard Chun, Hee Il Cho and
Pu Gil Gwon, is there] should be taught explicitly.
That's my opinion of how TKD should progress.
Constructive comments, anyone?
Alex
Ez040198
Funny how you mention it should progress, but more traditional schools already
have those aspects and it is the sport schools who mainly lack these
attributes. I began with a very traditional Moo Duk Kwan system complete with
kicks, punches, throws, locks and grappling. After I moved, I started wtf tkd
cause i wanted to take a sport. But even in some sport schools, the aspects
remain cause the instructor teaches these aspects. It usually isn't tkd that
is lacking but the instructor.
EZ
Andy Jeffries
forms
> >themselves.
Just to put forward the modern sport side of the argument...why bother with
forms? I would say that the forms use traditional long movement basics and
these would never (if you have any sense) be used in self-defence. Can you
honestly say you would drop in to a sitting stance (joochoom seogi) and
start middle punching if you got in a fight?!
Most schools in Korea do not practice forms as an everyday thing. There is
no need, the Taekwondoin out there spend most of their time sparring and
training for sparring. This gets people much more used to the pressures
involved with fighting than practicing forms.
> >Also, if you're taught these combinations against a real opponent, you
can
> >filter
Or even better, if you're taught more modern techniques and practice these
against a real opponent (instead of doing ancient techinques in the air)
then these will work much better. Modern (WTF) Taekwondo has become so
much more fluid and effective over the past 10 years than it changed in the
first 30.
Just the opinion of a modern sport man....
--
Andy Jeffries 3rd Dan Kukkiwon
Stevenage Taekwondo Team Coach
JK
When some of you use the word "art," I have no idea what you're talking
about. For me, "art" means Michaelangelo's David or Beethoven's 9th or a
Greek tragedy or even a Jackson Pollock. But I definitely did not start
studying martial arts looking for any of these things!
For me, the phrase "martial arts" is just a loose translation of "budo,"
i.e., systems of techniques used in warfare. I don't think a "martial
artist" is a creator any more than a "con artist" or an "escape artsit" or a
"hunger artist" is; it's just a term for someone well-versed in fighting
methods (including philosophy to guide dedicated training and responsible
action). The fact that watching crisp martial-arts techniques can impart
aesthetic pleasure is coincidental, much as watching a gazelle in motion can
impart aesthetic pleasure without zoology being an art.
So would someone here care to define the word "art" as it's being used in
this thread? (and please don't give me any of that "the way," "the Tao,"
"the absolute and undefinable" mumbo-jumbo) Otherwise, I will suspect that
this word is being used as a catch-all for miscellaneous vague concepts.
Questioning not trolling,
- JK
p.s. I think Oscar Wilde gave an excellent defining criterion for art when
he wrote, "All art is quite useless." But it would be a very sorry martial
art indeed whose techniques were quite useless!
* * *
In article <uAH7CONv#GA.362@cpmsnbbsa03>, "Richard Lewis"
<richp...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>I'd like to change the question a bit and start a new thread here.
>
Peter C. Everett
: I think I'm missing something here...
: When some of you use the word "art," I have no idea what you're talking
: about. For me, "art" means Michaelangelo's David or Beethoven's 9th or a
: Greek tragedy or even a Jackson Pollock. But I definitely did not start
: studying martial arts looking for any of these things!
: ...
I think an artist is a person whose product is primarily self-expression.
Self-expression can be writing, painting, movement, or sound. This
distinguishes an artist from an assembly line worker, where the product
is primarily whatever is being assembled. Such a worker may put
considerable art into his process of assembly, but the finished product
is not, primarily, art.
By thinking of art in terms of self-expression one can see that athletes
are artists working in the medium of human movement. The same can be said
for taekwondoists.
Some artists have always been uncomfortable with competition, such as
that in a sporting event. The surfing community has a term for surfers
who surf for the love of the experience and the self-expression, and
who feel that competition and the submision of their work for judgement
by others diminishes that experience: "Soul-surfers."
Taekwondo has "soul-taekwondoists" too. They might imagine Olympic
TKD to be like putting Degas and Cezanne in front of the same blank
canvas and telling them to paint for two minutes. The winner is the
one who most resembles the final picture. The soul-taekwondoist is
only interested in competition with himself, striving for improvement,
trying to do better than yesterday. Sparring is simply a laboratory
where ideas can be tested, kinks can be worked out. A "conversation"
can be had.
But competition can also create great art. Who would hesitate to call
what Michael Jordan does art, born from the heat of competition. The
same can also be said of TKD. It is a different style of art from
that of the non-sporting taekwondoists. It must conform to the rules
of the game, just we must all conform to the limits of our bodies
(even while expanding those limits). Art has always involved the
interplay between self-expression and the limits of the medium.
Enjoy,
Peter C. Everett
Paul M Davis
lacking
in most Taekwondo (and even in most black belts turned out in the West).
To me, TKD has the potential to be a great martial art, but there are most
definitely things that have to be added to it, like stance training,
internal strength
training (which is taught in Hapkido, by the way), pressure points (like
Chinna)
and application of the forms should be taught foremost, along with the forms
themselves.<<<
I guess that it all depends upon where you study, and who you study with.
I like to think that we cover all of those things.
John Cantin
> involved with fighting
correction, it gets them used to (tournament) sparring, not necessarily
"fighting" (self defense)
note that i wont claim that forms do it better.
John Cantin
JK wrote:
> So would someone here care to define the word "art" as it's being used in
> this thread? (and please don't give me any of that "the way," "the Tao,"
> "the absolute and undefinable" mumbo-jumbo) Otherwise, I will suspect that
> this word is being used as a catch-all for miscellaneous vague concepts.
>
> Questioning not trolling,
> - JK
>
> p.s. I think Oscar Wilde gave an excellent defining criterion for art when
> he wrote, "All art is quite useless." But it would be a very sorry martial
> art indeed whose techniques were quite useless!
>
>
cliped from our student guide book. replace "kyuki-do" with the "art" of your
choice.
The “Art” of Kyuki-Do
To a new student, this constant referral to Kyuki-Do as an Art may be
confusing. Since each individual has their own reason to start training in the
Martial Arts, some may not see the "Art" as soon as others. Although Kyuki-Do
includes many techniques of fighting that can maim or even kill, it is not to be
viewed as a destructive weapon or as a way to demonstrate hatred, jealousy,
pride or arrogance. There is a beauty to the Martial Arts that can only be
developed and appreciated through practice. The Martial Arts can help show the
great potential of the human body.
Many people do not understand the significance of referring to Kyuki-Do as an
Art. For these people this lack of understanding means that they will see the
Martial Arts as only a technique of self-defense or fighting. There is a
definite difference between the “technique” of fighting and the “Art” of
fighting.
Technique means the actual physical application of the kicks, punches, throws,
etc. Many people learn just the technique, and are merely concerned with
defeating their opponent. To these people, the Marital Arts become a violent,
destructive thing, used to conquer or force their opponents into submission.
They do not concern themselves with the constructive side of the Martial Arts.
The side that can improve their own lives and help society. The Martial Arts
applied to your daily life can help maintain the order of society. It can
encourage good deeds, and help the individual's health by daily exercise.
Art can be defined as a beautiful arrangement of materials or movements. Beauty
can be experienced in the Martial Arts through observation of the techniques.
Simple kicks such as a side kick when performed by a skilled individual can be
beautiful. When a student first learns a new form, it may take months before
they can make the form look beautiful. Watch the same form demonstrated by an
instructor or an upper rank that has practiced that form hundreds or even
thousands of times. The movements are controlled and coordinated while at the
same time strong and vigorous. There is some irony in the smooth grace of the
movements which at the same time contain incredible destructive power.
Remember also that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” There are many
different instructors in the AKF and each one has minor differences in the way
they want a particular technique to be performed. From this, each student has
in their mind what they consider to be the “Correct” way to perform a
technique. But the truth is that there are many different ways to perform any
technique. It is unfair to consider one way right and all the others wrong.
Your way may be beautiful to you, but someone else might not agree. Neither of
you are correct, neither of you are wrong. You are simply different from one
another.
In order to create a work of art, an artist needs to have a thorough knowledge
of his medium whether it's paint, sculpture, poetry or music. A sculptor must
understand the simple basics of how to chip stone. The painter must understand
how to use different brushes to create different textures. In the same way,
before a student of Kyuki-Do can be considered an artist, much technique must be
mastered. This is not a simple process. Much time and sweat is required to
gain control of the tools of our Art.
Occasionally you will hear of a person that is, or claims to be, an “expert” in
Karate or Tae Kwon Do or Judo or some other Martial Art. Often they are only an
expert at the techniques, not the Art. A true Martial Arts expert knows more
than just technique. They should be aware of the true significance and
philosophy of the Art they practice. Unfortunately in today's world not many
people know it, have been taught it, or even care about it.
John Cantin
> i.e., systems of techniques used in warfare.
no, i'd call that the "martial way." the difference is a matter of goals. to
kill/survive in a life or death situation vs self improvement.
> I don't think a "martial
> artist" is a creator any more than a "con artist" or an "escape artsit" or a
> "hunger artist" is; it's just a term for someone well-versed in fighting
> methods (including philosophy to guide dedicated training and responsible
> action). The fact that watching crisp martial-arts techniques can impart
> aesthetic pleasure is coincidental, much as watching a gazelle in motion can
> impart aesthetic pleasure without zoology being an art.
>
sorry, id have to disagree again. you mentioned art as beethoven, or
michelangelo (sp?). but do you think that ancient Egyptians would have been
impressed? or the music of Beethoven vs the music of the far east? very
different stuff. if you readily appreciate (are brought up on one) chances are
you wont care for the other. so art is very much in the eye of the beholder. a
pic of that gazelle running could certinly be art (if you accept photography as
art). as such, any person that presents something that can be termed art, is an
artist.
bambam
JK <73651...@compuserve.com> wrote in message ...
>I think I'm missing something here...
>
here?
it doesn't have to just mean the things you mention...it can be the
application of skill too....
a sorcerer who practices magic arts - doesn't mean he paints pictures using
magic does it...
the art of brewing - doesn't mean they use hops and yeast to paint with...
by the same token you could say that as we aren't all preparing for war and
using our techniques for military ends - we shouldn't call it martial
either...
cheers
BaM
Alex
Paul M Davis heeft geschreven in bericht <7kqvmh$4lj$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Okay, how do you train internal strength/Ki, for instance?
Alex
Alex
Andy Jeffries heeft geschreven in bericht <3770a...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>...
>> >and application of the forms should be taught foremost, along with the
>forms
>> >themselves.
>
>forms? I would say that the forms use traditional long movement basics and
>these would never (if you have any sense) be used in self-defence. Can you
>honestly say you would drop in to a sitting stance (joochoom seogi) and
>start middle punching if you got in a fight?!
>
>Most schools in Korea do not practice forms as an everyday thing. There is
>no need, the Taekwondoin out there spend most of their time sparring and
>training for sparring. This gets people much more used to the pressures
>involved with fighting than practicing forms.
>
>> >Also, if you're taught these combinations against a real opponent, you
>can
>> >filter
>
>Or even better, if you're taught more modern techniques and practice these
>against a real opponent (instead of doing ancient techinques in the air)
>then these will work much better. Modern (WTF) Taekwondo has become so
>much more fluid and effective over the past 10 years than it changed in the
>first 30.
>
>Just the opinion of a modern sport man....
Ok, and I have no problem with that at all (i.e., the sport aspect of it). It
may very well pull more people into the sport, and after all, TKD is possibly
the most widely practised martial art in the world.
However, once, you want to get past the sport element, there should be
something more there.
You should be able to practice the rich combinations of techniques
(like sweeps, throws, as well as punches and kicks, _and especially
the combination of those_) for self-defense.
And be able to progress internal (Ki) strength training, without the filial piety/
confusianism thing instead.
To show the way that Ki is latently present in Taekwondo, in TKD, like
the northern Chinese martial arts, the repetitive bringing back of the
punching hand to the side is just another way to gather strength/chi
in the Dan Tien.
Another example: the shout in TKD is usually either Kiai or Kihap.
Now, Kiai is just the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese word
Qihai. Qihai means "Sea Of Chi", and is used to refer to the the
("Lower") Dan Tien or the Hara area.
In other words, you're supposed to gather Chi in Dan Tien and
then expand it to create more force for your technique.
Lastly, I would like to add that a lot of TKD people I know turn to
Tai Chi later on. I think that that should be unnecessary if
internal training is added to TKD.
My opinion,
Alex
storys
Andy Jeffries wrote in message <3770a...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>...
>forms? I would say that the forms use traditional long movement basics and
>these would never (if you have any sense) be used in self-defence. Can you
>honestly say you would drop in to a sitting stance (joochoom seogi) and
>start middle punching if you got in a fight?!
>
Not the point of the exercise in the first place. The sitting stance builds
the thigh muscles and the punching gives you something else to think about
and trains you to punch properly even when you are most uncomfortable.
........Tom.........
John Cantin
> Tai Chi later on. I think that that should be unnecessary if
> internal training is added to TKD.
>
???i've been practicing for 20 years now, don't, know any tai chi practitioners, let
alone ex-tkd folk
Alex
Ez040198 heeft geschreven in bericht <19990623031537...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
>>The way I see it, is that rather than expanding Taekwondo in width (i.e.,
>>adding
>>techniques or weapons to it), it should be expanded in depth (i.e., the forms
>>should be explored for applications and pressure points, and internal
>>training
>>[which is vaguely there if you read books by Richard Chun, Hee Il Cho and
>>Pu Gil Gwon, is there] should be taught explicitly.
>>
>>That's my opinion of how TKD should progress.
>>
>>Constructive comments, anyone?
>>
>>Alex
>
>Funny how you mention it should progress, but more traditional schools already
>have those aspects and it is the sport schools who mainly lack these
>attributes. I began with a very traditional Moo Duk Kwan system complete with
>kicks, punches, throws, locks and grappling.
By the way, I trained under two systems, WTF first (heavy emphasis on sparring)
and later ITF (Oh Do Kwan, more rounded attitude to the Hyungs, but still no
explicit teaching of application of the forms).
However, did Moo Duk Kwan teach the application of the forms?
>After I moved, I started wtf tkd
>cause i wanted to take a sport. But even in some sport schools, the aspects
>remain cause the instructor teaches these aspects. It usually isn't tkd that
>is lacking but the instructor.
I could see how that could happen. However, that doesn't explain the absence
of application of the forms (Bunkai) from such standard works of TKD such as
General Choi Hong Hi's "Taekwondo" or Richard Chun's book of the same name.
I haven't read General Choi's encyclopaedia called "The Taekwon-Do Encyclopedia"
(I haven't had $300 to spare yet) but I would be surprised if it was discussed there -
perhaps anyone has read it and knows?
Alex
FightnFish
>So would someone here care to define the word "art" as it's being used in
>this thread? (
As I recalled it, my master cited tkd as an art compared to a science via
a)
in a science, you find the answer, but in an art, you keep striving towards
perfection, which is like infinity-- you never exactly arrive 'there' but can
always be better, etc.
b) progress happens in unexpected spurts and lulls and jumps-- not via a
steady progression of stages in problem-solving, but suddenly one day technique
x works, etc.
The way *I* used 'Art' in this thread, though, referred to the same feeling you
mentioned when beholding a great painting or musical composition. There are
those people and particular moves that make this entirely possible.
Ez040198
>sparring)
>and later ITF (Oh Do Kwan, more rounded attitude to the Hyungs, but still no
>explicit teaching of application of the forms).
>
>However, did Moo Duk Kwan teach the application of the forms?
>
>
>>After I moved, I started wtf tkd
>>cause i wanted to take a sport. But even in some sport schools, the aspects
>>remain cause the instructor teaches these aspects. It usually isn't tkd
>that
>>is lacking but the instructor.
>
>
>I could see how that could happen. However, that doesn't explain the absence
>of application of the forms (Bunkai) from such standard works of TKD such as
>General Choi Hong Hi's "Taekwondo" or Richard Chun's book of the same name.
>I haven't read General Choi's encyclopaedia called "The Taekwon-Do
>Encyclopedia"
>(I haven't had $300 to spare yet) but I would be surprised if it was
>discussed there -
>perhaps anyone has read it and knows?
>
>Alex
In our Moo Duk Kwan system, application of the forms was taught. In fact, we
had three step sparring methods where they directly reflected movement in forms
and explanations on how they work. All of the forms we practiced was supposed
to be reflected in our sparring (where grabs, takedowns, punches, kicks were
allowed). Later, in the WTF style i learned, all we did was spar, spar, spar.
I still haven't fully learned the taeguk forms yet because forms are such a
low priority in class. Oh well, you ask for a sport....
MGP
> Not the point of the exercise in the first place. The sitting stance
builds
> the thigh muscles and the punching gives you something else to think
about
> and trains you to punch properly even when you are most uncomfortable.
>
> ........Tom.........
>
>
I don't know much about muscle building, but I was under the impression you
would not _build_ muscles by using your own body weight, you could only
tone.
Surely to build your thighs in a sitting stance you'd have to do it with
weights on your shoulders.
Besides, where I train (and I don't know if this is a general ITF
definition) but a pattern is a "series of movement, offensive and defensive
.. set against imaginary opponents."
In that case there would be no situation where, when faced with attackers
you would start to build your thigh muscles!!
MGP
Andy Jeffries
> (like sweeps, throws, as well as punches and kicks, _and especially
> the combination of those_) for self-defense.
I agree, but practising these on your own in a form doesn't prepare you to
use them against an opponent who doesn't do one attack then wait for you to
finish your move.
> To show the way that Ki is latently present in Taekwondo, in TKD, like
> the northern Chinese martial arts, the repetitive bringing back of the
> punching hand to the side is just another way to gather strength/chi
> in the Dan Tien.
Errr - I disagree. In order to be able to perform multiple punches you have
to get the hand in a ready position. You can't punch and leave them your
arms extended. In a horse-riding/sitting stance the hip/side of chest is a
logical place for the hand to go.
Just because another martial art (tai chi or chi kung or ...) does something
for a certain reason, it doesn't mean that every martial art does it for
that reason.
> Another example: the shout in TKD is usually either Kiai or Kihap.
Errr again, can I just clarify that the word for shout in Korean is Kihap.
> Now, Kiai is just the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese word
> Qihai. Qihai means "Sea Of Chi", and is used to refer to the the
> ("Lower") Dan Tien or the Hara area.
I understood (and my Korean dictionary is crap) that Kihap just means to
"project your spirit". Now whether Ki is taken to mean spirit or internal
energy is another discussion (and not being Korean - I am not qualified to
answer).
> Lastly, I would like to add that a lot of TKD people I know turn to
> Tai Chi later on. I think that that should be unnecessary if
> internal training is added to TKD.
So you believe in a martial art for all purposes? Do you want to add
weapons?? Grappling?? Acrobatics??
Taekwondo is not a catch all for every type of Martial Art technique you can
think of.
> My opinion,
And very welcome. Thanks for the response and I look forward to your next
one! :-)
Take it easy,
Andy Jeffries
> "fighting" (self defense)
Good point - and I agree with you to some extent. It does prepare you for
the pressures of someone attacking you though, so it does *help* prepare
someone for street fights/self-defence.
> note that i wont claim that forms do it better.
:-)
--
Andy Jeffries
Winston T. Stableford
in world on a pound for pound basis are gymnasts
who do a lot of training using just their own body
weight. Just one example that I've seen -- go
into a push-up position. Now, without bending your
body, go to a full handstand position. I suggest
that there are no weight machines that could mimic
the complexity of this motion even if you wished
to employ them. Similarly some of the held
positions on the still rings, such as the Iron
Cross and inverted Iron Cross are trained with
'just' body weight. This is not to say that
gymnasts don't do supplementary weight training
but a lot of their training for strength is just
using body weight.
WTS
storys
MGP wrote in message <01bebe10$ec34f3c0$87c8...@elm.parkhr.com>...
>
>I don't know much about muscle building, but I was under the impression you
>would not _build_ muscles by using your own body weight, you could only
>tone.
>
Not so at all. With weights you can speed up the process and build bigger
faster but if you do it without weights you will build endurance faster and
your muscles will get the strength without an overabundance of size. I used
to weight train a bunch. Since I gave it up and took up martial arts I find
my flexibility improving. My size decreasing but overall strength is up. I
can also do things much longer. I could squat well over 400# at one time but
just a few reps was it and if I tried a horse stance back then a few seconds
would have been it.
>Surely to build your thighs in a sitting stance you'd have to do it with
>weights on your shoulders.
>
Try going into a full shikodachi ( low horse stance ) when the commercials
come on some night when you are watching T.V. Stay at the same level till
the program comes back on. When you dop this tell me that you don't think
your thighs got a workout!
>Besides, where I train (and I don't know if this is a general ITF
>definition) but a pattern is a "series of movement, offensive and defensive
>.. set against imaginary opponents."
Not what we were discussing! Yes that's what a pattern or poomse is. The
rest of the karate world call it a kata.
>In that case there would be no situation where, when faced with attackers
>you would start to build your thigh muscles!!
>
Your legs are your foundation. Remove this foundation and you can do
nothing! Try to do a roundhouse kick without using your quads. Imagine the
snap you could generate with really strong quads.
.........Tom.........
MGP
storys <sto...@execulink.com> wrote in article
>
> >Besides, where I train (and I don't know if this is a general ITF
> >definition) but a pattern is a "series of movement, offensive and
defensive
> >.. set against imaginary opponents."
>
> Not what we were discussing! Yes that's what a pattern or poomse is. The
> rest of the karate world call it a kata.
um.. that is what we were talking about.
Andy J said :
"why bother with forms? I would say that the forms use traditional long
movement basics and these would never (if you have any sense) be used in
self-defence. Can you honestly say you would drop in to a sitting stance
(joochoom seogi) and start middle punching if you got in a fight?!"
earlier on in this thread.
I assume he's talking about the start of Yul Gok (of course if I'm wrong,
Andy, my whole point dissolves!!) which is in a sitting stance.
If patterns are a reflection of real-life situations his point was that you
would not use this move.
You said that the point of sitting stance is to build muscles, so I said
out that in a fight you would not want to build muscles, but _use_ them.
Maybe I should be less vague :-)
Of course I agree with you that low sitting stance during ad breaks will
build strength in your legs (there have been many mornings I've found it
difficult to use stairs!)
MGP
JK
Thank you for the responses to my query re: the definition of "art," as used
by martial artists. Your posts were a pleasure to read, as I think many
others in this NG will agree. I still don't quite agree that martial arts
should be held on the same level with painting, sculpture, and music; but at
least now I'm much more sympathetic to your point-of-view.
The passage which I found particularly persuasive was FightnFish's reference
to "striving towards perfection, which is like infinity." I believe this
motivating force is very similar to the passion which drives creative
artists. If so, then who has the heart to say artists need be judged by
their product, and not the sincerity of their intent? (Not me.)
At the same time, I think we martial artists should be aware that in the
larger community, the term "art" has a somewhat narrower meaning. And
ultimately, the purpose of language is for people to accurately communicate
their ideas.
Respectfully,
- JK
p.s. FightnFish, I like your signature! What's it's meant to be -- a samurai
character from kabuki?
storys
MGP wrote in message <01bebee1$c83e55c0$87c8...@elm.parkhr.com>...
>
>
>storys <sto...@execulink.com> wrote in article
>>
>> >Besides, where I train (and I don't know if this is a general ITF
>> >definition) but a pattern is a "series of movement, offensive and
>defensive
>> >.. set against imaginary opponents."
>>
>> Not what we were discussing! Yes that's what a pattern or poomse is. The
>> rest of the karate world call it a kata.
>
>um.. that is what we were talking about.
No we were talking about the value of horse stance in particular which is
the point I addressed. Focus !
As far as fighting is horse stance; no you won't see that today but you did
back when these forms were invented ( for lack of a better term ) Strength
in your legs is very important. Sitting in horse stance is one way to
achieve this. There are other ways but this is at least easily done and the
equipment costs aren't ruinous. B-}
>
>Andy J said :
>"why bother with forms? I would say that the forms use traditional long
>movement basics and these would never (if you have any sense) be used in
>self-defence. Can you honestly say you would drop in to a sitting stance
>(joochoom seogi) and start middle punching if you got in a fight?!"
>earlier on in this thread.
>
To reply to this I'd say yes it is valid. Work till you get fast and facile
from this stance then when you need to be fast on the street you will be
blinding as you will not do the technique from horse but rather from a much
more convenient and reasonable position.
>
>If patterns are a reflection of real-life situations his point was that you
>would not use this move.
I don't think they are necessarily reflections of real life so much as
training situations coreographed in such a way as to lend themselves readily
to practice.
>You said that the point of sitting stance is to build muscles, so I said
>out that in a fight you would not want to build muscles, but _use_ them.
>
Can't use'm if you don't got'm??
>Of course I agree with you that low sitting stance during ad breaks will
>build strength in your legs (there have been many mornings I've found it
>difficult to use stairs!)
>
Next step according to my sensei is to watch the programs in horse stance &
the commercials are for resting!
..........Tom.......
Pieter Vroom
weights on your shoulders.
I do not know about you, but when I stay in a wide/deep sitting stance long
enough I sure feel it, which would seem to indicate that the muscles are
being stressed and therefore trained.
Alex
Andy Jeffries heeft geschreven in bericht <3771e...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>...
>> You should be able to practice the rich combinations of techniques
>> (like sweeps, throws, as well as punches and kicks, _and especially
>> the combination of those_) for self-defense.
>
>I agree, but practising these on your own in a form doesn't prepare you to
>use them against an opponent who doesn't do one attack then wait for you to
>finish your move.
But it's better than nothing. You're often told to "visualize your opponent".
Well, how are you supposed to do that in a meaningful way, if you don't
know the opponent's technique?
Once you know the application, _then_ you can go and test out if it works,
of course.
>> To show the way that Ki is latently present in Taekwondo, in TKD, like
>> the northern Chinese martial arts, the repetitive bringing back of the
>> punching hand to the side is just another way to gather strength/chi
>> in the Dan Tien.
>
>Errr - I disagree. In order to be able to perform multiple punches you have
>to get the hand in a ready position.
There are many places to withdraw your fist to - center of the chest (Wing Chun),
slightly off the center (Pak Mei Pai). What these martial arts have in common is
that they depend on rapid, multiple punches.
Taekwondo (and Northern Chinese Chang Chuan) depend on a single, hard strike
(most northern Chinese styles move that way).
>Just because another martial art (tai chi or chi kung or ...) does something
>for a certain reason, it doesn't mean that every martial art does it for
>that reason.
But it makes a lot more sense than doing that in a real fight.
>> Another example: the shout in TKD is usually either Kiai or Kihap.
>
>Errr again, can I just clarify that the word for shout in Korean is Kihap.
>
>> Now, Kiai is just the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese word
>> Qihai. Qihai means "Sea Of Chi", and is used to refer to the the
>> ("Lower") Dan Tien or the Hara area.
>
>I understood (and my Korean dictionary is crap) that Kihap just means to
>"project your spirit". Now whether Ki is taken to mean spirit or internal
>energy is another discussion (and not being Korean - I am not qualified to
>answer).
>
>> Lastly, I would like to add that a lot of TKD people I know turn to
>> Tai Chi later on. I think that that should be unnecessary if
>> internal training is added to TKD.
>
>So you believe in a martial art for all purposes? Do you want to add
>weapons?? Grappling?? Acrobatics??
Yup. :-)
Well, not _add_ to it, as such. There is "self-defense" in TKD, including
defenses against stick/pole attacks.
There are martial arts like that, though. Choy Li Fut, for instance.
In fact, most Chinese martial arts have unarmed forms, weapons forms,
internal training, pressure points. (They don't all want to teach them
or teach close to where you live, but that's another issue.)
>Taekwondo is not a catch all for every type of Martial Art technique you can
>think of.
But I think it could be more rounded and as such have more to offer as one
moves on in life (not that I'm that old, but I just don't see myself jumping over
obstacles when I'm 50, that's all).
My ideal vision of TKD would be a martial art where you learn the Hyungs,
with their application, their pressure points, are taught ki training
from the beginning, as well as some basic weapons (stick, knife). And then
sparring/free fight for people who are interested in that.
Basically, that would be a rounded martial art. Mind you, most of those elements
are there already (sparring, self-defense, forms). Like I said, I would like to see
TKD deepen, not widen, as is happening with a lot of people who ad their own
stuff to it, like boxing and kick-boxing techniques.
I would like to see a deeper exploration of what is already there.
(I'm going into "fantasy football league" mode now... :-) )
For instance, there is some interesting stuff going on in modern wushu, called
"San Sou", which is basically free fighting with protective equipment. Same thing
with "Bogu" karate, where they have full face guards so you can use full power
punches to the head.
But what would be really interesting, would be to see the forms come to life
with full combat effectiveness. The way I think to do that is
a) know the applications
b) practice them at slow speed against actual opponents
c) practice them at faster speeds, until you're approaching actual sparring/kumite
Just my thoughts on this Saturday morning,
Cheers,
Alex
Alex
Ez040198 heeft geschreven in bericht <19990624020646...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>>I could see how that could happen. However, that doesn't explain the absence
>>of application of the forms (Bunkai) from such standard works of TKD such as
>>General Choi Hong Hi's "Taekwondo" or Richard Chun's book of the same name.
>>I haven't read General Choi's encyclopaedia called "The Taekwon-Do
>>Encyclopedia"
>>(I haven't had $300 to spare yet) but I would be surprised if it was
>>discussed there -
>>perhaps anyone has read it and knows?
>>
>>Alex
>
>In our Moo Duk Kwan system, application of the forms was taught. In fact, we
>had three step sparring methods where they directly reflected movement in forms
>and explanations on how they work.
That's interesting.
I never connected the 1-2-3 step sparring with anything in the forms, when I was
studying ITF Taekwondo. In the ITF, they don't seem connected to any
combinations from the forms.
>All of the forms we practiced was supposed
>to be reflected in our sparring (where grabs, takedowns, punches, kicks were
>allowed). Later, in the WTF style i learned, all we did was spar, spar, spar.
>I still haven't fully learned the taeguk forms yet because forms are such a
>low priority in class. Oh well, you ask for a sport....
Interesting comments...
Cheers,
Alex
John Cantin
> are there already (sparring, self-defense, forms). Like I said, I would like to see
> TKD deepen, not widen, as is happening with a lot of people who ad their own
> stuff to it, like boxing and kick-boxing techniques.
> I would like to see a deeper exploration of what is already there.
i have trouble seeing the difference between deep and wide as you are using it. you
mention doing some weapons training, and ki for example, but these are things that are
really not included in "standard" tkd (other than by some perhaps "renegade"
instructors). so adding techniques is widening (by your own definition i think)
John Cantin
> back when these forms were invented ( for lack of a better term ) Strength
> in your legs is very important. Sitting in horse stance is one way to
> achieve this. There are other ways but this is at least easily done and the
> equipment costs aren't ruinous. B-}
actualy there are schools today that do use a horse stance as a fighting
stance. but rather than facing your opponent square, then turn 90 degs so it's
simmilar to fighting from a long back stance
Alex
John Cantin heeft geschreven in bericht <3774E5A2...@mc.net>...
>> Basically, that would be a rounded martial art. Mind you, most of those elements
>> are there already (sparring, self-defense, forms). Like I said, I would like to see
>> TKD deepen, not widen, as is happening with a lot of people who ad their own
>> stuff to it, like boxing and kick-boxing techniques.
>> I would like to see a deeper exploration of what is already there.
>
>i have trouble seeing the difference between deep and wide as you are using it. you
>mention doing some weapons training, and ki for example, but these are things that are
>really not included in "standard" tkd (other than by some perhaps "renegade"
>instructors). so adding techniques is widening (by your own definition i think)
Basically, deepening TKD is exploring what is part of the standard cannon of
TKD techniques, as represented in books like Gen. Choi, Hong-Hi's "Taekwondo"
and Richard Chun's "Taekwondo - A Korean martial art".
Embryonically, "breathing" exercises and meditation are there. Ki energy is referred to.
Defense against weapons like sticks or knifes is there (including in the forms, where
they're referred to as "defense against pole attacks").
On the other hand, the widening approach, like for instance in Gun Kek Do is
simply adding Kickboxing techniques to the TKD techniques. Or simply adding
techniques from any other martial art.
I'm thinking about _expanding_, rather than adding to.
That's what I mean.
Alex
Darren Williams
TKD life, hence it is a foundation technique. I do believe that sitting
stance is such an unusual position not found in everyday life that it would,
initially at least, strengthen the beginners thighs. You must also consider
the psychological benefits to the beginner that adhering to these early
techniques has. Afterall, if we question this fundamental TKD technique,
what chance do we have later on?
Darren Williams
sneer a little at TKD, to the tune of " only around since 1950 blah blah ",
" revisionist blah blah ", " sport not art blah blah ". I feel that we as
TKD practitioners sometimes fall into this trap ourselves. We look at Kung
Fu for example and marvel at the intricate handwork and the stop/hit method
of blocking and hitting simultaneously. We look at the locks of Ju Jitsu and
Hapkido and feel that our blocks are a little basic and agricultural. And we
look at Aikido and are stunned at the gentle yet effective use of opponents
momentum to defeat them.
Not all martial arts suit all people and all occasions. My instructor, Dave
Sheppard of Newport TKD, once said to me that he fought like Marvin Hagler
whereas others tried to be Sugar Ray Leonard. He was trying to say that TKD
is an explosive and powerful art and that intricacy and finesse is not
really suited to either the ring or the street. If you want these things try
combining another art with TKD and follow the Bruce Lee Jeet Kune Do
principle of " absorp what is useful, discard what is useless". I personally
intend to combine some form of Jujitsu or even Kung Fu later on in order to
expand my knowledge. Perhaps we should all do this.
dixs
Darren Williams wrote in message <7lcku0$2uqt$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>...