aaron_mag said:
There are definitely some 'holes' in training in TKD. Lack of good cliche work is probably the most glaring example. I'd be willing to give Blanko that.
Most every styles has "holes," to be sure. Standup arts tend to poorly prepare fighters for being taken down. Grappling is great mano-a-mano but those of us who've seen lots of fights and the environments they tend to occur know that assholes tend travel in, and get into fights, in groups.
What puzzles me is nobody dismisses Muat Thai or BJJ because of this...
I think that many people don't understand why the term 'art' is applied to martial arts. They see someone throw a jump spinning hook kick and ask,
"When would you throw that in a real fight?"
When you answer, "Rarely, probably never."
They say, "Then why the frick do you practice it?"
And the answer is because it is fun, different, an excellent coordination drill, and it just might come in handy one day. In other words for grins and giggles.
I agree somewhat that practicing a martial art involves preserving the art. There is no practical application, for instance, of performing
Wai Kru before a Muay Thai match, so why learn it and practice it? Because it's part of the art. It shows respect to the art and the teacher. I think the art aspect separates martial artists from brawlers.
I believe that in most martial arts, most of the genuinely useful stuff is learned very early on. The five basic kicks and Hapkido holds and reversals of TKD are an example. Everything else, which looks largely like flash and show, are just more options.
Example: there's not much use for flying kicks in a real fight. But I've seemed them used in real fights; my instructor, in a bar brawl while working as a bouncer, used a flying sidekick to clear three rows of theater rope by the front door and nail a drunk who was about to lay a beer bottle across the back of another bouncers' head. He's used them maybe two or three times in actual combat, but when he needed to, he had the option.
