Since fencing came up here:
The point (hrm) of what is now called sport fencing was to teach the methods of timing and technique with the utmost respect for the power of the blade.
So, in sabre and foil, if an opponent's weapon is extended, you must take it off-line before countering. Certain targets only 'score' corresponding to the historical targets (sabre is simulating horseback fighting, so hurting someone's leg is almost irrelevant; foil uses the torso only to simulate fatal blows only). Epee' removes these restrictions entirely and you can hit any time any where.
(Side note: pistol grips are not unique to epee' fencing; I preferred not to use them in any weapon when I was fencing).
This is a real martial art IF it's trained that way. I had the blessing of being taught by a retired Navy captain. The technique of attacks, footwork, and parries applies to *any* other martial art. There are after all only so many different ways to hit someone. The discipline of timing in Western fencing is unmatched; that's why as someone else pointed out Bruce Lee borrowed it in his own work.
As with TKD, though, in the pursuit of sport points some very odd things have happened. For instance: there's electric equipment to judge hits, which is very nice in theory; it takes out many variables including unaware or biased judging. Problem is the machine has no idea whether a hit had any relevance to something that might have done damage with a real sword; all it knows is 500g (750g for epee') of pressure was placed on the plunger at the tip of the weapon. Light goes off, point is scored. That the scoring person was busy treating their foil like some sort of steel whip to bend the point around a perfectly good parry doesn't matter.
This is the way of all fighting sports, though. A set of rules is established so that people don't get killed (a good plan) and then sportsmen train towards the sport rules, not to the original martial discipline where the only rule is 'survive.'
Others here already noted that there are good TKDers and poor ones, just like any other art. I'm sure people have heard some of the utter absurdities promoted under the name of Chinese martial arts.
Here's the thing.
Suppose there are two martial arts A and B. Both A and B have, somewhere, 100 real 'masters' who are formidable at all combat ranges. However, A has 100 teachers and 1000 students who are more or less teaching and learning fancy dancing, and B has 1000 teachers and 10,000 students who are likewise in a 'McDojo.'
Is A the better art because B has more flaky people? No, we'd accurately say that they are equal, because both A and B are demonstrably effective. It's just harder to find a good teacher of B because the chance of getting watered down teaching is greater.