# TKD and real self defense



## terryl965 (Aug 25, 2009)

For the most part alot of folks believe TKD SD principle to be weak and not for today world. What is your SD syllibus and how often do you really work on it?


----------



## kerc (Aug 25, 2009)

Every month we get to learn a specific self-defense move, like how to block and neutralize a high swing with a club, how to block and disable your opponent on a front or back lapel grab, and so forth.

I don't think it's TKD-specific stuff, but it's pretty effective. This of course is mixed throughout classes with the regular Jhoon Rhee forms, hand combos, hand/foot combos, sparring, and weapon usage and forms.


----------



## NPTKD (Aug 25, 2009)

This is something that I work on all the time. Mustly because of what I read there and on other sites. It seems that TKD is always getting the short end of the stick.


----------



## ATC (Aug 25, 2009)

Well I posted in a thread that is now gone about this.

I think that many people take one steps to be TKD SD. I don't think this should be the case. I think one steps teach timing and basic principals but the instructor of the school needs to take this further.

SD is unpredictable and you can be attacked anywhere. Not just a punch or a kick come straight at you. SD should be taught from any situation. Someone running at you and attempting to tackle you, someone grabbing you from behind (bear hug, forearm neck lock, your hair, your arm(s), your shoulder, your leg(s), your wrist(s), the same from being attacked from the front, not to mention multiple attackers, that is SD.

SD is not pretty. It can be but most times it is not. SD is not about winning anything, it is about surviving. If you need to run then run. Running is SD at its best.

SD is about awareness. You need to be aware of your surroundings and if you can get away from a bad area then do it.

There is physical SD and mental SD. You can practice the mental all the time. This is being aware and having escape plans. Knowing where an exit or escape route is in case of a bad situation or seeing potential weapons that could be used to help fend off an attacker. The physical should be practice enough to where you won't freeze up when the real thing happens.

SD should be practiced daily by the individual. You can practice only so much in class.

SD is not just one steps.


----------



## Manny (Aug 25, 2009)

We practice SD maybe once every two or three months, one step sparring is the same just one or two days before the testing/examination, this is something sad but I have to realize my sambunim's focus on children so maybe he don't give SD the place it deserves inside his dojang.

Manny


----------



## kerc (Aug 25, 2009)

Manny said:


> We practice SD maybe once every two or three months, one step sparring is the same just one or two days before the testing/examination, this is something sad but I have to realize my sambunim's focus on children so maybe he don't give SD the place it deserves inside his dojang.


 
Interesting...Our Master focuses a lot on the kids when teaching self defense, and makes it very clear about the difference between fighting another child or an adult.

"Common sense before self defense" is something he always mentions, and that includes...if you gotta run, or can run and avoid fighting, do so! And also, talk and/or kiyap out loud befor and during self-defense, so that other people can hear you and help you out.

All in all, pretty useful stuff, even for the kiddies.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 25, 2009)

There would *be* no problems with TKD SD if only they'd ditch that Olympic, lawyer proof Powder puff sparring. That's all that needs ditching.


----------



## bluekey88 (Aug 26, 2009)

Our self- defense curriculum at the school I attend is Ok. There are 10 self-defense techs and 10 one step punch sparring techs to be learned for 1st dan...another 8 SD and 5 one step punch tech for 2nd dan. Most are prettys ound...there are a few really questionable ones though. At later ranks, we are asked to do a lot of creation stuff (first to specific techs, then instant creation...wich usually just turns into freestyle sparring at the later levels). It;s not a smooth and in depth as my taijutsu training...but pretty good.

We also incoporate grappling and submission work into our curriculum and sparring at later levels as well.

for myself, I do a lot of extra work with the poomse/kata practicing SD stuff for the katas with willing/resistant partners.

the stuff is there, you jsut have to train it. ....oh, and I also participate in that "powder puff" sparing too...got my rib bruised (through my hogu) at the last competition I was at...FWIW

Peace,
Erik


----------



## zeke1975 (Aug 26, 2009)

At our Dojang we do forms one week and one step/SD the next week, so of every 4 weeks in a given month, we do form for 2 of those weeks and onestep/SD for the other 2.   We do 3 one step scenarios at each gup level.  We also do 3 different SD techniques (including hapkido joint locks) at each gup level.  Each gup level's SD techniques are usually related to a specific situation, for example, the attacker grabbing you by the hair, bear hug from behind, right wrist grab, left wrist grab, shirt grab, etc.

Erik


----------



## Manny (Aug 26, 2009)

Different aproaches, so please don't flame on me. In a regular week of training in dojagng we do a lot of kicking, a little poomsae and regulary fridays is kyorugi time at the end of the class. So let me put this in percentages 70% kicks, 15% poomsae,15% kyorugi..... so were is self defense techs?.

One week before kup examination everything changes 80% poomsae, 10% one step sparring and 5% board breaking.

Just for the record and nothing else, in a regular class of kenpo we do 80% self defense techs and 20% forms or kata.

Don't know but I think in a TKD week of training the average student must to have kcking/punching,etc,etc, techs, poomsae,self defense and a little kyorugi to have a well rounded class, don't you think?

Manny


----------



## zeke1975 (Aug 26, 2009)

Manny said:


> Different aproaches, so please don't flame on me. In a regular week of training in dojagng we do a lot of kicking, a little poomsae and regulary fridays is kyorugi time at the end of the class. So let me put this in percentages 70% kicks, 15% poomsae,15% kyorugi..... so were is self defense techs?.
> 
> One week before kup examination everything changes 80% poomsae, 10% one step sparring and 5% board breaking.
> 
> ...



What I mentioned in the post above is the curriculum we do.  that's pretty much done in the 2nd half of each class, for the first half of each class, we stretch, do kicking/punching drills and sparring technique drills. So it works out that in a 1 hour class we'll do drills for 1/2 hr and form/SD/onestep curriculum for 1/2hr.  We do some non-contact sparring in normal classes as well.  We then have Adult sparring class on Friday nights where those that are interested can do contact sparring.

Erik


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 26, 2009)

I've observed that many schools teach SD as an afterthought and as a 'separate' activity.  It's the same case with forms.  You have your basics and warmups, your pattern practice, your sparring, and of yeah, let's do some self defense.  None of the activities flow into each other - it's almost like they have nothing to do with each other.  

Self defense needs to start first with your basics.  If the teacher makes the mistake of only showing his students the formalized punching and kicking 'rituals', they'll never see the open possibilities from each gross physical movement, such as a palm heel thrust serving as an intercepting push block to the shoulder.  The same problem lies in just practicing patterns according to the 'textbook'.  If you never take the time to teach each segment of a form as a case study for self-defense, the pattern will remain dead to your students.

Teaching so-called self-defense is a staple for me.  After a warmup, I drill basic movements and combinations, including stepping, circling, turning, and throwing.  Then I teach explicit bunkai from a designated kata with variations depending on the attack, whether straight or circular on differing height zones.  We usually conclude by practicing the kata together to help reinforce it as a training method when one is alone.


----------



## goingd (Aug 27, 2009)

My curriculum for self defense before 1st Dan is:
10 one step sparring techniques (as a basic introduction to self defense)
10 Hapkido techniques (on both sides)

Once students have that base, at 1st Dan it is:
10 form applications (on both sides)
These form applications go beyond hard block against strikes - they also cover the grabbing, joint locks and take downs "hidden" within the forms.

At 2nd Dan and above:
Students demonstrate their own form applications.
This is done to force students to think about the possibilities. I think the application of forms is incredibly important.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 27, 2009)

there is a good reason why i teach kenpo techniques in my school.

TKD, in and of itself, lacks depth in self defense

some instructors add it in, but the system itself doesnt contain a lot of SD training by default.

and the more korean the school, the shallower the self defense training, in general.

and if you walk in and see a v neck uniform? in general, dont expect to learn actual self defense


----------



## Carol (Aug 27, 2009)

How much contact is there in TKD, or does it vary by school?


----------



## goingd (Aug 27, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> there is a good reason why i teach kenpo techniques in my school.
> 
> TKD, in and of itself, lacks depth in self defense
> 
> ...


How, specifically, does Taekwondo lack depth in self defense?
Which system of Taekwondo are you referring to?


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 27, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> How much contact is there in TKD, or does it vary by school?




varies by a HUGE amount from school to school


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 27, 2009)

goingd said:


> How, specifically, does Taekwondo lack depth in self defense?
> Which system of Taekwondo are you referring to?



TKD is, untill you add things to it, a very basic kick/punch art.

joint locks? those are not a part of TKD, those have been imported in from hapkido. 

judging by the responses here, not many schools put an emphasis on the SD part.

Plus, since TKD is based on Shotokan, it tends to go back to the "one punch kill" non sense from traditional karate.

 now of course this varies by instructor, but the actual original syllabus doesnt contain anything but punches and kicks, and chops.

for that matter, the ridgehand wasnt originally taught in TKD.


----------



## K31 (Aug 27, 2009)

What my school calls SD is mostly, joint locks, escapes from holds and even some ground work but it is taught on an irregular basis. Sometimes it is done with the caveat that we will be tested on it but I've never seen it tested. As to the kiddies comment, I was thinking about that the other day. SD is taught as a separate discipline almost kicking, punching and forms isn't focused on that.  In my previous exposures to MAs we were taught the weak points of the body, in this school I've never heard that mentioned, I assume it's because they teach kids.


----------



## goingd (Aug 27, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> TKD is, untill you add things to it, a very basic kick/punch art.
> 
> joint locks? those are not a part of TKD, those have been imported in from hapkido.
> 
> ...



On the outside Taekwondo is a very "basic" kick/punch art. The motions of the forms can be used for anything. They can be used for joint locks, take downs, releases - not just striking. Many Taekwondoists do not recognize the motions that set up the techniques - i.e. aiming for a punch or block. These motions count too. I don't honestly know what original syllabus you're referring to, but the first generation Taekwondo masters I know teach these things based off of what is in the forms, and not what is borrowed from Hapkido.

The one time I had to use Taekwondo, I used one strike and finished the confrontation. The over-skill concept often taught in Kenpo is an excellent concept to follow, but it is not the only right way.


----------



## K-man (Aug 27, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> Our self- defense curriculum at the school I attend is Ok. There are 10 self-defense techs and 10 one step punch sparring techs to be learned for 1st dan...another 8 SD and 5 one step punch tech for 2nd dan. Most are prettys ound...there are a few really questionable ones though. At later ranks, we are asked to do a lot of creation stuff (first to specific techs, then instant creation...wich usually just turns into freestyle sparring at the later levels). It;s not a smooth and in depth as my taijutsu training...but pretty good.
> 
> We also incoporate grappling and submission work into our curriculum and sparring at later levels as well.
> 
> ...


There is something here that really worries me. How long does it take to get to first dan? I'm thinking 4-5 years then another 2-3 to second. One step sparring techniques in karate are designed for tournaments where you score a point and the bout stops. How useful is TKD when I've been training for 3 years and this big bruiser picks me in the pub? I teach self defence against the most common street attacks, from white belt level, every week. You're saying the freestyle aspect kicks in after 2nd dan. That's the stuff that's going to save your bacon and I've had to train TKD for nearly 10 years before I'm even going to learn it. I might be wrong but that's the same the problem I have seen in Australia with TKD. It's trained as a sport, not to save your life.
I'm not saying that it is weak or useless, but without cross training it seems to lack the SD something that I would be looking for. Erik, what you're saying is that you are doing a lot of extra work to make TKD work for you and that is great. Unfortunately most MA students do their 3 hours a week and reckon thay are bomb-proof. :asian:


----------



## ATC (Aug 28, 2009)

K-man said:


> Unfortunately most MA students do their 3 hours a week and reckon thay are bomb-proof. :asian:


Note to all. He said most *MA* students, not most TKD students. MA as a whole not just one small subset.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 28, 2009)

goingd said:


> On the outside Taekwondo is a very "basic" kick/punch art.



And that's the way it remains for the majority of the schools I have visited.  I've lived in many large cities in the US as I moved around a lot for my career.  It's a rare school indeed that teaches basics, sparring, forms, and SD as an integrated curriculum where one activity builds upon another.  Sadly, that's just the reality of it, and I think it's better to acknowledge the shortcoming and work in our local areas to improve matters.  That said, this criticism is true of many martial arts, karate and kung fu included, but certain specific strains of a style can be in better position pedagogically.


----------



## bluekey88 (Aug 28, 2009)

K-man said:


> There is something here that really worries me. How long does it take to get to first dan? I'm thinking 4-5 years then another 2-3 to second. One step sparring techniques in karate are designed for tournaments where you score a point and the bout stops. How useful is TKD when I've been training for 3 years and this big bruiser picks me in the pub? I teach self defence against the most common street attacks, from white belt level, every week. You're saying the freestyle aspect kicks in after 2nd dan. That's the stuff that's going to save your bacon and I've had to train TKD for nearly 10 years before I'm even going to learn it. I might be wrong but that's the same the problem I have seen in Australia with TKD. It's trained as a sport, not to save your life.
> I'm not saying that it is weak or useless, but without cross training it seems to lack the SD something that I would be looking for. Erik, what you're saying is that you are doing a lot of extra work to make TKD work for you and that is great. Unfortunately most MA students do their 3 hours a week and reckon thay are bomb-proof. :asian:


 You make a good point, but it's not as bad as you're reading into it.  I do wish we did more freestyle/randori type stuff.  BUT, while the bulk of that happens later, it is a requirement at the 3rd gup level and again at 1st gup.  Grappling is a requirement throughout the color belt curriculum, but submissions don't get taught in depth until after 1st dan.  And, to be honest, we're not a jiu-jitsu school...so the overall depth is not there.  Sparring (kick/punch) is a requirement throughout all the gup levels, but sparring with takedowns and throws isn't done much until later.  Liek I said, I'd personally like to see more of that....but not my school and not my curriculum.  That being said, it's not taking 10 years to get to that, and we are drilling some very basic techniques that have good fundamental lessons to teach.  Doing these oevr and over is not a bad thing.
I've found that havign to visit and revisit these simple things has made them better and stronger.

In short, it's not a perfect system...but I've yet to see thaqt.

yes, I do a lot of supplementation.  Many don't....that's been true of any school I've attended.  I supplemented with striking trianign when i was doing Aikido.  I supplemented with grappling when i tried out wing chun. EVeryone should cross-train once they have a strong foundation in the basics of an MA, irregardless of style.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## goingd (Aug 29, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> And that's the way it remains for the majority of the schools I have visited.  I've lived in many large cities in the US as I moved around a lot for my career.  It's a rare school indeed that teaches basics, sparring, forms, and SD as an integrated curriculum where one activity builds upon another.  Sadly, that's just the reality of it, and I think it's better to acknowledge the shortcoming and work in our local areas to improve matters.  That said, this criticism is true of many martial arts, karate and kung fu included, but certain specific strains of a style can be in better position pedagogically.



I certainly do not disagree that this is the sad truth for most Taekwondo schools in the United States. The fact is that many black belts of any level and style can only see the outside aspects of their style.
It is not our responsibility to mandate the teachings of our piers and fellow instructors, but it is our job to make sure that if we make the choice to teach, we teach correctly, which is never easily.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 29, 2009)

goingd said:


> It is not our responsibility to mandate the teachings of our piers and fellow instructors, but it is our job to make sure that if we make the choice to teach, we teach correctly, which is never easily.



Mandate, no.  Educate, yes.  I refuse to stay silent within the mediums I have available to me such as this forum, lest the general public believes that the typical studio on the corner is ALL there is available to train in.  

There's a hunger out there for solid traditional martial arts taught by knowledgeable, yet forward looking instructors.  I see it as my duty to make people aware there are more options to train in than McDojos or MMA gyms.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> there is a good reason why i teach kenpo techniques in my school.
> 
> TKD, in and of itself, lacks depth in self defense
> 
> ...


 
It's a shame you've had such a limited exposure to Taekwon-Do.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2009)

yeah, its a shame i have only been doing TKD since 1984....... you want to see REAL self defense? go to a kenpo or kajukenbo dojo


----------



## msmitht (Aug 29, 2009)

I have been involved in the Martial Arts since 1979. I teach WTF TKD and BJJ. One steps and one step style sparring is only to teach the basic principles of self defense. If you want true self defense go do judo or BJJ or join the Marine Corps and learn the real art of war. Most stand up style schools cant teach you self defense. If you dont believe me watch the early days of the UFC or go rent FIST FOOT WAY. This is what many schools across america look like.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 29, 2009)

msmitht said:


> One steps and one step style sparring is only to teach the basic principles of self defense.



They don't teach SD principles in my system.  They're an introductory method of combining basics (kihon) along with foot manuevering.



msmitht said:


> If you want true self defense go do judo or BJJ or join the Marine Corps and learn the real art of war.



Judo is a sport created from jujutsu techniques.  Many of its techniques can be adapted for self-defense usage, but it's entirely wrong to claim judo is at its core a self defense art, because it's not.  The intent of Jigaro Kano its creator was something else entirely.

As for learning the "art of war" from the Marines, I suppose you could.  I suspect you could also learn many other things from the Marines like camaraderie or how to endure hot desert climates.  For those of us who are interested in self-defense rather than how to wage war, there are other avenues.



> Most stand up style schools cant teach you self defense.



A more correct statement would be:  An unknowledgeable instructor, no matter his style, will not be able to transmit his system as a comprehensive self defense system.  You can learn self defense from any system:  Krav Maga, karate, aikido, etc.  It's just a matter of understanding your own technical and physical limitations and working within them.



> If you dont believe me watch the early days of the UFC or go rent FIST FOOT WAY.
> This is what many schools across america look like.



No doubt there are lots of poor quality MA schools in the US.  But I hardly think the early UFC matches are a good indicator that "stand up" systems cannot tech effective self-defense.  Most of the early opponents hand picked for the Gracies were mediocre at best, and the rules even today surely favor a grappler.  I do credit the UFC and the Gracies with reminding everyone that ground defense is important for every complete martial artist.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, its a shame i have only been doing TKD since 1984....... you want to see REAL self defense? go to a kenpo or kajukenbo dojo


 
I love when people start rolling out the date they started training. How does 1981 strike you? Or 1986 when I return after a hiatus?

The fact is that Taekwon-Do has plenty of self-defense techniques in it. Your particular branch may've stopped at kicking and punching but others didn't. 

Your comment about joint locks coming from Hapkido and so aren't Taekwon-Do is a bit confusing since many of its techniques came from Shotokan. Or do only things that the Kwan founders made up themselves qualify as being Taekwon-Do? That would be odd. Hapkido techniques, as well as some throws from Judo, have long since been assimilated into Taekwon-Do your comment not withstanding. Add to that Taekwon-Do's kicking techniques, which are devastating, and its powerful hand techniques and the only thing lacking for self-defense is a student's effort and/or an instructor's knowledge. 

I've personally found Taekwon-Do to be very effective for self-defense. But since I haven't trained in kenpo or kajukenbo I guess I don't know what "real" self-defense is 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2009)

look, Burger king is good, and if that is the only place you have ever eaten, you will think it is great.

till you eat somewhere else.

i USED to think that TKD was the bomb

till i got my *** handed to me by a kenpo guy.

his STYLE contained stuff that TKD didnt, and he could do things that TKD couldnt do

some things are just more comprehensive than others, it is the nature of the universe.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> look, Burger king is good, and if that is the only place you have ever eaten, you will think it is great.
> 
> till you eat somewhere else.
> 
> ...


 
LOL What a great way you have of insulting people who dare disagree with you! 

Burger King hardly qualifies as good, even if you've never had anything else LOL If that's how you view your training, I'm sorry. 

As I said, TKD has joint locks, throws, kicks second to none, and powerful hand techniques. I'm glad you branched out to get some training you were missing. It's a shame your branch of TKD, or your instructors, didn't share those things with you already. I had to use TKD to defend myself and it was very effective. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## terryl965 (Aug 29, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> And that's the way it remains for the majority of the schools I have visited. I've lived in many large cities in the US as I moved around a lot for my career. It's a rare school indeed that teaches basics, sparring, forms, and SD as an integrated curriculum where one activity builds upon another. Sadly, that's just the reality of it, and I think it's better to acknowledge the shortcoming and work in our local areas to improve matters. That said, this criticism is true of many martial arts, karate and kung fu included, but certain specific strains of a style can be in better position pedagogically.


 
If you are ever around my neck of the woods, come see me and I will show you how it can be done. It is so sad that alot of TKD instructor are just about sport and nothing else.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> LOL What a great way you have of insulting people who dare disagree with you!
> 
> Burger King hardly qualifies as good, even if you've never had anything else LOL If that's how you view your training, I'm sorry.
> 
> ...



i AM NOT insulting you, i am stating a fact. I used to think TKD was pretty comprehensive. I dont think that any more because i studied other things and learned what comprehensive really means.

have you? have you studied anything BUT tkd?

if not, then you simply dont know what you are talking about,.

everyone THINKS what they have is pretty good, till they learn that there is more out there.

some people want more, they are not bad people for wanting more.

you do not have to insult my style, instructors or knowledge.

this is just an opinion, feel free to disagree, but my opinion is based on actual KNOWLEDGE, not blind loyalty


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i AM NOT insulting you, i am stating a fact. I used to think TKD was pretty comprehensive. I dont think that any more because i studied other things and learned what comprehensive really means.


 
It's not an insult to compare my style as Burger King? Really? I'll take your word that you didn't _intend_ to insult me, but the fact that I took it as an insult might tell you something about your general demeanor on the board. Or not.

I'm glad you studied other arts since your instructors weren't teaching you enough.



> have you? have you studied anything BUT tkd?


 
Yes.



> if not, then you simply dont know what you are talking about,.


 
But I have.

I will point out, however, that even if someone only studied one style your conclusion here is a non sequitor. 



> everyone THINKS what they have is pretty good, till they learn that there is more out there.


 
This may or may not be true. You simply have no way of knowing what everyone thinks unless they tell you. 



> some people want more, they are not bad people for wanting more.


 
I never even implied this. I said it's a shame you have had such a limited exposure to Taekwon-Do that you would believe what you posted. It's demonstrably false. 



> you do not have to insult my style, instructors or knowledge.


 
You mean like calling it Burger King? Oh, wait, that wasn't me. Nor did I insult you or your instructors. It's not an insult to say I'm sorry they didn't teach you enough in the way of self-defense when that was the claim _you_ were making. Hence your need to study Kenpo and Kajukenbo, remember?



> this is just an opinion, feel free to disagree, but my opinion is based on actual KNOWLEDGE, not blind loyalty


 
Hey, great so is mine. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2009)

i used Burger King as an example, it isnt my problem if YOU think Burger King is bad, i happen to like it.

*since your instructors weren't teaching you enough.*

thats you being insulting again.

Please explain, in detail, what else you have studied other than TKD.

it's ok, i will wait.

*it's a shame you have had such a limited exposure to Taekwon-Do *

this is you being insulting again. it's getting old and sounds infantile. Stop it please. My exposure to TKD is long and has covered everything IN tkd. Lots of schools have added things over the years to fill those gaps, but it is still a fact that that material is NOT TKD

TKD is what Jhoon Rhee brought over in 1959. Some katas, about a dozen punches and kicks and the standard variations, 2 take downs, the concept of one steps, and not much else.And that is ok

that is plenty for most people. Lots of things have been added since 1959, but thats just what it is, added stuff. it ISNT TKD.

 But , and I am not the only person to say so on this board, today, in MOST TKD schools, SD is an afterthought, a minimal part of the focus of the schools which is in most cases sport competition.

I wanted more, and I found it. But i had to go outside TKD to find it.

There is more out there, that TKD simply doesnt cover. You can insult me all you want, i literally could not care less what you think. You and your opinion mean NOTHING to me, I know what I know.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> since I haven't trained in kenpo or kajukenbo I guess I don't know what "real" self-defense is



thats correct.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i used Burger King as an example, it isnt my problem if YOU think Burger King is bad, i happen to like it.


 
Liking something and it being good are two distinct things. 



> *since your instructors weren't teaching you enough.*
> 
> thats you being insulting again.


 
If your instructors were teahcing you enough in the way of self-defense or were teahcing you effectively then your training in other styles would have been unnecessary. You could've still done it for a variety of reasons but you said yourself you didn't have self-defense experience that you needed. That's not an insult unless _you_ were insulting them, too. 



> Please explain, in detail, what else you have studied other than TKD.
> 
> it's ok, i will wait.[/quote
> 
> ...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> thats correct.


 
Except it's not 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> Again, it's good to see you insult people when you feel it's OK. The sign of a true martial artist.



I have not insulted you anywhere in this thread, if you have to make stuff up to make a point, you dont have one.

also:
*You said you had no exposure to self-defense aspects of TKD*

this is also a lie, as this isnt what i said, i said that the SD in TKD is very shallow, and leaves out many things. See here:

"TKD, in and of itself, lacks depth in self defense"

thats all I said.

this is an opinion, and true IMO

nowhere did i say there was NO Sd in TKD

thats two times you have stated falsehoods, stop now while you are behind


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 29, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> If you are ever around my neck of the woods, come see me and I will show you how it can be done. It is so sad that alot of TKD instructor are just about sport and nothing else.



If I ever make it out to Arlington, you bet I'll drop by and introduce myself.  I'm sure we can have some fun and even learn something.  I've been listing some informal bunkai for the Chang Hon and Palgwe forms based on the Goju-Ryu karate I study, and I always wanted to teach a TKD class using that material to see how oddball the students will think I am.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 29, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> The fact is that Taekwon-Do has plenty of self-defense techniques in it. Your particular branch may've stopped at kicking and punching but others didn't.



I'll agree with that.  Not all tae kwon do is equal to one another.  Some strains, IMO the older ones with stronger links to the kwans, are more effective for combat than others.  Of course, the instructor plays a bigger role in this than the style, so be sure to find a good one, since he will trump all else.


----------



## goingd (Aug 29, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Mandate, no.  Educate, yes.  I refuse to stay silent within the mediums I have available to me such as this forum, lest the general public believes that the typical studio on the corner is ALL there is available to train in.
> 
> There's a hunger out there for solid traditional martial arts taught by knowledgeable, yet forward looking instructors.  I see it as my duty to make people aware there are more options to train in than McDojos or MMA gyms.



I believe that if we present a traditional, legitimate alternative to the mass of mcdojangs, people will recognize the difference between good and bad. If our orange belts look like everyone else's black belts, and we make that noticed, we have done our job. I completely agree - there is no reason to stay silent. We cannot control what others do, but we have complete control of what we say.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I'll agree with that.  Not all tae kwon do is equal to one another.  Some strains, IMO the older ones with stronger links to the kwans, are more effective for combat than others.  Of course, the instructor plays a bigger role in this than the style, so be sure to find a good one, since he will trump all else.




this is, in my experience, very true, and my line, is almost unchanged since 1959. it is very SD oriented, but it simply doesnt have the depth of SD information that other systems have

thats just a fact


----------



## goingd (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist, I completely agree that SEVERAL Taekwondo schools and instructors have added different aspects of self defense so that there can be some understandable self defense in their curriculum. However, those people do not define Taekwondo. Those who understand more than the outward aspects of the forms have plenty of self defense to teach, without adding a damn thing.

I certainly do not have the years that you do in Taekwondo. I understand well enough how to use an inside block to put someone in an arm bar, how to use a low block to drop someone one their back; I understand that every set up for a block, a strike or even a kick is itself a legitimate motion that can be used to parry, deflect, grab and strike.

I spent a year studying Kenpo Karate. I have a lot of respect for it. However, it did not make me see the flaw in my Taekwondo. On the contrary, it helped me a great deal to better understand the capabilities of Taekwondo.

When my master trained with Larry Tatum, and he sparred his black belts, he did not particularly get his "*** handed" to him. His kicking was enough to stay on top.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2009)

and the kicks might keep you safe, but once they slip past that kick, which I might add, you cant do on the street in jeans, they are inside, and thats where TKD is weak, and no one can deny that

now think about that

real fights happen at close range, and thats the big gaping HOLE in TKD

thats sort of important


----------



## Tames D (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> real fights happen at close range


 
Depends on who controls the fight...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I have not insulted you anywhere in this thread, if you have to make stuff up to make a point, you dont have one.
> 
> also:
> *You said you had no exposure to self-defense aspects of TKD*
> ...


 
But this is not true. I suppose it would have been more accurate for me to say that you had very little exposure to TKD's self-defense aspect. My apologies for saying "no exposure" when saying "very litle" or "inadequate" would have apparently better described your situation.



> this is an opinion, and true IMO


 
It os your opinion. And it is wrong.

nowhere did i say there was NO Sd in TKD



> thats two times you have stated falsehoods, stop now while you are behind


 
Oh, please. Any such "falsehood" on my part was unintentional. You have been going on about how TKD doesn't cut it in the SD department. I disagree and have, unfortunately, the experience to know that it is effective. 

You're the one who said there is a lack of SD effectiveness in TKD. The fault lies not with the style itself. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2009)

gee, you are SOOO Cool!!


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> gee, you are SOOO Cool!!


 
Umm, thanks! ... I think.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## goingd (Aug 30, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> and the kicks might keep you safe, but once they slip past that kick, which I might add, you cant do on the street in jeans, they are inside, and thats where TKD is weak, and no one can deny that
> 
> now think about that
> 
> ...



I am not making any assumptions, but I feel a little bit like you have ignored everything I have said about the use of the techniques in the forms. I pointed out a great advantage of kicks, but I pointed out a lot more about the use of self defense found in Taekwondo, yet you only responded to what I said about kicking.
Kicks become very useful once you have the range for them (and if you practice adapting to the use of kicks while wearing snug jeans like I do). And even so, several Taekwondoists can deliver great kicks from a close range. Taekwondo is, frankly, much more than kicking.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 30, 2009)

not trying to ignore anything.

let me make sure i understand what you are saying.

you think that the kata applications make up for the lack of focus on self defense?


----------



## goingd (Aug 30, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> not trying to ignore anything.
> 
> let me make sure i understand what you are saying.
> 
> you think that the kata applications make up for the lack of focus on self defense?



Not remotely close. I have a hard time believing that is what you have gotten out of what I said, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
The form applications, with their limitless uses, are self defense when practiced the right way. Any lack of focus or understanding of self defense lies with the instructor, not the style.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 31, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> For the most part alot of folks believe TKD SD principle to be weak and not for today world. What is your SD syllibus and how often do you really work on it?


It used to be very comprehensive. Joint locks, knife defense, gun defense, the whole nine yards.

Once our GM introduced hapkido and it became established, our taekwondo became very sport focused, and it became very clear once I signed up for hapkido where all of his SD was culled from. 

This has been a process that has occurred over the course of a year and a half. He does not charge a separate fee for kendo or hapkido, so his rationale is that if you want sword fighting, show up for kendo class and if you want SD, show up for Hapkido class.

To be fair, he was a hapkido instructor in the ROK, and he can focus the class entirely on SD by confining it to the hapkido program.

Our TKD is now very kicking oriented and still contains what rudimentary SD one gets from the KKW curriculum, but it is mostly strikes and applications of poomsae.  There are still some nice, useful grabs and some knee and elbow strikes. We have stepped into the realm of open tournaments this month and he wants to focus the taekwondo program on tournament competiton, which means poomsae, WTF sparring, and breaking.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 31, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> How much contact is there in TKD, or does it vary by school?


Varries from org to org and school to school within each org, though with WTF, you can pretty much establish that it is quite a bit of contact, with sparring generally full contact, but with hogu.  So it depends on how you qualify contact.

Daniel


----------



## StuartA (Aug 31, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> For the most part alot of folks believe TKD SD principle to be weak and not for today world. What is your SD syllibus and how often do you really work on it?


 
Our club works like this:

All students learn patterns and follow up with realistic applications to the pattern techniques. Senior grades will cover this in more depth.

All students spar (comp style), however, 4th kups and above (adults) do _Traditional Sparring_ which is basically a heavy contact, anything goes type of sparring (includes knees, throws, take downs etc.). They also do hosinsul and 1 step sparring.

Every 6 months we run a self protection course which rounds up the self defence techniques we teach in class to all students (except the tiny ones) with Self protection theory work (ie. visual scanning etc.).

Teens and adults learn anti-weapons stuff (knife, stick, gun), though the higher the grade, the more the focus on it.

All students learn throws, pre-emptive striking, as well as concentrating on power in their kicks, strikes etc.

Virtually everything is gradeable, so theres no skipping bits!

Stuart


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 31, 2009)

goingd said:


> Not remotely close. I have a hard time believing that is what you have gotten out of what I said, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
> The form applications, with their limitless uses, are self defense when practiced the right way. Any lack of focus or understanding of self defense lies with the instructor, not the style.



no, i had a very long, very BAD weekend, so I am not at 100% right now. forgive me.

i get what you are saying, i just disagree. its ok,  
I wanted more than TKD offered.  Others might not, and thats ok.


----------



## StuartA (Aug 31, 2009)

Twin Fist said:
			
		

> TKD is what Jhoon Rhee brought over in 1959. Some katas, about a dozen punches and kicks and the standard variations, 2 take downs, the concept of one steps, and not much else.And that is ok


 
Sorry, but that is just incorrect. Jhoon Rhee (a pioneer in the USA) took only a portion of TKD to the states because at that time, TKD was still being developed, in fact it wasnt completed fully until the 1980's! So GM Rhee missed out on 21 years of its development!

Though I believe that Gen Choi's system is just one in TKD, one only has to look at his books to see there is more to TKD than what you quote -

- Locks are in there
- throwing is in there
- 3200 individual techniques are in there
- many different types of sparring are in there
- many takedowns are in there
- Anti knife and anti stick/pole defences are in there (as well as hundreds more and gun defences in GM Kim Bok Man's book)
- Plus loads more.

Although I did a few other systems in my younger years (Wing Chun, JJ and Judo and trained for many years with a Karate guy), I technically have only done TKD and have found all this stuff to be in it *IF* a school is following the full syllabus. And yes, I have had much exposure to many otehr martial arts through IAOMAS and TBH, they are no better/worse than good TKD when it comes to SD!

Looking at many of todays schools and even schools that have been around ages, they do teach a limited version of TKD and simply call it TKD (usally patterns, comp sparring and destruction) - so i can understand peoples POV's when they say its limited - but thats not TKD fault, but the school/instructors!

Stuart


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 31, 2009)

valid point stuart


----------



## goingd (Aug 31, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> no, i had a very long, very BAD weekend, so I am not at 100% right now. forgive me.
> 
> i get what you are saying, i just disagree. its ok,
> I wanted more than TKD offered.  Others might not, and thats ok.



Understandable. Feel better.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> and the kicks might keep you safe, but once they slip past that kick, which I might add, you cant do on the street in jeans, they are inside, and thats where TKD is weak, and no one can deny that
> 
> now think about that
> 
> ...


So you are trying to say I couldnt kick someone in the knee with jeans on? It is such a misconception people have that every tkd practitioner will try to kick everyone in the head. I also cant understand the concept that "tkd is useless at close range" , we learn many many  techniques for close range at my club.  Ive trained with many guys who can drop an axe kick on top of an opponents head while standing face to face.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 8, 2009)

You say this....


ralphmcpherson said:


> So you are trying to say I couldnt kick someone in the knee with jeans on? It is such a misconception people have that every tkd practitioner will try to kick everyone in the head.


...which I *100%* agree with!  

But then you follow it up with this....



ralphmcpherson said:


> Ive trained with many guys who can drop an axe kick on top of an opponents head while standing face to face.


...as a response to this....



ralphmcpherson said:


> I also cant understand the concept that "tkd is useless at close range" , we learn many many techniques for close range at my club.


.... which makes no sense, because "dropping an axe kick on the top of an opponent's head while standing face to face" is precisely the sort of thing that you can *not* do in jeans.  

Also, if your opponent is substantially taller than you, something that is much more possible in an SD situation, then even if you can get your kicking leg completely vertical, you will not be able to drop anything on your opponent's head.  In addition, this is precisely the sort of move that one generally avoids in self defense because it opens up way more of your groin and inner thigh area to an attacker than you are capable of effectively guarding.  Aside from taking a shot to the genitalia, if your opponent is wielding a knife, a shot to certain arteries in the leg can kill you before you get to the hospital.  

Not to mention that any kick to the head more easily seen and countered than the aforementioned knee kick, compromises your ballance, and may not even be executable without stretching and warming up, an opportunity that one is rarely afforded when defending themselves.

Yes, you are correct: taekwondo has a wealth of infighting techniques; elbow strikes, knee strikes, short throw punches, low kicks and a host of punches and hand strikes.  Even the blocks are strikes with the forearms and certainly could be used creatively (an inside middle block to the neck would really hurt).

The problem is that the majority of taekwondo schools do not train this way.  Most train for high kicks and competition.  Even if they do not compete, competition style fighting and one steps is what you will see in the majority of taekwondo schools.  That is not 'bad' but it is not effective SD training.  Hand techniques often play second fiddle to high kicks, and if you are in a Kukkiwon/WTF school (the majority of schools in the states and possibly the world), this is even more so.  

Grapples are not really a part of KKW TKD, though I think that there are a few in there somewhere.  You really do not need *that* many even, but you do need to be well trained in the ones that you do have in order to effectively use them for anything outside of an exercise or belt test, and that will not happen the way that most TKD schools train.

Daniel


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 8, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> and the kicks might keep you safe, but once they slip past that kick, which I might add, you cant do on the street in jeans, they are inside, and thats where TKD is weak, and no one can deny that
> 
> now think about that
> 
> ...


 
Weak compared to what? If I search videos of real life altercations caught on video, I don't see a lot of fancy grappling or groundwork, nor does it appear that any is neccessary.  In fact  IMNSHO in a street altercation, you don't ewant to do much grappling. 

So, is TKD weak in this regard? Only if you don't practice what it has to offer in the way of low kicks, knees and elbows.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 8, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> .... which makes no sense, because "dropping an axe kick on the top of an opponent's head while standing face to face" is precisely the sort of thing that you can *not* do in jeans.



not to mention it is particuarly STUPID because:
1: axe kicks dont hurt when they stick that high, there is only signifigant force when they are very near the bottom of the arc

2: axe kicks cant be done in jeans

3: axe kicks are retarded in self defense since you have a better chance of hyperextending your knee than you do of hurting the other guy

this is just another example of TKD people confusing thier sport stuff with real fighting



Daniel Sullivan said:


> The problem is that the majority of taekwondo schools do not train this way.  Most train for high kicks and competition.  Even if they do not compete, competition style fighting and one steps is what you will see in the majority of taekwondo schools.



so true it is sad 

but it is at least good to see that someone can be honest about the reality of MOST TKD training


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 8, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> not to mention it is particuarly STUPID because:
> 1: axe kicks dont hurt when they stick that high, there is only signifigant force when they are very near the bottom of the arc
> 
> 2: axe kicks cant be done in jeans
> ...


The height of kicks is adversely affected to varying degrees by the addition of street clothes. Jeans in particular are heavier than a gi, and the cut is not optimal for high kicks.  Some cuts are more kick friendly, but flashy high kicks were not what they had in mind when they came up with how jeans are designed. 

The jeans that I wear will allow for high kicks, but for all of the reasons that I mentioned in my last post, I tend to avoid high kicks in SD. The main reason that I make sure to buy clothes that are kick friendly is so that I can go to the park and practice without wearing a gi. I try to do forms in street clothes regularly. 

And even then, after over two decades of practicing in street clothes and buying clothes with kick-friendly cuts, I *still* have not found a way to make my kicks come off the same way in street clothes as they do in a gi. My kicks are lower, slower, and my pivots are not as smooth (shoes tend to do that).

Another factor is shoes. Shoes slow down your kicks and alter your kicking dynamic (that rear foot does not pivot quite the same when you are wearing Nikes). Unless you practice with shoes, side kicks, turning kicks, and any high kick will be affected by the addition of shoes. then there are back hook kicks. 

Daniel


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 8, 2009)

i recently started practicing with shoes. makes things a LOT different


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 8, 2009)

The thing is people forget that a Gi or Dobok is made for kicking and such, as jeans and everyday clothes are made for you to feel and look good. I tend to workout in my regular clothes once a week so I can remember what I can and cannot do in regular clothes. So many people have never even trained with real clothes some might use there camo pants but that is hardly regular going out clothes.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 8, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> which makes no sense, because "dropping an axe kick on the top of an opponent's head while standing face to face" is precisely the sort of thing that you can *not* do in jeans.


It's possible in jeans. The main problem (aside from the impracticality of an axe kick to the face in a SD situation) is you tend to rip the crotch out of the jeans while executing the kick. If you don't mind ruining your pants, there's not much stopping you from kicking high in jeans. Just a little more resistance than usual. 



> The problem is that the majority of taekwondo schools do not train this way.  Most train for high kicks and competition.  Even if they do not compete, competition style fighting and one steps is what you will see in the majority of taekwondo schools.  That is not 'bad' but it is not effective SD training.  Hand techniques often play second fiddle to high kicks, and if you are in a Kukkiwon/WTF school (the majority of schools in the states and possibly the world), this is even more so.


On top of that, self defense seems to be a pretty broad term inside TKD. Some places try to train pure TKD techniques, some use Hapkido, some Chin Na, BJJ... (Even if they don't actively label it as anything but TKD, that's what they're bringing in.) I've seen a lot of Judo and Arnis in the seminars I've attended. 

Really Ho Shin Sul seems to be short for "anything goes".


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 8, 2009)

Marginal said:


> On top of that, self defense seems to be a pretty broad term inside TKD. Some places try to train pure TKD techniques, some use Hapkido, some Chin Na, BJJ... (Even if they don't actively label it as anything but TKD, that's what they're bringing in.) I've seen a lot of Judo and Arnis in the seminars I've attended.
> 
> Really Ho Shin Sul seems to be short for "anything goes".


The biggest problem that I have with that approach is that when other systems are grafted on, the mentality is TKD's holes are filled and that they have a superior SD curriculum.

The reality is that one can have an effective, striking based SD without the need to graft on hapkido, aikido, BJJ, JJJ, or Krav Maga.  Nothing wrong with any of those systems, but unless the instructor has a good understanding of self defense, simply adding new material to the curriclum does not make it any more effective.

It is more important to train in your art, whatever it is, with an eye towards the type of encounters you will have in the real world rather than in the ring or towards obtaining the next belt (which is *the* primary focus of most schools, taekwondo or not).

The various iterations of karate (that includes taekwondo) all work well for self defense, provided one trains for self defense and not in a manner more suited to sport karate/point fighting.  Good, solid strikes and a few useful grapples that are internalized to the point where you can execute them during adrenaline dump are really all that you need to have.

Really the biggest shortcoming that taekwondo has in terms of its training (not its content) is the comparative lack of focus on hand techniques in most schools and utter lacking of bunkai in even more schools.

By and large, the students do not understand the full use of the techniques in the Taegeuk forms and simply learn them to pass tests or to win trophies.  Practical application is mostly limited to what is practical in sport.

Daniel


----------



## goingd (Sep 8, 2009)

Practice in jeans and you can kick in jeans. Do an axe kick right and you can still land hard on the shoulder and do substantial damage. Why not try an outside crescent kick? Same basic motion, different, still effective tactic.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 8, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> You say this....
> 
> ...which I *100%* agree with!
> 
> ...


when I said we learn many techniques for close combat I wasnt talking about axe kicks (I just used that as an example of how many kicks in tkd can be used at close range and not only at long range) , I was referring to close range self defence techniques such as grabs , wrist locks etc.  It just confuses me how so many people out there think that tkd simply cant work at close range due to the fact that kicking is a big part of the cirriculum. Whilst a lot of kicks work better from long range , there are plenty of kicks that can work well in close.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 8, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> Weak compared to what? If I search videos of real life altercations caught on video, I don't see a lot of fancy grappling or groundwork, nor does it appear that any is neccessary.  In fact  IMNSHO in a street altercation, you don't ewant to do much grappling.
> 
> So, is TKD weak in this regard? Only if you don't practice what it has to offer in the way of low kicks, knees and elbows.


Very tue. Its been years since Ive stopped going out to pubs/clubs (so maybe things have changed) , but when I used to go out and the inevitable punch up would start I can honestly say I never saw a fight go to the ground , I never saw any grappling either. Now suddenly Im hearing all these statistics saying most fights end up on the ground and you need a ground game to be any chance in a real fight. Things must have changed a lot since I used to see street fights.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 8, 2009)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Very tue. Its been years since Ive stopped going out to pubs/clubs (so maybe things have changed) , but when I used to go out and the inevitable punch up would start I can honestly say I never saw a fight go to the ground , I never saw any grappling either. Now suddenly Im hearing all these statistics saying most fights end up on the ground and you need a ground game to be any chance in a real fight. Things must have changed a lot since I used to see street fights.


 
IIRC, the 90% of all fights ending up on the ground is actually from law enforcement statistics. You know, when the officer puts the suspect prone in order to cuff them. I'm not saying fights never go to the ground, especially now that many more people than before are training in grappling, but the numbers seem purposefully inflated to me. YMMV.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 9, 2009)

ralphmcpherson said:


> when I said we learn many techniques for close combat I wasnt talking about axe kicks (I just used that as an example of how many kicks in tkd can be used at close range and not only at long range) , I was referring to close range self defence techniques such as grabs , wrist locks etc. It just confuses me how so many people out there think that tkd simply cant work at close range due to the fact that kicking is a big part of the cirriculum. Whilst a lot of kicks work better from long range , there are plenty of kicks that can work well in close.


Absolutely. 

And in terms of _content,_ Taekwondo is much more comprehensive than most people realize, particularly ITF. KKW is really not all that comprehensive by comparison. 

But as I said earlier, it really does not need to be; you do not need a large quantity of techniques for effective SD, and even in Kukki TKD, the material is certain 'enough', but you do need to be well trained in the ones that you do have in order to effectively use them for anything outside of an exercise or belt test, and that will not happen the way that most TKD schools train.

Generally, Taekwondo's biggest "weak point" in terms of SD is not within the art but in the training focus. Kukkiwon TKD in particular has embraced sports in a big way. Dojo owners embrace it because it attracts students and wins trophies. It also works very well with kids, which are the bread and butter of most TKD schools. WTF sparing, and by extention, TKD in the olympics, is highly specialized, much more so than most martial sports, and does not resemble the self defense techniques found in TKD in any way. 

*Warning: long answer and tangent below:*

Wonder what TKD will look like in a decade? Look at modern sport fencing.  Electronic scoring, limited target areas (except epee), zero grappling (old school European sword had quite a few) and one of the original olympic sports.  Streamlined and competative, with only the barest resemblence to the art of the duel from which it is descended.  And those 'weapons' look like old car antennas with grips.  And it is a lot of fun! 

Now, the question that I have is this: is this such a bad thing? BJJ has holes in a lot of areas too, but nobody bashes it. They accept that it is a grappling/throwing/groundgame art and do not ask it to be Shotokan or boxing. BJJ certainly has a strong sportive aspect too, at least as much, if not more so, than TKD. 

If you are training in one of the few hard core, SD oriented traditional TKD schools, you will likely be ready for most any unarmed encounter. If you train at the majority of TKD schools, you will have a good art that builds character, fitness, and has a strong sportive aspect focused on kicks. You will go home after training feeling better than you did when you went in and you will be a better person for it all by the time you earn your black belt. As far as SD, you will be in a better position than you were before you started, mainly because you will at least have good avoidance, blocking, and distancing skills and will be in better condition. Not the same as a hard core SD student, but better than the average Joe. 

Oh yes, your stress levels will be lower and your cardio will be better. You will be more flexible and stronger, all of which will contribute to longevity and quality of life. 

If you ask me, that is a serious benefit in and of itself.

Daniel


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2009)

goingd said:


> Do an axe kick right and you can still land hard on the shoulder and do substantial damage. Why not try an outside crescent kick? Same basic motion, different, still effective tactic.



bad bad bad bad bad bad bad ideas

head level kicking ON THE STREET is about the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Right up there with New Coke and George of the Jungle live action film


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 9, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> BJJ has holes in a lot of areas too, but nobody bashes it.




Hi! have we met?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 9, 2009)

goingd said:


> Practice in jeans and you can kick in jeans. Do an axe kick right and you can still land hard on the shoulder and do substantial damage. Why not try an outside crescent kick? Same basic motion, different, still effective tactic.


Depends upon the cut of the jeans, but whether or not you can is another issue from whether or not it is a good idea. 

An axe kick in WTF point sparring is a great idea because your opponent is unlikely to punch you, strikes below the hogu are off limits and in the even of an accident, you are wearing a cup.

In a violent encounter, an axe kick opens up your entire lower body's vital areas to attack, and it is impossible to effectively guard that much territory. Also, if they catch your foot (something else that is not allowed in competition), they can then hammer your rear leg knee, twist your kicking foot and damage your knee, break your knee with an elbow shot, kick the tar out of your groin, or knife you in the groin, possibly cutting your femoral artery in the process, or if you are extremely lucky, toss you on your back. 

Now, show of hands: how many TKD schools teach ukemi?

Daniel


----------



## bluekey88 (Sep 9, 2009)

*hand*


However, I do beleive in the use of mid to low level kicks in sd (save the high kicks for sparring).

Peace,
Erik


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 9, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Now, show of hands: how many TKD schools teach ukemi?
> 
> Daniel



And how many do it well?  There's a lot more to ukemi than the simple forward roll many teach.  There's also ukemi you might perform as a sacrifice technique to move out of a major predicament caused by someone who has ahold of one of your joints and is about to break it.

I've always wanted to see a Youtube video of a real fight where someone lands something like an axe kick.  Haven't come across one yet.


----------



## artFling (Sep 9, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> bad bad bad bad bad bad bad ideas
> 
> head level kicking ON THE STREET is about the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Right up there with New Coke and George of the Jungle live action film



GotJ was cool and so was new coke.  Gained a lot of weight on that.  The New Coke I mean.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 9, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> bad bad bad bad bad bad bad ideas
> 
> head level kicking ON THE STREET is about the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Right up there with New Coke and George of the Jungle live action film


In my opinion there are no hard and fast rules for self defence. I agree with you in that I would never throw a head kick in a real street fight but in saying that I saw 2 guys having a "punch up" in a mcdonalds car park a little while ago and one of the guys threw a beautiful roundhouse to the other guys head and ended the fight right there , it hit the guy flush in the side of the head and knocked him about 2 feet to the side before he landed in a heap on the side of the road. As I say , I wouldnt advise a head kick in real life self defence but you can never dismiss any move and simply say it wont work.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 9, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> And in terms of _content,_ Taekwondo is much more comprehensive than most people realize, particularly ITF. KKW is really not all that comprehensive by comparison.
> 
> ...


some good points there. By black belt someone will be fit , have good reflexes , be strong and have good knowledge of distancing and be quick on their feet etc . All these things will help immensley when trying to defend themselves , it may not mean they will win every fight but it will put them in good stead against an average joe. Thats why I cant understand why some people try and say tkd will "be of no help whatsover if defending yourself ". Its these boad generalisations that really frustrate me.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 10, 2009)

Generalizations are the meat and drink of internet forums and are indeed frustrating.  

On the plus side, they can also generate productive discussion.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 10, 2009)

ralphmcpherson said:


> In my opinion there are no hard and fast rules for self defence. I agree with you in that I would never throw a head kick in a real street fight but in saying that I saw 2 guys having a "punch up" in a mcdonalds car park a little while ago and one of the guys threw a beautiful roundhouse to the other guys head and ended the fight right there , it hit the guy flush in the side of the head and knocked him about 2 feet to the side before he landed in a heap on the side of the road. As I say , I wouldnt advise a head kick in real life self defence but you can never dismiss any move and simply say it wont work.


Given the right circumstances, even flashy XMA moves _can_ work.  A turning kick is a great attack, and if you have the opening and can pull it off, more power to you.  The main issue with a turning kick is, again, can you pull it off in the street clothes that *you* (the general you, not yo specifically) wear?  An 80's headbanger in leather pants and boots will have a lot more trouble than the guy in dockers.  A guy in a business suit will likewise be at a disadvantage.

Can you pivot in the shoes *you* wear the same way that you do in the dojo?  If you wear traditional dress shoes with smooth soles, probably.  Anything with tread, however, and your kicking dynamic has changed.

So much depends on how you as an individual train and the differences between your training and the peculiarties of your life outside of the dojo (clothes and such).

Daniel


----------



## Shaderon (Sep 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> bad bad bad bad bad bad bad ideas
> 
> head level kicking ON THE STREET is about the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Right up there with New Coke and George of the Jungle live action film


 
Look up Terry O'Neil a Karateka who comes from Liverpool England.

According to many people that worked with Terry he has the uncanny ability to kick numerous people in the head without lowering his knee once.  He used to work the doors in Liverpool and Manchester in the roughest places going.  He has literally fought for his collegues lives and his trademark was to lift his leg and turning kick (roundhouse) each person in the head without putting his leg down.  This guy was extremely successful with this move and although I'm not saying that just anyone can do this, it's an exceptional talent, please don't write off high kicks completely.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 12, 2009)

nope, not gonna buy it, High kicks in self defense are stupid, and dangerous, regardless of some guy being the new bruce lee.

anyone that teaches high kicks for self defense should be charged with fraud.

 if you REALLY just GOTTA kick someone in the head, kick them in the grapes FIRST, then when they are bent over in pain, the head is right THERE at waist height, and kicking it is easy and safe.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> nope, not gonna buy it, High kicks in self defense are stupid, and dangerous, regardless of some guy being the new bruce lee.
> 
> anyone that teaches high kicks for self defense should be charged with fraud.
> 
> if you REALLY just GOTTA kick someone in the head, kick them in the grapes FIRST, then when they are bent over in pain, the head is right THERE at waist height, and kicking it is easy and safe.


thats exactly when a head kick can work. If you stun the opponent first with a low kick or good punch then a head kick could finish them off. I dont think anyone is stupid enough to think a head kick can be used as the first move used in self defence. I remember reading once how quickly some guys can lift their leg , kick to the face and place their foot back down again. I cant remember the exact time but it was a fraction of a second. Therefore if an opponent was stunned for a fraction of a second that is heaps of time for a head kick. Its each to their own though , for me personally I would never use a head kick.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 12, 2009)

Shaderon said:


> Look up Terry O'Neil a Karateka who comes from Liverpool England.
> 
> According to many people that worked with Terry he has the uncanny ability to kick numerous people in the head without lowering his knee once. He used to work the doors in Liverpool and Manchester in the roughest places going. He has literally fought for his collegues lives and his trademark was to lift his leg and turning kick (roundhouse) each person in the head without putting his leg down. This guy was extremely successful with this move and although I'm not saying that just anyone can do this, it's an exceptional talent, please don't write off high kicks completely.


The underlined portion of your last sentence pretty much should answer this.  This guy is definitely the exception, not the rule.  And I mean amongst accomplished martial artists, not average Joes.  

I have no doubt that it took him years to develop this ability and he is probably exceptionally athletic.  And he probably developed it as a signature move.  But the vast majority of people are not exceptionally athletic and have lives which preclude them from developing the ability to perform kicks in this manner to any degree that would be useful for SD.

What I always wonder is why people who try to defend sports/flashy kicks as being self defense, even though it is pretty well accepted that they are not good in that area, always pick out prodigies as their example.  

Realistically, a pro football player could use NFL moves as 'self defense' successfully.  But a pro football player does nothng but play football and train all day and can do football moves instinctively and without thinking.  Not to mention that a pro football player works out at a level most MA hobbyists (the vast majority of practitioners) can only dream of.  The fact that they average between two and three hundred pounds does not hurt either.  But that does not make a case for using football moves for SD.

No, I do not completely write off high kicks, as I said earlier.  But for all of the reasons that I have stated previously, high kicks really are tournament moves that should only use when circumstances are perfect.  Which is generally fairly rare. 

Daniel


----------



## goingd (Sep 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> nope, not gonna buy it, High kicks in self defense are stupid, and dangerous, regardless of some guy being the new bruce lee.
> 
> anyone that teaches high kicks for self defense should be charged with fraud.
> 
> if you REALLY just GOTTA kick someone in the head, kick them in the grapes FIRST, then when they are bent over in pain, the head is right THERE at waist height, and kicking it is easy and safe.


Nope, you are WRONG. The LAST thing you want to do in REAL self defense is NOT kick high...
Sarcasm aside, the safe openings to high kick to the head do appear, so if you know how to do it, do it.
I don't know how everyone else practices it, but if you are at actual close range with someone and you throw an outside crescent or axe kick there really are not a lot of legit openings for the opponnet to counter you.
One of the whole ideals behind such extensive kicking training is the greater range, so if the distance is there a kick to the head may very well be the perfect answer. It hurts like a... ya know. It works.

I'm not on a lot lately, so I'll reply again when I'm back. ^~^


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 13, 2009)

anyone throws an AXE kick on the street, on something that isnt half beat to death already, then they deserve the beating they are most likely gonna get


----------



## Shaderon (Sep 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> anyone throws an AXE kick on the street, on something that isnt half beat to death already, then they deserve the beating they are most likely gonna get


 
I gotta agree, axe kicks hurt like hell when you catch em in the face I can testify!  But it's more a finishing move really to someone who is doubled over and about to get up again to give you another shot.  

A well placed Axe kick to the back of the head.....

Well actually I prefer an elbow strike but then I'm not that flexible.

As to the high kicks... I wasn't saying that anyone should try and use them, just don't write them off as they won't work at all.  It's been done and will be done again.  But as I said it's an exceptional talent.


----------



## Revenant777 (Sep 14, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I've always wanted to see a Youtube video of a real fight where someone lands something like an axe kick.  Haven't come across one yet.






I see no reason why head kicks could not be used effectively in a fight.  They are used all the time in MMA.  Side note: How the heck do I put line breaks in my post?


----------



## Shaderon (Sep 14, 2009)

Revenant777 said:


> I see no reason why head kicks could not be used effectively in a fight. They are used all the time in MMA. Side note: How the heck do I put line breaks in my post?


 

Wow, that's some of the best axe kicks I've ever seen, again though, an exceptional talent.  But proof it does work if you can do it.

BTW line breaks..  just press the enter key, that works for me.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 14, 2009)

If you are tall and flexible it is surprisingly easy to drop an axe kick on a shorter opponent , we have guys at our club that can bring one from out of nowhere. When my instructor graded for his 6th dan another 6th dan axe kicked him in the  face during sparring and did some damage to my instructors face. I watched it back on video and it was so fast that I had to pause it to see what actually happened and it just nailed him. My instructor is no slouch and is very fast with quick reflexes (and over 30 years training) so if he can get hit with one anyone can.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 14, 2009)

*sigh*

I DONT CARE what an elite trained fighter can do in a loose pair of fighting shorts

if YOU cant do it in JEANS it is a STUPID thing to do

dream on and fill your head with fantasies that you can pull that off on the streets, I will make sure to go visit your folks and let them know you didnt suffer at the end...



*walks away muttering*


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> *sigh*
> 
> I DONT CARE what an elite trained fighter can do in a loose pair of fighting shorts
> 
> ...


I dont recall mentioning anything about doing axe kicks in tight fitting clothing. But you've clearly watched every street fight that has ever taken place and clearly have more knowledge than anyone else regarding the subject so I'll take your word for it. In the history of street fights no one has ever performed a successful axe kick according to your theory. I just hope everyone knows to take everything you say with a grain of salt.


----------



## Revenant777 (Sep 14, 2009)

At least personally, I can easily throw head kicks in jeans.  It is just plain not much more difficult than throwing head kicks in a dobak.  However, the point was that, as demonstrated in the video and numerous others on youtube, it is possible to effectivly use high kicks, spinning kicks, ax kicks, and jumping kicks in a fight.  Personaly I prefer body kicks because they are easyer, but I cannot think of any good reason why a quick front kick to the face could not be used in a fight.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 14, 2009)

Revenant777 said:


> At least personally, I can easily throw head kicks in jeans.  It is just plain not much more difficult than throwing head kicks in a dobak.  However, the point was that, as demonstrated in the video and numerous others on youtube, it is possible to effectivly use high kicks, spinning kicks, ax kicks, and jumping kicks in a fight.  Personaly I prefer body kicks because they are easyer, but I cannot think of any good reason why a quick front kick to the face could not be used in a fight.


I must have too much time on my hands because I just went and put on a pair of jeans to test the theory. I can easily kick to the head wearing jeans (I actually thought it would be more difficult). I will stress again , though , that I personally would never use a head kick in a real self defence situation but to say they simply cant work is a huge generalisation.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> *sigh*
> 
> I DONT CARE what an elite trained fighter can do in a loose pair of fighting shorts
> 
> if YOU cant do it in JEANS it is a STUPID thing to do


Even if you can do it in jeans (not that hard really) it's still not the best idea. 

That aside, if you expect to defend yourself with kicks, wearing restrictive clothing isn't the best idea regardless.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 15, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Even if you can do it in jeans (not that hard really) it's still not the best idea.
> 
> That aside, if you expect to defend yourself with kicks, wearing restrictive clothing isn't the best idea regardless.


exactly right , and I think thats the general consensus. Most people on here have said from the start that high kicks are not preferable in most situations and I have to agree , but there are going to be times where a head kick can work , especially if the person throwing the head kick is over 6 foot and they are being attacked by someone a lot shorter it really could be viable at times. I just hate the broad generalisation that " a head kick will never work".


----------



## goingd (Sep 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> anyone throws an AXE kick on the street, on something that isnt half beat to death already, then they deserve the beating they are most likely gonna get


Yyyyeah, everyone for that matter, who disagrees with you, deserves to be physically harmed...


----------



## goingd (Sep 15, 2009)

Revenant777 said:


> I see no reason why head kicks could not be used effectively in a fight.  They are used all the time in MMA.  Side note: How the heck do I put line breaks in my post?



That amused me so very much... I might actually like MMA if all the fighters were like that.

Kicking high and quickly in jeans, even rather snug jeans, is really not that hard. Whenever I freespar (and I mean freespar, not competition) I find myself using my hands the most, but my legs are longer and stronger, and I would never count them out. ^~^


----------



## Revenant777 (Sep 15, 2009)

http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/actionjeans400.jpg-744449.jpeg

This discussion is now officially over.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 15, 2009)

Revenant777 said:


> http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/actionjeans400.jpg-744449.jpeg
> 
> This discussion is now officially over.


Yes, but he's Chuck Norris, the exception to all laws of physics and body mechanics that limit the rest of us mere mortals!

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 15, 2009)

Revenant777 said:


> I see no reason why head kicks could not be used effectively in a fight.  They are used all the time in MMA.  Side note: How the heck do I put line breaks in my post?



Not to split hairs, but I don't mean a professional bout.  How about some "caught on camera" stuff?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 15, 2009)

goingd said:


> Yyyyeah, everyone for that matter, who disagrees with you, deserves to be physically harmed...




now thats a stupid thing to say, and comes nowhere NEAR what i said.

I didnt say you deserve to get hurt FOR disagreeing with me.

if you do something THAT dumb in a FIGHT, then you deserve the hurting you are gonna get.

it's like going swimming in the ocean with t-bone underwear on.

you are most likely GONNA get bit, and you cant cry about it cuz you brought it on yourself.

in a FIGHT, you keep your feet ont he ground, or CLOSE to the ground.

Anyone that kicks higher than the nuts in a FIGHT is most likely gonna regret it.

I dont care what elite trained professional fighters can get away with, since no one here is an elite, trained fighter.

all you TKD people are just brainwashed thinking that what you can do in sparring in a nice loose uniform you can just as easily do in street clothes and shoes on cement.

TRY IT

then get back to me and let me know how funny it was when it didnt work and you fell on your butt.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> now thats a stupid thing to say, and comes
> all you TKD people are just brainwashed thinking that what you can do in sparring in a nice loose uniform you can just as easily do in street clothes and shoes on cement.
> 
> TRY IT
> ...


 
At the age of 17 (que Star Wars "A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Far Far Away) I was mugged by a man with a knife. I did all the things you're supposed to do, including giving him my wallet and the rich sum of $6 it contained. The unfriendly man with the knife was convinced that I must have more money on me, and was willing to kill me to get it.
He slashed, sideways, at my throat. I performed a rising block. In hindsight not the best choice, since I didn't get back quite far enough, and as the knife rose it caught my left eye. That's why I wear a prosthetic today. I threw a roundhouse to his solar plexus, then a hook kick to his head. He landed on his hands and knees. I threw an axe kick to the back of his neck, which ended things. I then ran.

While the axe kick landed low enough to make you happy, the first two kicks were both 'above the nuts'. I did not fall on my butt. I did not have any difficulty caused by my clothing. I am not a professional fighter. There were two problems with the encounter, and neither of them had anything to do with the kicks.
1 - I screwed up the block on his knife hand.
2 - I had to hurt him even worse than he hurt me. Necessary, yes, but still regretable.

The other thing I learned from this is that we, as a culture, ought to reconsider training ourselves to be victims. The last few generations have been taught 'don't fight back, give the badguy what he wants and he will go away'. I believe this to be a mistake. Give the badguy what he wants just long enough to distract him. I ought to have dropped my wallet when I handed it to him, and when his eyes reflexively followed, attacked.
Teaching our children to be victims in this way is, I believe, why 9/11 was our own fault. Terrorists cannot highjack a plane with a box cutter if 15 people jump on each of them.

Every attack we train with is useful. Not all are useful in every situation. But none are useless either.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 15, 2009)

Dirty Dog said:


> The other thing I learned from this is that we, as a culture, ought to reconsider training ourselves to be victims. The last few generations have been taught 'don't fight back, give the badguy what he wants and he will go away'. I believe this to be a mistake. Give the badguy what he wants just long enough to distract him. I ought to have dropped my wallet when I handed it to him, and when his eyes reflexively followed, attacked.
> Teaching our children to be victims in this way is, I believe, why 9/11 was our own fault. Terrorists cannot highjack a plane with a box cutter if 15 people jump on each of them.


Definitely, we have spent the past few decades training ourselves to be victims of crime.  I have said as well that there was no reason that a couple of guys with boxcutters should have been able to hijack those planes with more than enough people on board to overpower them.

Daniel


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 15, 2009)

solar plexus isnt head high, and after a shot to the solar plexus, his HEAD wasnt head high i would wager.

so, while your story is awesome, and a very good read, it doesnt really have anything to do with the thread at hand.

but, lets dissect


you already admitted you moofed the block

now, the front kick to the SP is a good reaction, was your next shot a lead leg, rear leg, or spinning hook?

why the hook?

wouldnt a side kick to the body, or KNEE have been FASTER, SAFER and landed with even MORE power?

an axe kick to the back of someone's head, when they are on thier hands and knees is fine, but not i think the smartest or most effective idea, but it is at least not dangerous to the one throwing it.


----------



## goingd (Sep 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> now thats a stupid thing to say, and comes nowhere NEAR what i said.
> 
> I didnt say you deserve to get hurt FOR disagreeing with me.
> 
> ...



I consistently train in street cloths, on cement, with my shoes. It does not take that much getting used to. Oh, and to get back to you, it was absolutely hilarious all those times I never fell on my butt! I'm pretending to laugh about it now just thinking about it!
How is no one here an elite trained fighter? Many of the people on this forum are masters of their art. I am sorry, but unless there is some kind of condition keeping you back, a master ought to be consider an "elite trained fighter". And the reason these "elites" can do the kicks they do is because they do it consistently. They did not just one day decide, "I'm going to start doing high axe kicks," and then master it. Legs are long. Legs are strong. In a box with a fox for that matter.
You offer no debate because you ignore what people have to genuinely say that opposes your way of thinking. You might as well be shouting the pledge of allegiance to drown out a speaker at a town hall meeting. I mean no disrespect, and I'm certain you could pretend to care less what I think, but being pompous is not the same thing as being direct and bold.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 15, 2009)

well good for you!!! tell you what Sparky, if YOU can, then EVERYONE can, how silly of me...

once again, real slow for our special needs folks

just becuase you CAN doesnt make it a good idea

the higher the stakes, the more it is a bad idea to push the limits of luck

life and death? sure, you go ahead, i will play it safe and smart, and keep my feet close to the ground.

Oh, and for your personal opinion of me?

i literally could not care less.


----------



## StuartA (Sep 15, 2009)

Twin Fist,

I once had occassion to use a flying side kick on the street in SD of another.. i was about 20 feet away when he attacked the lady so I had a run up.. worked a charm! I also know of an occassion when a BB KO' someone (on the street) with a Jump Reverse Turning Kick.. though he was very good at it!

I mostly agree with 'rules' usually quoted with SD/SD .. though there are exceptions to every rule.. Im proof of it! 

Stuart


----------



## artFling (Sep 15, 2009)

Just in case you are wondering, Twin Fist, though portly and middle aged, can deliver any number of devastating kicks head high.  He opened up my nose with one as easily as taking a bite out of a baloney sandwich, which he also can do quite well.  

And here's the thing, TF has basically two volume settings on his keyboard, sarcastic and enraged.  It's therapy.  

But don't miss his message: for the masses training for SD, he's saying (and you have to read between the lines to get this) don't TRAIN to rely on fancy head shots and spinning kicks.  If you need it and that's what you got, you can use it, but don't plan to. Expect to use a lot of other stuff.  Use the more pedestrian stuff; it's way more reliable.  

Lots of people will let you know that the fancy stuff's not a great idea.  Read Loren Christensen on this.  

Still sport a nice scar across the bridge of my nose from that RH kick.  Really gotta come up with a better story about how I got it.  

I like to tell my students at middle school that I got in a fight.  They like that cuz I'm also a portly middle aged guy who's bitten into a sandwich or two too.  (Don't look like a MAist)


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 15, 2009)

you CAN drive a car with your feet

that dont make it a good idea




StuartA said:


> Twin Fist,
> 
> I once had occassion to use a flying side kick on the street in SD of another.. i was about 20 feet away when he attacked the lady so I had a run up.. worked a charm! I also know of an occassion when a BB KO' someone (on the street) with a Jump Reverse Turning Kick.. though he was very good at it!
> 
> ...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> solar plexus isnt head high, and after a shot to the solar plexus, his HEAD wasnt head high i would wager.
> 
> so, while your story is awesome, and a very good read, it doesnt really have anything to do with the thread at hand.
> 
> ...


 
So I guess you're retracting this statement:
"Anyone that kicks higher than the nuts in a FIGHT is most likely gonna regret it." or at least explaining why the nuts, in your scenario, are head high. I'm more than average familar with both normal and abnormal human anatomy, and I've never seen a case like that...

Both the front kick and hook were with the right leg. It started out as the back leg and touched the ground again after the hook. His arms came down after the kick to the SP, so his head was open. And a side kick to the body would still have violated your "above the nuts rule", but since you're retracting that, I guess that doesn't matter.
While his head was lower than it would have been in an upright stance, neither was he bent double. The hook kick was roughly at the level of my shoulders. Still well above both his and my nuts.

As for the axe kick, I believe I said NECK, not head. How is turning him into a C5-6 quadraplegic not effective?

As for "moofing" the block, yes, I did. I needed to either get the knife higher, or my head further back. Nobody is perfect, and I certainly don't claim to be.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 15, 2009)

i am not retracting nothing.

look at what i said.

"Anyone that kicks higher than the nuts in a FIGHT is most likely gonna regret it."

now let me do some magic here

"Anyone that kicks higher than the nuts in a FIGHT is *most likely* gonna regret it."

you beat the odds

congrats

dont change anything tho.

solar plexus is pushing it. i would never kick higher than that on the street, no matter what, and an aex kick? forget that crap.......

you got away with something that wasnt a good idea. Dont count on it happening twice.

I never said it COULDNT be done, i said it was a low percentage shot. and it is.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 15, 2009)

goingd said:


> I consistently train in street cloths, on cement, with my shoes. It does not take that much getting used to. Oh, and to get back to you, it was absolutely hilarious all those times I never fell on my butt! I'm pretending to laugh about it now just thinking about it!
> How is no one here an elite trained fighter? Many of the people on this forum are masters of their art. I am sorry, but unless there is some kind of condition keeping you back, a master ought to be consider an "elite trained fighter". And the reason these "elites" can do the kicks they do is because they do it consistently. They did not just one day decide, "I'm going to start doing high axe kicks," and then master it. Legs are long. Legs are strong. In a box with a fox for that matter.
> You offer no debate because you ignore what people have to genuinely say that opposes your way of thinking. You might as well be shouting the pledge of allegiance to drown out a speaker at a town hall meeting. I mean no disrespect, and I'm certain you could pretend to care less what I think, but being pompous is not the same thing as being direct and bold.


some really good points there. A lot of the people saying high kicks can be effective when the time is right are black belts in tkd , they are not just some drunk kid at a party wearing tight jeans who watched a martial arts film yesterday and decides to start throwing head kicks when he gets into a fight. These people have trained for years and years and have practiced head kicks literally millions of times and I think twin fist is forgetting this. Kicks from an experienced tkd practitioner are a lot stronger than a punch and can be done at a greater distance and at times are a very viable option (even at head height).


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 15, 2009)

Personally, I consder the solar plexus to be a good choice provided you have the guy's hands distracted.  Anything higher than that I consider to be territory of the hands.  As others have said, if you have the shot and the ability to pull it off, then by all means do.  

The major thing to be on guard against with higher than waist kicks is grabs.

Daniel


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 15, 2009)

I suppose a lot of it comes down to who you are defending yourself against also (which unfortunately you dont know at the time). Against a trained opponent there is the real possibility of a grab if you go for a head kick and its not super quick and when the time is perfect to do so. Obviously against an untrained opponent that risk diminishes somewhat. I know when we spar aginst much lower belts (where we go very easy) it is surprisingly easy to kick them in the head , they just dont see it coming at all.


----------



## goingd (Sep 16, 2009)

There are in fact times when kicking high is the actually the better, safer idea. It does not have to be done all the time. When we are defending ourselves our train of thought should never be, "When will I get to throw this high kick?" We should be ready to counter each action of a greater and opposite reaction.

I have a lot of respect for Ed Parker and Bruce Lee, but I disagree with them on a lot of things. Neither one believed in high kicks (though Bruce could sure use them when he wanted to), but both believed in 'finding your own way', and I have a feeling that if they were around, neither one would have keyboard settings for 'enraged' when they happen to disagree another's 'way'.

^~^


----------



## Shaderon (Sep 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I dont care what elite trained professional fighters can get away with, since no one here is an elite, trained fighter.


 
How do you know?

One of us could easily be!  Please don't make blanket assumptions like that, you could upset someone!  You don't have to be famous to be an Elite.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 16, 2009)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I suppose a lot of it comes down to who you are defending yourself against also (which unfortunately you dont know at the time). Against a trained opponent there is the real possibility of a grab if you go for a head kick and its not super quick and when the time is perfect to do so. Obviously against an untrained opponent that risk diminishes somewhat. I know when we spar aginst much lower belts (where we go very easy) it is surprisingly easy to kick them in the head , they just dont see it coming at all.


Grabbing high kicks is not all that hard and does not require very much training.  People do it fairly naturally.  If anything the human body grabs more naturally than it strikes.

Also, an assailant who is not formally trained is a very different matter than a low belt in the dojo.  Most people in the dojo who are of low rank are regular work-a-day folks who have little fighting instinct.  An assailant is intent on hurting you.  The low belt is intent on trying to learn the class while not getting hammered by the high belts.

Incidentally, one of the things I see low belts do when they are new to TKD sparring is grab the kicking leg.  Not every low belt, but certainly a lot of them.  

The last thing about an assailant that you need to concern yourself with is the presence of a weapon, particularly a knife.  

Generally, kicks below the waist, hand techniques chest level and above, and a combination of both between the solar plexus and the waist (I am including knees when I say kicks and elbows when I say hand techs).  A high kick at the right moment can certainly be a fight ender, but it is riskier than hand techniques.

One of the things that I have seen at many (I will stop short of saying most, though I suspect that most would be more accurate) taekwondo schools is a lack of training in hand techniques.  Not a lack of learning them, but a lack of drilling in them consistently.  Kicks are drilled in extensively in most taekwondo schools.  Which is good; it is harder to learn to kick effectively than it is to learn to punch, but the hands should be drilled in to the same degree. 

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 16, 2009)

Shaderon said:


> How do you know?
> 
> One of us could easily be! Please don't make blanket assumptions like that, you could upset someone! You don't have to be famous to be an Elite.


While you are correct; one really does not know who is on the other end of the keyboard, elite fighters are not likely to get upset; elite fighters are generally not insecure and unlikely to be upset by such a statement.  More than likely, an elite fighter would take such a statement in the spirit in which it was intended: the average practitioner, even a high ranking practitioner, is not an elite fighter. 

T/F's statement may be a blanket one, but essentially true: the vast majority of us who practice martial arts are not elite fighters.  

Essentially, what he is counciling against is defending the use of high risk/low chance of return techniques in SD just because an elite pro fighter who trains as his seven day a week job, trains in a manner much more intensive than what is seen in most dojos, and who has hundreds of competative fights can use them in a controled environment that minimizes the risks and where the fighter is in clothes specifically cut out for pro fighting and both opponents are wearing gloves, cups and mouthpieces.  

A good example would be saying that it is not a bad idea to use a low guard in SD because it worked for Ali in his prime.  Or because it works for Mark Lopez in WTF competition.

Daniel


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 16, 2009)

Shaderon said:


> How do you know?
> 
> One of us could easily be!  Please don't make blanket assumptions like that, you could upset someone!  You don't have to be famous to be an Elite.




elite fighters are busy training and fighting, not posting


----------



## Shaderon (Sep 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> elite fighters are busy training and fighting, not posting


 

You know them all?   I have met a few Elite fighters in diff MA's and I know for a fact that some of them hang about on Forums in thier spare time for the info which it provides.   You can't train 24/7!
One girl who I train with sometimes at BB club is an Elite, she's totally unbeaten and I don't mean just in UK tournaments, she's in our England Squad and competes internationally, she doesn't train 24/7 and has a life.
And no I can't provide her name for proof, I only know her first name as she's not in my club.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 16, 2009)

I will apologies right now because this is going to get ugly. *I am Sorry to those of you that I will offend.*

Elite fighters are you ****ing kidding me, they play a sport like boxing or MMA or ring sparring that does no eqaute to self defense. What the **** does an elite fighter really know about S.D. principles? nothing they understand and became great at playing a game like football players and such, an athlete does not and will not eqaute to elite S.D., two different approaches to the Art.

It just kills me when people cannot and will not understand one does not make the other. I have seen S.D. people wipe MMA or fighters up, because the fighters are not use to using what ever they have in there tool chest. They only know rules of engagaement in a stituation there are no rules survivals is the only winner. Please remember the two are both equally good but only one can really defend.:asian:


----------



## d1jinx (Sep 16, 2009)

so would that be like a doublecheese burger and a mcchicken with cheese?  
mmmmmmmmm........  doublecheeseburger..:fanboy:


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 16, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> I will apologies right now because this is going to get ugly. *I am Sorry to those of you that I will offend.*



Your apology is not accepted.

If you're intending to offend someone with a statement, then "apologizing in advance" does not make your comments any less offensive.  If you want to construct an argument that actually explains why you believe what you do, that's one thing, and that's something people can discuss.  But posting vitriolic commentary with self-edited by blatantly obvious swearing is not helpful and doesn't really persuade me to believe your statements.



terryl965 said:


> Elite fighters are you ****ing kidding me, they play a sport like boxing or MMA or ring sparring that does no eqaute to self defense.



Actually, it does.  It allows for a controlled environment in which to develop skills to be applied outside of that environment.  There is a difference in training for the ring and training for self-defense, but that does not negate the fact that alive, resistive training, and sparring are absolutely necessary for developing a solid set of reliable skills, a tool box, a delivery system that you can depend on.

You're creating a false dichotomy by saying the issue is "street vs. sport", when this is completely not the case.



terryl965 said:


> What the **** does an elite fighter really know about S.D. principles?



How do we know that you or any other instructor of self-defense knows anything about self-defense principles?  What requirements are you setting by making this statement?

What are "self-defense principles"?

Why does utilizing alive training metholody automatically mean ignorance of self-defense principles?



terryl965 said:


> I have seen S.D. people wipe MMA or fighters up, because the fighters are not use to using what ever they have in there tool chest.



This is called anecdotal evidence.  You say this, but offer no proof.  Do you have videos of this happening?  You expect us to believe you, but this proves nothing.

I've seen "S.D. people" get destroyed by MMA fighters because the tool box they thought they had was full of skills they couldn't actually apply in an alive environment.

Anecdotal evidence, contrasting yours.

No proof whatsoever.



terryl965 said:


> They only know rules of engagaement in a stituation there are no rules survivals is the only winner. Please remember the two are both equally good but only one can really defend.:asian:



Are you telling me that an MMA fighter cannot defend against strikes, kicks, throws, and joint locks?  Are you telling me that someone trained by the Dog Brothers cannot defend themselves against someone wielding a pipe, a stick, a bad, a bottle?

Really?

That their training hampers them?

What sort of training program would you recommend then?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 16, 2009)

StuartA said:


> Twin Fist,
> 
> I once had occassion to use a flying side kick on the street in SD of another.. i was about 20 feet away when he attacked the lady so I had a run up.. worked a charm! I also know of an occassion when a BB KO' someone (on the street) with a Jump Reverse Turning Kick.. *though he was very good at it!*


 
The bolded part above can apply to _any_ technique used in self-defense can it not? If you can't execute a good, fast, powerful reverse punch I don't suggest using it if you're being attacked. If you can't do an effective back piercing kick in a high pressure sparring match in class don't do it if you have to defend yourself on the street. If you _can_ do them well you have some very powerful weapons in your arsenal (heck, the jumping reverse turning kick you mentioned can be potentially devastating).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 16, 2009)

This thread is starting to remind me of one I read on the original ITF bulletain board some years ago. One gentleman posted that he had recently been the victim of an attempted mugging. He had, however, recently been training with another ITF stylist who was quite effective at executing a bituro chagi (twisting kick). Since he had been working on that particular technique for some time he rather naturally used it to defend himself against the would-be mugger. He was successful and the mugger was not. 

I pointed out that while he was successful and survived a mugging (unscathed) that some people would undoubtedly take the opportunity to tell him "you did it wrong." As it so happens there was a bit of that reaction. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## goingd (Sep 16, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> I will apologies right now because this is going to get ugly. *I am Sorry to those of you that I will offend.*
> 
> Elite fighters are you ****ing kidding me, they play a sport like boxing or MMA or ring sparring that does no eqaute to self defense. What the **** does an elite fighter really know about S.D. principles? nothing they understand and became great at playing a game like football players and such, an athlete does not and will not eqaute to elite S.D., two different approaches to the Art.
> 
> It just kills me when people cannot and will not understand one does not make the other. I have seen S.D. people wipe MMA or fighters up, because the fighters are not use to using what ever they have in there tool chest. They only know rules of engagaement in a stituation there are no rules survivals is the only winner. Please remember the two are both equally good but only one can really defend.:asian:



When I say "elite fighters" I am not thinking of anything sport related. I mean people who genuinely know, and are darn good at what they train.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 16, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> I pointed out that while he was successful and survived a mugging (unscathed) that some people would undoubtedly take the opportunity to tell him "you did it wrong." As it so happens there was a bit of that reaction.



Agreed.

What you did, or what technique you use, is less important than how you train it.  Are certain techniques "low percentage"?  Certainly.  However, if the opportunity for a high kick knock out exists for a moment during an encounter, and you miss that opportunity (or fail to succeed) because you have not trained your high kick sufficiently & properly, that is not the kick's fault, but you and your training methodology.

Like Bruce said, "I do not it, it hits all by itself."


----------



## StuartA (Sep 16, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> The bolded part above can apply to _any_ technique used in self-defense can it not? If you can't execute a good, fast, powerful reverse punch I don't suggest using it if you're being attacked. If you can't do an effective back piercing kick in a high pressure sparring match in class don't do it if you have to defend yourself on the street. If you _can_ do them well you have some very powerful weapons in your arsenal (heck, the jumping reverse turning kick you mentioned can be potentially devastating).
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Quite agree. As I said in my previous post, I mostly agree with basic SD principles ( kick low etc.).. just never say never is all!

I've seen a potential fight stopped by throwing a side kick just in front of someones face (by a security guard).. it was a gang of rowdy teens and they just went "wooah" and decided better than starting a fight in the first place!

Never say never! 

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Sep 16, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> you CAN drive a car with your feet
> 
> that dont make it a good idea


 
Please reread my post... I never said it was a good idea (certainly not for the general masses).. however, lets not forget also that "in theory" we have dedicated our lives to training a martial art, we train to do things the 'masses' can't.. if it was driving, perhaps that would be driving with our feet!

Just maybe!

Stuart

_*Cicero* - *the 6 mistakes of man - No. 3:* Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it._


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 16, 2009)

you go ahead Stuart, let me know how it works out for you with those backwards roads and cars you guys have...lol


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 16, 2009)

goingd said:


> When I say "elite fighters" I am not thinking of anything sport related. I mean people who genuinely know, and are darn good at what they train.


That changes things a bit.  What you describe is not elite, but advanced proficiency.

Generally, the term 'elite fighter' is not used outside of sport, mainly because sport is generally the only place where you have verifiable records and rules of engagement designed to test the skill of the fighters against one another.  Cheap shots and such that one could use in SD, such as groin shots, eye gouges, and such are prohibited, both for the safety of the fighters and to keep the contest one of skill.  

A lot of guys and gals know what they are doing and are very good at what they do, but that does not make them elite.

Lyoto Machida is an elite fighter.  A guy who trains hard at the local Shotokan club and holds a fourth dan and is capable of defending himself with Shotokan karate is simply a skilled practitioner.

Nothing wrong with that, but when people use the term "elite fighter" it implies someone who is in the top 5% of competative fighters in some form of martial sport, be it MMA, Taekwondo, or boxing.  

Daniel


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 16, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That changes things a bit.  What you describe is not elite, but advanced proficiency.
> 
> Generally, the term 'elite fighter' is not used outside of sport, mainly because sport is generally the only place where you have verifiable records and rules of engagement designed to test the skill of the fighters against one another.  Cheap shots and such that one could use in SD, such as groin shots, eye gouges, and such are prohibited, both for the safety of the fighters and to keep the contest one of skill.
> 
> ...


"elite fighter" is not a good term necessarilly for what we are discussing as by your terminology it only accounts for pro sport fighters. My instructor is a 6th dan , trains hard and is damn good. He has no interest whatsoever in sport fighting and yet I would consider him an elite fighter because if he got attacked a thousand times Id back him to win 995 times. Maybe we need another term instead of elite fighter.


----------



## goingd (Sep 17, 2009)

What I imply, and what others' perceive are different things. Like I said, when I say elite, I do not mean anything sport related. To me, if you are elite, you are very good.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 17, 2009)

goingd said:


> What I imply, and what others' perceive are different things. Like I said, when I say elite, I do not mean anything sport related. To me, if you are elite, you are very good.


I agree. If only pro sports fighters are elite then there would not be many (if any) elite fighters in their 40's. And I know some very good fighters well over their 40's.


----------



## goingd (Sep 17, 2009)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I agree. If only pro sports fighters are elite then there would not be many (if any) elite fighters in their 40's. And I know some very good fighters well over their 40's.



My master is in his mid fifties and I have never met someone with more skill and knowledge about martial arts. A lot of text books and articles will refer to the Hwarang (sp?) as elites, whether in fighting or just as upperclass. I think it is a more general term than many realize.


----------



## StuartA (Sep 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> you go ahead Stuart, let me know how it works out for you with those backwards roads and cars you guys have...lol


 
Ah! Sarcasm.. always a great response!

Stuart

Ps. Whats backwards about our roads? We drive on the left and you drive on the right.. do you know why?

_In the past, almost everybody travelled on the left side of the road because that was the most sensible option for feudal, violent societies. Since most people are right-handed, swordsmen preferred to keep to the left in order to have their right arm nearer to an opponent and their scabbard further from him. Moreover, it reduced the chance of the scabbard (worn on the left) hitting other people. 

Furthermore, a right-handed person finds it easier to mount a horse from the left side of the horse, and it would be very difficult to do otherwise if wearing a sword (which would be worn on the left). It is safer to mount and dismount towards the side of the road, rather than in the middle of traffic, so if one mounts on the left, then the horse should be ridden on the left side of the road. 

In the late 1700s, however, teamsters in France and the United States began hauling farm products in big wagons pulled by several pairs of horses. These wagons had no driver's seat; instead the driver sat on the left rear horse, so he could keep his right arm free to lash the team. Since he was sitting on the left, he naturally wanted everybody to pass on the left so he could look down and make sure he kept clear of the oncoming wagons wheels. Therefore he kept to the right side of the road._ (taken from the web).

So we drive on the left due to us being warriors and you drive on the right cos you`d rather be farmers  Explains a lot eh! - just joking my friend!


----------



## d1jinx (Sep 17, 2009)

StuartA said:


> Ah! Sarcasm.. always a great response!
> 
> Stuart
> 
> ...


 
not sure how much truth to this.... but interesting theory.  

besides, do you know what the farmers did while you "warriors" were at war?  made love to our wives, not our stable-boy.   :lfao:


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 17, 2009)

I will just say this, too many people confuse sport with SD. Just because you are proficent in one makes you proficent in the other. Remember it can work the other way, I know elite trainer at gym but could not get themself out of a wet paper bag. All I am saying is do not get confused about theissue here. Some people believe a heavy set person cannot defend themself but I know some that can. SD is more than push ups and wieght training, it is building yourselt mentally and physically hust like the military.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 17, 2009)

ralphmcpherson said:


> "elite fighter" is not a good term necessarilly for what we are discussing as by your terminology it only accounts for pro sport fighters.


Not a question of it being my personal definition.  That is how the term is used.  You are not generally considered elite without a verifiable record.  Saying that you are a mean motorscooter  is just talk without a record. 

Like it or not, the tournament record is the only viable method for determining who is an elite figher.  Street fighting is illegal and the results are generally unverifiable (and often inflated).



ralphmcpherson said:


> My instructor is a 6th dan , trains hard and is damn good. He has no interest whatsoever in sport fighting and yet I would consider him an elite fighter because if he got attacked a thousand times Id back him to win 995 times.


Meaning no disrespect to your instructor, that is pure speculation on your part.  Educated speculation, and likely well founded, but speculation nonetheless.  

Your instructor would be classified as a high dan master instructor, certainly a high accomplishment.  But he spends his days training students, not fighting. 

Please note that this does not make him inferior to an elite figher; if anything he likely has much more depth to his practice of the art than an elite fighter, and certainly, his skill set encompasses much more than just fighting.



ralphmcpherson said:


> Maybe we need another term instead of elite fighter.


Master instructor
Advanced practitioner
High dan (6th and up in TKD)
(insert name of art) master

The list could go on, but I think that advanced practitioner is probably the one that fits most broadly and is not dependent upon rank.

Daniel


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 17, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> I will just say this, too many people confuse sport with SD. Just because you are proficent in one makes you proficent in the other. Remember it can work the other way, I know elite trainer at gym but could not get themself out of a wet paper bag. All I am saying is do not get confused about theissue here. Some people believe a heavy set person cannot defend themself but I know some that can. SD is more than push ups and wieght training, it is building yourselt mentally and physically hust like the military.



I know SD experts on forums who like to trash talk about sport fighters but can't fight themselves out of a wet bag.

What are these "self-defense principles" that you require?

Why does utilizing alive training metholody automatically mean ignorance of self-defense principles?

What sort of training program would you recommend?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 17, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> I know SD experts on forums who like to trash talk about sport fighters but can't fight themselves out of a wet bag.
> 
> What are these "self-defense principles" that you require?
> 
> ...


I know that you were responding to Terry, but I thought that I would take a crack at it anyway.

Without getting into athletes who cannot defend themselves and SD guys who cannot fight, there is a difference between training for sport and training for SD.

There is certainly overlap, and principles that are common between the two, but there are also differences. The amount of difference depends upon which sport. 

WTF sport taekwondo is very, very removed from what is traditionally considered SD. 

Boxing is removed, but less so because people intuitively use their hands, whereas high kicks need to be trained for by the vast majority of people.

Same for grappling/groundfighting arts; people intuitively push, pull and grab.

MMA shares a lot more in common with SD because the range of attacks that one must defend against is much greater than it is in boxing, WTF TKD, or straight wrestling.

The principle difference between sport and SD is that in sport, the goal is to stay in the fight and to display clear superiority and outfight the opponent within the bounds of the rules. One can win in sport through a combination of superior fighting, superior fight strategy, and gamesmanship.

In SD, the goal is to survive. This can be accomplished in numerous ways.

The most preferrable one is simply to avoid fights via awareness, which is completely opposed to sport, where one seeks out fights.

Once an attack begins, the most preferrable option is to escape quickly, which is not an option in a fight; if you quit the fight you lose, whereas if you escape alive in SD, you do not lose.  *Note:* the vast majority of schools teaching practical self defense focus on this rout.  For this reason, their students are likely ill prepared to step into the ring and fight in competition unless they are training for sport/competition in addition.

In sport, a tapping opponent signals the end of the fight. In SD, if you let the guy loose when he is in pain, he could pull a knife and kill you.

Specific attacks that would be useful in SD, particularly for a smaller person against a larger attacker, such as eye gouges, strikes to the groin, etc. are illegal moves in sport. Certainly, if one determines that the only way to survive is to kill or disable their assailant, they can attempt to do so in SD (possible legal consequences may result, but that is after the fact), whereas in sport, your goal is not to kill or permanently disable your opponent.

Lastly, gamesmanship can be used in sport to secure a victory. By gamesmanship, I mean using the rules to gain an advantage that one would not normally have in a fight. Obviously, that is not an option in SD.

Does that mean that an athlete cannot defend themselves? Of course not. It depends on the athlete; my day job is answering phones on a support desk. I take pains to train to defend myself. An athlete's job is ring fighting. If he or she takes time to apply their skills to defending themselves, then they will be able to, and likely more effectively than me, as their day job has many more applicable skills to SD than mine does. 

It is more likely that an SD guy would fare poorly in the ring, as one cannot just step into a rule set and environment for which they have not trained and simply excel, prodigies not withstanding.

So, when the SD crowed says that sport is not SD, they are correct, but yes, there is overlap.

Daniel


----------



## StuartA (Sep 17, 2009)

d1jinx said:


> not sure how much truth to this.... but interesting theory.
> 
> besides, do you know what the farmers did while you "warriors" were at war? made love to our wives, not our stable-boy. :lfao:


 
Thats a little skewed.. the warriors made love to other peoples wives when at war... and we've all seen what the farmers wife looks like eh! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





:shock:
Now.. all joking aside.. back to the topic at hand me thinks..


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 17, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So, when the SD crowed says that sport is not SD, they are correct, but yes, there is overlap.



What "SD crowd"?  Who are they?  What qualifies someone to be in the "SD crowd"?

Let me put it to you this way.  It would seem we belong to different "SD crowds".  The "SD guys" I've trained with would never make a statement like Terry's, and disagree with much of what he, and you say.

This is not because there is a difference between training for sport and self-defense, but because *the difference between training for sport and self defense really doesn't matter all that much*.  The arguments that insist on there being a difference rely on fallacies, strawmen, and false dichotomies.

The area where the difference matters is strategy, not in tactics, techniques, or training methodology.  Hand-to-hand combat, *FIGHTING*, is a segment of that overall strategy.  So, there is no difference between sport methodology and self-defense.  Sport methodology is a method used in training for unarmed combat, which is a part of self-defense.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> The most preferrable one is simply to avoid fights via awareness, which is completely opposed to sport, where one seeks out fights.



This is absolutely irrelevant and false.  Sports fighters do not seek out fights.  They compete.  They don't walk into bars are start brawls.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Once an attack begins, the most preferrable option is to escape quickly, which is not an option in a fight; if you quit the fight you lose, whereas if you escape alive in SD, you do not lose. *Note:* the vast majority of schools teaching practical self defense focus on this rout. For this reason, their students are likely ill prepared to step into the ring and fight in competition unless they are training for sport/competition in addition.


 
Remember, fighting is a part of self-defense.  *If your hand-to-hand training cannot prepare you for a fair fight against a matched opponent of equal skill and weight, under rules, with a referee to keep you from getting bottled over the head from behind, it cannot prepare you for a no rules fight.*



Daniel Sullivan said:


> In sport, a tapping opponent signals the end of the fight. In SD, if you let the guy loose when he is in pain, he could pull a knife and kill you.



Incorrect, this is also completely irrelevant to the argument against utilizing sport methodology to train for self-defense.  

Tapping does not signal the end of the fight.  It signals that you have forced your opponent into submission.  A submission is a chokehold or a joint lock that you have merely not exerted to the fullest degree.  If I have you in an armbar, it doesn't mean I just hold you there.  It means I have the capability to snap your elbow and cause catastrophic damage to your arm, likely removing you as a threat.

Training in class, I won't.  I'll let you go when you tap, because you're my training partner and I want to practice with you again tomorrow.  If I break you, then I can't train.

On the street, if I armbar you, I am going to snap you, I'm not going to let you go.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Specific attacks that would be useful in SD, particularly for a smaller person against a larger attacker, such as eye gouges, strikes to the groin, etc. are illegal moves in sport.



I have been a bouncer for over a decade.  These moves are not dependable at all.

First off, and this is where most so-called self-defense training fails, *THESE ARE NOT TECHNIQUES*.

They are barely even tactics.

The technique is a front kick.  You can aim it at the groin, you can aim it at the solar plexus, you can aim it at the face.  The fact that I trained and competed does not mean I can't kick someone in the crotch.  In fact, I am very sure of my ability to kick someone in the crotch.  I am sure of my ability to front kick anyone at whatever target presents itself.  How do you train for kicks to the baby maker?  The same way you train for every other kick.  I can't throw a stomp kick to someone's knee in the ring, but I've been able to do it just fine when I've had to, because of how I trained my side kicks on the mat.

An eye gouge is not a technique.  A jab is.  If you cannot throw a jab to someone's face, a large target, in a match, where the head is a moving target that is being defended, how are you going to score with a finger jab to something as small as someone's eye?

Strategy, tactics, technique.

Strategy will change your tactics, but it won't change how you train your technique.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Certainly, if one determines that the only way to survive is to kill or disable their assailant, they can attempt to do so in SD (possible legal consequences may result, but that is after the fact), whereas in sport, your goal is not to kill or permanently disable your opponent.



Irrelevant as well.  A rear naked choke is a "killing technique".  Just because I didn't kill you with it in a match doesn't mean I won't on the street.  Truthfully, aside from a blade or a firearm, it's the only reliable "killing technique" I would recommend.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Lastly, gamesmanship can be used in sport to secure a victory. By gamesmanship, I mean using the rules to gain an advantage that one would not normally have in a fight. Obviously, that is not an option in SD.



Actually, it is completely possible.  The rules are just different.  Human behavior and interaction just determine them, rather than a sporting body.  "Gamesmanship" in a street fight is a sucker punch.

That punch though?  Who's going to be better at it, an untrained fighter, or someone who knows how to throw a jab, cross, or hook?



Daniel Sullivan said:


> It is more likely that an SD guy would fare poorly in the ring, as one cannot just step into a rule set and environment for which they have not trained and simply excel, prodigies not withstanding.



*A SD teacher who cannot win a fair fight is not someone who should be teaching people how to survive unfair ones.*


----------



## goingd (Sep 17, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Not a question of it being my personal definition.  That is how the term is used.  You are not generally considered elite without a verifiable record.  Saying that you are a mean motorscooter  is just talk without a record.
> 
> Like it or not, the tournament record is the only viable method for determining who is an elite figher.  Street fighting is illegal and the results are generally unverifiable (and often inflated).
> 
> ...



The word elite for others is an opinion, a personal definition. Is it that hard to understand?


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 17, 2009)

goingd said:


> The word elite for others is an opinion, a personal definition. Is it that hard to understand?



That may be, but the term "elite fighter" is a compound one with connotations that mean "sport fighter".


----------



## goingd (Sep 17, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> That may be, but the term "elite fighter" is a compound one with connotations that mean "sport fighter".



Not to me. The word elite (to me) means someone high up or very good at something. The word fighter (to me) means someone who fights or trains to fight. When I put the words together I just put one definition after the other (with a pinch of grammatical sense). The compound 'elite fighter' is defined by many to refer to sport, but simply, not for me. We might both speak english, but that does not mean we both speak the same language.

^~^


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 17, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> What "SD crowd"? Who are they? What qualifies someone to be in the "SD crowd"?


The same SD "experts" that you and Terry are referring to in your posts.

Let me put it to you this way. It would seem we belong to different "SD crowds". The "SD guys" I've trained with would never make a statement like Terry's, and disagree with much of what he, and you say.



Errant108 said:


> This is not because there is a difference between training for sport and self-defense, but because *the difference between training for sport and self defense really doesn't matter all that much*. The arguments that insist on there being a difference rely on fallacies, strawmen, and false dichotomies.


 
I did not get into what degree that it matters; only what the differences are. It depends on the sport in question as well.



Errant108 said:


> The area where the difference matters is strategy, not in tactics, techniques, or training methodology. Hand-to-hand combat, *FIGHTING*, is a segment of that overall strategy. So, there is no difference between sport methodology and self-defense.


 
Once again, depends on the sport. WTF rule set is almost entirely divorced from the methodology of self defense. 



Errant108 said:


> Sport methodology is a method used in training for unarmed combat, which is a part of self-defense.


Can be, but is not always. Once again, it depends on the sport.



Errant108 said:


> This is absolutely irrelevant and false. Sports fighters do not seek out fights. They compete. They don't walk into bars are start brawls.


I would hope that you know what I meant by my statement. They seek to compete. They are fighters. The events are called fights. I am in no way implying that they walk into bars and start brawls.



Errant108 said:


> Remember, fighting is a part of self-defense. *If your hand-to-hand training cannot prepare you for a fair fight against a matched opponent of equal skill and weight, under rules, with a referee to keep you from getting bottled over the head from behind, it cannot prepare you for a no rules fight.*


 
That is not what I said nor implied. Trained athletes in one sport cannot simply walk in cold and do well in a combat sport with an entirely different rule set. They train to compete under the new rule set, research the fighters they will be facing, study the tactics and strategies used and prepare physically. A guy who has done ITF sparring would not expect to go to his very first WTF match with no prep work at all aside from what he usually does, and do as well as he does in ITF matches. It is not realistic.

By the same token, I would not expect to be a successul boxer soley because I can do well in street fights. 



Errant108 said:


> Tapping does not signal the end of the fight. It signals that you have forced your opponent into submission.


So if contestent is submitted in MMA the fight does not end? I am asking, not debating.



Errant108 said:


> A submission is a chokehold or a joint lock that you have merely not exerted to the fullest degree
> 
> If I have you in an armbar, it doesn't mean I just hold you there. It means I have the capability to snap your elbow and cause catastrophic damage to your arm, likely removing you as a threat.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed.



Errant108 said:


> I have been a bouncer for over a decade. These moves are not dependable at all.
> 
> First off, and this is where most so-called self-defense training fails, *THESE ARE NOT TECHNIQUES*.
> 
> ...


I do not disagree with most of what you said above. I never implied anything about the dependablilty of such moves; only that they were not allowed in sports.



Errant108 said:


> Actually, it is completely possible. The rules are just different. Human behavior and interaction just determine them, rather than a sporting body. "Gamesmanship" in a street fight is a sucker punch.


No, gamesmanship requires rules to play with. A street fight has no rules. 



Errant108 said:


> That punch though? Who's going to be better at it, an untrained fighter, or someone who knows how to throw a jab, cross, or hook?
> 
> *A SD teacher who cannot win a fair fight is not someone who should be teaching people how to survive unfair ones.*


If we were talking about a trained figher vs. an untrained figher, the answer to your question is obvious: the guy trained will punch better.  But we are not talking about an untrained fighter vs. a trained fighter. They can both throw good punches, as both are trained fighters. 

Sports are fair, but they are also contests conducted under specified rule sets. There are enough different specified rule sets that people train in specific ways for each one. Familiarity with the rule set is a must to do well and that is what I meant by my last statement about someone who trains soley for self defense being unlikely to just "step into the ring" and do well under an unfamiliar rule set.

If a top boxer steps into the ring with Mark Lopez and fights him under WTF rules without ever training for or familiarizing himself with WTF rules, not one of his punches will be scored, he will have points deducted for punches to the head, and Mark will score on all those kicks that he never trained in. A guy who trains only for SD and is unfamiliar with the sport rules would be similarly frustrated. 

On the other hand the athlete is unhindered in this area; the street fight has no artificial rules to adapt to or train for. And with few exceptions, I consider it a given that athletes in martial sports train in SD to some degree in addition to their athletic training. 

And that is really all that I was getting at.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 17, 2009)

goingd said:


> The word elite for others is an opinion, a personal definition. Is it that hard to understand?


No, it is not hard at all to understand, but personal definitions are usually not well suited to group discussion unless everyone shares the same personal definition.

Daniel


----------



## goingd (Sep 17, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> No, it is not hard at all to understand, but personal definitions are usually not well suited to group discussion unless everyone shares the same personal definition.
> 
> Daniel



I'll take that closer to heart when I see a Webster's Dictionary with the definition of 'elite fighter' referring solely to a sport fighter.

Everyone here apparently doesn't agree on the sport definition anyway.

^-^


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 18, 2009)

goingd said:


> I'll take that closer to heart when I see a Webster's Dictionary with the definition of 'elite fighter' referring solely to a sport fighter.
> 
> Everyone here apparently doesn't agree on the sport definition anyway.
> 
> ^-^


Presuming that we all know what a fighter is, here is the definition of elite according to Merriam Webster: 


> Main Entry: *elite*
> Pronunciation: \&#257;-_&#712;_l&#275;t, i-, &#275;-\
> Function: _noun_
> Etymology: French _élite,_ from Old French _eslite,_ from feminine of _eslit,_ past participle of _eslire_ to choose, from Latin _eligere_
> ...


 
Definitions 1 - A or 1 - B would be the only one's that are really applicable to a fighter in the general sense.  See the blue text.  That is the common usage of the word elite when pertaining to skilled or accomplished individuals (as opposed to typewriters).

*a* _singular or plural in construction_ *:* the choice part *:* cream <the _elite_ of the entertainment world> *b* _singular or plural in construction_ *:* *the best of a class* <superachievers who dominate the computer _elite_  Marilyn Chase> 

It should be readilly apparent that that elite goes well beyond simply  being darned good at what you do.  If you wish to have that as your personal defnition, then so be it; it is not a problem for me, but if you use the term 'elite fighter' on the internet in a general converation, you should argue about it when people assume that you mean the actual and generally accepted defnition.  

I only responded to you to tell you what comes to mind for the rest of us when the term elite is applied to a fighter.  No biggie.  You clarified what you meant, so as far as I am concerned, tis all good.

Daniel


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 18, 2009)

I have come to relize that I simply know nothing about SD, I will stop teaching and become libraian. I will send out a letter apologing to all my formal and present students. The Leo's, the servicemen an of course all the plain ones as well. 

Just kidding I mean we may never agree about what we believe to be real SD but one thing for sure we know only surviving is the true story behind it.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 18, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> The Leo's, the servicemen an of course all the plain ones as well.



Training LEOs and servicemen is not a badge of approval of a self-defense system either.  With a relatively small exception, they know little more about hwo to train self-defense than the average civilian.  I train several members of the USMC at my school, and they will all tell you that the training they receive (until very recently), is barely adequate to survive a fight.  There is nothing inherent in these positions, with relatively few exceptions, that make them self-defense experts.  Further, those that are, generally seem in favor of my position;  Matt Thorton, Paul Vunak, etc.

Further supporting my position in the necessity of sport methodology in training for self-defense, the US Army and the USMC have both adopted programs based around aliveness training, utilizing sport methodology to teach unarmed combat.

I don't have to be able to fight Lyoto Machida or Chuck Lidell, but if I couldn't step into the ring against an equally trained male at 175lbs at around my age, then there is a severe problem with my training methodology.

Self-defense situations are "worst case scenarios".  They aren't fair fights.  Me vs. Chuck Lidell, even in a ring, is a worst case scenario for me.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 18, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The same SD "experts" that you and Terry are referring to in your posts.



Which experts?  Name them?



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I did not get into what degree that it matters; only what the differences are. It depends on the sport in question as well.



That's the problem, you're looking at individual sports.  I'm speaking training methodology.  I'm talking about aliveness.  I am talking about how skills are developed, and toward what end.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> So if contestent is submitted in MMA the fight does not end? I am asking, not debating.



No, the fight is not over once a contestant is submitted.  If you tap, and I release you before the referee has called the fight, then you can fight on.  It has happened before, and "winners" have been knocked out because of it.  Remember, a submission is a joint lock.  If I want to, I'll break it, and people have had their joints broken in matches when they refused to tap out.  The Gracies were notorious for this back in the day.  The referee ending the match is the equivalent of your friends backing you up or the authorities arriving.  Remove any of those factors, and the fight is not over.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> No, gamesmanship requires rules to play with. A street fight has no rules.



Absolutely wrong, as most good self-defense instructors will tell you, and I can tell you after a decade of being a bouncer.  Altercations always follow a set of rules, human behavior.  The ability to recognize those rules, play by them, and know when you can bend or break them often determines who will survive the outcome.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> If we were talking about a trained figher vs. an untrained figher, the answer to your question is obvious: the guy trained will punch better.  But we are not talking about an untrained fighter vs. a trained fighter. They can both throw good punches, as both are trained fighters.
> 
> Sports are fair, but they are also contests conducted under specified rule sets. There are enough different specified rule sets that people train in specific ways for each one. Familiarity with the rule set is a must to do well and that is what I meant by my last statement about someone who trains soley for self defense being unlikely to just "step into the ring" and do well under an unfamiliar rule set.
> 
> ...



You're still stuck in the world of the one dimensional fighter.  A boxer is only a boxer.  A TKDin is only a TKDin.  I would hope anyone training for self-defense has long abandoned this view, and those teaching self-defense realize that they cannot limit themselves to one system.

No art, Taekwondo or otherwise, contains all of the necessities needed to address comprehensive self-defense.  Some people will always be better at striking, some people will always be better at grappling, but you have to be able to do them all to a certain degree when it comes to self-defense.

You do not have to be a Judoka to be able to defend yourself with clinchwork and throws, but if you are not training clinchwork & throws in a manner similar to a Judoka, then you're not going to be as successful.  The same goes for your striking.

Weapons work also needs to come into that equation.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 18, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Training LEOs and servicemen is not a badge of approval of a self-defense system either. With a relatively small exception, they know little more about hwo to train self-defense than the average civilian. I train several members of the USMC at my school, and they will all tell you that the training they receive (until very recently), is barely adequate to survive a fight. There is nothing inherent in these positions, with relatively few exceptions, that make them self-defense experts. Further, those that are, generally seem in favor of my position; Matt Thorton, Paul Vunak, etc.
> 
> Further supporting my position in the necessity of sport methodology in training for self-defense, the US Army and the USMC have both adopted programs based around aliveness training, utilizing sport methodology to teach unarmed combat.
> 
> ...


 

You are real good about taking little pieces of what was said, never said that was a stamp of approval did I? Then in the next sentence I said I was joking and that we will never agree what SD is. Please quote me right and I will bow to you the all mighty of SD in the world.

What really makes no sense is your comment about service people especially the USMC since my father trained and was part of the USMC Master Drill Instructor tought Judo and Karate to them, he spent thirty eight years in the service and I do not remember them using sport as a form of SD but what do I know being such a person who never ever had any real SD tought to me. Have fun posting and making clear you are the supreme leader in all SD.

So I guess the Olympic TKD programs for the Army Marines and Air Force help teach SD principle WOW, that is goon to know since I teach sport TKD as well. Now I am going to train my people to keep there hands down and do nothing except roundhouses and backswings for the sake of SD principles.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 20, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> Then in the next sentence I said I was joking and that we will never agree what SD is.



What is self-defense?  How do you train for it?



terryl965 said:


> What really makes no sense is your comment about service people especially the USMC since my father trained and was part of the USMC Master Drill Instructor tought Judo and Karate to them, he spent thirty eight years in the service and I do not remember them using sport as a form of SD but what do I know being such a person who never ever had any real SD tought to me.



A couple things here.

Judo utilizes sport methodology in order to teach its skills, so your father's background backs up what I'm saying.  Further, a hand to hand combat instructor like your father would be one of those few who do actually understand hand to hand combat.  Even today, most members of the USMC do not spend a great deal of time on unarmed combat, and what they do train in is heavily based in Muay Thai and Brazilian jujutsu, and trained via sport methodology.

Just because someone is a Marine, does not make them a hand to hand combat expert.  MCMAP and programs like it cover very basic areas of unarmed combatives, and those serious about training in it undergo extensive crosstraining in other systems.



terryl965 said:


> So I guess the Olympic TKD programs for the Army Marines and Air Force help teach SD principle WOW, that is goon to know since I teach sport TKD as well. Now I am going to train my people to keep there hands down and do nothing except roundhouses and backswings for the sake of SD principles.



You're still stuck in the world of the one dimensional fighter. A boxer is only a boxer. A TKDin is only a TKDin. I would hope anyone training for self-defense has long abandoned this view, and those teaching self-defense realize that they cannot limit themselves to one system.

No art, Taekwondo or otherwise, contains all of the necessities needed to address comprehensive self-defense. Some people will always be better at striking, some people will always be better at grappling, but you have to be able to do them all to a certain degree when it comes to self-defense.

You do not have to be a Judoka to be able to defend yourself with clinchwork and throws, but if you are not training clinchwork & throws in a manner similar to a Judoka, then you're not going to be as successful. The same goes for your striking.

Weapons work also needs to come into that equation.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 21, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Which experts? Name them?


I am unsure why you are asking because you specifically stated, "SD experts *on forums* who like to trash talk about sport fighters but can't fight themselves out of a wet bag."

This is internet forum crowds in discussion, not published authors that we are talking about, and I am not going to sit here and try to remember every cutesy nick name that various forum members have christened themselves with on the web. 



Errant108 said:


> That's the problem, you're looking at individual sports. I'm speaking training methodology. I'm talking about aliveness. I am talking about how skills are developed, and toward what end.


 
Of course I am looking at individual sports. On a TKD board, the whole sport vs. art issue comes down to the individual sport of WTF TKD rougly 80-90 percent of the time. And I have been around enough to know that the sport emphasis in most dojos is generally narrow and about the only 'alive' training that the students get; students of whom 90% quit after getting their black belt and never enter a competition.

Pretty much none of the discussions of sport vs. SD in the TKD section have to do with sport in the broad sense, but in the training seen in most TKD schools, which is often sport based to make it fun for the kids. 



Errant108 said:


> No, the fight is not over once a contestant is submitted. If you tap, and I release you before the referee has called the fight, then you can fight on. It has happened before, and "winners" have been knocked out because of it. Remember, a submission is a joint lock. If I want to, I'll break it, and people have had their joints broken in matches when they refused to tap out. The Gracies were notorious for this back in the day. The referee ending the match is the equivalent of your friends backing you up or the authorities arriving. Remove any of those factors, and the fight is not over.


 
Thanks!



Errant108 said:


> Absolutely wrong, as most good self-defense instructors will tell you, and I can tell you after a decade of being a bouncer. Altercations always follow a set of rules, human behavior. The ability to recognize those rules, play by them, and know when you can bend or break them often determines who will survive the outcome.


 
While I agree with you 100%, I would not consider this gamesmanship.



Errant108 said:


> You're still stuck in the world of the one dimensional fighter.


 
Not personally, but...



Errant108 said:


> A boxer is only a boxer. A TKDin is only a TKDin. I would hope anyone training for self-defense has long abandoned this view, and those teaching self-defense realize that they cannot limit themselves to one system.


...most of the students in TKD schools are. And they do not care to be otherwise. As I stated above, 90% of them will quit upon receiving their black piece of cloth and parchment decorated with Hangul. That is what they signed up for, that and maybe to get toned up.

Also stated above, given that this is the TKD section, most often when sport vs. SD comes up in this section, unless otherwise stated, it is WTF/olympic fighting and point/stop fighting that is being discussed, not martial sport in general. 

The big debate in this is not about high ranking competative athletes but about schools that focus (either mostly or entirely) on sport/competition, and their students who generally quit after two years because someone handed them a black piece of cloth and parchment decorated with Hangul. 

The serious competative athlete in a martial sport is more than likely able to handle themselves quite well in self defense.



Errant108 said:


> No art, Taekwondo or otherwise, contains all of the necessities needed to address comprehensive self-defense. Some people will always be better at striking, some people will always be better at grappling, but you have to be able to do them all to a certain degree when it comes to self-defense.
> 
> You do not have to be a Judoka to be able to defend yourself with clinchwork and throws, but if you are not training clinchwork & throws in a manner similar to a Judoka, then you're not going to be as successful. The same goes for your striking.
> 
> Weapons work also needs to come into that equation.


Certainly, I agree with you in this 100%.

Daniel


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Sep 22, 2009)

Its not just tkd students that quit once they get their "black piece of cloth". This happens in all martial arts , its just that most people use tkd as the example of people quitting once black belt. I doubt many people would train for 2 or 3 or 4 years just to get a black belt , it seems a lot of hassle to go to just to get a piece of cloth. I know a lot of people who quit due to injury , moving away or to try another art but we dont get anybody at our club who would want to train for that period of time just to quit when they get a black belt. Im not saying no one does but I havent met many who would , except maybe young kids who will quit no matter what sport they do.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 22, 2009)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Its not just tkd students that quit once they get their "black piece of cloth". This happens in all martial arts , its just that most people use tkd as the example of people quitting once black belt.


Absolutely.  It is pretty much endemic.  Certainly, nobody implies that this is unique to taekwondo, something that has been stated many tiimes in this section.  But it is taekwondo in particular that is being discussed in the taekwondo section.  



ralphmcpherson said:


> I doubt many people would train for 2 or 3 or 4 years just to get a black belt , it seems a lot of hassle to go to just to get a piece of cloth. I know a lot of people who quit due to injury , moving away or to try another art but we dont get anybody at our club who would want to train for that period of time just to quit when they get a black belt. Im not saying no one does but I havent met many who would , except maybe young kids who will quit no matter what sport they do.


Most taekwondo schools live or die by the size of their kids classes.  Probably true for 80% of the martial arts schools in the US, but definitely for taekwondo.  And by kids, I mean from school age through high school, not just young kids.

Daniel


----------



## msmitht (Sep 24, 2009)

I have trained in many styles since 1979. Main style is KKW TKD. Have spent last 7 years in BJJ and spent many years boxing. I also have worked nights as a bouncer at an Irish pub for the past 9 years. 
Most self defense techniques go out the window once you get hit. I don't care what style you practice. A Bjj black belt will fall from a knee kick and a TKD black belt will fall from a punch. So what. We all know that most self defense instructors could not fight their way out of a paper bag. All we can do as martial artists is train and look for the best style that suits us. If it is not a combat style then it will probably not help you in a fight. Period!

I did once see a 76 year old lady elbow an agressive man in the face and knock him out. Granted he was drunk and about the same age as her....but it worked and she never trained a day in her life.
Now shut up and go train...ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TigerLove (Sep 24, 2009)

Hello! This is my first post on this forum. 

Well, i think it's not right to say for any martial arts that it's right for self defense. It's most up to practicioner. I train for long time, but i could beat up most of the people before i trained anything. I am strong and fast, and my body working great while under stress (this is most important - most of the people lose all their moves after receiving good punch). Since i train, i fighted few time on street, and acomplished my ma knowledge very well. I beat up three guys once..and i know guy who train half of his life but he is very bad at real fight. Like i said, there is no definitely something, it's from person to person. More we repeating some move on training more are body will use it while under stress.

Finally, i think that people who train something have a bigger chance to win a fight - if they keep their knowledge while under stress. If we are under fear, we can know all moves off the world, but won't accomplish anything.

Also, with my opinion goes this: "I don't fear of a man who trained thousand kicks, a fear of a man who trained one kick thousand times."

Does somebody agree with me? And why not? Greetings!!


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 24, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I am unsure why you are asking because you specifically stated, "SD experts *on forums* who like to trash talk about sport fighters but can't fight themselves out of a wet bag."



That was a response to Terry's flat-out insulting and illogical post.  It was his own words, mirrored back at him.  Since he believes those who train for MMA are unable to defend themselves, I would be very interested in knowing what he qualifies as "self-defense" or who are his "self-defense experts".



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Of course I am looking at individual sports. On a TKD board, the whole sport vs. art issue comes down to the individual sport of WTF TKD rougly 80-90 percent of the time. And I have been around enough to know that the sport emphasis in most dojos is generally narrow and about the only 'alive' training that the students get; students of whom 90% quit after getting their black belt and never enter a competition.



Which is sad, because the alive training program of Olympic TKD can easily be expanded to include other skills supposedly found in TKD to provide a broader base of alive self-defense training.  Rather than training Olympic-style for sparring, and then using dead, static drills like one-steps and hoshinsul.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> ...most of the students in TKD schools are. And they do not care to be otherwise. As I stated above, 90% of them will quit upon receiving their black piece of cloth and parchment decorated with Hangul. That is what they signed up for, that and maybe to get toned up.
> 
> Also stated above, given that this is the TKD section, most often when sport vs. SD comes up in this section, unless otherwise stated, it is WTF/olympic fighting and point/stop fighting that is being discussed, not martial sport in general.
> 
> The big debate in this is not about high ranking competative athletes but about schools that focus (either mostly or entirely) on sport/competition, and their students who generally quit after two years because someone handed them a black piece of cloth and parchment decorated with Hangul.



And this pretty much proves the point that overall, TKD is not a viable system for self-defense in most cases.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 24, 2009)

TigerLove said:


> Hello! This is my first post on this forum.
> 
> Well, i think it's not right to say for any martial arts that it's right for self defense. It's most up to practicioner. I train for long time, but i could beat up most of the people before i trained anything. I am strong and fast, and my body working great while under stress (this is most important - most of the people lose all their moves after receiving good punch). Since i train, i fighted few time on street, and acomplished my ma knowledge very well. I beat up three guys once..and i know guy who train half of his life but he is very bad at real fight. Like i said, there is no definitely something, it's from person to person. More we repeating some move on training more are body will use it while under stress.
> 
> ...



It's not just a matter of what you train, it's how you train.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 25, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Which is sad, because the alive training program of Olympic TKD can easily be expanded to include other skills supposedly found in TKD to provide a broader base of alive self-defense training. Rather than training Olympic-style for sparring, and then using dead, static drills like one-steps and hoshinsul.


We used to do that in our TKD classes on specific night, but once the hapkido class became firmly entrenched, our taekwondo class pretty much went all competition style.  GM Kim's mentality is that he does not charge extra for students to come to the hapkido class and it is easier to do it that way than to have one art subdivided between WTF sport training and specific SD training.

Our hapkido class has free sparring with little to no padding, depending on who is there.  It is a lot more involved than WTF sparring and certainly is not for everyone.  The students who just want to kick-fence stick with the TKD program, while those who want a more well rounded program do both.



Errant108 said:


> And this pretty much proves the point that overall, TKD is not a viable system for self-defense in most cases.


In most schools, from what I have seen, TKD sparring is the unarmed equivalent of saber fencing.  Like fencing (or little league sports), people will often do it for a little while and then move on to something else.  Certainly, the mini-mall dojos have learned to ride that trend quite well.

Neither good nor bad; depends on what you are looking for.

In terms of SD, the worst thing that one can do is not fight, so I suppose that if one went off on an attacker with kicks while yelling loud, they would at least attract attention and maybe dissuade an attaker.

One would hope that even in straight sport setting that a BB would be good at kicking the tar out of an attacker's torso.

Daniel


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 25, 2009)

Daniel, I tried sending you a PM response to your PM, but it said you were blocking PMs.  Yes, it's me.

Are you coming to my seminar on the 17th?  It'll be good times!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 25, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Daniel, I tried sending you a PM response to your PM, but it said you were blocking PMs. Yes, it's me.
> 
> Are you coming to my seminar on the 17th? It'll be good times!


That is weird.  I had changed my e-mail address on the site and had not yet confirmed the new one, so maybe that is why, because I am not purposely blocking them.  Thanks for the heads up?

17th of October?  Where and on what?  My apologies for being clueless.

Daniel


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 25, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That is weird.  I had changed my e-mail address on the site and had not yet confirmed the new one, so maybe that is why, because I am not purposely blocking them.  Thanks for the heads up?
> 
> 17th of October?  Where and on what?  My apologies for being clueless.
> 
> Daniel



Info here.

Let anyone you know who might be interested know!


----------



## TigerLove (Oct 1, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> It's not just a matter of what you train, it's how you train.



Sure!


----------

