# KKW TKD, only for sport?



## O'Malley (Jan 7, 2013)

Hello everybody! 


I've been thinking about taking up a new martial art and, as Taekwondo was my first love, I looked for dojangs in my surroundings. I found only two in my city and they both belong to the Belgian branch of the Kukkiwon. I looked up their websites and they seem very sport-oriented. They refer to themselves as "clubs" or "academies", not as dojangs, and to Taekwondo as a sport. I only saw the word "martial art" once as they were talking about the origins of Olympic TKD. They were talking about it as if it was football. There are no ITF dojangs here. Well, according to what I've read so far on this forum, the Kukkiwon federation is heavily focused on the sport aspect of TKD, gives away black belts quite easily, etc. That bothers me a little: I wouldn't like to (accidentally) get involved in a dangerous situation, think that I'm able to defend myself and then wake up in a hospital because no one taught me how to block a punch properly.


Although the competitive side could be fun, my prime goal is to protect myself and those around me. So, could I achieve it by learning TKD in one of the two schools mentioned above or should I completely forget about TKD as the schools are too focused on the Olympic sport?


I need your advice, maybe a KKW member (or someone else ^^) could help me.


Thanks!


Mal'

PS: I looked for the answer on the forum but some people were saying that the only "good" way to learn an effective form of TKD was to go to an ITF school and that KKW/WTF TKD was merely a sport.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Jan 7, 2013)

I would suggest visiting the schools and taking a trial class, if possible. WTF "Olympic" Taekwondo is the sport aspect of Kukkiwon Taekwondo. Different schools focus to a greater or lesser degree on competition. The internet is a useful tool, but there's nothing better than going to see for yourself. Talk to the instructor(s) and find out what their focus is.


----------



## msmitht (Jan 7, 2013)

O'Malley said:


> Hello everybody!
> 
> 
> I've been thinking about taking up a new martial art and, as Taekwondo was my first love, I looked for dojangs in my surroundings. I found only two in my city and they both belong to the Belgian branch of the Kukkiwon. I looked up their websites and they seem very sport-oriented. They refer to themselves as "clubs" or "academies", not as dojangs, and to Taekwondo as a sport. I only saw the word "martial art" once as they were talking about the origins of Olympic TKD. They were talking about it as if it was football. There are no ITF dojangs here. Well, according to what I've read so far on this forum, the Kukkiwon federation is heavily focused on the sport aspect of TKD, gives away black belts quite easily, etc. That bothers me a little: I wouldn't like to (accidentally) get involved in a dangerous situation, think that I'm able to defend myself and then wake up in a hospital because no one taught me how to block a punch properly.
> ...


----------



## sopraisso (Jan 7, 2013)

O'Malley said:


> Hello everybody!
> 
> 
> I've been thinking about taking up a new martial art and, as Taekwondo was my first love, I looked for dojangs in my surroundings. I found only two in my city and they both belong to the Belgian branch of the Kukkiwon. I looked up their websites and they seem very sport-oriented. They refer to themselves as "clubs" or "academies", not as dojangs, and to Taekwondo as a sport. I only saw the word "martial art" once as they were talking about the origins of Olympic TKD. They were talking about it as if it was football. There are no ITF dojangs here. Well, according to what I've read so far on this forum, the Kukkiwon federation is heavily focused on the sport aspect of TKD, gives away black belts quite easily, etc. That bothers me a little: I wouldn't like to (accidentally) get involved in a dangerous situation, think that I'm able to defend myself and then wake up in a hospital because no one taught me how to block a punch properly.
> ...



Hello, Mal'

I believe I've been in your exact situation, when I started practising KKW TKD. After a long way to this point, I've come to some conclusions that you may find helpful:

It comes to the specific KKW dojang whether it is more sport-oriented or not, but from what I've seen (it may be different in other areas) KKW schools are frequently and just becoming more and more sport-oriented, and even the "traditional"/"martial" ones will probably make you acquire some bad habbits when it comes to self-defense, mainly because they will also have some olympic sparring oriented drills and stuff. Maybe if you wish to practice TKD for self-defense, you should look for an independent school with a focus in self-defense. ITF is sometimes said to be more martial-art oriented, but it also comes to the specific dojang as I see -- also there is a lot of sport sparring-oriented training in most ITF schools, and this would hardly fit your self-defense intents. 
Speaking with radical sincerity, no matter the style (even among other martial arts), you'll have a hard time finding self-defense-oriented schools. Basically karate, taekwondo, muay thai, BBJ, judo and other martial arts schools today are so much focused in sport, no matter how much they claim what they teach can be used in self-defense. 
Sparring or any other kind of sport contest is _nothing_ like fighting for self-defense. This is very important to understand. When I first started martial arts, I had no idea how much this is true. So when training for a sport sparring will have little use to help you in a life-risk situation. 
_Traditional *civillian defense* martial arts like taekwondo and karate are wonderful systems for self-defense, really. *But*_ they are in most cases not teached with that intent, and many cases, sadly as it is, even the instructors don't realize that very clearly. 
When I say "civillian defense" martial arts, *I mean every martial art has been originally intended to be mainly used in a specific context*. For example, some have been designed to work in war contexts (like the various japanese arts of bujutsu -- jujutsu/aikijujutsu included), which is very different from a civillian defense context. Imagine that a bushi (warrior) in an old times war in Japan would first have to fight with weapons and his jujutsu would be only a backup, but why is jujutsu not striking-oriented (different of karate or taekwondo)? Because the opponent of the japanese warrior, in a war context, would be probably wearing body armor -- so joint locks and jujutsu typical stuff would fit the situation better; the opponent would also likely to be still wielding a weapon, so the unarmed guy would have to know how to disarm his opponent (using, for example, the wrist locks you can still see today in aikido -- derived directly from traditional aikijujutsu). *Karate, in other hand, has been designed to use in non-war context*, for example, to stop a non-trained attacker with no armor (a thug, a robber), so it is better to KO the opponent as fast as possible (with a simple strike rather than with a choke or a joint lock), so the defender would be able to run soon or fight the other opponent (try to pin or choke someone to submission with some highly effective BJJ technique while another attacker is free to kill you from behind and you will see this). *Taekwondo, despite the 2000-year old propaganda, has been largely derived from karate, what would at least from some extent mean it is also a martial art aimed at civillian defense*. 
You would hardly find a good self-defense-oriented martial arts school, but if you want to defend yourself, you have to understand that you only fight when all other self-defense methods have gone wrong. You only fight whe you have NO better choice. And in most cities of our countries we hardly are put in such situations. You always better give your money to a robber than risk your life (even if you are a skilled fighter, why would you take that risk?). You can avoid the robbers avoiding the situations. And if your problem is not with robbers, a good lifestyle maybe more useful: if you avoid the bullies (not going to the places where they are, for example), they can do you no harm. When we're honest to ourselves, we find out that most the fights we'd ever put in could be avoided, and we somehow look for them. If you really wanna protect yourself, just avoid the fight. I don't think it's such an easy task: most males have a fighter instinct (I myself have, too), but rationally thinking you'll see you'd rarely need to barehand fight anyone. 
Traditional martial arts have been designed to work in a context from the PAST. They still work today, but not as much. In the old times of China, Okinawa, or Japan or wherever, an opponent would rarely use a firearm, just to show the most obvious difference. Why would you defend yourself with a tool from the PAST from threats from the PRESENT? The threats are different enough to ask for different strategies, and you'll only fight if you really have no other option. There's a nice quote from Rory Miller (I'm not his biggest fan, but I recommend some of his books) that goes like this: "it's better to avoid than to run, better to run than to de-escalate, better to de-escalate than to fight, better to fight than to die". So it's a long way until you really have to fight. Anyway, when you do fight, maybe you better use a weapon! A weapon is in most situations a tool that can increase radically your options for survival. A weapon can also be an umbrella, a chair, a brick, a pen or any object from the surroundings. Notice that an agressor would rarely attack you if he doesn't have most odds in his favour (attacking from behind, with surprise, using weapons, being many guys against one, etc.), there's no reason for you to remain the unarmed hero if you really want to survive. A simple reason why karate is not a weapon art is because there were other weapons arts studied with karate as well (Okinawa Kobudo), and also it was largely harder for anyone to have weapons in the old times of Okinawa/karate, because they were... forbidden! I'd prefer to use a sword or a spear than nunchuks or a staff, and I hardly believe the old Okinawans would choose different if they had the chance. 
But if most real threats can be avoided to the point you won't have to fight, in the other hand *you really can find other great reasons to practice martial arts* (and also from Kukkiwon Taekwondo). After some time, I've found so great things in martial arts I wouldn't even care if it no longer worked for self-defense. However, I study for self-defense, too (maybe also to feed my male necessity of feeling badass ), but it's not my main concern. 

In my opinion, more difficult than learning self-defense from martial arts, is having a strong will to stay in the path. *Most people just give up at some point. If you don't, and if you are a really interested, you will probably find most answers you look for now*, and from what I've seen, it's really worth it. If you really wanna get into real martial arts, it's not an easy thing to do -- very different from achieving a black belt rank --, but it is very rewarding.

Hey, I just noticed this answer got so big! *Reps to anyone who's able to read it through!!* 

Last thing, O'Malley, wish you a great martial arts journey! Martial Talk is a very helpful place, and looking well you can find a lot of good info (and good people!). If you have other doubts, most people here will probably glad to help you.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 7, 2013)

I don't know how you conducted your search, but I would suggest you not limit it to storefront type commercial schools. Check out local park districts, community centers, JCC, YMCA and the like that often offer classes.    Then visit any you are interested in . Whatever you see on the net or in advertising may not give a good picture of what actually takes place.


----------



## O'Malley (Jan 7, 2013)

Thanks to everyone! 

@sopraisso: The end of your post was really inspiring, man (not kidding). Must be awesome to have something you can stick with during your whole life and that brings you so much, that's one of the things I'm looking for in martial arts.

Just one thing: I'm not a guy that picks up fights but the fact is that I live in a not-so-peaceful city (nothing like the favelas though, there are really few gunshots here). As gun control is quite strict in Belgium, thugs either use their bare fists or knives. The problem is that there are little to no legal issues with acts of violence here. A guy from my neigbourhood killed a man a few years ago, he was 16 so he wasn't sent to a prison but to a reform school (don't know if I'm using the correct English idiom here). I saw him on TV and he said to the journalists that he was happy to get free holidays. What I'm trying to explain is that thugs here are really prompt to fighting as they know they won't get punished. Each time I got assaulted, I managed to avoid fighting (well, I still ended up once with a black eye, tough to escape when it's 7 VS 2) but I've always asked myself "what would've happened if I had been with a girl?". If a girl got hurt (or worse) because I wasn't strong enough to protect her, I would feel terrible.

Moreover, if someone really wants to fight, he won't let you de-escalate. I was once assaulted by five guys (they were all about 25-30 years old, you wouldn't expect that kind of behaviour from adults) just because I had looked at their car: they stopped the car, got off and tried to hit me, I managed to dodge and flee. They don't need any reason to mug you.

I want to be able to protect my friends and family. If I use a weapon I'll go to jail even if I am the victim so my only choice is bare hand fighting. Self-defense certainly isn't the only reason I want to learn martial arts but I feel that if I commit fully to a MA it should at least help me become strong enough to protect my loved ones.

Also, thank you for the informations in your post about the original purposes of karate/taekwondo, I find them quite helpful and interesting!

_Back to the topic_, basically it all comes down to the "take a taste of it before judging" thing ^^

Well, since I'm a newbie I was afraid of going to a school hoping to grow stronger only to realize afterwards that I still can't defend myself but I'm kinda reassured that KKW isn't all about sport.

So, I'm going to try those schools (while still searching for other TKD dojangs). I'll let you know how it turns out


----------



## Manny (Jan 7, 2013)

O'Malley said:


> Thanks to everyone!
> 
> @sopraisso: The end of your post was really inspiring, man (not kidding). Must be awesome to have something you can stick with during your whole life and that brings you so much, that's one of the things I'm looking for in martial arts.
> 
> ...




Hello, let me tell you that figth more than two guys at the same time is very dificult even for a black belt, so I can't imagine trying to defend yourself against 5 or 7 guys at the same time as you describe. If in your country this is a regular thing wow I will definetively carry on me maybe an impcat weapon (collapsible baton) and maybe a small can of mace AND the most important, will avoid going to such places where frenzy guys go to muger people.

Please take my word, the only guy who can fight more than two men with success is Chuck Norris, Jean Claude Van Damme and even Steven Seagal, and I know this cause I've been seeing this in their movies LOL!!! But quite frankly I believe that even a MMA fighter could NOT defeat 3 or 7 guys.

If you like martial arts and think they can be beneficial to you go ahead, MA are the best way to stay fit,alert and certanly can be handy if need it on the streets but not fool your self, MA don't make you invensible, or bullet or stab proof.

Avoid bad places, avoid bad times, avoid bad people and always stay alert to your sorroundings.

Manny


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 7, 2013)

It depends on the instructor, really, and how much time they spend on that kind of thing. Some Dojang are all about sport, others are all about hitting people in general. My suggestion is to not interrogate the 'style', and just go sit down in the Dojang and watch for half an hour, or have a free class if they offer one.
If you like it, you like it. If you dont, you can go look at something else


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 7, 2013)

There are as many different "flavours" of KKW TKD as there are instructors. Some focus wholly on SD, some on sport, some at any point between. Best thing you can do is go to the school. Sit in on a few classes. Take a class or two, if they let you. Meet the instructors. See if what they're teaching seems to match what you're looking for.
When you're watching classes, watch both beginner and advanced classes. The curriculum can vary widely depending on the level of training.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan (Jan 7, 2013)

Manny said:


> Please take my word, the only guy who can fight more than two men with success is Chuck Norris, Jean Claude Van Damme and even Steven Seagal, and I know this cause I've been seeing this in their movies LOL!!!
> Manny


That's the best thing I've read today!


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 9, 2013)

I love TKD, and it can teach you some good things - how to strike hard, block, etc.  I'm sure that would help you in a fight. But if you're worried about getting grabbed in the street, you might want to check out something like Hapkido or Jujitsu?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 9, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> I love TKD, and it can teach you some good things - how to strike hard, block, etc.  I'm sure that would help you in a fight. But if you're worried about getting grabbed in the street, you might want to check out something like Hapkido or Jujitsu?



Or find a dojang that teaches the art of TKD rather than the sport.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 9, 2013)

O'Malley said:


> _Back to the topic_, basically it all comes down to the "take a taste of it before judging" thing ^^
> 
> Well, since I'm a newbie I was afraid of going to a school hoping to grow stronger only to realize afterwards that I still can't defend myself but I'm kinda reassured that KKW isn't all about sport.
> 
> So, I'm going to try those schools (while still searching for other TKD dojangs). I'll let you know how it turns out



The question I have for you is this;  how are you going to know?  By what standard will you judge this KKW school (or any art)?  All too many schools have a 'Self-Defense Taught Here' sign but don't have any idea what training for self-defense actually is and just as importantly, what it isn't.  Additionally, you need to check into the experience of the instructor, not just his/her credentials.  Having a KKW certificate means little in regards to self-defense if there is not practical experience.  Does he/she have real world experience with violent, determined attackers?  If not, what about their instructor(s) and so forth.  What was the litmus test to determine whether this or that technique actually works outside the dojang? 

I've posted the following many times on various boards.  I feel it is applicable here since you are looking specifically for SD.  I hope it is a help to you. 



> There has been much  discussion on the differences between self-defense training methodology  vs. sport training methodology.  It isn't necessarily a this vs. that  since an individual is free to pursue either as the focus of their  personal training.  The purpose of this thread is to go into the  differences in training methodology.  It isn't to say one is better or  superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different  goal.  So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this  isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread.  It isn't a we're great and you suck  thread.  It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of  itself and how it differs from the sport model.
> 
> For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or  goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value.   And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only  instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front.
> 
> ...


----------



## Markku P (Jan 10, 2013)

O'Malley said:


> my prime goal is to protect myself and those around me.



If your goal is to learn only self defense, then Taekwondo is not the best choice.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 10, 2013)

Markku P said:


> If your goal is to learn only selI certf defense, then Taekwondo is not the best choice.


I certainly dont agree with this. I train in a tkd class where bouncers, police officers and others requiring self defence train. There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning tkd for self defence. If you are talking about classes  where it is taught as a sport and with high flashy kicks etc then I agree with you.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 10, 2013)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I certainly dont agree with this. I train in a tkd class where bouncers, police officers and others requiring self defence train. There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning tkd for self defence. If you are talking about classes  where it is taught as a sport and with high flashy kicks etc then I agree with you.



Agreed. Looking at Webster's Dictionary *:* _Martial Art - any of several arts of *combat *and *self defense* (as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as *sport.  *_With a few exceptions, such as Judo, martial arts began for combat or self defense.  Many have morphed some of the techniques into sport.  TKD is no exception as it can operate in both venues, though not at the same time.  The training methodology differs dramatically even if some of the 'window dressing' is the same i.e. uniforms, rank, certain movements etc.  KKW TKD for the most part functions as sport TKD.  If memory serves it still falls under the _International Sports Division of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism._  This isn't to say that it could be possible that a particular KKW school operates for the purpose of providing realistic self defense training, but it isn't probable and it would have to operate with a dramatically altered curriculum than its sport counterpart.  

As many here would agree, there are several 'flavors' of TKD that offer joint locks, throws, chokes etc and in many ways resemble Hapkido or Jujutsu.  No, that isn't what is typically thought of in TKD, but those schools do exist.  They often go under labels such as Old School TKD, Traditional TKD, Combat TKD, Practical TKD though those don't necessarily mean self defense oriented TKD.  But I do know of schools that go by those labels.


----------



## Dobbelsteen (Jan 10, 2013)

O'Malley said:


> I've been thinking about taking up a new martial art and, as Taekwondo was my first love, I looked for dojangs in my surroundings. I found only two in my city and they both belong to the Belgian branch of the Kukkiwon. I looked up their websites and they seem very sport-oriented. They refer to themselves as "clubs" or "academies", not as dojangs, and to Taekwondo as a sport. I only saw the word "martial art" once as they were talking about the origins of Olympic TKD. They were talking about it as if it was football. There are no ITF dojangs here. Well, according to what I've read so far on this forum, the Kukkiwon federation is heavily focused on the sport aspect of TKD, gives away black belts quite easily, etc. That bothers me a little: I wouldn't like to (accidentally) get involved in a dangerous situation, think that I'm able to defend myself and then wake up in a hospital because no one taught me how to block a punch properly.



I dont know if the Belgian kukkiwon federation is much different from the Dutch one. But in the Netherlands there are certain rules for doing a black belt exam. You cant do the blackbelt exam in your own club, youll have to do a national exam. Therefor, every club has the same requirements for the black belt, and you cant get a black belt if your club is purely focussed on the sport part. Besides, youll have to do taekwondo for a minimum of three years before you can do a Blackbelt exam.

As for the use of the word sport, do you speak Dutch in your area? It seems martial arts are always called 'sports' in Dutch  and therefor they are practiced in a 'club' and not in a dojang.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 10, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Agreed. Looking at Webster's Dictionary *:* _Martial Art - any of several arts of *combat *and *self defense* (as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as *sport.  *_With a few exceptions, such as Judo, martial arts began for combat or self defense.  Many have morphed some of the techniques into sport.  TKD is no exception as it can operate in both venues, though not at the same time.  The training methodology differs dramatically even if some of the 'window dressing' is the same i.e. uniforms, rank, certain movements etc.  KKW TKD for the most part functions as sport TKD.  If memory serves it still falls under the _International Sports Division of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism._  This isn't to say that it could be possible that a particular KKW school operates for the purpose of providing realistic self defense training, but it isn't probable and it would have to operate with a dramatically altered curriculum than its sport counterpart.
> 
> As many here would agree, there are several 'flavors' of TKD that offer joint locks, throws, chokes etc and in many ways resemble Hapkido or Jujutsu.  No, that isn't what is typically thought of in TKD, but those schools do exist.  They often go under labels such as Old School TKD, Traditional TKD, Combat TKD, Practical TKD though those don't necessarily mean self defense oriented TKD.  But I do know of schools that go by those labels.


Exactly right. The school I train at market themselves as "old school tkd" and I can assure you there are guys I train with that you definetely wouldnt want to mess with, and all they have trained in is tkd. BUT, I can also tell you that if these guys need to defend themselves there will be absolutely no flashy kicks, in fact I doubt you'd see a kick above knee level, if there is even a kick at all. It gets very frustrating to constantly hear people say "tkd is not the best for self defence", they should say "sport tkd is not the best for self defence".


----------



## sopraisso (Jan 10, 2013)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I certainly dont agree with this. I train in a tkd class where bouncers, police officers and others requiring self defence train. There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning tkd for self defence. If you are talking about classes  where it is taught as a sport and with high flashy kicks etc then I agree with you.



Agreed.
No matter the style, most schools are not recommended when it comes to self-defense, unless this is the main objective of their instructions. Furthermore, many styles that have become famous in the fighting sports mainstream (read: MMA) are particularly misleading about their effectiveness regarding self-defense. I recommend fully styles based in civillian defense scenarios, rather than "samurai war-based" ones or worse, sport based styles, but only, off course, if the civillian defense-based styles are teached in a way really aimed at self-defense -- what is very rare to find anywhere today.

Off course I don't mean, for example, boxing (very popular in MMA) is a bad martial art -- you will learn a little more about real fighting at a good boxing gym than at a sport-taekwondo school, for sure, but none of them really teach self-defense. Anyway, I've lost count of how many BJJ fighters have died in Brazil after thinking their technique was so helpful on the street (they get stabbed/shot in the back when attempting rear chokes, kicked while pinning someone on the floor, etc.). I've made some remarks on this subject in my previous response in this thread, so I shouldn't repeat myself here. 

Anyway... as I previously stated, it doesn't sound like a great idea to focus your strategy of self-defense from today's dangers on a tool that was created to defend against dangers from the past. And the last part of self-defense is the physical fighting. I'd say allertness and avoidance is by far the most important and effective way of self-defense in most urban sncenarios today -- what doesn't mean that in some places people won't need other approaches to save themselves.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 10, 2013)

Markku P said:


> If your goal is to learn only self defense, then Taekwondo is not the best choice.



Maybe not the TKD you teach. Others teach TKD that is very effective for self defense. I'm guessing your training and focus is strictly sport TKD?


----------



## Markku P (Jan 11, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Maybe not the TKD you teach. Others teach TKD that is very effective for self defense. I'm guessing your training and focus is strictly sport TKD?



No, I have been training "traditional" Taekwondo over 30 years. ( Both WTF and ITF )  and I still believe that Taekwondo is not most effective for PURE self defense training. For those who are looking for ONLY self defense, then I recommend to them Krav maga, Systema, Defendo, Keysi etc.


----------



## Metal (Jan 11, 2013)

Markku P said:


> No, I have been training "traditional" Taekwondo over 30 years. ( Both WTF and ITF )  and I still believe that Taekwondo is not most effective for PURE self defense training. For those who are looking for ONLY self defense, then I recommend to them Krav maga, Systema, Defendo, Keysi etc.




That's the way I see it.

Everybody's pointing out how wide the field of Taekwondo is and that it covers all kinds of aspects, like mental & physical, sports and self defense, forms and competition and so on. 

When you start Taekwondo you won't go straight to the point of self defense. You'll learn basic techniques, you'll learn forms, you'll learn the basics of sparring and you may learn the basics of self defense. If you go for a special self defense course  you'll only focus on the practical use of simple techniques then you'll have good results in a short amount of time.

But TKD isn't about learning a few tricks in a short amount of time. It's a long road and those who train for a long time will definitely be able to defend themselves. But those who're only learning Taekwondo for self defense reasons won't experience the full variety of Taekwondo, plus willl waste their time with stuff they're not interested in.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Jan 11, 2013)

Markku P said:


> If your goal is to learn only self defense, then Taekwondo is not the best choice.



I'm inclined to agree with this statement if your ONLY goal is to learn self-defense. I'm sure there are self-defense only Taekwondojang out there, but I'll bet they are by far the exception. 

We've had the debate about people's reasons for training before. There are so many potential benefits to be gained from any type of Taekwondo training, but I'd still probably say that someone solely interested in SD would likely be better served by another style.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 11, 2013)

Metal said:


> When you start Taekwondo you won't go straight to the point of self defense. You'll learn basic techniques, you'll learn forms, you'll learn the basics of sparring and you may learn the basics of self defense.



This is a good example of the differences in TKD schools and philosophies.  For many arts, including some TKD schools, the basics & forms are _the_ source of self-defense information.  And sparring is quite a bit different than in a sport-focused school.  As an example, Kong Soo Do is another label for _Old School_ TKD in regards to how we use and define it.  By the time I've taught a student just the usual line drills i.e. high _block_, low _block_ etc, they've learned a fair amount of balance displacement and grappling as well as the ability to _block_ an incoming attack and counter-strike.  As a note, I place the word _block_ in italics because we don't use blocks in the fashion of most schools.  Some that are gross-motor skill can be use to intercept/deflect an incoming attack, many martial-arty blocks cannot but are actually (in my professional opinion) something quite different.  And forms are the same way.  By just the first movement sequence in our Mu Shin Kwan form the student is deflecting and incoming attack, using lateral movement to gain an advantageous position, counter-striking and using locks and/or takedowns.  Without is sounding like a boast, the best compliment I ever received from the BB of another school that was visiting us, who was watching one of my yellow belt classes was that our yellow belts knew more than his schools BB's in terms of SD.  

In essence, one doesn't need to wait for an extended time to get to the 'good stuff'. They can learn basics and what others may deem advanced methods almost simultaneously.  We've been doing it successfully for years.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying on day one they're learning to walk through walls and leave no foot prints on the rice paper, but what I am saying is that they leave the first class with viable/useable information/training.  We then tailor the training to each student.


----------



## O'Malley (Jan 11, 2013)

Thanks to all of you! It will surely help me in my choice ^^

@Dobbelsteen: I live in the French-speaking part of the country, we differentiate the two words.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Jan 11, 2013)

Okay, let's do this one more time. 



O'Malley said:


> Hello everybody!



Welcome.




O'Malley said:


> I've been thinking about taking up a new martial art and, as Taekwondo was my first love, I looked for dojangs in my surroundings. I found only two in my city and they both belong to the Belgian branch of the Kukkiwon. I looked up their websites and they seem very sport-oriented. They refer to themselves as "clubs" or "academies", not as dojangs, and to Taekwondo as a sport. I only saw the word "martial art" once as they were talking about the origins of Olympic TKD. They were talking about it as if it was football. There are no ITF dojangs here. Well, according to what I've read so far on this forum, the Kukkiwon federation is heavily focused on the sport aspect of TKD, gives away black belts quite easily, etc. That bothers me a little: I wouldn't like to (accidentally) get involved in a dangerous situation, think that I'm able to defend myself and then wake up in a hospital because no one taught me how to block a punch properly.



Kukkiwon doesn't care about sport Taekwondo. The WTF and the Kukkiwon are not related except that a KKW style of sparring is the style that the WTF chooses to recognize. 

Typically if you spar, you'll be told to watch your hands. Most KKW teachers won't have you sparring like a WTF fighter if that is not what you are interested in. What you will do is kick and punch another TKD practitioner as practice and sport. 

The KKW does not monitor the quality of black belts. Any 4th dan or higher can award a black belt.

There is a pretty strong anti-KKW sentiment here at times, the bottom line is you should try both clubs. 



O'Malley said:


> Although the competitive side could be fun, my prime goal is to protect myself and those around me. So, could I achieve it by learning TKD in one of the two schools mentioned above or should I completely forget about TKD as the schools are too focused on the Olympic sport?



ITF teachers don't know any special self defense move that you can't learn in a KKW dojang. I don't know where the idea of ITF being a street fighting system came from. 



O'Malley said:


> I need your advice, maybe a KKW member (or someone else ^^) could help me.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> ...



Lots of people say that.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 11, 2013)

ETinCYQX said:


> Okay, let's do this one more time.



Oh no... we'll go through this a lot more than just one more time. 




ETinCYQX said:


> Kukkiwon doesn't care about sport Taekwondo. The WTF and the Kukkiwon are not related except that a KKW style of sparring is the style that the WTF chooses to recognize.



Given what could be described as the incestuous relationship between the leadership of the two groups, I don't know that this is entirely correct.



ETinCYQX said:


> Typically if you spar, you'll be told to watch your hands. Most KKW teachers won't have you sparring like a WTF fighter if that is not what you are interested in. What you will do is kick and punch another TKD practitioner as practice and sport.



Ehhh... again, I don't know that this is really correct. While the Kukkiwon may or may not care about the sport of TKD (I believe that they do), it's certainly true that many, if not most (virtually all, in my area, but since I'm 50 miles from the OTC it's a biased location) KKW-affiliated schools are very heavily sport oriented.



ETinCYQX said:


> The KKW does not monitor the quality of black belts. Any 4th dan or higher can award a black belt.



True. There are too many KKW Dan holders for there to be chance for central control.



ETinCYQX said:


> There is a pretty strong anti-KKW sentiment here at times, the bottom line is you should try both clubs.



I don't know if it's so much anti-KKW as anti-KKW-Uber-All.



ETinCYQX said:


> ITF teachers don't know any special self defense move that you can't learn in a KKW dojang. I don't know where the idea of ITF being a street fighting system came from.



Probably because, on average, ITF schools are less sport oriented than the average KKW school.


----------



## Markku P (Jan 12, 2013)

ETinCYQX said:


> Kukkiwon doesn't care about sport Taekwondo. The WTF and the Kukkiwon are not related except that a KKW style of sparring is the style that the WTF chooses to recognize.



I don't think this so "black and white". I think many in Kukkiwon feels that "sport aspect" is also part of taekwondo. There was been some Kukkiwon seminars where had been former world championships as a teachers.

Also WTF is now focusing more poomsae competitions


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 12, 2013)

ETinCYQX said:


> There is a pretty strong anti-KKW sentiment here at times....



I suppose that anti-KKW sentiment is accurate to a degree on the parts of many.  But perhaps a willingness to point out KKW flaws that give the art as a whole a black eye is also perceived as anti-KKW sentiment?  I would call it self-policing.  For example;



> The KKW does not monitor the quality of black belts. Any 4th dan or higher can award a black belt.



Very true, and not very good policy.  We have schools, I believe in this thread, that take 3 years (or more) to be eligible to test for BB.  That's reasonable.  We also have BB's in Korea almost passed out like candy in about a year for children.  Quite a range of standards.  Additionally, last year we had posts where some KKW instructors were giving BB rank to non-KKW members who did not know the KKW curriculum and stated they had no intention of learning it.  Both are examples of padding the numbers for _quantity_ rather than have standards of _quality_.  To me, this is a negative for the art of TKD.  This isn't anti-KKW sentiment, it is taking an honest look at less-than-satisfactory practices that affect the perception of the art as a whole.


----------



## Gorilla (Jan 12, 2013)

Lots of anti KKW/WTF feelings on this BBS. Lots of biased opinions based on one's affiliation.  This is what makes the BBS interesting.  Lots of I international posters a good cross section of people.

Really only a minority of sport focused people on this BBS.

Love SD just not a focus right now!


----------



## ETinCYQX (Jan 12, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I suppose that anti-KKW sentiment is accurate to a degree on the parts of many.  But perhaps a willingness to point out KKW flaws that give the art as a whole a black eye is also perceived as anti-KKW sentiment?  I would call it self-policing.  For example;
> 
> 
> 
> Very true, and not very good policy.  We have schools, I believe in this thread, that take 3 years (or more) to be eligible to test for BB.  That's reasonable.  We also have BB's in Korea almost passed out like candy in about a year for children.  Quite a range of standards.  Additionally, last year we had posts where some KKW instructors were giving BB rank to non-KKW members who did not know the KKW curriculum and stated they had no intention of learning it.  Both are examples of padding the numbers for _quantity_ rather than have standards of _quality_.  To me, this is a negative for the art of TKD.  This isn't anti-KKW sentiment, it is taking an honest look at less-than-satisfactory practices that affect the perception of the art as a whole.



There are standards of quality, but they aren't enforced by the Kukkiwon, they're enforced by the instructor. 

The sheer number of Kukkiwon Taekwondo practitioners makes it impossible to enforce black belt standards on a case by case basis. What you don't seem to acknowledge is that there are lots of crappy ITF black belts as well and the ITF does no more in regulating standards.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Jan 12, 2013)

Gorilla said:


> Lots of anti KKW/WTF feelings on this BBS. Lots of biased opinions based on one's affiliation.  This is what makes the BBS interesting.  Lots of I international posters a good cross section of people.
> 
> Really only a minority of sport focused people on this BBS.
> 
> Love SD just not a focus right now!



I am of the opinion that being able to fire off a hard roundhouse kick first is better self defense than most of the "grab my wrist, no my other wrist, no my other wrist with your other wrist" crap I've seen.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 12, 2013)

There are many aspects to KKW Taekwondo. Unless you've personal experience of training at many different schools affiliated with the KKW, you're not really qualified to make credible generalisations.

Here are some things I have find to be generally true on my travels:

The minimum standards set out by the KKW for their black belt exam cover all aspects of the art. The balance of time and effort spent on each aspect is down to the individual instructor, but candidates must demonstrate competence in all areas to pass regardless of who you test under.

Self defence is not the main focus of KKW TKD. That said, anyone who thinks it is ineffective or cannot be used for self defence purposes lacks imagination and critical thinking skills. I have generally found this to be the case when discussing with people why they believe the art is ineffective.

Sport is also not the main focus of KKW TKD.  That said, you will learn sport techniques and strategies that will help you to win. Again, those who are unable to clearly differentiate sport from SD and assess what is effective for each must lack imagination and critical thinking skills. The same is true for those who believe learning sport techniques has no transferable value to self defence application.

The main focus of TKD is self improvement. This can be borne out through whatever avenue the instructor sees fit. Most people practice KKW TKD for one reason: enjoyment.

Gnarlie


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 12, 2013)

Had to go out so never got to the point: the KKW syllabus is a good starting point for a pretty comprehensive Taekwondo course.

How the student processes that information and what they choose to do with it will determine how effective the art is in meeting their individual expectations and needs. You can't expect to be handed everything on a silver platter.

Gnarlie


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 12, 2013)

ETinCYQX said:


> There are standards of quality, but they aren't enforced by the Kukkiwon, they're enforced by the instructor.



Yes, but as we've seen on this very board, that doesn't work very well.  There are KKW black belts, some of master status that don't have any idea of the KKW curriculum.  



> The sheer number of Kukkiwon Taekwondo practitioners makes it impossible  to enforce black belt standards on a case by case basis.



But when the numbers are inflated just for the sheer goal of gaining numbers it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy and too be honest, a sort of cop out.  As I've said, quality over quantity in my humble but professional opinion.  



> I am of the opinion that being able to fire off a hard roundhouse kick  first is better self defense than most of the "grab my wrist, no my  other wrist, no my other wrist with your other wrist" crap I've seen.



We are now in 100% agreement.  I don't like the 'Rex Kwon Do' approach to martial arts either.  It leads to sloppy technique and a false sense of security.  



			
				Gnarlie said:
			
		

> Unless you've personal experience of training at many different schools  affiliated with the KKW, you're not really qualified to make credible  generalisations.



Valid point.  But on the flip side, those of us that have had extensive dealings with KKW schools, instructors and students shouldn't be dismissed off-hand simply because we point out the good, bad and ugly.  Particularly if the points are specific.  



> Self defence is not the main focus of KKW TKD. That said, anyone who  thinks it is ineffective or cannot be used for self defence purposes  lacks imagination and critical thinking skills.



Can't agree with you on this point.  This is more the domain of how the instructor teaches, based upon their personal experience.  If you have an instructor (of any art) that has no clue what self-defense actually is, they can't effectively teach it.  If you are a student with no practical experience, you won't know what is a valid strategy, tactic or technique against a violent, resisting attacker and what is a bunch of nonsense and fluff passed off as self-defense.  This is why I've had KKW BB's come to me, or were sent to me for self-defense training.  What they were training in, at their KKW school didn't qualify as SD.  This isn't a boast on my part, it is a pat on their back (or the person/instructor that sent them) for recognizing what the KKW school offered and what it didn't and then seeking out someone to fill in the gap(s) if that was also desired.  



> The main focus of TKD is self improvement.



With respect, I cannot agree with this either.  The main point of TKD, or any art, is personal and may differ from person to person.  Using TKD as an example, it is an excellent sport art for those that want to have a focus on sport.  TKD can be an excellent self-defense art, at the right school, if that is their focus.  And of course, TKD can have many other excellent things to offer in either venue i.e. conditioning, socialization, purpose etc.  

A KKW school, like any other, can have a lot to offer if the schools goals coincide with what the student is looking for.  But if someone is looking into a KKW school and seeking opinions then we should all be honest and give the good, bad and ugly.  This way the person seeking information can then make an informed decision as to whether or not it is for them.  This information, along with personally visiting the school (and knowing what questions to ask) can greatly assist them.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 12, 2013)

As Ive said here countless times, I dont see the point in any business/organisation having standards if they are not going to check those standards are adhered to.  I run a business and pride myself on the fact that if you deal with any of my employees you will receive the exact same service. This way people can speak of my business in either a positive or negative light with a degree of credibility. It makes no sense to meto hear people say "kkw  tkd is the best/worst", because kkw tkd cant even be defined. From one school to the next it can mean something completely different.  Ive had fourth dan kkw instructors offer me kkw certification and I dont even know the curriculum. To me, this is ludicrous.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Jan 13, 2013)

Well, there are millions of KKW black belts. It isn't possible for KKW to sanction all of them and make sure they're all up to snuff. That's the whole point of the instructor.

I'm sure the ITF has the same problem on a smaller scale.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 13, 2013)

ETinCYQX said:


> Well, there are millions of KKW black belts. It isn't possible for KKW to sanction all of them and make sure they're all up to snuff. That's the whole point of the instructor.
> 
> I'm sure the ITF has the same problem on a smaller scale.


saying there are too many black belts to sanction them all is a classic example of putting quantity over quality, which in any business or organisation is not a good idea. Imagine if every second iphone started breaking down within a week of purchase and apple saying "we just sell too many phones to ensure the quality of our product". No one would accept that as its poor business practice. The funny thing is that I have friends who think their black belt is somehow more "credible" because its a kkw black belt, but then the kkw itself admits it cant keep tabs on ensuring their black belts meet a certain standard. I think as someone who runs a large business myself, I just cant understand the whole concept.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Jan 13, 2013)

What more would you expect the Kukkiwon to do? They offer materials both online and in print. They offer education both in Korea and abroad. Ultimately, they trust individual instructors to uphold standards. To me, it's not surprising that some people fall short or don't know the standard. Up to date information on a global level is still a relatively new phenomenon, and there are many many people out there who were taught or learned incorrectly who believe they were taught "original" or "old school" or "military" or whatever Taekwondo (I don't mean that as a dig against people here who use these terms to describe what they do, only that there are large numbers of people who I believe do so incorrectly). Even if Kukkiwon had some kind of official "regional" standards enforcement, they'd still be trusting a number of individuals to uphold the standards, albeit a smaller number. 

I think with any kind of "franchise" headquarters puts systems into place to try to get a standard, but they can't be everywhere at once. And even the biggest franchise in the world is dealing with  fewer numbers than current Kukkiwon black belts, to say nothing of color belts.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 13, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Valid point.  But on the flip side, those of us that have had extensive dealings with KKW schools, instructors and students shouldn't be dismissed off-hand simply because we point out the good, bad and ugly.  Particularly if the points are specific.



I've nothing against presenting a warts and all view, but points presented here are not being backed up with evidence. I've visited a number of KKW affiliated schools in a number of countries, and largely the curriculum and standard is good and uniform, especially where the link back to the Kukkiwon is a clear one I.e. The instructor has done the instructors course and visits the Kukkiwon on a regular basis to keep up to date with their standards and expectations. It's an instructor's job to stay up to date.  It's irresponsible instructors who pose the problem - those who let their standards slide and then continue to offer KKW certification when what the student is learning is nothing of the sort. KKW standard TKD close to the source covers a pretty comprehensive syllabus for each of the areas sport, SD, and philosophy.

I'd recommend to anyone starting the art that they either train under an NGB with clear links back to KKW or under a KKW recognised independent instructor who has attended the instructor's course and continues to visit KKW regularly.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Can't agree with you on this point.  This is more the domain of how the instructor teaches, based upon their personal experience.  If you have an instructor (of any art) that has no clue what self-defense actually is, they can't effectively teach it.  If you are a student with no practical experience, you won't know what is a valid strategy, tactic or technique against a violent, resisting attacker and what is a bunch of nonsense and fluff passed off as self-defense.  This is why I've had KKW BB's come to me, or were sent to me for self-defense training.  What they were training in, at their KKW school didn't qualify as SD.  This isn't a boast on my part, it is a pat on their back (or the person/instructor that sent them) for recognizing what the KKW school offered and what it didn't and then seeking out someone to fill in the gap(s) if that was also desired.



See above. Instructors with close and up to date links to the KKW don't teach fluff and will offer enough information to allow the student to fully explore the SD elements of the art if that is the student's passion.  Instructors will even encourage cross training in other arts and with people with recent live experience of violence to incorporate into the student's knowledge, if that is the student's wish.




Kong Soo Do said:


> With respect, I cannot agree with this either.  The main point of TKD, or any art, is personal and may differ from person to person.  Using TKD as an example, it is an excellent sport art for those that want to have a focus on sport.  TKD can be an excellent self-defense art, at the right school, if that is their focus.  And of course, TKD can have many other excellent things to offer in either venue i.e. conditioning, socialization, purpose etc.



I think we are agreeing. What I mean is, KKW TKD does not have a specific focus unless the instructor makes it so. The syllabus from KKW is a balanced mix of sport, SD and Philosophical elements. That said, it's absolutely the philosophy that drives the other two aspects and how and why they work, and that for me makes the main point of KKW TKD all round self improvement, 'graduation into life' as illustrated through its Poomsae and Philosophy. It's just a question of how long it takes the student to realise the deeper meaning of their practice.



Kong Soo Do said:


> A KKW school, like any other, can have a lot to offer if the schools goals coincide with what the student is looking for.  But if someone is looking into a KKW school and seeking opinions then we should all be honest and give the good, bad and ugly.  This way the person seeking information can then make an informed decision as to whether or not it is for them.  This information, along with personally visiting the school (and knowing what questions to ask) can greatly assist them.



I agree that we should be honest, and will concede that there are instructors out there offering KKW certification who aren't adopting the standard. But you and others here have been making negative generalisations about KKW TKD which are not necessarily true when the individual instructor's influence is removed from the equation. At source, the art offers practical methods for SD and sport. It's also made clear which is which.

Therefore the best advice we can give to a beginner is to assess the instructor and their relationship with the KKW before starting. Anyone not attending seminars in their own country though an NGB, or visiting the KKW in person if they are independent, is not going to be able to teach or provide reliable information about KKW TKD.

Where there is a link to KKW, it will be clear. There will be posters, Licensing information, certification from courses, and so on readily available and recently dated.

Gnarlie


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 13, 2013)

ralphmcpherson said:


> saying there are too many black belts to sanction them all is a classic example of putting quantity over quality, which in any business or organisation is not a good idea. Imagine if every second iphone started breaking down within a week of purchase and apple saying "we just sell too many phones to ensure the quality of our product". No one would accept that as its poor business practice. The funny thing is that I have friends who think their black belt is somehow more "credible" because its a kkw black belt, but then the kkw itself admits it cant keep tabs on ensuring their black belts meet a certain standard. I think as someone who runs a large business myself, I just cant understand the whole concept.



In order to make this analogy accurate, you'd have to have every student learn at the same school. Everybody would have to learn Taegeuk 1-4 at school A. 5-8 at school B. Stances would be polished at C. Hand techniques at D. Sparring at E. Final assembly would be at KKW. How to tie the belt would be added in a later patch.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 13, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> In order to make this analogy accurate, you'd have to have every student learn at the same school. Everybody would have to learn Taegeuk 1-4 at school A. 5-8 at school B. Stances would be polished at C. Hand techniques at D. Sparring at E. Final assembly would be at KKW. How to tie the belt would be added in a later patch.



God help us when the new version iBelt 's' is released and we have to remortgage and pay all over again for a black Belt that is slightly longer and thinner but essentially the same as the previous one and still inferior to many cheaper Black belts on the market.

On the plus side, using the warranty service model for the iPhone, faulty black belt practitioners could be shipped back to the manufacturer for repair or replacement free of charge.

Gnarlie


----------



## Gorilla (Jan 13, 2013)

Karate instructor set up a Krav Maga guy to teach some self def very interesting...one of the techs is how to get out of a locked trunk!

He likes working with athletes we will be doing a promo video!  It was a nice break from the sport training!


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 14, 2013)

Gorilla said:


> Karate instructor set up a Krav Maga guy to teach some self def very interesting...one of the techs is how to get out of a locked trunk!
> 
> He likes working with athletes we will be doing a promo video!  It was a nice break from the sport training!


Youre reminding me of a guy i met once, who taught me a technique called spit-in-their-face-to-distract-them. Its really technical and precise


----------



## Gorilla (Jan 14, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Youre reminding me of a guy i met once, who taught me a technique called spit-in-their-face-to-distract-them. Its really technical and precise


 
Not quite sure what point you are trying to get across?


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 14, 2013)

Gorilla said:


> Not quite sure what point you are trying to get across?


None - I was just entertained by the prospect of having a technique for escaping a locked trunk. I was just commenting.


----------



## Gorilla (Jan 15, 2013)

IT is mostly for young women in case you get kidnapped. Not a bad thing to know!


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 15, 2013)

Gorilla said:


> Karate instructor set up a Krav Maga guy to teach some self def very interesting...one of the techs is how to get out of a locked trunk!
> 
> He likes working with athletes we will be doing a promo video! It was a nice break from the sport training!



This is actually an outstanding addition to any training.  In addition to woman's SD classes, it is often a subject of training for children in abduction prevention classes.  I would recommend it highly for anyone, particularly woman and children.  

For children I would also recommend code words between them and the parents.  This can go a long way towards preventing an abduction.


----------



## Gorilla (Jan 15, 2013)

SD training is very valuable!




Kong Soo Do said:


> This is actually an outstanding addition to any training.  In addition to woman's SD classes, it is often a subject of training for children in abduction prevention classes.  I would recommend it highly for anyone, particularly woman and children.
> 
> For children I would also recommend code words between them and the parents.  This can go a long way towards preventing an abduction.


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 18, 2013)

ETinCYQX said:


> I am of the opinion that being able to fire off a hard roundhouse kick first is better self defense than most of the "grab my wrist, no my other wrist, no my other wrist with your other wrist" crap I've seen.



LOL, yeah, I know what you're talking about there. It took me at least 2 years of Hapkido training before I got past that "no grab the other wrist" thing and could just intuitively work from the principle.  At this point I think the Hapkido would be more useful to me in real life, but for those 2 years a good hard side kick to the groin would've served me better than trying out my hapkido moves!


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 18, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> LOL, yeah, I know what you're talking about there. It took me at least 2 years of Hapkido training before I got past that "no grab the other wrist" thing and could just intuitively work from the principle. At this point I think the Hapkido would be more useful to me in real life, but for those 2 years a good hard side kick to the groin would've served me better than trying out my hapkido moves!



Not to get too far off track in the thread, but since this has been brought up it's worth discussing imo. The 'grab my wrist' is the wrong teaching methodology to begin with. Yes, for the very initial 'getting-to-know-you' on a technique it is fine. But from there the principle behind the technique should be addressed, which in turn flows outward to multiple techniques when the principle is understood. The GMW method is automatically limiting in-and-of-itself. When a principle is understood, which does NOT take a lot of time, the practitioner should be able to apply a particular technique regardless of the position of the attacker and/or him/herself. A wrist has only so much range of motion, whether that wrist is above you, to the side of you, your on the ground, their on the ground etc. One principle is worth a hundred techniques. This has allowed us to prepare a multitude of people in what would be otherwise considered a short amount of time. 

Instead of a couple of years to become comfortable and proficient, it should take a couple of weeks. Don't take what I'm saying out of context. This doesn't mean you're Chuck, Bruce and Stephen rolled up into one after two weeks. But it is our experience that after an initial strike/counter-strike you should be able to jack someone up in some kind of lock rather quickly, depending upon what principle you've started with. Martial arts is suppose to be highly usable in a short amount of time. Again, not mastery...whatever that is, but usable in a real situation. Perhaps some don't know how to teach it this way? Perhaps some don't want to teach it this way from a monetary standpoint? I don't know.

High liabilty professionals and private citizens don't have years to learn something they may need tomorrow.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Jan 25, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> LOL, yeah, I know what you're talking about there. It took me at least 2 years of Hapkido training before I got past that "no grab the other wrist" thing and could just intuitively work from the principle.  At this point I think the Hapkido would be more useful to me in real life, but for those 2 years a good hard side kick to the groin would've served me better than trying out my hapkido moves!



Regardless of what self defense technique I practice, I'm sure I'd fall back on either a kick or a competition style throw in an SD situation.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Jan 25, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> High liabilty professionals and private citizens don't have years to learn something they may need tomorrow.



As kind of a tangent, and to get your opinion on it, I have a point to make that kind of works in here.

I've been told time and time again that "RCMP training is far superior to martial arts because they train to fight for real". It's an idiotic argument imo, mainly because they never practice it again. What kind of proficiency can be expected when you learn it once and never practice it?

I don't have much faith in a police officer who learned in training and doesn't touch it again when put up against even a collegiate wrestler or similar sport MA guy.

Since IIRC you're law enforcement and specialize in this kind of stuff, I'm interested in your perspective on this.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 25, 2013)

ETinCYQX said:


> As kind of a tangent, and to get your opinion on it, I have a point to make that kind of works in here.
> 
> I've been told time and time again that "RCMP training is far superior to martial arts because they train to fight for real". It's an idiotic argument imo, mainly because they never practice it again. What kind of proficiency can be expected when you learn it once and never practice it?
> 
> ...



Great question.  

Certain systems (WWII combatives, Boatman system, SPEAR, PCR etc) have a very good track record of useability under duress in real altercations with a minimum of training.  Perhaps 16-40 hours depending on which system where talking about.  Training once and never doing it again is less than optimal of course.  There is a caveat here though, we do have documentation of people learning 'something' years or in some cases decades ago and then using it successfully in a crisis situation.  For example the senior citizen who took out an armed robber at a 'stop-in-shop' decades after serving in the FSSF (First Special Services Force).  He trained under Pat O'Neill of WWII combatives fame.  Is it the rule?  No.  But can and has it happened?  Yes.  

Preferably we need sufficient training in a gross motor skilled technique that relies on the flinch response and is drilled by rote.  Then periodic refresher training.  As an example, Boatman's system was taught in 16 hours with refresher training occurring annually.  It was found that refresher could be pushed back to 18 month intervals.  SPEAR (SPontaneous Enabling Accelerated Response) is a 40 course (for instructors).  Refresher training is annually.  And that is sufficient and has and does work for us.  To be clear, we're not taking complicated, refined motor skills.  SPEAR and Boatman is stupid-simply...but bloody brutal (literally).  And it has an excellent track record.  

Now for the reality check segment of my reply...

If you get a serious person that applies themselves in training, comprehends the technique/principle/strategy and commits to the training then they are far more likely to be able to use it under stress than the schmuck that coasts through the training and has a 'it won't happen to me' attitude.  This also applies to those that go straight to an admin type of job and don't put their hands on people.  Take a Police Officer/Deputy/Trooper/Correction Officer that has what many would consider minimal training yet regularly/periodically is putting their hands on someone and it makes a BIG difference!  Do they know everything a 'BB' knows?  Nope.  But they do have a small tool box of 'go-to' techniques/principles/strategies that work under duress on real bad guys.  

But yes, there are Officers that I wouldn't want as back up because they just aren't proficient with what they have and what they've been taught.  There are others that have the same level of training that I absolutely would trust to back me up.  I truly feel that the bottom line is mind set.


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 1, 2013)

If you just want self defense, look into Krav Maga.


----------

