# Taekwondo Doesn't work on someone skilled



## martialartstutor

No resistance = no real technique. It's that simple. 
"Martial" means having to do with or suitable for war. 
And "art" means  skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. If you aren't learning something suitable for combat through repetition, you are learning how to dance and punch the air. Not apply techniques in a life or death situation. The community needs to be aware that pure taekwondo schools in our world today will not teach you the fundamental skills for self-defense and how to fight. Sure it may look good in movies, but in the ring, on the street, ect. It won't work. There may be some schools out there however, that offer taekwondo in addition to other martial arts. But a pure taekwondo school would not do that for you.


----------



## Gnarlie

Wrong again boys. You really, really need you get out more. Ears open, mouths closed. 

There is more to Taekwondo than exists in your limited sphere of experience. Extrapolating from limited data to generalise about a whole art, especially on this forum where the experience of members is many times your life span, is making you both look silly.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Sort of.

They touch on issues that will make self defence really hard. These things being training in a compliant manner. And therefore basing martial skill on something other than being able to flog your training partner around the room creating this sidestep from reality.

And yes you will see tkd schools that are craptastic.

To suggest it is inherently a tkd deal is not really correct.


----------



## drop bear

Gnarlie said:


> Wrong again boys. You really, really need you get out more. Ears open, mouths closed.
> 
> There is more to Taekwondo than exists in your limited sphere of experience. Extrapolating from limited data to generalise about a whole art, especially on this forum where the experience of members is many times your life span, is making you both look silly.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



This does not work as a counter argument as you only touched on the actual issue. And then went into some terrible appeal to authority. 

OK pretend they don't care that someone has been doing martial arts for a long time. And that being old does not automatically make a person right. Instead use the experience to address the merits of the system itself.


----------



## Gnarlie

drop bear said:


> This does not work as a counter argument as you only touched on the actual issue. And then went into some terrible appeal to authority.
> 
> OK pretend they don't care that someone has been doing martial arts for a long time. And that being old does not automatically make a person right. Instead use the experience to address the merits of the system itself.



There's plenty of resistive training in TKD, and plenty of people with knowledge of how to make it work in reality. It's not my job to educate people here, or to espouse the merits of a system I already practice and clearly have knowledge of that they don't. That is what classes are for. I can certainly point out a failure in the conclusion they are drawing from an incredibly small sample, though.


----------



## drop bear

Gnarlie said:


> There's plenty of resistive training in TKD, and plenty of people with knowledge of how to make it work in reality. It's not my job to educate people here, or to espouse the merits of a system I already practice and clearly have knowledge of that they don't. That is what classes are for. I can certainly point out a failure in the conclusion they are drawing from an incredibly small sample, though.



I agreed with the point that their is more than one version of tkd. But it is not something I would just take on face value.


----------



## Gnarlie

drop bear said:


> I agreed with the point that their is more than one version of tkd. But it is not something I would just take on face value.


I wouldn't expect you to, and it doesn't matter what you think because you don't do Taekwondo and you don't profess to be a master. They do. 

What I find odd is that they have taken at face value that there is only one type of taekwondo, and it is the one they have done. 

That's part of the problem. People expect their one trainer to be able to show them everything. In a multi-disciplinary art like Taekwondo, you have got to seek out the experts in what you want to practice, and do some work yourself.


----------



## drop bear

Gnarlie said:


> I wouldn't expect you to.
> 
> What I find odd is that they have taken at face value that there is only one type of taekwondo, and it is the one they have done.
> 
> That's part of the problem. People expect their one trainer to be able to show them everything. In a multi-disciplinary art like Taekwondo, you have got to seek out the experts in what you want to practice, and do some work yourself.



Plenty of trainers perpetuate that myth. That is why I like that people are sceptical. Even if they are wielding that scepticism like a hammer in this case.


----------



## Tez3

Gnarlie said:


> What I find odd is that they have taken at face value that there is only one type of taekwondo, and it is the one they have done



That's the problem isn't it. When you assume that what you train in is the only style and the only way you can train, this can mean you either think it's the best ever or it's useless. Goodness knows we've had examples of both types of people on here. In both cases a decent amount of research into other styles, other branches of your style and how others train would solve the problem.


----------



## Paul_D

martialartstutor said:


> "Martial" means having to do with or suitable for war.


Exactly, "suitable for war" it does not mean "suitable for self defence".  

However it would have been more acurate to call the video "Our taekwondo is useless for self defence" rather than "taekwondo is useless for self defence".


----------



## Touch Of Death

While I do not do TKD, I believe it is not so much the method of fighting that is the problem, but that they hand black belts out like candy, and now my system does it.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Just to tear up their straight punch argument, I am siding with TKD.  If you do the right footwork, they will be there for a straight punch. That is how that works.


----------



## Gnarlie

drop bear said:


> This does not work as a counter argument as you only touched on the actual issue. And then went into some terrible appeal to authority.
> 
> Not an appeal to authority, but an observation which validates the next point I will make.
> 
> OK pretend they don't care that someone has been doing martial arts for a long time. And that being old does not automatically make a person right. Instead use the experience to address the merits of the system itself.



The stuff you learn and the ways you practice it as an adult are different to the things you do as a kid. These guys might think they have seen everything Taekwondo has to offer in their 15 years training, but only some of those years have been adult training. Many of the people here on the site have been training as adults for many times longer than that 15 years, and have a much better understanding of what the complete adult martial art of Taekwondo covers. That's not an appeal to authority, but an observation that they are perhaps not best placed to make generalisations and not meet resistance.

No problem with skepticism supported by a scientific approach. The issue I have is with people sitting and pontificating about something that they haven't bothered to investigate fully.


----------



## Earl Weiss

martialartstutor said:


> And "art" means  skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. .



Classic logical fallacy - Set up a "Straw Man"

While you have used a definition that is technically correct, it is not typically applied or thought of as such.   For instance, many professions and trades have skill acquired thru practice (i.e. Plumbers, Carpenters, Mechanics, surgeons) yet what they do is not typically considered an "Art" . nor are they referred to as  "Artists".   The difference is that there are things done in "Martial Arts" which have an aesthetic element.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Gnarlie said:


> That's part of the problem. People expect their one trainer to be able to show them everything. In a multi-disciplinary art like Taekwondo, you have got to seek out the experts in what you want to practice, and do some work yourself.



Bada Bing, Bada Boom! Therein lies the issue. It's Caveat Emptor.   You buy into BS and taint an entire industry because they went in and stayed in with eyes closed.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Was this filmed in a grocery store?


----------



## Gnarlie

Earl Weiss said:


> Bada Bing, Bada Boom! Therein lies the issue. It's Caveat Emptor.   You buy into BS and taint an entire industry because they went in and stayed in with eyes closed.



Exactly. It pains me that people make generalisations about Taekwondo as an art based on the fact that the strip mall dojang at the end of their street did not teach them to a world class level. Of course it didn't. But, what did they do to seek out experts and develop themselves? Nothing.

I think it is fair to say there is a difference between a strip mall 4th dan who only trained art a single dojang, and one who has actively travelled to seek out and train with the best in the world. The standard of either of those people does not change the nature of the art, however.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Gnarlie said:


> Many of the people here on the site have been training as adults for many times longer than that 15 years, and have a much better understanding of what the complete adult martial art of Taekwondo covers.


I have been training in it for 28 years, I started when I was 16.


----------



## RTKDCMB

I am going to use their logic for a moment: I used to drive an old Holden Gemini, it had a hole in the floor, the gearshift was held on by wire and string, it was rusty and broke down a lot. Automobiles are useless as methods of transportation.


----------



## Gnarlie

RTKDCMB said:


> I am going to use their logic for a moment: I used to drive an old Holden Gemini, it had a hole in the floor, the gearshift was held on by wire and string, it was rusty and broke down a lot. Automobiles are useless as methods of transportation.



By their logic, the Gemini was in that state because they failed to maintain it.

If you aren't able to apply Taekwondo, there is nobody else to blame but yourself. Especially post first dan, which they both apparently are.


----------



## Gnarlie

RTKDCMB said:


> I have been training in it for 28 years, I started when I was 16.



Exactly.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Gnarlie said:


> By their logic, the Gemini was in that state because they failed to maintain it.


I maintained the Gemini in that state for a while.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Mistake #1.  If someone works in a place with crazy people don't recommend a fighting system that is heavy in punching and kicking. I'm pretty sure that management wouldn't want their staff punching and kicking the crap out of patients lol. 

Mistake #2.  These guys bought into the hype of Taekwondo as a sport without realizing that there is a difference between sport and self-defense.  That should have been very clear if they sparred in their class.  If he was a kid when he started then the blame goes to the parents.

The problem that these guys are talking about isn't so much about the style of the martial art as it is about the focus of the training.  Training for sport is not the same as training for self-defense.  No matter what style or fighting system a person is using, if the training isn't focused on self-defense then the fighting won't be good for self-defense.  We all train according to purpose. If those guys knew had the same understanding that they have now, then they would have never stayed at the TKD school because the training there wasn't for the purpose of self-defense.

There statement about the "majority of TKD" rings true in my area.  Nearly all TKD schools (and their are a lot) in a 20 mile radius of where I live have training focused on point sparring tournaments and isn't good for the majority of fights that happen on the streets or in hallways. Many of the students from these schools lack the understanding of using it in a real fight scenario and that puts them at a disadvantage if they end up fighting someone who has been in at least 3 or 4 street fights.

I think maybe instead of saying that Taekwondo is useless they should have started out with their statements on what helps TKD to be good for self-defense by training with a person that is going to try to resist and counter the TKD.


----------



## Buka

I've been looking at this all wrong. (not the first time, I know) I'm doing an about face on this. I'm really starting to enjoy these two kids. Kind of a cross between Master Ken and Kevin Smith's film _Clerks_.

If we can get them to shoot a segment in _The Comic Center of Pasadena_ (Stewart's comic book store on _Bang_), we might be talking Emmy here.

Rock on, gentlemen.


----------



## TrueJim

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in self-defense, but in my limited experience, it seems to me one rarely receives the luxury of having a one-on-one fight, where both people are unarmed, and they both know ahead of time that they're going to be fighting in a few moments. It seems to me that more often the attackers are muggers, rapists, gang members, etc who came to the fight armed, came as a group, and generally ambush you. As others have pointed out, the best self defense is being aware of your surroundings, not putting yourselves in dangerous situations, and knowing how to de-escalate. 

I agree with everything you guys are saying, but even more than that...it seems to me that this video perpetuates the myth of a one-on-one self-defense situation where both people are unarmed and are of roughly the same size and fitness level so that you can have a "fair" fight. In my opinion, not only is this video wrong, it's mostly irrelevant...the self-defense situation these knuckleheads say we should be preparing for via "better" techniques is vanishingly rare. You might as well say we should all be practicing better unicorn-defense in case we run into a unicorn. I suspect that my opinion on this will be somewhat controversial, but I think if you're choosing your martial art or your school based primarily on an interest in self-defense, you've not only missed the point of martial arts, but worse, you've missed the point of self-defense.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TrueJim said:


> it seems to me that this video perpetuates the myth of a one-on-one self-defense situation where both people are unarmed and are of roughly the same size and fitness level so that you can have a "fair" fight.


  The good news is that there are schools that actually to multiple attacker sparring drills.  We did one at my school yesterday where we had to deal with 2 attackers.  Then we did an awareness drill with 6 people in the fight going for themselves at any point in during the drill the person next to you could turn on you or everyone could turn on you.

There are other schools that do similar multiple attacker drill and I would even dare to say that this scenario is a growing one for many martial arts schools.  I agree awareness and deescalation are vital skills. My but has been saved more by those 2 things than my fists have saved me.  Picking a school just for self defense should be fine, just as long as the school that is picked is actually focused on training for self-defense.


----------



## drop bear

TrueJim said:


> I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in self-defense, but in my limited experience, it seems to me one rarely receives the luxury of having a one-on-one fight, where both people are unarmed, and they both know ahead of time that they're going to be fighting in a few moments. It seems to me that more often the attackers are muggers, rapists, gang members, etc who came to the fight armed, came as a group, and generally ambush you. As others have pointed out, the best self defense is being aware of your surroundings, not putting yourselves in dangerous situations, and knowing how to de-escalate.
> 
> I agree with everything you guys are saying, but even more than that...it seems to me that this video perpetuates the myth of a one-on-one self-defense situation where both people are unarmed and are of roughly the same size and fitness level so that you can have a "fair" fight. In my opinion, not only is this video wrong, it's mostly irrelevant...the self-defense situation these knuckleheads say we should be preparing for via "better" techniques is vanishingly rare. You might as well say we should all be practicing better unicorn-defense in case we run into a unicorn. I suspect that my opinion on this will be somewhat controversial, but I think if you're choosing your martial art or your school based primarily on an interest in self-defense, you've not only missed the point of martial arts, but worse, you've missed the point of self-defense.



You would hope then that at the very least your defence will work one on one unarmed. Their gripe was their school did not even do that.

It is almost impossible to set up realistic SD situations to train. Because everybody is at about the same level generally. So to pit students in training against other students with the advantages of numbers weapons and ambush would just mean that student would get unfairly beat up.


----------



## drop bear

Gnarlie said:


> The stuff you learn and the ways you practice it as an adult are different to the things you do as a kid. These guys might think they have seen everything Taekwondo has to offer in their 15 years training, but only some of those years have been adult training. Many of the people here on the site have been training as adults for many times longer than that 15 years, and have a much better understanding of what the complete adult martial art of Taekwondo covers. That's not an appeal to authority, but an observation that they are perhaps not best placed to make generalisations and not meet resistance.
> 
> No problem with skepticism supported by a scientific approach. The issue I have is with people sitting and pontificating about something that they haven't bothered to investigate fully.



Most people are not trained to apply scepticism with a scientific approach and like in this case flail about with the idea. That's fine it is good in a forum context because by flailing about you lean what works and what dosent.

Doing a course in philosophy would be better. But who has the time?

Yes adult training could be different. And I remember when tkd and karate was a street fighting art. 

But if we are discussing the concept of a mc dojo with no resistance and no real feedback from reality you could have trained it for a life time and still be doing it wrong. And they make the same claim.


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in self-defense, but in my limited experience, it seems to me one rarely receives the luxury of having a one-on-one fight, where both people are unarmed, and they both know ahead of time that they're going to be fighting in a few moments. .


You get into so many fights, that having a one-on-one is a luxury?  Whoa.


----------



## TrueJim

Steve said:


> You get into so many fights, that having a one-on-one is a luxury?  Whoa.



I'm a badass that way!  

No seriously, here are some examples:

A couple of years ago my wife was out with some friends. They were in a brightly-lit public retail plaza late at night, having stepped outside from a restaurant (basically, where all the smokers were standing). Somebody runs up from behind her, tackles her into the ground face-down, sits on her back for a moment while punching her in the ribs, then gets up and runs off with her purse. I don't think there's any amount of self-defense training that could prepare somebody for that kind of ambush. There's no warning, your back is turned, then...boom! you're on the ground.

A couple years before that, in a really nice neighborhood near here, an elderly couple was out for their morning walk when two teenagers came up on them and stabbed them both, then ran off. Nothing was stolen. It turns out the two teenagers (who were from a relatively distant neighborhood) were required to stab somebody as part of their gang initiation, and this was their chosen approach. Again, I don't think any amount of self-defense training could prepare somebody for that kind of ambush either, and especially not against knives.

The few "bar fights" I've ever seen have mostly been shoving matches, not even real fights, but it's never been one guy vs one guy. At least one of the guys always has his buddies by his side.

To me, those are "real world" self-defense situations. From the examples I've seen, talking about which style of martial arts would be most effective is pretty much irrelevant. In my experience, if you're choosing your martial art based on a desire for better self-defense, you don't really have a good feel for what real self-defense situations are like. That's just my experience though.


----------



## Gnarlie

drop bear said:


> Most people are not trained to apply scepticism with a scientific approach and like in this case flail about with the idea. That's fine it is good in a forum context because by flailing about you lean what works and what dosent.
> 
> Doing a course in philosophy would be better. But who has the time?
> 
> Yes adult training could be different. And I remember when tkd and karate was a street fighting art.
> 
> But if we are discussing the concept of a mc dojo with no resistance and no real feedback from reality you could have trained it for a life time and still be doing it wrong. And they make the same claim.



Yes, but they go a step further, and try to say that all of of Taekwondo is like that. This claim does not stand up to critical examination. There is a clear difference between kids training and adults training. There is also a difference between training with whoever is at the end of your street, and seeking out the core and root of the art. Until one has done the latter, generalisations about the art are just so much hot air, and really aren't worth discussing as they are not based in truth.

The majority of the discussion here on this forum originates out of people making false statements about martial arts based on their own limited experience. If people actually tried hard to find their own answers, there would be a lot more competent martial artists around.

People seem to want to be given knowledge and skill like a gift. It doesn't work like that, because those are things that have to be actively worked at, not passively received.

Saying that Taekwondo as a whole doesn't work is like taking a language course where you only read and never speak, then being disappointed and claiming 'French doesn't work for real communication' when you can't speak fluently at the end of it. It is not a flaw with the language, it's a flaw with the training methodology, but one that can easily be solved by the student. Either speak with a training partner, or find a school where speaking is part of the practice. Both of those require the student to take responsibility for their own progress and goals.

Guess what one of the main differences is past black belt?


----------



## Gnarlie

TrueJim said:


> I'm a badass that way!
> 
> No seriously, here are some examples:
> 
> A couple of years ago my wife was out with some friends. They were in a brightly-lit public retail plaza late at night, having stepped outside from a restaurant (basically, where all the smokers were standing). Somebody runs up from behind her, tackles her into the ground face-down, sits on her back for a moment while punching her in the ribs, then gets up and runs off with her purse. I don't think there's any amount of self-defense training that could prepare somebody for that kind of ambush. There's no warning, your back is turned, then...boom! you're on the ground.
> 
> A couple years before that, in a really nice neighborhood near here, an elderly couple was out for their morning walk when two teenagers came up on them and stabbed them both, then ran off. Nothing was stolen. It turns out the two teenagers (who were from a relatively distant neighborhood) were required to stab somebody as part of their gang initiation, and this was their chosen approach. Again, I don't think any amount of self-defense training could prepare somebody for that kind of ambush either, and especially not against knives.
> 
> The few "bar fights" I've ever seen have mostly been shoving matches, not even real fights, but it's never been one guy vs one guy. At least one of the guys always has his buddies by his side.
> 
> To me, those are "real world" self-defense situations. From the examples I've seen, talking about which style of martial arts would be most effective is pretty much irrelevant. In my experience, if you're choosing your martial art based on a desire for better self-defense, you don't really have a good feel for what real self-defense situations are like. That's just my experience though.



Mine too.

If I am a bad guy, be it career criminal or drunken buffoon, if I give you the opportunity to defend yourself, I am not a very good bad guy.

In all but a few of the physical encounters I have had, the opportunity to defend myself using physical means has not been present due to the nature of the encounter. Those where the opportunity presented itself, my Taekwondo was definitely an asset.

I have managed to avoid many, many problems through non physical means such as avoidance.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TrueJim said:


> A couple of years ago my wife was out with some friends. They were in a brightly-lit public retail plaza late at night, having stepped outside from a restaurant (basically, where all the smokers were standing). Somebody runs up from behind her, tackles her into the ground face-down, sits on her back for a moment while punching her in the ribs, then gets up and runs off with her purse. I don't think there's any amount of self-defense training that could prepare somebody for that kind of ambush. There's no warning, your back is turned, then...boom! you're on the ground.


  I'm not so sure about that.  I know when I'm out with friends I listen for irregular footsteps and visual cue from peoples face.  People may get a funny look in their face as the person is running towards you from behind. Martial arts that focus on sensing pressure may have prevented the take down. Or at least prevent someone from mounting the person on the back.  I would like to think that my trained response to that scenario would be to flow with the energy that his hitting me from behind and then getting into a position where I can redirect that energy.  I know that my footing is solid and I'm always mindful that I walk and stand with a solid footing. The solid footing isn't for stopping someone from taking me to the ground as it is for to always retain some kind of balance.  I can only assume that the grappling fighting systems out there have a similar ability to recognize shifts in force and pressure.  I'm not saying any of this would have stopped it but it would have definitely given her a much better chance to deal with it.



TrueJim said:


> A couple years before that, in a really nice neighborhood near here, an elderly couple was out for their morning walk when two teenagers came up on them and stabbed them both, then ran off.


  This would be a difficult one on any given day. I think of knives as stealth weapons where the goal is to get close to people and surprise them with a couple of sticks.  These attacks are difficult because most people can hid their intent to do harm.  In cases where it's a surprise attack with a weapon the chances are small that anything is going to help out.  Self-defense training won't stop every attack and no one trains in it, with the assumption that it will.  All of the self-defense techniques that are out there, are based on the defender being aware that they are being attack, which is another reason for being sensitive to one's surroundings. Stay alert, Be aware.  You can't defend against something that you can't see.



TrueJim said:


> The few "bar fights" I've ever seen have mostly been shoving matches, not even real fights, but it's never been one guy vs one guy. At least one of the guys always has his buddies by his side.
> 
> To me, those are "real world" self-defense situations. From the examples I've seen, talking about which style of martial arts would be most effective is pretty much irrelevant. In my experience, if you're choosing your martial art based on a desire for better self-defense, you don't really have a good feel for what real self-defense situations are like. That's just my experience though.


  The fact that there are tons of videos on youtube of people fighting in the street or fighting against an attacker should give you a good idea of what's possible.  I have never seen or been in a bar fight or a club fight. I've seen and have been in more school fights than I probably should have been in. Most of the stuff I've been in as an adult, I've been able to deescalate or avoid completely.  With the exception of the 2 times guns were pulled on me.  All of the other times I've been able to take an "Alpha position" which was only backed by the comfort and understanding that if it came to punches, that I had a really good chance of coming out on top.  The way a person stands, the body language that the person sends, the intent in his or her eyes, all plays a part at keeping someone at bay. But I wouldn't try recommend bluffing those type of things if their is no ability to back it up.  Think of the "Alpha position" as a snake that is coiled and ready to strike.  Think of it as a large dog starring at you and watching you closely. Literally making you think twice about approaching. No words were said, no yelling was done. No huffing and puffing of the chest was needed to community intent and ability.  There's a lot more that comes with Martial Arts than just punching and kicking.


----------



## drop bear

TrueJim said:


> A couple of years ago my wife was out with some friends. They were in a brightly-lit public retail plaza late at night, having stepped outside from a restaurant (basically, where all the smokers were standing). Somebody runs up from behind her, tackles her into the ground face-down, sits on her back for a moment while punching her in the ribs, then gets up and runs off with her purse. I don't think there's any amount of self-defense training that could prepare somebody for that kind of ambush. There's no warning, your back is turned, then...boom! you're on the ground.



Yeah this is a theme I do a bit. Not to the point where I would scrap martial arts all together. But at least the realisation that you don't know what you don't know.

And that includes the ambush you don't see coming.

We played a game on a site I did once over a couple of years to see if we could ambush another work mate during security patrols. Just whenever we could find the opportunities. There were water bombs rubber knives and wegies done. People almost got killed when guys would think it was for real and find the nearest brick or steel bar to arm themselves with. Fun times all round.

But it is really hard to pick a dedicated ambush.


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> I'm a badass that way!
> 
> No seriously, here are some examples:
> 
> A couple of years ago my wife was out with some friends. They were in a brightly-lit public retail plaza late at night, having stepped outside from a restaurant (basically, where all the smokers were standing). Somebody runs up from behind her, tackles her into the ground face-down, sits on her back for a moment while punching her in the ribs, then gets up and runs off with her purse. I don't think there's any amount of self-defense training that could prepare somebody for that kind of ambush. There's no warning, your back is turned, then...boom! you're on the ground.
> 
> A couple years before that, in a really nice neighborhood near here, an elderly couple was out for their morning walk when two teenagers came up on them and stabbed them both, then ran off. Nothing was stolen. It turns out the two teenagers (who were from a relatively distant neighborhood) were required to stab somebody as part of their gang initiation, and this was their chosen approach. Again, I don't think any amount of self-defense training could prepare somebody for that kind of ambush either, and especially not against knives.
> 
> The few "bar fights" I've ever seen have mostly been shoving matches, not even real fights, but it's never been one guy vs one guy. At least one of the guys always has his buddies by his side.
> 
> To me, those are "real world" self-defense situations. From the examples I've seen, talking about which style of martial arts would be most effective is pretty much irrelevant. In my experience, if you're choosing your martial art based on a desire for better self-defense, you don't really have a good feel for what real self-defense situations are like. That's just my experience though.


  Thanks for the reply, and I'm very sorry to hear that about your wife.  If your wife was with friends, in a well lit, heavily populated area, outside of a restaurant and still got ambushed from behind, I have to think that's an extremely odd thing to happen.  I presume she's okay, and hope that sort of thing is very rare around where you live.

I also appreciate the rest of your examples.  I'll ask for forgiveness in advance for a rambling post.  I have a few points to make, and don't have any time to review or edit to ensure it makes sense.  Hopefully it does, at least a little.  The point I want to emphasize is that, yes, these things do occur.  In some areas, they may occur more frequently than in others.  But they remain very, very rare.  Truly, we who train in martial arts exaggerate the practical usefulness of what we are learning to an absurd level.  I mean, people are attacked by sharks, and we hear about them.  And, yeah, it may be a good idea as a surfer to try and mitigate your risk for shark attacks.  But, did you know that between 1916 and 2013 (the most recent stats I could find) there were a grand total of 13 fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the USA?  That's not a typo.  We average just over 1 attack per year nationwide, and less than about 1.3 per decade are fatal.  Most of those have been in California.  

Crime statistics are a lot like this.  We talk a lot about self defense, but really, most stories you read about where someone is mugged sound a lot more like the one you relate regarding your wife, in that they are ambushes, scary but not life threatening and offer very little in the way of opportunity to execute a well timed roundhouse kick to the temple. 

So, all of that said, I don't think you and I are far off in the end.  I agree that style vs style arguments about which is better or worse for self defense are largely pointless.  But, I think I get there differently.  I think most true self defense scenarios hinge around many things that have nothing to do with fighting, and in which there is little to no opportunity for us to use our martial arts.  And secondly, that with few exceptions, physical altercations are choices to engage and not random, unavoidable encounters.   

I also think we waste a lot of time justifying our pursuit of something we enjoy doing out of a desire to make it seem more legitimate.  It's enough, in my opinion, to train in a martial arts style because we like it. 

And finally, because we are so entrenched in justifying what we do and why we do it, we become embroiled in the style vs style arguments that everyone alleges to be annoyed by.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not so sure about that. I know when I'm out with friends I listen for irregular footsteps and visual cue from peoples face. People may get a funny look in their face as the person is running towards you from behind. Martial arts that focus on sensing pressure may have prevented the take down. Or at least prevent someone from mounting the person on the back. I would like to think that my trained response to that scenario would be to flow with the energy that his hitting me from behind and then getting into a position where I can redirect that energy. I know that my footing is solid and I'm always mindful that I walk and stand with a solid footing. The solid footing isn't for stopping someone from taking me to the ground as it is for to always retain some kind of balance. I can only assume that the grappling fighting systems out there have a similar ability to recognize shifts in force and pressure. I'm not saying any of this would have stopped it but it would have definitely given her a much better chance to deal with it.



You are not being attacked.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not so sure about that.  I know when I'm out with friends I listen for irregular footsteps and visual cue from peoples face.  People may get a funny look in their face as the person is running towards you from behind. Martial arts that focus on sensing pressure may have prevented the take down. Or at least prevent someone from mounting the person on the back.  I would like to think that my trained response to that scenario would be to flow with the energy that his hitting me from behind and then getting into a position where I can redirect that energy.  I know that my footing is solid and I'm always mindful that I walk and stand with a solid footing. The solid footing isn't for stopping someone from taking me to the ground as it is for to always retain some kind of balance.  I can only assume that the grappling fighting systems out there have a similar ability to recognize shifts in force and pressure.  I'm not saying any of this would have stopped it but it would have definitely given her a much better chance to deal with it.


----------



## martialartstutor

As I stated in the video, not every single taekwondo school is like mine. I would say that most of them are, and the only legitimate schools that I found either offered more than taekwondo (look up master kwon's full contact taekwondo) or were an mma school that applied taekwondo or karate in their techniques. There are many many bad schools out there and its very evident if you simply just look it up. The vast majority of taekwondo schools have very young black belts, don't spar regularly, and have a self-defense system that consists of "here I'll hold my hand out" and you imagine what the moves are. This is why I suggest a school that offers something like brazilian jiu jitsu or kick boxing since they have proven time and time again their effectiveness against other martial arts. Now, you can take things from taekwondo and use them, but to soley rely on that martial art isn't the best way to go. Its like learning to wrestle but never learning how to punch. I would say my front kicks would definitly come in handy on a street fight and that was a move I learned from taekwondo. Now, if a big guy wanted to take me down and punch my face in, I know my taekwondo would not stand a chance, which is why I believe going into gaurd and either doing an elbow escape , upa, or triangle choke would benefit my situation  no body can argue that having a vast multitude of skills will make you a better fighter. People who believe they don't need to know how to grapple are mistaken because alot of street fights end up on the ground. And even when it comes to striking, you'll never see a straight karate/taekwondo punch, you'll see an overhand right coming right for your face and if you try to use things like hapkido and excpect them to let themselves be thrown you're very mistaken. They will resist and all I see in taekwondo schools and hapkido schools in the united states  (and even korea, just look up some korean schools and you'll only see demonstration, no real training for resistance). is fake techniques that work on someone who doesn't know what is going on or is complying with the techniques.


----------



## drop bear

martialartstutor said:


> As I stated in the video, not every single taekwondo school is like mine. I would say that most of them are, and the only legitimate schools that I found either offered more than taekwondo (look up master kwon's full contact taekwondo) or were an mma school that applied taekwondo or karate in their techniques. There are many many bad schools out there and its very evident if you simply just look it up. The vast majority of taekwondo schools have very young black belts, don't spar regularly, and have a self-defense system that consists of "here I'll hold my hand out" and you imagine what the moves are. This is why I suggest a school that offers something like brazilian jiu jitsu or kick boxing since they have proven time and time again their effectiveness against other martial arts. Now, you can take things from taekwondo and use them, but to soley rely on that martial art isn't the best way to go. Its like learning to wrestle but never learning how to punch. I would say my front kicks would definitly come in handy on a street fight and that was a move I learned from taekwondo. Now, if a big guy wanted to take me down and punch my face in, I know my taekwondo would not stand a chance, which is why I believe going into gaurd and either doing an elbow escape , upa, or triangle choke would benefit my situation  no body can argue that having a vast multitude of skills will make you a better fighter. People who believe they don't need to know how to grapple are mistaken because alot of street fights end up on the ground. And even when it comes to striking, you'll never see a straight karate/taekwondo punch, you'll see an overhand right coming right for your face and if you try to use things like hapkido and excpect them to let themselves be thrown you're very mistaken. They will resist and all I see in taekwondo schools and hapkido schools in the united states  (and even korea, just look up some korean schools and you'll only see demonstration, no real training for resistance). is fake techniques that work on someone who doesn't know what is going on or is complying with the techniques.



Look for a school that does not have tons of child black belts train with resistance offers a wide range of styles or sets up against other systems. This is all good advice.

 Otherwise I can take your advice and still get a garbage system if I am just looking at the label of the school.

I mean a kickboxing school would have to self defence better right?


----------



## Tez3

martialartstutor said:


> And even when it comes to striking, you'll never see a straight karate/taekwondo punch, you'll see an overhand right coming right for your face



so, how many fights ( real ones) have you been in or even witnessed in person, not on video?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> You are not being attacked.


What do you mean I'm not being attacked? That I'm wasn't attacked in the examples, I gave or that I've never been attacked?


----------



## TrueJim

JowGaWolf said:


> The fact that there are tons of videos on youtube of people fighting in the street or fighting against an attacker should give you a good idea of what's possible....



This raises another good point. A lot of the YouTube videos I've seen are of two guys in the street with a gang of people around them watching and often egging the two guys on. The two guys will circle for a while, feint, then one of them will manage to get a good strike in.

Personally, I don't think those are really "self defense" situations. Either one of those guys could have just walked away at any time. Those videos are two guys deciding to fight...which isn't really the same as self-defense IMO.


----------



## Gnarlie

Legitimate.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TrueJim said:


> This raises another good point. A lot of the YouTube videos I've seen are of two guys in the street with a gang of people around them watching and often egging the two guys on. The two guys will circle for a while, feint, then one of them will manage to get a good strike in.
> 
> Personally, I don't think those are really "self defense" situations. Either one of those guys could have just walked away at any time. Those videos are two guys deciding to fight...which isn't really the same as self-defense IMO.


You have to watch the ones that are captured by security cam. Sometimes it's one on one. Sometimes it's one versus many. Sometimes it's with a weapon and sometimes it's without a weapon.  The attacks that I've had to deal with so far has been one on one.  I've only had to deal with one sneak attack where 1 person tried to attack me from behind. I was able to flip that guy because his footsteps made me turn around maybe 2 steps before he tried to hit me in the back of my head.

I agree with you. The videos where both of the guys want to fight are the ones that I don't think of as self defense.  For me with self-defense one person doesn't want to fight and the other person is determine to bring harm to someone.  When both guys want to fight then is a "street fight."


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> What do you mean I'm not being attacked? That I'm wasn't attacked in the examples, I gave or that I've never been attacked?



OK. Why do tinfoil hats stop the government/aliens from stealing your thoughts?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> OK. Why do tinfoil hats stop the government/aliens from stealing your thoughts?


I still don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I still don't know what you are talking about.



Sigh I don't know. 

I try to craft my posts with a bit of subtlety and nuaunce and some people just make it hard.

The government/aliens are not stealing any bodies thoughts. He is defending himself from a risk that does not exist.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Sigh I don't know.
> 
> I try to craft my posts with a bit of subtlety and nuaunce and some people just make it hard.
> 
> The government/aliens are not stealing any bodies thoughts. He is defending himself from a risk that does not exist.


I'm still lost.  So I'll take a pass on trying to figure out what you are referring to.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> I try to craft my posts with a bit of subtlety and nuaunce and some people just make it hard.



Probably best to keep your sex life out of this, TMI.


----------



## Dinkydoo

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not so sure about that.  I know when I'm out with friends I listen for irregular footsteps and visual cue from peoples face.  People may get a funny look in their face as the person is running towards you from behind. Martial arts that focus on sensing pressure may have prevented the take down. Or at least prevent someone from mounting the person on the back.  I would like to think that my trained response to that scenario would be to flow with the energy that his hitting me from behind and then getting into a position where I can redirect that energy.  I know that my footing is solid and I'm always mindful that I walk and stand with a solid footing. The solid footing isn't for stopping someone from taking me to the ground as it is for to always retain some kind of balance.  I can only assume that the grappling fighting systems out there have a similar ability to recognize shifts in force and pressure.  I'm not saying any of this would have stopped it but it would have definitely given her a much better chance to deal with it.



1) Do you honestly think that if someone takes a run at you from behind and mounts your back, you're going to have time to use some kind of force redirecting technique to counter it? 

Unless they're sitting there without any malice, it seems unlikely.

2) You listen out for irregular footsteps? What, like in a busy bar? 

That kind of awareness seems quite improbable (especially if you're having a beer) and even if you can do it well, it probably means you're never really allowing yourself to relax and 'enjoy the moment' when you're out with friends. Despite various other issues that I'm not going to touch upon, this will likely set yourself up as a target because you're unwittingly sending out the wrong signals to potentially intoxicated strangers.


----------



## Tez3

Most people I know including myself and my husband tend to be paranoid when out. If a bunch of us go into a pub we tend to rearrange seating etc so we don't have backs to doors and windows, we pull curtains, blinds at night, we do watch people and no I don't think we do relax totally when out. My husband still drives carefully up to traffic lights, if he can see they are green he speeds up a bit to go through them, if red he slows right down so that he doesn't sit at the lights if at all possible. We watch what people do with bags, briefcases, carrier bags etc, we get even more paranoid if we see them unattended for more than a minute. We certainly watch people's faces. We can't not do all this, not martial arts training as such but Northern Ireland training and many, many deployments there as well as the terrorist situation here for years.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Probably best to keep your sex life out of this, TMI.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> 1) Do you honestly think that if someone takes a run at you from behind and mounts your back, you're going to have time to use some kind of force redirecting technique to counter it?


  From my post:. "You can't defend against something that you can't see."
1. If you are aware that someone behind you is running at you for the purpose of harming you then yes.  I've done it before and my brother has done it before in at the club with music playing and the lights dim.  This is why I said that you can't defend against something you can't see.  If you can't see the attack coming then there's no way to defend against it.  Even if you catch a glimpse of the attack moments before you get hit, that is better than not seeing it at all. It also gives you a chance to react in a way that you wouldn't be able to react if you haven't seen it.  Blind side hits in football vs hits that a player is aware of is a perfect example. The human body and mind reacts faster than most people realize so long as the the mind (your eyes) see the attack coming.  So yes, if I catch a glimpse of someone attacking me from behind then I have enough time to make the adjustments that may get me out of danger. I've been there, done it, and I'm not the only one that has done such a thing.  It's not a "master martial art skill."  The time that I did it, I wasn't taking Tai Chi.  The time that my brother did it, he was wrestling in college. In my case I ended up flipping my attacker and when we both hit the ground I was the one on top pounding his face.  In my brother's case he was fighting against 2 people when he caught the attack coming towards him, he pivot so that the first guy he was dealing with was in between him and the second guy that tried to attack him from behind.



Dinkydoo said:


> 2) You listen out for irregular footsteps? What, like in a busy bar?


2.  I learned to pay attention to footsteps when I was in the 6th grade mainly because for some reason it was the "in thing" for bullies to attack people from behind. I've been doing it ever since.  In a self defense situation it doesn't mean that I will hear footsteps, but it also doesn't mean that I won't.

In college I was at a party at an apartment complex parking lot with music playing and people talking. Someone pulled out a gun during a conflict and above all of that noise multiple people heard someone yell "he's got a gun" I couldn't tell you what song was playing that day but I remember how people close to the chaos ran away some hid under cars. I hid behind a car but in a way that the wheel would get in the way of anything bouncing off the ground.  You'll be surprised at well your body can tell when something isn't right just based on sound.  Parents use sound all the time with their kids.  When things get too quiet in the house it's time to go check to see what trouble the child is getting into. 

So to answer your question.  Yes I listen for irregular footsteps, out of place sounds, lack of sounds, and visual cues from the faces of people.  In the description that was given about the woman who was tackled was that she went outside for a smoke with her friends and was tackled. Scuffling of shoes or my friends stopping in mid conversation focusing on something behind me is what I've always used.  When I was in my 20's my friends and I would always look out for each other in the clubs. If we are in a group talking to each other and my friend seems to be staring over my shoulder, I turn around.  If I did the same to them they turn around.  When I'm out, I don't just listen for irregular footsteps I use a wide range of awareness skills.   During the day and depending on how bright the sun is and the direction of my shadow, I'll even use shadows to help me keep track of what is behind me. 

This isn't a paranoid thing for me.  It's an awareness thing.  When I go out I don't think I'm going to get mugged, knifed, or shot.  To worry to that extent would drive anyone insane.  But what I do pay attention to is the environment around me.



Dinkydoo said:


> That kind of awareness seems quite improbable (especially if you're having a beer) and even if you can do it well, it probably means you're never really allowing yourself to relax and 'enjoy the moment' when you're out with friends


 I'm 43 years old and I've only been drunk once (at someone's house). I rarely drink to begin with and my personal rule for public drinking is to never drink so much alcohol that it impairs my ability to be able to defend myself or run away without falling on my face.  When I drink a lot I eat a lot which helps me to keep a buzz without being torn up. When I think I have too much I begin to drink then I'll start doing math problems in my head to gauge delays and focus in my thought process.  It doesn't take much for me to relax and enjoy the moment when I'm with friends.  Part of my enjoyment is to see that my friends are having a good time.  For me being out of control doesn't = full relaxation or enjoyment.  Besides, knowing that everyone else in the club is getting drunk just gives me the comfort that I have the advantage of being able to move if needed without stumbling.  I know most people aren't like this which is fine for me. It's no big deal.

The only time I can't relax is when I have financial problems. Everything else is easy for me to deal with.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> I try to craft my posts with a bit of subtlety


A little to much sometimes.


----------



## RTKDCMB

martialartstutor said:


> As I stated in the video, not every single taekwondo school is like mine.



You should get out more.



martialartstutor said:


> I would say that most of them are, and the only legitimate schools that I found either offered more than taekwondo (look up master kwon's full contact taekwondo) or were an mma school that applied taekwondo or karate in their techniques.



Legitimate by who's standards? Yours?



martialartstutor said:


> The vast majority of taekwondo schools have very young black belts,



There's a big difference between junior black belts held by young students and Dan level black belts held by young people.



martialartstutor said:


> don't spar regularly,



That would be unusual for TKD.



martialartstutor said:


> and have a self-defense system that consists of "here I'll hold my hand out" and you imagine what the moves are.



I have never heard of any school that actually does that.



martialartstutor said:


> This is why I suggest a school that offers something like brazilian jiu jitsu or kick boxing since they have proven time and time again their effectiveness against other martial arts.



SOME.



martialartstutor said:


> Now, you can take things from taekwondo and use them, but to soley rely on that martial art isn't the best way to go.



That is only YOUR opinion based on YOUR experience. The rest of us will take it for what it is.



martialartstutor said:


> Its like learning to wrestle but never learning how to punch



False analogy. As far as I know wrestling does not usually have punches in it.



martialartstutor said:


> Now, if a big guy wanted to take me down and punch my face in, I know my taekwondo would not stand a chance,



The key words here are "my taekwondo". Many of us do not have that restriction.If you are incapable of dealing with a punch to the face then the issue is with YOUR training not the art as a whole.



martialartstutor said:


> which is why I believe going into gaurd and either doing an elbow escape , upa, or triangle choke would benefit my situation



What benefits your situation depends on what you have trained and whatever the situation dictates.



martialartstutor said:


> no body can argue that having a vast multitude of skills will make you a better fighter.



Having skills is only part of the equation, being able to apply those skills is the other part.



martialartstutor said:


> People who believe they don't need to know how to grapple are mistaken because alot of street fights end up on the ground.



A lot of fights end up on the ground because most people do not know how to end a fight quickly.




martialartstutor said:


> ] And even when it comes to striking, you'll never see a straight karate/taekwondo punch,



Really, never?



martialartstutor said:


> you'll see an overhand right coming right for your face



And the defense of this would be different from a straight punch how?



martialartstutor said:


> and if you try to use things like hapkido and excpect them to let themselves be thrown you're very mistaken.



I have trained in Hapkido, no one practicing throwing techniques expects actual attackers in real situations will let you do anything.



martialartstutor said:


> They will resist and all I see in taekwondo schools and hapkido schools in the united states  (and even korea, just look up some korean schools and you'll only see demonstration, no real training for resistance).



You would have to train with them to see the training, you only see a demonstration when they are demonstrating, go figure.



martialartstutor said:


> is fake techniques that work on someone who doesn't know what is going on or is complying with the techniques.



Again, you should get out more.


----------



## Dinkydoo

JowGaWolf said:


> From my post:. "You can't defend against something that you can't see."
> 1. If you are aware that someone behind you is running at you for the purpose of harming you then yes.



Ah right, it was late and I must have missed that from your post. This makes more sense now and I get what you mean; if I'm aware that someone is about to jump on my back or I'm about to be hit with a projectile just before it happens, then dealing with it/getting out the way is much easier.



> 2.  I learned to pay attention to footsteps when I was in the 6th grade mainly because for some reason it was the "in thing" for bullies to attack people from behind. I've been doing it ever since.  In a self defense situation it doesn't mean that I will hear footsteps, but it also doesn't mean that I won't.



I'm not sure what that means....you're in a state of awareness where odd footstep patterns are highly noticeable to you?

Seems like quite an unreliable skill. I might be able to notice a weird kind of noise/patter of footsteps nearby but it's certainly not something I'm actively listening out for.



> In college I was at a party at an apartment complex parking lot with music playing and people talking. Someone pulled out a gun during a conflict and above all of that noise multiple people heard someone yell "he's got a gun" I couldn't tell you what song was playing that day but I remember how people close to the chaos ran away some hid under cars. I hid behind a car but in a way that the wheel would get in the way of anything bouncing off the ground.  You'll be surprised at well your body can tell when something isn't right just based on sound.  Parents use sound all the time with their kids.  When things get too quiet in the house it's time to go check to see what trouble the child is getting into.



Okay, I get that...



> So to answer your question.  Yes I listen for irregular footsteps, out of place sounds, lack of sounds, and visual cues from the faces of people.



....but it's not something that I think you need to consciously do.

What you're talking about is closer to intuition based on the years of experience you have, its quite subconscious and occurs naturally, that's why most people can't remember much about the start of an incident apart from this trigger which is at the moment you realise something is wrong. You don't need to really be in this higher state of awareness that you're describing - I'm sure it helps - but I think that it would definitely give people the impression that you were a bit shady and potentially invite trouble.


----------



## Earl Weiss

drop bear said:


> I mean a kickboxing school would have to self defence better right?



FWIW IMO the mount defense shown was badly flawed due to the failure to trap the leg and arm.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dinkydoo said:


> I'm not sure what that means....you're in a state of awareness where odd footstep patterns are highly noticeable to you?


 This is the best way I can explain it. For the footsteps I can hear: There is a normal pattern to the sound. There's no hesitation, or irregular scraping of the sole of the shoe on the pavement.  If I don't hear footsteps behind me and then suddenly hear a footsteps then that would be something that would cause me to turn around. For the most part humans are noisy when they walk. For most people it's just white noise so we really don't pay attention to it. Carpet is a game killer for me. Concrete / pavement is uneven so people sometimes scrape the bottom of their shoes when the pavement becomes uneven or changes height. There's a reason why police here always recommend to people not to have the headphones in when they are on the trails.  For me I recognize the differences between what sounds normal and what doesn't sound normal because I've been paying attention to noise that people make when they walk. Maybe the best way to describe it is how some people can recognize which family member is walking up the steps based on the footsteps sound when coming up the steps and anything that sounds out of the norm then to be pickup automatically.

Bird watchers and hunters have a similar visual and audio skill which allows them to spot and recognize certain noises in the woods that most people would be unaware of.  I used to do a lot of nature photography so my eyes would pick up snakes that other people would walk by and many times I wasn't actively looking for snakes. Footsteps are the same way for me.



Dinkydoo said:


> but it's not something that I think you need to consciously do


 Exactly. I'm not a footstep scanner lol.  It's just that once you start paying attention to it, your body starts to automatically process it like getting a whiff of air that suddenly doesn't smell "normal" maybe like gas or maybe a dead animal.  We aren't actively sniffing for these changes but we are aware of them when it happens.  Especially where anything that smells like gas tend to put us in an alert status.



Dinkydoo said:


> You don't need to really be in this higher state of awareness that you're describing - I'm sure it helps - but I think that it would definitely give people the impression that you were a bit shady and potentially invite trouble.


  It just depends on where you live and where you work. I used to live and work in a very violent city where a dead body dumped in the woods close to my house was more to be expected than a shock.  Gunshots at night at least 5 a week in the area was a norm. Walking by drug dealers everyday, most seem like normal people and were friendly so long as no one was trying to give them up to the police, or messing with their stash and money. Car jackings and car thefts were normal as well.  I put it this way. When I moved away from Baltimore Maryland, to Georgia, car door slams and fireworks often put me on high alert. It took about 2 years for me to work that out of my system.  Fireworks still make me alert but they don't kick me into self-defense mode. The only people who knew that I was at this higher state of awareness would be the ones who were thinking about doing something wrong.  If you were walking next to me you would think that I just a regular person.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Some random thoughts ...

When making a video it's a good idea to decide what you need to say beforehand and stick to it. This video had about 90 seconds worth of something to say crammed into 12 minutes.

I don't have enough TKD experience to say whether the type of training the OP describes is typical of the majority of TKD schools.

I do know that it's common enough that I've seen it more than once.

It's not just common in TKD. I've seen the same problems at different schools in a variety of arts. It may have something to do with not wanting to scare off paying customers by giving them too much challenge or discomfort.

The problems described have to do with how the instructor in question structures training. They're not inherent to the art. I could teach BJJ in such a way that it sucks as well. Maybe 70 years from now BJJ McDojos that train without resistance or understanding of combative realities will be as common as TKD McDojangs are today.

I like to think that I meet the criterion of being "skilled." Even so, I have no problems with admitting that there are TKD practitioners who could easily kick my butt in a fair fight, using just their TKD.

As others have noted, "fighting skill" and "self-defense skill" are two different fields with only a bit of overlap. Even so, the training that the OP describes isn't tremendously helpful with either one.


----------



## drop bear

Earl Weiss said:


> FWIW IMO the mount defense shown was badly flawed due to the failure to trap the leg and arm.



And that it was just terrible in almost every dimension. I am more upset with the guys on top. Coach is telling people to hold the guy down. You hold the guy down.


----------



## drop bear

Dinkydoo said:


> Ah right, it was late and I must have missed that from your post. This makes more sense now and I get what you mean; if I'm aware that someone is about to jump on my back or I'm about to be hit with a projectile just before it happens, then dealing with it/getting out the way is much easier.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means....you're in a state of awareness where odd footstep patterns are highly noticeable to you?
> 
> Seems like quite an unreliable skill. I might be able to notice a weird kind of noise/patter of footsteps nearby but it's certainly not something I'm actively listening out for.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I get that...
> 
> 
> 
> ....but it's not something that I think you need to consciously do.
> 
> What you're talking about is closer to intuition based on the years of experience you have, its quite subconscious and occurs naturally, that's why most people can't remember much about the start of an incident apart from this trigger which is at the moment you realise something is wrong. You don't need to really be in this higher state of awareness that you're describing - I'm sure it helps - but I think that it would definitely give people the impression that you were a bit shady and potentially invite trouble.



What jow gar is explaining there is kind of the opposite to how most people handle the issue. And that is where you are getting the conflict. You are suggesting that for a whole bunch of reasons you are not going to hear or see an attack coming. And you are correct.

I have done bodyguard work and have done cash transport. And guess what? It is the same thing. The idea is not to develop preternatural skill. It is to plan your life in a way that minimises risk. So you wouldn't take a crap load of money into that night club. Because you can't reliably stop that ambush.

Working Alone - Handling Money : OSH Answers


----------



## ks - learning to fly

martialartstutor said:


> No resistance = no real technique. It's that simple.
> "Martial" means having to do with or suitable for war.
> And "art" means  skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. If you aren't learning something suitable for combat through repetition, you are learning how to dance and punch the air. Not apply techniques in a life or death situation. The community needs to be aware that pure taekwondo schools in our world today will not teach you the fundamental skills for self-defense and how to fight. Sure it may look good in movies, but in the ring, on the street, ect. It won't work. There may be some schools out there however, that offer taekwondo in addition to other martial arts. But a pure taekwondo school would not do that for you.



You could not be more wrong.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Earl Weiss said:


> FWIW IMO the mount defense shown was badly flawed due to the failure to trap the leg and arm.


 More than just the mount was flawed. The basic skills are missing.  I've seen this school before and I would go as far as to say that none of what they do are valid self-defense or fighting techniques.


----------



## Buka

martialartstutor said:


> As I stated in the video, not every single taekwondo school is like mine. I would say that most of them are, and the only legitimate schools that I found either offered more than taekwondo (look up master kwon's full contact taekwondo) or were an mma school that applied taekwondo or karate in their techniques. There are many many bad schools out there and its very evident if you simply just look it up. The vast majority of taekwondo schools have very young black belts, don't spar regularly, and have a self-defense system that consists of "here I'll hold my hand out" and you imagine what the moves are. This is why I suggest a school that offers something like brazilian jiu jitsu or kick boxing since they have proven time and time again their effectiveness against other martial arts. Now, you can take things from taekwondo and use them, but to soley rely on that martial art isn't the best way to go. Its like learning to wrestle but never learning how to punch. I would say my front kicks would definitly come in handy on a street fight and that was a move I learned from taekwondo. Now, if a big guy wanted to take me down and punch my face in, I know my taekwondo would not stand a chance, which is why I believe going into gaurd and either doing an elbow escape , upa, or triangle choke would benefit my situation  no body can argue that having a vast multitude of skills will make you a better fighter. People who believe they don't need to know how to grapple are mistaken because alot of street fights end up on the ground. And even when it comes to striking, you'll never see a straight karate/taekwondo punch, you'll see an overhand right coming right for your face and if you try to use things like hapkido and excpect them to let themselves be thrown you're very mistaken. They will resist and all I see in taekwondo schools and hapkido schools in the united states  (and even korea, just look up some korean schools and you'll only see demonstration, no real training for resistance). is fake techniques that work on someone who doesn't know what is going on or is complying with the techniques.



Bro, where are you from and how many Tae-Kwon-Do schools have you actually trained in? Approximate if you wish.

You said_ - "There are many many bad schools out there and its very evident if you simply just look it up"._
Where should I look this up?The same place I should look up your kata trophy that you told us to look up in your 39 minute post? Okaaay, where should I look that up?

You said - "_This is why I suggest a school that offers something like brazilian jiu jitsu or kick boxing since they have proven time and time again their effectiveness against other martial arts._"

Proven when and where - in your experience? Youtube perhaps? I take it you study BJJ and kickboxing now that you have seen the light, yes? How long have you been studying these fine Martial Arts. (two of my favorites, by the way) Give me months or weeks. Approximate.

You said - "_Its like learning to wrestle but never learning how to punch_."

Have you wrestled? Where, when? What do you actually know about the art of punching? You say you didn't learn squat in your school.....so you know about punching from....where exactly? How long have you wrestled? Where did you learn to punch?

You said - "_I would say my front kicks would definitly come in handy on a street fight and that was a move I learned from taekwondo_."

Why do you street fight? You don't seem like what I consider the hoodlum type from your video. It's profiling, I know, but old cops tend to do that. Have your front kicks served you well defending yourself? Do tell, please.

You said - "_Now, if a big guy wanted to take me down and punch my face in, I know my taekwondo would not stand a chance, which is why I believe going into gaurd and either doing an elbow escape , upa, or triangle choke would benefit my situation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 no body can argue that having a vast multitude of skills will make you a better fighter._"

How many years/months....okay, weeks, have you spent working the guard, upa or triangle? Again, feel free to approximate. Which kind of guard has served you best?


You said - "_And even when it comes to striking, you'll never see a straight karate/taekwondo punch, you'll see an overhand right coming right for your face and if you try to use things like hapkido and excpect them to let themselves be thrown you're very mistaken."_

Hapkido? You speak on Hapkido from experience, yes? I mean, you must, right? Otherwise why would you use it to further your point. Please tell me more of your Hapkido experience.

You said_ - "They will resist and all I see in taekwondo schools and hapkido schools in the united states (and even korea, just look up some korean schools and you'll only see demonstration, no real training for resistance)"_

What you_ "see" in _Tae-kwon-do schools even in Korea_. _
You've been to Korea? Or is that an experience studied on the computer in the comfort of your.......?

Kid, you do realize this is an actual Martial Arts forum you're on, ya?


----------



## Ruhaani

Hi im new

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Ruhaani said:


> Hi im new
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


Hi, Ruhaani! Why don't you post a thread in the "Meet and Greet" section to introduce yourself and tell us your background.


----------



## Ruhaani

I think taekwondo is amazing

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## martialartstutor

I want to go over alot of things you guys are saying and I feel like there has been a great misunderstanding in what I'm trying to say about my martial arts experience. I don't hate Taekwondo, its just not what I wanted out of it due to my experience in other things. I know you may think I'm trying to pimp my youtube channel, I'm really trying to have people understand my past and why I have changed and opened my mind. Now, I have a new video, and if you don't want to watch it, that's totally okay, but I cover everything that defends where I'm comming from and why I don't absolutely disrespect tradtional martial arts but actually can acknowledge it as part of my martial arts path.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

martialartstutor said:


> I don't hate Taekwondo, its just not what I wanted out of it due to my experience in other things.



No problem with that. Lots of us here started off in one art and have moved on to others for one reason or another.

However, your opening statement wasn't "I hate TKD." It was "TKD doesn't work." I think a number of people have an issue with that statement and don't believe you have backed it up.



martialartstutor said:


> I know you may think I'm trying to pimp my youtube channel, I'm really trying to have people understand my past and why I have changed and opened my mind. Now, I have a new video,



If you're not trying to advertise your YouTube channel, how about actually just typing up an explanation of your position? Most of us can read a post a lot faster than we can watch a 17-minute video. It also makes it easier to quote and respond to specific parts of what you say when it's down in text.



martialartstutor said:


> but I cover everything that defends where I'm comming from



Hmm ... skimming through your video, I don't see any direct response to any of the comments in this thread. Instead, it seems that you're rambling your way through a number of unrelated tangents. Remember that this is a forum for martial arts _conversation_, not just an avenue for broadcasting your viewpoint into the ether.

Speaking of those tangents ...

You say that you are still teaching TKD, the same art that you stated in your original video "doesn't work." If it doesn't work, then why are you teaching it? Do you tell your students that you are teaching them things that don't work?

You say that "Traditional martial artists ... have this whole idea that the black belt is supreme ... There's this common misconception that a black belt means they are done learning." WTF! Have you actually met any real traditional martial artists? I've never encountered one who would support that misconception. In fact, the common statement is that a black belt represents the stage when you have gotten a solid enough foundation in the basics to start learning in earnest.

Seriously, it's good that you're exploring new options in the martial arts after 15 years in one dojang. This is a great forum for talking with other martial artists. We have folks here who have spent decades training in arts ranging from TKD to BJJ, Kempo to Kenjutsu, Muay Thai to Budo Taijutsu. Try sticking around and interacting with people and save the videos for when you want to demonstrate a technique that is too difficult to describe in text.


----------



## martialartstutor

I still do teach tkd, but I do let my students know that some things about it such as blocking aren't useful so I implement other styles when it comes to that (boxing slip, covering the ear, ect) And the reason I prefered to post a video is because I feel like I would have rambled just as much in a post haha but I guess that doesn't make a difference in a video. Don't get me wrong, tkd is a beautiful martial art and I like showing my students things like flying side kicks, 540s, and how to do flashy kicks for performances. But when it comes down to the self-defense aspects I prefer to go off other styles that have proved more effective in the ring senario.


----------



## ShotoNoob

martialartstutor said:


> I want to go over alot of things you guys are saying and I feel like there has been a great misunderstanding in what I'm trying to say about my martial arts experience. I don't hate Taekwondo, its just not what I wanted out of it due to my experience in other things. I know you may think I'm trying to pimp my youtube channel, I'm really trying to have people understand my past and why I have changed and opened my mind. Now, I have a new video, and if you don't want to watch it, that's totally okay, but I cover everything that defends where I'm comming from and why I don't absolutely disrespect tradtional martial arts but actually can acknowledge it as part of my martial arts path.


\
I'd like to get Chris Parker and this guy in a room together....


----------



## Tez3

Effectiveness in the ring is far from a guarantee that you can use the same techniques in self defence. Nor are 'blocks' for blocking. I feel you have a great deal to learn about TKD and martial arts in general but you are coming across as thinking you know more than people who have been training martial arts for decades.


----------



## RTKDCMB

martialartstutor said:


> I still do teach tkd, but I do let my students know that some things about it such as blocking aren't useful


If the blocks that you have learned aren't useful then the problem is with your training not the blocking techniques themselves. I personally, and others from my school, have used them for self defense and they are pretty darned useful.



martialartstutor said:


> covering the ear,



That will not be very effective against some attacks..



martialartstutor said:


> But when it comes down to the self-defense aspects I prefer to go off other styles that have proved more effective in the ring senario.



So for one thing you prefer to use something 'proved' more effective for something else?


----------



## Ruhaani

Every martial art works depends on the user if your teaching taekwondon and not teaching its blocking system then thats because you dont understand how it works im not a taekwondo student but believe its very affective.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Ruhaani said:


> Every martial art works depends on the user if your teaching taekwondon and not teaching its blocking system then thats because you dont understand how it works im not a taekwondo student but believe its very affective.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


Not all blocks are used the same way.  We use the term "block" but in reality many of them redirect.  They also have to be used correctly just doing the motion of the block isn't going to work. Each block has a time and place. Most blocks are done offensively so if a person is always trying to block in response then that person will have a low success rate.  If it takes me less than a second to punch my opponent's face, then my opponent has even less than that to react with the correct block.
To me the TKD blocks look similar to blocks in other fighting system. Fighting systems and they all tend to attack similar areas when thrown.
Here's are some basic blocks from TKD and I could easily show similar block used in my style and in some other styles.


----------



## JowGaWolf

In reference to the video post #68
I can tell you from experience that I had more injuries training Tai Chi than Jow Ga kung fu.  Tai Chi is like yoga in the fact that the looks are deceiving until you actually try it.  There are 2 types of Tai Chi. There's one that is taught as a martial art for fighting and another that is just done for exercise, and I think it's the one that is only done for exercise that you are saying that can't be used to fight.

If a person takes Tai Chi (taijiquan) as it was originally meant to be trained then that person will be able to use it to fight.  Don't sleep on Tai Chi.  
If a person's Tai Chi class looks like this, then you are right.  That person won't be able to use it to fight





If a person's tai chi class has a lot of this in it, then he'll understand how it can be used for fighting.





I a person does free sparring as part of his training, then he'll gain a better understanding of the fighting system and how to actually use it to fight. Free sparring outside of one's system is the best training because it exposes you to attacks and tricks that a student won't get by training against someone who does the same fighting system.


----------



## Ruhaani

A block is a block use it correctly and understand its principles defending is always harder but all depends on reaction body awareness I think all blocks are amazing anf agree with above post tai chi is awesome just a matter of understanding and how you train it

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

martialartstutor said:


> I want to go over alot of things you guys are saying and I feel like there has been a great misunderstanding in what I'm trying to say about my martial arts experience. I don't hate Taekwondo, its just not what I wanted out of it due to my experience in other things. I know you may think I'm trying to pimp my youtube channel, I'm really trying to have people understand my past and why I have changed and opened my mind. Now, I have a new video, and if you don't want to watch it, that's totally okay, but I cover everything that defends where I'm comming from and why I don't absolutely disrespect tradtional martial arts but actually can acknowledge it as part of my martial arts path.


One point where you think that (and I'm paraphrasing abit here) "there is this attitude in TMA where fighting is bad." I think you misunderstand what is being said there. It is not a good thing to have to defend yourself but for a self defense orientated traditional martial art the techniques and tactic are designed to be used for self defense. Self defense and fighting are two different things. Fighting is bad, self defense is good, having to defend yourself is bad.

Tai Chi is a martial art that can be used for self defense. The slow relaxed version is different from the version used for 'fighting'.

"TMA should be adapted to the times we live in" We do buddy, you should get out more.


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> I


I like the Fireman's carry defense.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> One point where you think that (and I'm paraphrasing abit here) "there is this attitude in TMA where fighting is bad." I think you misunderstand what is being said there. It is not a good thing to have to defend yourself but for a self defense orientated traditional martial art the techniques and tactic are designed to be used for self defense. Self defense and fighting are two different things. Fighting is bad, self defense is good, having to defend yourself is bad.
> 
> Tai Chi is a martial art that can be used for self defense. The slow relaxed version is different from the version used for 'fighting'.
> 
> "TMA should be adapted to the times we live in" We do buddy, you should get out more.



Well fighting being a secondary concern for a self defence martial art does explain why self defence martial artists don't fight very well.


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> There are 2 types of Tai Chi. There's one that is taught as a martial art for fighting


He probably thinks this is the Tai Chi used for fighting:


----------



## RTKDCMB

Sometimes they get along:


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Well fighting being a secondary concern for a self defence martial art does explain why self defence martial artists don't fight very well.


What evidence do you sight to support this position?


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> What evidence do you sight to support this position?



It is the use of logic.So the evidence is your statement that fighting is secondary to self defence Coupled with the statement that some martial artists don't fight very well. 

Dosent seem that much of a stretch.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> It is the use of logic.So the evidence is your statement that fighting is secondary to self defence Coupled with the statement that some martial artists don't fight very well.
> 
> Dosent seem that much of a stretch.


So none then.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> So none then.


I used your evidence.

How is that reasoning not sound?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> I used your evidence.
> 
> How is that reasoning not sound?


First of all I did not say fighting is secondary to self defense, they are two different things. Fighting is not as concern for a self defense art at all. You defend yourself when you have to, you do not go out starting fights or getting into them if you can avoid them to prove you are better than anyone. Someone attacks you you defend yourself until you no longer have to. It's not that hard.


----------



## Ruhaani

I actually dont know what your talking about now..im lost hahah :-S

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ruhaani

All I know is TMA are good self defense if you can understand the principles and use them simple

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ruhaani

Ahhh I see I re read over the messages lol I understand where your coming from @ RTKDCMB

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> First of all I did not say fighting is secondary to self defense, they are two different things. Fighting is not as concern for a self defense art at all. You defend yourself when you have to, you do not go out starting fights or getting into them if you can avoid them to prove you are better than anyone. Someone attacks you you defend yourself until you no longer have to. It's not that hard.



So a self defence art treats fighting as a lesser skill? Is not its primary concern?

I don't think there are many starting fights oriented martial arts. But there are defiantly arts that treat fighting as its primary focus. It would stand to reason that they would be better at fighting.

So is tkd focused on fighting or self defence?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> So is tkd focused on fighting or self defence?


You should probably get there is a difference between the two first.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> You should probably get there is a difference between the two first.



If there is a difference and self defence is not fighting then fighting is not as comprehensively covered in a self defence oriented martial art as it is in a fighting martial art.

Is that not reasonable?


----------



## Earl Weiss

drop bear said:


> If there is a difference and self defence is not fighting then fighting is not as comprehensively covered in a self defence oriented martial art as it is in a fighting martial art.
> 
> Is that not reasonable?



As with many things if 2 people cannot agree on how terms are defined a meaningful discussion is impossible.   "Fighting" typically (but not literally)  gives the impression of 2 people  willing to engage in a mutual exchange.   SD on the other hand typicaly involves one person attacking another who has not agreed to such an exchange and only enters into such out of neccessity.   SD can and should typically if possible rely on Nike Jitsu / Run Fu..   SD primarily involves "Defense" against an attack which can include pre emption, avoidance,  as well as "Defense" and counter attack. 

There are places like RMCAT which only deal with SD, and it's founder readily and repeatedly states that he does not teach MA.


----------



## Ruhaani

Yeah you guys both are looking at a word "fighting" in 2 different ways so I agree with both self defence is fighting and looking to attack is fighting yin an yang

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Fighting and self-defense are not the same, but they do have areas of overlap. Some of the attributes and skills that are useful for one may also be useful in the other, although not always. Self-defense may sometimes involve fighting, but the tactical goals will usually be different from those in a consensual fight.

In fact, "fighting" and "self-defense" both cover a wide variety of situations. The skills and tactics which are appropriate in one fight scenario may not be helpful (and may be downright disadvantageous)  in another. Same with self-defense.

Rather than saying "_my art is for fighting_" or "_my art is for self-defense_", it may be more useful to say something like "_my training is optimized for fighting/self-protection in Scenario A, but certain skills and attributes that I'm building will be useful in Scenarios B, C, D, and E. My skills could also be useful in Scenarios F and G, but the tactics I've developed for Scenario A will get me in trouble, so I have to be prepared to recognize those situations and adapt my reactions accordingly. Scenarios H, I, and J are beyond the scope of what I've prepared for and I have no relevant expertise there_."


----------



## Ruhaani

Nicely put@ tony dismukes

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ruhaani

Good analogy about scenarios and how strategic think is important where its attacking or defending and what techniques could work and what may not

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Earl Weiss said:


> As with many things if 2 people cannot agree on how terms are defined a meaningful discussion is impossible.   "Fighting" typically (but not literally)  gives the impression of 2 people  willing to engage in a mutual exchange.   SD on the other hand typicaly involves one person attacking another who has not agreed to such an exchange and only enters into such out of neccessity.   SD can and should typically if possible rely on Nike Jitsu / Run Fu..   SD primarily involves "Defense" against an attack which can include pre emption, avoidance,  as well as "Defense" and counter attack.
> 
> There are places like RMCAT which only deal with SD, and it's founder readily and repeatedly states that he does not teach MA.



Yeah but here it doesn't matter. If the martial art in question believes self defence is not fighting and focuses on self defence their fighting is going to suffer. 

So it is not about whether I subscribe to the idea.(which I don't)


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Fighting and self-defense are not the same, but they do have areas of overlap. Some of the attributes and skills that are useful for one may also be useful in the other, although not always. Self-defense may sometimes involve fighting, but the tactical goals will usually be different from those in a consensual fight.
> 
> In fact, "fighting" and "self-defense" both cover a wide variety of situations. The skills and tactics which are appropriate in one fight scenario may not be helpful (and may be downright disadvantageous)  in another. Same with self-defense.
> 
> Rather than saying "_my art is for fighting_" or "_my art is for self-defense_", it may be more useful to say something like "_my training is optimized for fighting/self-protection in Scenario A, but certain skills and attributes that I'm building will be useful in Scenarios B, C, D, and E. My skills could also be useful in Scenarios F and G, but the tactics I've developed for Scenario A will get me in trouble, so I have to be prepared to recognize those situations and adapt my reactions accordingly. Scenarios H, I, and J are beyond the scope of what I've prepared for and I have no relevant expertise there_."




Yeah. Situational defence. I did try that idea a while back. But did not get much traction. So just as a way to make yourself safer. You may need to learn first aid or how to fall or swim or a whole bunch of life skills.

Like what they do in the army.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Yeah but here it doesn't matter. If the martial art in question believes self defence is not fighting and focuses on self defence their fighting is going to suffer.


If the martial art in question believes self defence IS fighting and focuses on fighting their self defense will suffer.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> If the martial art in question believes self defence IS fighting and focuses on fighting their self defense will suffer.



Also correct. If they believe self defence and fighting are two different things.


----------



## Ruhaani

I still think taekwondo is useful one thing for sure is its an amazing self mastery to move off the ground and volley kicks in mid air even though you might not use all the kicks.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Ruhaani said:


> I still think taekwondo is useful one thing for sure is its an amazing self mastery to move off the ground and volley kicks in mid air even though you might not use all the kicks.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk



Yeah. It depends on how you use it. If you want to fly impressive kicks at people in a multi style engagement you can't stand and trade. You have to develop an elusive game to take advantage. Machida is generally the example used.


----------



## Ruhaani

Exactly awesome 

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ruhaani

Does taekwondo have an internal energy building side to it like chinese arts

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Star Dragon

TKD wouldn't be my first recommendation for self-defence, but frankly, most traditional martial arts training won't prepare somebody very well for a real altercation. (There can always exceptions, to be sure.)

That being said, not long ago, I watched some Youtube videos of real situations, and, lo and behold, I witnessed some advanced TKD practitioners accomplishing one-hit knock-outs by a kick - even spinning and jumping ones! Okay, they were not facing highly skilled opponents - aggressors on the street usually aren't. Anyway, I was reminded that there are just no absolutes in combat. Or anywhere else, for that matter...


----------



## Ruhaani

If you learn takewondo along a heavy punching art like boxing maybe a good change between the to arts in a fight

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If you apply TKD "flying side kick", use your whole body weight to drop "45 degree down" on your opponent's leading knee joint, it can be a very effective and scary "entering strategy". It will put your opponent in defense mode right at that moment.


----------



## Ruhaani

Interesting@wang im not sure of what kicks they have by name but that sounds dangerous does anyone know if they have an internal side like chinese arts or even sanchin from karate

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Also correct. If they believe self defence and fighting are two different things.



When someone tries to hurt your family member and you try to hurt that person in order to save your family member, there won't be any difference between "self-defense" and "fighting".


----------



## Ruhaani

Perfectly put..tbh in self defence or in a fight we have to carry both principles defensive and attacking

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When someone tries to hurt your family member and you try to hurt that person in order to save your family member, there won't be any difference between "self-defense" and "fighting".



Wont be a difference between self defence and gbh. 

Fight avoidace awarness and deescalation is a conveniently complicated enough skill that you have to teach it.  But simple enough that the teacher never had to actually do it. And also conveniently has not test of objectives unless i find someone who actually wants to hurt me.

And so removes the need to prove that a system has any merit at all. 

So where i could go to your school and actually wrestle you or one of your guys and just see. If a school has this self defence nonsense i cant.  And again conveniently. Because then that school can function without courting loss. 

This whole self defence thing seens to be self defence against having your ego damaged.


----------



## Ruhaani

Very good point to talk about..in my karate school we wasnt aloud to spar which I didnt like the teacher said it was for legal reasons just in case..but your point is a good one kinda classic where you go into a dojo and test out the school is a great idea if I understood you correctly lol

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Buka

Ruhaani said:


> Very good point to talk about..in my karate school we wasnt aloud to spar which I didnt like the teacher said it was for legal reasons


----------



## drop bear

Ruhaani said:


> Very good point to talk about..in my karate school we wasnt aloud to spar which I didnt like the teacher said it was for legal reasons just in case..but your point is a good one kinda classic where you go into a dojo and test out the school is a great idea if I understood you correctly lol
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


Sort of.  If the guy was 80 but had trained a bunch of top fighters.  I am not going to scrap with the guy.


----------



## Tames D

I have to  agree. Taekwondo is not a self defense fighting art. It's basically a kids after school baby sitting service for parents.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tames D said:


> Taekwondo is not a self defense fighting art. It's basically a kids after school baby sitting service for parents.


Based on your extensive training and experience in TKD no doubt.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you apply TKD "flying side kick", use your whole body weight to drop "45 degree down" on your opponent's leading knee joint, it can be a very effective and scary "entering strategy". It will put your opponent in defense mode right at that moment.


A downward kick would be better than a flying side kick. Kicks in the air mean no root, but at least a kick as you described means that gravity is helping to add to the force so it's not just the kick but the weight of the body plus gravity.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> it's not just the kick but the weight of the body plus gravity.


It's like a huge rock drops on top of your knee joint. Nothing can be more scary than that.


----------



## Ruhaani

Power of legs is unbelievable maybe thats why in the east they train alot on their hands like the wheel barrow exercise up flights of stairs or mountain tops we only use a small percentage of our real strength and alot of it is hidden in the legs..I still think we have diluted versions of takewondo

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Tames D said:


> I have to  agree. Taekwondo is not a self defense fighting art. It's basically a kids after school baby sitting service for parents.



That is where the money is. So you will always see more examples of succesfull buisness than those that may sacrifice studens due to exposing tjem to more hardship than they would like.


----------



## Tez3

Ruhaani said:


> Power of legs is unbelievable maybe thats why in the east they train alot on their hands like the wheel barrow exercise up flights of stairs or mountain tops we only use a small percentage of our real strength and alot of it is hidden in the legs..I still think we have diluted versions of takewondo
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk



I'm not sure why you would think that 'people in the east' spend a lot of time on their hands!


----------



## Ruhaani

You dont see many westetn gyms practicing variations of bodyweight training its the usual boring stretches to begin the class which takes most of the time then practicing forms then take your money..diluted

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Ruhaani said:


> Power of legs is unbelievable maybe thats why in the east they train alot on their hands like the wheel barrow exercise up flights of stairs or mountain tops we only use a small percentage of our real strength and alot of it is hidden in the legs..I still think we have diluted versions of takewondo
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


Yep you can't have a strong tree without a strong root.  For CMA's  the legs are the root, they not only have to be strong but also conditioned.  A Muay Thai fighter will quickly show most martial artists why their legs should be conditioned.  Fighting in a low stance will quickly show why a fighter needs to have strong legs.  I know many schools in the U.S. neglect both of these.


----------



## Tez3

Ruhaani said:


> You dont see many westetn gyms practicing variations of bodyweight training its the usual boring stretches to begin the class which takes most of the time then practicing forms then take your money..diluted
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk




You don't? then I must have been very mistaken in what I've seen and trained these many years. It would be better not to make sweeping generalisations about how people in the 'east' and the 'west' train you know.
There are a huge amount of martial arts clubs, gyms and schools that teach really good martial arts cheaply. Just because the place/s you've seen aren't good doesn't mean you can label all places like that.


----------



## WaterGal

Ruhaani said:


> Does taekwondo have an internal energy building side to it like chinese arts
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk



That's not something I've really seen in TKD. There _is _some of that in Hapkido, so it does exist in Korean martial arts. And there are different styles/lineages of Taekwondo, so maybe some styles or teachers incorporate some of that into their classes.  But I wouldn't say it's a big part of TKD, no.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> You don't? then I must have been very mistaken in what I've seen and trained these many years. It would be better not to make sweeping generalisations about how people in the 'east' and the 'west' train you know.
> There are a huge amount of martial arts clubs, gyms and schools that teach really good martial arts cheaply. Just because the place/s you've seen aren't good doesn't mean you can label all places like that.


My school doesn't do body weight training only because we don't have the weights anymore. We are working on substituting the weights with other ways to build muscles.  I would think that the idea goal of a school would include that in some shape or form being carrying your a fellow student, iron rings, wrist and leg weights, resistance bands or even at the basic level push ups.  If the school uses weapons then buying "combat ready" weapons instead of the light weapons will give you a good workout.  Strength exercises with heavy staff is a good workout.


----------



## WaterGal

Ruhaani said:


> You dont see many westetn gyms practicing variations of bodyweight training its the usual boring stretches to begin the class which takes most of the time then practicing forms then take your money..diluted
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk



Yes, there are many Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, Karate, Kung Fu, etc classes like that out there.  Some are expensive classes at "McDojo"-style schools, others are cheap classes at the rec center or gym. 

But there are also a lot of rigorous martial arts programs out there that produce skilled and athletic students.  Schools that do push-ups, crunches, leg lifts, pop-ups, running, etc.  That spend a lot of time kicking pads and heavy bags, that break boards/concrete, that do a lot of sparring.

Also, most schools in Asia or anywhere else are not on mountain tops.  I know that's what they always show in the movies, some old master with a white beard living in a mountain temple, blah blah blah, but that's not real life.


----------



## Ruhaani

Haha I know its not like that in the big cities of asia but im a backpacker and traveled through asia what we see in movies isnt true or false just go out and experience it for yourself ther masters out there that are high up on mountains with white beards lol ive seen them be open just because we think we know something about the ocean we as humans with all our technology havent even scratched its surface somethings have to be discovered obviously I understand whrere your coming from but just be open to these strange thinga aswel without being to naive or skeptical 

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie

Tames D said:


> I have to  agree. Taekwondo is not a self defense fighting art. It's basically a kids after school baby sitting service for parents.


If you really think this, it implies that you also think the following:

- All classes, including kids classes, 'tiny tigers' classes, and adult classes cover the same material. 
- What kids do in after school classes is representative of an entire martial art. 

Neither of these are particularly reasonable things to think. Just saying.


drop bear said:


> That is where the money is. So you will always see more examples of succesfull buisness than those that may sacrifice studens due to exposing tjem to more hardship than they would like.


This is double edged. A school owner who isn't offering kid's classes is missing a massive opportunity to invest in long term talent development, and to financially support the operation of the training centre for adults as well as kids. It is just good business sense.


----------



## Ruhaani

True

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> My school doesn't do body weight training only because we don't have the weights anymore. We are working on substituting the weights with other ways to build muscles.  I would think that the idea goal of a school would include that in some shape or form being carrying your a fellow student, iron rings, wrist and leg weights, resistance bands or even at the basic level push ups.  If the school uses weapons then buying "combat ready" weapons instead of the light weapons will give you a good workout.  Strength exercises with heavy staff is a good workout.


erm...  I'm not sure you really understand what a body weight exercise is.


----------



## WaterGal

Gnarlie said:


> This is double edged. A school owner who isn't offering kid's classes is missing a massive opportunity to invest in long term talent development, and to financially support the operation of the training centre for adults as well as kids. It is just good business sense.



Drop bear can speak for himself, but I took his comment to be more about how physically demanding the classes are for the students, rather than how old the students are.  When you push kids hard, some will give up and quit, hence the BS McDojo-y babysitting approach.  But then, if you don't push, some will get bored and quit.


----------



## Gnarlie

WaterGal said:


> That's not something I've really seen in TKD. There _is _some of that in Hapkido, so it does exist in Korean martial arts. And there are different styles/lineages of Taekwondo, so maybe some styles or teachers incorporate some of that into their classes.  But I wouldn't say it's a big part of TKD, no.


You do poomsae though, right? And use the various junbi positions? And kihaps? And use the typical targets arae, momtong and olgul, along with palmok? And practice breaking? 

I think you are right in that it is there, but often isn't emphasised, at least until much later in the dan levels.


----------



## Gnarlie

WaterGal said:


> Drop bear can speak for himself, but I took his comment to be more about how physically demanding the classes are for the students, rather than how old the students are.  When you push kids hard, some will give up and quit, hence the BS McDojo-y babysitting approach.  But then, if you don't push, some will get bored and quit.


That's what I meant by double edged. It's is a balance between getting and keeping students, and actually teaching martial arts involving pain and discomfort.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> erm...  I'm not sure you really understand what a body weight exercise is.


  I guess not.  I've heard so many exercise terms during my life. I group exercises into 2 categories, one with weights and one without weights.  The exercises that only uses the weight of the body are the functional exercises. The exercises that use  the terms "weight? are weight lifting type exercises where  the weight is something other than the body.

From your response then I guess it's the function exercise?
Functional exercises are called functional because it builds muscle in the manner that the body naturally uses muscles.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> I guess not.  I've heard so many exercise terms during my life. I group exercises into 2 categories, one with weights and one without weights.  The exercises that only uses the weight of the body are the functional exercises. The exercises that use  the terms "weight? are weight lifting type exercises where  the weight is something other than the body.
> 
> From your response then I guess it's the function exercise?
> Functional exercises are called functional because it builds muscle in the manner that the body naturally uses muscles.


"Body weight exercises" generally refers to those exercise that use the person's _own_ body weight to provide resistance, i.e. pushups, pullups, squats, etc.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> "Body weight exercises" generally refers to those exercise that use the person's _own_ body weight to provide resistance, i.e. pushups, pullups, squats, etc.


 Thanks, that was my second guess.  I know those as "functional exercises" so I guess I'm behing on the lingo.  Now I have to go redo my comment lol


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> You don't? then I must have been very mistaken in what I've seen and trained these many years. It would be better not to make sweeping generalisations about how people in the 'east' and the 'west' train you know.
> There are a huge amount of martial arts clubs, gyms and schools that teach really good martial arts cheaply. Just because the place/s you've seen aren't good doesn't mean you can label all places like that.


Correction from my previous comment.   I agree with Tez3 on this one.


Bodyweight training is big in CMAs as well as fitness gyms in the U.S.  There used to be a time where it was always about pushing Iron, but many started to learn that they had the muscle, but they weren't exactly functional muscles.  People who had big strong legs were able to do heavy squats but could only remain in a horse stance for a short period of time. 

For example, this looks impressive but it doesn't engage the same muscles that are used in a real horse stance.  It's actually much easier than a real horse stance.  I tried the same exercise which is why I know it's easier, because it was. 





This is the reason why  bodyweight training is a big thing here.  It's all about strengthening muscles in the way that they perform naturally, which means that all involved muscle groups are being worked.  Martial arts in general have always worked like "bodyweight training" as their foundation. Most martial arts just refer to it as conditioning and not "bodyweight training."  For martial arts schools that don't have weights, lifting your body is pretty much the only thing you have to work with. Certain types of kung fu naturally have that in the forms and movements. 

By the way functional fitness / functional strength is what everyone is going to depend on when they get into their 70's. People who don't have it, and are otherwise healthy, are often seen struggling doing every day tasks like walking up stairs.  If you live or have been in the southern USA then you'll probably have seen people in their 30's - 50's have trouble doing every day movements.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Ruhaani said:


> Does taekwondo have an internal energy building side to it like chinese arts
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk




This could probably go to a whole new thread. First we would have to define what "Internal Energy Building is"   I for one do not believe in any sort of magical mystical energy not currently explainable by western medicine standards.   In the past, the unexplainable was given mystical properties.   Several decades ago, most, including me thought acupuncture was total B.S.. Then we got a better undersatnding of the interaction between the needles and how they can interact with the nervous system. Perhaps there is also an interaction with other systems vis a vis stimulation of Lymphatic, endocrine and other systems.

As far as some magical mystical Chi, Ki, or whatever, I call BS.  I will let others speak to other systems calling themselves TKD, but as far as the Chang Hon system, it does not appear in the materials, nor have I ever heard anyone say it's a part of the system.


----------



## Ruhaani

Earl Weiss said:


> This could probably go to a whole new thread. First we would have to define what "Internal Energy Building is"   I for one do not believe in any sort of magical mystical energy not currently explainable by western medicine standards.   In the past, the unexplainable was given mystical properties.   Several decades ago, most, including me thought acupuncture was total B.S.. Then we got a better undersatnding of the interaction between the needles and how they can interact with the nervous system. Perhaps there is also an interaction with other systems vis a vis stimulation of Lymphatic, endocrine and other systems.
> 
> As far as some magical mystical Chi, Ki, or whatever, I call BS.  I will let others speak to other systems calling themselves TKD, but as far as the Chang Hon system, it does not appear in the materials, nor have I ever heard anyone say it's a part of the system.


Fair enough

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Star Dragon

Earl Weiss said:


> This could probably go to a whole new thread. First we would have to define what "Internal Energy Building is"   I for one do not believe in any sort of magical mystical energy not currently explainable by western medicine standards.   In the past, the unexplainable was given mystical properties.   Several decades ago, most, including me thought acupuncture was total B.S.. Then we got a better undersatnding of the interaction between the needles and how they can interact with the nervous system. Perhaps there is also an interaction with other systems vis a vis stimulation of Lymphatic, endocrine and other systems.
> 
> As far as some magical mystical Chi, Ki, or whatever, I call BS.  I will let others speak to other systems calling themselves TKD, but as far as the Chang Hon system, it does not appear in the materials, nor have I ever heard anyone say it's a part of the system.



I suggest you watch this. For starters.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Star Dragon said:


> I suggest you watch this. For starters.



You do know that there really isn't any science in that show, right?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ruhaani said:


> does anyone know if they have an internal side like chinese arts or even sanchin from karate?


How do you coordinate your breathing with your kicks when you throw front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick combo?

Do you

- hold your breath?
- exhale and inhale in each and every kick?
- exhale 1/4 on each kick and save 1/4 in your lung?
- ...?

To me, that can be considered as the "internal side".


----------



## Ruhaani

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How do you coordinate your breathing with your kicks when you throw front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick combo?
> 
> Do you
> 
> - hold your breath?
> - exhale and inhale in each and every kick?
> - exhale 1/4 on each kick and save 1/4 in your lung?
> - ...?
> 
> To me, that can be considered as the "internal side".


Internal energy has to built up with slow refined moves e.g. kicks for taek breathe in hold the breath tighten the stomach muscles only and snap a straight side kick or whatever you choose with a sharp exhale all through the nose eventually your body will move as a unit with a single force.


Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Dirty Dog said:


> You do know that there really isn't any science in that show, right?


There is some science in it, it just isn't very good.


----------



## Dirty Dog

RTKDCMB said:


> There is some science in it, it just isn't very good.



Well, no... I think it would be more accurate to say that there is entertainment in it, using some pseudo-science as a prop.
But no real science.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Star Dragon said:


> I suggest you watch this. For starters.
> 
> []



Is your point to show how force measured on a dummy in an immovable fame is different than on a human not in any sort of immovable contraption, and how he begins to move to the rear with the spear in his throat as it presses on the collarbone area as shown by the red marks, establish there is nothing explainable?


----------



## Star Dragon

No. It's just an innocent example for what I am getting at, which is that there are in fact a whole lot of things not currently explainable by science - including some of the manifestations that chi/ki takes. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. Nor does it mean that they won't be explainable by a more advanced future science. Actually, quantum physics has already taken a step beyond the materialistic and mechanistic views of the 19th century and begun to embrace the reality of spirit. Needless to say, many still cling to those basically outdated views, believing them to be an ultimate triumph over silly ancient/Asian superstition. Well, all I can say is: Good luck!


----------



## RTKDCMB

Star Dragon said:


> No. It's just an innocent example for what I am getting at, which is that there are in fact a whole lot of things not currently explainable by science - including some of the manifestations that chi/ki takes.



The spear on the throat is not one of them.



Star Dragon said:


> Actually, quantum physics has already taken a step beyond the materialistic and mechanistic views of the 19th century and begun to embrace the reality of spirit.



And you have a source on this?


----------



## Ruhaani

RTKDCMB said:


> The spear on the throat is not one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> And you have a source on this?


Dont worry no ones forcing you to accept the existence of chi within and around the human body.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ruhaani

Star Dragon said:


> No. It's just an innocent example for what I am getting at, which is that there are in fact a whole lot of things not currently explainable by science - including some of the manifestations that chi/ki takes. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. Nor does it mean that they won't be explainable by a more advanced future science. Actually, quantum physics has already taken a step beyond the materialistic and mechanistic views of the 19th century and begun to embrace the reality of spirit. Needless to say, many still cling to those basically outdated views, believing them to be an ultimate triumph over silly ancient/Asian superstition. Well, all I can say is: Good luck!


The human system is very complex with varying layers chi is a subtle layer closely related to blood but can only be felt with a subtle awareness its apart of the physical and at the same time not apart of it thats why its so difficult to pin point on what kind of energy source it is.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Ruhaani said:


> Dont worry no ones forcing you to accept the existence of chi within and around the human body.


The role of chi as an energy source preventing the spear from going through the practitioner's throat has not been established in this case, removing any requirement of me accepting it's existence..


----------



## Ruhaani

RTKDCMB said:


> The role of chi as an energy source preventing the spear from going through the practitioner's throat has not been established in this case, removing any requirement of me accepting it's existence..


Fair enough

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Ruhaani said:


> The human system is very complex with varying layers chi is a subtle layer closely related to blood but can only be felt with a subtle awareness its apart of the physical and at the same time not apart of it thats why its so difficult to pin point on what kind of energy source it is.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk



It depends what you want chi to do. So you don't necessarily have to explain it just show it works. Which I don't think chi has done in an acceptable manner yet.

I am trying to hunt down where it has been tested under laboratory conditions. So you don't bring your own spear. And so on.

Found this. Which is interesting but not conclusive.


----------



## Ruhaani

I understand where your coming from I guess you have to experience it but not like the dude in that vid lol..I think his was more religious spirit conjuring type which is dangerous because the practitioner gets possessed but im talking about self mastery from a feal teacher who knows how the layers of the body work.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## WaterGal

Earl Weiss said:


> Perhaps there is also an interaction with other systems vis a vis stimulation of Lymphatic, endocrine and other systems.



Yeah, I've seen some benefit to internal/chi study in Hapkido, but I think something like this is what's really at work with it.  Not some mystical power, but rather that breathing and moving in a certain way allows you to alter/stimulate blood flow or adrenaline or some other normally autonomic function of the body.  I tend to be very suspicious of any supposed "magic power" or "miracle technique" for anything.


----------



## Ruhaani

WaterGal said:


> Yeah, I've seen some benefit to internal/chi study in Hapkido, but I think something like this is what's really at work with it.  Not some mystical power, but rather that breathing and moving in a certain way allows you to alter/stimulate blood flow or adrenaline or some other normally autonomic function of the body.  I tend to be very suspicious of any supposed "magic power" or "miracle technique" for anything.


I agree with your saying but also disagree on the fact that it only works on nervous adrenaline function etc thats basic it works upwards after that towards your spirt call it mystical or whatever but once you understand those layers of the self then their not mystical, they become reality which is apart of every human 'being'

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Ruhaani said:


> religious spirit conjuring type which is dangerous because the practitioner gets possessed



What possesses them? I hope you aren't going to tell me that it's devils or demons.


----------



## Ruhaani

Tez3 said:


> What possesses them? I hope you aren't going to tell me that it's devils or demons.


Dont worry no ones forcing you to understand lol

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Ruhaani said:


> Dont worry no ones forcing you to understand lol
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk



Do not patronise. This is a site for discussion, hopefully friendly, but if you are going to post up stuff about the so called supernatural, you need to explain yourself. It's not my job to 'understand' what you write, it's your job to explain. I think you have severely underestimated the accumulated knowledge of the people on here, you can't post nonsense like  martial artists being 'possessed' then make a silly remark when challenged.


----------



## Ruhaani

Tez3 said:


> Do not patronise. This is a site for discussion, hopefully friendly, but if you are going to post up stuff about the so called supernatural, you need to explain yourself. It's not my job to 'understand' what you write, it's your job to explain. I think you have severely underestimated the accumulated knowledge of the people on here, you can't post nonsense like  martial artists being 'possessed' then make a silly remark when challenged.


You clearly dont want to understand read your comment carefully then realise how you come across you might get a better view and yes I do think its demonic..some not all.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> What possesses them? I hope you aren't going to tell me that it's devils or demons.


I don't know what possessed him to say that.


----------



## Star Dragon

RTKDCMB said:


> The spear on the throat is not one of them.



Why not? It's pretty impressive. Sorta hard to explain based on conventional knowledge. Or can you?



> And you have a source on this?



There is plenty of evidence if you open your eyes. I will get back to you on this shortly.


----------



## Star Dragon

WaterGal said:


> Yeah, I've seen some benefit to internal/chi study in Hapkido, but I think something like this is what's really at work with it.  Not some mystical power, but rather that breathing and moving in a certain way allows you to alter/stimulate blood flow or adrenaline or some other normally autonomic function of the body.  I tend to be very suspicious of any supposed "magic power" or "miracle technique" for anything.



Altered body functions are involved but they are just a part of the full picture. The tangible portion of a process that involves forces still intangible. Science can observe and measure not more than some of their effects. The show Fight Science is a step in the right direction, at least. Like Ruhaani has said, a human being has layers which elude conventional scientific comprehension.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Star Dragon said:


> Why not? It's pretty impressive. Sorta hard to explain based on conventional knowledge. Or can you?



If you look at my previous posts you will see that I already have:

Joe Rogan smack talking TMA's like kung fu



Star Dragon said:


> There is plenty of evidence if you open your eyes.



A source for your claim would be a good start.



Star Dragon said:


> I will get back to you on this shortly.



I will await.


----------



## Dinkydoo

RTKDCMB said:


> I don't know what possessed him to say that.


I do, it was a demon.....but you obviously don't have the demon hunting experience to understand


----------



## Tez3

Ruhaani said:


> You clearly dont want to understand read your comment carefully then realise how you come across you might get a better view and yes I do think its demonic..some not all.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk



Mmm, so you post things up expecting people to take at face value what you state mostly I imagine because you can't explain what you are talking about. I am sceptical about your claims, why wouldn't I be? I've been in martial arts a very long time and alive for even longer so rather than post up patronising comments, the one to me was the second time you'd written that, I expect it sounded better in your head than in actual words, why don't you actually explain what you mean and stop assuming that what you are talking about is the only real thing? Cite your sources for your statements.


----------



## Ruhaani

Nevermind your right. I'll talk to someone whos more calmer

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Ruhaani said:


> Nevermind your right. I'll talk to someone whos more calmer
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk




Really? Trust me I am very calm, I'm actually laughing not upset as I find your post to be somewhat ridiculous. I assume then as others will that you have no basis in fact for your assertions that 'evil spirits' or ghoulies and demons take over a martial artist's body. Stop hiding behind faux indignation and cite your sources. You could also cite your sources for saying that there's things in our bodies that you find unable to describe but also think supernatural.


----------



## Ruhaani

Tez3 said:


> Really? Trust me I am very calm, I'm actually laughing not upset as I find your post to be somewhat ridiculous. I assume then as others will that you have no basis in fact for your assertions that 'evil spirits' or ghoulies and demons take over a martial artist's body. Stop hiding behind faux indignation and cite your sources. You could also cite your sources for saying that there's things in our bodies that you find unable to describe but also think supernatural.


Oh your not angry it sounded like I hit a nerve like 'not this BS' kind of nerve I find they way you come across very disrespectful for other peoles views I do have alot of sources but I dont like your attitude..first of all going back to the human 'being' we have layers that extend outwards but where not the only beings that have these layers on different planes of existence on our earth and planets there are many many kinda of beings that I dont wana go into thats why I was saying to you dont worry no ones here to force you in believeing these things most religions will understand but thats a different story

As for taekwondo I still think its very useful if the practitioner is skillful in controlling his subtle points all martial arts are amazing in there own right

Learn to keep your manners and repect others view points..even if you got proof you still wouldnt understand my master always said before knowledge comes manners..and we shouldn't be proud and say we live in the west so our knowledge is sound and eastern knowledge is mumbo jumbo dont do that just stay calm and learn from everyone regardless of your age you could still be a 2year old under developed spiritually. 

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie

Tez3 said:


> Really? Trust me I am very calm, I'm actually laughing not upset as I find your post to be somewhat ridiculous. I assume then as others will that you have no basis in fact for your assertions that 'evil spirits' or ghoulies and demons take over a martial artist's body. Stop hiding behind faux indignation and cite your sources. You could also cite your sources for saying that there's things in our bodies that you find unable to describe but also think supernatural.



Made me think of this!


----------



## Tez3

Ruhaani said:


> Oh your not angry it sounded like I hit a nerve like 'not this BS' kind of nerve I find they way you come across very disrespectful for other peoles views I do have alot of sources but I dont like your attitude..first of all going back to the human 'being' we have layers that extend outwards but where not the only beings that have these layers on different planes of existence on our earth and planets there are many many kinda of beings that I dont wana go into thats why I was saying to you dont worry no ones here to force you in believeing these things most religions will understand but thats a different story
> 
> As for taekwondo I still think its very useful if the practitioner is skillful in controlling his subtle points all martial arts are amazing in there own right
> 
> Learn to keep your manners and repect others view points..even if you got proof you still wouldnt understand my master always said before knowledge comes manners..and we shouldn't be proud and say we live in the west so our knowledge is sound and eastern knowledge is mumbo jumbo dont do that just stay calm and learn from everyone regardless of your age you could still be a 2year old under developed spiritually.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk




Oh my, so now it's defensive we are.
No, the thing is, I have great respect for other people's opinions, I believe that people are entitled to their own opinions but they aren't entitled to their own 'truth', which is basically what you are saying. You post something up and tell us to believe it because you have posted it up, I'm not asking you to prove it's true by the way, I'm asking you to cite your sources.
It's very common that people who themselves don't understand a thing when asked tell others that even if it was explained to them they wouldn't understand it, you disappointed me, you have done the self same thing 'oh you wouldn't understand it anyway...'. On what do you base that on? Please stop wriggling and cite your sources so we can have a proper discussion.
'Most religions' don't understand what you are trying to say, a lot of it makes no sense, now I can give you the benefit of the doubt because I think that maybe English isn't your first language but when you say things like..."_As for taekwondo I still think its very useful if the practitioner is skillful in controlling his _subtle points_" _what are you talking about? It makes no sense.

No I'm not angry and no you didn't hit a nerve, I'm just too old and too tired to read airyfairy comments without anything to back it up and think because someone has posted them up they have to be true. You are posting to many experienced martial artists who have spent a long time investigating, exploring and training in many martial arts. I understand that you have found something new to you and find it amazing, the temptation is to shout out to the world as all new converts do, but you still have to back up your claims.
I think perhaps too your ideas about TKD are verging on style bashing, I have good friends who train vigorously in TKD and have occasion to know their TKD is very effective.
Instead of getting aeriated about being challenged, rise to it and cite your sources, simples.


----------



## RobBnTX

You know this goes back to what I have posted before.  People get involved in martial arts for various reasons.  Some more for the "art" in martial arts and then some more for the "martial" in martial arts and then some are in it for the sport.

However if you are looking for some magical, mystical experience, well then have fun but if you claim to get that out of your martial arts training then I too call BS on it.  In fact there are a lot of BS martial arts out there but I think they are dying a slow death.  I think in part due to the popularity of mixed martial arts and the UFC which has blown away a lot of the BS out of how some have marketed martial arts.

I recently attended a school that teaches Internal Martial Arts and they do practice applications but very slowly and not in real time.  I asked the instructor about this and if they ever do any body conditioning or practice their strikes on bags and he stated that they do not have to do that because they rely on "internal" power and what they do is too deadly to practice in real time.  Yeah I call BS on that, I think they would get their a$$ kicked royally in a real fight! 

Contrast that to a neighbor I have who is big into Brazilian Jui-jitsu and Kickboxing.  He is not into doing forms or anything like that and what he does is not pretty but it is damned effective!

Also I remember taking a few Wing Tzun classes a while back and there was very little formality to the class and it was a lot of pugilism, they were doing a ton of boxing, albeit Chinese boxing but what they did was for real and they would sometimes don head gear, gloves, and shin protectors.  At the time I did not really appreciate how the class was run and went back to TKD but over time I have grown a healthy respect for what they do and their philosophy.  It is a non-BS martial arts school.

Me, I like traditional martial arts and I tend toward the art side of it but mainly I am in it for the work out.  I would not be very motivated to go to a gym on my on but TKD keeps me coming back.  If I learn a little self-defense along the way so much the better but I am under no illusion that what I do is somehow magical or that my training somehow puts me on a higher spiritual level of some type or other. 

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Tez3

"*If you cant explain it simply, you dont understand it well enough*." -Albert Einstein

We'll decide whether we understand it or not, you just explain it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ATTENTION ALL USERS:
This thread is rapidly being derailed. I'm going to strongly suggest that if you want to discuss Chi, or demons, or multi-dimensional existence of humans, you start another thread for that subject. Derailing this thread will force staff intervention.

Mark A Cochran
Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------



## RTKDCMB

Dinkydoo said:


> I do, it was a demon.....but you obviously don't have the demon hunting experience to understand


I usually stick to hunting monsters, I'll leave the demons to those who specialize in those sorts of things.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Ruhaani said:


> Learn to keep your manners and repect others view points..





Ruhaani said:


> I find they way you come across very disrespectful for other peoles views



That is not the impression I have gotten from any of  Tez3's comments. It must be just you.


----------



## Ruhaani

RobBnTX said:


> You know this goes back to what I have posted before.  People get involved in martial arts for various reasons.  Some more for the "art" in martial arts and then some more for the "martial" in martial arts and then some are in it for the sport.
> 
> However if you are looking for some magical, mystical experience, well then have fun but if you claim to get that out of your martial arts training then I too call BS on it.  In fact there are a lot of BS martial arts out there but I think they are dying a slow death.  I think in part due to the popularity of mixed martial arts and the UFC which has blown away a lot of the BS out of how some have marketed martial arts.
> 
> I recently attended a school that teaches Internal Martial Arts and they do practice applications but very slowly and not in real time.  I asked the instructor about this and if they ever do any body conditioning or practice their strikes on bags and he stated that they do not have to do that because they rely on "internal" power and what they do is too deadly to practice in real time.  Yeah I call BS on that, I think they would get their a$$ kicked royally in a real fight!
> 
> Contrast that to a neighbor I have who is big into Brazilian Jui-jitsu and Kickboxing.  He is not into doing forms or anything like that and what he does is not pretty but it is damned effective!
> 
> Also I remember taking a few Wing Tzun classes a while back and there was very little formality to the class and it was a lot of pugilism, they were doing a ton of boxing, albeit Chinese boxing but what they did was for real and they would sometimes don head gear, gloves, and shin protectors.  At the time I did not really appreciate how the class was run and went back to TKD but over time I have grown a healthy respect for what they do and their philosophy.  It is a non-BS martial arts school.
> 
> Me, I like traditional martial arts and I tend toward the art side of it but mainly I am in it for the work out.  I would not be very motivated to go to a gym on my on but TKD keeps me coming back.  If I learn a little self-defense along the way so much the better but I am under no illusion that what I do is somehow magical or that my training somehow puts me on a higher spiritual level of some type or other.
> 
> Just my thoughts.


I agree with you totally on people training for different reasons nicely put I also with you on the whole effectiveNess on the Brazilian jujitsu dude that you mentioned and internal training done without heavy bags and all the physical equipment as bs aswel..its all about physical first then mental spiritual is way later thats all im saying..I dont sources to prove anything if your a seeker you will seek out knowledge for yourself..but like you put it perfectly everyone trains for different reasons.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ruhaani

RTKDCMB said:


> That is not the impression I have gotten from any of  Tez3's comments. It must be just you.


Dont worry about it

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ruhaani

Like the moderators have said lets get back to earth and talk about the martial aspect of taekwondo as the rest is to deep for some..if anyone wants sources please go on your own quest for knowledge..and I happily await anyone with the experience of the deeper aspects of the art which im sure there must be someone on this forum

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Paul_D

Ruhaani said:


> chi is a subtle layer closely related to blood but can only be felt with a subtle awareness its apart of the physical and at the same time not apart of it


No that's midi-chlorins, you're confusing Star Wars with real life


----------



## RTKDCMB

Ruhaani said:


> f anyone wants sources please go on your own quest for knowledge


The whole point of siting a source for a claim is to see where YOU have gotten the information from so that others can check it for accuracy. If you are unable or unwilling  to cite the source for your claim then it cannot be taken on face value just because you say so.


----------



## Ruhaani

Paul_D said:


> No that's midi-chlorins, you're confusing Star Wars with real life


Lol

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ruhaani

RTKDCMB said:


> The whole point of siting a source for a claim is to see where YOU have gotten the information from so that others can check it for accuracy. If you are unable or unwilling  to cite the source for your claim then it cannot be taken on face value just because you say so.


Dont worry about it im hoping someone might popup on here..how do you start a new thread? I usually use this forum on a app [emoji17] 

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Oh so now people are citing sources. I thought we were all our own expert or something silly.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Oh so now people are citing sources. I thought we were all our own expert or something silly.


Only a privileged few, drop bear, and only if they agree with you.


----------



## Tames D

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, no... I think it would be more accurate to say that there is entertainment in it, using some pseudo-science as a prop.
> But no real science.


Dream on


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tames D said:


> Dream on



So it's your opinion that the "science" in that show is actually good science?


----------



## Tames D

Dirty Dog said:


> So it's your opinion that the "science" in that show is actually good science?


----------



## Tames D

Dirty Dog said:


> So it's your opinion that the "science" in that show is actually good science?


NO. It's my opinion that Taekwondo is junk.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tames D said:


> NO. It's my opinion that Taekwondo is junk.


And that's all that it is, an opinion.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Fight it out and take a video of it.  The shortest end to a dispute is a fight lol.


----------



## Dinkydoo

I'd watch it. Do we have a TKD volunteer? 

Tames D, what style do you do? Just so I can get the title correct in my TKD vs ... writeup


----------



## TrueJim

Tames D said:


> NO. It's my opinion that Taekwondo is junk.



Junk in what sense?  

Often when people say that taekwondo is _junk_, when you peel the onion you find out that what they mean is that "taekwondo is not the best martial art for self-defense." But if that's the definition of "junk", then almost _all _martial arts are junk, since presumably there's only one "best".


----------



## Earl Weiss

......................................



Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


Ruhaani said:


> ..................................e..first of all going back to the human 'being' we have layers that extend outwards but where not the only beings that have these layers on different planes of existence on our earth and planets there are many many kinda of beings that I dont wana go into
> 
> As for taekwondo I still think its very useful if the practitioner is skillful in controlling his subtle points all martial arts are amazing in there own right
> 
> Learn to keep your manners and repect others view points...
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk




Based on the foregoing there is no point in any further disagreement with Ruhaani posst vis a  vis non scientific principals. 

As far as respect goes.  while I believe it important to respect the right of people to have opinions, I do not have to respect opinions I consider to be nothing more than balderdash - Creationist / intelligent design theorists take note.


----------



## Tez3

TrueJim said:


> Often when people say that taekwondo is _junk_, when you peel the onion you find out that what they mean is that "taekwondo is not the best martial art for self-defense."



Or they assume that what they were taught is TKD and they are assuming everyone teaches either the way do or they way they were taught. Too much generalisation. with thousands of TKD places training there will always be good and bad as there is with anything not just martial arts.


----------



## Tez3

Earl Weiss said:


> ......................................
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk





Based on the foregoing there is no point in any further disagreement with Ruhaani posst vis a  vis non scientific principals.

As far as respect goes.  while I believe it important to respect the right of people to have opinions, I do not have to respect opinions I consider to be nothing more than balderdash - Creationist / intelligent design theorists take note.[/QUOTE]

Agree!


----------



## Gnarlie

I'm struggling to make sense of this series of posts regarding a video clip that did not even feature Taekwondo....



Dirty Dog said:


> Well, no... I think it would be more accurate to say that there is entertainment in it, using some pseudo-science as a prop.
> But no real science.





Tames D said:


> Dream on





Dirty Dog said:


> So it's your opinion that the "science" in that show is actually good science?





Tames D said:


> NO. It's my opinion that Taekwondo is junk.





RTKDCMB said:


> And that's all that it is, an opinion.



Anyway...my personal expression of Taekwondo works just fine for me, so Tames D and the OP, your opinions and your failure to back them up with coherent evidence and reasoning are in my opinion, to use Tames D's word, junk.

If you think the art is rubbish, don't practice it, and leave those of us who understand it to crack on. Slating an art based on cliches and generalisations not supported by evidence says more about you than it does about that art.


----------



## Tames D

Dinkydoo said:


> I'd watch it. Do we have a TKD volunteer?
> 
> Tames D, what style do you do? Just so I can get the title correct in my TKD vs ... writeup


JKD. Feel free to tear it apart.


----------



## Dinkydoo

Tames D said:


> JKD. Feel free to tear it apart.


Ah see, there's the problem. JKD can be more of a concept than a style so I'm going to have to call it: TKD Vs Tames D

Then again, the TKD guy probably isnt representative of all TKD trained all over the world, so maybe I should title the video - Fighter 1 Vs. Fighter 2 (Tames D)

Get it?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Since art bashing isn't allowed here, and challenge posts are cause for an immediate ban, I'm going to suggest that this might not be a good direction to take this thread.

Bottom line for me is that I'm involved in physical confrontations on a much too regular basis, and I'm completely satisfied with how the things I've learned have worked. Now, you could argue that since I have had some (minimal) experience of other arts, that what I do is not "pure" TKD. I'd say that easily 90% of my training time has been in TKD, so that's "pure" enough for me. 

The relative skill of the two people involved is probably the single biggest factor in predicting the outcome. But luck is also a factor. As is surprise. Doesn't much matter how skilled you are if you're sucker punched.


----------



## Tames D

Dinkydoo said:


> Ah see, there's the problem. JKD can be more of a concept than a style so I'm going to have to call it: TKD Vs Tames D
> 
> Then again, the TKD guy probably isnt representative of all TKD trained all over the world, so maybe I should title the video - Fighter 1 Vs. Fighter 2 (Tames D)
> 
> Get it?


Call it what you want Dinky. I don't think I will have a problem defending myself against a taekwondo dude. No problem.


----------



## Tames D

Tames D said:


> NO. It's my opinion that Taekwondo is junk.


Just my opinion. Total JUNK


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> The relative skill of the two people involved is probably the single biggest factor in predicting the outcome.


  That and the focus of the training.  Some people do martial arts solely for the purpose of doing forms, staying healthy, or for point sparring. The type of training that they do is going to reflect that purpose.  If a martial art school only teaches a martial art for the use of Point Sparring then we shouldn't expect the fighting skills to be beyond that.  It's just better to say that the school doesn't focus their TKD training for UFC fighting.

The fact that I've seen some UFC fighters use TKD kicks to knock people out tells me not to underestimate it.  I'm not a big fan of TKD  but I know better to underestimate it's ability to damage.  A person that uses TKD for fighting purpose doesn't mean that everything that will be thrown at me will be a kick.


----------



## Gnarlie

Tames D said:


> Just my opinion. Total JUNK


Wow this is like being in a Youtube comment thread. 

That opinion doesn't carry much credibility when you express it in that way, you know? Are you 14, or what?

There are people here supporting their opinions with evidence. They don't agree with you. Based on the lack of evidence from you, and the mode in which you choose to express yourself, I'm more inclined to share their opinion than yours.


----------



## Dinkydoo

Noted DirtyDog. I wasn't actually intending on setting up a YouTube challenge match between Tames D and a TKD volunteer...just trying to use it symbolically to make a point. 




Tames D said:


> Call it what you want Dinky. I don't think I will have a problem defending myself against a taekwondo dude. No problem.




Specifically, why do you think that is? I'm not a TKD guy but I'm interested in your thought process here.


----------



## Star Dragon

RTKDCMB said:


> If you look at my previous posts you will see that I already have:
> 
> Joe Rogan smack talking TMA's like kung fu



Well, that is your opinion that the phenomenon can be fully explained that way. There is no prove for one explanation _or_ the other.



> A source for your claim would be a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> I will await.



I was thinking about what might qualify as a "source". There is MUCH to be found on chi but what would it satisfy your criteria of something being "scientific"? Science as you understand it has a materialistic bent, so trying to grasp something like chi in its context, we run into some fundamental difficulties. The conflict between materialism and vitalism goes back at least to ancient Greece, and it's unlikely that we will be able to resolve it here.

Believe me that I was once  a sceptic myself, but meanwhile I know about the existence of chi from personal experience. If you are really interested in the topic, I suggest you momentarily suspend your objection and try to experience it yourself too. There are numerous methods. A simple one that might at least give you a hint is this one:


----------



## Earl Weiss

Star Dragon said:


> W. There are numerous methods. A simple one that might at least give you a hint is this one:



Seriously?


----------



## TrueJim

For my part, I don't believe in "chi" _per se_, but I do believe in







No, seriously...I think the way the mind influences the abilities of the body is more complex and powerful than our intuition tells us, but that's all explainable by science. There's no mystical force involved (unless, perhaps, it is midi-chlorians, which of course are _totally realzz!_)...but there is some pretty complex biology and neuroscience at work.


----------



## Gnarlie

Star Dragon said:


> Well, that is your opinion that the phenomenon can be fully explained that way. There is no prove for one explanation _or_ the other.
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about what might qualify as a "source". There is MUCH to be found on chi but what would it satisfy your criteria of something being "scientific"? Science as you understand it has a materialistic bent, so trying to grasp something like chi in its context, we run into some fundamental difficulties. The conflict between materialism and vitalism goes back at least to ancient Greece, and it's unlikely that we will be able to resolve it here.
> 
> Believe me that I was once  a sceptic myself, but meanwhile I know about the existence of chi from personal experience. If you are really interested in the topic, I suggest you momentarily suspend your objection and try to experience it yourself too. There are numerous methods. A simple one that might at least give you a hint is this one:


Science works like this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not even ordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. 

As yet, in the history of mankind, nobody has proven chi to exist despite all those who have claimed that it does, therefore a scientific and rational mind would lean towards it not existing. 

In addition to that, every mystery ever solved by mankind has turned out to have a rational, non-supernatural explanation. A rational and scientific mind would posit that if chi exists, then it is a term describing non-spiritual, non-magical, non-mystical, purely physical, chemical and biological phenomena. 

As a third point, and this is true of other spiritual and mystical phenomena, if chi really existed as a supernatural paranormal force, someone who could control it would be making serious money out of it. A lot more money than Dillman makes. The military would be using it. Hospitals would be using it. 

Until some extraordinary evidence surfaces that satisfies my personal criteria, I remain skeptical.


----------



## TrueJim

Gnarlie said:


> ...if chi really existed as a supernatural paranormal force...



Also, if chi really *did *exist, people would be able to repeatedly and objectively demonstrate its effects, which means we could study it scientifically...it would stop being supernatural and paranormal. "Chi" would simply become another scientific force that we could characterize and measure.

Using "dark matter" as an example, even though we don't know what "dark matter" is, we can repeatedly and objectively measure the effect dark-matter has on how galaxies evolve. That puts "dark matter" into the realm of science rather than mysticism.

So when deciding when something falls into the realm of science rather than mysticism, the deciding characterization isn't "whether or not we understand it"...it's "whether or not we can repeatedly and objectively observe it." At best, the effects of chi are entirely subjective, meaning chi will always have to fall into the realm of the supernatural.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tames D said:


> JKD. Feel free to tear it apart.


Why would we do that?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Star Dragon said:


> I was thinking about what might qualify as a "source".



Actually I was asking for a source of your claim that quantum physics was beginning to embrace the 'reality of spirit'.



Star Dragon said:


>



That is a source - of amusement.


----------



## TrueJim

RTKDCMB said:


> Actually I was asking for a source of your claim that quantum physics was beginning to embrace the 'reality of spirit'...



There has been some conjecture in legitimate scientific circles that any manifestation of a self-aware consciousness (i.e., a "mind") might require quantum mechanics as its underlying mechanism. The theory is that a completely deterministic calculating machine (like a conventional computer) cannot manifest a self-aware consciousness. Again though, this is pure _*conjecture*_. Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-...&qid=1446758881&sr=8-3&keywords=Roger+Penrose

It should also be noted that this has *nothing* to do with chi, "reality of spirit", mysticism, the supernatural, or the paranormal. This is a conjecture about which laws of physics are needed to explain consciousness. As an aside, having read the above book, I was unconvinced by Penrose's arguments; I'm inclined to think that consciousness can probably be implemented deterministically. (There's a school-of-thought that conjectures that consciousness is a purely deterministic algorithm that the brain uses to decide which sensory input is most important to an individual's survival; in other words, consciousness is an algorithm that decides what we should be paying attention to; one part of that algorithm is a model of ourselves within the context of our environments...hence, self-awareness. No quantum mechanics needed.)


----------



## Star Dragon

RTKDCMB said:


> Actually I was asking for a source of your claim that quantum physics was beginning to embrace the 'reality of spirit'.



David Bohm, Paul Cezanne and Creativity - F. David Peat



> That is a source - of amusement.



Glad that you got a laugh out of it then, at least.


----------



## Tez3

Star Dragon said:


> David Bohm, Paul Cezanne and Creativity - F. David Peat
> .



Well written but not proof of anything. The author often starts sentences with 'I believe', which is a very good way of writing as he's expressing his views but is not stating they are facts. It's thoughtful but also it's an opinion so I wouldn't say it proves that 'chi/ki' exists as such.


----------



## Balrog

martialartstutor said:


> No resistance = no real technique. It's that simple.
> "Martial" means having to do with or suitable for war.
> And "art" means  skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. If you aren't learning something suitable for combat through repetition, you are learning how to dance and punch the air. Not apply techniques in a life or death situation. The community needs to be aware that pure taekwondo schools in our world today will not teach you the fundamental skills for self-defense and how to fight. Sure it may look good in movies, but in the ring, on the street, ect. It won't work. There may be some schools out there however, that offer taekwondo in addition to other martial arts. But a pure taekwondo school would not do that for you.


Wow.  Another bucket of BS about Taekwondo.

It never ceases to amaze me how people just love to get on YouTube, etc., and parade their ignorance for the world to see.  Quite obviously, they never bothered to ask a simple question:  if Taekwondo is so useless, why does the Korean army teach it to their soldiers?  I've seen those guys in action, and they are brutal.


----------



## drop bear

Balrog said:


> Wow.  Another bucket of BS about Taekwondo.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how people just love to get on YouTube, etc., and parade their ignorance for the world to see.  Quite obviously, they never bothered to ask a simple question:  if Taekwondo is so useless, why does the Korean army teach it to their soldiers?  I've seen those guys in action, and they are brutal.



Because they have guns and so don't really need to fight anybody.

Sorry but its in the army is not really a good argument.


----------



## TrueJim

drop bear said:


> Because they have guns and so don't really need to fight anybody.
> 
> Sorry but its in the army is not really a good argument.



I'm sorry, but that's really just not true. 

*(a) *I don't think there's any army anywhere that doesn't teach both _armed _and _unarmed _combat, so to say that an army also teaches _armed _combat doesn't in any way negate the teaching of unarmed combat. Your argument is a complete red herring.

You might as well have said something silly like, "The unarmed combat techniques that the U.S. teaches its troops is junk, because the U.S. Army also teaches its soldiers to shoot guns." The one has nothing to do with the other.

*(b)* When armies teach unarmed combat, of course they don't teach their soldiers things that they think will be ineffective. No country intentionally sends their young men and women off to die because of bad training, just like no army intentionally arms their troops with faulty weapons. If any army anywhere is teaching taekwondo, it's because they think that will help keep their soldiers alive.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Star Dragon said:


> David Bohm, Paul Cezanne and Creativity - F. David Peat


Try again, and this time with feeling.


----------



## drop bear

TrueJim said:


> I'm sorry, but that's really just not true.
> 
> *(a) *I don't think there's any army anywhere that doesn't teach both _armed _and _unarmed _combat, so to say that an army also teaches _armed _combat doesn't in any way negate the teaching of unarmed combat. Your argument is a complete red herring.
> 
> You might as well have said something silly like, "The unarmed combat techniques that the U.S. teaches its troops is junk, because the U.S. Army also teaches its soldiers to shoot guns." The one has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> *(b)* When armies teach unarmed combat, of course they don't teach their soldiers things that they think will be ineffective. No country intentionally sends their young men and women off to die because of bad training, just like no army intentionally arms their troops with faulty weapons. If any army anywhere is teaching taekwondo, it's because they think that will help keep their soldiers alive.



 sometimes it is to teach discipline fitness and aggression. 

But this.

The unarmed combat techniques that the U.S. teaches its troops is junk, because the U.S. Army also teaches its soldiers to shoot guns." 

This is the soldiers opinion on the subject.

MCMAP training not good?


----------



## TrueJim

drop bear said:


> This is the soldiers opinion on the subject.
> 
> MCMAP training not good?



First, as a brief aside, you're referencing a forum for *US Marine Corps*, so that forum doesn't even remotely purport to represent the opinions of the U.S. Army, which uses a different training program. More importantly, never call a Marine a "soldier" to his face. 







 That minor nit having been said...

USMC boot-camp is just 13 weeks long. The training that's being discussed in that forum is just the 13-week bare minimum of training. In that forum,* /u/Zulu_36* says as much himself: *"It's a basic course. There is training that adds depth that you can take when you get to the fleet and/or make rank."* All you're saying is that some Marines who take the 13-week course (which also includes many things besides just unarmed combat, including how to use a rifle, how to march, and how to shine your boots!) don't feel that the 13-week course provides them with enough unarmed combat training...and I don't think anybody anywhere would disagree that 13-weeks just isn't enough to become proficient in anything!

Thirdly, the example you've provided is a single anecdote of one Marine saying, "Hey, I heard some people say this training isn't very good..." The OP himself even admits that he hasn't taken the training himself yet. I'm sure we could just as easily find tons of Marines who say, "You know, for a 13-week intro, this course is pretty good."  The straws you're grasping at to try to support your argument could not be more slippery!


----------



## drop bear

TrueJim said:


> First, as a brief aside, you're referencing a forum for *US Marine Corps*, so that forum doesn't even remotely purport to represent the opinions of the U.S. Army, which uses a different training program. More importantly, never call a Marine a "soldier" to his face.



We don't have the whole marine ethos here. So it is not that big a deal.


----------



## drop bear

TrueJim said:


> USMC boot-camp is just 13 weeks long. The training that's being discussed in that forum is just the 13-week bare minimum of training. In that forum,* /u/Zulu_36* says as much himself: *"It's a basic course. There is training that adds depth that you can take when you get to the fleet and/or make rank."* All you're saying is that some Marines who take the 13-week course (which also includes many things besides just unarmed combat, including how to use a rifle, how to march, and how to shine your boots!) don't feel that the 13-week course provides them with enough unarmed combat training...and I don't think anybody anywhere would disagree that 13-weeks just isn't enough to become proficient in anything!



And so makes my original point.


----------



## TrueJim

drop bear said:


> And so makes my original point.



That doesn't even REMOTELY support your original point. 

Your original point was that taekwondo being taught to the South Korean Army doesn't imply that taekwondo is a useful combat art.

The evidence you provided was that one U.S. Marine somewhere posted in an online forum that he heard through the grapevine that some Marines don't think the 13-weeks of unarmed combat training they receive is sufficient.

My counter-argument was that even the U.S. Marines themselves agree that 13-weeks isn't enough.

...and then somehow, miraculously, you claim that that supports your original claim that taekwondo isn't a useful combat art.

I cannot fathom how you could possibly believe that your original point has been supported in any way.


----------



## Tez3

Gurkha's do TKD. Enough said.


----------



## Ruhaani

Its all about the SAS!! [emoji2] 

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Ruhaani said:


> Its all about the SAS!! [emoji2]
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk




The SAS don't train TKD or any martial art. They do their own thing...exceptionally well of course. However if you want perfection and the best fighters armed or unarmed you want the SBS, they can do everything the SAS can only in and on water as well.


----------



## drop bear

TrueJim said:


> That doesn't even REMOTELY support your original point.
> 
> Your original point was that taekwondo being taught to the South Korean Army doesn't imply that taekwondo is a useful combat art.
> 
> The evidence you provided was that one U.S. Marine somewhere posted in an online forum that he heard through the grapevine that some Marines don't think the 13-weeks of unarmed combat training they receive is sufficient.
> 
> My counter-argument was that even the U.S. Marines themselves agree that 13-weeks isn't enough.
> 
> ...and then somehow, miraculously, you claim that that supports your original claim that taekwondo isn't a useful combat art.
> 
> I cannot fathom how you could possibly believe that your original point has been supported in any way.



If 13 weeks of combat training is not sufficient. Then their combat training is

Wait for it......

Not sufficient.

Cos they have guns.


----------



## Ruhaani

Yeh I know they dont do any tkd but thought id throw that in lol sbs yeh even better.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## TrueJim

drop bear said:


> If 13 weeks of combat training is not sufficient. Then their combat training is
> 
> Wait for it......
> 
> Not sufficient.



So let me get this straight...your argument against taekwondo being meaningful for Korean Army training is that that the US Marines boot-camp is only 13 weeks? Those two things have nothing to do with each other. You still haven't supported your claim in even the tiniest way.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I haven't seen any sources about hand to hand combat in the military so I thought I would share this one.

"Despite technological advances, hand-to-hand combat remains a persistent aspect of the contemporary operating environment (Wojadkowski, 2007). To develop a more detailed understanding on the use of hand-to-hand combat, the researcher analyzed 30 Post-Combat Surveys administered to US Army Soldiers from 2004 to 2008 after their return from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. 216 out of 1,226 Soldiers (19.0%) reported using hand-to-hand combat skills in at least one encounter. The Soldiers descriptions indicated that hand-to-hand combat occurred in a variety of tactical situations and that the most common skills employed were grappling techniques (72.6%), followed by the use of weapons (e.g., rifle butt strikes; 21.9%); with striking as the least reported skill (i.e., punching and kicking; 5.5%). These results further reinforce that hand-to-hand combat remains a relevant demand and the US Army should continue such training with an emphasis on grappling skills practiced across a variety of performance settings." Source


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> Because they have guns and so don't really need to fight anybody.
> 
> Sorry but its in the army is not really a good argument.



Well, its in MMA too.....

Which is this forums favorite place to check viability


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> Well, its in MMA too.....
> 
> Which is this forums favorite place to check viability



I am not really against tkd but the army argument isn't all that valid.


----------



## Gnarlie

I agree Drop Bear, even though I disagree with the OP, and agree with your point but for slightly different reasons. Those being that what is taught in the Korean military is totally different to what is taught in a typical Taekwondojang. Civilian and military martial arts are not the same. This argument crops up a lot with Krav Maga - there are distinct civilian and military versions of the art, but civilians who practice it seem keen to claim military roots, although the teeth are filed off the civilian version.

Not to say that military Taekwondo is not effective, on the contrary - there's a level of conditioning and vital / weak point exploitation that is at the least on par with any other military system. But to claim effectiveness of civilian martial arts because a different version of them is used in the military is, on balance, a flawed argument.


----------



## Earl Weiss

JowGaWolf said:


> I haven't seen any sources about hand to hand combat in the military so I thought I would share this one.
> 
> "Despite technological advances, hand-to-hand combat remains a persistent aspect of the contemporary operating environment (Wojadkowski, 2007). To develop a more detailed understanding on the use of hand-to-hand combat, the researcher analyzed 30 Post-Combat Surveys administered to US Army Soldiers from 2004 to 2008 after their return from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. 216 out of 1,226 Soldiers (19.0%) reported using hand-to-hand combat skills in at least one encounter. The Soldiers descriptions indicated that hand-to-hand combat occurred in a variety of tactical situations and that the most common skills employed were grappling techniques (72.6%), followed by the use of weapons (e.g., rifle butt strikes; 21.9%); with striking as the least reported skill (i.e., punching and kicking; 5.5%). These results further reinforce that hand-to-hand combat remains a relevant demand and the US Army should continue such training with an emphasis on grappling skills practiced across a variety of performance settings." Source



Really has little to do with whether empty hand (Note: It's about "Hand to Hand" ) skills are likely needed or useful  for combat.  (I define combat as enemy combatants engaging)  Only 30 of the 216 classified the encounter as Close Combat. The others were unspecified, prisoner or riot control or checkpoint duty.   I think it said 44 (the 21.9% figure) of the 216 ) Across all categories involved a weapon.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Earl Weiss said:


> Really has little to do with whether empty hand (Note: It's about "Hand to Hand" ) skills are likely needed or useful  for combat.  (I define combat as enemy combatants engaging)  Only 30 of the 216 classified the encounter as Close Combat. The others were unspecified, prisoner or riot control or checkpoint duty.   I think it said 44 (the 21.9% figure) of the 216 ) Across all categories involved a weapon.


Not quite sure what you don't like about the research but the military clearly thinks learning how to fight with your hands and non-firing weapons is clearly of value.
The report literally gave the reasons for having hand to hand combat training (including empty hand techniques) in the military.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I haven't seen any sources about hand to hand combat in the military so I thought I would share this one.
> 
> "Despite technological advances, hand-to-hand combat remains a persistent aspect of the contemporary operating environment (Wojadkowski, 2007). To develop a more detailed understanding on the use of hand-to-hand combat, the researcher analyzed 30 Post-Combat Surveys administered to US Army Soldiers from 2004 to 2008 after their return from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. 216 out of 1,226 Soldiers (19.0%) reported using hand-to-hand combat skills in at least one encounter. The Soldiers descriptions indicated that hand-to-hand combat occurred in a variety of tactical situations and that the most common skills employed were grappling techniques (72.6%), followed by the use of weapons (e.g., rifle butt strikes; 21.9%); with striking as the least reported skill (i.e., punching and kicking; 5.5%). These results further reinforce that hand-to-hand combat remains a relevant demand and the US Army should continue such training with an emphasis on grappling skills practiced across a variety of performance settings." Source


That is an interesting study.  Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Not quite sure what you don't like about the research but the military clearly thinks learning how to fight with your hands and non-firing weapons is clearly of value.
> The report literally gave the reasons for having hand to hand combat training (including empty hand techniques) in the military.


Read it quickly, but I thought they defined weapons as rifle butt strikes and the like.  Is that what you mean, or are you thinking knives and such?

Oops.  Never mind.   Found the table where weapons were broken out.   Rifle butt strikes was the most common, but baton was second, then muzzle strikes.

Most used grappling technique was the takedown .followed by an armbar.     Someone should tell these guys that being on the ground is a bad idear.  This study provides some evidence that is contrary to some peoples prevailing opinions.  I'm looking forward to hearing whether or how it is rejected as not being relevant to hand to hand encounters in non combat assaults.


----------



## kuniggety

MCMAP is much more robust than the US Army combatives. Both rely on a high degree of individual motivation. They're both roughly based on the Gracie combatives program. This is in line with the study of most hand to hang situations being in grappling range as they're CQC (close quarter combat).


----------



## drop bear

kuniggety said:


> MCMAP is much more robust than the US Army combatives. Both rely on a high degree of individual motivation. They're both roughly based on the Gracie combatives program. This is in line with the study of most hand to hang situations being in grappling range as they're CQC (close quarter combat).



Actually i like the combataves stuff fom the videos i have seen.


----------



## drop bear

TrueJim said:


> So let me get this straight...your argument against taekwondo being meaningful for Korean Army training is that that the US Marines boot-camp is only 13 weeks? Those two things have nothing to do with each other. You still haven't supported your claim in even the tiniest way.



Yes. Mabye if i put this the other way.  13 weeks of mcmap is meaningful. Because the marines do it. That is all they need to be bad asses or something. 

That is your claim?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Read it quickly, but I thought they defined weapons as rifle butt strikes and the like.  Is that what you mean, or are you thinking knives and such?
> 
> Oops.  Never mind.   Found the table where weapons were broken out.   Rifle butt strikes was the most common, but baton was second, then muzzle strikes.
> 
> Most used grappling technique was the takedown .followed by an armbar.     Someone should tell these guys that being on the ground is a bad idear.  This study provides some evidence that is contrary to some peoples prevailing opinions.  I'm looking forward to hearing whether or how it is rejected as not being relevant to hand to hand encounters in non combat assaults.


It was a good read to me and more detailed than I thought it would have been.   It reminds me of a history show that about the development and use of jets during Vietnam covering the topic of dog fighting. The U.S. had a lot of jet airplanes shot down in dog fights because the U.S. jet airplane were built without the ability to fire high caliber rounds which are useful for when the plan is too close to fire the missiles.  The military originally though that high caliber rounds were obsolete in the age of jets.  War proved them wrong about missiles being the only thing that they need on planes.  Even now modern military f-16 jet still use caliber rounds in the form of a M-61A1 20mm multibarrel cannon with 500 rounds, and not depend totally on missiles.  It's like most stuff in life.  No matter how advance we get with things the basics are still useful.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> It was a good read to me and more detailed than I thought it would have been.   It reminds me of a history show that about the development and use of jets during Vietnam covering the topic of dog fighting. The U.S. had a lot of jet airplanes shot down in dog fights because the U.S. jet airplane were built without the ability to fire high caliber rounds which are useful for when the plan is too close to fire the missiles.  The military originally though that high caliber rounds were obsolete in the age of jets.  War proved them wrong about missiles being the only thing that they need on planes.  Even now modern military f-16 jet still use caliber rounds in the form of a M-61A1 20mm multibarrel cannon with 500 rounds, and not depend totally on missiles.  It's like most stuff in life.  No matter how advance we get with things the basics are still useful.


I was an ammo troop on an f16 airbase in Germany.   I know them well.  The f4 we used in Vietnam was not very maneuverable, either.   The A10 came out of that very need you're describing. Highly maneuverable and capable of firing 30mm rounds.


----------



## kuniggety

The cannons on 4th gen+ fighters (i.e. F-15/16) really are just a holdover. There is no "being too close" with an AIM-9. The cannons are typically used for strafing as you might as well put them to use shooting something on the ground since it's not going to be used for air-to-air combat. A fighter can use it on a mobility aircraft but they'll never shoot at another fighter with them.


----------



## Earl Weiss

JowGaWolf said:


> Not quite sure what you don't like about the research but the military clearly thinks learning how to fight with your hands and non-firing weapons is clearly of value.
> The report literally gave the reasons for having hand to hand combat training (including empty hand techniques) in the military.



IMO the issue was the need for TMA   EMPTY hand training  and how it would work in a combat encounter.   This study involved a large proportion of non combat encounters and a large portion of all encounters involved the use of a weapon, (Hand to Hand but not empty hand.) predominently rifles used in Butt Strokes and muzzle strokes.    IMO it did nothing to address the issue of the efficacy of  a TMA or as the topic heading addresses non weapon taining for combat.

Out of the total encounters only 30 were specified as close quarter combat and something like 40 overall involved the use of a weapon so few if any may have been weaponless close combat.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Earl Weiss said:


> IMO the issue was the need for TMA   EMPTY hand training  and how it would work in a combat encounter.   This study involved a large proportion of non combat encounters and a large portion of all encounters involved the use of a weapon, (Hand to Hand but not empty hand.) predominently rifles used in Butt Strokes and muzzle strokes.    IMO it did nothing to address the issue of the efficacy of  a TMA or as the topic heading addresses non weapon taining for combat.
> 
> Out of the total encounters only 30 were specified as close quarter combat and something like 40 overall involved the use of a weapon so few if any may have been weaponless close combat.


 Here's the problem your statement is presenting for me. The majority of TMAs are not "empty-hand only" fighting systems. The fact that the military has come to the conclusion that it's still important to have hand-to-hand combat training even though there were only 30 specified as close quarter combat, gives a person an idea of just how valuable the military thinks it is.   TMAs have both mental and physical benefits as reported in the Report.



Earl Weiss said:


> IMO it did nothing to address the issue of the efficacy of a TMA or as the topic heading addresses non weapon taining for combat.


 Tell me what you consider as effectiveness.


----------



## Earl Weiss

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's the problem your statement is presenting for me. The majority of TMAs are not "empty-hand only" fighting systems. The fact that the military has come to the conclusion that it's still important to have hand-to-hand combat training even though there were only 30 specified as close quarter combat, gives a person an idea of just how valuable the military thinks it is.   TMAs have both mental and physical benefits as reported in the Report.
> 
> Tell me what you consider as effectiveness.



Again, the topic is "TKD doesn't work on someone skilled" TKD is a weaponless system.  My bad in that I was referring only to TMA weaponless systems.  

No argument that the Military (as stated in the study) finds other benefits in weaponless training including, mental toughness, esprit de corps, aggression development and the like.   However, I think it is way past the time to debunk claim by any art that it's empty hand system is "Military Approved"  "Combat tested etc." Since the beginning of time armies were equipped with weapons. Anecdotal evidence such as Nam Tae Hi's encounter notwithstanding, no one had armies without weapons. (At least not for very long) . It's like the "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" maxim.   Don't bring empty hands to a weapon fight.

There was a quote by a special forces guy which went something like "If you find yourself in an empty hand encounter things have gone horribly wrong".


----------



## Tez3

Earl Weiss said:


> Don't bring empty hands to a weapon fight.



Machine gun tripods and sandbags (tied) are acceptable though.

 ( On a totally unrelated note, the medic lass mentioned at the end of the article is someone I know from where I used to work and she is absolutely brilliant, among others, she saved a female Afghan baby's life after she was shot in an incident with afghan troops who were being I suppose you could call 'enthusiastic' in laying down fire against insurgents. The medics go out on patrol ( including the female medics) on the frontline and often came under fire. There is a You Tube video of the incident because the unit she was with was being filmed for UK television )

Afghanistan: Gurkha honoured for lone fight against Taliban

There's this too, luckily not that common but always handy to know how to fight with a bayonet, the British army still teaches it's soldiers this.

BBC NEWS | UK | Military cross for bayonet charge


----------



## JowGaWolf

Earl Weiss said:


> Again, the topic is "TKD doesn't work on someone skilled" TKD is a weaponless system.  My bad in that I was referring only to TMA weaponless systems.
> 
> No argument that the Military (as stated in the study) finds other benefits in weaponless training including, mental toughness, esprit de corps, aggression development and the like.   However, I think it is way past the time to debunk claim by any art that it's empty hand system is "Military Approved"  "Combat tested etc." Since the beginning of time armies were equipped with weapons. Anecdotal evidence such as Nam Tae Hi's encounter notwithstanding, no one had armies without weapons. (At least not for very long) . It's like the "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" maxim.   Don't bring empty hands to a weapon fight.
> 
> There was a quote by a special forces guy which went something like "If you find yourself in an empty hand encounter things have gone horribly wrong".


thanks that clears things up for me.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

kuniggety said:


> MCMAP is much more robust than the US Army combatives. Both rely on a high degree of individual motivation. They're both roughly based on the Gracie combatives program. This is in line with the study of most hand to hang situations being in grappling range as they're CQC (close quarter combat).



I wouldn't say that MCMAP is based on the Gracie Combatives Program as that would not be true.  While MCMAP does address grappling and has some Jiujitsu it also has wrestling, sambo, etc. in it as well.  It is a very diverse approach with a heavy emphasis on tools/weapons.

Marine Corps Martial Arts Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## kuniggety

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I wouldn't say that MCMAP is based on the Gracie Combatives Program as that would not be true.  While MCMAP does address grappling and has some Jiujitsu it also has wrestling, sambo, etc. in it as well.  It is a very diverse approach with a heavy emphasis on tools/weapons.
> 
> Marine Corps Martial Arts Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It is diversified but it was one of the main sources they first went to when revamping the curriculum to what it is today. The techniques in the system are pretty limited and part of the MCMAP program is for folks to get belts in other martial arts in order to get the higher belts in MCMAP. JJ is very common for this.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yeah it certainly has an influenced but saying it is based on it would be incorrect.  MCMAP has a lot of influence from a lot of systems which shows up when you watch then train.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Army Combatives well that is a different story.  It was heavily based on Brazilian Jiujitsu though through the years they are rounding it out to address soldiers needs.


----------



## RTKDCMB

What is this thread about again? I forget.


----------



## Earl Weiss

TKD as basically translated = Foot, Fist, Way. So, to say TKD doesn't work on someone skilled is equivalent to saying punches and kicks don't work on someone skilled.   If nothing else, the UFC has shown us (Yet gain last night with the Rhonda Rousey Fight)   that Striking works. .   Of course grappling has been used to defeat strikers, and grapplers have won with strikes.   So as an old saying goes, it's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Earl Weiss said:


> TKD as basically translated = Foot, Fist, Way. So, to say TKD doesn't work on someone skilled is equivalent to saying punches and kicks don't work on someone skilled.   If nothing else, the UFC has shown us (Yet gain last night with the Rhonda Rousey Fight)   that Striking works. .   Of course grappling has been used to defeat strikers, and grapplers have won with strikes.   So as an old saying goes, it's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog.


Well, you could certainly argue (as I think the OP is doing) that the particular approach to punches and kicks that TKD teaches is flawed and ineffective. Personally I think that argument is way, way overstated. Even if you prefer the approach of other striking arts, I think it's pretty clear that there are plenty of TKD practitioners out there who can effectively use their art in a fight against a skilled opponent.


----------



## Gnarlie

Have to interject here to query what we mean by skilled opponent. I won a fight yesterday using Taekwondo against a highly skilled opponent. Highly skilled in Taekwondo. I dislike the implication behind the thread title that a Taekwondo exponent cannot be a skilled person.

I would like to maybe retitle the thread as your Taekwondo does not work if you are an unskilled person.



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Master Dan

Steve said:


> I was an ammo troop on an f16 airbase in Germany.   I know them well.  The f4 we used in Vietnam was not very maneuverable, either.   The A10 came out of that very need you're describing. Highly maneuverable and capable of firing 30mm rounds.


I installed the weapons scoring system for the bombing range in Boardman Oregon. I worked as close as 1,000 feet from the target. The F-16 by the time I heard them I would have been dead rolling up gravel on the ground as they flew past. I had to fight to change the engineering on foundations due to the amount of torque on the towers as they flew over. Jets came from bases as well as oh shore carriers. I was really impressed with the A-10 in weather coming down through cloud cover iced up and snapping a roll and going right back a lot of power. The flight pattern had not changed so after the drop they would hard turn towards the tower I was working on. Sure they got a laugh seeing me run at times


----------



## RTKDCMB

Earl Weiss said:


> So as an old saying goes, it's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog.


I wouldn't say that to Rhonda or Holly though.


----------



## Balrog

drop bear said:


> Because they have guns and so don't really need to fight anybody.
> 
> Sorry but its in the army is not really a good argument.


Really?  So you simply dismiss out of hand any and all hand-to-hand combat training of any kind taught in any branch of the military?
That's nice to know.

They all have guns, yes.  What happens when the guns run out of bullets or break?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Balrog said:


> Really?  So you simply dismiss out of hand any and all hand-to-hand combat training of any kind taught in any branch of the military?
> That's nice to know.



Dramatic posturing aside... yes. Hand to hand combat as taught in the military is extremely superficial and perfunctory.
The rank of black belt in the Marine Corps combatives program requires less than 200 hours of training. If I said we awarded a black belt in our school to someone with 200 hours of training, the screams of "McDojang!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" would echo from the hills (for the record, the average time to 1st Dan in our school is 6-8 years).
That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile training. But it's far from being a major factor in their training.



Balrog said:


> They all have guns, yes.  What happens when the guns run out of bullets or break?



Umm.... they fall back to the rear and disengage? They say "Hey... throw me a mag?" They cover and wait? They clear the jammed gun and go back to shooting? 

I'm going to guess "They throw down their useless firearm and charge the enemy bare handed" is far from a common response.

I'm guessing you're not a shooter. I personally fire 200-300 rounds per week. Sue shoots 100-200. We do skip weeks (like when we're out of the country...) so we probably shoot about 15,000 rounds per year. Yes, a gun will occasionally jam - which takes a couple seconds to clear - but they don't break. The closest to broken I've ever seen was a failure to eject a shell that expanded excessively. Took about 30 seconds to remove the casing and confirm that there was no damage to the gun, drop the slide, and continue. 
An actually broken gun is a phenomenally unlikely occurrence.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Balrog said:


> Really? So you simply dismiss out of hand any and all hand-to-hand combat training of any kind taught in any branch of the military?


Dirty Dog covered most of it, but I will clarify something that I suspect drop bear meant (and that I agree with if so). Just because a certain course of hand-to-hand combat is taught in the military doesn't mean that it's bad or useless. It just doesn't necessarily mean that it's especially amazing or deadly either. Unarmed combat isn't a primary skill set for a modern soldier. It's not even a secondary skillset. It's maybe a tertiary skillset., intended as much for developing fighting spirit as for those worst case scenarios where a soldier has to fight unarmed on the battlefield.


----------



## drop bear

Balrog said:


> Really?  So you simply dismiss out of hand any and all hand-to-hand combat training of any kind taught in any branch of the military?
> That's nice to know.
> 
> They all have guns, yes.  What happens when the guns run out of bullets or break?



you do understand there is a lot of guns in the military?


----------



## WaterGal

Remember, too, that your average modern soldier is not out fighting on a battlefield with al Qaeda dudes anyway. Something like 3/4 of the US Army are in support MOSes and will spend their time fixing tanks, taking inventory, answering phones, doing IT, giving people shots, etc.  They don't need to be amazingly deadly with their bare hands.


----------



## Tez3

WaterGal said:


> Remember, too, that your average modern soldier is not out fighting on a battlefield with al Qaeda dudes anyway. Something like 3/4 of the US Army are in support MOSes and will spend their time fixing tanks, taking inventory, answering phones, doing IT, giving people shots, etc.  They don't need to be amazingly deadly with their bare hands.



All our soldiers receive the same training whether it's weapons, bayonets ( yes we still do that) etc. It doesn't matter what their trade is they are soldiers first and foremost. There's few of ours that are not out on the ground. All are combat troops.


----------



## Steve

So the airborne troops and infantry soldiers all also cook, work in the motor pool, give shots, load munitions, and work as civil engineers and do everything else?   Seems like a horribly inefficient way to run an army to train all the soldiers the same.  


Tez3 said:


> All our soldiers receive the same training whether it's weapons, bayonets ( yes we still do that) etc. It doesn't matter what their trade is they are soldiers first and foremost. There's few of ours that are not out on the ground. All are combat troops.


 troo


----------



## Tiger84

martialartstutor said:


> No resistance = no real technique. It's that simple.
> "Martial" means having to do with or suitable for war.
> And "art" means  skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. If you aren't learning something suitable for combat through repetition, you are learning how to dance and punch the air. Not apply techniques in a life or death situation. The community needs to be aware that pure taekwondo schools in our world today will not teach you the fundamental skills for self-defense and how to fight. Sure it may look good in movies, but in the ring, on the street, ect. It won't work. There may be some schools out there however, that offer taekwondo in addition to other martial arts. But a pure taekwondo school would not do that for you.


Oooopppp... They gone and said it. Nice observations boys! Good luck


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tiger84 said:


> Oooopppp... They gone and said it. Nice observations boys! Good luck


Not this video again.


----------



## Balrog

drop bear said:


> you do understand there is a lot of guns in the military?


I understand that there ARE a lot of guns in the military.  I also understand that there is only one gun in my hand at the moment.  If it runs out of ammo or jams, I might be able to secure another.  I might not.  And if I am in close range combat and have an opportunity to jump on a bad guy, I bloody well better know how to fight and disarm him.


----------



## drop bear

Balrog said:


> I understand that there ARE a lot of guns in the military.  I also understand that there is only one gun in my hand at the moment.  If it runs out of ammo or jams, I might be able to secure another.  I might not.  And if I am in close range combat and have an opportunity to jump on a bad guy, I bloody well better know how to fight and disarm him.



Soldiers don't really wander into combat on their own. They have other guys with guns to deal with that issue.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Intermission time
TKD vs skilled fighters.  Brought to you by the makers of Keep Your Hands UP


----------



## JowGaWolf

Looks like TKD vs a skilled fighter here


----------



## Dirty Dog

Balrog said:


> I understand that there ARE a lot of guns in the military.  I also understand that there is only one gun in my hand at the moment.  If it runs out of ammo or jams, I might be able to secure another.  I might not.  And if I am in close range combat and have an opportunity to jump on a bad guy, I bloody well better know how to fight and disarm him.



You seem to think that soldiers get a lot more unarmed combat training than they actually do.
Think "a few hours" and you'll be on track.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Intermission time
> TKD vs skilled fighters.  Brought to you by the makers of Keep Your Hands UP



Ben 10 from Australia is an ex tkd guy.  And he is legitimately good.  Ok he also comes out of intergrated. But still....


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> You seem to think that soldiers get a lot more unarmed combat training than they actually do.
> Think "a few hours" and you'll be on track.


From what I've found in old hand to hand combat training videos, the hand to hand is very practical and doesn't take long to learn or master the techniques.  It's nowhere near as complex as most martial arts.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Balrog said:


> I understand that there ARE a lot of guns in the military.  I also understand that there is only one gun in my hand at the moment.  If it runs out of ammo or jams, I might be able to secure another.  I might not.  And if I am in close range combat and have an opportunity to jump on a bad guy, I bloody well better know how to fight and disarm him.




How about not jumping on them? You have lost your knife as well? There are no other weapons of opportunity availble?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Ben 10 from Australia is an ex tkd guy.


Who occasionally transforms into various aliens.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Earl Weiss said:


> How about not jumping on them? You have lost your knife as well? There are no other weapons of opportunity availble?


In my best Major Payne voice:  Lost your weapon? That's why God gave you an enemy so that you can take his weapon and use it on him.


----------



## Gnarlie

Off topic,but I had to post an image because I use Tapatalk, I visit most days to read, and I am sick of seeing the OP's faces on the timeline page. So here is a picture of a goat. No offense, OP.


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> You seem to think that soldiers get a lot more unarmed combat training than they actually do.
> Think "a few hours" and you'll be on track.



Most of our troops can either already fight with fists etc or learn pretty quickly after going out 'down town'. There is very little hand to hand or unarmed combat taught.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Even if we were to exclude the fact that different schools train in different manners, which could produce different calibers of martial artists, there are other factors to consider when looking at an art such as Taekwondo.  

One of which, being that the art is young and has evolved in many different ways over the past ~80 years.  Why bother teaching it to the ROK army, national police, or the U.S. military stationed in South Korea during the Vietnam War if were not effective?  During the Korean War, many of the pioneers and their senior black belts served in the military, many of which helped to develop Taekwondo's reputation as "a Killing Art."  

For instance Nam Tae Hi, an early member of the Chung Do Kwan, co-founder of the Oh Do Kwan, was well known during the Korean War for his use of Taekwondo in battle.  The battle of Yongmun Mountain comes to mind.  

I'm not going to sit here and belittle the different "styles" of Taekwondo.  It has evolved and fragmented along the way emphasizing Japanese martial arts kata and techniques, Korean martial traditions, Korean nationalism, sport competition, innovating techniques to better serve the sport, etc.  Depending on which iteration of Taekwondo you pull lineage, your particular school may emphasize different aspects of the art.  Much like the late night NASKA competitions televised on ESPN look dramatically different than a traditional Karate dojo that emphasizes traditional kata and bunkai training over the flash of rhythmic dance and gymnastic feats.  I think you can extrapolate which one of the two would be more effective on the street from strictly a technique perspective.  

My KJN has mixed feelings about the evolution of TKD.  It is one of the most popular martial arts in the world, but with its popularity, the primary focus of the art has shifted to fit the goals of the masses, and that goal is different than it was in the 1950's and 1960's.  

I have learned TKD from someone that has effectively used the art in war, self-defense, and sport competition.  I know that it has its place in all three situations.


----------



## Tames D

Dirty Dog said:


> You seem to think that soldiers get a lot more unarmed combat training than they actually do.
> Think "a few hours" and you'll be on track.


I'm curious what your Military background is.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tames D said:


> I'm curious what your Military background is.



Doesn't really matter, since it's really easy for anyone interested to check wiki and see that a 1st Degree BB in the Marine Corps combatives program is awarded after 40 hours of training. 40. Hours.
40.

The military spends very little time on unarmed combat. And there's no reason why that should change.


----------



## Tames D

Dirty Dog said:


> Doesn't really matter, since it's really easy for anyone interested to check wiki and see that a 1st Degree BB in the Marine Corps combatives program is awarded after 40 hours of training. 40. Hours.
> 40.
> 
> The military spends very little time on unarmed combat. And there's no reason why that should change.


I think it does matter. You don't know what you are talking about. What is you're marine corp  background? I'll ask again.
Still curious what your military background is.


----------



## drop bear

Tames D said:


> I think it does matter. You don't know what you are talking about. What is you're marine corp  background? I'll ask again.
> Still curious what your military background is.



OK so if I can pull the source off the internet.

Marine Corps Martial Arts Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then that is kind of a done deal. If a marine wants to say that is wrong. You need either a really good reason why it is wrong or a better source that contradicts it.

If you are going down the path that only marines could understand mc map. Or that it is super different to any other system out there and so trains elite fighters in 40 hours then you may need more than being a marine to back that up.


----------



## drop bear

OK the poster of the video snuck some capo in there as well.


----------



## Tames D

drop bear said:


> OK so if I can pull the source off the internet.
> 
> Marine Corps Martial Arts Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Then that is kind of a done deal. If a marine wants to say that is wrong. You need either a really good reason why it is wrong or a better source that contradicts it.
> 
> If you are going down the path that only marines could understand mc map. Or that it is super different to any other system out there and so trains elite fighters in 40 hours then you may need more than being a marine to back that up.


Wikipedia. Really???


----------



## drop bear

Tames D said:


> Wikipedia. Really???



Vs what?


----------



## Tames D

drop bear said:


> Vs what?


LOL


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tames D said:


> I think it does matter. You don't know what you are talking about. What is you're marine corp  background? I'll ask again.
> Still curious what your military background is.



I grew up an Air Force brat. When I graduated HS I tried to enlist and was told that I could not because with one eye I wouldn't be able to fight or shoot.
Still doesn't matter. There's no Super Secret Squirrel Eyes Only training involved here. We're talking about generic military unarmed combat training. 

Are you seriously about to claim that the average recruit gets more than a few hours of training in unarmed combat?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tames D said:


> Wikipedia. Really???


This appears to be the current requirements for MCMAP training, straight from the horses mouth.

All Marines must achieve at least tan belt, which requires 27.5 hours of supervised instruction. To reach black belt would require a minimum of 104.65 hours of supervised instruction. (I say minimum, because each rank above tan also requires "sustainment hours", which I presume is time spent periodically reviewing the material for that rank. I suspect that most folks who get to black belt will have had to put in some sustainment hours for their previous ranks.)

The MCMAP does include armed as well as unarmed material. If we have any current Marines on the board, perhaps they can tell us what percentage of those hours are spent doing unarmed work.

Anyway, the total time spent training unarmed combat does not appear to be very high.

Note - from my own experience in the National Guard 30 years ago, we had exactly zero unarmed combat training (at least for my MOS). We did  have 6 hours of bayonet training mandated for basic training. As I recall, we spent most of the time learning how to get into formation for training and then performing a few basic strikes on command.


----------



## Tames D

Dirty Dog said:


> I grew up an Air Force brat. When I graduated HS I tried to enlist and was told that I could not because with one eye I wouldn't be able to fight or shoot.
> Still doesn't matter. There's no Super Secret Squirrel Eyes Only training involved here. We're talking about generic military unarmed combat training.
> 
> Are you seriously about to claim that the average recruit gets more than a few hours of training in unarmed combat?


Air force brat? i knew you didnt have military experience. But you talk a good game. LOL


----------



## Drose427

Considering the facts that:


There are records of Korean soldiers using traditional TKD back in the day successfully against other trained soldiers
Scores of fighters in various settings using various styles TKD as their base in the ring(and many, many more using various parts of tkd)*
TKD is listed as one of the arts MCMAP draws its technique from in both wikipedia and the flipping handbook

 TKD's effectiveness is spoken for

*: The whole "Well they still have to take in other stuff" argument is irrelevant. Even Muay Thai fighters have to take more boxing and change how they fight for international kickboxing compared to standard Muay Thai rules. Every style on the planet has to adapt to a new environment when taken out of its usual one


----------



## drop bear

Tames D said:


> Air force brat? i knew you didnt have military experience. But you talk a good game. LOL



40 hours isnt really counted as experience.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tames D said:


> Air force brat? i knew you didnt have military experience. But you talk a good game. LOL



See, now you're just being silly. Have fun.


----------



## Prototype

It's not neccesarily an either or question. The one technique I used in a real fight was the good old hip throw, which is found in both Judo and TKD. So there you go.


----------

