# The effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do in self defense...



## Littledragon

*The effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do in self defense...* 

I have been doing Tae Kwon Do for over 10 years. As I have recently began developing a mass interest in Mixed Martial Arts/ Vale-Tudo/ Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu I have questioned how effective Tae Kwon Do is for self defense. As the sport aspect has developed a dramatically high level of mass popularity world wide since the WTF was created and USTU and other international TKD organizations, TKD has been highly popularized as a sport as it was an official Olypmic sport in 2000. I train with one of the top teams in the United States for Olympic Style Tae Kwon Do and have came to realize that it is now more of a sport than an art of self-defense. The whole emphasis on training is for the sport. What happens when you get in a street situation and you get tackled to the ground or jumped by 3 guys, how will the sport aspect be applyed sucesfully in self-defense?

As World Champions, National Champions are current at my school I can't help to think that they are very good at the SPORT but they don't have the right knowledge and tools to apply effecitvely in a street self-defense situation.

What are your opinions about Olympic Tae Kwon Do as an art of self-defense?


----------



## clfsean

Littledragon said:
			
		

> *The effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do in self defense...*
> 
> As World Champions, National Champions are current at my school I can't help to think that they are very good at the SPORT but they don't have the right knowledge and tools to apply effecitvely in a street self-defense situation.
> 
> What are your opinions about Olympic Tae Kwon Do as an art of self-defense?


Ask one to step outside & have at it. Tell him you don't think he could fight his way out of wet paper bag. If you win, you're right. If you get your head taken off, maybe you weren't. You gotta remember that just because it's an Olympic sport, it doesn't mean it they can't hurt you. Boxing is also an Olympic sport, just like Greco-Roman wrestling. Would you try that with one of them?

I personally don't see a lot of SD in TKD anymore. When I studied it back in the 80's & into the 90's (not so much), there was still plenty of good butt stomping. Now though it's a sport. That doesn't mean it can't be applied as a SD mechanism, but it's not the focus of it.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Welcome to Martial Talk. The problem with sport training in general is that you are training like VS like and they are not training for effectiveness against cheating. I was training in a TKD school once and one of the junior black belts was besting me with his kicks so I naturaly rushed him. We both went to the ground and he was furious. He kept yelling that, " That is how people get hurt!" and I'm like, "Yeah, that is how people get hurt." :asian: 
Sean


----------



## Littledragon

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Welcome to Martial Talk. The problem with sport training in general is that you are training like VS like and they are not training for effectiveness against cheating. I was training in a TKD school once and one of the junior black belts was besting me with his kicks so I naturaly rushed him. We both went to the ground and he was furious. He kept yelling that, " That is how people get hurt!" and I'm like, "Yeah, that is how people get hurt." :asian:
> Sean


Thank you for the welcome. I totally agree with you 100%. I always think when I watch the National Champions train what would happen if I took them to the ground and used Gracie Jiu-Jitsu? There kicks wouldn't work.

Tae Kwon Do is great for the kicks and I believe you should know some sort of kicks that TKD has to be a good fighter because like I said to be the best martial artist and fighter you can not be one dimentional.


----------



## glad2bhere

I've said this before and I will say it again. When you cross sport with SD you get either really bad sport or really bad SD. You are discussing things that are mutually exclusive. By definition a sport is intended to promote competition so that a person has sufficient time and opportunity to demonstrate prowess. Anything that cuts the process short un-duly is considered a foul. In SD exactly the opposite is true. Anything that prolongs the confrontation is considered bad form. 

One other thing and then I'll shut-up. Most of what people call fights are really NOT fights. A push, a shove, punches and wrestling around on the ground until someone "gives" is not a fight. Its a challenge, not unlike two animals tussling around a bit to show who the "alpha" is. A fight is when the luckier person is the one who gets to go to the hospital. A fight is blind fury and no longer caring what happens to whom or what the consequences might be. Fights include baseball bats, screw drivers and murderous intent.  I wouldn't make such a big thing about this all except that folks on these nets speak about SD in such superficial terms I begin to wonder what your basis for comparisons might be. But lets all save ourselves some time. Take yer butt in both hands and head to the local crack house. Tell the guys there that you've come by to take their S*** from them and then proceed to tell them what their mothers do for a living. Except for your hospital bills, its a completely free opportunity to see your Olympic TKD as SD.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Littledragon

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> I've said this before and I will say it again. When you cross sport with SD you get either really bad sport or really bad SD. You are discussing things that are mutually exclusive. By definition a sport is intended to promote competition so that a person has sufficient time and opportunity to demonstrate prowess. Anything that cuts the process short un-duly is considered a foul. In SD exactly the opposite is true. Anything that prolongs the confrontation is considered bad form.
> 
> One other thing and then I'll shut-up. Most of what people call fights are really NOT fights. A push, a shove, punches and wrestling around on the ground until someone "gives" is not a fight. Its a challenge, not unlike two animals tussling around a bit to show who the "alpha" is. A fight is when the luckier person is the one who gets to go to the hospital. A fight is blind fury and no longer caring what happens to whom or what the consequences might be. Fights include baseball bats, screw drivers and murderous intent. I wouldn't make such a big thing about this all except that folks on these nets speak about SD in such superficial terms I begin to wonder what your basis for comparisons might be. But lets all save ourselves some time. Take yer butt in both hands and head to the local crack house. Tell the guys there that you've come by to take their S*** from them and then proceed to tell them what their mothers do for a living. Except for your hospital bills, its a completely free opportunity to see your Olympic TKD as SD. FWIW.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Bruce


Very well said. I highly respect your opinion there. One last question, do you think Sport TKD has any benefits for self-defense?

~No one will ever master martial arts, we are all students.~

-Tarek (16)


----------



## SmellyMonkey

Herein lies the great weakness of martial arts that train only with kata.  Because the techniques they teach cannot be performed safely in a sparring match or sporting competition, they can only be taught by repetitive drilling on a cooperative partner.  Such kata training never develops the attributes that are required to accompany the technique if the fighter is to successfully apply it under combat conditions.  In other words, kata simply builds technique, not attributes.  This imbalance is the great failing of the traditional martial arts and one that has been readily exposed in MMA [Mixed Martial Arts] combat.  Combat sports, on the other hand, allow the students to apply their safe techniques at full power and thus they strongly develop the essential attributes that make the successful application of techniques possible.  This rationale explains the irony of how an art limited to safe techniques can regularly defeat arts packed with deadly or dangerous techniques._Renzo Gracie_

While I love hapkido, the above quote is always going through my mind as I train.  I have no doubt that a skilled MMA would beat the snot out of me, a practioner of a "deadly" "no-rules" martial art.  They are more used to fighting, while I am more used to practicing a technique on a compliant partner.  

Jeremy


----------



## Littledragon

SmellyMonkey said:
			
		

> Herein lies the great weakness of martial arts that train only with kata. Because the techniques they teach cannot be performed safely in a sparring match or sporting competition, they can only be taught by repetitive drilling on a cooperative partner. Such kata training never develops the attributes that are required to accompany the technique if the fighter is to successfully apply it under combat conditions. In other words, kata simply builds technique, not attributes. This imbalance is the great failing of the traditional martial arts and one that has been readily exposed in MMA [Mixed Martial Arts] combat. Combat sports, on the other hand, allow the students to apply their safe techniques at full power and thus they strongly develop the essential attributes that make the successful application of techniques possible. This rationale explains the irony of how an art limited to safe techniques can regularly defeat arts packed with deadly or dangerous techniques._Renzo Gracie_
> 
> While I love hapkido, the above quote is always going through my mind as I train. I have no doubt that a skilled MMA would beat the snot out of me, a practioner of a "deadly" "no-rules" martial art. They are more used to fighting, while I am more used to practicing a technique on a compliant partner.
> 
> Jeremy


Fantastic quote and thanks very much for sharing. I agree with Renzo, Kata is great to unite mind body and spirit and those are the aspects which is the ART In Martial Art. But sadly some practicioners believe that the Kata and traditional movements are the techniques that will work on the street, and they find out very soon once it does not work. Love the quote again thanks for sharing!

Tarek


----------



## Touch Of Death

Littledragon said:
			
		

> Very well said. I highly respect your opinion there. One last question, do you think Sport TKD has any benefits for self-defense?
> 
> ~No one will ever master martial arts, we are all students.~
> 
> -Tarek (16)


Absolutly! A well conditioned hard hitting fighter is always a threat to any street fighter. 
Sean :asian:


----------



## terryl965

Littledragon said:
			
		

> *The effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do in self defense...*
> 
> I have been doing Tae Kwon Do for over 10 years. As I have recently began developing a mass interest in Mixed Martial Arts/ Vale-Tudo/ Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu I have questioned how effective Tae Kwon Do is for self defense. As the sport aspect has developed a dramatically high level of mass popularity world wide since the WTF was created and USTU and other international TKD organizations, TKD has been highly popularized as a sport as it was an official Olypmic sport in 2000. I train with one of the top teams in the United States for Olympic Style Tae Kwon Do and have came to realize that it is now more of a sport than an art of self-defense. The whole emphasis on training is for the sport. What happens when you get in a street situation and you get tackled to the ground or jumped by 3 guys, how will the sport aspect be applyed sucesfully in self-defense?
> 
> As World Champions, National Champions are current at my school I can't help to think that they are very good at the SPORT but they don't have the right knowledge and tools to apply effecitvely in a street self-defense situation.
> 
> What are your opinions about Olympic Tae Kwon Do as an art of self-defense?


 MY ONLY QUESTION TO YOU, IF IT'S NOT THAT EFFECTIVE THEN WHY STAY WITH SOMETHING FOR 10YRS. I FOR ONE WOULD NOT STAY IF I THOUGHT I WAS GETTING NOTHING IN RETURN (SO AT ONE TIME DID YOU BELIEVE OR DID SOMEBODY CONVINCED YOU IT HAD NO SUCH EFFECTS).. OLD SCHOOL TKD WAS  TRAINING FOR THE KOREAN MILITARY I KNOW IF YOU WAS GETTING OLD SCHOOL AND NOT SPORT TKD YOU WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY... GOD BLESS AMERICA


----------



## Littledragon

terryl965 said:
			
		

> MY ONLY QUESTION TO YOU, IF IT'S NOT THAT EFFECTIVE THEN WHY STAY WITH SOMETHING FOR 10YRS. I FOR ONE WOULD NOT STAY IF I THOUGHT I WAS GETTING NOTHING IN RETURN (SO AT ONE TIME DID YOU BELIEVE OR DID SOMEBODY CONVINCED YOU IT HAD NO SUCH EFFECTS).. OLD SCHOOL TKD WAS TRAINING FOR THE KOREAN MILITARY I KNOW IF YOU WAS GETTING OLD SCHOOL AND NOT SPORT TKD YOU WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY... GOD BLESS AMERICA


I stay because I am an instructor there and my master has been like a father to me. I am just getting into my exploratory interests in MMA but I love to kick and I believe kicks are a man's greatest weapon they can use. I am sure the military has revised some of the TKD they teach in order for effictive self defense and not just seeing who wins the match with the highest number of points.



Tarek


----------



## TigerWoman

Hi, I think when you train constantly under the rules of the WTF, USTU specifically for a structured event it would not be hardly possible to step out of that box, to do street self defense. BUT, if you train in a good traditional school who does allow not just TKD self defense, but other methods in as well, you would be more rounded.  There is actually only one in our school who point trains.  But we do do it just for fun at tournaments. No comparison to Olympic training/capability though.  TW


----------



## hedgehogey

The solution is simple: Cross train.


----------



## Littledragon

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> The solution is simple: Cross train.


Yes exactly, training in more than one martial art and being a multi dimentional fighter to ensure sucessfull effectivness on the street.

Tarek


----------



## MA-Caver

In my (brief) study of TKD I learned that it is effective provided that you have the room to execute the moves taught. I know there is more to TKD than just high kicks and round-houses, but on the street there are very few opportunites to actually use them "effectively". A narrow alleyway or a crowded bar for example. *All* Martial Arts were created primarily for self-defense, this includes TKD. TKD however is a bit more "flashier" than other MA's because of the numerous (types of) kicks and spin-roundhouses and so-forth and thus became or evolved into more of a sport because it's showier, flashier, more "exciting to watch" than other MAs. 
Cross training, I agree definitely with the others here, helps broaden your choices when it comes to street fighting. You stated (in your intro) that you've studied numerous other styles/arts and thus have a good broad range already. Taking up another art for the purpose of street fighting skills/applications is a good idea, it's also a good idea as it will help broaden your mind and spiritual side because of learning a different philosophy/perspective...which (IMO) is always a good thing... especially for one as young as yourself. 
Bruce Lee has that often quoted adage of "take what is useful and discard the rest." Which in my mind would apply to you in the manner that you still can take your TKD experience to the street and only use what you can in whatever fight you find yourself in (hope you NEVER have to), but by having another art (or two...or three) under your belt (pardon the pun) you'll at least have a more diverse arsenal to fall back on should you find you're unable to "effectively" use your TKD skills. 
As to which one is best... oh lawd spare us here and go to the search near the top of any MT page and type in keywords for the numerous threads discussing: "which art is best for street fighting" and go from there. It'll save redundancy okay? please...   :asian:


----------



## terryl965

Littledragon said:
			
		

> I stay because I am an instructor there and my master has been like a father to me. I am just getting into my exploratory interests in MMA but I love to kick and I believe kicks are a man's greatest weapon they can use. I am sure the military has revised some of the TKD they teach in order for effictive self defense and not just seeing who wins the match with the highest number of points.
> 
> 
> 
> Tarek


LittleDragon, I applaud your committment to your master , I for one know the values that was thought by your Master. I believe it is alright to explore new types of Art and I wish you the best at your endevours.You sound very mature with your point of views, I respect and hope you find what you are looking for in MA. GOD BLESS AMERICA


----------



## Littledragon

terryl965 said:
			
		

> LittleDragon, I applaud your committment to your master , I for one know the values that was thought by your Master. I believe it is alright to explore new types of Art and I wish you the best at your endevours.You sound very mature with your point of views, I respect and hope you find what you are looking for in MA. GOD BLESS AMERICA


Thank you very much for that uplifting comment. I respect people like you as well. Thanks. 

Tarek


----------



## hedgehogey

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> I've said this before and I will say it again. When you cross sport with SD you get either really bad sport or really bad SD. You are discussing things that are mutually exclusive. By definition a sport is intended to promote competition so that a person has sufficient time and opportunity to demonstrate prowess. Anything that cuts the process short un-duly is considered a foul.


Only in point sparring.



> One other thing and then I'll shut-up. Most of what people call fights are really NOT fights. A push, a shove, punches and wrestling around on the ground until someone "gives" is not a fight. Its a challenge, not unlike two animals tussling around a bit to show who the "alpha" is.


I beg to differ, oh str33t-lethal mcgillicuddy: 

From dictionary.com
*fight* 

 ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font])  *Pronunciation Key*  (f
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





t)
_v._ *fought,* (fôt) *fight·ing,* *fights *
_v._ _intr._ 

<LI type=a>To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons. 
_Sports._ To engage in boxing or wrestling.

To engage in a quarrel; argue: They are always fighting about money.
To strive vigorously and resolutely: fought against graft; fighting for her rights.
 


> . Take yer butt in both hands and head to the local crack house. Tell the guys there that you've come by to take their S*** from them and then proceed to tell them what their mothers do for a living. Except for your hospital bills, its a completely free opportunity to see your Olympic TKD as SD. FWIW.


You know, I lived next to a crackhouse for two years, and I fail to see what the hell beating up a bunch of skinny, wasted, bleary eyed baseheads would prove.


----------



## TX_BB

It all comes down to the individual in the end. Your personal awareness and training should come to the forefront in presure situations. TKD, Boxing and Wrestling are all olympic sports I don't know that I would have looked for fight with Ali, Roy Jones, or Kurt Angle. I guess when it comes right down to it I can't see how the sport destroys one's ability to defend one's self. 

Strike fast, Strike hard, Strike Often - You'll be Ok


----------



## Marginal

Depends on the ruleset that the sport employs.


----------



## MA-Caver

TX_BB said:
			
		

> It all comes down to the individual in the end. Your personal awareness and training should come to the forefront in presure situations. TKD, Boxing and Wrestling are all olympic sports I don't know that I would have looked for fight with Ali, Roy Jones, or Kurt Angle. I guess when it comes right down to it I can't see how the sport destroys one's ability to defend one's self.
> 
> Strike fast, Strike hard, Strike Often - You'll be Ok



Tex_BB the "sport" doesn't destroy one's ability to defend one-self but how effective is it in the real world? Put yourself in a crowded bar, some jerk-off decides he doesn't like the way you're drinking your beer and wants a fight. You may or may not be able with TKD take him down, but can you do it without putting others around you at risk of getting caught by an errant kick. Probably not. Most people will make a wide (as possible) ring around you two once they get wind that testosterones are being dumped all over the floor and two bulls are going to go at it. They'll do it to keep from getting hurt and to satisfy the bloodlust that lies dormant in every human being and watch. 
98% of the fights are over within two minutes. Sooner if one is a BB in a martial art... bouncers still have to work their way from the front door or back wall of the bar to get to you two.  The idea is to get the jerk on the floor as quickly as possible. For me this means doing it before the "ring" forms around us.  This also means doing it without hurting anyone else. So a round-house kick or even punch isn't going to work. So straight line direct to the target and as closely as you can put your body to the target so that the energy expended isn't wasted on distance.  

two bits that probably don't make sense. 
 :asian:


----------



## Littledragon

MACaver said:
			
		

> Tex_BB the "sport" doesn't destroy one's ability to defend one-self but how effective is it in the real world? Put yourself in a crowded bar, some jerk-off decides he doesn't like the way you're drinking your beer and wants a fight. You may or may not be able with TKD take him down, but can you do it without putting others around you at risk of getting caught by an errant kick. Probably not. Most people will make a wide (as possible) ring around you two once they get wind that testosterones are being dumped all over the floor and two bulls are going to go at it. They'll do it to keep from getting hurt and to satisfy the bloodlust that lies dormant in every human being and watch.
> 98% of the fights are over within two minutes. Sooner if one is a BB in a martial art... bouncers still have to work their way from the front door or back wall of the bar to get to you two. The idea is to get the jerk on the floor as quickly as possible. For me this means doing it before the "ring" forms around us. This also means doing it without hurting anyone else. So a round-house kick or even punch isn't going to work. So straight line direct to the target and as closely as you can put your body to the target so that the energy expended isn't wasted on distance.
> 
> two bits that probably don't make sense.
> :asian:


I agree, if I were in that situation I would strike low and get him on the ground and use a submission and control him untill I can explain to a bouncer or the owner what has happened and that he attacked me first, I want to end the fight as quickly as possible with out seriously hurting the opponent and control him without doing alot of damage to him.


----------



## Kevin Walker

Littledragon said:
			
		

> *The effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do in self defense...*
> 
> I have been doing Tae Kwon Do for over 10 years. As I have recently began developing a mass interest in Mixed Martial Arts/ Vale-Tudo/ Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu I have questioned how effective Tae Kwon Do is for self defense. As the sport aspect has developed a dramatically high level of mass popularity world wide since the WTF was created and USTU and other international TKD organizations, TKD has been highly popularized as a sport as it was an official Olypmic sport in 2000. I train with one of the top teams in the United States for Olympic Style Tae Kwon Do and have came to realize that it is now more of a sport than an art of self-defense. The whole emphasis on training is for the sport. What happens when you get in a street situation and you get tackled to the ground or jumped by 3 guys, how will the sport aspect be applyed sucesfully in self-defense?
> 
> As World Champions, National Champions are current at my school I can't help to think that they are very good at the SPORT but they don't have the right knowledge and tools to apply effecitvely in a street self-defense situation.
> 
> What are your opinions about Olympic Tae Kwon Do as an art of self-defense?


I was fortunate enough to have met and spoken with General Choi at the Providence Civic Center in the early 1970s, and as explained to me through one of his proteges, Tae Kwon Do was developed for purely military applications, that is while wearing full combat gear.

The soldier, while wearing combat boots with a lug sole, helmet, 50-100 lb backpack, full combat uniform, webgear, bullet-proof kevlar vest, bandoleer of ammo, and holding his M-16 or main battle rifle has to do hand-to-hand combat with the enemy usually on uneven and muddy terrain.

As I was told, General Choi, and others, design Tae Kwon Do for this combat situation, using the most powerful part of the body against the weakest part of your opponents, in Tae Kwon Do that would be a kick to the head.  Kicking the enemy in the helmet with heavy combat boots is devastating.  You can still do this while holding your M-16 and loaded down with gear, which is why I was told that TKD is about 70% kicks.

Therefore Tae Kwon Do has limited self-defense applications because it is so highly specialized.  Doing a spinning cresent kick to the head in a crowded bar or nightclub and snapping a guys neck is overkill.  Tae Kwon Do is one of the hardest styles of martial arts in existence and doesn't believe in pressure points, since anywhere you hit your opponent should disable them in TKD.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but Tae Kwon Do is most effective in a combat zone by soldiers holding rifles with two hands and lugging backpacks, yet is limited in a street self-defense situation.


----------



## MichiganTKD

I don't believe that. First, that was Gen Choi's viewpoint, and his perception was tempered by military experience. Each style will have viewpoints of fighting based the ideas of its founder and succeeding generations.
For example, in Chung Do Kwan, we do practice executing attacks to vital points. Our Grandmaster told us specifically where to aim attacks.
I will not deny that Tae kwon Do, especially Chung Do Kwan/Oh Do Kwan was used by the Korean military. It developed tremendous power, accuracy, and devastating technique. But those techniques work regardless of situation. My Grandmaster told us stories of having to use TKD to defend himself against armed gangsters in Korea before he was ever in the military.
As far as using grappling in a crowded bar or public place, I really would recommend against that. How do you defend yourself on the ground when two of his buddies decide to come to his aid? Tae Kwon Do is designed for defense against bigger attackers, multiple attackers, weapons, etc. There is no "as long as it's under these conditions". It is effective period.


----------



## Marginal

Even then, General Choi also felt pressure points were important enough to include in his Encyclopedia, along with HKD/JJ-esque standup grappling, some ground fighting and so on. He always depicts strikes to vital areas in the pattern application photos etc.


----------



## DragonFooter

Man, this issue have been discussed so much that it's getting boring but I decided to join in the fun anyway. 
Firstly ask yourself why the situation grows to a fight? In reality really, are there always idiots who try to pick a fight in a bar? If so what are u doin there? Are you aggravating the situation? 
Nowadays there are hardly one-on-one fights. If you're try to control someone on the ground don't forget about the 3 other friends who'd like to treat you with a beer bottle to the back of your head! Conclusion.. don't go to a bar(at least the ones with bad asses) LOL.

In the street it's the same, why would anyone pick a fight with you? I belif if u suddenly harass someone on the street(male preferably) 90% will run away(martial arts or not) thinking you are some nut. Ever seen a dog suddenly chase a pedestrian? 

In fact there's a report in the news not so long ago that Richard Simmons ***** slapped an experienced MMA fighter who bad mouthed him. So how effective is MMA ? 

All in all , martial arts or not, use your head often. Martial arts is just a bonus.


----------



## Marginal

DragonFooter said:
			
		

> In fact there's a report in the news not so long ago that Richard Simmons ***** slapped an experienced MMA fighter who bad mouthed him. So how effective is MMA ?



MMA? I thought he was just a Harley salesman...


----------



## hedgehogey

> As far as using grappling in a crowded bar or public place, I really would recommend against that. How do you defend yourself on the ground when two of his buddies decide to come to his aid?



You run or get your *** kicked. Same as for TKD. Don't kid yourself.



> Tae Kwon Do is designed for defense against bigger attackers, multiple attackers, weapons, etc. There is no "as long as it's under these conditions". It is effective period.



No it isn't. And it doesn't work for those things. TAEKWONDO CAN'T EVEN DEFEAT ONE PERSON. How the **** do you expect it to be a gang of people?*

*For TKD not working, see matches on bullshido.net



> In fact there's a report in the news not so long ago that Richard Simmons ***** slapped an experienced MMA fighter who bad mouthed him. So how effective is MMA ?



Apperantly it gives you the  strength of will to not break richard simmons in half.

That took nuts, I admit,  but cmon, it's RICHARD GODAMN SIMMONS!


----------



## MichiganTKD

When people who practice sport Tae Kwon Do enter these XMA contests, I'm not surprised that they lose. Sport Tae Kwon Do does not develop power or the self defense mindset.

Don't criticize the effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do because you some guys lose in steel cage matches. Those were sport guys who trained to make points. The guys I trained with were some of the toughest I ever knew. Some days I was lucky to leave class with no broken bones.

Yes, Tae Kwon Do is effective in many situations despite what you may think. You must train properly and have the right mindset. Believe me, the guys I came up with did not train for tournaments. And I don't teach tournament sparring except to a few students who are interested in it.


----------



## MA-Caver

Littledragon said:
			
		

> I agree, if I were in that situation I would strike low and get him on the ground and use a submission and control him untill I can explain to a bouncer or the owner what has happened and that he attacked me first, I want to end the fight as quickly as possible with out seriously hurting the opponent and control him without doing alot of damage to him.



Well, (no offense) you're 16 and so (in America anyway) Bouncers and Managers tend to throw both (all) participants out unless they actually witnessed the whole thing and saw that you were not there to cause trouble but to stop it. Even then it depends upon the mood of the Bouncers and Management. Some have zero tolerance for any type of altercations. It's not good for business. Again it also depends upon what kind of bar you find yourself in.


----------



## glad2bhere

I have had only limited contact with folks who do security work but one theme comes up over and over. Without exception every person who worked security in the entertainment field whether it was bars or concerts said the same thing---- 90% of the job was anticipating trouble before it actually came to anything. I know the reputation for bouncers is banging heads when people get rowdy, but thats not suported by the reports I've gotten. Its real easy for a place to get a rep and then business suffers. So I began to notice that when things got a little dicey, "coincidentally" there happened to be a couple of security people in the area. Turns out they had been watching the situation for some time before I noticed anything---but just hanging back. Comes time to do something it was usually more along the lines of "Hi: hows' your evening shaping up?" rather than "c'mere a$$-wipe, I wanna ta ya!" I think more things have been smoothed-over with comp tickets than any group of martial art techniques.FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## kwanjang

I've had a number of "experiences" with multiple "partners", and the funny thing is that you often can't remember what you did in a real fight.  It happens fast, and there simply is no time to think.  You just react and hope that YOU will be the one leaving before the cops get there.  

It is best to pick your hang out carefully to avoid trouble to begin with, size up the situation long before problems start, sit in a place that gives you the best options, stay away from women (especially other men's women) because they are the main reason why men get into it, stay away from the pool table or other games that get men heated up, and never go to the ground unless you have more buddies than the other guy.  

Once you get into it, you should already have a pretty good idea on who his buddies are.  Never expect a fight to be a one on one, and never discount the man's female companion.  Girls can be meaner than a junk yard dog, and the fastest way to get yourself killed is to believe that the girl he is with is a nice lady.  In a fight, there are no ladies, and you have no friends.

Personally, I've always gone for the farthest one from me first, because he least expected me.  Use whatever is handy to get an "edge".  Next, I try to keep moving fast from one to the next to avoid getting swamped, and finally I get the "H" out as fast as I can because luck WILL run out.

When it is serious, the one who can look death straight in the eye, keep his wits about him, and keep fighting while he is cut and badly bleeding (and you WILL bleed in a serious fight... knife or no knife) will often prevail in a one on one.  All bets are off on a multiple on one.

I'm not sure if this is OK on teh forum, but I highly recommend folks read Alain Burrese's book on this subject.  He has been there, done the job, and he is candid in his advise.  My advise is that the odds of coming out of a real fight without some serious scars is worse than a Vegas slot, and I have the home made dimples in my cheek to prove it


----------



## Bammx2

Personally,I have found that if you train for sport fighting i.e "hold back for points"...thats pretty much what you will do in an actual fight.
 I got jumped just before my BB test in Shotokan when I was 16...... got the snot kicked right outta me! Don't get me wrong,I scored great! But they scored a little better
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Muscle memory plays a big role, especially when you are young and thats all you have ever done is train for points. The techniques themselves are good, you just need to get used to puting power behind them.
 As for cross training....I swear by it! After being in entertainment security for many years;I learned you can't rely on just one thing to save you all the time.
1 on 1...grappeling is fine...but you do NOT want to go to the ground when there is multiples!
 And on the korean soldiers....I met a man who was north korean special forces and defected to the south. We discussed the use of tae kwon do and the changes it has made. In his time,and still now in thier military, they trained for real. they trained with people commin at your head with a 4x4 and if you didn't get it right..........:erg:
Thier life was on the line when they went out....he,personally, had 98 successful "missions" just with his bare hands! 
 What was and is for tae kwon do have become 2 completely different things these days.....most people want that flash. But it doesn't mean you can't modify the power aspects and have the best of both worlds, points AND :erg:


----------



## DragonFooter

Marginal said:
			
		

> MMA? I thought he was just a Harley salesman...


This came from:http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0406/23b.html

"Standing over 6 feet and weighing in at 225 pounds, Chris Farney doesn't seem like anyone's victim, but a few months ago, the cage wrestler and Harley Davidson salesman, who told ABC's Jimmy Kimmel that he can bench press 445 pounds, received a slap from fitness guru Richard Simmons during an incident at the Phoenix airport."



			
				hedgehogey said:
			
		

> *For TKD not working, see matches on bullshido.net


I lurk in those forums too, the videos doesn't show anything.. juz inexperienced idiots getting their asses whooped..But then how bout the video that showed a WTF sparer scores so many head shots against the Kyokushin fighter?

Strikes is better than grappling vs multiple opponents. IMHO, it's even more realistic than say, wrestling/grappling 3 people to the ground dude.... Unless you are talking bout movies or WWF, WWE, or WHO..LOL


----------



## LIONHEART

Hey all some really good opinions out there I must say, just to add my 2c...

firstly I do not know of any bodies street fighting experience or mma experiance or TKD experience(not blets or dans bt actual talent) so please do not be offended by anything I say as there are no personal judgements being made.  I also do not knot how rough your areas.countries,or states are, personally being from Johannesburg South Africa trust me its pretty rough out there, I have limited experience in TKD but am learning (also do a lot of cross training) but have a fairly deep experience in Gracie Jujitsu and other  MMA's and working Security for various functions, these are very very good... Sports! dont get me wrong they have my full respect as fighting styles but they are sports, so called no holds barred fighting is not the closest thing to a street fight but among the furthest, no throat, eye, joint strikes and small joint lock manipulation aswell as submissions remove it from being practical in a sd situation as well.

As Many people have mentioned while you are on the floor grappling your enemy has friends who will think nothing of introducing foot to face with you whilst you play around getting your enemy in a submission waiting for a bouncer. submissions were designed to be breaks but they are calmed the same as point strikes were intended to be "kill" strikes holding back and taming both makes them equally weak in a SD situation.  Aside from multiple opponents you must worry about the environment itself, broken glass, ciggarette buts slippery liquids etc on the floors tables stools etc in the way, other people and WEAPONS you DO NOT want to be playing on the floor grappling coz your a MMA with a guy who is hiding a knife or have a broken bottle TRUST me.

This being said Im not saying TKD is the best for self defence either ESPECIALLY sport based TKD but traditional TKD(I practice ITF with some modifications and heavy stress on SD) has some fantastic principles particularly in multiple attacker situations and limited space is not a problem because training is emphasised on using your surroundings as well! 

I definately agree on cross trainging and if you want my personal opinion on what is the most effective SD arts look towards the Filipino knife and stick fighting arts such as Eskrima, Eskrido and AMOK!, also the Russian Spetz Naz "system" is both practical and fantastic, never forget the effectiveness of a weapoon to back up your empty hand style PLUS many a time if a weapon is drawn with skill the sheer intimidation will be enough to prevent the fight.

hope I could help
 Yours in MA LIONHEART.


----------



## Littledragon

I think the traditional Korean Tae Kwon Do can be used for self-defense, I still think knowing how to grapple and strike is better but traditional Korean Tae Kwon Do can be used sucesfully for self-defense. I don't think sport Tae Kwon Do can be used for self defense on the street because all the schools ever emphasize on is Tae Kwon Do for sport. Like I said the students and practicioners learn how to score a point while fighting somebdoy, on the street its everything goes. If you get tied up with a wana be tough guy brawler type and they get you on the ground what good is sport Tae Kwon Do then? At least traditional Tae Kwon Do emphasizes to kick low during self defense where it is illegal in sport and always emphasize to kick high or above the belt.

Just my opinion.

Tarek


----------



## hedgehogey

TO EVERYONE WHO SAYS YOU WILL GET KICKED BY THE DUDE'S FRIENDS WHILE ON THE GROUND: What is to prevent the EXACT SAME THING happening while standing up?! WHY ARE WE ASSUMING YOU WON'T GET HIT FROM BEHIND WHILE TRADING BLOWS?

Where is there any proof that it's better to be striking rather than grappling when you're jumped? WHY IS EVERYONE MAKING THIS ASSUMPTION? It's one of those pieces of "obvious" wisdom that everyone accepts without question. But we have no reason to  believe it's true!


----------



## Littledragon

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> TO EVERYONE WHO SAYS YOU WILL GET KICKED BY THE DUDE'S FRIENDS WHILE ON THE GROUND: What is to prevent the EXACT SAME THING happening while standing up?! WHY ARE WE ASSUMING YOU WON'T GET HIT FROM BEHIND WHILE TRADING BLOWS?
> 
> Where is there any proof that it's better to be striking rather than grappling when you're jumped? WHY IS EVERYONE MAKING THIS ASSUMPTION? It's one of those pieces of "obvious" wisdom that everyone accepts without question. But we have no reason to believe it's true!


Since I am predominantlly a striker I prefer striking, aslo kicking is the man's most deadliest weapons. But if the kicks are ever caught, god forbid they are not you better know how to grapple..


----------



## Marginal

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> TO EVERYONE WHO SAYS YOU WILL GET KICKED BY THE DUDE'S FRIENDS WHILE ON THE GROUND: What is to prevent the EXACT SAME THING happening while standing up?! WHY ARE WE ASSUMING YOU WON'T GET HIT FROM BEHIND WHILE TRADING BLOWS?



'cause getting punched in the back doesn't especially matter. Once people start stomping on you, you're pretty much screwed. 



> Where is there any proof that it's better to be striking rather than grappling when you're jumped?



There's no proof that fights actually tend to go to the ground or that grappling is superior in those cases. MMA hasn't proven it, bad stats are the best anyone's ever mustered. 



> WHY IS EVERYONE MAKING THIS ASSUMPTION?



Why do you think anyone cares what you have to say? People do strange unexplainable things every day.


----------



## kwanjang

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> TO EVERYONE WHO SAYS YOU WILL GET KICKED BY THE DUDE'S FRIENDS WHILE ON THE GROUND: What is to prevent the EXACT SAME THING happening while standing up?! WHY ARE WE ASSUMING YOU WON'T GET HIT FROM BEHIND WHILE TRADING BLOWS?
> 
> Where is there any proof that it's better to be striking rather than grappling when you're jumped? WHY IS EVERYONE MAKING THIS ASSUMPTION? It's one of those pieces of "obvious" wisdom that everyone accepts without question. But we have no reason to  believe it's true!



Just speaking from personal experience, and the suggestion is purely based on MY experiences (and lesser personal ability on the ground).  For those who are more comfortable on the ground it may be different.  I recall a fight between Ali and some wrestler (I believe in Japan).  Ali won (and spent a considerable time in hospital recuperating from his win  In this case, the wrestler apparently took to the ground, and did a number on Ali's legs.  IMHO, he would have been a fool to stand up and fight on Ali's terms.

In a fight, you need to be alert for ANY situations, including the ones you mention.  Problem for most people is that once you are down and your opponent is not, you are very vulnerable not only to others but your opponent as well.  YOUR options (and mobility) are just not as good as if you were upright.  For one thing, it is hard to run for the hills lying down.  Don't get me wrong, I think grappling has real value, but IMHO, it is not a place the average guy should be.


----------



## MichiganTKD

I think the striking arts have an advantage over grappling for the simple reason that while you are upright you have more options. Not that Tae Kwon Do or the other styles are inherently better, but I think that when you go to the ground, especially on purpose, you limit what you can do.
Upright, you have much better control over your response to a situation. You can block, attack, evade, or run. You can do these against one or several opponents. On the ground, it is simply much harder to pull these off successfully. Not to say an experienced grappler doesn't have options, but I think your options decrease when you are no longer upright.


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear H-H: 

".....TO EVERYONE WHO SAYS YOU WILL GET KICKED BY THE DUDE'S FRIENDS WHILE ON THE GROUND: What is to prevent the EXACT SAME THING happening while standing up?! WHY ARE WE ASSUMING YOU WON'T GET HIT FROM BEHIND WHILE TRADING BLOWS?,....." 

Just to reinforce your thought I direct peoples' attention back to videos taken in South Africa during the Soweto riots years back. Individuals were encircled and pummeled, slashed or stabbed repeatedly by a number of individuals at the SAME time. There was none of this individual-attacks-in rapid-succession as seen in the movies. In like manner, videos of actual muderous attacks in prison exercise areas show blindingly fast ambushes wherein the attackers work as a team with the individual designated to do the stabbing executing 6 or seven rapid thrusts to the chest while confederates simply hamper the individuals' ability to protect himself. Here in the States consider the Rodney King-type beatings of LEO-s against an individual. How come there is no Trinity-like sequence of MA techniques as seen in THE MATRIX to counter these multiple attacks? There isn't because a true fight does not go down this way. 

Some time ago I mentioned that what people were discussing were not really fights but "challenges" and these scenerios I am sharing are my frame of reference for making those comments. What I am describing are actual fights where a number of people are acting in concert to take-out the individual. It is a melee with murderous intent and the attackers are not particularly fased by a punch in the face or a knee in the balls. I'm sorry. I don't mean to throw cold water on a good discussion, but I really think folks need to make sure they are comparing apples to apples. Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Littledragon

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I think the striking arts have an advantage over grappling for the simple reason that while you are upright you have more options. Not that Tae Kwon Do or the other styles are inherently better, but I think that when you go to the ground, especially on purpose, you limit what you can do.
> Upright, you have much better control over your response to a situation. You can block, attack, evade, or run. You can do these against one or several opponents. On the ground, it is simply much harder to pull these off successfully. Not to say an experienced grappler doesn't have options, but I think your options decrease when you are no longer upright.


I do agree with you since I love striking the most but if you are ever taken down on the ground it is good to know some grappling.


----------



## Littledragon

I think TKD is good for self defense but just can't see sport Tae Kwon Do be used sucesfully in a street situation. The good thing about traditional TKD is it emphasizes on self defense too but sport just emphasizes on how to score a point and win a tournament so I think the practicioners whol only do Olympic Style TKD are cheating themselves.

Just imagine Steven Lopez being taken to the ground by Royce Gracie, what could he do then?

Tarek


----------



## DragonFooter

i wouldn't say sport taekwondo has no SD value. Sport TKD are fast and agile which i think makes them hard to hit. Futhermore it doesn't mean that the practitioners cant hit with full power if opportunity comes.
But yes I agree that traditional TKD have more SD value. But if you ever sparred with a good WTF exponent im sure u'll be overwhelmed by his kicks the first time.
And yeah upright position have more mobility than on the ground don't deny that fact!. And then the opponents can resist your grappling technique!. Can they resist a strike? NOT. But perhaps they can take the strike. Depends on where you strike. A side piercing kick in the center and below the ribs stuns anyone allowing you a window of few seconds.
Thats becoz below the ribs is called the diagphram, and it's not protected by adequate muscle. 



> Just imagine Steven Lopez being taken to the ground by Royce Gracie, what could he do then?


That's if Steven Lopez get's taken down...... What if Steven Lopez caughts Royce gracie on the arm with a side piercing kick? Arm breaks, match over dude! This happens so regular in sparring competitions even with control.


----------



## Littledragon

DragonFooter said:
			
		

> i wouldn't say sport taekwondo has no SD value. Sport TKD are fast and agile which i think makes them hard to hit. Futhermore it doesn't mean that the practitioners cant hit with full power if opportunity comes.
> But yes I agree that traditional TKD have more SD value. But if you ever sparred with a good WTF exponent im sure u'll be overwhelmed by his kicks the first time.
> And yeah upright position have more mobility than on the ground don't deny that fact!. And then the opponents can resist your grappling technique!. Can they resist a strike? NOT. But perhaps they can take the strike. Depends on where you strike. A side piercing kick in the center and below the ribs stuns anyone allowing you a window of few seconds.
> Thats becoz below the ribs is called the diagphram, and it's not protected by adequate muscle.
> 
> 
> That's if Steven Lopez get's taken down...... What if Steven Lopez caughts Royce gracie on the arm with a side piercing kick? Arm breaks, match over dude! This happens so regular in sparring competitions even with control.


Steven Lopez is great in the sport aspect but as a martial artist I don't see him as a very good one besides the fact he is good at the sport. Royce however is a real master martial artist who could easily defeat Steven Lopez in a fight.


----------



## terryl965

Littledragon I have seen Master Lopez and also your Master Gracie they both do sport TKD and yes they both do old school as well, these two great individuals would never fight each other to much respect for each other for that to happen. For your statement that Master Lopez is not a good Martial Artsit maybe you should see him outside the sport venue your opion would change. I enjoy most of your post but do not belittle someone that you seem not to know much about outside the sport aspect..GOD BLESS AMERICA


----------



## Littledragon

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Littledragon I have seen Master Lopez and also your Master Gracie they both do sport TKD and yes they both do old school as well, these two great individuals would never fight each other to much respect for each other for that to happen. For your statement that Master Lopez is not a good Martial Artsit maybe you should see him outside the sport venue your opion would change. I enjoy most of your post but do not belittle someone that you seem not to know much about outside the sport aspect..GOD BLESS AMERICA


Yes that was wrong of me and I shoudlnt have said that. I just don't see how someone training in the sport aspect all his life can be effective in the street. Royce has proved that he is a great fighter and I don't think Lopez is at a level high enough where Royce would even fight him.


----------



## Zepp

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> TO EVERYONE WHO SAYS YOU WILL GET KICKED BY THE DUDE'S FRIENDS WHILE ON THE GROUND: What is to prevent the EXACT SAME THING happening while standing up?! WHY ARE WE ASSUMING YOU WON'T GET HIT FROM BEHIND WHILE TRADING BLOWS?
> 
> Where is there any proof that it's better to be striking rather than grappling when you're jumped? WHY IS EVERYONE MAKING THIS ASSUMPTION? It's one of those pieces of "obvious" wisdom that everyone accepts without question. But we have no reason to  believe it's true!



Simple, really.  While standing you have greater mobility and a better chance of evading an opponent's strikes.  While your arms are free (and not being used to hold another opponent) you are better able to block/parry the strikes of an opponent.  

hedgehogey, have you ever tried sparring multiple opponents using rules that allow for grappling?  If you haven't, I suggest you try it,- it's fun and a good educational experience in terms of self-defense.  If you have, please tell us how you managed to defend against one opponent while grappling with another.  We could all benefit from that knowledge.

Bruce, I think the only effective personal defense for the grim situations you've described involve weapons, preferably a firearm.  Possibly a sword, or some polearm type weapon, but I'd choose the gun.  No one's chances are very good in the middle of a murderous mob out to kill them.  I think the situation most of us envision here is something like being mugged by two large thugs.


----------



## hedgehogey

Zepp said:
			
		

> Simple, really. While standing you have greater mobility and a better chance of evading an opponent's strikes. While your arms are free (and not being used to hold another opponent) you are better able to block/parry the strikes of an opponent.


Yes, but theoretically aren't you better off using the other guy as a  shield? Don't debate that, it's not my point. My point is, it's all theory and conjecture, until we see some video or something.

All we have right now is the "skater beating up four fratboys" video in which we see  tackling taking out three out of four fratboys.

[quoe]
hedgehogey, have you ever tried sparring multiple opponents using rules that allow for grappling? [/quote] 
Yes.



> If you haven't, I suggest you try it,- it's fun and a good educational experience in terms of self-defense. If you have, please tell us how you managed to defend against one opponent while grappling with another. We could all benefit from that knowledge.


Couple of things: 

1: Steer one opponent around from a dominant clinch.  

2: Guard or belly up backmount work very well for shielding yourself. 

3: Applying a quick submission is sometimes faster than using strikes


----------



## Zepp

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Yes, but theoretically aren't you better off using the other guy as a  shield? Don't debate that, it's not my point. My point is, it's all theory and conjecture, until we see some video or something.



A lot of things we talk about here are based on conjecture and theory.  I don't think that a video of any particular incident would be absolute proof of a strategy working or not working.  



> Couple of things:
> 
> 1: Steer one opponent around from a dominant clinch.
> 
> 2: Guard or belly up backmount work very well for shielding yourself.
> 
> 3: Applying a quick submission is sometimes faster than using strikes



I could see 1 and 2 working in some cases, but I have to disagree on 3.  Whether or not it's faster to disable an opponent using strikes or a submission technique will depend entirely on which you're better trained in.  Plenty of people have knocked someone out or crippled them with a single punch or kick.  Heck, a few months ago I posted a thread about a guy who died as a result of a single punch.  (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13375 )

If you think you can better defend yourself against multiple opponents by grappling, you're probably right, but that's not any kind of proof that striking is less effective.


----------



## Littledragon

I am a striker and a grappler and anyone who says striking is not effective is wrong. Striking is the man's grreatest weapon, kicking can cause damage like no other. I would first use my strikes take out the leg with a Muay Thai kick or side kick the knee, if the guy is bigger than me I would not want to stand up with him and go to the ground where strength does not matter, you see 245 lbs guys tapping out 1 sec after the choke is being applyed, look how fast those guys tap after one does an arm bar on them. It takes maybe less than a second before they tap for an armbar so size does not matter on the ground. Look at Royce Gracie he was the smallest one in the UFC yet choked out every fighter he fought. I think in order to defend your self sucesfully in any street brawl situation you should know how to strike and grapple because you never know how things might turn out and its better to be safe then not sorry but DEAD.

TAREK


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Zepp: 

I think you are quite right, of course. The only reason I am pressing such grim scenerios is to counter some of the salesmanship that is often associated with KMA. It also doesn't help when the media supports some unrealistic expectations for the KMA either.  There are often stories of Black-Belted children who thought they could whup-up on someone twice their size because their instructor led them to believe in their abilities beyond realistic considerations. Thats a hard way to learn the truth. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Han-Mi

It's better than nothing, but I would have to say that olympic style TKD isn't much of a martial art in the respect that it is a sport. However, the things you learn are very useful in self defense. My suggestion is to cross train a bit. I train under Chung Do Kwan TKD and we like to mix in some of the other styles so that we are not caught unpreapred in a situation that is not very well trained for in TKD.  I have tried olympic TKD, and I kept getting in trouble for punching them, You have to realize that, just as in boxing, you are only developing one weapon for one way to fight. 

Basically, your off to a good start, and you should have no torouble learning some basics from other styles to help you in your street self-defense. You may want to look into a different school that doesnt focus so much on the sport though.


----------



## Littledragon

Han-Mi said:
			
		

> It's better than nothing, but I would have to say that olympic style TKD isn't much of a martial art in the respect that it is a sport. However, the things you learn are very useful in self defense. My suggestion is to cross train a bit. I train under Chung Do Kwan TKD and we like to mix in some of the other styles so that we are not caught unpreapred in a situation that is not very well trained for in TKD. I have tried olympic TKD, and I kept getting in trouble for punching them, You have to realize that, just as in boxing, you are only developing one weapon for one way to fight.
> 
> Basically, your off to a good start, and you should have no torouble learning some basics from other styles to help you in your street self-defense. You may want to look into a different school that doesnt focus so much on the sport though.


I agree with you, just training in sport TKD is cheating one self in terms of street combat, but yes I believe traditional TKD emphasizes alot on practical self defense and I think thats how TKD should be taugh in addition to the sport.


----------



## Marginal

Littledragon said:
			
		

> if the guy is bigger than me I would not want to stand up with him



Depends on if the guy's slow or not. 



> and go to the ground where strength does not matter, you see 245 lbs guys tapping out 1 sec after the choke is being applyed, look how fast those guys tap after one does an arm bar on them. It takes maybe less than a second before they tap for an armbar so size does not matter on the ground.



Size always matters. Read what anyone who's fought Ortiz has said. For that matter, ask yourself why the UFC has weight divisions if grappling moots all size and strength advantages. For that matter, why does high school wrestling, judo etc have weight divisions if size and strength mean nothing?



> Look at Royce Gracie he was the smallest one in the UFC yet choked out every fighter he fought.



He wasn't the smallest, and he didn't choke out everyone he fought. 



> I think in order to defend your self sucesfully in any street brawl situation you should know how to strike and grapple because you never know how things might turn out and its better to be safe then not sorry but DEAD.



This is true.


----------



## MJS

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Littledragon I have seen Master Lopez and also your Master Gracie they both do sport TKD and yes they both do old school as well



Gracie does sport TKD??? Since when??

mike


----------



## MJS

DragonFooter said:
			
		

> i wouldn't say sport taekwondo has no SD value. Sport TKD are fast and agile which i think makes them hard to hit.



But not impossible to hit.



> But yes I agree that traditional TKD have more SD value. But if you ever sparred with a good WTF exponent im sure u'll be overwhelmed by his kicks the first time.



And thats why you take the person out of their game.  Why trade off kicks with a kicker???



> And yeah upright position have more mobility than on the ground don't deny that fact!. And then the opponents can resist your grappling technique!. Can they resist a strike? NOT. But perhaps they can take the strike. Depends on where you strike. A side piercing kick in the center and below the ribs stuns anyone allowing you a window of few seconds.
> Thats becoz below the ribs is called the diagphram, and it's not protected by adequate muscle.



Resist the tech???  Of course they're gonna resist, but what happens?? They still go down!!!  Again, dont assume that the one shot, one kill is always going to work.  




> That's if Steven Lopez get's taken down...... What if Steven Lopez caughts Royce gracie on the arm with a side piercing kick? Arm breaks, match over dude! This happens so regular in sparring competitions even with control.



Please tell me that you're not relying on the one shot-one kill mentality here???  I've been hit in the arm during sparring sessions and my arm didnt break!  Again, keep in mind that any time you're extending a limb, * that * is what the grappler is waiting for.  

Mike


----------



## MJS

Marginal said:
			
		

> Size always matters. Read what anyone who's fought Ortiz has said. For that matter, ask yourself why the UFC has weight divisions if grappling moots all size and strength advantages. For that matter, why does high school wrestling, judo etc have weight divisions if size and strength mean nothing?



Not true!  Its the tech. that matters.  Rules have changed.  In the first few UFC events, there were no weight classes.  That was a rule that came into effect later on.  Again, its more of a sport event, just like wrestling.  Example-Keith Hackney fought that Sumo guy in UFC 3  I believe.  That guy was taller and heavier, and what happened??? He got pounded by Hackney.  Sure, Hackney hurt his hand, but he got the win.  You're making it sound like if you're ever facing someone bigger, then you're basically going to be screwed!  In the long run, its going to come down to tech. and timing.


Mike


----------



## MJS

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> As far as using grappling in a crowded bar or public place, I really would recommend against that. How do you defend yourself on the ground when two of his buddies decide to come to his aid? Tae Kwon Do is designed for defense against bigger attackers, multiple attackers, weapons, etc. There is no "as long as it's under these conditions". It is effective period.



First off, in a crowded bar, I really dont think that much kicking will be done at all.  As for the mult attackers....again, with the typical comeback.  A mult attacker situation is going to involve them coming at you at the same time, not one at a time.  What makes TKD so effective here??  There are many other stand up arts that cover the same thing.  

Mike


----------



## MJS

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I think the striking arts have an advantage over grappling for the simple reason that while you are upright you have more options. Not that Tae Kwon Do or the other styles are inherently better, but I think that when you go to the ground, especially on purpose, you limit what you can do.
> Upright, you have much better control over your response to a situation. You can block, attack, evade, or run. You can do these against one or several opponents. On the ground, it is simply much harder to pull these off successfully. Not to say an experienced grappler doesn't have options, but I think your options decrease when you are no longer upright.



Another misconception of BJJ.  As Ive said before..there are techs that can be applied standing as well as on the ground.  It makes me laugh, because every time someone hears the word BJJ they automatically think the ground...not the case at all.  Many BJJ fighters punch as well as kick.

Mike


----------



## Littledragon

MJS said:
			
		

> First off, in a crowded bar, I really dont think that much kicking will be done at all. As for the mult attackers....again, with the typical comeback. A mult attacker situation is going to involve them coming at you at the same time, not one at a time. What makes TKD so effective here?? There are many other stand up arts that cover the same thing.
> 
> Mike


For multi attackers I think Aikido is a great martial art for that situation.


----------



## MichiganTKD

I never said Tae Kwon Do was THE martial art for self defense in a crowded area. I said stand up styles offer certain advantages over grappling styles. Kenpo, Karate, and Kung Fu are just as likely to be effective as well.
While using an attacker as a human shield against other attackers is theoretically possible, what's to stop him from pulling out a knife or gun at that close range and using it on you. Same with grappling with someone on the ground. If you're belly to belly on the floor, it would not be difficult for them to pull a knife or gun (assuming they have one) and sticking or shooting you at that close range. The stand up styles at least offer mobility to evade and run if necessary. I didn't say they were foolproof, but they have advantages.
As far as multi attackers, traditional Tae Kwon Do was designed for situations like that, using footwork, mobility, and powerful and fast combinations. As I read somewhere, humans have two arms, two legs, and a head. So theoretically it is possible to defend against five people at once. Key word being theoretical.


----------



## MJS

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> While using an attacker as a human shield against other attackers is theoretically possible, what's to stop him from pulling out a knife or gun at that close range and using it on you. Same with grappling with someone on the ground. If you're belly to belly on the floor, it would not be difficult for them to pull a knife or gun (assuming they have one) and sticking or shooting you at that close range.



I guess thats why it pays to be aware of whats going on.  If you think about it, we could 'what if' this to death.

 Mike


----------



## Marginal

MJS said:
			
		

> Not true!  Its the tech. that matters.



If it was, there woudln't be weight divisions. 



> Again, its more of a sport event, just like wrestling.



If weight does not matter in grappling, why are there weight classes in wrestling? Purely for the entertainment value of seeing how to make men develop eating disorders?

A flyweight's going to be considered at a massive disadvantage vs a heavyweight in boxing. Why is that? Special anti small man rules in boxing? Couldn't be that they're not as strong, have less reach, and can't absorb as much punishment... 



> Example-Keith Hackney fought that Sumo guy in UFC 3  I believe.  That guy was taller and heavier, and what happened???



A fat man fell down, and then that fat man found he was so fat he couldn't try to stand up and avoid being punched at the same time. Morbidly obese people who study "Judu" and "Sumu" apparently aren't good fighters.



> You're making it sound like if you're ever facing someone bigger, then you're basically going to be screwed!  In the long run, its going to come down to tech. and timing.



In the long run, weight classes emerged. Because the bigger fighter *has an advantage*. (Unless they're really fat and slow, but I accounted for that in my last post when I said grappling with a bigger opponent's not necessarially needed if they're slow.) Varlens vs Ruas proved that. 

It's funny that you point out that BJJ fighters can also punch and kick. (Mainly because they had to start studying MT because strikers weren't quite as easy to dismiss as the Gracie's/GJJ fanboys initially claimed.) I could also point out that TKD people can also punch, throw elbows or grapple standing up depending on thier training's focus, but since "TKD IS KICK" is apparently an immutable fact, I simply give up.  Only BJJ practitioners have the option of not being monodimensional...


----------



## Shu2jack

> I could also point out that TKD people can also punch, throw elbows or grapple standing up depending on thier training's focus...


Thank you!


----------



## Littledragon

I believe a practicioner training under the traditional style of TKD is very effective on the street because it emphasizes primarly on self defense, but a school just emphasizing on sport TKD, there is no way they will know how to defend themselves sucesfully. They are training every day to score a point, they don't know how to train for saving their life on the street.


----------



## MJS

Marginal said:
			
		

> If it was, there woudln't be weight divisions.
> 
> 
> 
> If weight does not matter in grappling, why are there weight classes in wrestling? Purely for the entertainment value of seeing how to make men develop eating disorders?
> 
> A flyweight's going to be considered at a massive disadvantage vs a heavyweight in boxing. Why is that? Special anti small man rules in boxing? Couldn't be that they're not as strong, have less reach, and can't absorb as much punishment...
> 
> 
> 
> A fat man fell down, and then that fat man found he was so fat he couldn't try to stand up and avoid being punched at the same time. Morbidly obese people who study "Judu" and "Sumu" apparently aren't good fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> In the long run, weight classes emerged. Because the bigger fighter *has an advantage*. (Unless they're really fat and slow, but I accounted for that in my last post when I said grappling with a bigger opponent's not necessarially needed if they're slow.) Varlens vs Ruas proved that.
> 
> It's funny that you point out that BJJ fighters can also punch and kick. (Mainly because they had to start studying MT because strikers weren't quite as easy to dismiss as the Gracie's/GJJ fanboys initially claimed.) I could also point out that TKD people can also punch, throw elbows or grapple standing up depending on thier training's focus, but since "TKD IS KICK" is apparently an immutable fact, I simply give up.  Only BJJ practitioners have the option of not being monodimensional...



Again, I refer back to a few things that I've said in past posts.  In the first few UFC events, there were no weight classes.  When it was yanked from PPV by the politicians, the only way it could come back is with the new rules. IE- weight classes and a more inclusive list of things that you cant do.  

As for the BJJ guys crosstraining in MT....in you look again at the first few, you'll notice that Royce did not throw half of the punches or kicks that you see the BJJ guys throwing today, so that IMO, blows your theory out of the water!  Sure, they're doing them today...just like the strikers are learning to grapple!!!!!! So your point is????????????????

I was recently on Bullshido...I came across a section of clips of fights.  One that stuck in my mind was a Muay Thai fighter vs. a TKD fighter.  The TKD guy was getting pounded.  Check it out.  It also amazed me as how the TKD guys hands never got above his waist.  Pretty much, his hands were at his sides, while he hopped around.  Now, I'm not saying that is how ALL TKD fighters fight, but that certainly paints a negative picture of TKD.  

You seem to be fixated with this weight thing. Let me ask you, have you ever done any grappling before??  Every grappling instructor that I've talked to has always talked about the tech. being the most important factor here.  You can know 1000 submissions, but if you dont know the positions and how to hold them, then what good are the 1000 submissions??  Part of keeping those positions, is having good tech.  in the game of grappling, especially when you have two guys with equal skill, its like a chess game.  They have to out-think each other.  The bottom line...the one with the better tech. will come out on top.  Helio Gracie is a small man.  He learned the techs. from someone who was of a different body size than him.  He had to modify the techs. to fit HIM.  That is why GJJ is so effective.  Due to his small size, he needed to make sure that the tech. that he was doing was perfect.  

If you want to continue this discussion, thats fine.  If not, thats fine too.  IMO, you seem to be getting a little upset because I'm not agreeing with you.  Dude, this is a forum.  Its hard at times to put what you're thinking on the screen and at the same time, making sure that the other guy is understanding you.  I'd be more than happy to continue the chat, but lets try to keep it civil, ok?  If you want to take it offline, please feel free to PM or email me.  

Mike


----------



## MJS

On a side note.  Since this is a TKD thread, and I'm not a TKD stylist, maybe someone could enlighten me as to the difference between the sport and the traditional style differences?  Maybe if the differences were brought to light, then the less educated would understand just a little bit better.

Mike


----------



## Littledragon

MJS said:
			
		

> On a side note. Since this is a TKD thread, and I'm not a TKD stylist, maybe someone could enlighten me as to the difference between the sport and the traditional style differences? Maybe if the differences were brought to light, then the less educated would understand just a little bit better.
> 
> Mike


In general traditional TKD focuses on self-defense ans sport TKD focuses nothing but sport and competition.


----------



## MichiganTKD

Traditional Tae Kwon Do sees itself as a program for total physical, mental, spiritual, and social well being. Self defense is only part of it. In short, it is a Way of Life. Sport Tae Kwon Do is designed to win points and tournaments. As a result, its techniques have been adapted and steamlined to make this possible.


----------



## Littledragon

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Traditional Tae Kwon Do sees itself as a program for total physical, mental, spiritual, and social well being. Self defense is only part of it. In short, it is a Way of Life. Sport Tae Kwon Do is designed to win points and tournaments. As a result, its techniques have been adapted and steamlined to make this possible.


Very well said I completly agree.


----------



## Kevin Walker

DragonFooter said:
			
		

> Man, this issue have been discussed so much that it's getting boring but I decided to join in the fun anyway.
> Firstly ask yourself why the situation grows to a fight? In reality really, are there always idiots who try to pick a fight in a bar? If so what are u doin there? Are you aggravating the situation?
> Nowadays there are hardly one-on-one fights. If you're try to control someone on the ground don't forget about the 3 other friends who'd like to treat you with a beer bottle to the back of your head! Conclusion.. don't go to a bar(at least the ones with bad asses) LOL.
> 
> In the street it's the same, why would anyone pick a fight with you? I belif if u suddenly harass someone on the street(male preferably) 90% will run away(martial arts or not) thinking you are some nut. Ever seen a dog suddenly chase a pedestrian?
> 
> In fact there's a report in the news not so long ago that Richard Simmons ***** slapped an experienced MMA fighter who bad mouthed him. So how effective is MMA ?
> 
> All in all , martial arts or not, use your head often. Martial arts is just a bonus.


Hi,

People go to bars for the same reasons they go to concerts or hockey games, because they like it!  And if a fight breaks out at any of those locations, your preferred style of martial art will make the difference between and effective defense or a clumsy defense.  And yes, General Choi did modify TKD by adding some joint locks and pressure points to make Tae Kwon Do more versitile.  Tae Kwon Do is perfect for what it was designed for, not crowde bar-room fights, but on the battle field while wearing full combat gear and carrying a rifle.  And the Korean Military still uses Tae Kwon Do as the insurgents in Iraq, like the Viet Cong in Vietnam, will find out.


----------



## Kevin Walker

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I don't believe that. First, that was Gen Choi's viewpoint, and his perception was tempered by military experience. Each style will have viewpoints of fighting based the ideas of its founder and succeeding generations.
> For example, in Chung Do Kwan, we do practice executing attacks to vital points. Our Grandmaster told us specifically where to aim attacks.
> I will not deny that Tae kwon Do, especially Chung Do Kwan/Oh Do Kwan was used by the Korean military. It developed tremendous power, accuracy, and devastating technique. But those techniques work regardless of situation. My Grandmaster told us stories of having to use TKD to defend himself against armed gangsters in Korea before he was ever in the military.
> As far as using grappling in a crowded bar or public place, I really would recommend against that. How do you defend yourself on the ground when two of his buddies decide to come to his aid? Tae Kwon Do is designed for defense against bigger attackers, multiple attackers, weapons, etc. There is no "as long as it's under these conditions". It is effective period.


Hi,

Yes, General Choi was influenced by his military experience when he helped develop TKD for the Korean Military, obviously.  And yes, General Choi did add some wrist locks and pressure points to make  Tae Kwon Do more versitile - But TKD still is a highly specialized martial art designed purposely for the combat soldier wearing full field gear and holding a rifle.  Try applying Brazilian Jiu Jitsu under those conditions, I think BJJ would fail!

Tae Kwon Do is an effective but specialized martial art.  A TKD'ist would be at a disadvantage in a ring with a BJJ player but at a great advantage in a battlefield in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy, as has been proven in Vietnam and probably again over in Iraq.


----------



## the_kicking_fiend

I don't really agree about self-defence being an issue on the battlefield.  Hand to hand combat is very rare on the battlefield, especially considering the assortment of modern weaponry available to the military these days.  I've heard of the SAS and such using their knives on men when the bullets ran out in Afghanistan caves.

Also, people have mentioned that cross training may be the best way of getting a good self-defence system established for yourself but I can't help but remember my master: "It's better to be a master of one trade than a jack of all"

d


----------



## Marginal

MJS said:
			
		

> Again, I refer back to a few things that I've said in past posts.  In the first few UFC events, there were no weight classes.  When it was yanked from PPV by the politicians, the only way it could come back is with the new rules. IE- weight classes and a more inclusive list of things that you cant do.



Yeah, but that ignores why weight classes were a requirement. Are you actually trying to claim that John Hess won fights with good technique rather than size? 



> As for the BJJ guys crosstraining in MT....in you look again at the first few, you'll notice that Royce did not throw half of the punches or kicks that you see the BJJ guys throwing today, so that IMO, blows your theory out of the water!  Sure, they're doing them today...just like the strikers are learning to grapple!!!!!! So your point is????????????????



My point is, that they're crosstraining NOW, like I said in my last post. That BJJ needed more than just what Royce demonstrated in the first three UFC's once strikers adapted to anti grappling? If they're crosstraining, they're not doing BJJ. They're doing BJJ and MT. Thus, saying BJJ people can punch and kick too is hooey. Pure BJJ people can't outside of that low kick. (The vids have spoken afterall.) 



> I was recently on Bullshido...I came across a section of clips of fights.



Wow. That's great, and I'm sure you saw the utter invariable truth on there too. (Cause it's not completely mindlessly biased towards MMA or anything.) 



> One that stuck in my mind was a Muay Thai fighter vs. a TKD fighter.



Yep. I've seen that stupid clip. I've also looked up that tournament's history. TKD fighters have won it several times over the years. Must be because all TKD fighters suck because Bullshido has that one clip. (That's the conclusion the BS'ers reached at least.)



> The TKD guy was getting pounded.  Check it out.  It also amazed me as how the TKD guys hands never got above his waist.



Kinda a side effect of training for sport TKD which actively discourages the use of the hands. (It's almost impossible to score with a hand technique to the body, and head strikes w/the hands are restricted.) Since blocking a kick can break your arm, evasion is encouraged vs keeping your hands up etc. However, not all TKD is trained this way which is what makes your post and the Bullshido vid utterly worthless. 

Train with hand strikes to the head etc, and you create a very different TKD fighter. I pointed this out last post, but you still pulled out the Bullshido vid. 



> Now, I'm not saying that is how ALL TKD fighters fight, but that certainly paints a negative picture of TKD.



Uh huh. You don't beleive that of all TKD, but you think it's a good representation to draw *all* your conclusions from. Makes sense. 



> You seem to be fixated with this weight thing. Let me ask you, have you ever done any grappling before??



Moot since grappling is not independent of weight. It's sheer hype.



> Every grappling instructor that I've talked to has always talked about the tech. being the most important factor here.  You can know 1000 submissions, but if you dont know the positions and how to hold them, then what good are the 1000 submissions??



That has nothing to do with weight not being an advantage. Boxing coaches tell their students the same thing. 



> Part of keeping those positions, is having good tech.  in the game of grappling, especially when you have two guys with equal skill, its like a chess game.  They have to out-think each other.  The bottom line...the one with the better tech. will come out on top.



If one has better tech, then they're not equally skilled. The bigger one still gets to make the smaller one work harder assuming skill's equal. He can apply more weight while on top while doing nothing other than riding the smaller man etc. 



> Helio Gracie is a small man.  He learned the techs. from someone who was of a different body size than him.  He had to modify the techs. to fit HIM.  That is why GJJ is so effective.  Due to his small size, he needed to make sure that the tech. that he was doing was perfect.



Then he developed superior skill. This offset the disadvantage of being smaller. Get a big man of equal skill, and Helio would've had his work cut out for him.



> If you want to continue this discussion, thats fine.  If not, thats fine too.  IMO, you seem to be getting a little upset because I'm not agreeing with you.



I'm annoyed because you're trying to comment on an art you evidently know absolutely nothing about. (For that matter, what would the reaction be on BS if I went to the forums and said "TKD's not worthless". I'd be flamed to high holy hell.) I'm being polite compared to the compilers of your source material.

I might as well just start linking to www.matbattle.com for "proof" of grappling's unsuitability or say that JKD is dedicated to head kicks and yowling like a cat because that's what Bruce Lee did in his movies. You're basically reciting the MMA partyline (which for the record, is "TKD is worthless. In fact, it teaches you habits so terrible that you're actually worse off than an untrained person in a real fight.") without any information on TKD, and no real facts to support the assertion that grappling means that size is meaningless. I've had the exact same conversation on Sherdog, RMA, and a few other places already. If you want to actually discuss either, that's fine, but I want more than what Jim Brown uttered in UFC 2 as proof that there's some knowledge being applied here. 

Kevin Walker: Gen Choi spent years refining and adapting TKD to its new niche outside of the millitary. To claim that it works solely in conditions involving combat boots and full combat gear is absurd. If you ever went into traditional TKD school, I think you'd have a much harder time calling it a specialzed niche art. TKD as taught isn't that far removed from Shotokan, and other similar styles of karate. Greater focus on kicking, but that is not TKD's exclusive focus and never has been.


----------



## MJS

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that ignores why weight classes were a requirement. Are you actually trying to claim that John Hess won fights with good technique rather than size?



Dude..John Hess???? People talk about no skill.  That guy was throwing the worst s*** that I've seen.  He won due  to the other guy getting an injury to his eye.  But hey...he still got the win right!





> My point is, that they're crosstraining NOW, like I said in my last post. That BJJ needed more than just what Royce demonstrated in the first three UFC's once strikers adapted to anti grappling? If they're crosstraining, they're not doing BJJ. They're doing BJJ and MT. Thus, saying BJJ people can punch and kick too is hooey. Pure BJJ people can't outside of that low kick. (The vids have spoken afterall.)



Yup.. BJJ needed to improve on striking and the stand up guys needed to improve on grappling.  And that low kick that you're talking about, I'm assuming is the one that you always see Royce throwing.  Do you know why he throws that kick and what its meant to do???





> Wow. That's great, and I'm sure you saw the utter invariable truth on there too. (Cause it's not completely mindlessly biased towards MMA or anything.)



Ok.





> Yep. I've seen that stupid clip. I've also looked up that tournament's history. TKD fighters have won it several times over the years. Must be because all TKD fighters suck because Bullshido has that one clip. (That's the conclusion the BS'ers reached at least.)



Dude, ever hear the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words."  Like I said...I dont to TKD...sooooo..therefore, I'm basing my opinion on only what I've seen.  Thats why I asked for some clarification on the art.





> Kinda a side effect of training for sport TKD which actively discourages the use of the hands. (It's almost impossible to score with a hand technique to the body, and head strikes w/the hands are restricted.) Since blocking a kick can break your arm, evasion is encouraged vs keeping your hands up etc. However, not all TKD is trained this way which is what makes your post and the Bullshido vid utterly worthless



Well, again, all the TKD that I"ve seen is like that so, thats why I said it!!!  And you fight like you train.  I have yet to have my arm broken, and I keep my hands up. Its impossible to hit the body??? Come on man, are you serious here???? So let me ask you this.  If you take a sport TKD guy and put him in a street fight, how is he going to keep his hands? Up or down??  Sure, getting out of the way is a good thing, but its not always an option.  So, another quesiton for you.  It seems to me that all of the TKD that I've seen is sport.  My question--Is there any traditional TKD left? Does anyone teach the non sport method??



> Train with hand strikes to the head etc, and you create a very different TKD fighter. I pointed this out last post, but you still pulled out the Bullshido vid.



Again, thats the only way I've seen those guys fight.





> Uh huh. You don't beleive that of all TKD, but you think it's a good representation to draw *all* your conclusions from. Makes sense.



See above.





> Moot since grappling is not independent of weight. It's sheer hype.



Nope, its not moot. I was asking a simple question.  Do you or have you ever grappled???  





> I'm annoyed because you're trying to comment on an art you evidently know absolutely nothing about. (For that matter, what would the reaction be on BS if I went to the forums and said "TKD's not worthless". I'd be flamed to high holy hell.) I'm being polite compared to the compilers of your source material.



And if you're such the expert, rather than getting so pissed off, maybe you should take the time to help someone out who doesnt have as good of an understanding.  You're getting annoyed because I'm questioning things.  Give some constructive answers.  You're commenting on grappling.  Do you do it? Oh wait, I forgot, you dont want to answer.  Why is that?? Dont worry though, because if you have a question, I'd be happy to answer it for you.  And if I can't, I'll find someone who can answer it.  I wont bash you for a question...you know, kind of what you're doing to me!!!!

Mike


----------



## MJS

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Traditional Tae Kwon Do sees itself as a program for total physical, mental, spiritual, and social well being. Self defense is only part of it. In short, it is a Way of Life. Sport Tae Kwon Do is designed to win points and tournaments. As a result, its techniques have been adapted and steamlined to make this possible.



Thanks for the reply!!  At least someone here is offering some explaination.

Mike


----------



## glad2bhere

C'mon, Mike. 

For 6 pages one person after another has been saying the same thing; each in his own way. What part of "sport vs combat" is not understood here? Want to pair a boxer with a wrestler with a karate-ka with a judo-ka? Still wondering whose gonna win? Thats easy. Whose rules are you playing by? Want to know what art will win on the street, in actual combat, against muggers, against street punks, against road rage, against antagonized old ladies....? How about on rainy days? How about on hot days? How about close to the Equator? What about on Mars? 

These discussions never really go anywhere because people are not actually interested in reconciling anything, the positions are too fraught with subjectivity, the parameters either too circumspect or too situation-specific. To my way of thinking the only method to resolve questions such as these are to revive the ancient gladitorial games and have individuals of specified disciplines fight to the death. Absent that, seems like all folks are involved in is the martial arts equivalent of "how many angels can sit on the head of a pin". FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Marginal

MJS said:
			
		

> Dude..John Hess???? People talk about no skill.  That guy was throwing the worst s*** that I've seen.  He won due  to the other guy getting an injury to his eye.  But hey...he still got the win right!



The point is, he won because he was huge. Even without the eye injury, the guy was being tossed around like a rag doll. For that matter, what were the announcers saying in the Coleman vs Frye championship match? That Coleman had an atvantage because he was taller and could establish a stronger base. 



> And that low kick that you're talking about, I'm assuming is the one that you always see Royce throwing.  Do you know why he throws that kick and what its meant to do???



Yep, I do. But that wasn't my point. My point as, it's stupid to assume that's all there is to BJJ and striking just because that's all you've seen on video. 



> Dude, ever hear the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words."  Like I said...I dont to TKD...sooooo..therefore, I'm basing my opinion on only what I've seen.  Thats why I asked for some clarification on the art.



Yessss.... But, you could've accomplished that much simply by reading a book, hitting google, or asking that outright rather than saying "TKD's not going to work in a bar fight because they're too close to kick the other guy." beforehand.




> I have yet to have my arm broken, and I keep my hands up.



Same here, (ya know... Since I don't train sport TKD) but it does actually happen in sport TKD. Self-defense efficacy aside, they can generate some impressive power with those kicks. 



> Its impossible to hit the body??? Come on man, are you serious here????



I said that due to thenature of the rules, it's almost impossible to SCORE with a hand technique to the body. (You have to induce "trembling shock" to score which involves displacing your opponent a set amount of distance. Punches really can't accomplish this.)



> So let me ask you this.  If you take a sport TKD guy and put him in a street fight, how is he going to keep his hands? Up or down??



Doesn't matter to me since I train TKD, but don't train sport TKD. I'm making no claims that sport TKD is effective. I'm saying that TKD trained without those sporting rules in mind creates a much different fighter. Because as you say, "you fight as you train". 



> It seems to me that all of the TKD that I've seen is sport.  My question--Is there any traditional TKD left? Does anyone teach the non sport method??



Yes. Quite a few WTF schools will teach a more traditional TKD outside of the olympic sparring rules. ITF TKD traditionally trains with punches being allowed to the face etc, so they're usually not going to be fighting with their arms at their sides. (Still depends on the school) You see Olympic style sparring more because of the Olympics and the various other tournament circuts that lead to the olympics etc. 



> Nope, its not moot. I was asking a simple question.  Do you or have you ever grappled???


Sure. Do standup ho sin sul stuff in my TKD class. (Since it's "worthless" JJJ style stuff dunno if that counts to the MMA mind.) 




> And if you're such the expert, rather than getting so pissed off, maybe you should take the time to help someone out who doesnt have as good of an understanding.  You're getting annoyed because I'm questioning things.



You're not really questioning things. You're arguing from preconceptions that arent' especailly well informed. You're attacking sport TKD which doesn't really bother me at all except for the guilty by association stigma it drags with it. 



> Give some constructive answers.



I'm still waiting for you to answer why weight classes were required by the states etc if weight means nothing. 



> You're commenting on grappling.  Do you do it? Oh wait, I forgot, you dont want to answer.



Why does it matter if I grapple or not? It doesn't seem to matter if you do, or know anything at all about TKD while trying to "question" it. 



> Why is that?? Dont worry though, because if you have a question, I'd be happy to answer it for you.  And if I can't, I'll find someone who can answer it.



Fine. Get me a real answer on the weight classes, and then I'll worry about answering yours.


----------



## Marginal

Just to demonstrate how a search function can do what I personally have not:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9141&highlight=size

Odd how weight and size seems to be important there. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3077&highlight=size

Hmm... Size again makes a difference, and the notion's supported by people who grapple. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3952&highlight=size

Size comes up again in favor of the heavier fighter...

Never thought to ask, but do you grapple MJS? Going through the grappling forum, I see you posting the exact same anectodal "I watched 'em in the UFC" statements and grapplers taking issue with you there as well. Are they all simply wrong?


----------



## Shu2jack

Calm down fellas!



> On a side note. Since this is a TKD thread, and I'm not a TKD stylist, maybe someone could enlighten me as to the difference between the sport and the traditional style differences?


MJS, as a student of a traditional TKD school that belongs to a slowly changing into "sport TKD" organization, perhaps I can help show the difference between "Traditional" and "Sport".



Traditional- 30 pushups for being 2 minutes late for class. 30 pushups for not answering "Yes sir" or "No sir". 30 pushups for not punching or kicking harder. Etc. Etc. Etc. I was 11 years old at that time. Sometimes the class would get 100+ pushups apart from the regular warm up. This was the beginner's class. The black belt class was awesome.

Sport- Occassionally give pushups if it is a consistant problem. Reminders to "answer up" or encourage to punch/kick harder. Adult and black belt classes are a bit stricter, but not a whole lot.



Traditional- I live in Michigan. Weather and other factors will not permit me to kick a lot of the time. So we take out partner targets and practice punching/elbow/knee combinations. We do a little clinching and practice a few strikes from that position.

Sport- Remember to punch as a follow up for kicks. Or us a punch as a distraction.



Traditional- ALWAYS keep your hands up. If you don't your instructor will walk by you and "whack" you in the head to show you what happens if the other guy is faster.

Sport- Put your hands where ever you want.



Traditional- Avoid the fight if nesscary. If you can't, you are going to either destroy him or at the very least make it so he is no longer a threat.

Sport- Don't talk a lot about self-defense.


Traditional- Hit with the intention of breaking bones or incapacitating your opponent.

Sport- Hit as fast as you can, regardless of power.


I could go on, but these a few, but major differences between sport and traditional TKD


----------



## MJS

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> Calm down fellas!
> 
> 
> MJS, as a student of a traditional TKD school that belongs to a slowly changing into "sport TKD" organization, perhaps I can help show the difference between "Traditional" and "Sport".
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional- 30 pushups for being 2 minutes late for class. 30 pushups for not answering "Yes sir" or "No sir". 30 pushups for not punching or kicking harder. Etc. Etc. Etc. I was 11 years old at that time. Sometimes the class would get 100+ pushups apart from the regular warm up. This was the beginner's class. The black belt class was awesome.
> 
> Sport- Occassionally give pushups if it is a consistant problem. Reminders to "answer up" or encourage to punch/kick harder. Adult and black belt classes are a bit stricter, but not a whole lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional- I live in Michigan. Weather and other factors will not permit me to kick a lot of the time. So we take out partner targets and practice punching/elbow/knee combinations. We do a little clinching and practice a few strikes from that position.
> 
> Sport- Remember to punch as a follow up for kicks. Or us a punch as a distraction.
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional- ALWAYS keep your hands up. If you don't your instructor will walk by you and "whack" you in the head to show you what happens if the other guy is faster.
> 
> Sport- Put your hands where ever you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional- Avoid the fight if nesscary. If you can't, you are going to either destroy him or at the very least make it so he is no longer a threat.
> 
> Sport- Don't talk a lot about self-defense.
> 
> 
> Traditional- Hit with the intention of breaking bones or incapacitating your opponent.
> 
> Sport- Hit as fast as you can, regardless of power.
> 
> 
> I could go on, but these a few, but major differences between sport and traditional TKD



Thank you.

Mike


----------



## MJS

Marginal said:
			
		

> Never thought to ask, but do you grapple MJS?



Yes I do.  As for the weight and size pros and cons....both of my grappling instructors are smaller and lighter than me, yet no matter how hard I try to keep them down, they still manage to slap on a submission.  One of them got his training under Royce and Rorion Gracie and the other from Roy Harris.

Mike


----------



## MJS

Marginal said:
			
		

> The point is, he won because he was huge. Even without the eye injury, the guy was being tossed around like a rag doll. For that matter, what were the announcers saying in the Coleman vs Frye championship match? That Coleman had an atvantage because he was taller and could establish a stronger base.



So let me ask your opinion on this.  If size is what makes the difference and its not the tech. as you're saying, then basically, anyone thats taller than you, is going to win? I'm 5'10, so anyone 5'11 and up will destroy me in a fight??  






> Yessss.... But, you could've accomplished that much simply by reading a book, hitting google, or asking that outright rather than saying "TKD's not going to work in a bar fight because they're too close to kick the other guy." beforehand.



Yup, right again.  I could have but didnt.  Funny though how looking back at the first few pages, I saw someone saying pretty much the same thing as I was.






> Same here, (ya know... Since I don't train sport TKD) but it does actually happen in sport TKD. Self-defense efficacy aside, they can generate some impressive power with those kicks.



I'm sure they can.





> I said that due to thenature of the rules, it's almost impossible to SCORE with a hand technique to the body. (You have to induce "trembling shock" to score which involves displacing your opponent a set amount of distance. Punches really can't accomplish this.)



ok





> Doesn't matter to me since I train TKD, but don't train sport TKD. I'm making no claims that sport TKD is effective. I'm saying that TKD trained without those sporting rules in mind creates a much different fighter. Because as you say, "you fight as you train".



ok





> Yes. Quite a few WTF schools will teach a more traditional TKD outside of the olympic sparring rules. ITF TKD traditionally trains with punches being allowed to the face etc, so they're usually not going to be fighting with their arms at their sides. (Still depends on the school) You see Olympic style sparring more because of the Olympics and the various other tournament circuts that lead to the olympics etc.



ok



> Sure. Do standup ho sin sul stuff in my TKD class. (Since it's "worthless" JJJ style stuff dunno if that counts to the MMA mind.)



Sure it counts.






> You're not really questioning things. You're arguing from preconceptions that arent' especailly well informed. You're attacking sport TKD which doesn't really bother me at all except for the guilty by association stigma it drags with it.



Again, I'm not a student of TKD, so as I said, I'm going on what I've seen.  





> I'm still waiting for you to answer why weight classes were required by the states etc if weight means nothing.



Not the best answer, but its something that I came across.  



> The Tournament
> 
> Most people realize that the early day UFC events were actually tournaments. UFC 1 featured an 8 man tournament which was followed by UFC 2 which featured a 16 man tournament. After UFC 2, the UFC realized that the 16 man tournament was a bit overwhelming, so they returned to the 8 man tournament for UFC 3. Not so confusing, huh?
> 
> By the time UFC 4 concluded, SEG (the owners of the UFC during the early days of the UFC) realized that the fans wanted to see the best, fight the best (which wasn't guaranteed within the tournament format due to injuries or loses). Therefore SEG came up with the idea of a Superfight. UFC 5 featured the first Superfight between Ken Shamrock and Royce Gracie. Still sounds pretty simple, right?
> 
> The UFC continued this pattern of having either an 8 man tournament or a Superfight at each UFC event up until UFC 12, with many events featuring a tournament and a Superfight.
> 
> Note: Some UFC events prior to UFC 12 did not have Superfights, including UFC 7, Ultimate Ultimate 95, UFC 10, UFC 11 and Ultimate Ultimate 96. Although UFC 9 did feature a Superfight, it did not include a tournament but rather pitted fighters against each other one on one.
> 
> By the time UFC 12 had come about, there had been 12 Tournament Champions and 3 Superfight Champions (although there had been five Superfights prior to UFC 12, two of those fights had ended in a draw).
> 
> The Confusion Begins
> 
> Realizing the need for weight classes, SEG decided to implement two separate weight classes for UFC 12. The first weight class would be the Light Heavyweight weight class which would consist of fighters weighing less than 200 pounds. The second weight class was to be the Heavyweight weight class which would consist of fighters over 200 pounds. To promote their new weight classes, UFC 12 featured two 4 man tournaments (one tournament for the Light Heavyweight division and another for the Heavyweight division).
> 
> UFC 13 had gone one step further by featuring dual 4 man tournaments similar to UFC 12, but SEG also included a Superfight in this event which left us with another Light Heavyweight Tournament Champion, another Heavyweight Tournament Champion and another Superfight Champion.
> 
> For UFC 14, SEG eliminated the former Light Heavyweight weight class (which was under 200 lbs.) and created two new weight classes which were the Middleweight weight class (170 - 199 lbs.) and the Lightweight weight class (Under 170 lbs.). In addition to the dual 4 man tournaments featured at UFC 14 (one for the Middleweight division and another for the Heavyweight division), UFC 14 featured the UFC's first actual Heavyweight Championship (not to be confused with the Heavyweight Tournament Championship which brought us a new Heavyweight Tournament Champion each time an event featured a Heavyweight Tournament). It's beginning to get a bit confusing now.
> 
> So UFC 14 brought us a new Middleweight Tournament Champion, another Heavyweight Tournament Champion and a true UFC Heavyweight Champion (there was no Superfight at UFC 14). UFC 15 included a 4 man Heavyweight Tournament, a Heavyweight Superfight (to remain consistent with the new weight classes) and a UFC Heavyweight Championship match.
> 
> Next came UFC Ultimate Japan 1 (which was obviously the UFC's first event in Japan). UFC Japan 1 featured a 4 man Heavyweight Tournament, a UFC Heavyweight Championship bout and a match which would determine the UFC's first UFC Middleweight Champion (again, not to be confused with the UFC Middleweight Tournament Champ). Okay, you got all that, right?
> 
> The Confusion Continues
> 
> UFC 16. Just when you think you've got a handle on what's going on, SEG throws a curve ball. UFC 16 featured the UFC's first 4 man Lightweight Tournament (under 170 lbs.), accompanied by a UFC Middleweight Championship Title defense, a Middleweight Superfight and a Heavyweight Superfight. UFC 17 continued with the confusion where UFC 16 left off. UFC 17 featured a 4 man Middleweight Tournament accompanied by three Heavyweight Superfights.
> 
> If your keeping track, up to this point the UFC has crowned:
> 
> 12 Tournament Champions
> 4 Superfight Champions
> 2 Light Heavyweight Tournament Champions
> 5 Heavyweight Tournament Champions
> 2 Middleweight Tournament Champions
> 5 Heavyweight Superfight Champions
> 1 Lightweight Tournament Champion
> 1 Middleweight Superfight Champion
> 2 UFC Heavyweight Champions (Maurice Smith lost this title to Randy Couture)
> 1 UFC Middleweight Champion (Frank Shamrock held this title since it's inception)
> SEG was beginning to realize that things were becoming a bit confusing (more like extremely confusing) so they decided that they needed to reduce the number of fighters being given the title of Champion. But first, the UFC needed an official UFC Lightweight Champion to go along with there already established UFC Heavyweight and UFC Middleweight Champions. UFC Ultimate Brazil would bring us the first UFC Lightweight Champion in the form of Pat Miletich (the event also featured a UFC Middleweight Title defense by Frank Shamrock and a Middleweight Superfight). UFC Ultimate Brazil marked the end of the Superfight. SEG discontinued labeling fights as Superfights after UFC Ultimate Brazil.
> 
> With the UFC establishing a legitimate Lightweight Champion, Middleweight Champion and a Heavyweight Champion, it seemed as if the tournament format had faded away in favor of a format which more closely resembled that of Boxing. SEG did have one final tournament at UFC 23 - Ultimate Japan 2. UFC 23 featured a 4 man tournament along with a UFC Heavyweight Championship title match to determine a Heavyweight Champion for the title which had been vacated after the previous title holder (Bas Rutten) had dropped down to the Middleweight division.
> 
> The UFC has changed in many ways since the early days of the UFC and has even changed ownership. It is highly unlikely that the UFC (which is now owned by Zuffa) will ever return to the tournament format. Over the years Zuffa has continuously sought to maintain consistency within the sport as well as educate the fans. The UFC has come a long way since it's introduction but Zuffa realizes that there is still a long way to go before the sport truly reaches it's full potential






> Why does it matter if I grapple or not? It doesn't seem to matter if you do, or know anything at all about TKD while trying to "question" it.



Well considering that I'm talking about something that I dont know about, just a little curious if you're doing the same.





> Fine. Get me a real answer on the weight classes, and then I'll worry about answering yours.



See above.  So....do you grapple??

Mike


----------



## MJS

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> C'mon, Mike.
> 
> For 6 pages one person after another has been saying the same thing; each in his own way. What part of "sport vs combat" is not understood here? Want to pair a boxer with a wrestler with a karate-ka with a judo-ka? Still wondering whose gonna win? Thats easy. Whose rules are you playing by? Want to know what art will win on the street, in actual combat, against muggers, against street punks, against road rage, against antagonized old ladies....? How about on rainy days? How about on hot days? How about close to the Equator? What about on Mars?



Well, after the first few pages, unless I'm missing it, it was all stand up vs. grappling.  I guess I was looking for the differences between sport vs trad. such as the training methods, differences in fighting, etc.  I got some answers from a few people here.   

Mike


----------



## Mark Weiser

Here is the straight shot from a guy with 28 years of combined Military and Civilian Law Enforcement along with Cross Training in several MA's over the years. 

The only chance to survive a fight is using your head and not to panic. Panic is the number one killer due to the fight or flight response in our parasympathic nervous system.

I have always said you must cross train in the MA's due to different teaching of movements and you may have to draw upon those skills if you do not have them then your toast and Your Mom or Wife will be sitting at you graveside. 

"He was a Blackbelt honest! He said he could handle himself"

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser 

Oh by the way a great Martial Artist trains in Modern Weapons. The Knife, Kanta, Fans, Sticks were Modern weapons in the day. I suggest learning how to use Firearms because I will bet money the other dude is packing.


----------



## Marginal

MJS said:
			
		

> So let me ask your opinion on this.  If size is what makes the difference and its not the tech. as you're saying, then basically, anyone thats taller than you, is going to win? I'm 5'10, so anyone 5'11 and up will destroy me in a fight??



While that would make things way easier seeing as how I'm 5'11" and could then study anything from pie eating, to legos, to ballet and still beat you in a ring no matter what you did...  

You'd do better arguing against what I've been writing here in this thread. I said that size matters. I never said technique didn't. You claim that technique makes size meangless, and that's simply never, ever true. The most I've ever said is that if two people who are equally skilled, but one's bigger than the other, then the bigger one has an advantage. I've cited examples from MMA matches, comments from grapplers etc all of which support this notion, and you're still not hearing me. Even with your Helio example, did I say he won because he secretly increased his bone density? No, I said he won with superior skill. 

My point has always been that the smaller man is at a disadvantage against the bigger man. You can offset that physical disadvantage through training, but you have to become *better* than the bigger fighter because if all other things are equal, he's going to have that set of natural advantages still. Hackney won against Yarbrough because he had technique. All the Sumu master had going for him was bulk, and that wasn't enough. Put Hackney in against Goodridge or Severn on the other hand... 

Even look at that Kimo vs Royce fight. Kimo was trained by Jo Son. Neither were all that great at grappling. (He'd only been training in grappling for a few months, so unless he was a prodigy of epic porportions, I'm betting it's safe to assume he wasn't one of the greatest grapplers to ever set foot in the octagon. Hackney beat Jo and Hackney wasn't a grappling specialist by any stretch either.) Kimo still managed to hold off Royce long enough to make the Brazilian wilt after the match. How'd he manage that with inferior technique? There's a question for you to consider. Yes, Royce still won, but seriously look at the skill gap between Kimo and Royce and then ask yourself how Kimo managed to last as long as he did. 



> Yup, right again.  I could have but didn't.  Funny though how looking back at the first few pages, I saw someone saying pretty much the same thing as I was.



I'm not saying the stereotype isn't widespread, just that it's annoying, and it's annoying because it's not really true.



> Sure it counts.



Hrm. You say "it counts", after I *tell* you what grappling I've trained, and you keep asking me if I've grappled? Makes.... Uh, sense I guess.



> Not the best answer, but its something that I came across.



I appreciate the effort, but that said nothing about why the weight classes were introduced. It just said that they were. We both agree that weight classes exist. It's the why that's our sticking point. 



> See above.  So....do you grapple??



See above.


----------



## MJS

Marginal said:
			
		

> While that would make things way easier seeing as how I'm 5'11" and could then study anything from pie eating, to legos, to ballet and still beat you in a ring no matter what you did...



  :asian:  Then again, I wouldnt totally under estimate the smaller man.  One of my training partners is 5'3 and hes pretty tough for his size.



> You'd do better arguing against what I've been writing here in this thread. I said that size matters. I never said technique didn't. You claim that technique makes size meangless, and that's simply never, ever true. The most I've ever said is that if two people who are equally skilled, but one's bigger than the other, then the bigger one has an advantage. I've cited examples from MMA matches, comments from grapplers etc all of which support this notion, and you're still not hearing me. Even with your Helio example, did I say he won because he secretly increased his bone density? No, I said he won with superior skill.



So, this is what it comes down to.

1- If both fighters are equally skilled, the bigger one has the advantage.

2- If one is smaller and one is large, such as with the Helio example, Helio won over his larger opp. with better tech. so the larger mans size didnt play a part because Helio had better tech, more stamina, etc.  Were all of his opps. lesser skilled than he was?? Were they always bigger or were they the same size??

3- How are you going to know your opps. skill level until you actually start the fight?  





> My point has always been that the smaller man is at a disadvantage against the bigger man. You can offset that physical disadvantage through training, but you have to become *better* than the bigger fighter because if all other things are equal, he's going to have that set of natural advantages still. Hackney won against Yarbrough because he had technique. All the Sumu master had going for him was bulk, and that wasn't enough. Put Hackney in against Goodridge or Severn on the other hand...



Agreed!





> Even look at that Kimo vs Royce fight. Kimo was trained by Jo Son. Neither were all that great at grappling. (He'd only been training in grappling for a few months, so unless he was a prodigy of epic porportions, I'm betting it's safe to assume he wasn't one of the greatest grapplers to ever set foot in the octagon. Hackney beat Jo and Hackney wasn't a grappling specialist by any stretch either.) Kimo still managed to hold off Royce long enough to make the Brazilian wilt after the match. How'd he manage that with inferior technique? There's a question for you to consider. Yes, Royce still won, but seriously look at the skill gap between Kimo and Royce and then ask yourself how Kimo managed to last as long as he did.



Just a guess here.  Royce could have under estimated Kimo.  We've seen the same thing with Belfort.  How many of his fights lasted only a few seconds, but when he fought Randy, what happened? He lost due to the fact that he most likely thought that the fight was going to be over in a short amount of time.  As for how Kimo lasted so long...more endurance than Royce thought.  Considering that he didnt have great grappling skills back then, it'd be interesting to see them in a rematch.  IMO, his skills went up!

Question for you.  Shamrock and Kimo fought twice.  Ken- 6'1,235 and Kimo 6'3, 235 according to Sherdog.  Equal in weight and one slightly taller.  Kimo lost both times, once to a leg lock and the other due to KO.  Your thoughts on those 2 fights?  





> I'm not saying the stereotype isn't widespread, just that it's annoying, and it's annoying because it's not really true.



ok.





> Hrm. You say "it counts", after I *tell* you what grappling I've trained, and you keep asking me if I've grappled? Makes.... Uh, sense I guess.



You mentioned the standing grappling/clinch work.  I was inquiring about actually rolling on the ground.





> I appreciate the effort, but that said nothing about why the weight classes were introduced. It just said that they were. We both agree that weight classes exist. It's the why that's our sticking point.



Well, your guess is as good as mine, because honestly, I really dont know other than what I showed you.  The article and the fact that the rules were changed to make everyone happier is the best that I can come up with.

Mike


----------



## Marginal

MJS said:
			
		

> So, this is what it comes down to.
> 
> 1- If both fighters are equally skilled, the bigger one has the advantage.
> 
> 2- If one is smaller and one is large, such as with the Helio example, Helio won over his larger opp. with better tech. so the larger mans size didnt play a part because Helio had better tech, more stamina, etc.  Were all of his opps. lesser skilled than he was?? Were they always bigger or were they the same size??
> 
> 3- How are you going to know your opps. skill level until you actually start the fight?



1- Yep.

2- Helio was still at a physical disadvantage. He offset that problem through tech and training. 

3- You don't. (That's why you train.) 



> Just a guess here.  Royce could have under estimated Kimo.  We've seen the same thing with Belfort.  How many of his fights lasted only a few seconds, but when he fought Randy, what happened? He lost due to the fact that he most likely thought that the fight was going to be over in a short amount of time.



Randy knew Belfort was a fast and strong puncher, but he also knew that Vitor only threw straight punches. Randy took Vitor off his form by circling and preventing vitor from effectively deploying his favored weapon. He beat Vitor through strategy as much as anything else. 



> As for how Kimo lasted so long...more endurance than Royce thought.  Considering that he didnt have great grappling skills back then, it'd be interesting to see them in a rematch.  IMO, his skills went up!



I'd hope so.  Either way, I'd suggest that Kimo being much stronger than Royce played a big part in that match. 



> Question for you.  Shamrock and Kimo fought twice.  Ken- 6'1,235 and Kimo 6'3, 235 according to Sherdog.  Equal in weight and one slightly taller.  Kimo lost both times, once to a leg lock and the other due to KO.  Your thoughts on those 2 fights?



Shamrock's the better in technique IMO. He's been training and fighting way longer than Kimo. 



> You mentioned the standing grappling/clinch work.  I was inquiring about actually rolling on the ground.



Yeah, but that was my answer. Limited grappling experience. Haven't ever rolled. I still read up on the subject etc just so I can understand what's going on in those MMA fights. (More interesting when you know why they're "just lying there" all the time.) 



> Well, your guess is as good as mine, because honestly, I really dont know other than what I showed you.  The article and the fact that the rules were changed to make everyone happier is the best that I can come up with.



I'm guessing they did it for safety reasons along with trying to make the fights more exciting as in the same weight classes, tech shines through more.


----------



## MJS

Marginal-  Thanks for the chat! :asian:   Its definately been interesting.  As I've said before, its hard to get our thoughts across a computer, so of course, misunderstandings and arguments are going to happen.  I think that this thread got a little off topic, but hey, thats part of the fun of it.  

Mike


----------



## Kevin Walker

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that ignores why weight classes were a requirement. Are you actually trying to claim that John Hess won fights with good technique rather than size?
> 
> 
> 
> My point is, that they're crosstraining NOW, like I said in my last post. That BJJ needed more than just what Royce demonstrated in the first three UFC's once strikers adapted to anti grappling? If they're crosstraining, they're not doing BJJ. They're doing BJJ and MT. Thus, saying BJJ people can punch and kick too is hooey. Pure BJJ people can't outside of that low kick. (The vids have spoken afterall.)
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That's great, and I'm sure you saw the utter invariable truth on there too. (Cause it's not completely mindlessly biased towards MMA or anything.)
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. I've seen that stupid clip. I've also looked up that tournament's history. TKD fighters have won it several times over the years. Must be because all TKD fighters suck because Bullshido has that one clip. (That's the conclusion the BS'ers reached at least.)
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda a side effect of training for sport TKD which actively discourages the use of the hands. (It's almost impossible to score with a hand technique to the body, and head strikes w/the hands are restricted.) Since blocking a kick can break your arm, evasion is encouraged vs keeping your hands up etc. However, not all TKD is trained this way which is what makes your post and the Bullshido vid utterly worthless.
> 
> Train with hand strikes to the head etc, and you create a very different TKD fighter. I pointed this out last post, but you still pulled out the Bullshido vid.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh. You don't beleive that of all TKD, but you think it's a good representation to draw *all* your conclusions from. Makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Moot since grappling is not independent of weight. It's sheer hype.
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with weight not being an advantage. Boxing coaches tell their students the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> If one has better tech, then they're not equally skilled. The bigger one still gets to make the smaller one work harder assuming skill's equal. He can apply more weight while on top while doing nothing other than riding the smaller man etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Then he developed superior skill. This offset the disadvantage of being smaller. Get a big man of equal skill, and Helio would've had his work cut out for him.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm annoyed because you're trying to comment on an art you evidently know absolutely nothing about. (For that matter, what would the reaction be on BS if I went to the forums and said "TKD's not worthless". I'd be flamed to high holy hell.) I'm being polite compared to the compilers of your source material.
> 
> I might as well just start linking to www.matbattle.com for "proof" of grappling's unsuitability or say that JKD is dedicated to head kicks and yowling like a cat because that's what Bruce Lee did in his movies. You're basically reciting the MMA partyline (which for the record, is "TKD is worthless. In fact, it teaches you habits so terrible that you're actually worse off than an untrained person in a real fight.") without any information on TKD, and no real facts to support the assertion that grappling means that size is meaningless. I've had the exact same conversation on Sherdog, RMA, and a few other places already. If you want to actually discuss either, that's fine, but I want more than what Jim Brown uttered in UFC 2 as proof that there's some knowledge being applied here.
> 
> Kevin Walker: Gen Choi spent years refining and adapting TKD to its new niche outside of the millitary. To claim that it works solely in conditions involving combat boots and full combat gear is absurd. If you ever went into traditional TKD school, I think you'd have a much harder time calling it a specialzed niche art. TKD as taught isn't that far removed from Shotokan, and other similar styles of karate. Greater focus on kicking, but that is not TKD's exclusive focus and never has been.


Kevin Walker response: Hi, sorry for the delayed answer to your last assertion. I never wrote that Tae Kwon Do "works soley in conditions involving combat boots and full combat gear"! I wrote and still maintain, as General Choi told me personallly (through an interpreter), that Tae Kwon Do was specifically designed to be applied by the combat soldier, i.e. wearing combat boots and full combat gear. And this is still the case today!!!
Yes, I am fully aware that Tae Kwon Do has been modified with wristlocks and take downs - to make it more versatile!!! Otherwise the TKD practitioner would be severely limited in a civilian self-defense situation.
Now, try this thought experiment: Place a fully trained Brazilian Jiu Jitsu expert in full combat gear carrying a rifle in a hand-to-hand combat situation with the enemy, being over run for example. I think the BJJ guy would be seriously out of his element, not the TKD practioner! QED!


----------



## Kevin Walker

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that ignores why weight classes were a requirement. Are you actually trying to claim that John Hess won fights with good technique rather than size?
> 
> 
> 
> My point is, that they're crosstraining NOW, like I said in my last post. That BJJ needed more than just what Royce demonstrated in the first three UFC's once strikers adapted to anti grappling? If they're crosstraining, they're not doing BJJ. They're doing BJJ and MT. Thus, saying BJJ people can punch and kick too is hooey. Pure BJJ people can't outside of that low kick. (The vids have spoken afterall.)
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That's great, and I'm sure you saw the utter invariable truth on there too. (Cause it's not completely mindlessly biased towards MMA or anything.)
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. I've seen that stupid clip. I've also looked up that tournament's history. TKD fighters have won it several times over the years. Must be because all TKD fighters suck because Bullshido has that one clip. (That's the conclusion the BS'ers reached at least.)
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda a side effect of training for sport TKD which actively discourages the use of the hands. (It's almost impossible to score with a hand technique to the body, and head strikes w/the hands are restricted.) Since blocking a kick can break your arm, evasion is encouraged vs keeping your hands up etc. However, not all TKD is trained this way which is what makes your post and the Bullshido vid utterly worthless.
> 
> Train with hand strikes to the head etc, and you create a very different TKD fighter. I pointed this out last post, but you still pulled out the Bullshido vid.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh. You don't beleive that of all TKD, but you think it's a good representation to draw *all* your conclusions from. Makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Moot since grappling is not independent of weight. It's sheer hype.
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with weight not being an advantage. Boxing coaches tell their students the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> If one has better tech, then they're not equally skilled. The bigger one still gets to make the smaller one work harder assuming skill's equal. He can apply more weight while on top while doing nothing other than riding the smaller man etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Then he developed superior skill. This offset the disadvantage of being smaller. Get a big man of equal skill, and Helio would've had his work cut out for him.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm annoyed because you're trying to comment on an art you evidently know absolutely nothing about. (For that matter, what would the reaction be on BS if I went to the forums and said "TKD's not worthless". I'd be flamed to high holy hell.) I'm being polite compared to the compilers of your source material.
> 
> I might as well just start linking to www.matbattle.com for "proof" of grappling's unsuitability or say that JKD is dedicated to head kicks and yowling like a cat because that's what Bruce Lee did in his movies. You're basically reciting the MMA partyline (which for the record, is "TKD is worthless. In fact, it teaches you habits so terrible that you're actually worse off than an untrained person in a real fight.") without any information on TKD, and no real facts to support the assertion that grappling means that size is meaningless. I've had the exact same conversation on Sherdog, RMA, and a few other places already. If you want to actually discuss either, that's fine, but I want more than what Jim Brown uttered in UFC 2 as proof that there's some knowledge being applied here.
> 
> Kevin Walker: Gen Choi spent years refining and adapting TKD to its new niche outside of the millitary. To claim that it works solely in conditions involving combat boots and full combat gear is absurd. If you ever went into traditional TKD school, I think you'd have a much harder time calling it a specialzed niche art. TKD as taught isn't that far removed from Shotokan, and other similar styles of karate. Greater focus on kicking, but that is not TKD's exclusive focus and never has been.


Another Kevin Walker response to your last assertion: Yes, I've studied traditional Tae Kwon Do here in Boston by one of General Choi's private students (his Dojang still exists near Fenway Park). I've had my ears boxed for daring to compare Tae Kwon Do to any form of Karate. In fact, we are taught specifically that Tae Kwon Do is imminently superior to Karate. Karate is primitive, and the TKD practitioner is encouraged to disparage and ignore it altogether. This is FACT!! (Personally I kinda like Shotokan).

But I openly question the quality of your previous TKD instruction based on your obviously loose understanding of TKD.


----------



## Kevin Walker

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Here is the straight shot from a guy with 28 years of combined Military and Civilian Law Enforcement along with Cross Training in several MA's over the years.
> 
> The only chance to survive a fight is using your head and not to panic. Panic is the number one killer due to the fight or flight response in our parasympathic nervous system.
> 
> I have always said you must cross train in the MA's due to different teaching of movements and you may have to draw upon those skills if you do not have them then your toast and Your Mom or Wife will be sitting at you graveside.
> 
> "He was a Blackbelt honest! He said he could handle himself"
> 
> Sincerely,
> Mark E. Weiser
> 
> Oh by the way a great Martial Artist trains in Modern Weapons. The Knife, Kanta, Fans, Sticks were Modern weapons in the day. I suggest learning how to use Firearms because I will bet money the other dude is packing.


Hi Mark,

Couldn't agree with you more about packing a modern weapon.  Today (21st century) in Japan, they have included an automatic pistol in their contemporary repetoire of Jui-Jitsu weaponry.  The Katana and Yari were the ultimate and modern weapons of the 8th thru 18th centuries, but you cannot beat an automatic 14 shot pistol for hand-to-hand combat, particularly if you know how to use it beyond the pistol range paper punching ability.

Wise Old Indian saying: "Its better to have a gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it."


----------



## Kevin Walker

the_kicking_fiend said:
			
		

> I don't really agree about self-defence being an issue on the battlefield. Hand to hand combat is very rare on the battlefield, especially considering the assortment of modern weaponry available to the military these days. I've heard of the SAS and such using their knives on men when the bullets ran out in Afghanistan caves.
> 
> Also, people have mentioned that cross training may be the best way of getting a good self-defence system established for yourself but I can't help but remember my master: "It's better to be a master of one trade than a jack of all"
> 
> d


Hi,

The Korean ROKs used Tae Kwon Do extensively during their tour of duty in Viet Nam.  Ask any American Viet Nam veteran deployed with them.  The Viet Cong didn't like it very much, and I don't think the insurgents in Iraq will care for it either with South Korea deploying 3,000 white horse ROK infantry to Iraq.


----------



## Marginal

Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> Kevin Walker response: Hi, sorry for the delayed answer to your last assertion. I never wrote that Tae Kwon Do "works soley in conditions involving combat boots and full combat gear"! I wrote and still maintain, as General Choi told me personallly (through an interpreter), that Tae Kwon Do was specifically designed to be applied by the combat soldier, i.e. wearing combat boots and full combat gear. And this is still the case today!!!



Nope. Sorry, but you've devised a theory from an offhand comment that doesn't hold enough water to moisten a sponge.



> Yes, I am fully aware that Tae Kwon Do has been modified with wristlocks and take downs - to make it more versatile!!!



They were actually there from its inception. (Gen Choi's at least) It's right there in the pattern applications. Releases, grabs etc. With the older shotokan forms, they're still present. Either way, if you allow (oh so graciously) that TKD has in fact been adapted since, how can you claim that it still *only* fits ito the niche you claim it does?



> Place a fully trained Brazilian Jiu Jitsu expert in full combat gear carrying a rifle in a hand-to-hand combat situation with the enemy, being over run for example. I think the BJJ guy would be seriously out of his element, not the TKD practioner! QED!



Ever see All Quiet on the Western Front? Not a lot of standup fighting potential there. There's not a great deal of HTH training in most modern millitary units these days regardless, and there's a reason for this. 

You can beleive that understanding TKD's roots is evidence of shoddy instruction if you like, Kevin Walker. I can't see how ignorance leads to superior knowledge though.


----------



## glad2bhere

".....The Korean ROKs used Tae Kwon Do extensively during their tour of duty in Viet Nam. Ask any American Viet Nam veteran deployed with them. The Viet Cong didn't like it very much, and I don't think the insurgents in Iraq will care for it either with South Korea deploying 3,000 white horse ROK infantry to Iraq....."

I think I know what you are working to convey but it may be misleading to a lot of folks the way your post is worded. 

The ROK forces in Vietnam did indeed bear a fearsome reputation though it stemmed more from a no-nonsense policy in dealing with the enemy than anything else. It is also true that the ROK forces also taught and practiced various arts among their own units and to American troops as well. Where we risk stepping over a line is to say that there was a causal relationship between the two points. Like the Israeli, Nepalese, and Turkish forces, the Korean military enjoys a reputation for mental toughness and endurance and perhaps the TKD practice contributes to this. All the same, on a modern battlefield the soldiers' opportunity to demonstrate individual combat skills mano y mano must defer both to the goals of the unit and the use of his primary weapon which is his rifle. My sense is that the Viet Cong of the RVN conflict, as well as the insurgents in Iraq in the latest conflict will come to admit to respecting the toughness of the ROK troop whether or not they ever witnessed TKD firsthand. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## bluemtn

First of all,  I'm glad that this isn't a "my art is better than your art" thread -  the last forum I was at, that's all you read when it came to TKD.  Personally, I got sick of it.  So far, I haven't seen that here-  then again, I'm fairly new to Martial Talk.  

A person shouldn't knock an art just because (for example) its main focus is sport-  the next person might just be interested in getting in shape, and feel better about theirself.  Besides, does that mean they won't be able to defend his/herself at any given time?  I've only been in 2 different styles of TKD- one WTF and the other traditional- and both taught/ teaches self defense, not just
sport.  Does anyone else?


----------



## Kevin Walker

Marginal said:
			
		

> Nope. Sorry, but you've devised a theory from an offhand comment that doesn't hold enough water to moisten a sponge.
> 
> 
> 
> They were actually there from its inception. (Gen Choi's at least) It's right there in the pattern applications. Releases, grabs etc. With the older shotokan forms, they're still present. Either way, if you allow (oh so graciously) that TKD has in fact been adapted since, how can you claim that it still *only* fits ito the niche you claim it does?
> 
> 
> 
> Ever see All Quiet on the Western Front? Not a lot of standup fighting potential there. There's not a great deal of HTH training in most modern millitary units these days regardless, and there's a reason for this.
> 
> You can beleive that understanding TKD's roots is evidence of shoddy instruction if you like, Kevin Walker. I can't see how ignorance leads to superior knowledge though.


Hi,

Yes, I did see the movie, All Quiet On The Western Front. Are you aware that Tae Kwon Do was not invented during World War I? And yes, a lot of stand up fighting did occur during WWI, which is why the formidible trench knife was developed for some real nasty HTH, also the long bayonet was extensively used for HTH.

Tae Kwon Do was developed primarily for the military combat soldier, and for a self-dense street situation second.

And just to verify my opinion, please call General Choi's former student: Jae Kim at his Dojang "Jae Kim's Tae Kwon Do" in Boston. They're real nice guys there and can enlighten you. Thanks!


----------



## Kevin Walker

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> ".....The Korean ROKs used Tae Kwon Do extensively during their tour of duty in Viet Nam. Ask any American Viet Nam veteran deployed with them. The Viet Cong didn't like it very much, and I don't think the insurgents in Iraq will care for it either with South Korea deploying 3,000 white horse ROK infantry to Iraq....."
> 
> I think I know what you are working to convey but it may be misleading to a lot of folks the way your post is worded.
> 
> The ROK forces in Vietnam did indeed bear a fearsome reputation though it stemmed more from a no-nonsense policy in dealing with the enemy than anything else. It is also true that the ROK forces also taught and practiced various arts among their own units and to American troops as well. Where we risk stepping over a line is to say that there was a causal relationship between the two points. Like the Israeli, Nepalese, and Turkish forces, the Korean military enjoys a reputation for mental toughness and endurance and perhaps the TKD practice contributes to this. All the same, on a modern battlefield the soldiers' opportunity to demonstrate individual combat skills mano y mano must defer both to the goals of the unit and the use of his primary weapon which is his rifle. My sense is that the Viet Cong of the RVN conflict, as well as the insurgents in Iraq in the latest conflict will come to admit to respecting the toughness of the ROK troop whether or not they ever witnessed TKD firsthand. FWIW.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Bruce


The Korean ROK troops (both White Horse infantry and special forces Tigers) gave the Viet Cong and regular NVA troops during the Viet Nam conflict ample opportunity to witness TKD first hand.  Just as the ROK's will give the insurgents ample opportunity in Iraq to witness TKD upclose, especially after they cut the head off a helpless civilian Korean national.


----------



## Kevin Walker

tkdgirl said:
			
		

> First of all, I'm glad that this isn't a "my art is better than your art" thread - the last forum I was at, that's all you read when it came to TKD. Personally, I got sick of it. So far, I haven't seen that here- then again, I'm fairly new to Martial Talk.
> 
> A person shouldn't knock an art just because (for example) its main focus is sport- the next person might just be interested in getting in shape, and feel better about theirself. Besides, does that mean they won't be able to defend his/herself at any given time? I've only been in 2 different styles of TKD- one WTF and the other traditional- and both taught/ teaches self defense, not just
> sport. Does anyone else?


I for one do not knock Tae Kwon Do at all, it is very effective, possibly a superior martial art for what it was designed for - the fully equipped combat soldier carrying his rifle.  TKD has been modified to make it more versitile in a street civilian self defense situation.  That is my contention, as I was taught.


----------



## Zepp

Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> Tae Kwon Do was developed primarily for the military combat soldier, and for a self-dense street situation second.
> 
> And just to verify my opinion, please call General Choi's former student: Jae Kim at his Dojang "Jae Kim's Tae Kwon Do" in Boston. They're real nice guys there and can enlighten you. Thanks!



Perhaps General Choi developed his particular style of Tae Kwon Do primarily for the combat soldier, but the Chung Do Kwan, the Korean school he trained at before he left to found his own school, originally taught a style that was much more versatile.

By the way, it's not your opinion we really disagree with, it's General Choi's.  Those of us who aren't in the ITF don't see him as the "Father of Tae Kwon Do."


----------



## glad2bhere

".....Tae Kwon Do was developed primarily for the military combat soldier, and for a self-dense street situation second....." 

Since there is much that I could learn about the history of TKD it would help me quite a bit if someone could cite a resource that documents this purpose. I understand that many people have opinions about this but I suspect that if the quoted statement is true there is probably a military memorandum, a documented policy or organized program with this stated goal identified, something after the fashion of what SAC organized when first incorporating Judo into its training curriculum.  Anyone? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Marginal

Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Yes, I did see the movie, All Quiet On The Western Front. Are you aware that Tae Kwon Do was not invented during World War I?



Yep. I also know that trench warfare wasn't forgotten after WW1.



> Tae Kwon Do was developed primarily for the military combat soldier, and for a self-dense street situation second.



That's different than saying it only works when you're kicking an enemy's helmet while wearing 50lbs of gear. I still say that doesn't make sense.

Why was Gen Choi speaking through an interpreter anyway? He spoke English too. Why did he "hide" this info? Looking through it, it's not in the encyclopedia that Choi compiled. Most I've ever read up to your claim was that it was refined in the 29th infantry division after the Korean government approved its use after watching a demonstration. TKD existed before it was put to any actual millitary application, which again makes me question the assertion that it was developed exclusively to kick people who were wearing helmets.

Heck, reading other old sources, it seems equally viable that TKD was largely developed simply to beat Shotokan Karate.



> And just to verify my opinion, please call General Choi's former student: Jae Kim at his Dojang "Jae Kim's Tae Kwon Do" in Boston. They're real nice guys there and can enlighten you. Thanks!



Lots of people trained under General Choi, including my primary instructor. They share somewhat similar beliefs in the nature of "purity" of TKD, but none have ever claimed that TKD was designed to kill people wearing helmets exclusively. They haven't even claimed it's more effective while wearing a 50lb backpack once.


----------



## MichiganTKD

I agree with Zepp. While Gen. Choi did develop his version of Tae Kwon Do for use in the Korean military, his organization was an offshoot of Won Kuk Lee's Chung Do Kwan. Choi originally trained under Lee, whether he admitted it or not. CDK records verify this. In my opinion, Choi was rather notorious for revising history to suit his versions of events.
Anyway, Chung Do Kwan was basically the police/civilian predessesor to Oh Do Kwan (military TKD). The reason why Tae Kwon Do was picked to be used for the military by Syngmann Rhee was that Chung Do Kwan had proven itself, through demonstrations and reputation, to be a highly effective method of self defense used by Korean police before it was used by the ROK. So to say that Tae Kwon Do is best used under these specific conditions (helmet, 50 lbs. gear etc.) is wrong, because it was successfully used on the street by police and civilians before the military adapted it. I don't think the police and civilians are going to be carrying around full combat gear.


----------



## celtic bhoy

That would be some feat to see wouldn't it?

Imagine trying to chamber and execute to TKD kick in full battle dress that could be of more than one layer thick and soaking wet. Add to that your bergen with 80lbs of kit(british standard), weapon, ammo, helmet and uneven terrain...................PLEASE!!!!!!.

I'd prefer to use my weapon, be it butt or bayonet. The flying kicks were said for kicking people off horses. Not much call for that anymore!!!!

I don't think Gen.Choi had much first hand battle experience do you? He was too busy trying to get one up on Shotokan.

I think too many people are wrapped up in the whole Vietnam legend. Some for financial gain and some to add importance to their chosen style.

I watched an interview with a retired 'Tiger' of the ROK who served in Vietnam. He stated that while it's true that 99.9% of the korean military hold black belts in TKD [_B]as well as [/_B] other styles, you could not and would not use TKD kicking techniques in the field. It just isn't practical.

He stated that they relied on hand techniques that are not really patented TKD idea's, just general national service techniques that you would practise in any country or any art. The faster one would win.

While I don't doubt TKD's effectiveness in the right hands and the right enviorment. I can't really see the TKD we all learn in the dojang today being much use in a war situation.


----------



## glad2bhere

WARNING---WARNING---WARNING----WARNING 

PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS. :asian: 

I have been researching for a while and it is becoming my increasingly deeply held belief that this is the actual nature of Korean martial arts from a historic point of view. 

For centuries the Korean military was a "national guard" of constripts trained at regular intervals by an established cadre of Korean, Chinese, and later Japanese advisors. With a history of rebellion (usually on the part of slaves or farmers)  in the Korean history I doubt one would want the the populace being too competent at any sophisticated arts. In fact there is a mention in one of the histories I have around here of the summary execution of a group of slaves who were caught practicing martial skills in a secluded part of their masters estate. Talk about losing your head over martial arts!! :whip: 

There are a number of archtypes that have come out of the RVN war. Most people are familiar with the disenfranchised and alienated "killer". Other folks like to play up the "ticking timebomb" or "man-with-a-past" figure. I think the same thing happens in the matter of MA. Someone mentions that a particular activity went on and suddenly there is a host of "oral traditions". I know that many folks like the romance and imagery associated with KMA practice and training but I am afraid things just aren't that idealized. Consider that though we still have Civil War folks who dress-up in Union and Confederate uniforms, fire replica weapons and re-enact parts of old battles, you simply aren't going to find anyone running around Iraq or Afghanistan with a Spencer rifle, or calling in artillery missions to a battery of muzzle-loading Howitzers. Same goes for H2H. TKD is great for developing conditioning and fighting spirit, no question there. But by comparison may I point out that the entire 2nd WW did not produce a single documented report of the successful use of Karate or the Japanese sword on the battlefield. On the other hand, were one to start talking about the nature of Korean martial code and living ones' life by the strict level of dedication it entails, you would be amazed at how quickly the conversation dries up!! People are enamored with the way they would LIKE Korean traditions to be and not so much with living by the way they actually are/were. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Kevin Walker

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yep. I also know that trench warfare wasn't forgotten after WW1.
> 
> 
> 
> That's different than saying it only works when you're kicking an enemy's helmet while wearing 50lbs of gear. I still say that doesn't make sense.
> 
> Why was Gen Choi speaking through an interpreter anyway? He spoke English too. Why did he "hide" this info? Looking through it, it's not in the encyclopedia that Choi compiled. Most I've ever read up to your claim was that it was refined in the 29th infantry division after the Korean government approved its use after watching a demonstration. TKD existed before it was put to any actual millitary application, which again makes me question the assertion that it was developed exclusively to kick people who were wearing helmets.
> 
> Heck, reading other old sources, it seems equally viable that TKD was largely developed simply to beat Shotokan Karate.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people trained under General Choi, including my primary instructor. They share somewhat similar beliefs in the nature of "purity" of TKD, but none have ever claimed that TKD was designed to kill people wearing helmets exclusively. They haven't even claimed it's more effective while wearing a 50lb backpack once.


errr? - I never wrote that TKD was "designed to kill people wearing helmets exclusively" nor have I ever said it.  The theory behind TKD is to use the strongest part of your body against the weakest part of your opponents - a kick to the head trying to snap the neck.  This works perfectly when wearing combat boots with a lug sole aiming directly against your opponents helmet.  As a primarily military combat style, TKD is most effective in this capacity, as it was specifically designed.


----------



## Zepp

Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> errr? - I never wrote that TKD was "designed to kill people wearing helmets exclusively" nor have I ever said it.  The theory behind TKD is to use the strongest part of your body against the weakest part of your opponents - a kick to the head trying to snap the neck.  This works perfectly when wearing combat boots with a lug sole aiming directly against your opponents helmet.  As a primarily military combat style, TKD is most effective in this capacity, as it was specifically designed.



And what about the styles of Tae Kwon Do that were practiced before it was adopted by the Korean military?  You seem to be implying that styles such as those practiced by glad2bhere and myself aren't actually Tae Kwon Do.


----------



## Kevin Walker

Zepp said:
			
		

> And what about the styles of Tae Kwon Do that were practiced before it was adopted by the Korean military? You seem to be implying that styles such as those practiced by glad2bhere and myself aren't actually Tae Kwon Do.


Hi Guys,

Since I have no idea what style either you or glad2bhere practice, I've implied no such thing that you do not practice TKD,  and I believe you have just inferred incorrectly.

I'll bet dollars to dognuts that the Korean military uses more than one style of martial art for hand-to-hand combat purposes - but the fact still remains, that the primary purpose for the invention of TKD in the 1950s was for military combat use by the fully equipped soldier, all other uses are incidental to its combat role.


----------



## Zepp

I train in the Chung Do Kwan style of Tae Kwon Do as taught by Grandmaster Duk Sung Son of the World Tae Kwon Do Association.



			
				Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> I'll bet dollars to dognuts that the Korean military uses more than one style of martial art for hand-to-hand combat purposes - but the fact still remains, that the primary purpose for the invention of TKD in the 1950s was for military combat use by the fully equipped soldier, all other uses are incidental to its combat role.



I think I understand why we disagree right here.  Tae Kwon Do was not invented in the 1950's.  The first Korean martial arts school to open in this century, the Chung Do Kwan, was opened in 1944 by a man named Won Kuk Lee who had trained in Karate in Japan.  It was purely a civilian school, because Korea didn't have a military yet (they were still under Japanese occupation).  General Choi originally trained there, as did Grandmaster Son, who succeeded Lee as head of the school.  It is from the Chung Do Kwan that the other Kwans and their styles branched out from.

If you're interested in a detailed history, you can find several different versions and sources here: http://www.martialartsresource.com/korean/korframe.htm (At least as a starting point.)

A google search will turn up plenty more.


----------



## Kevin Walker

Zepp said:
			
		

> I train in the Chung Do Kwan style of Tae Kwon Do as taught by Grandmaster Duk Sung Son of the World Tae Kwon Do Association.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I understand why we disagree right here. Tae Kwon Do was not invented in the 1950's. The first Korean martial arts school to open in this century, the Chung Do Kwan, was opened in 1944 by a man named Won Kuk Lee who had trained in Karate in Japan. It was purely a civilian school, because Korea didn't have a military yet (they were still under Japanese occupation). General Choi originally trained there, as did Grandmaster Son, who succeeded Lee as head of the school. It is from the Chung Do Kwan that the other Kwans and their styles branched out from.
> 
> If you're interested in a detailed history, you can find several different versions and sources here: http://www.martialartsresource.com/korean/korframe.htm (At least as a starting point.)
> 
> A google search will turn up plenty more.


Yes, we do disagree, Tae Kwon Do was developed in the 1950s. To verify this fact, please call the Jae H. Kim TKD Institute (Boston) 617-266-5050

Again, Jae Kim was a former student of General Choi, taught TKD to U.S. Marines in Viet Nam, doesn't teach any style but Tae Kwon Do, and has been for the past 30 years been teaching that TKD was invented in the 1950s.


----------



## Zepp

No disrespect intended to Mr. Kim, but I hardly need to call him to argue what I've learned through independent research.


----------



## Kevin Walker

Zepp said:
			
		

> No disrespect intended to Mr. Kim, but I hardly need to call him to argue what I've learned through independent research.


You should always verify your independent research.  This is a problem for a lot of autodidactic students.


----------



## Shu2jack

> You should always verify your independent research. This is a problem for a lot of autodidactic students.


Besides the fact they proved that the earth revolves around the sun instead of everything revolving around the earth. Dispite that all the "head" guys said differently.

[EDIT] Not saying that people who do independant research are always right, but I think verifying information from other sources other than main stream is a better idea.


----------



## Marginal

Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> Yes, we do disagree, Tae Kwon Do was developed in the 1950s. To verify this fact, please call the Jae H. Kim TKD Institute (Boston) 617-266-5050



The Term "Taekwon do" was coined in the 1950's. By committie. The art had existed for years previously under different names.

There's plenty of supporting information of the forum on www.itf-information.com. Anyone interested in legit ITF historic research might want to look into some of the info that's been posted there. 

Also www.martialartsresource.com has a lot of good info in the archives that's not quite as ITF centric.


----------



## glad2bhere

I'm a little concerned over a earlier statement so I need to make sure something gets clarified.

 I am NOT a TKD practitioner. I relate to TKD only as far as it is revealed to me as I do my research in the Hapkido arts. I guarentee that just about anybody who sits-down at a keyboard and has spent time in a TKD dochang probably understands that art better than I. Where I get VERY concerned with discussions along these lines is with some of the generalizations regarding the martial nature of what many of us practice nowadays. Precursors to both TKD AND HKD existed for years in Korea well before the the Japanese Occupation. I think just about everyone has heard of Soo Bahk being invoked from having been mentioned many times in the history of Korean traditions. Absent documentation regarding pre-18th century Civil Service examinations (when the Civil Service Exam system was done away with), nobody can speak with any authority as to what skills were mandated by the government or what the various levels of competence might have been. Therefore, I don't have a problem with people entertaining romantic notions of practices of old, but I think we need to draw the line at saying that things that are practiced today are "just like" the activities of old. Until someone comes up with more material like the MYTBTJ, we just don't know. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Corporal Hicks

I'm going to use my rifle in trench warfare either it be actually firing my Lee Enfield rifle or pig sticking them with my handy bayonet and not going to kick them them in the head because I'm going to be weighed down with my equipment and all that ruddy rain and mud. If I've lost my rifle, then I'm going to pull out my brand spanking new commando knife and stab em with it. For god's sake I'm not going to use Martial Arts in trench warfare especially if I'm wearing boots and have an enemy pointing a gun at me. 
Anyway back to the actual topic at hand,

WARNING - MY OPINION

From my experience it seems TKD is the least effective Martial Art there is going. I'm sorry but I used to love TKD but it seems I've been mis-lead over the two years I have done it, and a months solid training of Wing Chung has taught me more upper self defence than Tae Kwon Do did. I'm a blue belt in Tae Kwon Do and I reversed the effects of self defence techniques TKD was trying to teach me yesterday in my dojang. How pathetic is that? There are too many students being mislead by the fact that TKD is good in self defence.


----------



## Shu2jack

> From my experience it seems TKD is the least effective Martial Art there is going. I'm sorry but I used to love TKD but it seems I've been mis-lead over the two years I have done it, and a months solid training of Wing Chung has taught me more upper self defence than Tae Kwon Do did. I'm a blue belt in Tae Kwon Do and I reversed the effects of self defence techniques TKD was trying to teach me yesterday in my dojang. How pathetic is that? There are too many students being mislead by the fact that TKD is good in self defence.


Out of curosity, can you give examples? What effects did you reverse in the self-defence techinques? What upper level self-defense did Wing Chung teach? 

I have studied TKD for 10 years and I have found it very useful in conflict avoidance, how to keep a level head in the face of aggression/danger, and while I have yet to use it in a "fight" I have had to use blocks to avoid getting hit, including being grabbed at by a man holding a knife.

I am not trying to argue with you, but I hear a lot of "TKD sucks" and "TKD is not good for self-defense". After 10 years of TKD I am failing to see it and I am asking to find out if maybe I am just blind or I was lucky enough to find a quality school. Like I said, TKD has helped me avoid physical harm and very possibly saved me from getting knifed, so I am curious as to what you were taught.


----------



## glad2bhere

".......I am not trying to argue with you, but I hear a lot of "TKD sucks" and "TKD is not good for self-defense". After 10 years of TKD I am failing to see it and I am asking to find out if maybe I am just blind or I was lucky enough to find a quality school. Like I said, TKD has helped me avoid physical harm and very possibly saved me from getting knifed, so I am curious as to what you were taught......." 

WHOA!!!! Lets not over-react in the other direction, 'kay?  Persoanally I think way too many TKD practitioners have been mislead by their schools about the self-defense merits of TKD, but lets remember some basic skills that most TKD schools do encourage. One is decent conditioning. Seems like even the most commercial school is still going to get couch potatoes in motion. In a country where 60% of the adult population is over-weight I think this is one step towards decent self-defense. Another skill-set is basic punching and kicking skills. You can throw into the mix basic target acquisition, basic blocking skills and basic body movement. Finally I think most TKD schools at least help sensitize their students to better environmental awareness in everday situations.  Now none of these skill-sets are going to make a person a NHB competitor, but I think that a person is better prepared for walking through a typical community day than had they not had them. Easily 90% of the folks who train will probably never have to use their TKD anyways, but I think I am safe in saying that some part of that will relate to the fact that a person who engages in such training feels better about themselves and does feel the need to let petty antagonisms become combat opportunities. Does this make sense? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## MichiganTKD

The term "Tae Kwon Do" was coined in the 1950's by either Choi or Son-there is argument as to who actually created the word.
However, Chung Do Kwan was founded by Lee in 1944 while WWII was still going on. After the war ended, and Koreans could openly practice martial arts again, Chung Do Kwan-style was used by the police and deputized citizens to keep peace and get rid of gangsters. So it was civilian in the sense that the military did not use it yet. It was, however, a very effective police martial art. The military adapted it after seeing Chung Do Kwan demonstrations and witnessing how effective it was. Only then was Gen. Choi authorized to teach it to the troops. And only Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan Dan holders were allowed to keep their black belts when they joined the military. All other styles had to retest.
It is my belief that Chung Do Kwan Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do was recognized by the police and military for its military and street effectiveness. The other kwans (Ji Do, Chang Moo, Moo Duk etc) were true civilian kwans-studied by average Koreans outside of the police and military.


----------



## Marginal

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> From my experience it seems TKD is the least effective Martial Art there is going. I'm sorry but I used to love TKD but it seems I've been mis-lead over the two years I have done it, and a months solid training of Wing Chung has taught me more upper self defence than Tae Kwon Do did. I'm a blue belt in Tae Kwon Do and I reversed the effects of self defence techniques TKD was trying to teach me yesterday in my dojang. How pathetic is that? There are too many students being mislead by the fact that TKD is good in self defence.



Way too many people don't understand that you get out what you put in.


----------



## Corporal Hicks

I'm just saying it past my experience so far. Dont get me wrong guys I still try extremely hard in TKD its just I dont have the same faith in its self defence techniques any more. Still I love TKD kicks and I consider them the far superiour of all kicking arts its just my personal peference.

Regards
Nick


----------



## Shu2jack

I will be out of state here for the next few days after this reply, so don't think I will be ignoring you guys. Anywho....

I still don't understand. What makes TKD self-defense techniques useless in a fight? I really don't understand how punches, elbow strikes, knee strikes, and low kicks are ineffective for self-defense.

Maybe my confusion comes from when you say "self-defense techniques". To me, that doesn't envolve poking the eyes or anything like that except as maybe a distraction when grappling and you are having trouble escaping. We practice boxing combinations with partner targets and the bag. We practice elbow and knees strikes with partners for if/when someone "clinches" and we like to get in close. My idea of a self-defense technique is that if it isn't an arm bar or something similar, then it is striking to "weaker" areas of the body continually until the person can't/won't harm you. We teach basic ground fighting so we are comfortable in the various positions and ways to escape/make someone "submit".

Maybe I am going about this all wrong. Yes TKD people on average don't train 8 hours a day for professional fighting. Anyone who trains "hard" for 8 hours a day will the butt out of most people. But I don't see how punching, kicking, elbows, knees, grappling, etc. is any less effective if it is in TKD.


----------



## Marginal

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> I'm just saying it past my experience so far.[/b]


Yeah, but you said that you had trouble kicking close quarters. That's not exactly a revelation to most. Still begs the question why you didn't use knees, elbows, joints locks etc? If you don't train them, that's not TKD's fault. It's your instructor's. 

Two threads later, and you're still assuming that your TKD experience = everyone else's TKD experience. It's like you didn't even try to listen last time.


----------



## Corporal Hicks

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yeah, but you said that you had trouble kicking close quarters. That's not exactly a revelation to most. Still begs the question why you didn't use knees, elbows, joints locks etc? If you don't train them, that's not TKD's fault. It's your instructor's.
> 
> Two threads later, and you're still assuming that your TKD experience = everyone else's TKD experience. It's like you didn't even try to listen last time.


Actually I said that it was only my experience, not everybody elses. Maybe I do indeed have a bad instructor. I have never learnt joint locks.


----------



## glad2bhere

"......It is my belief that Chung Do Kwan Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do was recognized by the police and military for its military and street effectiveness. The other kwans (Ji Do, Chang Moo, Moo Duk etc) were true civilian kwans-studied by average Koreans outside of the police and military......" 

I, for one, would like some documentation to this effect. I wonder if the art itself was viewed as being particularly effective, or if simply training in the art raised the confidence and "street presence" (deportment) of the officers. Were it the latter I would draw a parallel with the use of Kendo by the Japanese police to build confidence and assertiveness in its policemen. It would also be instructive to review video tapes of encounters between Korean police and demostrators over the years to note how often TKD techniques were actually used. I must say that I am also beginning to hear variation on the nature of TKD as people contribute. 

type 1: Commercial TKD aka "sport" TKD

type 2: TKD taught with an emphasis on combat/SD applications

type 3: TKD learned with an emphasis on combat/SD applications 

type 4: TKD taught/learned one way and then modified by circumstances to a particular use.  

Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## MichiganTKD

LEE Won Kuk was a precise person. He had a strong body of a martial artist and glaringly sharp eyes. His expression was very strict. Right after the independence day, he seemed to offset his pro-Japanese deeds by developing a good relationship with people of the National Police Headquarters. He led the efforts to get rid of Seoul gangsters. The Chung Do Kwan was once called the National Police Headquarters dojang.

One of Lee's students, Gen. Choi, was a student of the Chung Do Kwan as stated before. Because of his military standing and the Chung Do Kwan demos he helped organize, Tae Kwon Do was taught to the Korean military. But only Chung Do Kwan/Oh Do Kwan Dan certificates were recognized. it was only after the founding of the WTF that World Tae Kwon Do's emphasis began to change to Olympic style.


----------



## Martial Tucker

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Actually I said that it was only my experience, not everybody elses. Maybe I do indeed have a bad instructor. I have never learnt joint locks.


Are you possibly at a school that emphasizes "sport/competitive" TKD? If so, I would imagine you've spent little or no time working on kicks below belt level, and other close-in tactics like elbow strikes, knees,etc. And certainly not joint locks. I could imagine your trouble in trying to deliver a mid-to-high roundhouse in close quarters. 
One of the first things our teacher taught us was that high kicks look great if you're posing for pictures, but if you want to win a street fight, kick for the groin, knees, or even ankles. Not to mention a well placed stomp on the instep 
of your opponent. We practice knee and elbow strikes regularly. Also, close-in fighting is a great time to deliver a stiff finger, knuckle, or thumb to one of the many pressure points to be found on the head and torso.
Is all of this stuff TKD? We think so....There are elbow strikes in Palgwe 5, Palgwe 8, and Taeguk 5 for instance, and there are low kicks in Koryo, to give just a few examples.
As for joint locks, we practice them regularly.


----------



## MichiganTKD

As I have stated in previous posts, those who believe Tae Kwon Do is not effective for self defense have not practiced our forms. TKD forms contain numerous blocking, kicking, hold-breaking, and striking techniques. Sometimes you just have to look at them a little more closely. Additionally, traditional Tae Kwon Do forms have many different isometric exercises that build up resistance and focus energy.
Just because we don't emphasize joint locks or grappling doesn't mean it doesn't work.


----------



## Marginal

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> I, for one, would like some documentation to this effect. I wonder if the art itself was viewed as being particularly effective, or if simply training in the art raised the confidence and "street presence" (deportment) of the officers. Were it the latter I would draw a parallel with the use of Kendo by the Japanese police to build confidence and assertiveness in its policemen.



I'm somewhat curious. Do you view TSD, Shutokan, Shotokan etc all as totally useless as well? They're all from the same root style. Choi had a 2nd dan in Shotokan, and he practiced things typical of hard stylists like hand conditioning etc the rest of his life. 



> type 1: Commercial TKD aka "sport" TKD



It's worth pointing out that this is the *latest* development in TKD, not the first. I'd argue that it's not so much commercial as it is olympic TKD. Olympic stlye led to the popularity of the sporting style, which was largely developed by the olympics so that it would've ever be confused with wrestling or boxing. (Hence the emphasis on kicks, the discouragement of the use of hands etc.) 



> type 2: TKD taught with an emphasis on combat/SD applications
> 
> type 3: TKD learned with an emphasis on combat/SD applications



I'd hope the two aren't typically divorced.



> type 4: TKD taught/learned one way and then modified by circumstances to a particular use.



I'd think that could be applied to any art be it BJJ or HKD. All arts have their stylistic factions etc. CHKD for example...


----------



## MichiganTKD

Not only that, but each individual student will have their own personal way of practicing technique. One that fits their body style and is overall comfortable for them. As a result, no two people will practice Tae Kwon Do the same.
While there are standards that must be adhered to while teaching basics, after black belt Tae Kwon Do (or any martial art) becomes highly individualized. I do not practice the same way my Instructor does, though there are some similarities. My students will not be carbon copies of me, though there will be similarities.


----------



## glad2bhere

"......Do you view TSD, Shutokan, Shotokan etc all as totally useless as well? ....." 

I'm trying to locate where I indicated that these arts are "totally useless". Anyone? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Marginal

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> "......Do you view TSD, Shutokan, Shotokan etc all as totally useless as well? ....."
> 
> I'm trying to locate where I indicated that these arts are "totally useless". Anyone?



The part where you compared learning TKD to a confidence builder and pretty much dismissed any potential efficacy of the skillsets trained... Like Kendo. If you're willing to dismiss TKD like that, then arts with essentially the same skillsets are ignorable as well.


----------



## Martial Tucker

Marginal said:
			
		

> The part where you compared learning TKD to a confidence builder and pretty much dismissed any potential efficacy of the skillsets trained... Like Kendo. If you're willing to dismiss TKD like that, then arts with essentially the same skillsets are ignorable as well.


I don't want to speak for Bruce, but IMHO, as a TKD practitioner of about 8 years who began cross-training in HKD after reaching 1st Dan in TKD, I would consider HKD a more useful style for a police officer(the situation mentioned in Bruce's post). TKD is just fine for fending off an aggressor or trying to disable/knock someone out, but as a police officer
your main goal (and responsiblilty) is typically to gain control of an attacker/perpetrator, and the lawyers expect you to do it while inflicting as little damage as possible. If I had that responsibility, I would tend to lean towards the HKD skill-set. Not that you can't inflict damage with HKD, but it seems that you have more options in terms of the punishment you deliver while at the same time still being able to control your opponent. I don't see that as a "dismissal" of TKD (or similar styles) as much as a statement that some styles are more appropriate than others in certain situations.


----------



## glad2bhere

"......I, for one, would like some documentation to this effect. I wonder if the art itself was viewed as being particularly effective, or if simply training in the art raised the confidence and "street presence" (deportment) of the officers. Were it the latter I would draw a parallel with the use of Kendo by the Japanese police to build confidence and assertiveness in its policemen....."

If this is the quote you mean I think you are discounting the context. What I was asking for was specific documentation that attested to TKD of the time being viewed as "particularly effective" (in combat application)

or  

for  specific documentation that attested to TKD of the time being viewed as being beneficial in a role in which its conditioning and skill-sets  raised confidence, etc. etc. Sorry for the confusion. It was poorly worded. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Marginal

Yeah, I wasn't trying to start up a style vs style conflict. (As they go nowhere regardless.) I was just looking for some clarification on the comment. Seemed like raised confidence with nothing else going for it would result in dead cops and servicemen more than anything else.


----------



## DeLamar.J

Littledragon said:
			
		

> *The effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do in self defense...*
> 
> I have been doing Tae Kwon Do for over 10 years. As I have recently began developing a mass interest in Mixed Martial Arts/ Vale-Tudo/ Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu I have questioned how effective Tae Kwon Do is for self defense. As the sport aspect has developed a dramatically high level of mass popularity world wide since the WTF was created and USTU and other international TKD organizations, TKD has been highly popularized as a sport as it was an official Olypmic sport in 2000. I train with one of the top teams in the United States for Olympic Style Tae Kwon Do and have came to realize that it is now more of a sport than an art of self-defense. The whole emphasis on training is for the sport. What happens when you get in a street situation and you get tackled to the ground or jumped by 3 guys, how will the sport aspect be applyed sucesfully in self-defense?
> 
> As World Champions, National Champions are current at my school I can't help to think that they are very good at the SPORT but they don't have the right knowledge and tools to apply effecitvely in a street self-defense situation.
> 
> What are your opinions about Olympic Tae Kwon Do as an art of self-defense?


I like TKD alot, but as far as its street effectiveness goes it is to unbalenced of an art. TKD is a kicking art, and they are damn good at it, the best kickers in the world IMO. While kicking has its place in a real fight, there are other tools needed, like boxing skills, and grappling skills. TKD people just need to learn to box and grapple thats all. They are way to gung ho on just kicking. If a TKD person gets in a fight with a decent opponent, they better make that first kick count, it better land flush and on target or there going down to the ground. And if they dont go to the ground they better have some boxing skills or there going to get there face pounded in, because when you get up in someones face its hard for them to use those fancy high kicks to knock you out, and when there on the ground I dont think they will be kicking much. A TKD person has to keep you at a distance so they can throw those bombs at you, that is there advantage, if they are good enough to keep the proper distance in a fight they will do great, but thats easier said than done. TKD is great if you want to learn how to kick, thats about it. Cross training in boxing is a MUST!!!! for TKD people!!


----------



## Marginal

What happens when you train in TKD and they *gasp* do teach hand techniques?


----------



## DeLamar.J

What do you mean exactly? :idunno:


----------



## Martial Tucker

Marginal said:
			
		

> What happens when you train in TKD and they *gasp* do teach hand techniques?


 
I train in a traditional TKD school, and our master was a Golden Gloves boxer before he began his martial arts study. So, we work a lot on hand techniques, 
footwork, and strategy. I would say that the whole "package" works pretty darn well for me.


----------



## MichiganTKD

Each Instructor brings his own style and approach to the table. I've known guys who weren't particularly good kickers, but had great hand techniques. Sport stylists are going to focus more on point kicking. Some Instructors I know focus more on self defense hand techniques. Tae Kwon Do is the art of maximizing your body's potential as a weapon. So, although kicking tends to be emphasized, it depends who is teaching you and what they like to do.
It is the Way of the Foot and HAND after all.


----------



## Martial Tucker

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> It is the Way of the Foot and HAND after all.


Very good point. Unfortunately, with the Olympic rules and popularity of
"sport" schools lately, it seems to be migrating to "Way of the Foot".
Looks great in pictures, but gets your butt kicked on the street.


----------



## Marginal

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> What do you mean exactly? :idunno:



Taekwon do started with hand techniques as well as kicking techniques. Many schools still haven't retired the concept of hitting people with things like fists, knifehands etc. TKD does not automatically equal "You kick, kick, and kick, and for good measure, kick some more."


----------



## MJS

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> I like TKD alot, but as far as its street effectiveness goes it is to unbalenced of an art. TKD is a kicking art, and they are damn good at it, the best kickers in the world IMO. While kicking has its place in a real fight, there are other tools needed, like boxing skills, and grappling skills. TKD people just need to learn to box and grapple thats all. They are way to gung ho on just kicking. If a TKD person gets in a fight with a decent opponent, they better make that first kick count, it better land flush and on target or there going down to the ground. And if they dont go to the ground they better have some boxing skills or there going to get there face pounded in, because when you get up in someones face its hard for them to use those fancy high kicks to knock you out, and when there on the ground I dont think they will be kicking much. A TKD person has to keep you at a distance so they can throw those bombs at you, that is there advantage, if they are good enough to keep the proper distance in a fight they will do great, but thats easier said than done. TKD is great if you want to learn how to kick, thats about it. Cross training in boxing is a MUST!!!! for TKD people!!



Very well said!!! :asian:   The above goes for every other art out there as well.  I think that its becoming more apparent that the days of the one style fighter are pretty much over.  Now, before anyone starts yelling, let me explain what I mean by one style.  I'm * not * saying that you need to stop doing the TKD that you  may have been doing for 15 yrs. and start taking up BJJ for another 15.  NO...instead, I'm simply saying that its important to be well rounded in all of the ranges of fighting.  Punching, kicking, clinching and grappling.  

Mike


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Mike: 

I think we are stepping across a line here. See if this makes sense. 

The original question was regarding TKD as self-defense. Now lets suppose that one increases the amount of hand techniques somewhat. I will hold that we are still talking about TKD, even in that case. But what happens if we begin to factor in not just takedowns (of which there are some in TKD often as a function of sweeps and thrusts) but also groundwork (as in BJJ). I think a case could be made that we are talking about something closer to San Shou, but are we still talking about TKD?  Thoughts? Perhaps we need to think about a thread in which we discuss the possible evolution of TKD along these lines? Comments?  

Best Wishes,

Bruce


----------



## MJS

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Mike:
> 
> I think we are stepping across a line here. See if this makes sense.
> 
> The original question was regarding TKD as self-defense. Now lets suppose that one increases the amount of hand techniques somewhat. I will hold that we are still talking about TKD, even in that case. But what happens if we begin to factor in not just takedowns (of which there are some in TKD often as a function of sweeps and thrusts) but also groundwork (as in BJJ). I think a case could be made that we are talking about something closer to San Shou, but are we still talking about TKD?  Thoughts? Perhaps we need to think about a thread in which we discuss the possible evolution of TKD along these lines? Comments?
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Bruce



We could do either one...start a new thread or just roll it right into this one.  Often, especially on the Kenpo threads, everytime someone talks about adding something, they think that its a bad thing because you're 'changing the art'!  Oh my, God forbid a change is made.  When I speak of a change, its only a change for the better.  Every art has its own unique thing to offer, and there is no perfect art that is all enclusive.  And if there is, I certainly havent seen it yet.  Sure, there are arts such as JKD that address the things I've mentioned, but is it the best art???  There is always an art out there that does something just a little different.  If by adding that 'different way' to your current style, it would get better.!!!!

Mike


----------



## glad2bhere

My vote would be to stay with this string here, but your last post also brought something else to mind. I don't think that anyone has brought body types into the mix. If TKD WERE to evolve along the lines discussed would adding things make it more attractive to some folks and less attractive to others?  For instance, would a 20-something co-ed at, say, 105# want to train in something would involve full-torso, grinding contact with someone who is 210#? And if one circumvents that discomfort by only having women work with women will that induce homophobic responses as well as compromise the quality of the instruction? I have often considered that some part of peoples reluctance to get involved in grappling, locking and throwing might be fears along these lines. Moving along farther, what would prevent a person from taking TKD and dropping stuff that he personally doesn't like and adding things that he personally likes. Would the result still be TKD?  How much tint can a person add before the paint has changed to a completely different color? Comments?  Anyone? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Disco

Gentlemen, Perhaps this may put a different perspective on the discussion. Does modern day TKD (Olympic Sport Style) need help? For self defense concepts I would say a most resounding yes. But now here is the rub so to speak. If they taught honest self defense techniques and mindsets, then they counter and confuse the average student (key word being average) and the core curriculum has to be altered, along with not being able to win all those medals and trophies. Plus, yes there is a plus. The majority of instructors out there honestly are lacking in this area. Notice I didn't say they were lousy or worthless or MacDojo'esk, just lacking. Skills that are not practiced and honed, therefor become lacking........ Truth be known, it directly relates to money. Americans love competition and the extras that accompany. It's a tangeable asset. Hey I'm good and here's a piece of metal to prove it. On the other hand, self defense is not a game to be applauded and rewarded with trinkets, but we are all hopefully aware of that. Now old school TKD embraces multiple aspects of combat. We kick, punch, use kness and elbows, jointlocks, throws/takedowns/sweeps, even some pressure points and some ground fighting techniques.
Notice the word grappling was not mentioned in conjunction with ground techniques. We teach to remove one's self from a grounded position as fast as possible. 

So to condense: People don't know, thus don't care about OSTKD. So trying to find OSTKD is like trying to find Ben Laden  :mst: 
Plus, there's no money in OSTKD  :waah:


----------



## Marginal

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Mike:
> 
> I think we are stepping across a line here. See if this makes sense.
> 
> The original question was regarding TKD as self-defense. Now lets suppose that one increases the amount of hand techniques somewhat. I will hold that we are still talking about TKD, even in that case. But what happens if we begin to factor in not just takedowns (of which there are some in TKD often as a function of sweeps and thrusts) but also groundwork (as in BJJ). I think a case could be made that we are talking about something closer to San Shou, but are we still talking about TKD?  Thoughts? Perhaps we need to think about a thread in which we discuss the possible evolution of TKD along these lines? Comments?



It wouldn't really be an evolution. More of a regression depending on your outlook. Takedowns etc weren't seperate from the art in the beginning. Reintroducing them to classes that have dropped them wouldn't really be making the art less or more TKD.


----------



## glad2bhere

Dear Marginal: 

".....
It wouldn't really be an evolution. More of a regression depending on your outlook. Takedowns etc weren't seperate from the art in the beginning. Reintroducing them to classes that have dropped them wouldn't really be making the art less or more TKD...." 

Thanks for bringing us here early. This is the OTHER side of the question as I see it. If we put the idea of evolution aside for just a moment I think we also need to consider that what is represented as TKD right now may not be the entire original package. Here are a couple of points. 

1.) Based on Toyamas' SHUDOKAN and Funakoshis' SHOTOKAN the Karate influence on TKD development is significant. The use of the hands over the feet is as significant as the current sport use of feet over hands a'la Taek Kyon. Bringing back or increasing the use of the hands is simply giving a nod of the head to this influence (as well as perhaps raising the S-D effectiveness of the art). 

2.) Returning to the more traditional take on Forms work would also be a step in the backward/right direction. By tradition a sound hyung has both concussive AND manipulative interpretations for most if not all of the form moves. The emphasis has been on the concussive, AND, in turn, on the feet. If one wants to raise the S-D effectivenes of TKD they would need to study the manipulative side of their hyung as well. This would require a considerable number of teachers to get off their seats and away from their bank accounts and do some research. It would also require many practitioners to be willing to take a bit more discomfort (spec: joint locks and breakfalls) in their training. 

3.) Reintroduction of "unacceptable material" to TKD practice likewise needs to be made. By this I mean that such finishing moves as pins as follow-up to takedowns (incl. sweeps, projections and throws) need to be brought back having been dropped for competition reasons. Strikes to marginal areas such as kidneys, throat, bladder/groin, clavical, knee and heart need to be reconsidered and familiarization provided on a regular basis even if under protected circumstances. 

4.) Conditioning and range-of-motion theory needs to be revisited. In point sparring the focus is significantly different than in self-defense. Training to produce a kick which is low, fast and hard does not produce the sort of visual effect one needs for competition. However, it is exactly the sort of TKD one would need for self-defense. In this manner it is also important that the person train in "encumbered" situations such as having to defend themselves holding a kicking shield (to represent a chile, books, packages, etc), having to defend themselves within a tight or cluttered perimeter such as a bus or shop, or with a number of un-involved individuals in close proximity such as a flea market or airport. 

As you correctly pointed out, these are not evolution in the strict sense but more of a return to how things were originally presented before people found out how lucrative tournaments could be.   FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## MJS

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> My vote would be to stay with this string here, but your last post also brought something else to mind. I don't think that anyone has brought body types into the mix.



Agreed!!



> If TKD WERE to evolve along the lines discussed would adding things make it more attractive to some folks and less attractive to others?  For instance, would a 20-something co-ed at, say, 105# want to train in something would involve full-torso, grinding contact with someone who is 210#? And if one circumvents that discomfort by only having women work with women will that induce homophobic responses as well as compromise the quality of the instruction? I have often considered that some part of peoples reluctance to get involved in grappling, locking and throwing might be fears along these lines.



Putting a woman against someone bigger, stronger, etc. is an advantage to her, not a disadvantage.  Women dont rape women, so if the woman is not used to dealing with a stronger, larger person, how will she ever evolve???



> Moving along farther, what would prevent a person from taking TKD and dropping stuff that he personally doesn't like and adding things that he personally likes. Would the result still be TKD?  How much tint can a person add before the paint has changed to a completely different color? Comments?  Anyone?



Yes, it still would be TKD.  I've added elements of Arnis into my Kenpo, and its IMO, made it better for me, as well as giving me a better understanding of the art.  As for how much to add.....that depends on the person doing the adding.

Mike


----------



## XxTKDPenguinxX

I must admit that I stopped reading posts on this subject because I know the end result.  everyone has a different opinion on Self-Defense in TKD.  
  Well, as a student of a true believer in self-defense, I can attest that I learn and LOVE the SD aspect of TKD.  Our style is more modernized than traditional.  We still do traditional style forms (poom-sae) but, we add the modern art of self-defense.  Gun & knife defense, ground fighting (since many fights will end up with one, or both, on the ground), to name a couple.  This modern aspect of our style is what partailly lured me to TKD.
  I know that each school does things differently and it will be up to the instructors in each one to show, or not show.

  Our orginization has reciently adopted Olympic Style TKD.  They hope to have some of our very own become Olympic Champions.  While this adoption of another style is "typical" we, as students within the orginization, have come to realize that; the door opens wide and the halls are deep once the rank of 1st Deg. has been reached.  TKD is just the basis of our learning/teaching.  There is always more to learn.


----------



## hyde75

I been practiced Taekwondo 28 year now, i really don't know how you train in your country, but in Finland and in my school we practice taekwondo different way, of course we have olympic taekwondo fighters, i use fight allmoust 15 years in taekwondo, then i open my eyes and look our style with different eyes... Why we have so many blocks, so many strikes? we have strikes with our finger tips, we have knife strikes, we have many pumses, my favourite is the Koryo pumse, it's one of violance pumse in taekwondo, you brake knee, you strike in Adams apple, you even rip guys balls of, maybe you need look closer of things you do in taekwondo... olympic sparring is just one peace of taekwondo, there is allso pumses (katas),  there is kyoukpa (smashing tiles), self defensive also  there is same amount blocks and strikes that in any another martial art (karate, hapkido, kung fu and so on), you have to remember that taekwondo is devoleped from karate, kung fu, taekkyon... Our pumses have some trows also, like gumgam pumse... Look deep in your martial art =)
If you just do olympic style sprarring and just do pads drill you are in serius problems in street and also you havent understand TAEKWONDO at all... If your teacher don't teach these things and do whole taekwondo... I know that there is many schools and teachers how just do olympic martial art, they have miss to whole idea of taekwondo...

Our belt exams you need to know kicks, blocks, strikes, self defensive, breaking and olympic sparring, in black belt test you have 1 vs 5 olympic style sparring and 1 vs. 2 with out rules

Sorry my english, hope you understand my writing... I'm from Finland and not so good writing english


----------



## Earl Weiss

glad2bhere said:


> .................. Now lets suppose that one increases the amount of hand techniques somewhat.
> Bruce



Depends what you are referring to when YOU say "TKD". The first new system using the TKD moniker has approximately 2000 hand techniques versus 1200 foot techniques.   I don't think you need to increase the number of hand techniques, especialy not for SD.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Earl Weiss said:


> Depends what you are referring to when YOU say "TKD". The first new system using the TKD moniker has approximately 2000 hand techniques versus 1200 foot techniques.   I don't think you need to increase the number of hand techniques, especialy not for SD.



I would agree. Although I think it's true that there are certainly teachers/schools/systems that neglect those hand techniques. 
Of course, that's an issue with the teacher/school/system, not Tae Kwon Do. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------

