# What weapons are Taekwondo?



## skribs

At my school, our black belts train in quite a few different weapon skills, including:

Nunchaku
Eskrima/kali sticks
Bo staff
Knife
Sword (Katana)
I've also taken it upon myself to learn the 3-section staff and the lightsaber, but those are outside the scope of my school's curriculum.  

I'm just curious as to which of these are weapons Taekwondo will typically use, and which are more likely borrowed from other disciplines.

What would you categorize as a Taekwondo weapon?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I'd say that all of those are borrowed from other traditions.


----------



## Flying Crane

I enjoy lightsaber fencing with my four year- old son.  We go outside when it gets dark, for the full effect.

It is surprising how effective his unpredictability is, for keeping me on my toes.


----------



## skribs

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd say that all of those are borrowed from other traditions.



Yes, but I'm wondering if some are typically used by TKD schools as well.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> Yes, but I'm wondering if some are typically used by TKD schools as well.


Has your instructor indicated how these weapons came to be adopted by your school?  Perhaps it was his decision or that of his instructor, or somehow more widespread by the early TKD leaders?  Where did the training come from, for the basis of these adoptions?

Curious: what is the source of your three-section staff training?  To my knowledge that is pretty exclusive to Chinese stuff.


----------



## TrueJim

I know a guy, as talented as he is handsome, who wrote an article on this topic:

Taekwondo Weapons Training


----------



## hoshin1600

all of the weapons you mentioned are about as traditional to TKD as the light saber.
i think many schools train with those weapons not just TKD for tournaments but this should in no way be confused.  the modern tournament training of weapons is primarily a fictional type of training and has almost no continuity with the traditional weapons training.


----------



## TrueJim

P.S. One could even argue that if we want to get technical about it, bayonet might be a weapon that could be called a natively taekwondo weapon, since bayonet training was (as I understand it from my reading) included in the original training curriculum that General Choi put together for the military. I would imagine that knife training must have been part of that curriculum too? I don't know if any of the other kwan outside the military were training in weapons.

So my answer would be: bayonet! The weapon of choice for taekwondo!


----------



## hoshin1600

TrueJim said:


> I know a guy, as talented as he is handsome, who wrote an article on this topic:
> 
> Taekwondo Weapons Training



_"The Ssahng Jeol Bong once served the farmer in harvesting his crops by separating the grain from the shaft. The farmer would beat the crop with a tool that comprised of a long staff with a shorter stick attached to the end by a rope"
_
This statement isnt actual true.  its an urban legend of sorts.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Has your instructor indicated how these weapons came to be adopted by your school?  Perhaps it was his decision or that of his instructor, or somehow more widespread by the early TKD leaders?  Where did the training come from, for the basis of these adoptions?
> 
> Curious: what is the source of your three-section staff training?  To my knowledge that is pretty exclusive to Chinese stuff.



Youtube, and adapting my knowledge of bo staff and nunchaku.  Plus a little bit of just playing with the thing and figuring out what works and what smacks me in the face.



TrueJim said:


> I know a guy, as talented as he is handsome, who wrote an article on this topic:
> 
> Taekwondo Weapons Training



I'm going to go out on a limb and say you wrote this.


----------



## WaterGal

Bo staff, nunchaku, etc are _commonly _taught at Taekwondo schools, because they're fun and kids think they're cool. I don't think any of them are particularly _traditional_, as far as I know. For traditional Korean weapons training, you might want to pick up a copy of the Muye Dobo Tongji (18th century Korean weapons training manual, you can buy it on Amazon), which is mostly spears/polearms and swords.


----------



## Martial D

skribs said:


> and the lightsaber,



Uhh..how exactly do you train with a weapon that doesn't/can't exist?


----------



## skribs

Martial D said:


> Uhh..how exactly do you train with a weapon that doesn't/can't exist?



Obviously not a real one.  But check out Ultrasabers, Saber Forge, Vader's Vault, Kyberlight, and I think a few I'm missing.  They make dueling-grade saber replicas.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> Uhh..how exactly do you train with a weapon that doesn't/can't exist?



If you can prove it doesn't/can't exist in a galaxy far far away, I'll give you a cookie


----------



## skribs

WaterGal said:


> Bo staff, nunchaku, etc are _commonly _taught at Taekwondo schools, because they're fun and kids think they're cool. I don't think any of them are particularly _traditional_, as far as I know. For traditional Korean weapons training, you might want to pick up a copy of the Muye Dobo Tongji (18th century Korean weapons training manual, you can buy it on Amazon), which is mostly spears/polearms and swords.



Traditional wasn't a criteria


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> If you can prove it doesn't/can't exist in a galaxy far far away, I'll give you a cookie


Well, the laws of physics are applicable everywhere in the universe.  If not, then the universe would fly apart.

So it’s possible that technology has been developed that we have simply not yet figured out, or that aspects of the Laws have been figured out by others but not by us.

But either way, it needs to be consistent with the laws of physics.


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> If you can prove it doesn't/can't exist in a galaxy far far away, I'll give you a cookie


The Klingon empire had them all destroyed in that particular universe(the one where photons just kinda do their own thing I suppose)


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> Well, the laws of physics are applicable everywhere in the universe.  If not, then the universe would fly apart.
> 
> So it’s possible that technology has been developed that we have simply not yet figured out, or that aspects of the Laws have been figured out by others but not by us.
> 
> But either way, it needs to be consistent with the laws of physics.



According to wookieepedia D) a lightsaber is a plasma blade.

That being the case - I have one, that works.


----------



## WaterGal

skribs said:


> Traditional wasn't a criteria



Okay, well, then, on the criteria of "more likely borrowed from other disciplines", I'd say: all of them. 

But they're fun, and add value to the program, so lots of schools teach some kind of weapons. We teach staff and nunchaku at black belt level. I think that's part of why we have good retention after black belt.


----------



## Dirty Dog

skribs said:


> At my school, our black belts train in quite a few different weapon skills, including:
> 
> Nunchaku
> Eskrima/kali sticks
> Bo staff
> Knife
> Sword (Katana)
> I've also taken it upon myself to learn the 3-section staff and the lightsaber, but those are outside the scope of my school's curriculum.
> 
> I'm just curious as to which of these are weapons Taekwondo will typically use, and which are more likely borrowed from other disciplines.
> 
> What would you categorize as a Taekwondo weapon?



None of them. Any weapons taught in your system have been imported from other systems. Taekwondo, as it was originally developed, includes zero weapons.


----------



## andyjeffries

WaterGal said:


> Bo staff, nunchaku, etc are _commonly _taught at Taekwondo schools, because they're fun and kids think they're cool.



I would disagree with "commonly". I've *NEVER* trained at or visited a Taekwondo school that's taught weapons. Maybe it's more common in the US.


----------



## pdg

andyjeffries said:


> I would disagree with "commonly". I've *NEVER* trained at or visited a Taekwondo school that's taught weapons. Maybe it's more common in the US.



We occasionally get a guest instructor in for a bo or eskrima evening, but there's no implication it's supposed to be part of the curriculum.


----------



## TrueJim

andyjeffries said:


> I would disagree with "commonly". I've *NEVER* trained at or visited a Taekwondo school that's taught weapons. Maybe it's more common in the US.



We don't train with weapons at our U.S. taekwondo school, but I think you're right: when I visit other schools in the U.S. I reckon that I'm seeing maybe like a quarter of the schools do?  My experience has been that it's a relatively minor part of the program though, even here. Like, they'll teach just one weapon (often staff) and teach only a couple of staff forms.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

For those TKD schools which do include weapons training, I wonder what percentage have a curriculum based on a actual weapons art (i.e. one which was developed by people who actually fought with said weapons) as opposed to something made up by someone with no background in combative use of the weapons.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> None of them. Any weapons taught in your system have been imported from other systems. Taekwondo, as it was originally developed, includes zero weapons.


Badda Bing Badda Boom. Someone who gets the meaning of "Taekwondo" "Taekwon-Do"   "Tae Kwon Do".   
Anyone who is inclined to enlighten me vis a vis Knees, elbows etc. you can save it.


----------



## pdg

Earl Weiss said:


> Someone who gets the meaning of "Taekwondo" "Taekwon-Do" "Tae Kwon Do".



3 different systems innit bruh 

I there are at least a couple of sub-systems for each of those too...


----------



## Flying Crane

Tony Dismukes said:


> For those TKD schools which do include weapons training, I wonder what percentage have a curriculum based on a actual weapons art (i.e. one which was developed by people who actually fought with said weapons) as opposed to something made up by someone with no background in combative use of the weapons.


Which implies a system of foundational basics for the weapon, including application drills, and not just a kata or two all by itself.


----------



## skribs

Tony Dismukes said:


> For those TKD schools which do include weapons training, I wonder what percentage have a curriculum based on a actual weapons art (i.e. one which was developed by people who actually fought with said weapons) as opposed to something made up by someone with no background in combative use of the weapons.



My Master is a 2nd degree in Kendo, so that's where our sword training comes from (although what we get is very limited compared to a dedicated kendo school).  I have a feeling his knife and eskrima training comes from Korean Special Forces, and I can't say for sure about the other weapons we teach, but I'm pretty sure he has formal training in those.

The other weapons I'm learning that I intend to use with my demo team, I'm more learning on my own.


----------



## Rough Rider

hoshin1600 said:


> _"The Ssahng Jeol Bong once served the farmer in harvesting his crops by separating the grain from the shaft. The farmer would beat the crop with a tool that comprised of a long staff with a shorter stick attached to the end by a rope"
> _
> This statement isnt actual true. its an urban legend of sorts.



You left out the first three words of that quote- "Some sources claim..."


----------



## oftheherd1

hoshin1600 said:


> _"The Ssahng Jeol Bong once served the farmer in harvesting his crops by separating the grain from the shaft. The farmer would beat the crop with a tool that comprised of a long staff with a shorter stick attached to the end by a rope"
> _
> This statement isnt actual true.  its an urban legend of sorts.



I have to agree with that.  I can't think of a more destructive or less efficient way to harvest rice.  I think Watergal and Dirty Dog are most correct.  When I studied (briefly) TKD there was never any mention of weapons.  We only had one student promoted to BB while I was there, no weapons for him and our teacher never mentioned them.  Nor defense against them as would be expected; if you learn a weapon you should learn ways to defend against it.


----------



## TrueJim

Rough Rider said:


> You left out the first three words of that quote- "Some sources claim..."



Actually, I added that to the wiki article after his very useful input.  See? When you guys say something, I listen!


----------



## Earl Weiss

pdg said:


> 3 different systems innit bruh
> 
> I there are at least a couple of sub-systems for each of those too...



I am sorry you lost me.  How does this affect weapons inclusion / exclusion?


----------



## hoshin1600

oftheherd1 said:


> I can't think of a more destructive or less efficient way to harvest rice.


well they did actually use a rice flail.  









but "some say"  that if nunchuku was an adaptation of a farming item it would have been a part from a horses bridle. 





however it would not be hard to conceive the idea of a weapon made of two sticks with some rope between them.  they were probably made by some kid messing around in the garage.


----------



## hoshin1600

its also note worthy that almost no one used nunchuku untill Bruce Lee used them in the movies.


----------



## pdg

Earl Weiss said:


> I am sorry you lost me.  How does this affect weapons inclusion / exclusion?



In a couple of the earlier Taekwon-do textbooks there is some limited detail of weapons defence.

As it's not really a traditional art in it doesn't have that long a dedicated history, there can't be any traditional weapons under the same definition.

But, I can't say (because I don't know) whether there are weapons included in the curriculum of Taekwondo, or Tae Kwon Do, or any of the derivatives - have any of the offshoots or derivatives included weapons since inception?

If so, under a looser definition they could be considered "tkd weapons" irrespective of their previous origins.


----------



## skribs

oftheherd1 said:


> I have to agree with that.  I can't think of a more destructive or less efficient way to harvest rice.  I think Watergal and Dirty Dog are most correct.  When I studied (briefly) TKD there was never any mention of weapons.  We only had one student promoted to BB while I was there, no weapons for him and our teacher never mentioned them.  Nor defense against them as would be expected; if you learn a weapon you should learn ways to defend against it.



I don't think it's always a 1-to-1.


A lot of our training with a weapon is equal force, i.e. staff vs. staff, sword vs. sword, etc.  We don't really have the time to go in depth on every possible weapon combination or unarmed vs. all weapons.  If we were a HEMA school or something similar, we might
We learn defense against knives and guns, but don't learn as much for when we're using the knife or gun.  This is an inversion of the idea
I'm learning the 3 section staff right now.  What are the chances I'll need to defend myself against it?  That's not time effective training


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> I don't think it's always a 1-to-1.
> 
> 
> A lot of our training with a weapon is equal force, i.e. staff vs. staff, sword vs. sword, etc.  We don't really have the time to go in depth on every possible weapon combination or unarmed vs. all weapons.  If we were a HEMA school or something similar, we might
> We learn defense against knives and guns, but don't learn as much for when we're using the knife or gun.  This is an inversion of the idea
> I'm learning the 3 section staff right now.  What are the chances I'll need to defend myself against it?  That's not time effective training


That’s true, but also let’s consider the overwhelming superiority of these weapons, compared to empty hands.

If a competent swordsman or spearman or staffman etc faces off against an unarmed opponent, with sufficient room to wield his weapon freely, and with freedom to use lethal techniques without holding back, then that unarmed fellow is going to die.

The notion that one can build unarmed defenses against these weapons, without somehow creating a situation to stifle the use of the weapon first, I think is fantasy.

That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a good exercise to go through, and it could be fun training.  But seriously, the outcome is pretty much a given.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> That’s true, but also let’s consider the overwhelming superiority of these weapons, compared to empty hands.
> 
> If a competent swordsman or spearman or staffman etc faces off against an unarmed opponent, with sufficient room to wield his weapon freely, and with freedom to use lethal techniques without holding back, then that unarmed fellow is going to die.
> 
> The notion that one can build unarmed defenses against these weapons, without somehow creating a situation to stifle the use of the weapon first, I think is fantasy.
> 
> That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a good exercise to go through, and it could be fun training.  But seriously, the outcome is pretty much a given.



I disagree that it's a given....but it's a strong possibility unless there is a huge skill gap in favor of the unarmed individual.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> I disagree that it's a given....but it's a strong possibility unless there is a huge skill gap in favor of the unarmed individual.


I would say it is all but a given, but only because it is dangerous to speak in absolutes.  

You will also notice that I described these fellows as “competent” so they know what they are doing and won’t be caught with low-grade trickery.

Today, this is a purely academic exercise so it does not really matter.  But even in the context of an academic exercise, if you wish to practice unarmed defenses against swords and spears and staffs and three-section staffs etc., then you should assume the fellow with the weapon is at least as skilled with the weapon as you are, with your empty hands.  And he likely also has equivalent empty -hand skills.  If you want to explore such an interaction then it is pointless to assume the guy with the weapon is a buffoon.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> I would say it is all but a given, but only because it is dangerous to speak in absolutes.
> 
> You will also notice that I described these fellows as “competent” so they know what they are doing and won’t be caught with low-grade trickery.
> 
> Today, this is a purely academic exercise so it does not really matter.  But even in the context of an academic exercise, if you wish to practice unarmed defenses against swords and spears and staffs and three-section staffs etc., then you should assume the fellow with the weapon is at least as skilled with the weapon as you are, with your empty hands.  And he likely also has equivalent empty -hand skills.  If you want to explore such an interaction then it is pointless to assume the guy with the weapon is a buffoon.



On the one hand, I tend to assume that someone proficient in the use of a staff, sword, etc. probably has the discipline to not be an aggressor in a violent crime.  That someone is either using a sword because it's "cool" or "intimidating" and they got it off Amazon, or their "eskrima stick" is a tire iron or baseball bat, that they are not HEMA experts with it, but rather throw the bludgeon equivalent of a haymaker with.  So in this regard, defense skills are appropriate.

On the other hand, assuming I'm attacked by someone proficient in melee weapons, I don't plan to roll over.  There's the whole "run" aspect, but maybe that guy is faster.  Instead, I would attack the lever arm of the weapon at it's weakest point.  Make the staff miss and get in close.  I'll probably get some bumps and bruises, but the timing is the same as anyone with short legs in Taekwondo sparring.  I'm at a disadvantage, yes, but disadvantage doesn't mean automatic loss.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> On the one hand, I tend to assume that someone proficient in the use of a staff, sword, etc. probably has the discipline to not be an aggressor in a violent crime.  That someone is either using a sword because it's "cool" or "intimidating" and they got it off Amazon, or their "eskrima stick" is a tire iron or baseball bat, that they are not HEMA experts with it, but rather throw the bludgeon equivalent of a haymaker with.  So in this regard, defense skills are appropriate.
> 
> On the other hand, assuming I'm attacked by someone proficient in melee weapons, I don't plan to roll over.  There's the whole "run" aspect, but maybe that guy is faster.  Instead, I would attack the lever arm of the weapon at it's weakest point.  Make the staff miss and get in close.  I'll probably get some bumps and bruises, but the timing is the same as anyone with short legs in Taekwondo sparring.  I'm at a disadvantage, yes, but disadvantage doesn't mean automatic loss.


You’ll get a broken skull.

This is academic, you won’t encounter this today in the modern age in most parts of the world.

So the assumption for the exercise is that you are living in the year 972, you are a peasant being pursued by the henchmen/tax collectors of the local petty ruler, you are chronically undernourished and they have experience in battle with the staff/spear/sword being carried.

You are dead.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> You’ll get a broken skull.
> 
> This is academic, you won’t encounter this today in the modern age in most parts of the world.
> 
> So the assumption for the exercise is that you are living in the year 972, you are a peasant being pursued by the henchmen/tax collectors of the local petty ruler, you are chronically undernourished and they have experience in battle with the staff/spear/sword being carried.
> 
> You are dead.



Kind of like


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> You’ll get a broken skull.
> 
> This is academic, you won’t encounter this today in the modern age in most parts of the world.
> 
> So the assumption for the exercise is that you are living in the year 972, you are a peasant being pursued by the henchmen/tax collectors of the local petty ruler, you are chronically undernourished and they have experience in battle with the staff/spear/sword being carried.
> 
> You are dead.



While entirely correct, I'm not sure how it applies to a martial arts class in 2018.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> Plus a little bit of just playing with the thing and figuring out what works and what smacks me in the face.


This is my personal favorite method of weapons training. I tend to learn the latter part first.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

EDIT: Double post.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> While entirely correct, I'm not sure how it applies to a martial arts class in 2018.


Because the need for defenses against these weapons is so unlikely in the modern age.

If you assume a modern person WITHOUT sword skills will attack you with a sword, and you develop defensive skills based on that assumption, then you haven’t really developed any skills.

So even as a purely academic/hypothetical exercise, you may as well assume a scenario where the guy with the weapon actually knows how to use it and is pretty good with it.  That is the only way to even pretend that the exercise has value.

It is unlikely that you can develop believable skills against such a scenario, but at least you are being honest with yourself.  At least then you will understand the seriousness of your situation. If you cannot find a weapon or improvise a weapon to level the playing field a bit, you are in dire straights.  And I’m not talking about music.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Because the need for defenses against these weapons is so unlikely in the modern age.
> 
> If you assume a modern person WITHOUT sword skills will attack you with a sword, and you develop defensive skills based on that assumption, then you haven’t really developed any skills.
> 
> So even as a purely academic/hypothetical exercise, you may as well assume a scenario where the guy with the weapon actually knows how to use it and is pretty good with it.  That is the only way to even pretend that the exercise has value.
> 
> It is unlikely that you can develop believable skills against such a scenario, but at least you are being honest with yourself.  At least then you will understand the seriousness of your situation. If you cannot find a weapon or improvise a weapon to level the playing field a bit, you are in dire straights.  And I’m not talking about music.



Okay, so I assume that the person knows how to use it.  Now why do I have to assume that I'm a malnourished commoner without experience?


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> Okay, so I assume that the person knows how to use it.  Now why do I have to assume that I'm a malnourished commoner without experience?


I was offering a little historical context to illustrate what kind of scenario was more likely, when an unarmed person faced an adversary(s) with a sword/spear/staff/club.

Ok, so instead assume you have TKD empty hand skills that reflect your reality.  Do you believe you can develop a believable curriculum of defensive skills against an armed opponent who is skilled with his weapon, has the room to use it as designed (plenty of room to use a spear or swing a sword or staff, for example) and has no reservations about doing so with homicidal intent?

The academic exercise of the training could be fun, it could be enlightening, but I doubt you will develop a realistic curriculum for such scenarios.

My comments here are in response to an earlier post (by you? I can’t remember, too lazy to look back at the moment...) stating that training with a weapon should also include learning to defend against it.  My position is that it is not realistic, at least not without making the assumption that the guy with the weapon is grossly incompetent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I was offering a little historical context to illustrate what kind of scenario was more likely, when an unarmed person faced an adversary(s) with a sword/spear/staff/club.
> 
> Ok, so instead assume you have TKD empty hand skills that reflect your reality.  Do you believe you can develop a believable curriculum of defensive skills against an armed opponent who is skilled with his weapon, has the room to use it as designed (plenty of room to use a spear or swing a sword or staff, for example) and has no reservations about doing so with homicidal intent?
> 
> The academic exercise of the training could be fun, it could be enlightening, but I doubt you will develop a realistic curriculum for such scenarios.
> 
> My comments here are in response to an earlier post (by you? I can’t remember, too lazy to look back at the moment...) stating that training with a weapon should also include learning to defend against it.  My position is that it is not realistic, at least not without making the assumption that the guy with the weapon is grossly incompetent.


It is possible to catch someone with mediocre skills in a mistake, and take advantage of it. And it is entirely possible to run across someone without any real skill with a weapon. That weapon is still a threat - perhaps an extreme threat, depending upon the weapon - so developing strategies for both of those situations is useful. My view of weapon defense (when looking at traditional weapons) is that you're learning to work against weapons in general, so learning to defend against a sword (not wielded by Musashi) is learning to deal with long-range weapons (including dull ones) and sharp weapons (including short ones).

It's also hella fun.


----------



## WaterGal

hoshin1600 said:


> however it would not be hard to conceive the idea of a weapon made of two sticks with some rope between them.  they were probably made by some kid messing around in the garage.



Yeah, the stories about how such-and-such martial arts weapons were designed by farmers so they could secretly arm themselves against the local government that banned peasants from carrying swords or whatever always strikes me as a little, uh.... maybe not true.  Nunchaku are, basically, a stick on a rope, with another stick as a handle. Armies all over the place used weapons like that in medieval times (i.e. in Europe they used the flail, which was basically the same thing but the hitting end had metal spikes on it), because it means you can use the stick to hit someone harder and from farther away. Swords were expensive, sticks with spikes in them were cheaper and easier to mass produce in ancient times.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> It is possible to catch someone with mediocre skills in a mistake, and take advantage of it. And it is entirely possible to run across someone without any real skill with a weapon. That weapon is still a threat - perhaps an extreme threat, depending upon the weapon - so developing strategies for both of those situations is useful. My view of weapon defense (when looking at traditional weapons) is that you're learning to work against weapons in general, so learning to defend against a sword (not wielded by Musashi) is learning to deal with long-range weapons (including dull ones) and sharp weapons (including short ones).
> 
> It's also hella fun.


Sure it’s hella fun.  I’m not saying don’t do it.

But if your assumption in the training is that the guy with the weapon is incompetent, then you haven’t actually developed any defensive skills against it.

So I’m saying, recognize reality for what it is.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Sure it’s hella fun.  I’m not saying don’t do it.
> 
> But if your assumption in the training is that the guy with the weapon is incompetent, then you haven’t actually developed any defensive skills against it.
> 
> So I’m saying, recognize reality for what it is.



Yes, you have.  If I go against someone with a baseball bat, do I expect them to be a master with every technique you can use with a club, or do I expect them to just swing at my head like they would swing at a baseball?

If you learn to defend against that initial swing, you've probably learned self defense for 90% of the people who would attack someone with a baseball bat, and learning that technique would take significantly less time than learning to defend against a master mace-man and all the techniques they might possess.

Just like learning to defend against a haymaker (the most likely punch you're going to have to deal with on the street) is a lot easier than learning to defend against an advanced boxer or karate expert.  Just because I can't defend against Floyd Mayweather doesn't mean that I'm not capable of defending myself in most situations.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> Yes, you have.  If I go against someone with a baseball bat, do I expect them to be a master with every technique you can use with a club, or do I expect them to just swing at my head like they would swing at a baseball?
> 
> If you learn to defend against that initial swing, you've probably learned self defense for 90% of the people who would attack someone with a baseball bat, and learning that technique would take significantly less time than learning to defend against a master mace-man and all the techniques they might possess.
> 
> Just like learning to defend against a haymaker (the most likely punch you're going to have to deal with on the street) is a lot easier than learning to defend against an advanced boxer or karate expert.  Just because I can't defend against Floyd Mayweather doesn't mean that I'm not capable of defending myself in most situations.


Ok, so what you are really talking about is defending against a low-skilled person swinging a blunt object at you.  That is not the same thing as defending against a sword (sharp edge and point, sophisticated techniques), a staff (long reach, blunt thrusting and striking, sophisticated techniques), a spear (sharp point and cutting edge with a long reach, and really fast repeated thrusting stabs and sophisticated techniques), or a three-section staff (long reach, strikes, flexible tie-ups, sophisticated blocks and traps).  Those are not the same thing as defending against Jimmy the weekend little-league coach swinging a baseball bat at you.  Being able to defend against Jimmy with a bat is not the same as defending against traditional weapons made for war, used with sophisticated methods designed to be quickly lethal.

A bat is not a staff.  A bat is not a sword.  You might be able to take a glancing blow from a bat.  But from a sword, with a sharp edge, that same glancing blow could sever tendons or muscles or limbs or arteries and you are dead.

If you want to defend against Jimmy with a bat, then develop that curriculum with the strengths and weaknesses of a bat in mind.  Focus on the few untrained methods of attack that Jimmy is likely to use, with that bat.  It isn’t the same thing as a sword or a staff.

So If you want to learn something about using a three-section staff, then go for it, but I don’t think learning unarmed defenses against it is realistic.  I train sword, saber, staff, spear, double saber, double butterfly swords and double tomahawks, all in the context of Chinese martial arts.  I don’t try to develop unarmed defenses against them.  It’s not realistic, and it’s highly highly unlikely I’ll ever need them.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so what you are really talking about is defending against a low-skilled person swinging a blunt object at you.  That is not the same thing as defending against a sword (sharp edge and point, sophisticated techniques), a staff (long reach, blunt thrusting and striking, sophisticated techniques), a spear (sharp point and cutting edge with a long reach, and really fast repeated thrusting stabs and sophisticated techniques), or a three-section staff (long reach, strikes, flexible tie-ups, sophisticated blocks and traps).  Those are not the same thing as defending against Jimmy the weekend little-league coach swinging a baseball bat at you.  Being able to defend against Jimmy with a bat is not the same as defending against traditional weapons made for war, used with sophisticated methods designed to be quickly lethal.
> 
> A bat is not a staff.  A bat is not a sword.  You might be able to take a glancing blow from a bat.  But from a sword, with a sharp edge, that same glancing blow could sever tendons or muscles or limbs or arteries and you are dead.
> 
> If you want to defend against Jimmy with a bat, then develop that curriculum with the strengths and weaknesses of a bat in mind.  Focus on the few untrained methods of attack that Jimmy is likely to use, with that bat.  It isn’t the same thing as a sword or a staff.



Why do you assume I was saying that learning defense against a bat means you learn defense against all weapons?  You are taking points I didn't make and arguing against them.  

I'm saying if you learn defenses against a baseball swing or an overhand strike from a club (be it a bat, eskrima stick, asp, hammer, wrench, tire iron, etc) you've learned to defend against the majority of attacks with that type of weapon.  Heck, you could even lump axes into that, as you're generally going to go for the handle instead of the end of the stick weapon.

I agree completely this won't help with swords, spears, staves, nunchucks, 3-section staff, firearms, attack dogs, and all of the other weapons you mentioned.

However, learning to defend against a club (which covers many different tools I mentioned above) you learn to defend against probably the most likely weapon you'll encounter on the street.  Similarly, guns and knives are pretty common, at least in the US.  I'd place staff next, as any long stick can basically be a staff.  So it's not that you need to know how to defend every weapon, but there are a few that are very likely to be used against you.

I'd put swords, spears, nunchucks, and other martial arts or medieval weapons as less likely.  Which brings us to...



> So If you want to learn something about using a three-section staff, then go for it, but I don’t think learning unarmed defenses against it is realistic. I train sword, saber, staff, spear, double saber, double butterfly swords and double tomahawks, all in the context of Chinese martial arts. I don’t try to develop unarmed defenses against them. It’s not realistic, and it’s highly highly unlikely I’ll ever need them.



As I said earlier, it is incredibly unlikely I would be attacked with one of these, and for that reason I wouldn't train defense against them.  However, I do not think that if I made unarmed defense against these weapons my focus, that it would be unrealistic to develop the ability to defend myself against the average user of them.  At the very least, you would stand a chance to defend yourself.

The possibility of being attacked by someone with a 3-section-staff and the possibility of developing techniques to defend against it are two different things and two completely different arguments.  The former addresses whether it's worth the time to study, while the later discusses whether it's even possible.  

You'll also find you're on my side of the argument - you don't have to know the defenses against it to train with it.  I agree with you that learning to defend against a master with the weapon is not going to be easy, if possible.

However, I disagree that you need to know how to defeat a master with a weapon for the self defense class to be useful.  I disagree that anyone with a weapon has automatically won.


----------



## Dirty Dog

pdg said:


> In a couple of the earlier Taekwon-do textbooks there is some limited detail of weapons defence.



If by this you're referring to empty handed defense against a weapon, then of course. If you're referring to using weapons, then I'd like to see a reference please.



> As it's not really a traditional art in it doesn't have that long a dedicated history, there can't be any traditional weapons under the same definition.



This is true of pretty much everything but the strictest Koryu arts; they're all derived from other arts. Even the Koryu arts are derivitive, clear back to Ugg hitting Ogg with a stick and realizing it works better than punching him.
It's not the least unreasonable to say that TKD traditions are what the founders established. That would mean no weapons.



> But, I can't say (because I don't know) whether there are weapons included in the curriculum of Taekwondo, or Tae Kwon Do, or any of the derivatives - have any of the offshoots or derivatives included weapons since inception?



No. Taekwondo was established as an empty hand art. There are certainly branches that have incorporated weapons. For example, the Hwarang or Silla knife form was developed by (if memory serves correctly...) the founder of the GTF (an ITF offshoot). I know the form, though I haven't taught it to anyone. It's a GTF form, not a TKD form. If I started teaching it as a part of our curriculum, it would still be a GTF form, not a MDK or TKD form, because it's not a part of the MDK or TKD as a whole. If our Kwanjangnim endorsed it and it was made a part of the curriculum for the entire system, then maybe it could be considered a MDK form. But it still wouldn't be a TKD form.



> If so, under a looser definition they could be considered "tkd weapons" irrespective of their previous origins.



Very loose. Like, walking through an unused train tunnel loose. I'd say "taekwondo plus weapons" would be more accurate. I suspect most teachers who have any experience in other arts draw from those experiences. I know I do. But it's not taekwondo, and I try to be clear about that.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so instead assume you have TKD empty hand skills that reflect your reality.  Do you believe you can develop a believable curriculum of defensive skills against an armed opponent who is skilled with his weapon, has the room to use it as designed (plenty of room to use a spear or swing a sword or staff, for example) and has no reservations about doing so with homicidal intent?



Sure you can. The first lesson will be "you're pretty much screwed, and your best bet is Run-Fu." Even competent people make mistakes, and the rest of the lessons would be geared towards staying alive until you can either escape or capitalize on a mistake.

If by "realistic" you mean a curriculum that will result in you consistently Hollywooding the other guy, then no, of course not. If by "realistic" you mean recognizing the significant disadvantage you're at, and trying to find a way out, then of course you can.

I've had knives pulled on me three times. The first time I was a 17 year old kid. The other two times were at work. Although I lost an eye the first time, I did survive. And I was uninjured in either of the other two events. Not exactly a large statistical sample, but it does, I think, show that it IS possible to learn effective, realistic defense techniques against a weapon. I'll be the first to admit that it also shows the importance of being lucky.

I don't know if any of the three would be considered "skilled" by your definition. I didn't ask their training or experience. I will say that the biggest difference I personally see between the time I got hurt and the times I didn't was hesitation. The first time, I didn't fight back until he was actually attacking me. The other two times, I attacked while the weapon was still being deployed.


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> If by this you're referring to empty handed defense against a weapon, then of course. If you're referring to using weapons, then I'd like to see a reference please.



As would I...

I have as yet found nothing to suggest the use of weapons was an integral part of any branch.

As has been suggested elsewhere, it's highly likely the use of weapons was taught alongside tkd originally, but it would've been a separate object of training.



Dirty Dog said:


> Very loose. Like, walking through an unused train tunnel loose. I'd say "taekwondo plus weapons" would be more accurate.



I prefer "chucking a sausage into a cathedral" as a definition of looseness myself 

But, the name (with various formats and punctuation) has been hoiked about so much and appropriated so many times...

For instance, there's a school with a club near me that advertises taekwondo, but go on to say they don't use patterns, they "don't confuse students with foreign terms", and they use certain weapons.

I don't consider that tkd, but by using the name they obviously do.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> Why do you assume I was saying that learning defense against a bat means you learn defense against all weapons?  You are taking points I didn't make and arguing against them.
> 
> I'm saying if you learn defenses against a baseball swing or an overhand strike from a club (be it a bat, eskrima stick, asp, hammer, wrench, tire iron, etc) you've learned to defend against the majority of attacks with that type of weapon.  Heck, you could even lump axes into that, as you're generally going to go for the handle instead of the end of the stick weapon.
> 
> I agree completely this won't help with swords, spears, staves, nunchucks, 3-section staff, firearms, attack dogs, and all of the other weapons you mentioned.
> 
> However, learning to defend against a club (which covers many different tools I mentioned above) you learn to defend against probably the most likely weapon you'll encounter on the street.  Similarly, guns and knives are pretty common, at least in the US.  I'd place staff next, as any long stick can basically be a staff.  So it's not that you need to know how to defend every weapon, but there are a few that are very likely to be used against you.
> 
> I'd put swords, spears, nunchucks, and other martial arts or medieval weapons as less likely.  Which brings us to...
> 
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, it is incredibly unlikely I would be attacked with one of these, and for that reason I wouldn't train defense against them.  However, I do not think that if I made unarmed defense against these weapons my focus, that it would be unrealistic to develop the ability to defend myself against the average user of them.  At the very least, you would stand a chance to defend yourself.
> 
> The possibility of being attacked by someone with a 3-section-staff and the possibility of developing techniques to defend against it are two different things and two completely different arguments.  The former addresses whether it's worth the time to study, while the later discusses whether it's even possible.
> 
> You'll also find you're on my side of the argument - you don't have to know the defenses against it to train with it.  I agree with you that learning to defend against a master with the weapon is not going to be easy, if possible.
> 
> However, I disagree that you need to know how to defeat a master with a weapon for the self defense class to be useful.  I disagree that anyone with a weapon has automatically won.


Ok well, when you brought baseball bats into the discussion, that sent a message to me that you were equating the skill sets (defending against Jimmy and defending against a swordsman).  My bad, apparently, for not realizing that was not your intention.

As to your last couple paragraphs, my point is simply that if you do not develop defenses against a skilled opponent with the weapon, then you haven’t really developed skills against the weapon.  You have only developed defenses against an unskilled weapon user.  My point is, be realistic about what you have done.  Don’t fool yourself into thinking you can truly defend yourself against someone who actually know someone how to use the weapon.  My reason for even making the comment was your earlier comment about studying the weapon and studying defenses against it.  

And of course I don’t advocate simply giving up if attacked with a weapon.  I advocate running.  But beware the false sense of security, if your defenses against the weapon were developed against an unskilled opponent.

In the end, you may be able to defend yourself against an unskilled fellow with a sword, spear, staff, three-section staff, in the highly unlikely event that he should be coming after you.

If the guy actually has some skill with the weapon though, and fully intends to use it, then I doubt it.

Understand your limits.


----------



## Flying Crane

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure you can. The first lesson will be "you're pretty much screwed, and your best bet is Run-Fu." Even competent people make mistakes, and the rest of the lessons would be geared towards staying alive until you can either escape or capitalize on a mistake.
> 
> If by "realistic" you mean a curriculum that will result in you consistently Hollywooding the other guy, then no, of course not. If by "realistic" you mean recognizing the significant disadvantage you're at, and trying to find a way out, then of course you can.
> 
> I've had knives pulled on me three times. The first time I was a 17 year old kid. The other two times were at work. Although I lost an eye the first time, I did survive. And I was uninjured in either of the other two events. Not exactly a large statistical sample, but it does, I think, show that it IS possible to learn effective, realistic defense techniques against a weapon. I'll be the first to admit that it also shows the importance of being lucky.
> 
> I don't know if any of the three would be considered "skilled" by your definition. I didn't ask their training or experience. I will say that the biggest difference I personally see between the time I got hurt and the times I didn't was hesitation. The first time, I didn't fight back until he was actually attacking me. The other two times, I attacked while the weapon was still being deployed.


These are good examples.  I of course also do not know if they were skilled.  As I’ve said a couple times now, my comments were in response to a statement, within the context of wanting to learn three-section staff (as well as listing some other traditional weapons like katana) that learning to defend against them is part of it.  Those are weapons that give a huge advantages to the user, and if he has skill and room to use them and real intent, then no I do not believe it is possible, Short of a miraculous fluke and extreme luck.

That’s kind of like learning to defend against a skilled guy with a rifle, in an open field, and 40 yards between you.  It ain’t happening.  If the weapon is being used as it was designed, in an environment for which it was designed, and you are empty-handed, good bye to you.

At any rate, I agree that understanding the severity of your situation and looking for an escape route are the best defenses. But that is not how I interpreted what was intended by the earlier statement.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> If by this you're referring to empty handed defense against a weapon, then of course. If you're referring to using weapons, then I'd like to see a reference please.
> ............................
> No. Taekwondo was established as an empty hand art.
> 
> I'd say "taekwondo plus weapons" would be more accurate. .



DD Nailed it.


----------



## TrueJim

Taekwondo bayonet training. Just sayin'...bayonets.


----------



## pdg

TrueJim said:


> Taekwondo bayonet training. Just sayin'...bayonets.



Wouldn't that be defence against a bayonet though?


----------



## Dirty Dog

TrueJim said:


> Taekwondo bayonet training. Just sayin'...bayonets.



No, that's training defense AGAINST a polearm (any long-ish stick with a blade at the end), by guys in MA uniforms. We don't really know what art they train in, but it also doesn't really matter. The picture clearly shows defense against, rather than technique for using.


----------



## oftheherd1

Flying Crane said:


> ...
> 
> The notion that one can build unarmed defenses against these weapons, without somehow creating a situation to stifle the use of the weapon first, I think is fantasy.
> 
> ...



If you can do that, then what?

Mind you, defense against any weapon requires skill.  If you are not skilled, which includes fast and accurate, you may indeed be in deep kimchi.  But if your attacker relies too much on the weapon, and does not expect a good defense, that will help your chances.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> As to your last couple paragraphs, my point is simply that if you do not develop defenses against a skilled opponent with the weapon, then you haven’t really developed skills against the weapon.



Or...you've developed techniques against the most likely use of the weapon.  It might not be fully fleshed out, but it will be useful defense in a large majority of the situations you get into.


----------



## oftheherd1

hoshin1600 said:


> its also note worthy that almost no one used nunchuku untill Bruce Lee used them in the movies.



I don't really know when he first used them in a movie.  I do know that in 1973 I knew a young man who was studying nunchuku at a school.



hoshin1600 said:


> well they did actually use a rice flail.
> View attachment 21330
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but "some say"  that if nunchuku was an adaptation of a farming item it would have been a part from a horses bridle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however it would not be hard to conceive the idea of a weapon made of two sticks with some rope between them.  they were probably made by some kid messing around in the garage.



The normal way I saw was to cut the stalks, let them dry, then take a bunch of stalks and beat (flail) them against a structure made of rice stalks, that curved around but was open at the front.  The rice grains fell to the bottom and were periodically collected.  The rice stalk structure was usually set on rice mats as your picture shows so any rice that didn't fall straight down was not lost.  Then the rice was dried on mats and what you show above was used to separate the rice from the chaff.

But there may well have been different ways used in local areas.

Oh, did they have garages in ancient times in the orient?


----------



## oftheherd1

skribs said:


> I don't think it's always a 1-to-1.
> 
> 
> A lot of our training with a weapon is equal force, i.e. staff vs. staff, sword vs. sword, etc.  We don't really have the time to go in depth on every possible weapon combination or unarmed vs. all weapons.  If we were a HEMA school or something similar, we might
> We learn defense against knives and guns, but don't learn as much for when we're using the knife or gun.  This is an inversion of the idea
> I'm learning the 3 section staff right now.  What are the chances I'll need to defend myself against it?  That's not time effective training



I understand.  However in the Hapkido I studied, we learned unarmed defense against sword and knife, and the use of the short stick as a defense against the sword.  Mind you, I was only tested to 2nd Dan.


----------



## JR 137

skribs said:


> I'm learning the 3 section staff right now.  What are the chances I'll need to defend myself against it?  That's not time effective training




Realistically speaking, what parts of TMA ARE time effective training?  Not including competition what are the chances you’ll actually defend against any head kick?  Even better, against any kick at all?  Between bartending and helping break up the really bad stuff while I was there, I don’t recall ever seeing a kick thrown.  Same any other altercation.  I haven’t seen much of anything beyond haymakers, grabbing/shoving like wrestling and judo, a few (American) football tackle-like takedowns, and some restraining stuff like bear hugs and headlock-type stuff.  Floatin’ like a butterfly and stingin’ like a bee didn’t happen, nor did jujitsu matches or TKD matches.

I’m not talking strictly bar room brawls here.  I’ve seen far more than I’ve been in, and have been more than my fair share.

If we’re maximizing time effectiveness, shouldn’t 99% of our training be based around that stuff rather than dojo fighting?


----------



## TrueJim

Dirty Dog said:


> No, that's training defense AGAINST a polearm (any long-ish stick with a blade at the end), by guys in MA uniforms. We don't really know what art they train in, but it also doesn't really matter. The picture clearly shows defense against, rather than technique for using.



I don't recall the source of the photo, but I do recall that it claimed that that photo is a group of Vietnamese taekwondo students (specifically soldiers) being trained by Nam Tae Hi. I think it was in The Killing Art that the author talks about bayonet training (as in, bayonet as a weapon) being part of the military curriculum developed by General Choi? I'm working from memory though, I don't have the references handy.


----------



## skribs

JR 137 said:


> Realistically speaking, what parts of TMA ARE time effective training?  Not including competition what are the chances you’ll actually defend against any head kick?  Even better, against any kick at all?  Between bartending and helping break up the really bad stuff while I was there, I don’t recall ever seeing a kick thrown.  Same any other altercation.  I haven’t seen much of anything beyond haymakers, grabbing/shoving like wrestling and judo, a few (American) football tackle-like takedowns, and some restraining stuff like bear hugs and headlock-type stuff.  Floatin’ like a butterfly and stingin’ like a bee didn’t happen, nor did jujitsu matches or TKD matches.
> 
> I’m not talking strictly bar room brawls here.  I’ve seen far more than I’ve been in, and have been more than my fair share.
> 
> If we’re maximizing time effectiveness, shouldn’t 99% of our training be based around that stuff rather than dojo fighting?



If you expect to fight in competition, then there is a very likely chance you will need that skill, and it is effective use of your time to train for it.


----------



## Flying Crane

oftheherd1 said:


> If you can do that, then what?
> 
> Mind you, defense against any weapon requires skill.  If you are not skilled, which includes fast and accurate, you may indeed be in deep kimchi.  But if your attacker relies too much on the weapon, and does not expect a good defense, that will help your chances.


You can “what if” it to death and come up with a scenario in which you win.

But... if he is as skilled as you, and he has a weapon such as a sword or spear or staff or three section staff with which he is equally skilled, and he has the room to use the weapon as it was designed, then he wins.

That is what weapons do: they tilt the playing field and make the encounter severely unfair.

But to think of a scenario like “ he relies too much on the weapon and does not expect a strong defense”. That is nonsense. 

 I am assuming a weapon guy who knows what he is about.

You are assuming an unskilled fellow who happened to pick up a weapon and doesn’t have much notion of what to do with it.


----------



## Flying Crane

Dirty Dog said:


> No, that's training defense AGAINST a polearm (any long-ish stick with a blade at the end), by guys in MA uniforms. We don't really know what art they train in, but it also doesn't really matter. The picture clearly shows defense against, rather than technique for using.


It shows an encounter between two fellows who are both gripping a rifle fitted with a bayonet.  How they got into that position is not shown.  There could have been a technique for using the bayonet, and there could have been an attempt to defend against it.

The bayonet could be incidental, and they are really just fighting for control to use the last round in the rifle.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> Or...you've developed techniques against the most likely use of the weapon.  It might not be fully fleshed out, but it will be useful defense in a large majority of the situations you get into.


Sure, but likely (in the modern day and age) against a fellow unskilled with the weapon.  That isn’t really understanding how to defend against the weapon.

Look.  I’ve got some training with a few weapons, and my weapons are realistic and sturdy, not some flimsy toys like we see in Modern Wushu or XMA.  I am no weapons master, but I have some familiarity and comfort with a few of them, and an understanding of how they work.

I will state with confidence that with one of these weapons, in a state of combat readiness, meaning they are made of quality materials, they are well constructed, they are sharp where they need to be and strong where they need to be etc., that I could defeat (kill) anybody in an encounter where they are unarmed and I am armed.

The assumptions are simply that I have sufficient room to use the weapon as it is designed (I’m not fighting with a spear while in the crawl space under my house, for example) and I have full freedom to use the weapon with homicidal intent (it isn’t a sparring match where we all go home at the end of the day).

I don’t care who the opponent is.  It could be anyone from the Gracie clan, or your own grandmaster, or whomever the current personality of the moment in MMA is, or some obscure grandmaster whoever from wherever.  I don’t care who you want to name as my opponent.  

If the match is under those conditions, I will win and he will die.

That is what these weapons mean, in the hand of someone who inderstands them.

So if you want to come up with empty hand defenses against the weapon, for real, then that is what you are talking about.  Otherwise, you are talking about defending against an unskilled opponent who happens to be holding a weapon with which he is also unskilled.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> You can “what if” it to death and come up with a scenario in which you win.
> 
> But... if he is as skilled as you, and he has a weapon such as a sword or spear or staff or three section staff with which he is equally skilled, and he has the room to use the weapon as it was designed, then he wins.
> 
> That is what weapons do: they tilt the playing field and make the encounter severely unfair.
> 
> But to think of a scenario like “ he relies too much on the weapon and does not expect a strong defense”. That is nonsense.
> 
> I am assuming a weapon guy who knows what he is about.
> 
> You are assuming an unskilled fellow who happened to pick up a weapon and doesn’t have much notion of what to do with it.


You train for what can be defended. A highly skilled knife fighter is probably going to dissect me, especially if he has some empty-hand training, too (so he recognizes the movements). But a less-skilled person with a knife can be dealt with. If I don't have a better option, I'm fighting, either way. When training, there's not much sense in assuming I'll be gutted as soon as I start to defend. We have to be realistic about our limitations (so we know we're not action movie heroes), and train for what we can do rather than simply skipping it because the other guy might be too skilled.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, but likely (in the modern day and age) against a fellow unskilled with the weapon. That isn’t really understanding how to defend against the weapon.


Ah, I think I see where you're coming from on this. For folks learning weapon defense, they're often (not always) more concerned with learning to defend against people wielding weapons, than the weapon, itself. I hope that distinction makes sense.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, but likely (in the modern day and age) against a fellow unskilled with the weapon.  That isn’t really understanding how to defend against the weapon.



It's an understanding of how to defend against a typical deployment of that weapon.  Should a school not teach any defense skills unless they teach skills for every possible way in which that can be used?

Should I not go to a martial arts school unless they teach me to defend against punches, open hand strikes, elbows, knees, kicks, grabs, joint locks, throws, chokes, holds, breaks, and compression locks?  If I can't defend against boxers, karate experts, wing chun, hapkido, wrestling, jiu-jitsu, and judo, and taekwondo, can I say I don't know self defense because my opponent might use a technique I've not drilled against.

"Oh, you say yours is the perfect self defense, but all you train is defense against punches, kicks, body grabs, arm grabs, and chokes.  What if someone attacks you with a 540 hook kick or a Feilong roundhouse?  What drills have you done for that?"

This is the sense I get from you.  That it's completely worthless to teach self defense against the average user of the weapon (the guy who just grabs you or throws a sucker punch) because you might run into Scott Adkins, and because Scott Adkins would beat you, there's no point in training.



> Look.  I’ve got some training with a few weapons, and my weapons are realistic and sturdy, not some flimsy toys like we see in Modern Wushu or XMA.  I am no weapons master, but I have some familiarity and comfort with a few of them, and an understanding of how they work.
> 
> I will state with confidence that with one of these weapons, in a state of combat readiness, meaning they are made of quality materials, they are well constructed, they are sharp where they need to be and strong where they need to be etc., that I could defeat (kill) anybody in an encounter where they are unarmed and I am armed.
> 
> The assumptions are simply that I have sufficient room to use the weapon as it is designed (I’m not fighting with a spear while in the crawl space under my house, for example) and I have full freedom to use the weapon with homicidal intent (it isn’t a sparring match where we all go home at the end of the day).
> 
> I don’t care who the opponent is.  It could be anyone from the Gracie clan, or your own grandmaster, or whomever the current personality of the moment in MMA is, or some obscure grandmaster whoever from wherever.  I don’t care who you want to name as my opponent.
> 
> If the match is under those conditions, I will win and he will die.
> 
> That is what these weapons mean, in the hand of someone who inderstands them.
> 
> So if you want to come up with empty hand defenses against the weapon, for real, then that is what you are talking about.  Otherwise, you are talking about defending against an unskilled opponent who happens to be holding a weapon with which he is also unskilled.



I am going to say that you are falling into the trap that Oftheherd said, relying too much on the weapon.  Complete belief that because you have the weapon, you will win.  That's not to say you're unskilled or don't know what you're doing, but simply belief that your skill in the weapon makes you infallible.

So your plan (from an earlier point in the thread) is to run.  What if they're faster than you?


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> You train for what can be defended. A highly skilled knife fighter is probably going to dissect me, especially if he has some empty-hand training, too (so he recognizes the movements). But a less-skilled person with a knife can be dealt with. If I don't have a better option, I'm fighting, either way. When training, there's not much sense in assuming I'll be gutted as soon as I start to defend. We have to be realistic about our limitations (so we know we're not action movie heroes), and train for what we can do rather than simply skipping it because the other guy might be too skilled.


I’m not saying you don’t fight back.  By all means, fight back (if making an exit is not possible).

But think about the reality of trying to make a curriculum of unarmed defense against a sword.  “If he lunges at you like THIS, then you sidestep like THAT and grab his arm and TWIST and poke him in the eye...”. Seriously, that will only work on the most inexperienced swordsman to ever pick up a weapon.  that kind of defense will not work on a swordsman with even modest skills.

That’s what I’m trying to get across:  defending against a nincompoop holding a sword is not the same as a realistic defense against the sword, by anyone with any level of real skill at all.  If is just fantasy.

Again, my comments are in response to an earlier statement that learning the weapon (with a list of katana, bo, nunchaku, and three-section staff, if I remember correctly) should also include learning to defend against it.  Well then that should mean defending against someone who actually knows how to use the weapon effectively.  Not a supreme weapons master,  but someone with genuine competence.  And realistically, that is very very unlikely because these weapons are meant to be game-changers.  They are meant to create an enormously and insurmountably unfair advantage.  Otherwise it is just pretending.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> Ah, I think I see where you're coming from on this. For folks learning weapon defense, they're often (not always) more concerned with learning to defend against people wielding weapons, than the weapon, itself. I hope that distinction makes sense.


Yes.  Someone unskilled who happens to be holding a weapon, vs. the weapon in how it is really meant to be used, by someone who actually knows how to do so.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> It's an understanding of how to defend against a typical deployment of that weapon.  Should a school not teach any defense skills unless they teach skills for every possible way in which that can be used?



I think you don’t understand what a “typical deployment of the weapon” means.  I’ll tell you:  it is fast and sneaky and repeated and leaves you dead, without a chance to defend against it.  It is overwhelming superiority, unless you are defending against a nincompoop.  If so, if that’s is what your program is designed against, then your program has no value.



> Should I not go to a martial arts school unless they teach me to defend against punches, open hand strikes, elbows, knees, kicks, grabs, joint locks, throws, chokes, holds, breaks, and compression locks?  If I can't defend against boxers, karate experts, wing chun, hapkido, wrestling, jiu-jitsu, and judo, and taekwondo, can I say I don't know self defense because my opponent might use a technique I've not drilled against.
> 
> "Oh, you say yours is the perfect self defense, but all you train is defense against punches, kicks, body grabs, arm grabs, and chokes.  What if someone attacks you with a 540 hook kick or a Feilong roundhouse?  What drills have you done for that?"
> 
> This is the sense I get from you.  That it's completely worthless to teach self defense against the average user of the weapon (the guy who just grabs you or throws a sucker punch) because you might run into Scott Adkins, and because Scott Adkins would beat you, there's no point in training.



Where do you get that idea?  I never said it has to be absolutely complete, that you need to do everything or nothing.  I said that the skill is not real if it is not realistic against someone with some real skill with the weapon.  And I do not believe it is possible to develop that, given the use these weapons are meant for.

Another thing to note: fundamental techniques are what get results, especially with weapons.  That stuff is deadly.  The flashy fancy stiff is for show and is not combat technique.  These weapons typically have a limited body of useful techniques that are used with great effect.



> I am going to say that you are falling into the trap that Oftheherd said, relying too much on the weapon.  Complete belief that because you have the weapon, you will win.  That's not to say you're unskilled or don't know what you're doing, but simply belief that your skill in the weapon makes you infallible.
> 
> So your plan (from an earlier point in the thread) is to run.  What if they're faster than you?



See, this is where you are trying to play the “what if” game and come up with an unreasonable possibility or exception where your plan wins. Someone with legitimate skills does not put too much belief in the weapon.  Rather, he knows what can be done with the weapon and he knows how to accomplish it.  He isn’t going to fall for some silly deception and drop his guard.  If he intends to kill you with the katana or the spear, then that is what he will do.

As for running, sure that is your best bet.  And he could also simply pull a gun and shoot you from 30 paces.  Do you think you can develop unarmed defenses against that.

Weapons are meant to create an extreme unfair advantage.  Sometimes there is no way out of that.

Now once again, when we are talking about traditional weapons like swords and spears etc. you are not going to encounter this situation, this is a purely academic discussion.


----------



## skribs

> I said that the skill is not real if it is not realistic against someone with some real skill with the weapon.



And how does that make the skill somehow not real?  It makes the skill limited in scope, certainly, but it doesn't make it not real.



> See, this is where you are trying to play the “what if” game and come up with an unreasonable possibility or exception where your plan wins.



To say that the other person is faster than me?  How is that an unreal expectation?  My mile time is like 9 minutes.  It's a very real expectation.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> And how does that make the skill somehow not real?  It makes the skill limited in scope, certainly, but it doesn't make it not real.



Because by training against a nincompoop you have an utterly unrealistic notion of what an attack with the weapon is really like, and a dangerously  unrealistic notion of how you might defend against it.



> To say that the other person is faster than me?  How is that an unreal expectation?  My mile time is like 9 minutes.  It's a very real expectation.


No, the other part.  The part about trusting too much in the weapon.  

So if I trust too much in the weapon, what do you think that means?  Do you think that you could get me to fall for a deception and drop my guard and give you an opening to defeat me?  Do you REALLY think someone would fall for that, someone who is intent on killing you with that weapon and who knows how to go about it?


----------



## oftheherd1

TrueJim said:


> I don't recall the source of the photo, but I do recall that it claimed that that photo is a group of Vietnamese taekwondo students (specifically soldiers) being trained by Nam Tae Hi. I think it was in The Killing Art that the author talks about bayonet training (as in, bayonet as a weapon) being part of the military curriculum developed by General Choi? I'm working from memory though, I don't have the references handy.



You may be right, but they look more like Koreans to me.


----------



## oftheherd1

Flying Crane said:


> You can “what if” it to death and come up with a scenario in which you win.



Yes, but remember? What-ifing keeps the bullfrogs from bumping their butts on the ground if you what if them to have wings.  



Flying Crane said:


> But... if he is as skilled as you, and he has a weapon such as a sword or spear or staff or three section staff with which he is equally skilled, and he has the room to use the weapon as it was designed, then he wins.
> 
> That is what weapons do: they tilt the playing field and make the encounter severely unfair.
> 
> But to think of a scenario like “ he relies too much on the weapon and does not expect a strong defense”. That is nonsense.
> 
> I am assuming a weapon guy who knows what he is about.
> 
> You are assuming an unskilled fellow who happened to pick up a weapon and doesn’t have much notion of what to do with it.



Well you are the weapons expert.  I know my GM had a 1st Dan in Kum Do as well, so maybe he wasn't really an expert in that.  But he was a GM in Hapkido.  Care to hazard a guess as to why he and other GMs wasted their and their students' time training them in sword defense?

And don't misunderstand.  I already acknowledged one must be very skilled, and quick to have a chance to defend against a good swordsman.  But I don't think swordsmen are somehow endowed with infallible skills that can never be defeated.  Considering your complete belief in your abilities with a sword, how many Hapkido or Aikido senior belts have you sparred against and won?  And I don't say that to be snippy, just saying if you haven't, perhaps there is something to sword defense you haven't yet encountered, and might not be prepared for.  Do you think there is any possibility to that?


----------



## Flying Crane

oftheherd1 said:


> Yes, but remember? What-ifing keeps the bullfrogs from bumping their butts on the ground if you what if them to have wings.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you are the weapons expert.  I know my GM had a 1st Dan in Kum Do as well, so maybe he wasn't really an expert in that.  But he was a GM in Hapkido.  Care to hazard a guess as to why he and other GMs wasted their and their students' time training them in sword defense?
> 
> And don't misunderstand.  I already acknowledged one must be very skilled, and quick to have a chance to defend against a good swordsman.  But I don't think swordsmen are somehow endowed with infallible skills that can never be defeated.  Considering your complete belief in your abilities with a sword, how many Hapkido or Aikido senior belts have you sparred against and won?  And I don't say that to be snippy, just saying if you haven't, perhaps there is something to sword defense you haven't yet encountered, and might not be prepared for.  Do you think there is any possibility to that?


I’m not talking about sparring.  I’m talking about killing someone.

And as I said before, I’m no weapons expert.  But I have enough experience with them to recognize how severely they can unlevel the playing field.

Different weapons have different advantages and disadvantages and these characteristics lie on a continuum.  So the circumstances may allow for a greater or lesser chance at defense depending on the weapon and the situation.  For example: do you know he has a weapon and is about to draw it, and can you act quickly enough to prevent that?  Or is the weapon short enough (a knife) that you can create space and then escape?  Or is the weapon long enough (a sword or spear or three section staff) that the space is too cramped to effectively use it?

So these are strategies that could prevent the weapons guy from deploying the weapon.

But that’s is not an actual defense against the weapon in use.  Those are very different things.

That is why I made my assumptions if I were to be armed while facing a high level martial artist who is unarmed.  The assumption that whatever the weapon I use, I have adequate room to use it as it was designed.  

If we are in an empty gymnasium and i am armed with a sword or spear in which I am reasonably well trained, and alert and prepared to use it, I have an advantage that is likely insurmountable by an unarmed opponent.  

If the same situation but we are in an open field, my opponent can run away and perhaps escape that way.  But if I am armed with a war bow or a gun, and we have 30 paces between us, now the likelihood of his escape is much less, he can’t just run from that.  But whatever chances he may have, lie in preventing me from using the weapon, not in countering the weapon, if I have some skill with it.

If I am in an elevator with a spear, that could be a hinderance to me, I can’t deploy it and it gets in my way and an unarmed opponent could defeat me.

So there are all kinds of issues dictated by that continuum.  But success in defense relies on preventing the use of the weapon, not in countering the weapon.  If the weapon is being used as it was designed and intended, the chance of a successful defense is virtually non-existent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Because by training against a nincompoop you have an utterly unrealistic notion of what an attack with the weapon is really like, and a dangerously  unrealistic notion of how you might defend against it.
> 
> 
> No, the other part.  The part about trusting too much in the weapon.
> 
> So if I trust too much in the weapon, what do you think that means?  Do you think that you could get me to fall for a deception and drop my guard and give you an opening to defeat me?  Do you REALLY think someone would fall for that, someone who is intent on killing you with that weapon and who knows how to go about it?


Weapons aren't always deployed with high skill. Yes, if someone walks up and shanks me in the back I probably just die, no matter how skilled I am. So I don't train for what to do after I've been killed. I train for what to do with situations I can actually do something about. That's a realistic approach to defense.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> Weapons aren't always deployed with high skill. Yes, if someone walks up and shanks me in the back I probably just die, no matter how skilled I am. So I don't train for what to do after I've been killed. I train for what to do with situations I can actually do something about. That's a realistic approach to defense.


Of course they aren’t.  But if you design your defensive curriculum to work against the unskilled, then you have dropped the bar on the ground.  That in no way helps you understand how (or even if it is possible) to defend against the weapon.

Isn’t this the same argument we hear from the grappling crowd? We see video of someone demonstrating defenses against a shoot or something, and the grapplers jump all over it because the guy doing the shoot is clearly incompetent.  The argument is the same: if you develop your defensive skills against grappling by training against unskilled grapplers, then you have no real skill at all, if you face a grappler.

It’s the same logic.  I am having a hard time understanding why this concept is getting so much resistance.


----------



## oftheherd1

Flying Crane said:


> I’m not talking about sparring.  I’m talking about killing someone.
> 
> And as I said before, I’m no weapons expert.  But I have enough experience with them to recognize how severely they can unlevel the playing field.
> 
> Different weapons have different advantages and disadvantages and these characteristics lie on a continuum.  So the circumstances may allow for a greater or lesser chance at defense depending on the weapon and the situation.  For example: do you know he has a weapon and is about to draw it, and can you act quickly enough to prevent that?  Or is the weapon short enough (a knife) that you can create space and then escape?  Or is the weapon long enough (a sword or spear or three section staff) that the space is too cramped to effectively use it?
> 
> So these are strategies that could prevent the weapons guy from deploying the weapon.
> 
> But that’s is not an actual defense against the weapon in use.  Those are very different things.
> 
> That is why I made my assumptions if I were to be armed while facing a high level martial artist who is unarmed.  The assumption that whatever the weapon I use, I have adequate room to use it as it was designed.
> 
> If we are in an empty gymnasium and i am armed with a sword or spear in which I am reasonably well trained, and alert and prepared to use it, I have an advantage that is likely insurmountable by an unarmed opponent.
> 
> If the same situation but we are in an open field, my opponent can run away and perhaps escape that way.  But if I am armed with a war bow or a gun, and we have 30 paces between us, now the likelihood of his escape is much less, he can’t just run from that.  But whatever chances he may have, lie in preventing me from using the weapon, not in countering the weapon, if I have some skill with it.
> 
> If I am in an elevator with a spear, that could be a hinderance to me, I can’t deploy it and it gets in my way and an unarmed opponent could defeat me.
> 
> So there are all kinds of issues dictated by that continuum.  But success in defense relies on preventing the use of the weapon, not in countering the weapon.  If the weapon is being used as it was designed and intended, the chance of a successful defense is virtually non-existent.



Ah, I see, now you are using the what if game.  

I understand a man who is highly skilled with a weapon being a serious threat.  I hope I never have to defend against that.  But if I do, I am glad that I have skills that will improve my chances to survive.  If has always been my belief that most people use a weapon because they don't think they have sufficient skills to survive an encounter without one.  You may not fit that mold, in which case good on you.


----------



## oftheherd1

Flying Crane said:


> Of course they aren’t.  But if you design your defensive curriculum to work against the unskilled, then you have dropped the bar on the ground.  That in no way helps you understand how (or even if it is possible) to defend against the weapon.
> 
> Isn’t this the same argument we hear from the grappling crowd? We see video of someone demonstrating defenses against a shoot or something, and the grapplers jump all over it because the guy doing the shoot is clearly incompetent.  The argument is the same: if you develop your defensive skills against grappling by training against unskilled grapplers, then you have no real skill at all, if you face a grappler.
> 
> It’s the same logic.  I am having a hard time understanding why this concept is getting so much resistance.



I was never taught to seek out those with poor weapons skills to defend against.  I agree that would be foolish.  But I was taught that in weapon defense some skills would improve my  likelihood to survive.  You believe otherwise.  So be it.  No need for further discussion.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Because by training against a nincompoop you have an utterly unrealistic notion of what an attack with the weapon is really like, and a dangerously unrealistic notion of how you might defend against it.



So I should assume every person with a make-shift mace is an expert in historical weapon arts?

If I can defend against the *most likely* use of the weapon, which is by some thug who wants to use a big hunk of wood or metal to knock my block off, then that is a legitimate skill.

I might not be able to defend myself against someone who is an expert...okay.  But what is the likelihood that someone who is a historical weapons expert is going to attack me?  People with the focus and discipline to become an expert in something don't generally become street thugs.



Flying Crane said:


> It’s the same logic. I am having a hard time understanding why this concept is getting so much resistance.



Nobody is disagreeing with your general concept of:

Weapons give a serious advantage to the weilder
A skilled weapons user is very deadly
Against a weapon, an unskilled unarmed person is likely dead
What we are disagreeing with (or at least I am):

A skilled weapons user in a no-holds-barred match will invariably kill any unarmed opponent
Training for the basic attack of an unskilled user is useless
I agree that a weapon user is MOST LIKELY to beat an unarmed guy, but it's possible that person will survive and also possible they will triumph.  Not a very good chance, but not the absolute certainty that you've been spouting.

I also agree that if I train for defense against a baseball bat swing or an overhand swing with the mace, instead of every possible way you can jab and twirl it, that I'm not going to be prepared for a master maceman.  I am going to be prepared for the vast majority of street thugs swinging a baseball bat, and I don't consider that useless.



Flying Crane said:


> Isn’t this the same argument we hear from the grappling crowd? We see video of someone demonstrating defenses against a shoot or something, and the grapplers jump all over it because the guy doing the shoot is clearly incompetent. The argument is the same: if you develop your defensive skills against grappling by training against unskilled grapplers, then you have no real skill at all, if you face a grappler.



What is the context?  Are they talking about street fights or cage matches?  There's a big difference in the skill level of your expected opponents in the ring vs. outside.  In the ring you expect someone who is shooting has not only drilled this move thousands of times, but also has planned and drilled every step after to include completing the takedown, controlling you on the ground, and either pinning you, choking you, or breaking your arm.  Someone on the street is likely just trying to pick you up and drop you or is going to go for a football tackle instead of a wrestling move or a judo takedown.

There's also the aspect that the grapplers are training specifically for grappling.  So they should know how to shoot and should know how to defend a shoot, and what to do after that.  Just like I expect someone who does HEMA to know the ins-and-outs of a weapon and how to use it.  But for someone where it isn't their focus, less focus can be spent on it.

Then there's the simple fact that in general, when you're doing a how-to video on doing something, you're seeing people move at half-speed for demonstration purposes, which sometimes shows more openings than would be there in a real situation.  You can see this a lot in HEMA videos where it appears there's a big opening or an opportunity to counter-attack, but that window isn't there at full speed.  (Without seeing the videos you're referencing).


----------



## skribs

@Flying Crane 

Tell me something - do you disagree with my assessment that the most likely use of a baseball bat on the street is for it to be swung like a baseball bat?  Do you disagree that it is incredibly unlikely that if someone is using a baseball bat on me, they are an expert in all the different strikes you can use it for?

Another question - do you think that if someone has a baseball bat, and they are 90% likely to use one or a couple of strikes, that it is worthless to train for those strikes, because of the 10% chance they might know something else?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Of course they aren’t.  But if you design your defensive curriculum to work against the unskilled, then you have dropped the bar on the ground.  That in no way helps you understand how (or even if it is possible) to defend against the weapon.
> 
> Isn’t this the same argument we hear from the grappling crowd? We see video of someone demonstrating defenses against a shoot or something, and the grapplers jump all over it because the guy doing the shoot is clearly incompetent.  The argument is the same: if you develop your defensive skills against grappling by training against unskilled grapplers, then you have no real skill at all, if you face a grappler.
> 
> It’s the same logic.  I am having a hard time understanding why this concept is getting so much resistance.


If the "shoot" is one that is common enough in untrained fights, even if it sucks, it's a reasonable defense for that. The problem comes when someone teaches that same defense as a way to handle a BJJ shoot. That's really what the grappling folks get irritated about (and rightly so). Same with a boxer's punch. I can teach defenses against a common round punch that are less effective against a compact boxer's hook. They aren't the same attack, really.

That's why I say it's learning to defend against the person with the weapon. We have to understand which people we're learning to defend. Would it be better to learn to defend against a great BJJ or wrestling shoot? Sure, if you have covered all the higher priorities (which depend upon your personal/style aims). If you're only going to allocate a small amount of time (at least initially), it may not be worth starting to that level yet. So you start with the easy ones, and at least folks are prepared for those. 

Same with weapons. It's possible for someone to specialize in defending against a sword with empty hands. If they put enough time and real training into it, they might even stand a chance against good swordsmen. But that would have to be their specialty, I think. If that's not what the style is about, then you decide where you're drawing the line and you train to that objective. Maybe it's goombah level, maybe it's pure adrenaline attacks. Whatever level you decide to train to, as long as you understand you're exposed beyond that point, that's fine. I know I'm not training to defend against an elite boxer's punch. I'm probably okay against an amateur (not top-level amateur) at least for a while. I know my fitness level isn't going to let me last against someone who trains like a fiend if the fight lasts long. I know my strength level isn't going to let me overpower a strong wrestler. There are limitations in all that we do. It's okay to say, "I'm training to point X, and accepting the risk beyond that point."


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> If the "shoot" is one that is common enough in untrained fights, even if it sucks, it's a reasonable defense for that. The problem comes when someone teaches that same defense as a way to handle a BJJ shoot. That's really what the grappling folks get irritated about (and rightly so). Same with a boxer's punch. I can teach defenses against a common round punch that are less effective against a compact boxer's hook. They aren't the same attack, really.
> 
> That's why I say it's learning to defend against the person with the weapon. We have to understand which people we're learning to defend. Would it be better to learn to defend against a great BJJ or wrestling shoot? Sure, if you have covered all the higher priorities (which depend upon your personal/style aims). If you're only going to allocate a small amount of time (at least initially), it may not be worth starting to that level yet. So you start with the easy ones, and at least folks are prepared for those.



Very good way of saying what I was trying to say.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> @Flying Crane
> 
> Tell me something - do you disagree with my assessment that the most likely use of a baseball bat on the street is for it to be swung like a baseball bat?  Do you disagree that it is incredibly unlikely that if someone is using a baseball bat on me, they are an expert in all the different strikes you can use it for?
> 
> Another question - do you think that if someone has a baseball bat, and they are 90% likely to use one or a couple of strikes, that it is worthless to train for those strikes, because of the 10% chance they might know something else?


Of course I can agree with you here.  What have i said to make you think otherwise?

Honestly, I think you are not actually reading and thinking about what I am saying.  My comments are made with some very specific considerations in mind that take the discussion into the realm of academic exercise.  I’m not telling you, “dont practice against the possibility of someone attacking you with a weapon”.  In fact, you can go back through this thread and see where I have, at least a couple time, agreed that it should be done, or at least that one should fight back.

I think you are having a different discussion than I am having.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Of course I can agree with you here.  What have i said to make you think otherwise?
> 
> Honestly, I think you are not actually reading and thinking about what I am saying.  My comments are made with some very specific considerations in mind that take the discussion into the realm of academic exercise.  I’m not telling you, “dont practice against the possibility of someone attacking you with a weapon”.  In fact, you can go back through this thread and see where I have, at least a couple time, agreed that it should be done, or at least that one should fight back.
> 
> I think you are having a different discussion than I am having.



Let's see...



> *If a competent swordsman or spearman or staffman etc faces off against an unarmed opponent, with sufficient room to wield his weapon freely, and with freedom to use lethal techniques without holding back, then that unarmed fellow is going to die.*
> 
> *The notion that one can build unarmed defenses against these weapons, without somehow creating a situation to stifle the use of the weapon first, I think is fantasy.*
> 
> That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a good exercise to go through, and it could be fun training. *But seriously, the outcome is pretty much a given.*





> If you assume a modern person WITHOUT sword skills will attack you with a sword, and you develop defensive skills based on that assumption, then you haven’t really developed any skills.
> 
> So even as a purely academic/hypothetical exercise, you may as well assume a scenario where the guy with the weapon actually knows how to use it and is pretty good with it. That is the only way to even pretend that the exercise has value.






> The academic exercise of the training could be fun, it could be enlightening, but I doubt you will develop a realistic curriculum for such scenarios.





> But if your assumption in the training is that the guy with the weapon is incompetent, then you haven’t actually developed any defensive skills against it.
> 
> So I’m saying, recognize reality for what it is.





> Ok, so what you are really talking about is defending against a low-skilled person swinging a blunt object at you. That is not the same thing as defending against a sword (sharp edge and point, sophisticated techniques), a staff (long reach, blunt thrusting and striking, sophisticated techniques), a spear (sharp point and cutting edge with a long reach, and really fast repeated thrusting stabs and sophisticated techniques), or a three-section staff (long reach, strikes, flexible tie-ups, sophisticated blocks and traps). Those are not the same thing as defending against Jimmy the weekend little-league coach swinging a baseball bat at you. Being able to defend against Jimmy with a bat is not the same as defending against traditional weapons made for war, used with sophisticated methods designed to be quickly lethal.





> As to your last couple paragraphs, my point is simply that if you do not develop defenses against a skilled opponent with the weapon, then you haven’t really developed skills against the weapon. You have only developed defenses against an unskilled weapon user. My point is, be realistic about what you have done. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you can truly defend yourself against someone who actually know someone how to use the weapon. My reason for even making the comment was your earlier comment about studying the weapon and studying defenses against it.





> I am assuming a weapon guy who knows what he is about.
> 
> You are assuming an unskilled fellow who happened to pick up a weapon and doesn’t have much notion of what to do with it.






> Sure, but likely (in the modern day and age) against a fellow unskilled with the weapon. That isn’t really understanding how to defend against the weapon.
> ...
> The assumptions are simply that I have sufficient room to use the weapon as it is designed (I’m not fighting with a spear while in the crawl space under my house, for example) and I have full freedom to use the weapon with homicidal intent (it isn’t a sparring match where we all go home at the end of the day).
> 
> *I don’t care who the opponent is. It could be anyone from the Gracie clan, or your own grandmaster, or whomever the current personality of the moment in MMA is, or some obscure grandmaster whoever from wherever. I don’t care who you want to name as my opponent. *
> 
> *If the match is under those conditions, I will win and he will die.*
> 
> ...
> 
> So if you want to come up with empty hand defenses against the weapon, for real, then that is what you are talking about. Otherwise, you are talking about defending against an unskilled opponent who happens to be holding a weapon with which he is also unskilled.





> But think about the reality of trying to make a curriculum of unarmed defense against a sword. “If he lunges at you like THIS, then you sidestep like THAT and grab his arm and TWIST and poke him in the eye...”. Seriously, that will only work on the most inexperienced swordsman to ever pick up a weapon. that kind of defense will not work on a swordsman with even modest skills.
> 
> *That’s what I’m trying to get across: defending against a nincompoop holding a sword is not the same as a realistic defense against the sword, by anyone with any level of real skill at all. If is just fantasy.*
> 
> Again, my comments are in response to an earlier statement that learning the weapon (with a list of katana, bo, nunchaku, and three-section staff, if I remember correctly) should also include learning to defend against it. *Well then that should mean defending against someone who actually knows how to use the weapon effectively. Not a supreme weapons master, but someone with genuine competence. And realistically, that is very very unlikely because these weapons are meant to be game-changers. They are meant to create an enormously and insurmountably unfair advantage. Otherwise it is just pretending.*





> Yes. Someone unskilled who happens to be holding a weapon, vs. the weapon in how it is really meant to be used, by someone who actually knows how to do so.





> *I think you don’t understand what a “typical deployment of the weapon” means*. I’ll tell you: it is fast and sneaky and repeated and leaves you dead, without a chance to defend against it. *It is overwhelming superiority, unless you are defending against a nincompoop*. If so, *if that’s is what your program is designed against, then your program has no value*.





> Because by training against a nincompoop you have an utterly unrealistic notion of what an attack with the weapon is really like, and a dangerously unrealistic notion of how you might defend against it.





> Of course they aren’t. But if you design your defensive curriculum to work against the unskilled, then you have dropped the bar on the ground. That in no way helps you understand how (or even if it is possible) to defend against the weapon.




That's about a dozen quotes of you talking about how it's completely useless to train for (what you agreed with me in your last post is) the typical self-defense scenario.

Please tell me how I read every single one of those wrong.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> Let's see...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about a dozen quotes of you talking about how it's completely useless to train for (what you agreed with me in your last post is) the typical self-defense scenario.
> 
> Please tell me how I read every single one of those wrong.


You read them wrong.


----------



## skribs

Let me repeat...

Please tell me _*HOW *_I read them wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Michael, I think it's lines like this:


> But if your assumption in the training is that the guy with the weapon is incompetent, then you haven’t actually developed any defensive skills against it.



Reading that after your recent post, I think I see what you meant me to see. Reading it the first time, it sounded like you were saying there wasn't any sense in working on defending if you can't defend against someone who's skilled, and you can't defend against someone who's skilled, so there's no sense in it (except as an academic exercise).

I think it's a miscommunication.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> Let me repeat...
> 
> Please tell me _*HOW *_I read them wrong.


Correct me if I am mistaken, but you are talking about what if someone picks up a bat (sword/stick/weapon of your choice) and attacks you with it, today or tomorrow or next week.  You are thinking in terms of useful self defense right now.  Do I understand that correctly?

You are defending against an untrained person who is swinging an object at you in an unskilled way.  That could happen, and you might successfully defend against it.

I am talking about understanding the true capabilities of the weapon, which is something that is not possible without a higher level of training.  

Being able to defend against a nincompoop who swings an object at you does not mean you actually understand a sword, nor that you could defend yourself while unarmed, against a sword.

I also hold that if the attacker weilding the sword is reasonably skilled with it (not a “master”), and you are unarmed, then without some other equalizing factor in the play, you will not be able to defend against it.  Because the sword creates such an unfair advantage for the user.

The same is true for the spear, staff, three section staff, and the rest of these traditional and archaic martial arts weapons.

But it is very very unlikely you will ever be attacked by a skilled swordsman.  That is why this is a hypothetical, academic discussion.  So if you want to train for the nincompoop who might try to swing a sword at your head, by all means, do so.

And playing with weapons is fun and I encourage it.


----------



## skribs

> Correct me if I am mistaken, but you are talking about what if someone picks up a bat (sword/stick/weapon of your choice) and attacks you with it, today or tomorrow or next week. You are thinking in terms of useful self defense right now. Do I understand that correctly?
> 
> You are defending against an untrained person who is swinging an object at you in an unskilled way. That could happen, and you might successfully defend against it.
> 
> I am talking about understanding the true capabilities of the weapon, which is something that is not possible without a higher level of training.



If you take the person out of the equation and only look at the sword, then technically you don't need to learn anything to defend against a sword, because a sword isn't going to jump off a table and slash me.  So you must look at the individual.  Yes, if you only learn defense against a few basic attacks, then you're not learning to defend against the full capabilities of a swordsman.  That doesn't mean the training is useless.

Nobody is arguing that learning basic defenses against a sword is not going to teach you anything against a competent swordsman.  I'm arguing what you're saying, which is that you learn nothing useful at all by learning basic defenses that would work against the average person who would pick up a weapon and try to use it in a street fight.



> I also hold that if the attacker weilding the sword is reasonably skilled with it (not a “master”), and you are unarmed, then without some other equalizing factor in the play, you will not be able to defend against it. Because the sword creates such an unfair advantage for the user.
> 
> The same is true for the spear, staff, three section staff, and the rest of these traditional and archaic martial arts weapons.



I do not believe this is an absolute.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> If you take the person out of the equation and only look at the sword, then technically you don't need to learn anything to defend against a sword, because a sword isn't going to jump off a table and slash me.  So you must look at the individual.  Yes, if you only learn defense against a few basic attacks, then you're not learning to defend against the full capabilities of a swordsman.  That doesn't mean the training is useless.
> 
> Nobody is arguing that learning basic defenses against a sword is not going to teach you anything against a competent swordsman.  I'm arguing what you're saying, which is that you learn nothing useful at all by learning basic defenses that would work against the average person who would pick up a weapon and try to use it in a street fight.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe this is an absolute.


But a nincompoop with a sword is not even using basic attacks with a sword.  It is actually less than that.  It is just unskilled swinging or poking.  Of course it can be hazardous to be on the receiving end of it, but it does not reflect what can be done with the weapon, how extremely effective the weapon can be.

As I’ve said now, facing a skilled swordsman is highly unlikely in the modern day, in most parts of the world.  So there is some sense in training to defend against a nincompoop who swings an object at you, which could happen.  But be honest with yourself about what these skills are.  Don’t fool yourself into thinking you actually are capable of defending against a sword, in the real sense of what that means.

And as to your last point: in a situation as I described it, I would bet my money on the swordsman every single time, no matter who his opponent is.


----------



## skribs

So is it worthless to know how to defend against someone using unskilled swinging or poking with the sword?


----------



## Flying Crane

Error


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> So is it worthless to know how to defend against someone using unskilled swinging or poking with the sword?



I’m pretty sure I’ve addressed that...



Flying Crane said:


> As I’ve said now, facing a skilled swordsman is highly unlikely in the modern day, in most parts of the world.  So there is some sense in training to defend against a nincompoop who swings an object at you, which could happen.  But be honest with yourself about what these skills are.  Don’t fool yourself into thinking you actually are capable of defending against a sword, in the real sense of what that means.



And do keep in mind that what sparked my comment in the first place was a statement by oftheherd that learning the weapon should also include learning to defend against it.

I feel that people tend to not stop and consider what that really means, and that is what I am trying to point out.  That is why I am being a stickler about it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

skribs said:


> So is it worthless to know how to defend against someone using unskilled swinging or poking with the sword?



I don't think anyone has said, or even implied, this.


----------



## CB Jones

hoshin1600 said:


> its also note worthy that almost no one used nunchuku untill Bruce Lee used them in the movies.



As was told to me...Fumio Demura was using nunchaku before Bruce Lee.

Bruce Lee adopted a lot of Fumio techniques and moves from his forms


----------



## skribs

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think anyone has said, or even implied, this.



The messages I quoted really seemed to imply this, if not outright state it.


----------



## hoshin1600

CB Jones said:


> As was told to me...Fumio Demura was using nunchaku before Bruce Lee.
> 
> Bruce Lee adopted a lot of Fumio techniques and moves from his forms


Well yeah of course there were karate men who used them. I was more referring to an entire generation of kids and adults who were "twirling chucks".


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> The messages I quoted really seemed to imply this, if not outright state it.


My apologies if I wasn’t making myself clear.  Honestly, I was trying.

It can be difficult at times to convey a clear message in this medium.  If we were talking face-to-face I think it often would be easier.


----------



## Dirty Dog

skribs said:


> The messages I quoted really seemed to imply this, if not outright state it.



If you say so. But I honestly don't get that implication from them. At all.
And he's clearly stated that you're misunderstanding him. So why keep insisting he's saying something he's not?


----------



## skribs

Dirty Dog said:


> If you say so. But I honestly don't get that implication from them. At all.
> And he's clearly stated that you're misunderstanding him. So why keep insisting he's saying something he's not?



Because in short answers he says he agrees with me and I read it wrong, but in long answers he says basically the same thing and I don't have a better understanding of what hes trying to say.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> Because in short answers he says he agrees with me and I read it wrong, but in long answers he says basically the same thing and I don't have a better understanding of what hes trying to say.


I’m willing to give it another try.


----------



## Flying Crane

Ok how a out this analogy:  I want to play baseball, but all I’ve ever done is hit a ball off a tee.

Do I have any real batting skills, or am I going to get decimated if I ever face a pitcher with any real skills at all?  Do I actually understand batting at all?

If I continue to train by hitting off a tee, will I ever really develop batting skills?

I could keep playing tee ball, although I’m not aware of any adult leagues.  I can still develop the gross motor skills of swinging a bat, so that is something.  But if a game of baseball is what I am after, hitting off a tee isn’t going to get me there.


----------



## skribs

So in other words if you're going to seek out swordsmen to fight, you better learn to defend against all the sword techniques?

But if you're fighting for the expected attack on the street, which is more likely to be some punk who either stole a sword or bought a sword on ebay with no idea how to use it, then its okay for you to know to defend against the sword version of a haymaker?


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> So in other words if you're going to seek out swordsmen to fight, you better learn to defend against all the sword techniques?
> 
> But if you're fighting for the expected attack on the street, which is more likely to be some punk who either stole a sword or bought a sword on ebay with no idea how to use it, then its okay for you to know to defend against the sword version of a haymaker?


I think this might be getting closer to the mark.

Honestly, I think it is very unlikely that you will ever face the punk who stole a sword either.  Swords are difficult to carry in a manner that does not attract attention, so people just don’t carry them around.  I think if you face such a person, it might be because you broke into his house and he grabbed the cheap sword off the wall to defend his home. 

Nontheless, as I’ve said, weapons are interesting and fun to work with and I encourage it.  But I also simply encourage people to be realistic in their assessment of their training accomplishments.  Don’t fool yourself into believing you truly understand the weapon or how to defend against it, if your training has focused on the untrained punk swinging a cheap sword at you.  But you could still benefit from the exercise of it, gaining some additional spacial awareness and body contact and manipulation, and hopefully developing a healthy respect for the weapon and its capabilities.

As to your first comment, I am not sure why you keep focusing on the notion of “all” of the techniques of a swordsman.  I think the body of techniques is rather small, but they can be used with a lot of variation and innovation.

What I really have in mind is more in terms of quality of the trained swordsman’s techniques.  He will be more refined and precise, with little wasted motion and a very solid guard, attacking with speed and commitment to getting the job done.  In my opinion, that is EXTREMELY difficult and unlikely to defend against, it you are not also armed, or have some other factor that evens the playing field for you.  Given that a sword is designed to be lethal,  once the fight enters into this realm of seriousness, it just isn’t all that possible to half-*** it as the swordsman and sort of cut him a bit and hope he gives up.  So it really becomes a battle of all-or-nothing.  It isn’t a sparring match where you both go home safe afterwards.  It is deadly serious.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> I think this might be getting closer to the mark.
> 
> Honestly, I think it is very unlikely that you will ever face the punk who stole a sword either.  Swords are difficult to carry in a manner that does not attract attention, so people just don’t carry them around.  I think if you face such a person, it might be because you broke into his house and he grabbed the cheap sword off the wall to defend his home.
> 
> Nontheless, as I’ve said, weapons are interesting and fun to work with and I encourage it.  But I also simply encourage people to be realistic in their assessment of their training accomplishments.  Don’t fool yourself into believing you truly understand the weapon or how to defend against it, if your training has focused on the untrained punk swinging a cheap sword at you.  But you could still benefit from the exercise of it, gaining some additional spacial awareness and body contact and manipulation, and hopefully developing a healthy respect for the weapon and its capabilities.
> 
> As to your first comment, I am not sure why you keep focusing on the notion of “all” of the techniques of a swordsman.  I think the body of techniques is rather small, but they can be used with a lot of variation and innovation.
> 
> What I really have in mind is more in terms of quality of the trained swordsman’s techniques.  He will be more refined and precise, with little wasted motion and a very solid guard, attacking with speed and commitment to getting the job done.  In my opinion, that is EXTREMELY difficult and unlikely to defend against, it you are not also armed, or have some other factor that evens the playing field for you.  Given that a sword is designed to be lethal,  once the fight enters into this realm of seriousness, it just isn’t all that possible to half-*** it as the swordsman and sort of cut him a bit and hope he gives up.  So it really becomes a battle of all-or-nothing.  It isn’t a sparring match where you both go home safe afterwards.  It is deadly serious.



All of what you've said there pretty much shows that you don't defend against the weapon, you defend against the person wielding it.

Sometimes, someone else having a weapon can work in your favour if they don't know what they're doing...

imo that goes for any weapon, all the way down to hands and feet.


----------



## pdg

Oh, and the original question...

I found a reference.




Bayonet drill...

Goes some way to support the picture @TrueJim posted, and @Dirty Dog asked about reference to 

(Adolescent refers to the point in training, not actual age of student)


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> All of what you've said there pretty much shows that you don't defend against the weapon, you defend against the person wielding it.
> 
> Sometimes, someone else having a weapon can work in your favour if they don't know what they're doing...
> 
> imo that goes for any weapon, all the way down to hands and feet.


This is true, but if your training partners are all unskilled people swinging a weapon that they do not understand, then your skill at defending against an armed opponent is very very low, quite probably to the point where you have a serious and quite dangerous lack of comprehension of what a person of even moderate skill can do with it.  Hence my position: you do not really understand how to (or even if it is realistically possible) to defend against the weapon.  You do not understand the weapon.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> This is true, but if your training partners are all unskilled people swinging a weapon that they do not understand, then your skill at defending against an armed opponent is very very low, quite probably to the point where you have a serious and quite dangerous lack of comprehension of what a person of even moderate skill can do with it.  Hence my position: you do not really understand how to (or even if it is realistically possible) to defend against the weapon.  You do not understand the weapon.



You don't need to understand the weapon over knowing which bits hurt. The weapon itself is almost incidental.

A very unskilled person coming at you with a sword is 'the same' as that unskilled person holding a bat with nails in.

A very skilled swordsman armed with a pointed stick is likely to win against an unarmed opponent.

As far as training to defend - it's still against the person. You can't realistically train to defend against a skilled swordsman unless you can train against a skilled swordsman - I think that bit we agree on.

But, you still aren't training against the weapon - training with said swordsman is unlikely to involve a sword...


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> You don't need to understand the weapon over knowing which bits hurt. The weapon itself is almost incidental.
> 
> A very unskilled person coming at you with a sword is 'the same' as that unskilled person holding a bat with nails in.
> 
> A very skilled swordsman armed with a pointed stick is likely to win against an unarmed opponent.
> 
> As far as training to defend - it's still against the person. You can't realistically train to defend against a skilled swordsman unless you can train against a skilled swordsman - I think that bit we agree on.
> 
> But, you still aren't training against the weapon - training with said swordsman is unlikely to involve a sword...


Well you need to understand that a sword has sharp bits that a stick does not.  This is obvious, but it makes a big difference in how you engage with the weapon, or against it.  So no, it isn’t all the same.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> Well you need to understand that a sword has sharp bits that a stick does not.  This is obvious, but it makes a big difference in how you engage with the weapon, or against it.  So no, it isn’t all the same.



But it is the same - avoid the ouchy parts as best you can. That holds for any weapon at all.

You shouldn't really engage with the weapon, you engage with the person holding it. If you can get to the person (or get away) without their weapon's ouchy parts doing their job on you then your chances increase instantly and dramatically.

If you're adamant that the weapon is the be-all and end-all then I'll have to agree to disagree with you.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> But it is the same - avoid the ouchy parts as best you can. That holds for any weapon at all.
> 
> You shouldn't really engage with the weapon, you engage with the person holding it. If you can get to the person (or get away) without their weapon's ouchy parts doing their job on you then your chances increase instantly and dramatically.
> 
> If you're adamant that the weapon is the be-all and end-all then I'll have to agree to disagree with you.


If you end up in a close clinch, grappling Over the weapon, if the tip of a stick scrapes across your belly, you may be fine.  If the tip of a sword scrapes across your belly, you may be scooping your intestines off the ground.  If you grab the shaft of a stick, you may be fine.  If you grab the middle of the blade of a sword, you may sever the tendons of your hand and now he delivers a killing blow.

If he thrusts a long staff at you and you grab for the end of it in an attempt to control the weapon, you may be fine.  If he thrusts a spear at you and you grab for the end of it in an attempt to control the weapon, you are grabbing at a fast-moving blade with a sharp edge, and you just lost the use of your hand.

If he swings a stick at you with homicidal intent, you may think that you can block and absorb the blow, because it isn’t sharp.  That might get your arms broken.  Now he beats your skull in.

Yes, there is overlap.  But there are very important differences that can be the difference in living a little longer, or not.

As to engaging the person instead of the weapon, we’ll sure.  Assuming you can get past the weapon.  If he is unskilled, maybe.  If he is even modestly skilled, well good luck to you.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> If you end up in a close clinch, grappling Over the weapon, if the tip of a stick scrapes across your belly, you may be fine.  If the tip of a sword scrapes across your belly, you may be scooping your intestines off the ground.  If you grab the shaft of a stick, you may be fine.  If you grab the middle of the blade of a sword, you may sever the tendons of your hand and now he delivers a killing blow.
> 
> If he thrusts a long staff at you and you grab for the end of it in an attempt to control the weapon, you may be fine.  If he thrusts a spear at you and you grab for the end of it in an attempt to control the weapon, you are grabbing at a fast-moving blade with a sharp edge, and you just lost the use of your hand.
> 
> If he swings a stick at you with homicidal intent, you may think that you can block and absorb the blow, because it isn’t sharp.  That might get your arms broken.  Now he beats your skull in.
> 
> Yes, there is overlap.  But there are very important differences that can be the difference in living a little longer, or not.
> 
> As to engaging the person instead of the weapon, we’ll sure.  Assuming you can get past the weapon.  If he is unskilled, maybe.  If he is even modestly skilled, well good luck to you.



But everything there fits perfectly with my procedure of "avoid the ouchy bits".

You don't need an in depth understanding to realise you don't grab a sword by the blade or a spear by the head, or try to block a forcefully swung 2x4 with a knifehand.

Like I say, it works with every weapon.

Go up against a boxer (whether you're a boxer or not) and you don't engage with his fists, those are the ouchy bits - avoid them if you can.

Focussing on the weapon to the extent you appear to be describing is like a boxer who stares at his opponents hands in the ring - he gon get slapped.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> But everything there fits perfectly with my procedure of "avoid the ouchy bits".
> 
> You don't need an in depth understanding to realise you don't grab a sword by the blade or a spear by the head, or try to block a forcefully swung 2x4 with a knifehand.
> 
> Like I say, it works with every weapon.
> 
> Go up against a boxer (whether you're a boxer or not) and you don't engage with his fists, those are the ouchy bits - avoid them if you can.
> 
> Focussing on the weapon to the extent you appear to be describing is like a boxer who stares at his opponents hands in the ring - he gon get slapped.


Ok, if you think that in the chaos of a life-and-death battle that you are going to be so clear-headed about all this, particularly if you haven’t deliberately trained it, then you are delusional.

I am guessing you have no experience with this.  Am I wrong?


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, if you think that in the chaos of a life-and-death battle that you are going to be so clear-headed about all this, particularly if you haven’t deliberately trained it, then you are delusional.
> 
> I am guessing you have no experience with this.  Am I wrong?



You're getting very defensive about it - how many chaotic life or death battles have _you_ been involved in?

If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see where I agreed that training sword defence against an unskilled swordsman won't help you much at all if a skilled one turns up.

But, I absolutely fail to see how you refuse to understand that it's the person, not the weapon.

Training against a skilled swordsman with a fake sword might help a little if the situation got real.

Training against an unskilled person with a sword though, not much use for either of you.

Same weapon, different people, different dangers.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> You're getting very defensive about it - how many chaotic life or death battles have _you_ been involved in?
> 
> If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see where I agreed that training sword defence against an unskilled swordsman won't help you much at all if a skilled one turns up.
> 
> But, I absolutely fail to see how you refuse to understand that it's the person, not the weapon.
> 
> Training against a skilled swordsman with a fake sword might help a little if the situation got real.
> 
> Training against an unskilled person with a sword though, not much use for either of you.
> 
> Same weapon, different people, different dangers.


I’m not defensive.  I just feel that you are making women pretty unrealistic assumptions.

Again, do you have any weapons experience at all?  Obviously I’m not talking about real Life-or-death battles, but have you handled weapons at all?  They handle very differently from the overly dramatic sword swinging and whatnot that you see in the movies...


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> I’m not defensive.  I just feel that you are making women pretty unrealistic assumptions.
> 
> Again, do you have any weapons experience at all?  Obviously I’m not talking about real Life-or-death battles, but have you handled weapons at all?  They handle very differently from the overly dramatic sword swinging and whatnot that you see in the movies...



I have a funny feeling that whatever experience I may have will be derided as insufficient...

But hey, I'll give it a go.

I've handled enough swords to know that I couldn't be descibed as skilled. The same can be said about most weapons in fact.

But I've also handled enough to know that a sword isn't just a sword. A person extremely skilled with one particular type wouldn't necessarily be able to handle a different type with anything like the same efficiency.

That again could illustrate that it's the person, not the weapon. Take someone who is very good with a rapier, stick a claymore in their hand... Still a sword, but if the person can't wield it?

Take an expert swordsman, arm him with a staff (or other weapon he's never trained with) - that person is suddenly less of a challenge.

And really, do you honesty think I put any stock in the flashy 'made for action filming' type of choreography you see in films?

A real epic battle would make an extremely boring film.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> I have a funny feeling that whatever experience I may have will be derided as insufficient...
> 
> But hey, I'll give it a go.
> 
> I've handled enough swords to know that I couldn't be descibed as skilled. The same can be said about most weapons in fact.
> 
> But I've also handled enough to know that a sword isn't just a sword. A person extremely skilled with one particular type wouldn't necessarily be able to handle a different type with anything like the same efficiency.
> 
> That again could illustrate that it's the person, not the weapon. Take someone who is very good with a rapier, stick a claymore in their hand... Still a sword, but if the person can't wield it?
> 
> Take an expert swordsman, arm him with a staff (or other weapon he's never trained with) - that person is suddenly less of a challenge.
> 
> And really, do you honesty think I put any stock in the flashy 'made for action filming' type of choreography you see in films?
> 
> A real epic battle would make an extremely boring film.


Ya, different weapons are different.  My assumption is that a person is skilled with the particular weapon he is using.

glad to know you aren’t delusional about movie weapon work.

Now as Ive said several times, it is very unlikely that either of us will actually need to battle an opponent armed with one of these weapons, regardless of skill level.  So the discussion really is academic.  I don’t live in fear of any of this.

But in the spirit of the academia, I hope you never have need to test your hypotheses.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> Ya, different weapons are different. My assumption is that a person is skilled with the particular weapon he is using.



But that's tantamount to agreeing it's the person you're fighting rather than the weapon 

To use my previous example, a rapier expert is still likely to be better with a claymore than me, because the person has a grounding in the use of an edged weapon - if he is adaptable enough to adjust for the different weight and balance you're still in trouble. Much more trouble than if you were facing me armed with the same item.



Flying Crane said:


> glad to know you aren’t delusional about movie weapon work.



Have you tried swinging (say) a broadsword like in the movies? 

I have...

They get very heavy very quickly - I don't care how much you've trained you wouldn't be doing it like that for all that long.



Flying Crane said:


> But in the spirit of the academia, I hope you never have need to test your hypotheses.



Honestly, you and me both...

I've never said not to consider the weapon used, but once you've assessed which bits hurt (won't take long) it's down to the person and their skill level.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> But that's tantamount to agreeing it's the person you're fighting rather than the weapon



It is, I do not deny it.  But the weapon gives great advantage, particularly when the individual is skilled.

A rifle, I would argue, is meant for a longer range combat, at least well out of immediate reach of someone.  So if we have a distance of say 40 yards, and someone is trying to shoot you with the rifle, what do you do?  

A rifle takes far less training to have workable skill with it, than some of the other weapons we have discussed.  Even someone who has only fired a rifle on a shooting range a few times, could be very dangerous at 40 yards, to an unarmed opponent.  So how do you deal with that?  Sure, you are fighting the person.  But that rifle is a very serious issue.  How do you get around it?
Some weapons just tip the scales beyond what is surmountable.



> To use my previous example, a rapier expert is still likely to be better with a claymore than me, because the person has a grounding in the use of an edged weapon - if he is adaptable enough to adjust for the different weight and balance you're still in trouble. Much more trouble than if you were facing me armed with the same item.



Sure, understood and agreed.



> Have you tried swinging (say) a broadsword like in the movies?
> 
> I have...
> 
> They get very heavy very quickly - I don't care how much you've trained you wouldn't be doing it like that for all that long.



I have some very heavy (but still real-ish) swords that I have trained in the context of Chinese martial arts.  Yes, they wear you down very quickly.  The key is to use good technique, which means you don’t just swing them with your arms.  Rather; you engage the body from the feet on up, through the hips and torso, and you let your arms move with the body,  in that way you will last a lot longer before becoming exhausted.

In my opinion that is one of the best reasons to train archaic weapons in the modern age: they help you understand that body connection. 

I believe that real sword technique on a battlefield, or even in a duel, would be much more subtle than what we see on the movies.  It’s quick, and then it’s over, and somebody screams and bleeds for a while before dying.  


> Honestly, you and me both...






> I've never said not to consider the weapon used, but once you've assessed which bits hurt (won't take long) it's down to the person and their skill level.



Yes, but I hold that the unarmed fellow needs an order of magnitude of skill greater than the armed fellow, to have much chance of it.  And in some cases, it just ain’t possible.  A rifle at 40 yards.  Maybe a spear at 8 feet or a sword at 5.
That’s my take on it.

And again, none of this means you shouldn’t do what you can to train it, if that is what you are interested in.  Even if the likelihood of facing such an opponent is very very small, the exercise yields other benefits to your overall training.


----------



## pdg

To go into firearms is a little different.

A rifle is relatively easy to aim reasonably well at something like 40 yards, but an unskilled person with a rifle? Not all that likely to hit a moving target (serpentine )

Run at them, weave a bit, you'll probably get to kick them in the face.

An unskilled person with a handgun? I'd rather go up against them than an unskilled person with a sword...


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> To go into firearms is a little different.
> 
> A rifle is relatively easy to aim reasonably well at something like 40 yards, but an unskilled person with a rifle? Not all that likely to hit a moving target (serpentine )
> 
> Run at them, weave a bit, you'll probably get to kick them in the face.
> 
> An unskilled person with a handgun? I'd rather go up against them than an unskilled person with a sword...


These are all things on a continuum.  Brass knuckles to swords to spears to bow and arrows to guns to artillery to intercontinental ballistic missiles.  They are all weapons meant to give a decided advantage.  It is just a continuum.  The farther along the continuum, the less chance of directly defending against it and the more you need to just not be there at all.

Give the guy with a rifle a full magazine, even if unskilled, I highly highly doubt you will get a chance to kick him in the face.  He doesn’t have to waste his ammunition as you run and weave.  He just needs to track you until you get tired, or you get close enough that his margin of error shrinks.

A handgun, outside of immediate reach, say 10 yards especially if the gun is out and ready, same thing.  Your best chance is if he hasn’t yet drawn it and you have an opportunity to rush him.  Sure, give it a try, don’t just stand there and get shot.  But realistically, if he has shot the weapon a few times before and has that much familiarity with it, he will get you.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, if you think that in the chaos of a life-and-death battle that you are going to be so clear-headed about all this, particularly if you haven’t deliberately trained it, then you are delusional.
> 
> I am guessing you have no experience with this.  Am I wrong?



I'm sorry, but how clear-headed do you need to be to remember which bits of a weapon are the ouchie bits?


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> I'm sorry, but how clear-headed do you need to be to remember which bits of a weapon are the ouchie bits?


Ok, you are simply reaching.


----------



## pulsescarborough

Eskrima Sticks. These are weapons often used in the traditional martial arts of the Philippines.


----------



## Dirty Dog

pulsescarborough said:


> Eskrima Sticks. These are weapons often used in the traditional martial arts of the Philippines.



OK... right... but what, exactly, does that have to do with the question, which was "what weapons are taekwondo?"


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, you are simply reaching.



I'm not reaching very far, I don't think.  It's not hard to remember that a sword is sharp or that a big block of something will hurt.


----------



## WaterGal

Flying Crane said:


> I think this might be getting closer to the mark.
> 
> Honestly, I think it is very unlikely that you will ever face the punk who stole a sword either.  Swords are difficult to carry in a manner that does not attract attention, so people just don’t carry them around.  I think if you face such a person, it might be because you broke into his house and he grabbed the cheap sword off the wall to defend his home.



There was a case just recently of a woman who got angry at her boyfriend for cheating on her, and instead of breaking up with him like a sensible person, she bought a sword at the mall and hid it under the bed, and attacked him with it when he fell asleep. He said that he used martial arts skills he learned from watching kung fu movies to defend himself , but he still ended up in the hospital. IIRC, the article said that they had to reattach a couple of of his fingers and put a titanium plate on one of his bones.


----------



## WaterGal

pdg said:


> You don't need an in depth understanding to realise you don't grab a sword by the blade or a spear by the head, or try to block a forcefully swung 2x4 with a knifehand.



When I was younger, I used to attend a TKD school that also taught Kumdo. One of the Kumdo students got a real sword after he got to 1st Dan, and wanted to practice a solo form with the real sword. After he does the form, he goes to put the sword back in the scabbard, misjudges his angle somehow, and slices his fingers open down to the bone. This was an adult man practicing by himself, who'd been training for a couple of years. 

In a stressful real combat situation, I'm sure some folks will try to grab the blade.


----------



## pdg

WaterGal said:


> In a stressful real combat situation, I'm sure some folks will try to



I'm sure there are too, I never denied that fact - simply though, in most cases it should be avoided.

That said, I'm equally sure that sometimes, grabbing the blade is actually the best option available.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> I'm not reaching very far, I don't think.  It's not hard to remember that a sword is sharp or that a big block of something will hurt.


Sure, but if some is coming at you with homicidal intent, swinging and stabbing at you with 3 feet of sharp steel, faster than your eye can follow, do you really believe you are going to be mindful of the sharp bits as panic sets in and you try to block and desperately grab at the weapon before you die?  Keep in mind, you are unarmed in this scenario.

Seriously, come on man.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> I'm sure there are too, I never denied that fact - simply though, in most cases it should be avoided.
> 
> That said, I'm equally sure that sometimes, grabbing the blade is actually the best option available.


It can be the only option available, and all it does is buy you an additional 15 seconds before you die anyways.


----------



## Flying Crane

WaterGal said:


> There was a case just recently of a woman who got angry at her boyfriend for cheating on her, and instead of breaking up with him like a sensible person, she bought a sword at the mall and hid it under the bed, and attacked him with it when he fell asleep. He said that he used martial arts skills he learned from watching kung fu movies to defend himself , but he still ended up in the hospital. IIRC, the article said that they had to reattach a couple of of his fingers and put a titanium plate on one of his bones.


Ah well, there are always exceptions.

And of course a sneak attack while you are sleeping, that’s a whole other realm.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> It can be the only option available, and all it does is buy you an additional 15 seconds before you die anyways.



Yeah, alright.

But I grab your sword, deflect the stabbing motion and with my other hand perform a perfect spearhand thrust under your ribcage so I can pull out your heart and show it to you...

Y'know, academically speaking


----------



## CB Jones

pdg said:


> A rifle is relatively easy to aim reasonably well at something like 40 yards, but an unskilled person with a rifle? Not all that likely to hit a moving target (serpentine )
> 
> Run at them, weave a bit, you'll probably get to kick them in the face.
> 
> An unskilled person with a handgun? I'd rather go up against them than an unskilled person with a sword...










Not good ideas.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, but if some is coming at you with homicidal intent, swinging and stabbing at you with 3 feet of sharp steel, faster than your eye can follow, do you really believe you are going to be mindful of the sharp bits as panic sets in and you try to block and desperately grab at the weapon before you die?  Keep in mind, you are unarmed in this scenario.
> 
> Seriously, come on man.



Avoid the blade, go for the hands and the arm.  I'm not saying it's going to be easy.  I'm saying identification of what is the dangerous part of the weapon is easy.


----------



## pdg

CB Jones said:


> Not good ideas.



Ok then, suggest some better ideas.

Roll over and cry until they come over and shoot you?


----------



## CB Jones

pdg said:


> Ok then, suggest some better ideas.
> 
> Roll over and cry until they come over and shoot you?



Use cover and/or concealment? 

Run away not toward?

And an unskilled person with a handgun is way more dangerous than and unskilled person with a sword.  Range of sword....5 feet?  Range of 9 mm....over 100 yards?  Never bring a sword to a gunfight.


----------



## pdg

CB Jones said:


> Use cover and/or concealment?
> 
> Run away not toward?
> 
> And an unskilled person with a handgun is way more dangerous than and unskilled person with a sword.  Range of sword....5 feet?  Range of 9 mm....over 100 yards?  Never bring a sword to a gunfight.



I thought the 'run away' or 'duck and cover' options had been taken away already.

And yeah, sure, a 9mm has more range than a sword - but you should really know about accuracy in unskilled hands. The chances of them hitting you stood still are slim, add sone movement...

Even if they hit you, there's a damn good chance it might not even slow you down much, much less take you down.


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> I thought the 'run away' or 'duck and cover' options had been taken away already.
> 
> And yeah, sure, a 9mm has more range than a sword - but you should really know about accuracy in unskilled hands. The chances of them hitting you stood still are slim, add sone movement...
> 
> Even if they hit you, there's a damn good chance it might not even slow you down much, much less take you down.



This is the reason I am very much against magazine restrictions on firearms.  When you combine the accuracy your average person will have in a self defense situation, the amount of hits that might be needed to take someone down, and factor in the possibility of 2, 3, or more attackers...the number of rounds you may need can get pretty high pretty quick.


----------



## CB Jones

pdg said:


> but you should really know about accuracy in unskilled hands. *The chances of them hitting you stood still are slim, add sone movement...*



I wish this was the case.  Fact is your odds aren't that good.



pdg said:


> Even if they hit you, there's a damn good chance it might not even slow you down much, much less take you down.



Whether you die instantly or bleed out 15 minutes later....dead is still....dead


----------



## skribs

CB Jones said:


> I wish this was the case.  Fact is your odds aren't that good.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you die instantly or bleed out 15 minutes later....dead is still....dead



The majority of people shot with guns don't die from their wounds.  All gunshots are potentially lethal, but being hit by a bullet doesn't mean you're guaranteed dead.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> Yeah, alright.
> 
> But I grab your sword, deflect the stabbing motion and with my other hand perform a perfect spearhand thrust under your ribcage so I can pull out your heart and show it to you...
> 
> Y'know, academically speaking


Show it to me before I die?


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> Avoid the blade, go for the hands and the arm.  I'm not saying it's going to be easy.  I'm saying identification of what is the dangerous part of the weapon is easy.


Sure identification is not so difficult for the obvious bits (there are some less obvious bit too...)

But ok, as long as we don’t pretend this is gonna be easy...


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> I thought the 'run away' or 'duck and cover' options had been taken away already.



Yeah, that was part of the academic side of the discussion:  a person armed with a weapon vs. an unarmed person who has only his empty-hand skills, no other factors to otherwise tip the scale.  What kind of chance does that unarmed person really have? 


> And yeah, sure, a 9mm has more range than a sword - but you should really know about accuracy in unskilled hands. The chances of them hitting you stood still are slim, add sone movement...
> 
> Even if they hit you, there's a damn good chance it might not even slow you down much, much less take you down.



Unskilled with a gun is far more dangerous than unskilled with a sword.  Especially if you are factoring in a high-capacity magazine in a 9mm.  What is that, something like 12-17 rounds?

If someone is intent on killing you, with that scenario you are dead dead dead.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> Show it to me before I die?



Exactly, so you can see how black it is - serves you right for attacking me with a sword


----------



## pdg

CB Jones said:


> I wish this was the case.  Fact is your odds aren't that good.



Not good vs none (i.e. staying still) - I'll take those odds.



CB Jones said:


> Whether you die instantly or bleed out 15 minutes later....dead is still....dead



They've got to hit me first - we're talking an unskilled person, remember?

Years back I did a 'thing' with the army where we got to shoot on the ranges. Handguns were done indoors, on a 30 yard range.

Of about 30 people (excluding me, I've shot a bit) not one managed more than one shot (out of 12) inside a 12" static target, with time to position, aim, breathe, aim again, and so on.

Given where I live, that sort of performance is what I'd consider reasonably average...

If I have no chance staying still, I'll grab those slim odds with both hands - worth a go...


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Unskilled with a gun is far more dangerous than unskilled with a sword. Especially if you are factoring in a high-capacity magazine in a 9mm. What is that, something like 12-17 rounds?



If the weapon was designed around 12-17 rounds, that's "standard capacity", not "high capacity".

Against a single opponent, 12-17 rounds should be enough for someone with basic firearms competency and no experience to put you down.  However, this is statistically speaking.  


I've seen videos where a cop and a criminal are literally about 6 feet away from each other, dump their magazines at each other, and then get back in their cars and continue a high speed chase.
I've read stories about a mother who emptied a 6-shooter in (I believe it was .38 special) at a home invader, hit him 5 times - all in the face - and he ran away.
So while statistically 12 rounds should be more than enough to stop a single person, it's not outside the realm of probability for the shooter to get 0 hits in.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> If the weapon was designed around 12-17 rounds, that's "standard capacity", not "high capacity".
> 
> Against a single opponent, 12-17 rounds should be enough for someone with basic firearms competency and no experience to put you down.  However, this is statistically speaking.
> 
> 
> I've seen videos where a cop and a criminal are literally about 6 feet away from each other, dump their magazines at each other, and then get back in their cars and continue a high speed chase.
> I've read stories about a mother who emptied a 6-shooter in (I believe it was .38 special) at a home invader, hit him 5 times - all in the face - and he ran away.
> So while statistically 12 rounds should be more than enough to stop a single person, it's not outside the realm of probability for the shooter to get 0 hits in.


Yup.


----------



## TrueJim

pdg said:


> Ok then, suggest some better ideas


----------



## TrueJim

skribs said:


> The majority of people shot with guns don't die from their wounds.



What do they die from?


----------



## skribs

TrueJim said:


> What do they die from?



I'm going to assume you're being facetious, but also rephrase:

Most gunshot wounds do not result in death.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> I'm going to assume you're being facetious, but also rephrase:
> 
> Most gunshot wounds do not result in death.


Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Modern medicine does manage to save a lot of people from wounds that would have been lethal even a generation or two ago, nevermind a couple centuries ago.  But it is pretty safe to say that if those wounds were left untreated, there is a good chance of infections and complications that would eventually be lethal.

When people get shot, they need medical treatment.  People don’t just shake off a gunshot wound and go home to sleep it off and feel better in the morning.

If you get shot, even if not immediately lethal, you lost the encounter.

I would say this holds true for wounds from knives, swords, axes, spears, staffs, etc. as well.  That stuff can be nasty, result in heavy bleeding, severed tendons and muscle, get infected, result in concussions or broken bones, all stuff that needs medical treatment or you may not recover at all, and recovery can be lengthy. 

People shouldn’t kid themselves over the seriousness of this stuff.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Well, it depends on how you look at it.
> 
> Modern medicine does manage to save a lot of people from wounds that would have been lethal even a generation or two ago, nevermind a couple centuries ago.  But it is pretty safe to say that if those wounds were left untreated, there is a good chance of infections and complications that would eventually be lethal.
> 
> When people get shot, they need medical treatment.  People don’t just shake off a gunshot wound and go home to sleep it off and feel better in the morning.
> 
> If you get shot, even if not immediately lethal, you lost the encounter.
> 
> I would say this holds true for wounds from knives, swords, axes, spears, staffs, etc. as well.  That stuff can be nasty, result in heavy bleeding, severed tendons and muscle, get infected, result in concussions or broken bones, all stuff that needs medical treatment or you may not recover at all, and recovery can be lengthy.
> 
> People shouldn’t kid themselves over the seriousness of this stuff.



First off:
Survival Rates Similar for Gunshot, Stabbing Victims Whether Brought to the Hospital by Police or EMS, Penn Medicine Study Finds  – PR News

2/3 of those with gunshot wounds survived, and over 90% of those with stab wounds survived.  So I'm not just talking about a possibility, but something likely to happen.

Second:
I'm looking at it from the other side.  Don't assume that just because you shoot someone that they're down.  One shot might not be enough to stop them.  Even someone who is shot in the heart can potentially continue the attack for 10-15 seconds.  It just depends on their state of mind (determination, willpower and/or substance abuse).  It's only when they cannot physically move from damage to their body, or from lack of oxygenated blood in the brain, that they are guaranteed to stop.

If someone shoots you or stabs you, that doesn't mean you're out.  Look at how many times in sports someone suffers a gruesome injury and keeps going.  

Carson Wentz got hurt, then ran 4 more plays that ended with a TD

Plus, players used to play through concussions all the time.

I'm not saying it's likely you'll win in that case, but to assume that just because a sharp bit touched you that you're out of the fight is to underestimate the indomitable human spirit.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> First off:
> Survival Rates Similar for Gunshot, Stabbing Victims Whether Brought to the Hospital by Police or EMS, Penn Medicine Study Finds  – PR News
> 
> 2/3 of those with gunshot wounds survived, and over 90% of those with stab wounds survived.  So I'm not just talking about a possibility, but something likely to happen.
> 
> Second:
> I'm looking at it from the other side.  Don't assume that just because you shoot someone that they're down.  One shot might not be enough to stop them.  Even someone who is shot in the heart can potentially continue the attack for 10-15 seconds.  It just depends on their state of mind (determination, willpower and/or substance abuse).  It's only when they cannot physically move from damage to their body, or from lack of oxygenated blood in the brain, that they are guaranteed to stop.
> 
> If someone shoots you or stabs you, that doesn't mean you're out.  Look at how many times in sports someone suffers a gruesome injury and keeps going.
> 
> Carson Wentz got hurt, then ran 4 more plays that ended with a TD
> 
> Plus, players used to play through concussions all the time.
> 
> I'm not saying it's likely you'll win in that case, but to assume that just because a sharp bit touched you that you're out of the fight is to underestimate the indomitable human spirit.


Ok, that first article you linked, did you read it?

It compares survival rates of people transported to trauma centers by police, vs. transported by EMS.  These are all people who got treatment in a trauma center.  This in no way suggests a survival rate by those who do not get treatment.  This completely supports what I said in my previous post: more people survive because of the capabilities of modern medicine.

If you want to hang on to the fantasy notions of an unarmed person’s chances against someone armed with these weapons we’ve been discussing, be my guest.  You have every right to your opinion.  I am hereby giving up all attempts to talk sense into you.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> If you get shot, even if not immediately lethal, you lost the encounter



That's quite a lot like saying the first person to land a punch in a boxing match wins...

In this hypothetical situation you could get winged (still shot), even a few times, and still be the one to walk away and have the opportunity to seek medical assistance.

I'd call that win - maybe not like 1-0, but 5-3 is still a win 



Flying Crane said:


> People shouldn’t kid themselves over the seriousness of this stuff



Oh, it's absolutely serious, no doubt about it.

I've had a couple of injuries myself that had I ignored them would have had the possibility (via infection if nothing else) of being fatal.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> That's quite a lot like saying the first person to land a punch in a boxing match wins...
> 
> In this hypothetical situation you could get winged (still shot), even a few times, and still be the one to walk away and have the opportunity to seek medical assistance.
> 
> I'd call that win - maybe not like 1-0, but 5-3 is still a win
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's absolutely serious, no doubt about it.
> 
> I've had a couple of injuries myself that had I ignored them would have had the possibility (via infection if nothing else) of being fatal.


Yeah, it can be a mutual loss as well.  Nobody has a good day.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> This in no way suggests a survival rate by those who do not get treatment.



Personally, I never even made reference to treatment or lack thereof (until my previous post).

If two unarmed people get into it, there's still a chance the winner will need to treat wounds...

Post altercation care wasn't part of my initial consideration.


----------



## pdg

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, it can be a mutual loss as well.  Nobody has a good day.



A good day is any one you live to remember 



Doesn't make it good at the time 



And yeah, they could both fail to survive the encounter - that's very much within the realms of possibility.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> *This completely supports what I said in my previous post: more people survive because of the capabilities of modern medicine.*
> 
> If you want to hang on to the fantasy notions of an unarmed person’s chances against someone armed with these weapons we’ve been discussing, be my guest.  You have every right to your opinion.  I am hereby giving up all attempts to talk sense into you.



You're starting to remind me of a math joke:

_A physicist is working on an experiment and comes up with a formula to help him analyze his data.  He asks a math professor to look over the formula for him.  After a week, the professor comes back and tells the physicist that his formula doesn't work.  However, the physicist has been getting good results with the formula, so he asks the professor to recheck the work.  A week later the math professor comes up to him and says "well, okay, your formula works, but only in the specific circumstances that the datapoints are real and positive."_

"More people survive because of modern medicine."  Unless I'm getting in a time machine for this fight, I don't really see what the point is of making whether or not modern medicine exists a factor in self defense.

You're talking about fantasy notions, and yet you're the one who has this fight take place outside of the modern world.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> Personally, I never even made reference to treatment or lack thereof (until my previous post).
> 
> If two unarmed people get into it, there's still a chance the winner will need to treat wounds...
> 
> Post altercation care wasn't part of my initial consideration.


I don’t disagree.

However, if one is armed and the other is not, well it’s a pretty predictable outcome as to what is in store.


----------



## Flying Crane

pdg said:


> That's quite a lot like saying the first person to land a punch in a boxing match wins...


Sorry, I should have commented on this earlier.  I disagree with this statement.  A hit with a fist, gloved or not, has a lot less chance of being lethal or otherwise “decisive” than a hit with a few inches or a few feet of sharp steel, or a heavy stick, especially when that weapon increases the reach so that the one being hit with it cannot effectively hit back.

Now I do understand that a punch can be lethal, especially if the victim falls and hits his head on the concrete.  Sure, I get that.  But the chance of that, especially if it is in the context of a boxing match, is far far far far less than if someone is hit with a weapon designed to be lethal.

Comparing these two is like apples to airplanes.


----------



## Flying Crane

skribs said:


> You're starting to remind me of a math joke:
> 
> _A physicist is working on an experiment and comes up with a formula to help him analyze his data.  He asks a math professor to look over the formula for him.  After a week, the professor comes back and tells the physicist that his formula doesn't work.  However, the physicist has been getting good results with the formula, so he asks the professor to recheck the work.  A week later the math professor comes up to him and says "well, okay, your formula works, but only in the specific circumstances that the datapoints are real and positive."_
> 
> "More people survive because of modern medicine."  Unless I'm getting in a time machine for this fight, I don't really see what the point is of making whether or not modern medicine exists a factor in self defense.
> 
> You're talking about fantasy notions, and yet you're the one who has this fight take place outside of the modern world.


Ok, what was the point you were trying to make by Linking to that article?  I am honestly confused.

Regarding your last statement, I only initiated this line of discussion because oftheherd stated in an earlier post that learning the weapon should include learn to defend against it, and that was in the context of your list of archaic weapons like katana, staff, nunchaku, and three-section staff.  So I gave my thoughts and observations, based on my own experiences with all of those weapons.  

So what I think you are saying here is, if an unarmed person is gutted by a Tae Kwon do blackbelt with a katana from 5 feet away, and this person is picked up in Pennsylvania by either a police officer or an EMT and rushed to a trauma center for treatment, where he may or may not survive, that those chances of survival do not statistically change if it is the police officer vs if it is the EMT who gets him there, then he successfully defended himself against the katana.

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, what was the point you were trying to make by Linking to that article?  I am honestly confused.
> 
> ...
> 
> So what I think you are saying here is, if an unarmed person is gutted by a Tae Kwon do blackbelt with a katana from 5 feet away, and this person is picked up in Pennsylvania by either a police officer or an EMT and rushed to a trauma center for treatment, where he may or may not survive, that those chances of survival do not statistically change if it is the police officer vs if it is the EMT who gets him there, then he successfully defended himself against the katana.
> 
> Is that what you are saying?



The article was simply an example to show that just because you are shot or stabbed, it doesn't mean you're dead.  Because there seems to be a myth in this thread that as soon as a knife, stick, or bullet touches you, you are dead.  That myth is clearly not true.

I guess I could have linked more examples of articles talking about the large majority of gun/knife victims surviving the ordeal, but I thought my comments below the link were sufficient to follow my train of thought.



> Regarding your last statement, I only initiated this line of discussion because oftheherd stated in an earlier post that learning the weapon should include learn to defend against it, and that was in the context of your list of archaic weapons like katana, staff, nunchaku, and three-section staff.  So I gave my thoughts and observations, based on my own experiences with all of those weapons.



I have a katana, and another sword.  I have several nunchaku and staves, both full and 3-section.  Some are for show, some are weapons.  Knives follow a similar idea as a sword (cutting weapon) and are very common today, in the form of box cutters, kitchen knives, utility knives, etc.

I've also got a ton of makeshift maces, between the wrenches and hammers in my toolbox, baseball bats, golf clubs, tire irons.  I've got other things that could be used as such in a pinch, such as my sports trophies, candlesticks, and I guess a pistol whip counts as a mace.  Oh, I also have an asp, which is a modern collapsible mace, and I have my kali sticks.

So, why must a sword, mace, or staff exist only in some fantasy land or in the 10th century?  They exist today.  While a sword or staff are less likely to be encountered, a baseball bat, wrench, or knife can be very common weapons to encounter.  More common than a rifle, if I remember right.

So to say it must be a fantasy is to ignore reality.


----------



## pdg

Excuse the jumbled nature of my reply...



Flying Crane said:


> Sorry, I should have commented on this earlier.  I disagree with this statement.  A hit with a fist, gloved or not, has a lot less chance of being lethal or otherwise “decisive” than a hit with a few inches or a few feet of sharp steel, or a heavy stick, especially when that weapon increases the reach so that the one being hit with it cannot effectively hit back.
> 
> Now I do understand that a punch can be lethal, especially if the victim falls and hits his head on the concrete.  Sure, I get that.  But the chance of that, especially if it is in the context of a boxing match, is far far far far less than if someone is hit with a weapon designed to be lethal.
> 
> Comparing these two is like apples to airplanes.



It doesn't have to be lethal to win or lose - unless that was a specification of the encounter I missed...


This response:



pdg said:


> That's quite a lot like saying the first person to land a punch in a boxing match wins...



Was directly in relation to:



Flying Crane said:


> If you get shot, even if not immediately lethal, you lost the encounter.



Which is plainly not the case.

If I got 'shot' in the arm with a .22, chances are good that I'm not out, neither is that arm. Chances of still being 'in' and able to use that arm decrease as calibre increases.

Likewise, if I get stabbed in a non essential location, I'm not out. I actually have a valid frame of reference for this - when I was about 14 I was cutting the grip off a motorcycle handlebar, (very stupidly) using my thigh as a brace... The stanley knife (box cutter?) slipped and said hello to my leg... Full depth of the blade, a bit of twist - 16 stitches. But when I did it I could still walk, swear, shout, throw the 'bars across the garden in a temper, etc. before going in and asking my dad for a lift to hospital 

Heavy stick? That's what I call a conditioning tool - unless you really know what you're doing (but unskilled, remember?) I'll be inside that range. I might get a bruise...



Just as you said one punch doesn't mean you're not out, neither does one weapon contact - unskilled, remember?

Quite honestly, taking 'unskilled' into account, out of the so far listed weapons the sword (used as a generic term for any blade over about 18") is the thing that would give me most pause.


----------



## skribs

Flying Crane said:


> Sorry, I should have commented on this earlier. I disagree with this statement. A hit with a fist, gloved or not, has a lot less chance of being lethal or otherwise “decisive” than a hit with a few inches or a few feet of sharp steel, or a heavy stick, especially when that weapon increases the reach so that the one being hit with it cannot effectively hit back.



To clarify - this is why I linked the article.  Because your notion that just because a pointy object touched you that you are instantly dead is complete lunacy.


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> If I got 'shot' in the arm with a .22, chances are good that I'm not out, neither is that arm. Chances of still being 'in' and able to use that arm decrease as calibre increases.
> 
> Likewise, if I get stabbed in a non essential location, I'm not out. I actually have a valid frame of reference for this - when I was about 14 I was cutting the grip off a motorcycle handlebar, (very stupidly) using my thigh as a brace... The stanley knife (box cutter?) slipped and said hello to my leg... Full depth of the blade, a bit of twist - 16 stitches. But when I did it I could still walk, swear, shout, throw the 'bars across the garden in a temper, etc. before going in and asking my dad for a lift to hospital
> 
> Heavy stick? That's what I call a conditioning tool - unless you really know what you're doing (but unskilled, remember?) I'll be inside that range. I might get a bruise...
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you said one punch doesn't mean you're not out, neither does one weapon contact - unskilled, remember?
> 
> Quite honestly, taking 'unskilled' into account, out of the so far listed weapons the sword (used as a generic term for any blade over about 18") is the thing that would give me most pause.



I'm curious if part of the problem is an assumption that a "hit" with a weapon means a successfully damaging hit?

You can be cut and just have a superficial bloody wound, in which case you're probably easily capable of continuing the fight.  You can be hit in the arm with a quick hit from a stick (not a power swing) and be bruised, but not broken.

However, if you take a full-power blow to the arm, yes your arm is probably broken.  If you take a full-power blow to the head, your skull is probably caved in.  If you are disemboweled or dismembered by a sword strike, then yes, you will probably lose and die real fast.

Maybe part of the disagreement here is on the likelihood of a strike being a quick jab type of a strike vs. a full power swing?


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> However, if you take a full-power blow to the arm, yes your arm is probably broken. If you take a full-power blow to the head, your skull is probably caved in.



I think this is the point of most contention.

If I'm engaged (i.e. it's not a sucker hit), I stand a fair chance of not taking that full power blow squarely.

An unskilled person (which is what I thought we've been dealing with from the start) isn't going to have the technique to accelerate a stick, they're likely to be going for the double handed overhead death swing or the baseball style attack. Sure, just stand there and you won't be standing for long, but it'll probably be telegraphed so much they might as well give you written notification of their intentions...


----------



## Metal

Wow... this turned into a pretty long discussion. 

I wonder how someone even gets to ask "Which weapons are Taekwondo?". I mean, once you start looking beyond the training of the dojang you train at, you should immediately realize that there are no weapons in the Taekwondo curriculum. In Kukkiwon as well as in the ITFs or so called 'traditional' Taekwondo.

I would ask: Are weapons as part of the Taekwondo curriculum or Taekwondo belt test a sign of a McDojo (or McDojang)?


----------



## skribs

Metal said:


> Wow... this turned into a pretty long discussion.
> 
> I wonder how someone even gets to ask "Which weapons are Taekwondo?". I mean, once you start looking beyond the training of the dojang you train at, you should immediately realize that there are no weapons in the Taekwondo curriculum. In Kukkiwon as well as in the ITFs or so called 'traditional' Taekwondo.



Weapons are part of our curriculum after black belt, to include bo staff, eskrima sticks, knife, sword, and nunchaku.  We are registered with KKW and I have my dan certificates and ID cards from KKW.

My understanding is that you cannot take away from the KKW curriculum (i.e. you couldn't not teach Koryo and Keumgang) but you can add to it.  There's a lot in our curriculum that - to my knowledge - isn't required tested material by KKW.  For example, defense drills, hand grabs and body grabs, and the weapon skills.  

However, someone else from my school might not know what the requirements are from KKW or the requirements from other schools.  So they might assume that because we're in KKW, and we do weapons, that KKW has weapons, and therefore these weapons are part of the TKD curriculum.  



> I would ask: Are weapons as part of the Taekwondo curriculum or Taekwondo belt test a sign of a McDojo (or McDojang)?



How would ADDING material to a belt test make it a McDojo?


----------



## CB Jones

Metal said:


> Wow... this turned into a pretty long discussion.
> 
> I wonder how someone even gets to ask "Which weapons are Taekwondo?". I mean, once you start looking beyond the training of the dojang you train at, you should immediately realize that there are no weapons in the Taekwondo curriculum. In Kukkiwon as well as in the ITFs or so called 'traditional' Taekwondo.
> 
> I would ask: Are weapons as part of the Taekwondo curriculum or Taekwondo belt test a sign of a McDojo (or McDojang)?



Just because a school is not part of KKW or ITF and chooses to add weapons training to their curriculum does not make them a McDojo.


----------



## skribs

CB Jones said:


> Just because a school is not part of KKW or ITF and chooses to add weapons training to their curriculum does not make them a McDojo.



And/or.

A school can be a member of KKW and add weapons training (as mine does).


----------



## Dirty Dog

skribs said:


> Weapons are part of our curriculum after black belt, to include bo staff, eskrima sticks, knife, sword, and nunchaku.  We are registered with KKW and I have my dan certificates and ID cards from KKW.



It's unfortunate that they don't see fit to teach you that "bo" means "staff", so saying "bo staff" is redundantly stupid redundancy.



> My understanding is that you cannot take away from the KKW curriculum (i.e. you couldn't not teach Koryo and Keumgang) but you can add to it.  There's a lot in our curriculum that - to my knowledge - isn't required tested material by KKW.  For example, defense drills, hand grabs and body grabs, and the weapon skills.



That is correct. The Kukkiwon endorses a set of minimum requirements. And they are VERY minimal. Which is why it's common enough to get 1st Dan in a year or two in a strictly Kukkiwon school.



> How would ADDING material to a belt test make it a McDojo?



Maybe if the instructor didn't have any actual training in the weapon and was just teaching some flashy junk they picked up by watching YouTube videos? And even that wouldn't invalidate other training, assuming the instructor wasn't entirely a follow of the Ashida Kim system.


----------



## TrueJim

Dirty Dog said:


> It's unfortunate that they don't see fit to teach you that "bo" means "staff", so saying "bo staff" is redundantly stupid redundancy.



I take my bo staff with me whenever I go to eat shrimp scampi.


----------



## Dirty Dog

TrueJim said:


> I take my bo staff with me whenever I go to eat shrimp scampi.



Wow. All I do if the service is bad is reduce the tip...


----------



## pdg

TrueJim said:


> shrimp scampi.



Well, that's not a reduncancy...

Scampi is a shellfish all it's own, it's only (really) in the US that shrimp were substituted due to lack of supply.

Technically, I suppose it should really be "shrimp cooked like scampi", but hey


----------



## WaterGal

TrueJim said:


> I take my bo staff with me whenever I go to eat shrimp scampi.



Do you take it with you when you get cash from the ATM machine, too?


----------



## pdg

WaterGal said:


> Do you take it with you when you get cash from the ATM machine, too?



If you're doing that, don't forget your pin number...


----------



## WaterGal

pdg said:


> They've got to hit me first - we're talking an unskilled person, remember?
> 
> Years back I did a 'thing' with the army where we got to shoot on the ranges. Handguns were done indoors, on a 30 yard range.
> 
> Of about 30 people (excluding me, I've shot a bit) not one managed more than one shot (out of 12) inside a 12" static target, with time to position, aim, breathe, aim again, and so on.
> 
> Given where I live, that sort of performance is what I'd consider reasonably average...
> 
> If I have no chance staying still, I'll grab those slim odds with both hands - worth a go...



Yeah, aiming a gun is not as easy as it looks in the movies. One of the biggest danger with guns & untrained people, IMO, is that you can accidently hit someone who's not your target. With a sword or baseball bat or whatever, you can only hit what's in the range of that weapon, which is unlikely to be more than one person unless you're in the middle of a mosh pit or something. But with a firearm, you could miss and hit someone 50 yards away, and there's no way to defend against that, really.


----------



## pdg

WaterGal said:


> you could miss and hit someone 50 yards away, and there's no way to defend against that,



Nope, not like you'll see or hear it coming.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> It's unfortunate that they don't see fit to teach you that "bo" means "staff", so saying "bo staff" is redundantly stupid redundancy.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Luv it. Almost as good as yelling the word "KIHAP".  That would be like yelling the word "YELL".


----------



## skribs

Dirty Dog said:


> It's unfortunate that they don't see fit to teach you that "bo" means "staff", so saying "bo staff" is redundantly stupid redundancy.



My understanding is that a Bo Staff is a staff between 5-6 feet long.  Compared with a Jo staff, which is 4 feet long, or a quarterstaff which is 6-9 feet long.

Maybe "bo" would suffice, but sometimes you use a synonym to help orient the reader/listener (I'll get to this point in a minute).

We also have a student named Bo at our school, so it's helpful to differentiate.



WaterGal said:


> Do you take it with you when you get cash from the ATM machine, too?





pdg said:


> If you're doing that, don't forget your pin number...



I work IT.  If I tell people "type in your PIN" they invariably ask me "my password or my number?" 
If I say "type in your PIN number" they know exactly what I mean.

Of course, in the military there's so many acronyms you have to let people know which acronym you're referring to, so I'll always use phrases like ATM Machine, CAC Card (common access card card), PIN Number, etc.  I do this on purpose to help orient my audience.



> That is correct. The Kukkiwon endorses a set of minimum requirements. And they are VERY minimal. Which is why it's common enough to get 1st Dan in a year or two in a strictly Kukkiwon school.
> 
> Maybe if the instructor didn't have any actual training in the weapon and was just teaching some flashy junk they picked up by watching YouTube videos? And even that wouldn't invalidate other training, assuming the instructor wasn't entirely a follow of the Ashida Kim system.



This is basically the same for martial arts.  The Master at my school knows his stuff.  The weapons curriculum itself may be watered down (I'm not even going to pretend the couple sword forms I know make me a kendo expert), but the instruction we do get is quality instruction.




Earl Weiss said:


> Luv it. Almost as good as yelling the word "KIHAP".  That would be like yelling the word "YELL".



What's wrong with yelling "yell"?

And usually we yell the word so people get the energy from us to feedback the energy in their yell.


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> I work IT.  If I tell people "type in your PIN" they invariably ask me "my password or my number?"
> If I say "type in your PIN number" they know exactly what I mean.
> 
> Of course, in the military there's so many acronyms you have to let people know which acronym you're referring to, so I'll always use phrases like ATM Machine, CAC Card (common access card card), PIN Number, etc.  I do this on purpose to help orient my audience.



I used to work in IT, if I got that response I'd invariably say "if I meant your password, I would've said password".


Interpretation should be contextual, if you were to get told to hold the bo in thirds, seriously how many people would go and grab Bo?


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> I used to work in IT, if I got that response I'd invariably say "if I meant your password, I would've said password".
> 
> 
> Interpretation should be contextual, if you were to get told to hold the bo in thirds, seriously how many people would go and grab Bo?



Well, I would rather say "PIN number" than have those two extra lines of dialog.


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> Well, I would rather say "PIN number" than have those two extra lines of dialog.



Raise their standards, don't lower yours..


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> Raise their standards, don't lower yours..



It gets them out of my office faster.  That's my goal.


----------



## hoshin1600

redundancy


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> It gets them out of my office faster.  That's my goal.



Oh, if they come to actually see you then say whatever is necessary to get rid of them


----------



## skribs

hoshin1600 said:


> redundancy



Reminds me of airplane.  "Roger Roger, we have clearance Clarence, what's our vector, Victor?"


----------



## Dirty Dog

skribs said:


> My understanding is that a Bo Staff is a staff between 5-6 feet long.  Compared with a Jo staff, which is 4 feet long, or a quarterstaff which is 6-9 feet long.



Like Bo, the word Jo is sufficient. 



> We also have a student named Bo at our school, so it's helpful to differentiate.



I'm pretty sure people could figure it out from the context... if not, let them pick Bo up by his ankles and give him a swing. It'll be fun.



> I work IT.  If I tell people "type in your PIN" they invariably ask me "my password or my number?"
> If I say "type in your PIN number" they know exactly what I mean.



As someone else said, bring them up to your level. Don't lower yourself to theirs.


----------



## pdg

I worked in a garage years ago, there was a guy called Jack who worked there too.

I never recall any confusion when it came to lifting a car...


----------



## CB Jones

pdg said:


> used to work in IT, if I got that response I'd invariably say "if I meant your password, I would've said password



This is why people don't like IT workers.....


----------



## pdg

CB Jones said:


> This is why people don't like IT workers.....



I'm perfectly comfortable with that


----------



## WaterGal

To add further pedantry in this thread..... "bo" is a Japanese term for a staff. The Korean term for that type of staff is "bong".

I remember my old Korean teacher being totally baffled as to why people would giggle when he told them to go get their bong.


----------



## JR 137

WaterGal said:


> To add further pedantry in this thread..... "bo" is a Japanese term for a staff. The Korean term for that type of staff is "bong".
> 
> I remember my old Korean teacher being totally baffled as to why people would giggle when he told them to go get their bong.


Did he ever say “get your 6 ft bong?”


----------



## Earl Weiss

skribs said:


> And usually l.we yell the word so people get the energy from us to feedback the energy in their yel



You yell what word? Kihap? 

Please elaborate: ".....we yell the word so people get the energy from us to feedback the energy in their yell"


----------



## pdg

Earl Weiss said:


> You yell what word? Kihap?



I've seen a few people do that, usually lower grades that get told "you kihap on xx move in this pattern".

One person in particular, it really sounds like they actually say "shout"...

Personally, I'm unable to spell what I vocalise.


----------



## TrueJim

pdg said:


> Personally, I'm unable to spell what I vocalise.



Off topic: Linguistically this is an interesting observation. Why don't we have letters for every sound that our mouths can make?


----------



## pdg

TrueJim said:


> Off topic: Linguistically this is an interesting observation. Why don't we have letters for every sound that our mouths can make?



I have no answer or theory for that, other than some of the noises aren't deemed suitable/important/relevant to information conveyance?

But even though there are multiple vocalisations for most letters, it's still incomplete...

I'll give it a go.

Htchaitaei

Pronounced as one syllable 

Sometimes it sounds a bit different though


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> Did he ever say “get your 6 ft bong?”


To quote my nephew, "That's a whole different evening."


----------



## pulsescarborough

Dirty Dog said:


> OK... right... but what, exactly, does that have to do with the question, which was "what weapons are taekwondo?"




You don't have to do anything with the question exactly. Taekwondo is not only a combat sport but is also a way of life for enthusiasts around the globe. And going to its weapons "Eskrima Sticks" is one of its famous weapons.


----------



## skribs

Earl Weiss said:


> You yell what word? Kihap?
> 
> Please elaborate: ".....we yell the word so people get the energy from us to feedback the energy in their yell"



Yes.  We yell KIYHAP.

If I say "kiyhap" then most of the kids go "AI--iiiiiiii."  Instead of a focused spirited shout, we get a dying cow.  If I yell "KIHAP!"  then I usually get more enthusiastic shouting.

I've found the cadence of the instructor has a lot to do with the power and energy of the student.  If the instructor can inject energy into the way they give the instruction, the students feed on that energy and give it back in the form of more crisp technique, more power in their motions, better stances, better attention to detail, and louder kihaps in return.

In particular, yelling "KIHAP" louder will help cue the students in on how they're supposed to KIHAP.


----------



## oftheherd1

pdg said:


> I used to work in IT, if I got that response I'd invariably say "if I meant your password, I would've said password".
> 
> 
> Interpretation should be contextual, if you were to get told to hold the bo in thirds, seriously how many people would go and grab Bo?



Probably depends on how fast Bo is, or perhaps how big he is.


----------



## skribs

CB Jones said:


> This is why people don't like IT workers.....



If they don't like me they're out of my office faster


----------



## Flying Crane

pulsescarborough said:


> You don't have to do anything with the question exactly. Taekwondo is not only a combat sport but is also a way of life for enthusiasts around the globe. And going to its weapons "Eskrima Sticks" is one of its famous weapons.


Aren’t those weapons of eskrima?


----------



## skribs

pulsescarborough said:


> You don't have to do anything with the question exactly. Taekwondo is not only a combat sport but is also a way of life for enthusiasts around the globe. And going to its weapons "Eskrima Sticks" is one of its famous weapons.



"Eskrima", or Kali or a couple other names, is a Philipino martial art.  Saying "eskrima sticks" are a famous Taekwondo weapon is like saying the Kung Fu Nunchucks are a famous Taekwondo weapon


----------



## TrueJim

Just sayin'. 1946. Kwang Ju military base. Lieutenant Choi. *Bayonets.*


----------



## Earl Weiss

skribs said:


> In particular, yelling "KIHAP" louder will help cue the students in on how they're supposed to KIHAP.



Had an instructor tell me once. : "Instructor's Kihap weak, then student's Kihap weak"

So forgive me if i still fail to fully comprehend. 

I understand if you say "Kihap" loudly as a strong command encouraging the student to make a strong response. i.e  "most of the kids go "AI--iiiiiiii.""

On the other hand if you are instructing them to say the word "Kihap"   then we will agree to disagree.


----------



## skribs

We yell it so they get the volume and intensity they're supposed to yell at.

They don't literally yell it back.

Although I don't see the problem if they did.


----------



## Finlay

Well what an interesting, if meandering, discussion.

It is my understanding that there are no weapons forms in tkd. Some mastershave tried to develop some however.

I don' think this has been mentioned yet so...







Essentially it looks like tkd movements and way of moving but just with a knife in your hand


----------



## TrueJim

Finlay said:


> It is my understanding that there are no weapons forms in tkd...



Interesting observation. I believe ATA-style taekwondo does do weapons training as part of their standard curriculum...but do they have any forms? Not that I'm aware of.

Chuck Norris's "Chun Kuk Do" variant of Tang Soo Do does have a bo form: UFAF Bo Form

The "Chun Kuhn" style of Taekwondo also has a bo form called "Silla"


----------



## SeekGuidance

I don't know about Taekwondo but it could be the same as in Capoeira. Before, capoeristas would stick blades inbetween their toes and make their kicks literally lethal.


----------



## Dirty Dog

SeekGuidance said:


> I don't know about Taekwondo but it could be the same as in Capoeira. Before, capoeristas would stick blades inbetween their toes and make their kicks literally lethal.



Sorry, what? You're claiming you can grip a blade with your toes strongly enough to hold onto it during a kick?


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> Sorry, what? You're claiming you can grip a blade with your toes strongly enough to hold onto it during a kick?



Yeah, I've seen those claims too, and I strongly doubt them...

One story I heard was that groups of capoeiristas would head parades in the carnival and when these groups met would fight, using the blades held between their toes.

A more believable account is that capoeira players on board ships would tape or bind knives to their feet.

Another possible method was to stitch razor blades into the ends of the scarf.

There are also the much more dull versions - they simply carried knives hidden in their clothing and used them by hand in conjunction with kicks.

I've had the pleasure of working with a couple of Brazilian players, and while they had extremely impressive thighs they seemed sceptical about the toe grip


----------



## Jaeimseu

I used to teach bo by using basic poomsae with the weapon in the hands. It’s been many years since I’ve done it, though. I wouldn’t really consider it part of Taekwondo. I used it as a fun supplement for kids. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

pdg said:


> Yeah, I've seen those claims too, and I strongly doubt them...



And did you know that a katana will chop the barrel off a rifle?



> One story I heard was that groups of capoeiristas would head parades in the carnival and when these groups met would fight, using the blades held between their toes.



What did they do after they chopped the crap out of their toes?



> A more believable account is that capoeira players on board ships would tape or bind knives to their feet.



Also ridiculous. Go tie knives to your feet. Now try to walk around. Now try to actually fight. Don't forget to do it on a floor that's moving up and down and side to side. And is slippery too.



> Another possible method was to stitch razor blades into the ends of the scarf.



Which isn't really going to do anything either, since there's now no possible way to control the blade, and it's far more likely to hit flat than edge on.



> There are also the much more dull versions - they simply carried knives hidden in their clothing and used them by hand in conjunction with kicks.



Dull... I see what you did there. 
At least this is believable.



> I've had the pleasure of working with a couple of Brazilian players, and while they had extremely impressive thighs they seemed sceptical about the toe grip



And early TKD practitioners (you know, the ones a few hundred years before TKD existed...) used to leap over polearms wielded by horsemen and kick them off the horse?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Jaeimseu said:


> I used to teach bo by using basic poomsae with the weapon in the hands. It’s been many years since I’ve done it, though. I wouldn’t really consider it part of Taekwondo. I used it as a fun supplement for kids.



This isn't entirely unreasonable, depending on the weapon and strikes being used. Straight punches can become stabs rather easily. And it's not a terribly difficult stretch to see some of them as smacks with a club, either.
But as you say, it's a diversion, not really something that would be considered TKD.


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> Also ridiculous. Go tie knives to your feet. Now try to walk around. Now try to actually fight. Don't forget to do it on a floor that's moving up and down and side to side. And is slippery too.



Put the knife on top of your foot, not under it...

Like, don't stand on it.

If you must stand on it, make the handle shaped like a sandal, or maybe remove the handle and shove the tang into a cut in the sole of your shoe.

It's much more within the realms of possibility than gripping a bare blade 'twixt your toesies...



Dirty Dog said:


> Which isn't really going to do anything either, since there's now no possible way to control the blade, and it's far more likely to hit flat than edge on.



Put a couple in there (or a bunch of random sharp bits). Nothing heavy though.

Then, don't use it like you would a bludgeon, but give it a twirl and a nice locker room towel whip.


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> What did they do after they chopped the crap out of their toes?



I forgot to finish the paragraph this response was aimed at.

Please mentally attach the following:

Like that's going to happen, even if you can grip the blade while walking, running and 'dancing' without losing a toe, there's not going to be much of an edge left after being ground into a road surface.


----------



## pdg

Sod it, I'll just split my posts up 



Dirty Dog said:


> And early TKD practitioners (you know, the ones a few hundred years before TKD existed...) used to leap over polearms wielded by horsemen and kick them off the horse?



That's entirely believable.

I understand they learned the skill at weekend seminars held by the Chinese masters who could leap between mountain peaks.

Obviously a weekend isn't long enough to develop real mountain hopping, but an armed mounted soldier is easy.

The people who stayed for the Sunday evening session of the seminar could deal with 5 horsemen in a single jump.


----------



## Dirty Dog

pdg said:


> Put the knife on top of your foot, not under it...



Then your foot doesn't flex, which makes walking rather difficult. And fighting even more so.



> If you must stand on it, make the handle shaped like a sandal, or maybe remove the handle and shove the tang into a cut in the sole of your shoe.



Still pure silliness. "Just a minute, don't kick me in the face while I kneel and stuff this tang into my shoe..."


----------



## TrueJim

pdg said:


> If you must stand on it, make the handle shaped like a sandal, or maybe remove the handle and shove the tang into a cut in the sole of your shoe....



Or better still, wear slippers that look like sharks, and put laser beams on their heads.


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> Still pure silliness. "Just a minute, don't kick me in the face while I kneel and stuff this tang into my shoe..."



According to the source (not me, some historian) it wasn't a spur of the moment thing, more like challenge matches.

So there wasn't much walking around to be concerned about.


----------



## SeekGuidance

You like to ridicule, but I don't see you actually showing valuable evidence or present experience that you know better. It's like me saying:
"The Samurai wore sandals? Ridiculous. Put on Sandals. Try to walk. Now try to fight." Go research your stuff before you ridicule. You seem to know nothing about Capoeira simply looking at your comments. Do you even know what a berimbau is? That's fine! Because I don't care and I don't like to ridicule those who may know less.


----------



## SeekGuidance

Yes


----------



## pdg

SeekGuidance said:


> You like to ridicule, but I don't see you actually showing valuable evidence or present experience that you know better



So what is your source for saying:



SeekGuidance said:


> Before, capoeristas would stick blades inbetween their toes and make their kicks literally lethal.



?


----------



## Flying Crane

SeekGuidance said:


> You like to ridicule, but I don't see you actually showing valuable evidence or present experience that you know better. It's like me saying:
> "The Samurai wore sandals? Ridiculous. Put on Sandals. Try to walk. Now try to fight." Go research your stuff before you ridicule. You seem to know nothing about Capoeira simply looking at your comments. Do you even know what a berimbau is? That's fine! Because I don't care and I don't like to ridicule those who may know less.


I was an obsessive capoeirista for a number of years, and was a “graduated student” (kind of analogous to a shodan, perhaps) in the ABADA affiliated school in San Francisco under Mestranda Marcia Cigarra, who in turn was a student of Mestre Camisa in Rio de Janiero.

While I have not researched the razor-in-the-toes issue, it is my personal opinion that it is a myth.  

If one is barefoot, I cannot imagine how to grasp a folding straight razor, nor a naked blade, between the toes without seriously disrupting one’s ability to move effectively and/or seriously cutting ones own foot with the blade.  Nor can I imagine how to otherwise attach the item to the foot without the same problems.

If one is wearing shoes, I likewise cannot imagine how to attach the razor to the shoe without disrupting movement and stepping, or simply damaging the blade from walking on it or something.

Having spent a lot of hours and years training in capoeira, I find the notion to be very impractical.

I am also an advocate of the notion that capoeira played in the roda is different from capoeira done for fighting, and both of these as they exist today are different from the capoeira of 200 years ago.  People can be surprisingly creative when it comes to tools, but nevertheless I am skeptical about the razor bit.

That is my personal opinion, based on my years in capoeira.


----------



## SeekGuidance

Nvm guys I was wrong. My mestre just informed me they were in the SHOES not inbetween toes.


----------



## Flying Crane

SeekGuidance said:


> Nvm guys I was wrong. My mestre just informed me they were in the SHOES not inbetween toes.


Did he say how they attached the razor to the shoe?

I personally suspect that a folding straight razor would have been accessible, but it would have been held and wielded in the hand.


----------



## Dirty Dog

SeekGuidance said:


> You like to ridicule, but I don't see you actually showing valuable evidence or present experience that you know better.



There's lots of urban myth around, and lots of silliness claimed.



> It's like me saying:
> "The Samurai wore sandals? Ridiculous. Put on Sandals. Try to walk. Now try to fight."



Kid, if you can't see the difference between walking and fighting in sandals (which are, after all, designed for exactly this purpose) and walking or fighting while clenching blades between your toes, then you're quite possibly irredeemably deluded.



> Go research your stuff before you ridicule.



What makes you think I haven't?



> You seem to know nothing about Capoeira simply looking at your comments. Do you even know what a berimbau is? That's fine! Because I don't care and I don't like to ridicule those who may know less.



In fact I do. And I also know the difference between reality and fanciful myths (which pretty much all arts have, to a greater or lesser degree).


----------



## Dirty Dog

pdg said:


> According to the source (not me, some historian) it wasn't a spur of the moment thing, more like challenge matches.
> 
> So there wasn't much walking around to be concerned about.



Because fighting is sooooo much easier than walking.


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> Because fighting is sooooo much easier than walking.



I wouldn't like to do much walking about in my sparring pads...


----------



## Dirty Dog

pdg said:


> I wouldn't like to do much walking about in my sparring pads...



Why not? Mine are pretty comfortable.


----------



## WaterGal

Dirty Dog said:


> And early TKD practitioners (you know, the ones a few hundred years before TKD existed...) used to leap over polearms wielded by horsemen and kick them off the horse?



My favorite version of this - which demonstrates a better grasp on the timeline of the history of TKD if not, ummmm... _reality _- is that the flying side kick was developed in the Korean War so that Korean soldiers could jump up and kick enemy soldiers off of their motorcycles.


----------



## WaterGal

Flying Crane said:


> Did he say how they attached the razor to the shoe?
> 
> I personally suspect that a folding straight razor would have been accessible, but it would have been held and wielded in the hand.



If the shoes have a thick sole, tou might be able to cut a slit in the front edge of the sole (right under the toes) and stick the razor blade in there? That seems awkward as anything and like if you stumbled you might cut yourself, but that's the only way I could see this working.


----------



## oftheherd1

WaterGal said:


> My favorite version of this - which demonstrates a better grasp on the timeline of the history of TKD if not, ummmm... _reality _- is that the flying side kick was developed in the Korean War so that Korean soldiers could jump up and kick enemy soldiers off of their motorcycles.



The more believable version I heard was it was to knock them off the flying tanks.


----------



## oftheherd1

TrueJim said:


> Off topic: Linguistically this is an interesting observation. Why don't we have letters for every sound that our mouths can make?



Some languages do for the sounds they do make.  But most languages don't use every sound our mouth can make.

In English we struggle along using only 26 letters but we have way more than 26 sounds.


----------



## oftheherd1

pdg said:


> Sod it, I'll just split my posts up
> 
> 
> 
> That's entirely believable.
> 
> I understand they learned the skill at weekend seminars held by the Chinese masters who could leap between mountain peaks.
> 
> Obviously a weekend isn't long enough to develop real mountain hopping, but an armed mounted soldier is easy.
> 
> The people who stayed for the Sunday evening session of the seminar could deal with 5 horsemen in a single jump.



No one told you about the Monday Plus course?  It cost more and you had to show proof of being belted in another art.  Then you could be belted up to that rank in Mountain Peak Jumping.  I don't like to brag, but I was able to jump from one mountain, over a peak, and onto the next, and stay on my feet when I landed (one of the requirements).  No westerner has ever received that distinction and I only had to pay an extra 5,000 gold weights to be taught and then certified.  I have wanted to pass on those skills for years, but nobody has been able to come of with the money.


----------



## TrueJim

The external style is to jump from one mountain peak to the next. The internal style is to channel your chi to move the mountain peak to you.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Dirty Dog said:


> Then your foot doesn't flex, which makes walking rather difficult. And fighting even more so.
> 
> 
> 
> Still pure silliness. "Just a minute, don't kick me in the face while I kneel and stuff this tang into my shoe..."


----------



## Flying Crane

kempodisciple said:


>


Hmmm... I’m trying to figure out how long a slave in old Brazil would have been able to walk around with those on his feet, before getting some unwanted attention...

In addition, any walking in those shoes would likely result in tripping over the blade, as well as damaging the blade, so it’s pretty impractical.  I don’t imagine they have a built-in extension/retraction devise so the blade can pop in and out on a whim?

Some things can be done, but they are so supremely impractical that it’s hard to believe they were ever done.


----------



## Buka

kempodisciple said:


>



Ah, the old Rosa Klebb shoe from "_From Russia with Love."_


----------



## pdg

Jessica Biel didn't have much issue walking while wearing switchblade boots...


----------



## oftheherd1

pdg said:


> Jessica Biel didn't have much issue walking while wearing switchblade boots...



Really?  I don't remember noticing her feet.  Did she have feet?


----------



## pdg

oftheherd1 said:


> Really?  I don't remember noticing her feet.  Did she have feet?



Yep, and legs.

In fairly tight clothing too.

Obviously I had to look that up, I don't tend to notice that sort of thing - I was concentrating much more on the plasma bow


----------



## thanson02

skribs said:


> What would you categorize as a Taekwondo weapon?



Your feet.  Taekwondo is a kickboxing sport.   Any weapons being taught in a Dojang is something that the instructor has chosen to add in addition to Taekwondo.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.  Just know that if you trained in WTF or ITF and you change schools, the weapons you had at the old school may not be taught at the new school.


----------

