Does taekwondo needs cross-training to complete it

[Earl Weiss]

So is Goju-ryu a martial art or a martial science? I think it defies your neat classification as indeed many other arts probably do. The emphasis on self-improvement or self-defense varies by school and teacher instead of art/system.

.

How one teaches a system is not relevant to a classification of the ysystem if that person has deleted elements or added elements not generaly accepted as part of the system. It simply changes what that person teaches.

Again , as I said I would not presume that everyon would accept my classifications, since I basicaly made them up based upon experiences. Among them: Speaking to a former Israeli soldier about 20 years ago before Krav Maga became Mass marketed and I asked about the Martial Art of Krav Maga, He said "What Art? There is no art to kneeing someone in the nuts. " Or Peyton Quinn at his Rocky Mountain Combat Applications training center who maintians that he does not teach a martial Art.




For clarity to others that may not have read the article, A Martial Art would include Martial Science as part of it's elements, so you needn't say it is Martial Science but not art. From What you said the ssystem contains the neccessary elements, although youmay choose to train otr emphaisze the science parts.

 

[Earl Weiss]

. That's the topic of discussion, and it seems yes, if you study ITF style and you want to add grappling you'll have to do somewhere else to get it. Good information for all.

I would say if you want a more comprehensive grappling program you may need to go somewhwere else. The USTF which is no longer ITF but was for about 30 years added basic throwing and falling to the curriculm long ago.

Myself, figured this out in 1975, (been dabbling in Ju Jitsu since then) having had Judo as my first MA in 1971.

 

[Earl Weiss]

The ability to defend and get up from a prone position seems fairly key to me in a street fight.

The ability not to end up in the prone position is key way before defending and getting up. One of the best drills I learned for theis was at a Rickson Gracie Workshop.

BTW IMNSHO the idea that 90% of street fights end up on the ground is BS. (My review of all the "Caught on tape" real world attacks confirms my opinion) Perhaps 90% end up with one fight on the ground.

 

[dancingalone]

The ability not to end up in the prone position is key way before defending and getting up. One of the best drills I learned for theis was at a Rickson Gracie Workshop.

Probably true for a karate-ka or TKDist.

BTW IMNSHO the idea that 90% of street fights end up on the ground is BS. (My review of all the "Caught on tape" real world attacks confirms my opinion) Perhaps 90% end up with one fight on the ground.

Yes, I hope you realize I wasn't the one that brought that stat up. It's a bit of a strawman from someone else.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Chris, am I wrong in detecting a bit of snippiness on your part? If so, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I am outspoken and it's hard to convey tone through the written word.

Yes, you are wrong.

I teach defenses against a mounted opponent as early as 7th kyu. My choice - it's not something typically done in other dojos of the same style that I've visited.

So, it's not indicative of your style, then? When are these techniques generally taught? (You're a karateka, but I can't recall what style you practice; do you mind telling me again?)

As for relevance, it's certainly connected. One of the biggest criticisms made against TKD and similar striking arts are their perceived ineffectiveness on the ground. I'm no Gracie, but yeah I think colored belts need exposure to this material early and often.

The general thinking in most stand up systems seems to be that the students need to become rather proficient in stand-up fighting, including avoiding going prone, before going to a ground game.

No, I don't use that stat for my reasoning. I know from my own observation that fights frequently are started with a tackle or a sucker punch or a grab (usually as a prelude to a sucker punch). At least one of those attacks can end with you on the ground, so it seems like a good idea to practice defending and getting up, so you can use all your cool striking/takedown techs.

On the other hand, if people actually trained to be aware of their surroundings I think a lot of this would be unnecessary (and all of our observations really don't amount to more than anecdotal evidence; like mine of observing fights frequently starting with sucker punches but not ending up on the ground). I believe the term in Japanese is "zanshin" (not sure if there's a Korean equivalent; "concentration" isn't really what I'm looking for, as it should be a dispersed awareness).

Knife defense is good too. I actually start that around 7 kyu too.

Is that part of your karate style or an ad on from kobudo, perhaps?

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Hmm, I checked my indices again tonight. Looks like the answer is a big "Nope". The hoshinsul must be unpublished material, at least in terms of the Encyclopedia.

Check again. It's been present in all of his books since the 1972 textbook.

There are hosinsul techniques in both the 15 volume encyclopedia and the condensed version.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Yes, I hope you realize I wasn't the one that brought that stat up. It's a bit of a strawman from someone else.

I was th eone who brought it up, and not as a strawman. As I originally posted:

"As for it being a key ability in a street fight, I suppose that would depend on whether or not you buy into the Gracies' stats about 90%+ fights ending up on the ground (that was based on law enforcement figures, which tend to go prone due to cuffing the suspect, after all). It's certainly a good ability to have, but I'd say knife work would be more helpful (and easier) to acquire. YMMV."

In other words, I don't see it as being "a key ability" for street self defense but rather I see it as a good skill to have. The Gracies did a great marketing job when they hit the U.S. scene and many people simply accepted what they said. That doesn't take away from the effectiveness of their techniques, but it does point out the statistics they were using aren't for street fights as a whole. Most civilians I know aren't trying to put their aggressor prone to cuff them. Nor are there any statistics on what happens in a street fight between two non-law enforcement officers, as far as I know.

You can see it as a key ability if you want, but as I stated in a previous post observation on a personal level is simply anecdotal evidence. Grappling is good to be able to do, but there's really no way of knowing how common a ground game is going to be in a real fight.

I will say, however, that what happens in a fight a specific person is involved in will greatly depend on what kind of strategy, tactics and techniques with which that person is familiar. Thus if a person has spent a great deal of time working on take downs and grappling it seems likely that when they are in a confrontation it will end up on the ground. If they have spent more time working on controlling the distance, striking and kicking they're going to finish things from their feet.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

In our hapkido curriculum, defending and getting up from a prone position comes at the very end of the geub ranks, after which the student is a dan bo for a while before testing for first dan.

It all depends I suppose on how much material is being covered. Realistically, there is much more material to be learned in a standing position than in a prone position, and it is not unreasonable (though nor is it necessary) to require students to master those techniques first. From what I understand, the Chang Hon system has a fairly full hoshinsul program as well as forms, one steps, three steps, and all of the various specific techniques to learn, so something is inevitably going to be at the tail end.

Either every potentially useful technique is covered in the geub ranks and the student is a colored belt for longer or once the student is conversant in the stand up curriculum, they get their first dan in less time and learns the seated/prone defense as a dan grade, with the same quantity of material covered in the same period of time. It is simply a question of when the black belt is awarded.

Considering that Kukki taekwondo does not even have seated/prone techniques required in their standards, it does not surprise me that the Chang Hon system puts it after black belt.

Daniel

Best post on the topic thus far. Thanks!

Pax,

Chris

 

[dancingalone]

Check again. It's been present in all of his books since the 1972 textbook.

There are hosinsul techniques in both the 15 volume encyclopedia and the condensed version.

Pax,

Chris

I'll respond to the rest of your posts as I get the chance this weekend. In the meantime, could you kindly point me to a specific volume and page number for an example of the hoshinsul? I'm baffled, thumbing through the volumes I have. Looks like vol 8-15 are all patterns, surely you don't mean these?

 

[chrispillertkd]

I'll respond to the rest of your posts as I get the chance this weekend. In the meantime, could you kindly point me to a specific volume and page number for an example of the hoshinsul? I'm baffled, thumbing through the volumes I have. Looks like vol 8-15 are all patterns, surely you don't mean these?

No, I don't. We've been discussing hosinsul, not tul right? Although I will say that there are several techniques which are covered in the volumes on tul which would qualify as hosinsul, as I'm sure you're aware.

Anyway, you can check out the following sections of Gen. Choi's various books for examples of hosinsul:

Taekwon-Do: The Art of Self-Defense (1965 edition): pp. 264-286. The influence from Gen. Choi's Shotokan background is evident here. Techniques include releasing fom a grab (and are further delineated into "when standing," "when kneeling," and "when lying down"); how to defend against sudden attack (when kneeling, when sitting cross-legged, when sitting in a chair, when sitting on an arm chair, when sitting on a bench, when lying down); how to throw the attacking opponent (when standing, when kneeling, when lying down); how to defend against and armed opponent (against a dagger, against a bayonet [he was, after all in the military], against a club, against a pole, against a pistol).

Taekwon-Do: The Korean Art of Self-Defense (1972 and subsequent editions): Here you see more hapkido influence and hapkido-GM Chung, Kee Tae is pictured in many of the technique examples. The above areas are all covered again.

Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (1983 and subsequent editions):
Vol. 1, pp. 228-235. Samples of self-defense technique (mostly releasing from grabs with striking counter attacks).
Vol. 5, pp. 268-375. All the areas originally covered in the 1965 text are presented here, again. This section is clearly listed in the index for vol. 5 along with a break down by subsection of techniques. Can't miss it, really.

I can't tell you the page numbers for the hosinsul material in the condensed encyclpedia because I don't own a copy but I've seen it in there many times when I've worked on hosinsul with my instructor. Would you like me to call him for the information?

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Oh, the 1972 textbook covers this material on pp. 465-490.

Pax,

Chris

 

[granfire]

I have not (yet) made my way through 5 pages of replies...

I think there is not a single activity that does not profit from a complimentary activity.

There is cardio work, flexibility, strength...not to mention the mental aspect.

There are various ways to impact the body, some are more forgiving than others, 'extending the life' of joints etc, not to mention avpiding the burnout factor.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Unreasonable, no. That said, reasonable minds can also disagree. The popularity of grappling systems only continues to grow. It would be a mistake to not expose one's students at an early point to some of the more common situations they might face.

Face in what?

Wrestlers and grapplers do not seem to be what is commonly faced. Gang members with guns are more likely.

As Earl already stated, it is much more productive to keep from going to the ground than it is to be good at rolling around once your there. Not to mention that the popular grappling systems are every bit as sports geared as WTF sparring and not exactly what one is going to face outside of a competitive venue.

Defenses against multiple foes, knives, and hand held weapons are probably more of a requirement. The problem here is that, particularly with regards to weapon defenses, many such defenses do not translate well outside of the studio.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

Face in what?

Wrestlers and grapplers do not seem to be what is commonly faced. Gang members with guns are more likely.

As Earl already stated, it is much more productive to keep from going to the ground than it is to be good at rolling around once your there. Not to mention that the popular grappling systems are every bit as sports geared as WTF sparring and not exactly what one is going to face outside of a competitive venue.

Pushing, pulling, grabbing, tackling are all common attacks that can force one to the ground. This without even mentioning the possibility of a MMA ripple effect into the general population. I don't think it's outlandish to believe that more and more people will be familiar with something like double leg wraps as MMA continues to grow in popularity, and I think it's only prudent to prepare for it. While good systems do have training vs. punches, kicks, clubs, knives, etc., they should also be prepared to 'modernise' as necessary. It's just adding one more needed facet IMO.

Defenses against multiple foes, knives, and hand held weapons are probably more of a requirement. The problem here is that, particularly with regards to weapon defenses, many such defenses do not translate well outside of the studio.
Daniel

MORE of a requirement? I don't know about that. They are all important, ground defense included. For those of us who teach kids in suburbia, I argue that learning how to get off the ground against a mounted foe may actually be more practical than drilling vs. knives or multiple assailants. Those of us who live in higher crime areas may find the opposite. In short, it's a mistake to conclude that ground defense is not necessary or not as important. I realize we all have limited time to teach and the curriculum will reflect that. It's fine if we decide ground defense is something to sacrifice for other goals...That said, let's be aware a REAL sacrifice is being made and possibly keep an open mind towards adjustment if need be.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Weiss
The ability not to end up in the prone position is key way before defending and getting up. One of the best drills I learned for theis was at a Rickson Gracie Workshop.

Probably true for a karate-ka or TKDist.


Well, apparently also true for BJJ stylists since I have had several say at their workshops that going to the ground in a self defense situation is a bad idea. Aside from having this in common, they had something else in common as well, .... their last names.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Pushing, pulling, grabbing, tackling are all common attacks that can force one to the ground. This without even mentioning the possibility of a MMA ripple effect into the general population. I don't think it's outlandish to believe that more and more people will be familiar with something like double leg wraps as MMA continues to grow in popularity, and I think it's only prudent to prepare for it. While good systems do have training vs. punches, kicks, clubs, knives, etc., they should also be prepared to 'modernise' as necessary. It's just adding one more needed facet IMO.

MORE of a requirement? I don't know about that. They are all important, ground defense included. For those of us who teach kids in suburbia, I argue that learning how to get off the ground against a mounted foe may actually be more practical than drilling vs. knives or multiple assailants. Those of us who live in higher crime areas may find the opposite. In short, it's a mistake to conclude that ground defense is not necessary or not as important. I realize we all have limited time to teach and the curriculum will reflect that. It's fine if we decide ground defense is something to sacrifice for other goals...That said, let's be aware a REAL sacrifice is being made and possibly keep an open mind towards adjustment if need be.

I did not say that they are not necessary or important; only not as important as what you do while still standing up. And yes, they are all important; there is a reason that I do hapkido after all.

But you can only learn but so much at a time, or at least only learn so much effectively. Because of that, schools prioritize their curriculum, placing the most all around useful (i.e. basics) first.

Taekwondo is a classical long fisty stand up striking style, and it is designed to be self defense via strikes primarily. I see no reason that it would be surprising to see seated/prone defenses taught later in the curriculum, even after first dan.

I have serious doubts about any MMA ripple into the general population, at least to the degree that you would be facing MMA trained assailants. Any ripple that would involve grappling is much more likely to come from high school wrestling, which is far more commonplace than MMA. Considering that Judo and wrestling have been popular in this country since the early twentieth century, I really do not see MMA changing the ratio of grappling encounters.

Keep in mind that the above is my opinion; no hard data.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

Quote:
Well, apparently also true for BJJ stylists since I have had several say at their workshops that going to the ground in a self defense situation is a bad idea. Aside from having this in common, they had something else in common as well, .... their last names.

Yes, I agree. There's no argument about that. Where I seem to differ from some of you is that I believe even relative beginners should receive some instruction as to how to defend against someone on top of them. Not in the sport sense either... Avoid damage and get to your feet asap.

 

[dancingalone]

But you can only learn but so much at a time, or at least only learn so much effectively. Because of that, schools prioritize their curriculum, placing the most all around useful (i.e. basics) first.

Taekwondo is a classical long fisty stand up striking style, and it is designed to be self defense via strikes primarily. I see no reason that it would be surprising to see seated/prone defenses taught later in the curriculum, even after first dan.

We could go round and round and round about what constitutes basics even in taekwondo. We know from the recent evolution of sport TKD schools that TKD continues to change, sometimes even very quickly.

I have serious doubts about any MMA ripple into the general population, at least to the degree that you would be facing MMA trained assailants. Any ripple that would involve grappling is much more likely to come from high school wrestling, which is far more commonplace than MMA. Considering that Judo and wrestling have been popular in this country since the early twentieth century, I really do not see MMA changing the ratio of grappling encounters.

Keep in mind that the above is my opinion; no hard data.

I'm not even thinking about actual MMA trained athletes. I refer to the invasion of the human consciousness... Hey, knocking guys to the ground seems to work for those UFC guys, maybe I'd do that next time I get into a fight. You've also have to remember that many who have played contact sports instinctively drift INTO their opponents in fights. I see it all the time in sparring with young guys - they know they are better off being in close to avoid being kicked and punched. It's not a big reach for me at least to try to recognize and handle that instinct in my lessons.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Really?

By the way, that's pretty incredible to me that you in the ITF consider a 3rd a novice black belt. Are high dan ranks so common then?

.

I think part of this was due to who TKD was designed for, back in the days - pre 1965 when really only one system used the name. It was taught to Military guys. (Which is not to say it was a Military combat defense system, since it was empty hand) . It was a 2 year 940 hour or one year 1250 hour first dan program. As such you really need to concentrate on fundamental physiical movement. More esoteric and esthetic movements coming in later. So, a first dan was a novice. 2nd and 3rd, a better novice

 

[dancingalone]

I own neither volume which explains the confusion. If you view the "synopsis" in the back of the Encyclopedia, it merely states vol 1 covers a "sample of self-defense techniques" and vol 5 covers sparring, which I guess doesn't tell the full detail.

In any case, I have arranged to borrow a copy of vol 5 and will certainly be interested in discussing the contents at a future date.

Thanks for the assistance and I will reply to your posts above asap.

Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (1983 and subsequent editions):
Vol. 1, pp. 228-235. Samples of self-defense technique (mostly releasing from grabs with striking counter attacks).
Vol. 5, pp. 268-375. All the areas originally covered in the 1965 text are presented here, again. This section is clearly listed in the index for vol. 5 along with a break down by subsection of techniques. Can't miss it, really.

I can't tell you the page numbers for the hosinsul material in the condensed encyclpedia because I don't own a copy but I've seen it in there many times when I've worked on hosinsul with my instructor. Would you like me to call him for the information?

Pax,

Chris