How can you become a good fighter if self-defense is your goal?

[skribs]

Not buying it man. I know there is what approximates punching in tkd, but number one there are no strikes to the head in tkd competition or sparring(the primary target of good punching technique), so most that train like that would have no clue what to do about someone that punches well, and number two there is so little emphasis on the rather antiquated hand techniques that are there that even if they were near par with something like boxing technique wise( they patently are not), the lack of focus on them would leave ones that train in such a minimal way unprepared to deal with incoming hand strikes to the head.

TKD contains good kicking technique, but let's keep the discussion honest here.

Let me see if I can give a more serious reply...

1. No hand strikes to the head in Olympic-style rules. Some strikes (kicks) are allowed to the head. Not that I'd normally nitpick that, but just thought I'd point it out with everything else you got wrong. However, ITF TKD has punches to the head, and WT schools may do punches to the head in their sparring sessions (even if it's not allowed in competition).
2. The head is a good target. So is the solarplexus, which is definitely an available target in WT sparring. There's this thing in boxing called a body blow. Guess what that doesn't hit? The head.
3. The "rather antiquated hand techniques" that you describe...I'm guessing you're talking about the chambered punches or the lunge punches used in the forms. Those are merely a training tool to teach the mechanics of a punch. If you think that's how a TKD guy would actually punch, you're woefully mistaken.
4. I'll give you that the the "lack of focus on them" would leave a TKD person less capable at defending a punch than a boxer. But...that would apply to every other martial art as well.

 

[Martial D]

Should we start now? Or should we wait for you to finish giving us your incredibly narrow-minded opinion before the honesty starts?

That you believe in woo has long been noted. Carry on.

 

[jobo]

I'm saying that tacking things onto something doesn't necessarily add value to that thing. A Honda Civic with a big fin has more, but is it a more complete race car? Fitness is a good thing whether or not you can fight. If you're learning to fight, sure it will help. If you're not learning to fight but think you are, fitness won't magically make the difference. you say this like it's a bad thing. Simple, reasonable, common sense points don't tend to shift much over time.

here is a honda civic type r with a big wing

it big wing definitely adds more, as it would have a hard job staying on the road with out it at the sort off silly speeds these things will do, so yes a more complete ''race car''

 

[Deleted member 39746]

All honestly, you can probbly find as many people who have success with TKD (what ever org there are many) and find a equal amount who have found it to be useless. Worth noting its usually coloured belts that find it useless and red belts+ that dont. That brings its usual training model into question and can be used as a point for it.

and that is largely anecdotal but, the people who scream its sucess usually sit on a ivory tower of actually knowing all of it and the people who dont find it sucessful usually sit in the colour belts under the ivory tower. Exceptions exist but that seems like a fair rule for my experience in the matter.

You cant really compare the effectiveness of a system by the people who sit at the top of it, at least not in all regards. anyway, this seems off topic to the actual point of the thread.

 

[jobo]

All honestly, you can probbly find as many people who have success with TKD (what ever org there are many) and find a equal amount who have found it to be useless. Worth noting its usually coloured belts that find it useless and red belts+ that dont. That brings its usual training model into question and can be used as a point for it.

and that is largely anecdotal but, the people who scream its sucess usually sit on a ivory tower of actually knowing all of it and the people who dont find it sucessful usually sit in the colour belts under the ivory tower. Exceptions exist but that seems like a fair rule for my experience in the matter.

You cant really compare the effectiveness of a system by the people who sit at the top of it, at least not in all regards. anyway, this seems off topic to the actual point of the thread.

thats probably the truest thing you've ever said, quite possibly the only true thing you've ever said.

you cant measure the effectiveness of a system by the success/ abilities of the very best in that system

but that then is true of combat systems you seem to have developed an admiration for recently

the head instructor can undoubtedly kick ***, if anyone else who studies the system will is some what debatable

 

[dvcochran]

Not buying it man. I know there is what approximates punching in tkd, but number one there are no strikes to the head in tkd competition or sparring(the primary target of good punching technique), so most that train like that would have no clue what to do about someone that punches well, and number two there is so little emphasis on the rather antiquated hand techniques that are there that even if they were near par with something like boxing technique wise( they patently are not), the lack of focus on them would leave ones that train in such a minimal way unprepared to deal with incoming hand strikes to the head.

TKD contains good kicking technique, but let's keep the discussion honest here.

It is your comments that have had zero to do with the topic of the thread thus sidetracking it. You saw a chance to bash something you dislike and jumped on it.
Do you even understand concepts like 'out fighting'? There have been countless matches ended with the hands in WT competition at all levels. I have a standing knockout recorded at the regionals in Indianapolis after a body punch to the ribs. Granted he was beat to hell otherwise but the rib shot is what ended the match. And that is with a hogu on. You may not know that there is barely any hand protection worn in WT, much different from a closed fingered padded glove. Like I said, it is a different ruleset and definitely Not tippy-tap.

As far as training; are you referring to a general TKD program or for specific upper level competition? Two very different things that only slightly overlap. In a comprehensive TKD (any style) program there will be training for striking all body areas. You seem to be blurring a subset of some schools with the overall training of the school itself.
Do you hang out with Dropbear and watch youtube videos? Let me guess, your favorite search is for 'martial art fails' right?

Antiquated? Apparently you do not even know what the word means. They are not on 'par' because the competition uses a different rule set. To imply they are ineffective just shows your ignorance of this style of competition.
You will not pull me into bashing others styles/systems of competition, which seems to be the norm for you and a few others on this forum these days. C'mon man.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

thats probably the truest thing you've ever said, quite possibly the only true thing you've ever said.

you cant measure the effectiveness of a system by the success/ abilities of the very best in that system

but that then is true of combat systems you seem to have developed an admiration for recently

the head instructor can undoubtedly kick ***, if anyone else who studies the system will is some what debatable

The only thing looking at the people who have done it for 30 years proves, is what people on average who have done it for 30 years can do.

And this is indeed inherent in all systems, but some inherently take less time to get good at. That can be for a variety of reasons, usually down to their training model.

the only other thing i have found for TMA in general, the ideology of most is, you should start ASAP, like the saying "kung fu is for life", that generally carries with it, as soon as you can actually practise it, you are doing it. So that by extension means, most people would get a black belt say at 18-20, so they have the foudnation as soon as they hit adulthood and spend their 20's-40's perfecting it and being able to actually use it for defence, as opposed to now where plenty of people start in theit 20's and the like, or older than tradtionally expected. And also cant persue it as often as tradtionally might be expected. (or schools might not provide it enough to persue it like that even if you wanted to, plenty dont have it as a full time persuit)


Thats the issue with tradtion, it sometimes becomes obsolete and should change, or cannot be relaibly practiced in the present times.

 

[jobo]

The only thing looking at the people who have done it for 30 years proves, is what people on average who have done it for 30 years can do.

And this is indeed inherent in all systems, but some inherently take less time to get good at. That can be for a variety of reasons, usually down to their training model.

the only other thing i have found for TMA in general, the ideology of most is, you should start ASAP, like the saying "kung fu is for life", that generally carries with it, as soon as you can actually practise it, you are doing it. So that by extension means, most people would get a black belt say at 18-20, so they have the foudnation as soon as they hit adulthood and spend their 20's-40's perfecting it and being able to actually use it for defence, as opposed to now where plenty of people start in theit 20's and the like, or older than tradtionally expected. And also cant persue it as often as tradtionally might be expected. (or schools might not provide it enough to persue it like that even if you wanted to, plenty dont have it as a full time persuit)


Thats the issue with tradtion, it sometimes becomes obsolete and should change, or cannot be relaibly practiced in the present times.

the problem with some traditional arts (or manifestation of) isnt that they haven't changed, its that they have, greatly, just not always for for the better

there're two fundamental requirements for getting really really good at something, leaving out natural talent, one) be obsessive 2) start young and be obsessive for a long time

 

[dvcochran]

QUOTE="Rat, post: 1999814, member: 39746"]All honestly, you can probbly find as many people who have success with TKD (what ever org there are many) and find a equal amount who have found it to be useless. Worth noting its usually coloured belts that find it useless and red belts+ that dont. That brings its usual training model into question and can be used as a point for it.

and that is largely anecdotal but, the people who scream its sucess usually sit on a ivory tower of actually knowing all of it and the people who dont find it sucessful usually sit in the colour belts under the ivory tower. Exceptions exist but that seems like a fair rule for my experience in the matter.

You cant really compare the effectiveness of a system by the people who sit at the top of it, at least not in all regards. anyway, this seems off topic to the actual point of the thread.[/QUOTE]
What???
What style that progresses in typical fashion has Every color belt polished in Everything to the highest level? That is irrational on an epic level. If you are trying to say people get better when they get higher in rank, just say that.
Your 'success vs. useless' reference is not style specific although it is a poor inference. People starting and not finishing is common in every style.
I would argue this IS on topic. Becoming a good fighter and good at self defense are not mutually exclusive. It is apparent this is becoming lost on some folks. In a good comprehensive school/program both are taught concurrently. But it takes time and commitment.
I don't remember anyone saying you could do it in a short course of special program.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

What???
What style that progresses in typical fashion has Every color belt polished in Everything to the highest level? That is irrational on an epic level. If you are trying to say people get better when they get higher in rank, just say that.
Your 'success vs. useless' reference is not style specific although it is a poor inference. People starting and not finishing is common in every style.
I would argue this IS on topic. Becoming a good fighter and good at self defense are not mutually exclusive. It is apparent this is becoming lost on some folks. In a good comprehensive school/program both are taught concurrently. But it takes time and commitment.
I don't remember anyone saying you could do it in a short course of special program.

I think the point was missed. I cannot reword it for it to have the same point, but just take this disclaimer: It is seperate from all previous points in this thread. As it seems like you are conflating two seperate points together.

There is a further eleboration in the reply to jobo under it though. If that doesnt work, just let me know and i will try and reword it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hopefully that will change. Cameras are great tools. just get a tripod and put the camera in the corner and let it run. That way corrections can be made on things that couldn't be seen at the time. The camera catches a great deal and is brutally honest.

I've tried that approach. I've only ever managed to get a few marketing stills out of them - never anything useful on video from the corner of the room.

 

[Headhunter]

The only thing looking at the people who have done it for 30 years proves, is what people on average who have done it for 30 years can do.

And this is indeed inherent in all systems, but some inherently take less time to get good at. That can be for a variety of reasons, usually down to their training model.

the only other thing i have found for TMA in general, the ideology of most is, you should start ASAP, like the saying "kung fu is for life", that generally carries with it, as soon as you can actually practise it, you are doing it. So that by extension means, most people would get a black belt say at 18-20, so they have the foudnation as soon as they hit adulthood and spend their 20's-40's perfecting it and being able to actually use it for defence, as opposed to now where plenty of people start in theit 20's and the like, or older than tradtionally expected. And also cant persue it as often as tradtionally might be expected. (or schools might not provide it enough to persue it like that even if you wanted to, plenty dont have it as a full time persuit)


Thats the issue with tradtion, it sometimes becomes obsolete and should change, or cannot be relaibly practiced in the present times.

Lol you talking about people who train 30 years....you haven't trained 30 days....why do you keep talking like you're some expert..

 

[dvcochran]

I say: Then you try to start some **** by putting words in my mouth (btw, starting **** is code for trolling):
I said:
Note that, to this point, I've not mentioned sparring at all. It's just not relevant. But you're still trying to start some ****, so you double down on what you want me to have said:
How you train is literally not the point. The point is to cut through the BS and try to get at some objective data. I said:And then I thought, you know... he'll twist this around, so I'll try to add a little more context, whcih is below:

You're not interested in the discussion. Just getting your troll on, so you say, "Are you calling me a liar?" Which is hilarious, because that's what the drunks in B-movies like Roadhouse say when they're trying to start a fight. Classic:

So, then I just called you on your blatant trolling. And then I addressed the point, just pretending that you're posting in good faith. Which, come on. We all know you're not.

Which leads to this:
I know from your posts that you are a very linear thinker who is uncomfortable with nuance and ambiguity. So, hopefully, the dots are very clear to you. Well, I think it's clear from the words actually printed above that this is quite literally not what you wrote. Frankly, I think you're just bored and figured you'd stir the pot a little.

You are one Huge contradiction it terms. Even when using your own comments. All you do is stir the pot. To the extent that you have to use your own comments to support your ever moving agenda. It's just silly. And that is being nice.
Like I have said before, semantics are at play. You claim to have never mentioned sparring (which is not true) yet you mention being 'in the ring' (which I doubt). Semantics. You claim you arguments are not black and white (again not true) yet you have clearly made up your mind that traditional formats are crap even though you have little to no exposure to the broad format they offer. Something other than semantics (BS).
All you do is jump on a thread and pop shots with no substance or support. What is your evidence to back up your claims? What is your background and experience? Why would anyone summarily take your ever changing word?

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I've tried that approach. I've only ever managed to get a few marketing stills out of them - never anything useful on video from the corner of the room.

Sounds like a issue in deployment and use than the concept itself. Granted i dont think it would work for groups anyway, as you need to set up at least 2-3 to cover the angles required and that would require individual recording. Unless you are analysising the bigger picture, say you place a camera up to record a self defence drill to see how a group reacts and more the overall picture rather than specfic techniques or technical perfection. ie did person X scan or stay fixed on the target.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sounds like a issue in deployment and use than the concept itself. Granted i dont think it would work for groups anyway, as you need to set up at least 2-3 to cover the angles required and that would require individual recording. Unless you are analysising the bigger picture, say you place a camera up to record a self defence drill to see how a group reacts and more the overall picture rather than specfic techniques or technical perfection. ie did person X scan or stay fixed on the target.

It's a problem with the format for moving classes that occupy a large space. If the camera covers the whole area, it's too far away to see much, and gets backs about 50% of the time. At my current dojo, it's quite literally impossible to capture the two major training areas I use (mats at one end, heavy bag at the other) in a single shot.

 

[Steve]

You are one Huge contradiction it terms. Even when using your own comments. All you do is stir the pot. To the extent that you have to use your own comments to support your ever moving agenda. It's just silly. And that is being nice.
Like I have said before, semantics are at play. You claim to have never mentioned sparring (which is not true) yet you mention being 'in the ring' (which I doubt). Semantics. You claim you arguments are not black and white (again not true) yet you have clearly made up your mind that traditional formats are crap even though you have little to no exposure to the broad format they offer. Something other than semantics (BS).
All you do is jump on a thread and pop shots with no substance or support. What is your evidence to back up your claims? What is your background and experience? Why would anyone summarily take your ever changing word?

Now it's contradictory? You guys really can't keep your stories straight.

I don't claim a whole lot. I provide evidence where needed. And my opinions on self defense have been consistent for longer than you've been a member of the forum. There was a guy, Chris Parker, who used to post. I think you'd get along very well with him. He was another guy who considered himself a self defense expert. Same discussions.

What I see is a lot of guys who can't discuss the points so they attack the poster. You make it personal, and because a couple of the poor actors are mods, it just escalates.

I have an idea. Instead if offering me advice and commentary on my rhetorical failings, why not respond to the points in making? Or not respond?

Regarding my qualifications, I think the ideas I discuss are commkn sense and speak for themselves. But I have been involved in training and instructional design for over 2 decades. I've designed and delivered training for new technicians, but most of my time has been spent working with new supervisors and new managers. I train them, and coach them. I've been at it long enough to see folks who I trained as new hires actually move into senior Management. I've designed and managed leadership development programs. I've developed a ton of face to face training, and have also developed online training, and live virtual training using programs like adobe connect. I manage a team of folks responsible for all training and development for 10 states. A big part of the last 15 years had also been training trainers and instructional designers. I don't know everything, but I do know how people learn to do things.

It's funny when you're in the stage of your cycle where I'm saying things that are obvious. That's something I tell my guys from time to time. Training isn't complicated. Tell them what they need to know. Show them what they need to do, and then coach them while they do it.

So, to sum up, I read more than I post around here. The only threads I really post in are off topic threads about fun stuff and threads on the topic of training philosophy like this one. You may disagree, but I think I'm well qualified for both.

 

[Flying Crane]

the only other thing i have found for TMA in general, the ideology of most is, you should start ASAP, like the saying "kung fu is for life", that generally carries with it, as soon as you can actually practise it, you are doing it. So that by extension means, most people would get a black belt say at 18-20, so they have the foudnation as soon as they hit adulthood and spend their 20's-40's perfecting it and being able to actually use it for defence, as opposed to now where plenty of people start in theit 20's and the like, or older than tradtionally expected. And also cant persue it as often as tradtionally might be expected. (or schools might not provide it enough to persue it like that even if you wanted to, plenty dont have it as a full time persuit)

Gotta be honest, I’m not certain what exactly you are getting at here.

I will say this: I train a traditional Chinese system and it is my honest opinion that the method I train can become functional and useful in as little as three months.

It takes much longer than that to learn the complete system. But nobody actually needs to learn the complete system. It is much larger than strictly necessary if functionality is all you want.

How quickly one becomes functional does depend on the individual, how much natural ability they have and how hard they work at it. There are certainly some people who will never become functional because they simply lack any aptitude for it and/or they never commit to the training at a level that can lead to functionality. But those folks exist in any endeavor and are not the yardstick against which the method ought to be judged.

When someone says “Kung fu is for life” what that means to me is that the methodology is compatible with people at all stages of life. Meaning: this isn’t something that one would typically grow “too old” to do. It does not depend on youthful athleticism that we will all eventually lose. Rather, it is something that can be practiced well into old age, however I will concede that one’s success in old age is more likely if one begins in youth and remains consistent in their training throughout their life and into old age. If one is a couch potato all their life and then decides to begin kung fu training at the age of 78, then it is unlikely they will have much success in the endeavor. They have fallen behind the eight ball at that point and there isn’t much room anymore for catch-up. But this ought to be obvious to anyone with some common sense and a little reflection.

But to return to my original comments: my system does not require thirty years of training before one becomes effective. Someone who is dedicated to the training and has reasonable natural ability and athleticism should have some useful functionality somewhere between three months and two years. And then they already have something they can practice for a lifetime, getting better and better at the functional and useful skills and having the health benefits of rigorous exercise, even with what they have learned in that brief period of time, even if they don’t learn more of the system.

 

[Steve]

here is a honda civic type r with a big wing

it big wing definitely adds more, as it would have a hard job staying on the road with out it at the sort off silly speeds these things will do, so yes a more complete ''race car''

Missed this. The point is that more isn’t always more complete. Not the inverse. For example, here is a car with a fin. I didn’t take the time to find a Honda Civic, though I guess I can if you really need me to.

 

[jobo]

Missed this. The point is that more isn’t always more complete. Not the inverse. For example, here is a car with a fin. I didn’t take the time to find a Honda Civic, though I guess I can if you really need me to.

after an unfortunate brush with a very deep puddle( more of a modest lake to be honest) and fence post, my mates brother lent me a car, whilst he knocked mine straight with a lump hammer

that was very much in that sort of condition, however it had a substantially tuned grass track engine in it. it was scarily fast, i mean really really scary, it broadsided everything, all the time., not helped at all by the stock tyres and the complete lack of a big wing on the back to keep it on the road.

so it seems you are judging that car by its looks and mocking him with out taking the time to enquire as to what it is and if its needed, it was certainly much needed on the car i borrowed

 

[Steve]

after an unfortunate brush with a very deep puddle( more of a modest lake to be honest) and fence post, my mates brother lent me a car, whilst he knocked mine straight with a lump hammer

that was very much in that sort of condition, however it had a substantially tuned grass track engine in it. it was scarily fast, i mean really really scary, it broadsided everything, all the time., not helped at all by the stock tyres and the complete lack of a big wing on the back to keep it on the road.

so it seems you are judging that car by its looks and mocking him with out taking the time to enquire as to what it is and if its needed, it was certainly much needed on the car i borrowed

You're in the UK. You might be unfamiliar with a trend in the states with"tuning" cars by dropping the suspension, adding a giant spoiler and a bunch of cool stickers. Some put a louder muffler in them. Man, if you don't get the analogy, the answer is just a Google search away.