Taekwondo Doesn't work on someone skilled

[TrueJim]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RTKDCMB]

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

Try again, and this time with feeling.

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

sometimes it is to teach discipline fitness and aggression.

But this.

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

This is the soldiers opinion on the subject.

MCMAP training not good?

 

[TrueJim]

This is the soldiers opinion on the subject.

MCMAP training not good?

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

That minor nit having been said...

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

And so makes my original point.

 

[TrueJim]

And so makes my original point.

That doesn't even REMOTELY support your original point.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tez3]

Gurkha's do TKD. Enough said.

 

[Ruhaani]

Its all about the SAS!! [emoji2]

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

Its all about the SAS!! [emoji2]

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk

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

 

[drop bear]

That doesn't even REMOTELY support your original point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait for it......

Not sufficient.

Cos they have guns.

 

[Ruhaani]

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

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk

 

[TrueJim]

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

Wait for it......

Not sufficient.

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

 

[JowGaWolf]

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

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

 

[Drose427]

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

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

Well, its in MMA too.....

Which is this forums favorite place to check viability

 

[drop bear]

Well, its in MMA too.....

Which is this forums favorite place to check viability

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

 

[Gnarlie]

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

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

 

[Earl Weiss]

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

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

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

 

[JowGaWolf]

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

That is an interesting study. Thanks for sharing it.