Taekwondo Doesn't work on someone skilled

[Steve]

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.

Read it quickly, but I thought they defined weapons as rifle butt strikes and the like. Is that what you mean, or are you thinking knives and such?

Oops. Never mind. Found the table where weapons were broken out. Rifle butt strikes was the most common, but baton was second, then muzzle strikes.

Most used grappling technique was the takedown .followed by an armbar. Someone should tell these guys that being on the ground is a bad idear. This study provides some evidence that is contrary to some peoples prevailing opinions. I'm looking forward to hearing whether or how it is rejected as not being relevant to hand to hand encounters in non combat assaults.

 

[kuniggety]

MCMAP is much more robust than the US Army combatives. Both rely on a high degree of individual motivation. They're both roughly based on the Gracie combatives program. This is in line with the study of most hand to hang situations being in grappling range as they're CQC (close quarter combat).

 

[drop bear]

MCMAP is much more robust than the US Army combatives. Both rely on a high degree of individual motivation. They're both roughly based on the Gracie combatives program. This is in line with the study of most hand to hang situations being in grappling range as they're CQC (close quarter combat).

Actually i like the combataves stuff fom the videos i have seen.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Yes. Mabye if i put this the other way. 13 weeks of mcmap is meaningful. Because the marines do it. That is all they need to be bad asses or something.

That is your claim?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Read it quickly, but I thought they defined weapons as rifle butt strikes and the like. Is that what you mean, or are you thinking knives and such?

Oops. Never mind. Found the table where weapons were broken out. Rifle butt strikes was the most common, but baton was second, then muzzle strikes.

Most used grappling technique was the takedown .followed by an armbar. Someone should tell these guys that being on the ground is a bad idear. This study provides some evidence that is contrary to some peoples prevailing opinions. I'm looking forward to hearing whether or how it is rejected as not being relevant to hand to hand encounters in non combat assaults.

It was a good read to me and more detailed than I thought it would have been. It reminds me of a history show that about the development and use of jets during Vietnam covering the topic of dog fighting. The U.S. had a lot of jet airplanes shot down in dog fights because the U.S. jet airplane were built without the ability to fire high caliber rounds which are useful for when the plan is too close to fire the missiles. The military originally though that high caliber rounds were obsolete in the age of jets. War proved them wrong about missiles being the only thing that they need on planes. Even now modern military f-16 jet still use caliber rounds in the form of a M-61A1 20mm multibarrel cannon with 500 rounds, and not depend totally on missiles. It's like most stuff in life. No matter how advance we get with things the basics are still useful.

 

[Steve]

It was a good read to me and more detailed than I thought it would have been. It reminds me of a history show that about the development and use of jets during Vietnam covering the topic of dog fighting. The U.S. had a lot of jet airplanes shot down in dog fights because the U.S. jet airplane were built without the ability to fire high caliber rounds which are useful for when the plan is too close to fire the missiles. The military originally though that high caliber rounds were obsolete in the age of jets. War proved them wrong about missiles being the only thing that they need on planes. Even now modern military f-16 jet still use caliber rounds in the form of a M-61A1 20mm multibarrel cannon with 500 rounds, and not depend totally on missiles. It's like most stuff in life. No matter how advance we get with things the basics are still useful.

I was an ammo troop on an f16 airbase in Germany. I know them well. The f4 we used in Vietnam was not very maneuverable, either. The A10 came out of that very need you're describing. Highly maneuverable and capable of firing 30mm rounds.

 

[kuniggety]

The cannons on 4th gen+ fighters (i.e. F-15/16) really are just a holdover. There is no "being too close" with an AIM-9. The cannons are typically used for strafing as you might as well put them to use shooting something on the ground since it's not going to be used for air-to-air combat. A fighter can use it on a mobility aircraft but they'll never shoot at another fighter with them.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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.

IMO the issue was the need for TMA EMPTY hand training and how it would work in a combat encounter. This study involved a large proportion of non combat encounters and a large portion of all encounters involved the use of a weapon, (Hand to Hand but not empty hand.) predominently rifles used in Butt Strokes and muzzle strokes. IMO it did nothing to address the issue of the efficacy of a TMA or as the topic heading addresses non weapon taining for combat.

Out of the total encounters only 30 were specified as close quarter combat and something like 40 overall involved the use of a weapon so few if any may have been weaponless close combat.

 

[JowGaWolf]

IMO the issue was the need for TMA EMPTY hand training and how it would work in a combat encounter. This study involved a large proportion of non combat encounters and a large portion of all encounters involved the use of a weapon, (Hand to Hand but not empty hand.) predominently rifles used in Butt Strokes and muzzle strokes. IMO it did nothing to address the issue of the efficacy of a TMA or as the topic heading addresses non weapon taining for combat.

Out of the total encounters only 30 were specified as close quarter combat and something like 40 overall involved the use of a weapon so few if any may have been weaponless close combat.

Here's the problem your statement is presenting for me. The majority of TMAs are not "empty-hand only" fighting systems. The fact that the military has come to the conclusion that it's still important to have hand-to-hand combat training even though there were only 30 specified as close quarter combat, gives a person an idea of just how valuable the military thinks it is. TMAs have both mental and physical benefits as reported in the Report.

IMO it did nothing to address the issue of the efficacy of a TMA or as the topic heading addresses non weapon taining for combat.

Tell me what you consider as effectiveness.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Here's the problem your statement is presenting for me. The majority of TMAs are not "empty-hand only" fighting systems. The fact that the military has come to the conclusion that it's still important to have hand-to-hand combat training even though there were only 30 specified as close quarter combat, gives a person an idea of just how valuable the military thinks it is. TMAs have both mental and physical benefits as reported in the Report.

Tell me what you consider as effectiveness.

Again, the topic is "TKD doesn't work on someone skilled" TKD is a weaponless system. My bad in that I was referring only to TMA weaponless systems.

No argument that the Military (as stated in the study) finds other benefits in weaponless training including, mental toughness, esprit de corps, aggression development and the like. However, I think it is way past the time to debunk claim by any art that it's empty hand system is "Military Approved" "Combat tested etc." Since the beginning of time armies were equipped with weapons. Anecdotal evidence such as Nam Tae Hi's encounter notwithstanding, no one had armies without weapons. (At least not for very long) . It's like the "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" maxim. Don't bring empty hands to a weapon fight.

There was a quote by a special forces guy which went something like "If you find yourself in an empty hand encounter things have gone horribly wrong".

 

[Tez3]

Don't bring empty hands to a weapon fight.

Machine gun tripods and sandbags (tied) are acceptable though.

( On a totally unrelated note, the medic lass mentioned at the end of the article is someone I know from where I used to work and she is absolutely brilliant, among others, she saved a female Afghan baby's life after she was shot in an incident with afghan troops who were being I suppose you could call 'enthusiastic' in laying down fire against insurgents. The medics go out on patrol ( including the female medics) on the frontline and often came under fire. There is a You Tube video of the incident because the unit she was with was being filmed for UK television )

Afghanistan: Gurkha honoured for lone fight against Taliban

There's this too, luckily not that common but always handy to know how to fight with a bayonet, the British army still teaches it's soldiers this.

BBC NEWS | UK | Military cross for bayonet charge

 

[JowGaWolf]

Again, the topic is "TKD doesn't work on someone skilled" TKD is a weaponless system. My bad in that I was referring only to TMA weaponless systems.

No argument that the Military (as stated in the study) finds other benefits in weaponless training including, mental toughness, esprit de corps, aggression development and the like. However, I think it is way past the time to debunk claim by any art that it's empty hand system is "Military Approved" "Combat tested etc." Since the beginning of time armies were equipped with weapons. Anecdotal evidence such as Nam Tae Hi's encounter notwithstanding, no one had armies without weapons. (At least not for very long) . It's like the "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" maxim. Don't bring empty hands to a weapon fight.

There was a quote by a special forces guy which went something like "If you find yourself in an empty hand encounter things have gone horribly wrong".

thanks that clears things up for me.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

MCMAP is much more robust than the US Army combatives. Both rely on a high degree of individual motivation. They're both roughly based on the Gracie combatives program. This is in line with the study of most hand to hang situations being in grappling range as they're CQC (close quarter combat).

I wouldn't say that MCMAP is based on the Gracie Combatives Program as that would not be true. While MCMAP does address grappling and has some Jiujitsu it also has wrestling, sambo, etc. in it as well. It is a very diverse approach with a heavy emphasis on tools/weapons.

Marine Corps Martial Arts Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kuniggety]

I wouldn't say that MCMAP is based on the Gracie Combatives Program as that would not be true. While MCMAP does address grappling and has some Jiujitsu it also has wrestling, sambo, etc. in it as well. It is a very diverse approach with a heavy emphasis on tools/weapons.

Marine Corps Martial Arts Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is diversified but it was one of the main sources they first went to when revamping the curriculum to what it is today. The techniques in the system are pretty limited and part of the MCMAP program is for folks to get belts in other martial arts in order to get the higher belts in MCMAP. JJ is very common for this.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Yeah it certainly has an influenced but saying it is based on it would be incorrect. MCMAP has a lot of influence from a lot of systems which shows up when you watch then train.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Army Combatives well that is a different story. It was heavily based on Brazilian Jiujitsu though through the years they are rounding it out to address soldiers needs.

 

[RTKDCMB]

What is this thread about again? I forget.

 

[Earl Weiss]

TKD as basically translated = Foot, Fist, Way. So, to say TKD doesn't work on someone skilled is equivalent to saying punches and kicks don't work on someone skilled. If nothing else, the UFC has shown us (Yet gain last night with the Rhonda Rousey Fight) that Striking works. . Of course grappling has been used to defeat strikers, and grapplers have won with strikes. So as an old saying goes, it's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

TKD as basically translated = Foot, Fist, Way. So, to say TKD doesn't work on someone skilled is equivalent to saying punches and kicks don't work on someone skilled. If nothing else, the UFC has shown us (Yet gain last night with the Rhonda Rousey Fight) that Striking works. . Of course grappling has been used to defeat strikers, and grapplers have won with strikes. So as an old saying goes, it's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog.

Well, you could certainly argue (as I think the OP is doing) that the particular approach to punches and kicks that TKD teaches is flawed and ineffective. Personally I think that argument is way, way overstated. Even if you prefer the approach of other striking arts, I think it's pretty clear that there are plenty of TKD practitioners out there who can effectively use their art in a fight against a skilled opponent.

 

[Gnarlie]

Have to interject here to query what we mean by skilled opponent. I won a fight yesterday using Taekwondo against a highly skilled opponent. Highly skilled in Taekwondo. I dislike the implication behind the thread title that a Taekwondo exponent cannot be a skilled person.

I would like to maybe retitle the thread as your Taekwondo does not work if you are an unskilled person.



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk