The effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do in self defense...

[Marginal]

Just to demonstrate how a search function can do what I personally have not:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9141&highlight=size

Odd how weight and size seems to be important there.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3077&highlight=size

Hmm... Size again makes a difference, and the notion's supported by people who grapple.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3952&highlight=size

Size comes up again in favor of the heavier fighter...

Never thought to ask, but do you grapple MJS? Going through the grappling forum, I see you posting the exact same anectodal "I watched 'em in the UFC" statements and grapplers taking issue with you there as well. Are they all simply wrong?

 

[Shu2jack]

Calm down fellas!

On a side note. Since this is a TKD thread, and I'm not a TKD stylist, maybe someone could enlighten me as to the difference between the sport and the traditional style differences?

MJS, as a student of a traditional TKD school that belongs to a slowly changing into "sport TKD" organization, perhaps I can help show the difference between "Traditional" and "Sport".



Traditional- 30 pushups for being 2 minutes late for class. 30 pushups for not answering "Yes sir" or "No sir". 30 pushups for not punching or kicking harder. Etc. Etc. Etc. I was 11 years old at that time. Sometimes the class would get 100+ pushups apart from the regular warm up. This was the beginner's class. The black belt class was awesome.

Sport- Occassionally give pushups if it is a consistant problem. Reminders to "answer up" or encourage to punch/kick harder. Adult and black belt classes are a bit stricter, but not a whole lot.



Traditional- I live in Michigan. Weather and other factors will not permit me to kick a lot of the time. So we take out partner targets and practice punching/elbow/knee combinations. We do a little clinching and practice a few strikes from that position.

Sport- Remember to punch as a follow up for kicks. Or us a punch as a distraction.



Traditional- ALWAYS keep your hands up. If you don't your instructor will walk by you and "whack" you in the head to show you what happens if the other guy is faster.

Sport- Put your hands where ever you want.



Traditional- Avoid the fight if nesscary. If you can't, you are going to either destroy him or at the very least make it so he is no longer a threat.

Sport- Don't talk a lot about self-defense.


Traditional- Hit with the intention of breaking bones or incapacitating your opponent.

Sport- Hit as fast as you can, regardless of power.


I could go on, but these a few, but major differences between sport and traditional TKD

 

[MJS]

Calm down fellas!


MJS, as a student of a traditional TKD school that belongs to a slowly changing into "sport TKD" organization, perhaps I can help show the difference between "Traditional" and "Sport".



Traditional- 30 pushups for being 2 minutes late for class. 30 pushups for not answering "Yes sir" or "No sir". 30 pushups for not punching or kicking harder. Etc. Etc. Etc. I was 11 years old at that time. Sometimes the class would get 100+ pushups apart from the regular warm up. This was the beginner's class. The black belt class was awesome.

Sport- Occassionally give pushups if it is a consistant problem. Reminders to "answer up" or encourage to punch/kick harder. Adult and black belt classes are a bit stricter, but not a whole lot.



Traditional- I live in Michigan. Weather and other factors will not permit me to kick a lot of the time. So we take out partner targets and practice punching/elbow/knee combinations. We do a little clinching and practice a few strikes from that position.

Sport- Remember to punch as a follow up for kicks. Or us a punch as a distraction.



Traditional- ALWAYS keep your hands up. If you don't your instructor will walk by you and "whack" you in the head to show you what happens if the other guy is faster.

Sport- Put your hands where ever you want.



Traditional- Avoid the fight if nesscary. If you can't, you are going to either destroy him or at the very least make it so he is no longer a threat.

Sport- Don't talk a lot about self-defense.


Traditional- Hit with the intention of breaking bones or incapacitating your opponent.

Sport- Hit as fast as you can, regardless of power.


I could go on, but these a few, but major differences between sport and traditional TKD

Thank you.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Never thought to ask, but do you grapple MJS?

Yes I do. As for the weight and size pros and cons....both of my grappling instructors are smaller and lighter than me, yet no matter how hard I try to keep them down, they still manage to slap on a submission. One of them got his training under Royce and Rorion Gracie and the other from Roy Harris.

Mike

 

[MJS]

The point is, he won because he was huge. Even without the eye injury, the guy was being tossed around like a rag doll. For that matter, what were the announcers saying in the Coleman vs Frye championship match? That Coleman had an atvantage because he was taller and could establish a stronger base.

So let me ask your opinion on this. If size is what makes the difference and its not the tech. as you're saying, then basically, anyone thats taller than you, is going to win? I'm 5'10, so anyone 5'11 and up will destroy me in a fight??

Yessss.... But, you could've accomplished that much simply by reading a book, hitting google, or asking that outright rather than saying "TKD's not going to work in a bar fight because they're too close to kick the other guy." beforehand.

Yup, right again. I could have but didnt. Funny though how looking back at the first few pages, I saw someone saying pretty much the same thing as I was.

Same here, (ya know... Since I don't train sport TKD) but it does actually happen in sport TKD. Self-defense efficacy aside, they can generate some impressive power with those kicks.

I'm sure they can.

I said that due to thenature of the rules, it's almost impossible to SCORE with a hand technique to the body. (You have to induce "trembling shock" to score which involves displacing your opponent a set amount of distance. Punches really can't accomplish this.)

ok

Doesn't matter to me since I train TKD, but don't train sport TKD. I'm making no claims that sport TKD is effective. I'm saying that TKD trained without those sporting rules in mind creates a much different fighter. Because as you say, "you fight as you train".

ok

Yes. Quite a few WTF schools will teach a more traditional TKD outside of the olympic sparring rules. ITF TKD traditionally trains with punches being allowed to the face etc, so they're usually not going to be fighting with their arms at their sides. (Still depends on the school) You see Olympic style sparring more because of the Olympics and the various other tournament circuts that lead to the olympics etc.

ok

Sure. Do standup ho sin sul stuff in my TKD class. (Since it's "worthless" JJJ style stuff dunno if that counts to the MMA mind.)

Sure it counts.

You're not really questioning things. You're arguing from preconceptions that arent' especailly well informed. You're attacking sport TKD which doesn't really bother me at all except for the guilty by association stigma it drags with it.

Again, I'm not a student of TKD, so as I said, I'm going on what I've seen.

I'm still waiting for you to answer why weight classes were required by the states etc if weight means nothing.

Not the best answer, but its something that I came across.

The Tournament

Most people realize that the early day UFC events were actually tournaments. UFC 1 featured an 8 man tournament which was followed by UFC 2 which featured a 16 man tournament. After UFC 2, the UFC realized that the 16 man tournament was a bit overwhelming, so they returned to the 8 man tournament for UFC 3. Not so confusing, huh?

By the time UFC 4 concluded, SEG (the owners of the UFC during the early days of the UFC) realized that the fans wanted to see the best, fight the best (which wasn't guaranteed within the tournament format due to injuries or loses). Therefore SEG came up with the idea of a Superfight. UFC 5 featured the first Superfight between Ken Shamrock and Royce Gracie. Still sounds pretty simple, right?

The UFC continued this pattern of having either an 8 man tournament or a Superfight at each UFC event up until UFC 12, with many events featuring a tournament and a Superfight.

Note: Some UFC events prior to UFC 12 did not have Superfights, including UFC 7, Ultimate Ultimate 95, UFC 10, UFC 11 and Ultimate Ultimate 96. Although UFC 9 did feature a Superfight, it did not include a tournament but rather pitted fighters against each other one on one.

By the time UFC 12 had come about, there had been 12 Tournament Champions and 3 Superfight Champions (although there had been five Superfights prior to UFC 12, two of those fights had ended in a draw).

The Confusion Begins

Realizing the need for weight classes, SEG decided to implement two separate weight classes for UFC 12. The first weight class would be the Light Heavyweight weight class which would consist of fighters weighing less than 200 pounds. The second weight class was to be the Heavyweight weight class which would consist of fighters over 200 pounds. To promote their new weight classes, UFC 12 featured two 4 man tournaments (one tournament for the Light Heavyweight division and another for the Heavyweight division).

UFC 13 had gone one step further by featuring dual 4 man tournaments similar to UFC 12, but SEG also included a Superfight in this event which left us with another Light Heavyweight Tournament Champion, another Heavyweight Tournament Champion and another Superfight Champion.

For UFC 14, SEG eliminated the former Light Heavyweight weight class (which was under 200 lbs.) and created two new weight classes which were the Middleweight weight class (170 - 199 lbs.) and the Lightweight weight class (Under 170 lbs.). In addition to the dual 4 man tournaments featured at UFC 14 (one for the Middleweight division and another for the Heavyweight division), UFC 14 featured the UFC's first actual Heavyweight Championship (not to be confused with the Heavyweight Tournament Championship which brought us a new Heavyweight Tournament Champion each time an event featured a Heavyweight Tournament). It's beginning to get a bit confusing now.

So UFC 14 brought us a new Middleweight Tournament Champion, another Heavyweight Tournament Champion and a true UFC Heavyweight Champion (there was no Superfight at UFC 14). UFC 15 included a 4 man Heavyweight Tournament, a Heavyweight Superfight (to remain consistent with the new weight classes) and a UFC Heavyweight Championship match.

Next came UFC Ultimate Japan 1 (which was obviously the UFC's first event in Japan). UFC Japan 1 featured a 4 man Heavyweight Tournament, a UFC Heavyweight Championship bout and a match which would determine the UFC's first UFC Middleweight Champion (again, not to be confused with the UFC Middleweight Tournament Champ). Okay, you got all that, right?

The Confusion Continues

UFC 16. Just when you think you've got a handle on what's going on, SEG throws a curve ball. UFC 16 featured the UFC's first 4 man Lightweight Tournament (under 170 lbs.), accompanied by a UFC Middleweight Championship Title defense, a Middleweight Superfight and a Heavyweight Superfight. UFC 17 continued with the confusion where UFC 16 left off. UFC 17 featured a 4 man Middleweight Tournament accompanied by three Heavyweight Superfights.

If your keeping track, up to this point the UFC has crowned:

12 Tournament Champions
4 Superfight Champions
2 Light Heavyweight Tournament Champions
5 Heavyweight Tournament Champions
2 Middleweight Tournament Champions
5 Heavyweight Superfight Champions
1 Lightweight Tournament Champion
1 Middleweight Superfight Champion
2 UFC Heavyweight Champions (Maurice Smith lost this title to Randy Couture)
1 UFC Middleweight Champion (Frank Shamrock held this title since it's inception)
SEG was beginning to realize that things were becoming a bit confusing (more like extremely confusing) so they decided that they needed to reduce the number of fighters being given the title of Champion. But first, the UFC needed an official UFC Lightweight Champion to go along with there already established UFC Heavyweight and UFC Middleweight Champions. UFC Ultimate Brazil would bring us the first UFC Lightweight Champion in the form of Pat Miletich (the event also featured a UFC Middleweight Title defense by Frank Shamrock and a Middleweight Superfight). UFC Ultimate Brazil marked the end of the Superfight. SEG discontinued labeling fights as Superfights after UFC Ultimate Brazil.

With the UFC establishing a legitimate Lightweight Champion, Middleweight Champion and a Heavyweight Champion, it seemed as if the tournament format had faded away in favor of a format which more closely resembled that of Boxing. SEG did have one final tournament at UFC 23 - Ultimate Japan 2. UFC 23 featured a 4 man tournament along with a UFC Heavyweight Championship title match to determine a Heavyweight Champion for the title which had been vacated after the previous title holder (Bas Rutten) had dropped down to the Middleweight division.

The UFC has changed in many ways since the early days of the UFC and has even changed ownership. It is highly unlikely that the UFC (which is now owned by Zuffa) will ever return to the tournament format. Over the years Zuffa has continuously sought to maintain consistency within the sport as well as educate the fans. The UFC has come a long way since it's introduction but Zuffa realizes that there is still a long way to go before the sport truly reaches it's full potential

Why does it matter if I grapple or not? It doesn't seem to matter if you do, or know anything at all about TKD while trying to "question" it.

Well considering that I'm talking about something that I dont know about, just a little curious if you're doing the same.

Fine. Get me a real answer on the weight classes, and then I'll worry about answering yours.

See above. So....do you grapple??

Mike

 

[MJS]

C'mon, Mike.

For 6 pages one person after another has been saying the same thing; each in his own way. What part of "sport vs combat" is not understood here? Want to pair a boxer with a wrestler with a karate-ka with a judo-ka? Still wondering whose gonna win? Thats easy. Whose rules are you playing by? Want to know what art will win on the street, in actual combat, against muggers, against street punks, against road rage, against antagonized old ladies....? How about on rainy days? How about on hot days? How about close to the Equator? What about on Mars?

Well, after the first few pages, unless I'm missing it, it was all stand up vs. grappling. I guess I was looking for the differences between sport vs trad. such as the training methods, differences in fighting, etc. I got some answers from a few people here.

Mike

 

[Mark Weiser]

Here is the straight shot from a guy with 28 years of combined Military and Civilian Law Enforcement along with Cross Training in several MA's over the years.

The only chance to survive a fight is using your head and not to panic. Panic is the number one killer due to the fight or flight response in our parasympathic nervous system.

I have always said you must cross train in the MA's due to different teaching of movements and you may have to draw upon those skills if you do not have them then your toast and Your Mom or Wife will be sitting at you graveside.

"He was a Blackbelt honest! He said he could handle himself"

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

Oh by the way a great Martial Artist trains in Modern Weapons. The Knife, Kanta, Fans, Sticks were Modern weapons in the day. I suggest learning how to use Firearms because I will bet money the other dude is packing.

 

[Marginal]

So let me ask your opinion on this. If size is what makes the difference and its not the tech. as you're saying, then basically, anyone thats taller than you, is going to win? I'm 5'10, so anyone 5'11 and up will destroy me in a fight??

While that would make things way easier seeing as how I'm 5'11" and could then study anything from pie eating, to legos, to ballet and still beat you in a ring no matter what you did...

You'd do better arguing against what I've been writing here in this thread. I said that size matters. I never said technique didn't. You claim that technique makes size meangless, and that's simply never, ever true. The most I've ever said is that if two people who are equally skilled, but one's bigger than the other, then the bigger one has an advantage. I've cited examples from MMA matches, comments from grapplers etc all of which support this notion, and you're still not hearing me. Even with your Helio example, did I say he won because he secretly increased his bone density? No, I said he won with superior skill.

My point has always been that the smaller man is at a disadvantage against the bigger man. You can offset that physical disadvantage through training, but you have to become better than the bigger fighter because if all other things are equal, he's going to have that set of natural advantages still. Hackney won against Yarbrough because he had technique. All the Sumu master had going for him was bulk, and that wasn't enough. Put Hackney in against Goodridge or Severn on the other hand...

Even look at that Kimo vs Royce fight. Kimo was trained by Jo Son. Neither were all that great at grappling. (He'd only been training in grappling for a few months, so unless he was a prodigy of epic porportions, I'm betting it's safe to assume he wasn't one of the greatest grapplers to ever set foot in the octagon. Hackney beat Jo and Hackney wasn't a grappling specialist by any stretch either.) Kimo still managed to hold off Royce long enough to make the Brazilian wilt after the match. How'd he manage that with inferior technique? There's a question for you to consider. Yes, Royce still won, but seriously look at the skill gap between Kimo and Royce and then ask yourself how Kimo managed to last as long as he did.

Yup, right again. I could have but didn't. Funny though how looking back at the first few pages, I saw someone saying pretty much the same thing as I was.

I'm not saying the stereotype isn't widespread, just that it's annoying, and it's annoying because it's not really true.

Sure it counts.

Hrm. You say "it counts", after I tell you what grappling I've trained, and you keep asking me if I've grappled? Makes.... Uh, sense I guess.

Not the best answer, but its something that I came across.

I appreciate the effort, but that said nothing about why the weight classes were introduced. It just said that they were. We both agree that weight classes exist. It's the why that's our sticking point.

See above. So....do you grapple??

See above.

 

[MJS]

While that would make things way easier seeing as how I'm 5'11" and could then study anything from pie eating, to legos, to ballet and still beat you in a ring no matter what you did...

:asian: Then again, I wouldnt totally under estimate the smaller man. One of my training partners is 5'3 and hes pretty tough for his size.

You'd do better arguing against what I've been writing here in this thread. I said that size matters. I never said technique didn't. You claim that technique makes size meangless, and that's simply never, ever true. The most I've ever said is that if two people who are equally skilled, but one's bigger than the other, then the bigger one has an advantage. I've cited examples from MMA matches, comments from grapplers etc all of which support this notion, and you're still not hearing me. Even with your Helio example, did I say he won because he secretly increased his bone density? No, I said he won with superior skill.

So, this is what it comes down to.

1- If both fighters are equally skilled, the bigger one has the advantage.

2- If one is smaller and one is large, such as with the Helio example, Helio won over his larger opp. with better tech. so the larger mans size didnt play a part because Helio had better tech, more stamina, etc. Were all of his opps. lesser skilled than he was?? Were they always bigger or were they the same size??

3- How are you going to know your opps. skill level until you actually start the fight?

My point has always been that the smaller man is at a disadvantage against the bigger man. You can offset that physical disadvantage through training, but you have to become better than the bigger fighter because if all other things are equal, he's going to have that set of natural advantages still. Hackney won against Yarbrough because he had technique. All the Sumu master had going for him was bulk, and that wasn't enough. Put Hackney in against Goodridge or Severn on the other hand...

Agreed!

Even look at that Kimo vs Royce fight. Kimo was trained by Jo Son. Neither were all that great at grappling. (He'd only been training in grappling for a few months, so unless he was a prodigy of epic porportions, I'm betting it's safe to assume he wasn't one of the greatest grapplers to ever set foot in the octagon. Hackney beat Jo and Hackney wasn't a grappling specialist by any stretch either.) Kimo still managed to hold off Royce long enough to make the Brazilian wilt after the match. How'd he manage that with inferior technique? There's a question for you to consider. Yes, Royce still won, but seriously look at the skill gap between Kimo and Royce and then ask yourself how Kimo managed to last as long as he did.

Just a guess here. Royce could have under estimated Kimo. We've seen the same thing with Belfort. How many of his fights lasted only a few seconds, but when he fought Randy, what happened? He lost due to the fact that he most likely thought that the fight was going to be over in a short amount of time. As for how Kimo lasted so long...more endurance than Royce thought. Considering that he didnt have great grappling skills back then, it'd be interesting to see them in a rematch. IMO, his skills went up!

Question for you. Shamrock and Kimo fought twice. Ken- 6'1,235 and Kimo 6'3, 235 according to Sherdog. Equal in weight and one slightly taller. Kimo lost both times, once to a leg lock and the other due to KO. Your thoughts on those 2 fights?

I'm not saying the stereotype isn't widespread, just that it's annoying, and it's annoying because it's not really true.

ok.

Hrm. You say "it counts", after I tell you what grappling I've trained, and you keep asking me if I've grappled? Makes.... Uh, sense I guess.

You mentioned the standing grappling/clinch work. I was inquiring about actually rolling on the ground.

I appreciate the effort, but that said nothing about why the weight classes were introduced. It just said that they were. We both agree that weight classes exist. It's the why that's our sticking point.

Well, your guess is as good as mine, because honestly, I really dont know other than what I showed you. The article and the fact that the rules were changed to make everyone happier is the best that I can come up with.

Mike

 

[Marginal]

So, this is what it comes down to.

1- If both fighters are equally skilled, the bigger one has the advantage.

2- If one is smaller and one is large, such as with the Helio example, Helio won over his larger opp. with better tech. so the larger mans size didnt play a part because Helio had better tech, more stamina, etc. Were all of his opps. lesser skilled than he was?? Were they always bigger or were they the same size??

3- How are you going to know your opps. skill level until you actually start the fight?

1- Yep.

2- Helio was still at a physical disadvantage. He offset that problem through tech and training.

3- You don't. (That's why you train.)

Just a guess here. Royce could have under estimated Kimo. We've seen the same thing with Belfort. How many of his fights lasted only a few seconds, but when he fought Randy, what happened? He lost due to the fact that he most likely thought that the fight was going to be over in a short amount of time.

Randy knew Belfort was a fast and strong puncher, but he also knew that Vitor only threw straight punches. Randy took Vitor off his form by circling and preventing vitor from effectively deploying his favored weapon. He beat Vitor through strategy as much as anything else.

As for how Kimo lasted so long...more endurance than Royce thought. Considering that he didnt have great grappling skills back then, it'd be interesting to see them in a rematch. IMO, his skills went up!

I'd hope so. Either way, I'd suggest that Kimo being much stronger than Royce played a big part in that match.

Question for you. Shamrock and Kimo fought twice. Ken- 6'1,235 and Kimo 6'3, 235 according to Sherdog. Equal in weight and one slightly taller. Kimo lost both times, once to a leg lock and the other due to KO. Your thoughts on those 2 fights?

Shamrock's the better in technique IMO. He's been training and fighting way longer than Kimo.

You mentioned the standing grappling/clinch work. I was inquiring about actually rolling on the ground.

Yeah, but that was my answer. Limited grappling experience. Haven't ever rolled. I still read up on the subject etc just so I can understand what's going on in those MMA fights. (More interesting when you know why they're "just lying there" all the time.)

Well, your guess is as good as mine, because honestly, I really dont know other than what I showed you. The article and the fact that the rules were changed to make everyone happier is the best that I can come up with.

I'm guessing they did it for safety reasons along with trying to make the fights more exciting as in the same weight classes, tech shines through more.

 

[MJS]

Marginal- Thanks for the chat! :asian: Its definately been interesting. As I've said before, its hard to get our thoughts across a computer, so of course, misunderstandings and arguments are going to happen. I think that this thread got a little off topic, but hey, thats part of the fun of it.

Mike

 

[Kevin Walker]

Yeah, but that ignores why weight classes were a requirement. Are you actually trying to claim that John Hess won fights with good technique rather than size?



My point is, that they're crosstraining NOW, like I said in my last post. That BJJ needed more than just what Royce demonstrated in the first three UFC's once strikers adapted to anti grappling? If they're crosstraining, they're not doing BJJ. They're doing BJJ and MT. Thus, saying BJJ people can punch and kick too is hooey. Pure BJJ people can't outside of that low kick. (The vids have spoken afterall.)



Wow. That's great, and I'm sure you saw the utter invariable truth on there too. (Cause it's not completely mindlessly biased towards MMA or anything.)



Yep. I've seen that stupid clip. I've also looked up that tournament's history. TKD fighters have won it several times over the years. Must be because all TKD fighters suck because Bullshido has that one clip. (That's the conclusion the BS'ers reached at least.)



Kinda a side effect of training for sport TKD which actively discourages the use of the hands. (It's almost impossible to score with a hand technique to the body, and head strikes w/the hands are restricted.) Since blocking a kick can break your arm, evasion is encouraged vs keeping your hands up etc. However, not all TKD is trained this way which is what makes your post and the Bullshido vid utterly worthless.

Train with hand strikes to the head etc, and you create a very different TKD fighter. I pointed this out last post, but you still pulled out the Bullshido vid.



Uh huh. You don't beleive that of all TKD, but you think it's a good representation to draw all your conclusions from. Makes sense.



Moot since grappling is not independent of weight. It's sheer hype.



That has nothing to do with weight not being an advantage. Boxing coaches tell their students the same thing.



If one has better tech, then they're not equally skilled. The bigger one still gets to make the smaller one work harder assuming skill's equal. He can apply more weight while on top while doing nothing other than riding the smaller man etc.



Then he developed superior skill. This offset the disadvantage of being smaller. Get a big man of equal skill, and Helio would've had his work cut out for him.



I'm annoyed because you're trying to comment on an art you evidently know absolutely nothing about. (For that matter, what would the reaction be on BS if I went to the forums and said "TKD's not worthless". I'd be flamed to high holy hell.) I'm being polite compared to the compilers of your source material.

I might as well just start linking to www.matbattle.com for "proof" of grappling's unsuitability or say that JKD is dedicated to head kicks and yowling like a cat because that's what Bruce Lee did in his movies. You're basically reciting the MMA partyline (which for the record, is "TKD is worthless. In fact, it teaches you habits so terrible that you're actually worse off than an untrained person in a real fight.") without any information on TKD, and no real facts to support the assertion that grappling means that size is meaningless. I've had the exact same conversation on Sherdog, RMA, and a few other places already. If you want to actually discuss either, that's fine, but I want more than what Jim Brown uttered in UFC 2 as proof that there's some knowledge being applied here.

Kevin Walker: Gen Choi spent years refining and adapting TKD to its new niche outside of the millitary. To claim that it works solely in conditions involving combat boots and full combat gear is absurd. If you ever went into traditional TKD school, I think you'd have a much harder time calling it a specialzed niche art. TKD as taught isn't that far removed from Shotokan, and other similar styles of karate. Greater focus on kicking, but that is not TKD's exclusive focus and never has been.

Kevin Walker response: Hi, sorry for the delayed answer to your last assertion. I never wrote that Tae Kwon Do "works soley in conditions involving combat boots and full combat gear"! I wrote and still maintain, as General Choi told me personallly (through an interpreter), that Tae Kwon Do was specifically designed to be applied by the combat soldier, i.e. wearing combat boots and full combat gear. And this is still the case today!!!
Yes, I am fully aware that Tae Kwon Do has been modified with wristlocks and take downs - to make it more versatile!!! Otherwise the TKD practitioner would be severely limited in a civilian self-defense situation.
Now, try this thought experiment: Place a fully trained Brazilian Jiu Jitsu expert in full combat gear carrying a rifle in a hand-to-hand combat situation with the enemy, being over run for example. I think the BJJ guy would be seriously out of his element, not the TKD practioner! QED!

 

[Kevin Walker]

Yeah, but that ignores why weight classes were a requirement. Are you actually trying to claim that John Hess won fights with good technique rather than size?



My point is, that they're crosstraining NOW, like I said in my last post. That BJJ needed more than just what Royce demonstrated in the first three UFC's once strikers adapted to anti grappling? If they're crosstraining, they're not doing BJJ. They're doing BJJ and MT. Thus, saying BJJ people can punch and kick too is hooey. Pure BJJ people can't outside of that low kick. (The vids have spoken afterall.)



Wow. That's great, and I'm sure you saw the utter invariable truth on there too. (Cause it's not completely mindlessly biased towards MMA or anything.)



Yep. I've seen that stupid clip. I've also looked up that tournament's history. TKD fighters have won it several times over the years. Must be because all TKD fighters suck because Bullshido has that one clip. (That's the conclusion the BS'ers reached at least.)



Kinda a side effect of training for sport TKD which actively discourages the use of the hands. (It's almost impossible to score with a hand technique to the body, and head strikes w/the hands are restricted.) Since blocking a kick can break your arm, evasion is encouraged vs keeping your hands up etc. However, not all TKD is trained this way which is what makes your post and the Bullshido vid utterly worthless.

Train with hand strikes to the head etc, and you create a very different TKD fighter. I pointed this out last post, but you still pulled out the Bullshido vid.



Uh huh. You don't beleive that of all TKD, but you think it's a good representation to draw all your conclusions from. Makes sense.



Moot since grappling is not independent of weight. It's sheer hype.



That has nothing to do with weight not being an advantage. Boxing coaches tell their students the same thing.



If one has better tech, then they're not equally skilled. The bigger one still gets to make the smaller one work harder assuming skill's equal. He can apply more weight while on top while doing nothing other than riding the smaller man etc.



Then he developed superior skill. This offset the disadvantage of being smaller. Get a big man of equal skill, and Helio would've had his work cut out for him.



I'm annoyed because you're trying to comment on an art you evidently know absolutely nothing about. (For that matter, what would the reaction be on BS if I went to the forums and said "TKD's not worthless". I'd be flamed to high holy hell.) I'm being polite compared to the compilers of your source material.

I might as well just start linking to www.matbattle.com for "proof" of grappling's unsuitability or say that JKD is dedicated to head kicks and yowling like a cat because that's what Bruce Lee did in his movies. You're basically reciting the MMA partyline (which for the record, is "TKD is worthless. In fact, it teaches you habits so terrible that you're actually worse off than an untrained person in a real fight.") without any information on TKD, and no real facts to support the assertion that grappling means that size is meaningless. I've had the exact same conversation on Sherdog, RMA, and a few other places already. If you want to actually discuss either, that's fine, but I want more than what Jim Brown uttered in UFC 2 as proof that there's some knowledge being applied here.

Kevin Walker: Gen Choi spent years refining and adapting TKD to its new niche outside of the millitary. To claim that it works solely in conditions involving combat boots and full combat gear is absurd. If you ever went into traditional TKD school, I think you'd have a much harder time calling it a specialzed niche art. TKD as taught isn't that far removed from Shotokan, and other similar styles of karate. Greater focus on kicking, but that is not TKD's exclusive focus and never has been.

Another Kevin Walker response to your last assertion: Yes, I've studied traditional Tae Kwon Do here in Boston by one of General Choi's private students (his Dojang still exists near Fenway Park). I've had my ears boxed for daring to compare Tae Kwon Do to any form of Karate. In fact, we are taught specifically that Tae Kwon Do is imminently superior to Karate. Karate is primitive, and the TKD practitioner is encouraged to disparage and ignore it altogether. This is FACT!! (Personally I kinda like Shotokan).

But I openly question the quality of your previous TKD instruction based on your obviously loose understanding of TKD.

 

[Kevin Walker]

Here is the straight shot from a guy with 28 years of combined Military and Civilian Law Enforcement along with Cross Training in several MA's over the years.

The only chance to survive a fight is using your head and not to panic. Panic is the number one killer due to the fight or flight response in our parasympathic nervous system.

I have always said you must cross train in the MA's due to different teaching of movements and you may have to draw upon those skills if you do not have them then your toast and Your Mom or Wife will be sitting at you graveside.

"He was a Blackbelt honest! He said he could handle himself"

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

Oh by the way a great Martial Artist trains in Modern Weapons. The Knife, Kanta, Fans, Sticks were Modern weapons in the day. I suggest learning how to use Firearms because I will bet money the other dude is packing.

Hi Mark,

Couldn't agree with you more about packing a modern weapon. Today (21st century) in Japan, they have included an automatic pistol in their contemporary repetoire of Jui-Jitsu weaponry. The Katana and Yari were the ultimate and modern weapons of the 8th thru 18th centuries, but you cannot beat an automatic 14 shot pistol for hand-to-hand combat, particularly if you know how to use it beyond the pistol range paper punching ability.

Wise Old Indian saying: "Its better to have a gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it."

 

[Kevin Walker]

I don't really agree about self-defence being an issue on the battlefield. Hand to hand combat is very rare on the battlefield, especially considering the assortment of modern weaponry available to the military these days. I've heard of the SAS and such using their knives on men when the bullets ran out in Afghanistan caves.

Also, people have mentioned that cross training may be the best way of getting a good self-defence system established for yourself but I can't help but remember my master: "It's better to be a master of one trade than a jack of all"

d

Hi,

The Korean ROKs used Tae Kwon Do extensively during their tour of duty in Viet Nam. Ask any American Viet Nam veteran deployed with them. The Viet Cong didn't like it very much, and I don't think the insurgents in Iraq will care for it either with South Korea deploying 3,000 white horse ROK infantry to Iraq.

 

[Marginal]

Kevin Walker response: Hi, sorry for the delayed answer to your last assertion. I never wrote that Tae Kwon Do "works soley in conditions involving combat boots and full combat gear"! I wrote and still maintain, as General Choi told me personallly (through an interpreter), that Tae Kwon Do was specifically designed to be applied by the combat soldier, i.e. wearing combat boots and full combat gear. And this is still the case today!!!

Nope. Sorry, but you've devised a theory from an offhand comment that doesn't hold enough water to moisten a sponge.

Yes, I am fully aware that Tae Kwon Do has been modified with wristlocks and take downs - to make it more versatile!!!

They were actually there from its inception. (Gen Choi's at least) It's right there in the pattern applications. Releases, grabs etc. With the older shotokan forms, they're still present. Either way, if you allow (oh so graciously) that TKD has in fact been adapted since, how can you claim that it still only fits ito the niche you claim it does?

Place a fully trained Brazilian Jiu Jitsu expert in full combat gear carrying a rifle in a hand-to-hand combat situation with the enemy, being over run for example. I think the BJJ guy would be seriously out of his element, not the TKD practioner! QED!

Ever see All Quiet on the Western Front? Not a lot of standup fighting potential there. There's not a great deal of HTH training in most modern millitary units these days regardless, and there's a reason for this.

You can beleive that understanding TKD's roots is evidence of shoddy instruction if you like, Kevin Walker. I can't see how ignorance leads to superior knowledge though.

 

[glad2bhere]

".....The Korean ROKs used Tae Kwon Do extensively during their tour of duty in Viet Nam. Ask any American Viet Nam veteran deployed with them. The Viet Cong didn't like it very much, and I don't think the insurgents in Iraq will care for it either with South Korea deploying 3,000 white horse ROK infantry to Iraq....."

I think I know what you are working to convey but it may be misleading to a lot of folks the way your post is worded.

The ROK forces in Vietnam did indeed bear a fearsome reputation though it stemmed more from a no-nonsense policy in dealing with the enemy than anything else. It is also true that the ROK forces also taught and practiced various arts among their own units and to American troops as well. Where we risk stepping over a line is to say that there was a causal relationship between the two points. Like the Israeli, Nepalese, and Turkish forces, the Korean military enjoys a reputation for mental toughness and endurance and perhaps the TKD practice contributes to this. All the same, on a modern battlefield the soldiers' opportunity to demonstrate individual combat skills mano y mano must defer both to the goals of the unit and the use of his primary weapon which is his rifle. My sense is that the Viet Cong of the RVN conflict, as well as the insurgents in Iraq in the latest conflict will come to admit to respecting the toughness of the ROK troop whether or not they ever witnessed TKD firsthand. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[bluemtn]

First of all, I'm glad that this isn't a "my art is better than your art" thread - the last forum I was at, that's all you read when it came to TKD. Personally, I got sick of it. So far, I haven't seen that here- then again, I'm fairly new to Martial Talk.

A person shouldn't knock an art just because (for example) its main focus is sport- the next person might just be interested in getting in shape, and feel better about theirself. Besides, does that mean they won't be able to defend his/herself at any given time? I've only been in 2 different styles of TKD- one WTF and the other traditional- and both taught/ teaches self defense, not just
sport. Does anyone else?

 

[Kevin Walker]

Nope. Sorry, but you've devised a theory from an offhand comment that doesn't hold enough water to moisten a sponge.



They were actually there from its inception. (Gen Choi's at least) It's right there in the pattern applications. Releases, grabs etc. With the older shotokan forms, they're still present. Either way, if you allow (oh so graciously) that TKD has in fact been adapted since, how can you claim that it still only fits ito the niche you claim it does?



Ever see All Quiet on the Western Front? Not a lot of standup fighting potential there. There's not a great deal of HTH training in most modern millitary units these days regardless, and there's a reason for this.

You can beleive that understanding TKD's roots is evidence of shoddy instruction if you like, Kevin Walker. I can't see how ignorance leads to superior knowledge though.

Hi,

Yes, I did see the movie, All Quiet On The Western Front. Are you aware that Tae Kwon Do was not invented during World War I? And yes, a lot of stand up fighting did occur during WWI, which is why the formidible trench knife was developed for some real nasty HTH, also the long bayonet was extensively used for HTH.

Tae Kwon Do was developed primarily for the military combat soldier, and for a self-dense street situation second.

And just to verify my opinion, please call General Choi's former student: Jae Kim at his Dojang "Jae Kim's Tae Kwon Do" in Boston. They're real nice guys there and can enlighten you. Thanks!

 

[Kevin Walker]

".....The Korean ROKs used Tae Kwon Do extensively during their tour of duty in Viet Nam. Ask any American Viet Nam veteran deployed with them. The Viet Cong didn't like it very much, and I don't think the insurgents in Iraq will care for it either with South Korea deploying 3,000 white horse ROK infantry to Iraq....."

I think I know what you are working to convey but it may be misleading to a lot of folks the way your post is worded.

The ROK forces in Vietnam did indeed bear a fearsome reputation though it stemmed more from a no-nonsense policy in dealing with the enemy than anything else. It is also true that the ROK forces also taught and practiced various arts among their own units and to American troops as well. Where we risk stepping over a line is to say that there was a causal relationship between the two points. Like the Israeli, Nepalese, and Turkish forces, the Korean military enjoys a reputation for mental toughness and endurance and perhaps the TKD practice contributes to this. All the same, on a modern battlefield the soldiers' opportunity to demonstrate individual combat skills mano y mano must defer both to the goals of the unit and the use of his primary weapon which is his rifle. My sense is that the Viet Cong of the RVN conflict, as well as the insurgents in Iraq in the latest conflict will come to admit to respecting the toughness of the ROK troop whether or not they ever witnessed TKD firsthand. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

The Korean ROK troops (both White Horse infantry and special forces Tigers) gave the Viet Cong and regular NVA troops during the Viet Nam conflict ample opportunity to witness TKD first hand. Just as the ROK's will give the insurgents ample opportunity in Iraq to witness TKD upclose, especially after they cut the head off a helpless civilian Korean national.