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

[Kevin Walker]

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?

I for one do not knock Tae Kwon Do at all, it is very effective, possibly a superior martial art for what it was designed for - the fully equipped combat soldier carrying his rifle. TKD has been modified to make it more versitile in a street civilian self defense situation. That is my contention, as I was taught.

 

[Zepp]

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!

Perhaps General Choi developed his particular style of Tae Kwon Do primarily for the combat soldier, but the Chung Do Kwan, the Korean school he trained at before he left to found his own school, originally taught a style that was much more versatile.

By the way, it's not your opinion we really disagree with, it's General Choi's. Those of us who aren't in the ITF don't see him as the "Father of Tae Kwon Do."

 

[glad2bhere]

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

Since there is much that I could learn about the history of TKD it would help me quite a bit if someone could cite a resource that documents this purpose. I understand that many people have opinions about this but I suspect that if the quoted statement is true there is probably a military memorandum, a documented policy or organized program with this stated goal identified, something after the fashion of what SAC organized when first incorporating Judo into its training curriculum. Anyone?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Marginal]

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?

Yep. I also know that trench warfare wasn't forgotten after WW1.

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

That's different than saying it only works when you're kicking an enemy's helmet while wearing 50lbs of gear. I still say that doesn't make sense.

Why was Gen Choi speaking through an interpreter anyway? He spoke English too. Why did he "hide" this info? Looking through it, it's not in the encyclopedia that Choi compiled. Most I've ever read up to your claim was that it was refined in the 29th infantry division after the Korean government approved its use after watching a demonstration. TKD existed before it was put to any actual millitary application, which again makes me question the assertion that it was developed exclusively to kick people who were wearing helmets.

Heck, reading other old sources, it seems equally viable that TKD was largely developed simply to beat Shotokan Karate.

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!

Lots of people trained under General Choi, including my primary instructor. They share somewhat similar beliefs in the nature of "purity" of TKD, but none have ever claimed that TKD was designed to kill people wearing helmets exclusively. They haven't even claimed it's more effective while wearing a 50lb backpack once.

 

[MichiganTKD]

I agree with Zepp. While Gen. Choi did develop his version of Tae Kwon Do for use in the Korean military, his organization was an offshoot of Won Kuk Lee's Chung Do Kwan. Choi originally trained under Lee, whether he admitted it or not. CDK records verify this. In my opinion, Choi was rather notorious for revising history to suit his versions of events.
Anyway, Chung Do Kwan was basically the police/civilian predessesor to Oh Do Kwan (military TKD). The reason why Tae Kwon Do was picked to be used for the military by Syngmann Rhee was that Chung Do Kwan had proven itself, through demonstrations and reputation, to be a highly effective method of self defense used by Korean police before it was used by the ROK. So to say that Tae Kwon Do is best used under these specific conditions (helmet, 50 lbs. gear etc.) is wrong, because it was successfully used on the street by police and civilians before the military adapted it. I don't think the police and civilians are going to be carrying around full combat gear.

 

[celtic bhoy]

That would be some feat to see wouldn't it?

Imagine trying to chamber and execute to TKD kick in full battle dress that could be of more than one layer thick and soaking wet. Add to that your bergen with 80lbs of kit(british standard), weapon, ammo, helmet and uneven terrain...................PLEASE!!!!!!.

I'd prefer to use my weapon, be it butt or bayonet. The flying kicks were said for kicking people off horses. Not much call for that anymore!!!!

I don't think Gen.Choi had much first hand battle experience do you? He was too busy trying to get one up on Shotokan.

I think too many people are wrapped up in the whole Vietnam legend. Some for financial gain and some to add importance to their chosen style.

I watched an interview with a retired 'Tiger' of the ROK who served in Vietnam. He stated that while it's true that 99.9% of the korean military hold black belts in TKD [B]as well as [/B] other styles, you could not and would not use TKD kicking techniques in the field. It just isn't practical.

He stated that they relied on hand techniques that are not really patented TKD idea's, just general national service techniques that you would practise in any country or any art. The faster one would win.

While I don't doubt TKD's effectiveness in the right hands and the right enviorment. I can't really see the TKD we all learn in the dojang today being much use in a war situation.

 

[glad2bhere]

WARNING---WARNING---WARNING----WARNING

PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS. :asian:

I have been researching for a while and it is becoming my increasingly deeply held belief that this is the actual nature of Korean martial arts from a historic point of view.

For centuries the Korean military was a "national guard" of constripts trained at regular intervals by an established cadre of Korean, Chinese, and later Japanese advisors. With a history of rebellion (usually on the part of slaves or farmers) in the Korean history I doubt one would want the the populace being too competent at any sophisticated arts. In fact there is a mention in one of the histories I have around here of the summary execution of a group of slaves who were caught practicing martial skills in a secluded part of their masters estate. Talk about losing your head over martial arts!! :whip:

There are a number of archtypes that have come out of the RVN war. Most people are familiar with the disenfranchised and alienated "killer". Other folks like to play up the "ticking timebomb" or "man-with-a-past" figure. I think the same thing happens in the matter of MA. Someone mentions that a particular activity went on and suddenly there is a host of "oral traditions". I know that many folks like the romance and imagery associated with KMA practice and training but I am afraid things just aren't that idealized. Consider that though we still have Civil War folks who dress-up in Union and Confederate uniforms, fire replica weapons and re-enact parts of old battles, you simply aren't going to find anyone running around Iraq or Afghanistan with a Spencer rifle, or calling in artillery missions to a battery of muzzle-loading Howitzers. Same goes for H2H. TKD is great for developing conditioning and fighting spirit, no question there. But by comparison may I point out that the entire 2nd WW did not produce a single documented report of the successful use of Karate or the Japanese sword on the battlefield. On the other hand, were one to start talking about the nature of Korean martial code and living ones' life by the strict level of dedication it entails, you would be amazed at how quickly the conversation dries up!! People are enamored with the way they would LIKE Korean traditions to be and not so much with living by the way they actually are/were. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Kevin Walker]

Yep. I also know that trench warfare wasn't forgotten after WW1.



That's different than saying it only works when you're kicking an enemy's helmet while wearing 50lbs of gear. I still say that doesn't make sense.

Why was Gen Choi speaking through an interpreter anyway? He spoke English too. Why did he "hide" this info? Looking through it, it's not in the encyclopedia that Choi compiled. Most I've ever read up to your claim was that it was refined in the 29th infantry division after the Korean government approved its use after watching a demonstration. TKD existed before it was put to any actual millitary application, which again makes me question the assertion that it was developed exclusively to kick people who were wearing helmets.

Heck, reading other old sources, it seems equally viable that TKD was largely developed simply to beat Shotokan Karate.



Lots of people trained under General Choi, including my primary instructor. They share somewhat similar beliefs in the nature of "purity" of TKD, but none have ever claimed that TKD was designed to kill people wearing helmets exclusively. They haven't even claimed it's more effective while wearing a 50lb backpack once.

errr? - I never wrote that TKD was "designed to kill people wearing helmets exclusively" nor have I ever said it. The theory behind TKD is to use the strongest part of your body against the weakest part of your opponents - a kick to the head trying to snap the neck. This works perfectly when wearing combat boots with a lug sole aiming directly against your opponents helmet. As a primarily military combat style, TKD is most effective in this capacity, as it was specifically designed.

 

[Zepp]

errr? - I never wrote that TKD was "designed to kill people wearing helmets exclusively" nor have I ever said it. The theory behind TKD is to use the strongest part of your body against the weakest part of your opponents - a kick to the head trying to snap the neck. This works perfectly when wearing combat boots with a lug sole aiming directly against your opponents helmet. As a primarily military combat style, TKD is most effective in this capacity, as it was specifically designed.

And what about the styles of Tae Kwon Do that were practiced before it was adopted by the Korean military? You seem to be implying that styles such as those practiced by glad2bhere and myself aren't actually Tae Kwon Do.

 

[Kevin Walker]

And what about the styles of Tae Kwon Do that were practiced before it was adopted by the Korean military? You seem to be implying that styles such as those practiced by glad2bhere and myself aren't actually Tae Kwon Do.

Hi Guys,

Since I have no idea what style either you or glad2bhere practice, I've implied no such thing that you do not practice TKD, and I believe you have just inferred incorrectly.

I'll bet dollars to dognuts that the Korean military uses more than one style of martial art for hand-to-hand combat purposes - but the fact still remains, that the primary purpose for the invention of TKD in the 1950s was for military combat use by the fully equipped soldier, all other uses are incidental to its combat role.

 

[Zepp]

I train in the Chung Do Kwan style of Tae Kwon Do as taught by Grandmaster Duk Sung Son of the World Tae Kwon Do Association.

I'll bet dollars to dognuts that the Korean military uses more than one style of martial art for hand-to-hand combat purposes - but the fact still remains, that the primary purpose for the invention of TKD in the 1950s was for military combat use by the fully equipped soldier, all other uses are incidental to its combat role.

I think I understand why we disagree right here. Tae Kwon Do was not invented in the 1950's. The first Korean martial arts school to open in this century, the Chung Do Kwan, was opened in 1944 by a man named Won Kuk Lee who had trained in Karate in Japan. It was purely a civilian school, because Korea didn't have a military yet (they were still under Japanese occupation). General Choi originally trained there, as did Grandmaster Son, who succeeded Lee as head of the school. It is from the Chung Do Kwan that the other Kwans and their styles branched out from.

If you're interested in a detailed history, you can find several different versions and sources here: http://www.martialartsresource.com/korean/korframe.htm (At least as a starting point.)

A google search will turn up plenty more.

 

[Kevin Walker]

I train in the Chung Do Kwan style of Tae Kwon Do as taught by Grandmaster Duk Sung Son of the World Tae Kwon Do Association.



I think I understand why we disagree right here. Tae Kwon Do was not invented in the 1950's. The first Korean martial arts school to open in this century, the Chung Do Kwan, was opened in 1944 by a man named Won Kuk Lee who had trained in Karate in Japan. It was purely a civilian school, because Korea didn't have a military yet (they were still under Japanese occupation). General Choi originally trained there, as did Grandmaster Son, who succeeded Lee as head of the school. It is from the Chung Do Kwan that the other Kwans and their styles branched out from.

If you're interested in a detailed history, you can find several different versions and sources here: http://www.martialartsresource.com/korean/korframe.htm (At least as a starting point.)

A google search will turn up plenty more.

Yes, we do disagree, Tae Kwon Do was developed in the 1950s. To verify this fact, please call the Jae H. Kim TKD Institute (Boston) 617-266-5050

Again, Jae Kim was a former student of General Choi, taught TKD to U.S. Marines in Viet Nam, doesn't teach any style but Tae Kwon Do, and has been for the past 30 years been teaching that TKD was invented in the 1950s.

 

[Zepp]

No disrespect intended to Mr. Kim, but I hardly need to call him to argue what I've learned through independent research.

 

[Kevin Walker]

No disrespect intended to Mr. Kim, but I hardly need to call him to argue what I've learned through independent research.

You should always verify your independent research. This is a problem for a lot of autodidactic students.

 

[Shu2jack]

You should always verify your independent research. This is a problem for a lot of autodidactic students.

Besides the fact they proved that the earth revolves around the sun instead of everything revolving around the earth. Dispite that all the "head" guys said differently.

[EDIT] Not saying that people who do independant research are always right, but I think verifying information from other sources other than main stream is a better idea.

 

[Marginal]

Yes, we do disagree, Tae Kwon Do was developed in the 1950s. To verify this fact, please call the Jae H. Kim TKD Institute (Boston) 617-266-5050

The Term "Taekwon do" was coined in the 1950's. By committie. The art had existed for years previously under different names.

There's plenty of supporting information of the forum on www.itf-information.com. Anyone interested in legit ITF historic research might want to look into some of the info that's been posted there.

Also www.martialartsresource.com has a lot of good info in the archives that's not quite as ITF centric.

 

[glad2bhere]

I'm a little concerned over a earlier statement so I need to make sure something gets clarified.

I am NOT a TKD practitioner. I relate to TKD only as far as it is revealed to me as I do my research in the Hapkido arts. I guarentee that just about anybody who sits-down at a keyboard and has spent time in a TKD dochang probably understands that art better than I. Where I get VERY concerned with discussions along these lines is with some of the generalizations regarding the martial nature of what many of us practice nowadays. Precursors to both TKD AND HKD existed for years in Korea well before the the Japanese Occupation. I think just about everyone has heard of Soo Bahk being invoked from having been mentioned many times in the history of Korean traditions. Absent documentation regarding pre-18th century Civil Service examinations (when the Civil Service Exam system was done away with), nobody can speak with any authority as to what skills were mandated by the government or what the various levels of competence might have been. Therefore, I don't have a problem with people entertaining romantic notions of practices of old, but I think we need to draw the line at saying that things that are practiced today are "just like" the activities of old. Until someone comes up with more material like the MYTBTJ, we just don't know. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Corporal Hicks]

I'm going to use my rifle in trench warfare either it be actually firing my Lee Enfield rifle or pig sticking them with my handy bayonet and not going to kick them them in the head because I'm going to be weighed down with my equipment and all that ruddy rain and mud. If I've lost my rifle, then I'm going to pull out my brand spanking new commando knife and stab em with it. For god's sake I'm not going to use Martial Arts in trench warfare especially if I'm wearing boots and have an enemy pointing a gun at me.
Anyway back to the actual topic at hand,

WARNING - MY OPINION

From my experience it seems TKD is the least effective Martial Art there is going. I'm sorry but I used to love TKD but it seems I've been mis-lead over the two years I have done it, and a months solid training of Wing Chung has taught me more upper self defence than Tae Kwon Do did. I'm a blue belt in Tae Kwon Do and I reversed the effects of self defence techniques TKD was trying to teach me yesterday in my dojang. How pathetic is that? There are too many students being mislead by the fact that TKD is good in self defence.

 

[Shu2jack]

From my experience it seems TKD is the least effective Martial Art there is going. I'm sorry but I used to love TKD but it seems I've been mis-lead over the two years I have done it, and a months solid training of Wing Chung has taught me more upper self defence than Tae Kwon Do did. I'm a blue belt in Tae Kwon Do and I reversed the effects of self defence techniques TKD was trying to teach me yesterday in my dojang. How pathetic is that? There are too many students being mislead by the fact that TKD is good in self defence.

Out of curosity, can you give examples? What effects did you reverse in the self-defence techinques? What upper level self-defense did Wing Chung teach?

I have studied TKD for 10 years and I have found it very useful in conflict avoidance, how to keep a level head in the face of aggression/danger, and while I have yet to use it in a "fight" I have had to use blocks to avoid getting hit, including being grabbed at by a man holding a knife.

I am not trying to argue with you, but I hear a lot of "TKD sucks" and "TKD is not good for self-defense". After 10 years of TKD I am failing to see it and I am asking to find out if maybe I am just blind or I was lucky enough to find a quality school. Like I said, TKD has helped me avoid physical harm and very possibly saved me from getting knifed, so I am curious as to what you were taught.

 

[glad2bhere]

".......I am not trying to argue with you, but I hear a lot of "TKD sucks" and "TKD is not good for self-defense". After 10 years of TKD I am failing to see it and I am asking to find out if maybe I am just blind or I was lucky enough to find a quality school. Like I said, TKD has helped me avoid physical harm and very possibly saved me from getting knifed, so I am curious as to what you were taught......."

WHOA!!!! Lets not over-react in the other direction, 'kay? Persoanally I think way too many TKD practitioners have been mislead by their schools about the self-defense merits of TKD, but lets remember some basic skills that most TKD schools do encourage. One is decent conditioning. Seems like even the most commercial school is still going to get couch potatoes in motion. In a country where 60% of the adult population is over-weight I think this is one step towards decent self-defense. Another skill-set is basic punching and kicking skills. You can throw into the mix basic target acquisition, basic blocking skills and basic body movement. Finally I think most TKD schools at least help sensitize their students to better environmental awareness in everday situations. Now none of these skill-sets are going to make a person a NHB competitor, but I think that a person is better prepared for walking through a typical community day than had they not had them. Easily 90% of the folks who train will probably never have to use their TKD anyways, but I think I am safe in saying that some part of that will relate to the fact that a person who engages in such training feels better about themselves and does feel the need to let petty antagonisms become combat opportunities. Does this make sense?

Best Wishes,

Bruce