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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Littledragon
  • Start date Start date
The term "Tae Kwon Do" was coined in the 1950's by either Choi or Son-there is argument as to who actually created the word.
However, Chung Do Kwan was founded by Lee in 1944 while WWII was still going on. After the war ended, and Koreans could openly practice martial arts again, Chung Do Kwan-style was used by the police and deputized citizens to keep peace and get rid of gangsters. So it was civilian in the sense that the military did not use it yet. It was, however, a very effective police martial art. The military adapted it after seeing Chung Do Kwan demonstrations and witnessing how effective it was. Only then was Gen. Choi authorized to teach it to the troops. And only Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan Dan holders were allowed to keep their black belts when they joined the military. All other styles had to retest.
It is my belief that Chung Do Kwan Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do was recognized by the police and military for its military and street effectiveness. The other kwans (Ji Do, Chang Moo, Moo Duk etc) were true civilian kwans-studied by average Koreans outside of the police and military.
 
Corporal Hicks said:
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.

Way too many people don't understand that you get out what you put in.
 
I'm just saying it past my experience so far. Dont get me wrong guys I still try extremely hard in TKD its just I dont have the same faith in its self defence techniques any more. Still I love TKD kicks and I consider them the far superiour of all kicking arts its just my personal peference.

Regards
Nick
 
I will be out of state here for the next few days after this reply, so don't think I will be ignoring you guys. Anywho....

I still don't understand. What makes TKD self-defense techniques useless in a fight? I really don't understand how punches, elbow strikes, knee strikes, and low kicks are ineffective for self-defense.

Maybe my confusion comes from when you say "self-defense techniques". To me, that doesn't envolve poking the eyes or anything like that except as maybe a distraction when grappling and you are having trouble escaping. We practice boxing combinations with partner targets and the bag. We practice elbow and knees strikes with partners for if/when someone "clinches" and we like to get in close. My idea of a self-defense technique is that if it isn't an arm bar or something similar, then it is striking to "weaker" areas of the body continually until the person can't/won't harm you. We teach basic ground fighting so we are comfortable in the various positions and ways to escape/make someone "submit".

Maybe I am going about this all wrong. Yes TKD people on average don't train 8 hours a day for professional fighting. Anyone who trains "hard" for 8 hours a day will the butt out of most people. But I don't see how punching, kicking, elbows, knees, grappling, etc. is any less effective if it is in TKD.
 
Corporal Hicks said:
I'm just saying it past my experience so far.[/b]
Yeah, but you said that you had trouble kicking close quarters. That's not exactly a revelation to most. Still begs the question why you didn't use knees, elbows, joints locks etc? If you don't train them, that's not TKD's fault. It's your instructor's.

Two threads later, and you're still assuming that your TKD experience = everyone else's TKD experience. It's like you didn't even try to listen last time.
 
Marginal said:
Yeah, but you said that you had trouble kicking close quarters. That's not exactly a revelation to most. Still begs the question why you didn't use knees, elbows, joints locks etc? If you don't train them, that's not TKD's fault. It's your instructor's.

Two threads later, and you're still assuming that your TKD experience = everyone else's TKD experience. It's like you didn't even try to listen last time.
Actually I said that it was only my experience, not everybody elses. Maybe I do indeed have a bad instructor. I have never learnt joint locks.
 
"......It is my belief that Chung Do Kwan Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do was recognized by the police and military for its military and street effectiveness. The other kwans (Ji Do, Chang Moo, Moo Duk etc) were true civilian kwans-studied by average Koreans outside of the police and military......"

I, for one, would like some documentation to this effect. I wonder if the art itself was viewed as being particularly effective, or if simply training in the art raised the confidence and "street presence" (deportment) of the officers. Were it the latter I would draw a parallel with the use of Kendo by the Japanese police to build confidence and assertiveness in its policemen. It would also be instructive to review video tapes of encounters between Korean police and demostrators over the years to note how often TKD techniques were actually used. I must say that I am also beginning to hear variation on the nature of TKD as people contribute.

type 1: Commercial TKD aka "sport" TKD

type 2: TKD taught with an emphasis on combat/SD applications

type 3: TKD learned with an emphasis on combat/SD applications

type 4: TKD taught/learned one way and then modified by circumstances to a particular use.

Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce
 
LEE Won Kuk was a precise person. He had a strong body of a martial artist and glaringly sharp eyes. His expression was very strict. Right after the independence day, he seemed to offset his pro-Japanese deeds by developing a good relationship with people of the National Police Headquarters. He led the efforts to get rid of Seoul gangsters. The Chung Do Kwan was once called the National Police Headquarters dojang.

One of Lee's students, Gen. Choi, was a student of the Chung Do Kwan as stated before. Because of his military standing and the Chung Do Kwan demos he helped organize, Tae Kwon Do was taught to the Korean military. But only Chung Do Kwan/Oh Do Kwan Dan certificates were recognized. it was only after the founding of the WTF that World Tae Kwon Do's emphasis began to change to Olympic style.
 
Corporal Hicks said:
Actually I said that it was only my experience, not everybody elses. Maybe I do indeed have a bad instructor. I have never learnt joint locks.
Are you possibly at a school that emphasizes "sport/competitive" TKD? If so, I would imagine you've spent little or no time working on kicks below belt level, and other close-in tactics like elbow strikes, knees,etc. And certainly not joint locks. I could imagine your trouble in trying to deliver a mid-to-high roundhouse in close quarters.
One of the first things our teacher taught us was that high kicks look great if you're posing for pictures, but if you want to win a street fight, kick for the groin, knees, or even ankles. Not to mention a well placed stomp on the instep
of your opponent. We practice knee and elbow strikes regularly. Also, close-in fighting is a great time to deliver a stiff finger, knuckle, or thumb to one of the many pressure points to be found on the head and torso.
Is all of this stuff TKD? We think so....There are elbow strikes in Palgwe 5, Palgwe 8, and Taeguk 5 for instance, and there are low kicks in Koryo, to give just a few examples.
As for joint locks, we practice them regularly.
 
As I have stated in previous posts, those who believe Tae Kwon Do is not effective for self defense have not practiced our forms. TKD forms contain numerous blocking, kicking, hold-breaking, and striking techniques. Sometimes you just have to look at them a little more closely. Additionally, traditional Tae Kwon Do forms have many different isometric exercises that build up resistance and focus energy.
Just because we don't emphasize joint locks or grappling doesn't mean it doesn't work.
 
glad2bhere said:
I, for one, would like some documentation to this effect. I wonder if the art itself was viewed as being particularly effective, or if simply training in the art raised the confidence and "street presence" (deportment) of the officers. Were it the latter I would draw a parallel with the use of Kendo by the Japanese police to build confidence and assertiveness in its policemen.

I'm somewhat curious. Do you view TSD, Shutokan, Shotokan etc all as totally useless as well? They're all from the same root style. Choi had a 2nd dan in Shotokan, and he practiced things typical of hard stylists like hand conditioning etc the rest of his life.

type 1: Commercial TKD aka "sport" TKD

It's worth pointing out that this is the latest development in TKD, not the first. I'd argue that it's not so much commercial as it is olympic TKD. Olympic stlye led to the popularity of the sporting style, which was largely developed by the olympics so that it would've ever be confused with wrestling or boxing. (Hence the emphasis on kicks, the discouragement of the use of hands etc.)

type 2: TKD taught with an emphasis on combat/SD applications

type 3: TKD learned with an emphasis on combat/SD applications

I'd hope the two aren't typically divorced.

type 4: TKD taught/learned one way and then modified by circumstances to a particular use.

I'd think that could be applied to any art be it BJJ or HKD. All arts have their stylistic factions etc. CHKD for example...
 
Not only that, but each individual student will have their own personal way of practicing technique. One that fits their body style and is overall comfortable for them. As a result, no two people will practice Tae Kwon Do the same.
While there are standards that must be adhered to while teaching basics, after black belt Tae Kwon Do (or any martial art) becomes highly individualized. I do not practice the same way my Instructor does, though there are some similarities. My students will not be carbon copies of me, though there will be similarities.
 
"......Do you view TSD, Shutokan, Shotokan etc all as totally useless as well? ....."

I'm trying to locate where I indicated that these arts are "totally useless". Anyone?

Best Wishes,

Bruce
 
glad2bhere said:
"......Do you view TSD, Shutokan, Shotokan etc all as totally useless as well? ....."

I'm trying to locate where I indicated that these arts are "totally useless". Anyone?

The part where you compared learning TKD to a confidence builder and pretty much dismissed any potential efficacy of the skillsets trained... Like Kendo. If you're willing to dismiss TKD like that, then arts with essentially the same skillsets are ignorable as well.
 
Marginal said:
The part where you compared learning TKD to a confidence builder and pretty much dismissed any potential efficacy of the skillsets trained... Like Kendo. If you're willing to dismiss TKD like that, then arts with essentially the same skillsets are ignorable as well.
I don't want to speak for Bruce, but IMHO, as a TKD practitioner of about 8 years who began cross-training in HKD after reaching 1st Dan in TKD, I would consider HKD a more useful style for a police officer(the situation mentioned in Bruce's post). TKD is just fine for fending off an aggressor or trying to disable/knock someone out, but as a police officer
your main goal (and responsiblilty) is typically to gain control of an attacker/perpetrator, and the lawyers expect you to do it while inflicting as little damage as possible. If I had that responsibility, I would tend to lean towards the HKD skill-set. Not that you can't inflict damage with HKD, but it seems that you have more options in terms of the punishment you deliver while at the same time still being able to control your opponent. I don't see that as a "dismissal" of TKD (or similar styles) as much as a statement that some styles are more appropriate than others in certain situations.
 
"......I, for one, would like some documentation to this effect. I wonder if the art itself was viewed as being particularly effective, or if simply training in the art raised the confidence and "street presence" (deportment) of the officers. Were it the latter I would draw a parallel with the use of Kendo by the Japanese police to build confidence and assertiveness in its policemen....."

If this is the quote you mean I think you are discounting the context. What I was asking for was specific documentation that attested to TKD of the time being viewed as "particularly effective" (in combat application)

or

for specific documentation that attested to TKD of the time being viewed as being beneficial in a role in which its conditioning and skill-sets raised confidence, etc. etc. Sorry for the confusion. It was poorly worded.

Best Wishes,

Bruce
 
Yeah, I wasn't trying to start up a style vs style conflict. (As they go nowhere regardless.) I was just looking for some clarification on the comment. Seemed like raised confidence with nothing else going for it would result in dead cops and servicemen more than anything else. ;)
 
Littledragon said:
The effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do in self defense...

I have been doing Tae Kwon Do for over 10 years. As I have recently began developing a mass interest in Mixed Martial Arts/ Vale-Tudo/ Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu I have questioned how effective Tae Kwon Do is for self defense. As the sport aspect has developed a dramatically high level of mass popularity world wide since the WTF was created and USTU and other international TKD organizations, TKD has been highly popularized as a sport as it was an official Olypmic sport in 2000. I train with one of the top teams in the United States for Olympic Style Tae Kwon Do and have came to realize that it is now more of a sport than an art of self-defense. The whole emphasis on training is for the sport. What happens when you get in a street situation and you get tackled to the ground or jumped by 3 guys, how will the sport aspect be applyed sucesfully in self-defense?

As World Champions, National Champions are current at my school I can't help to think that they are very good at the SPORT but they don't have the right knowledge and tools to apply effecitvely in a street self-defense situation.

What are your opinions about Olympic Tae Kwon Do as an art of self-defense?
I like TKD alot, but as far as its street effectiveness goes it is to unbalenced of an art. TKD is a kicking art, and they are damn good at it, the best kickers in the world IMO. While kicking has its place in a real fight, there are other tools needed, like boxing skills, and grappling skills. TKD people just need to learn to box and grapple thats all. They are way to gung ho on just kicking. If a TKD person gets in a fight with a decent opponent, they better make that first kick count, it better land flush and on target or there going down to the ground. And if they dont go to the ground they better have some boxing skills or there going to get there face pounded in, because when you get up in someones face its hard for them to use those fancy high kicks to knock you out, and when there on the ground I dont think they will be kicking much. A TKD person has to keep you at a distance so they can throw those bombs at you, that is there advantage, if they are good enough to keep the proper distance in a fight they will do great, but thats easier said than done. TKD is great if you want to learn how to kick, thats about it. Cross training in boxing is a MUST!!!! for TKD people!!
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top