My master is in his mid fifties and I have never met someone with more skill and knowledge about martial arts. A lot of text books and articles will refer to the Hwarang (sp?) as elites, whether in fighting or just as upperclass. I think it is a more general term than many realize.
TKD and real self defense
- Thread starter terryl965
- Start date
My master is in his mid fifties and I have never met someone with more skill and knowledge about martial arts. A lot of text books and articles will refer to the Hwarang (sp?) as elites, whether in fighting or just as upperclass. I think it is a more general term than many realize.
Ah! Sarcasm.. always a great response!
Stuart
Ps. Whats backwards about our roads? We drive on the left and you drive on the right.. do you know why?
In the past, almost everybody travelled on the left side of the road because that was the most sensible option for feudal, violent societies. Since most people are right-handed, swordsmen preferred to keep to the left in order to have their right arm nearer to an opponent and their scabbard further from him. Moreover, it reduced the chance of the scabbard (worn on the left) hitting other people.
Furthermore, a right-handed person finds it easier to mount a horse from the left side of the horse, and it would be very difficult to do otherwise if wearing a sword (which would be worn on the left). It is safer to mount and dismount towards the side of the road, rather than in the middle of traffic, so if one mounts on the left, then the horse should be ridden on the left side of the road.
In the late 1700s, however, teamsters in France and the United States began hauling farm products in big wagons pulled by several pairs of horses. These wagons had no driver's seat; instead the driver sat on the left rear horse, so he could keep his right arm free to lash the team. Since he was sitting on the left, he naturally wanted everybody to pass on the left so he could look down and make sure he kept clear of the oncoming wagons wheels. Therefore he kept to the right side of the road. (taken from the web).
So we drive on the left due to us being warriors and you drive on the right cos you`d rather be farmers
Explains a lot eh! - just joking my friend!
Ah! Sarcasm.. always a great response!
Stuart
Ps. Whats backwards about our roads? We drive on the left and you drive on the right.. do you know why?
In the past, almost everybody travelled on the left side of the road because that was the most sensible option for feudal, violent societies. Since most people are right-handed, swordsmen preferred to keep to the left in order to have their right arm nearer to an opponent and their scabbard further from him. Moreover, it reduced the chance of the scabbard (worn on the left) hitting other people.
Furthermore, a right-handed person finds it easier to mount a horse from the left side of the horse, and it would be very difficult to do otherwise if wearing a sword (which would be worn on the left). It is safer to mount and dismount towards the side of the road, rather than in the middle of traffic, so if one mounts on the left, then the horse should be ridden on the left side of the road.
In the late 1700s, however, teamsters in France and the United States began hauling farm products in big wagons pulled by several pairs of horses. These wagons had no driver's seat; instead the driver sat on the left rear horse, so he could keep his right arm free to lash the team. Since he was sitting on the left, he naturally wanted everybody to pass on the left so he could look down and make sure he kept clear of the oncoming wagons wheels. Therefore he kept to the right side of the road. (taken from the web).
So we drive on the left due to us being warriors and you drive on the right cos you`d rather be farmers
not sure how much truth to this.... but interesting theory.
besides, do you know what the farmers did while you "warriors" were at war? made love to our wives, not our stable-boy. :lfao:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #144
I will just say this, too many people confuse sport with SD. Just because you are proficent in one makes you proficent in the other. Remember it can work the other way, I know elite trainer at gym but could not get themself out of a wet paper bag. All I am saying is do not get confused about theissue here. Some people believe a heavy set person cannot defend themself but I know some that can. SD is more than push ups and wieght training, it is building yourselt mentally and physically hust like the military.
Not a question of it being my personal definition. That is how the term is used. You are not generally considered elite without a verifiable record. Saying that you are a mean motorscooter is just talk without a record.
Like it or not, the tournament record is the only viable method for determining who is an elite figher. Street fighting is illegal and the results are generally unverifiable (and often inflated).
Meaning no disrespect to your instructor, that is pure speculation on your part. Educated speculation, and likely well founded, but speculation nonetheless.
Your instructor would be classified as a high dan master instructor, certainly a high accomplishment. But he spends his days training students, not fighting.
Please note that this does not make him inferior to an elite figher; if anything he likely has much more depth to his practice of the art than an elite fighter, and certainly, his skill set encompasses much more than just fighting.
Master instructor
Advanced practitioner
High dan (6th and up in TKD)
(insert name of art) master
The list could go on, but I think that advanced practitioner is probably the one that fits most broadly and is not dependent upon rank.
Daniel
I know SD experts on forums who like to trash talk about sport fighters but can't fight themselves out of a wet bag.
What are these "self-defense principles" that you require?
Why does utilizing alive training metholody automatically mean ignorance of self-defense principles?
What sort of training program would you recommend?
I know that you were responding to Terry, but I thought that I would take a crack at it anyway.
Without getting into athletes who cannot defend themselves and SD guys who cannot fight, there is a difference between training for sport and training for SD.
There is certainly overlap, and principles that are common between the two, but there are also differences. The amount of difference depends upon which sport.
WTF sport taekwondo is very, very removed from what is traditionally considered SD.
Boxing is removed, but less so because people intuitively use their hands, whereas high kicks need to be trained for by the vast majority of people.
Same for grappling/groundfighting arts; people intuitively push, pull and grab.
MMA shares a lot more in common with SD because the range of attacks that one must defend against is much greater than it is in boxing, WTF TKD, or straight wrestling.
The principle difference between sport and SD is that in sport, the goal is to stay in the fight and to display clear superiority and outfight the opponent within the bounds of the rules. One can win in sport through a combination of superior fighting, superior fight strategy, and gamesmanship.
In SD, the goal is to survive. This can be accomplished in numerous ways.
The most preferrable one is simply to avoid fights via awareness, which is completely opposed to sport, where one seeks out fights.
Once an attack begins, the most preferrable option is to escape quickly, which is not an option in a fight; if you quit the fight you lose, whereas if you escape alive in SD, you do not lose. Note: the vast majority of schools teaching practical self defense focus on this rout. For this reason, their students are likely ill prepared to step into the ring and fight in competition unless they are training for sport/competition in addition.
In sport, a tapping opponent signals the end of the fight. In SD, if you let the guy loose when he is in pain, he could pull a knife and kill you.
Specific attacks that would be useful in SD, particularly for a smaller person against a larger attacker, such as eye gouges, strikes to the groin, etc. are illegal moves in sport. Certainly, if one determines that the only way to survive is to kill or disable their assailant, they can attempt to do so in SD (possible legal consequences may result, but that is after the fact), whereas in sport, your goal is not to kill or permanently disable your opponent.
Lastly, gamesmanship can be used in sport to secure a victory. By gamesmanship, I mean using the rules to gain an advantage that one would not normally have in a fight. Obviously, that is not an option in SD.
Does that mean that an athlete cannot defend themselves? Of course not. It depends on the athlete; my day job is answering phones on a support desk. I take pains to train to defend myself. An athlete's job is ring fighting. If he or she takes time to apply their skills to defending themselves, then they will be able to, and likely more effectively than me, as their day job has many more applicable skills to SD than mine does.
It is more likely that an SD guy would fare poorly in the ring, as one cannot just step into a rule set and environment for which they have not trained and simply excel, prodigies not withstanding.
So, when the SD crowed says that sport is not SD, they are correct, but yes, there is overlap.
Daniel
Thats a little skewed.. the warriors made love to other peoples wives when at war... and we've all seen what the farmers wife looks like eh!
:shock:
Now.. all joking aside.. back to the topic at hand me thinks..
What "SD crowd"? Who are they? What qualifies someone to be in the "SD crowd"?
Let me put it to you this way. It would seem we belong to different "SD crowds". The "SD guys" I've trained with would never make a statement like Terry's, and disagree with much of what he, and you say.
This is not because there is a difference between training for sport and self-defense, but because the difference between training for sport and self defense really doesn't matter all that much. The arguments that insist on there being a difference rely on fallacies, strawmen, and false dichotomies.
The area where the difference matters is strategy, not in tactics, techniques, or training methodology. Hand-to-hand combat, FIGHTING, is a segment of that overall strategy. So, there is no difference between sport methodology and self-defense. Sport methodology is a method used in training for unarmed combat, which is a part of self-defense.
This is absolutely irrelevant and false. Sports fighters do not seek out fights. They compete. They don't walk into bars are start brawls.
Remember, fighting is a part of self-defense. If your hand-to-hand training cannot prepare you for a fair fight against a matched opponent of equal skill and weight, under rules, with a referee to keep you from getting bottled over the head from behind, it cannot prepare you for a no rules fight.
Incorrect, this is also completely irrelevant to the argument against utilizing sport methodology to train for self-defense.
Tapping does not signal the end of the fight. It signals that you have forced your opponent into submission. A submission is a chokehold or a joint lock that you have merely not exerted to the fullest degree. If I have you in an armbar, it doesn't mean I just hold you there. It means I have the capability to snap your elbow and cause catastrophic damage to your arm, likely removing you as a threat.
Training in class, I won't. I'll let you go when you tap, because you're my training partner and I want to practice with you again tomorrow. If I break you, then I can't train.
On the street, if I armbar you, I am going to snap you, I'm not going to let you go.
I have been a bouncer for over a decade. These moves are not dependable at all.
First off, and this is where most so-called self-defense training fails, THESE ARE NOT TECHNIQUES.
They are barely even tactics.
The technique is a front kick. You can aim it at the groin, you can aim it at the solar plexus, you can aim it at the face. The fact that I trained and competed does not mean I can't kick someone in the crotch. In fact, I am very sure of my ability to kick someone in the crotch. I am sure of my ability to front kick anyone at whatever target presents itself. How do you train for kicks to the baby maker? The same way you train for every other kick. I can't throw a stomp kick to someone's knee in the ring, but I've been able to do it just fine when I've had to, because of how I trained my side kicks on the mat.
An eye gouge is not a technique. A jab is. If you cannot throw a jab to someone's face, a large target, in a match, where the head is a moving target that is being defended, how are you going to score with a finger jab to something as small as someone's eye?
Strategy, tactics, technique.
Strategy will change your tactics, but it won't change how you train your technique.
Irrelevant as well. A rear naked choke is a "killing technique". Just because I didn't kill you with it in a match doesn't mean I won't on the street. Truthfully, aside from a blade or a firearm, it's the only reliable "killing technique" I would recommend.
Actually, it is completely possible. The rules are just different. Human behavior and interaction just determine them, rather than a sporting body. "Gamesmanship" in a street fight is a sucker punch.
That punch though? Who's going to be better at it, an untrained fighter, or someone who knows how to throw a jab, cross, or hook?
A SD teacher who cannot win a fair fight is not someone who should be teaching people how to survive unfair ones.
The word elite for others is an opinion, a personal definition. Is it that hard to understand?
That may be, but the term "elite fighter" is a compound one with connotations that mean "sport fighter".
Not to me. The word elite (to me) means someone high up or very good at something. The word fighter (to me) means someone who fights or trains to fight. When I put the words together I just put one definition after the other (with a pinch of grammatical sense). The compound 'elite fighter' is defined by many to refer to sport, but simply, not for me. We might both speak english, but that does not mean we both speak the same language.
^~^
The same SD "experts" that you and Terry are referring to in your posts.
Let me put it to you this way. It would seem we belong to different "SD crowds". The "SD guys" I've trained with would never make a statement like Terry's, and disagree with much of what he, and you say.
I did not get into what degree that it matters; only what the differences are. It depends on the sport in question as well.
Once again, depends on the sport. WTF rule set is almost entirely divorced from the methodology of self defense.
Can be, but is not always. Once again, it depends on the sport.
I would hope that you know what I meant by my statement. They seek to compete. They are fighters. The events are called fights. I am in no way implying that they walk into bars and start brawls.
That is not what I said nor implied. Trained athletes in one sport cannot simply walk in cold and do well in a combat sport with an entirely different rule set. They train to compete under the new rule set, research the fighters they will be facing, study the tactics and strategies used and prepare physically. A guy who has done ITF sparring would not expect to go to his very first WTF match with no prep work at all aside from what he usually does, and do as well as he does in ITF matches. It is not realistic.
By the same token, I would not expect to be a successul boxer soley because I can do well in street fights.
So if contestent is submitted in MMA the fight does not end? I am asking, not debating.
Agreed.
I do not disagree with most of what you said above. I never implied anything about the dependablilty of such moves; only that they were not allowed in sports.
No, gamesmanship requires rules to play with. A street fight has no rules.
If we were talking about a trained figher vs. an untrained figher, the answer to your question is obvious: the guy trained will punch better. But we are not talking about an untrained fighter vs. a trained fighter. They can both throw good punches, as both are trained fighters.
Sports are fair, but they are also contests conducted under specified rule sets. There are enough different specified rule sets that people train in specific ways for each one. Familiarity with the rule set is a must to do well and that is what I meant by my last statement about someone who trains soley for self defense being unlikely to just "step into the ring" and do well under an unfamiliar rule set.
If a top boxer steps into the ring with Mark Lopez and fights him under WTF rules without ever training for or familiarizing himself with WTF rules, not one of his punches will be scored, he will have points deducted for punches to the head, and Mark will score on all those kicks that he never trained in. A guy who trains only for SD and is unfamiliar with the sport rules would be similarly frustrated.
On the other hand the athlete is unhindered in this area; the street fight has no artificial rules to adapt to or train for. And with few exceptions, I consider it a given that athletes in martial sports train in SD to some degree in addition to their athletic training.
And that is really all that I was getting at.
Daniel
No, it is not hard at all to understand, but personal definitions are usually not well suited to group discussion unless everyone shares the same personal definition.
Daniel
I'll take that closer to heart when I see a Webster's Dictionary with the definition of 'elite fighter' referring solely to a sport fighter.
Everyone here apparently doesn't agree on the sport definition anyway.
^-^
Presuming that we all know what a fighter is, here is the definition of elite according to Merriam Webster:
Definitions 1 - A or 1 - B would be the only one's that are really applicable to a fighter in the general sense. See the blue text. That is the common usage of the word elite when pertaining to skilled or accomplished individuals (as opposed to typewriters).
a singular or plural in construction : the choice part : cream <the elite of the entertainment world> b singular or plural in construction : the best of a class <superachievers who dominate the computer elite Marilyn Chase>
It should be readilly apparent that that elite goes well beyond simply being darned good at what you do. If you wish to have that as your personal defnition, then so be it; it is not a problem for me, but if you use the term 'elite fighter' on the internet in a general converation, you should argue about it when people assume that you mean the actual and generally accepted defnition.
I only responded to you to tell you what comes to mind for the rest of us when the term elite is applied to a fighter. No biggie. You clarified what you meant, so as far as I am concerned, tis all good.
Daniel
OP
- Thread Starter
- #157
I have come to relize that I simply know nothing about SD, I will stop teaching and become libraian. I will send out a letter apologing to all my formal and present students. The Leo's, the servicemen an of course all the plain ones as well.
Just kidding I mean we may never agree about what we believe to be real SD but one thing for sure we know only surviving is the true story behind it.
Just kidding I mean we may never agree about what we believe to be real SD but one thing for sure we know only surviving is the true story behind it.
Training LEOs and servicemen is not a badge of approval of a self-defense system either. With a relatively small exception, they know little more about hwo to train self-defense than the average civilian. I train several members of the USMC at my school, and they will all tell you that the training they receive (until very recently), is barely adequate to survive a fight. There is nothing inherent in these positions, with relatively few exceptions, that make them self-defense experts. Further, those that are, generally seem in favor of my position; Matt Thorton, Paul Vunak, etc.
Further supporting my position in the necessity of sport methodology in training for self-defense, the US Army and the USMC have both adopted programs based around aliveness training, utilizing sport methodology to teach unarmed combat.
I don't have to be able to fight Lyoto Machida or Chuck Lidell, but if I couldn't step into the ring against an equally trained male at 175lbs at around my age, then there is a severe problem with my training methodology.
Self-defense situations are "worst case scenarios". They aren't fair fights. Me vs. Chuck Lidell, even in a ring, is a worst case scenario for me.
Last edited:
Which experts? Name them?
That's the problem, you're looking at individual sports. I'm speaking training methodology. I'm talking about aliveness. I am talking about how skills are developed, and toward what end.
No, the fight is not over once a contestant is submitted. If you tap, and I release you before the referee has called the fight, then you can fight on. It has happened before, and "winners" have been knocked out because of it. Remember, a submission is a joint lock. If I want to, I'll break it, and people have had their joints broken in matches when they refused to tap out. The Gracies were notorious for this back in the day. The referee ending the match is the equivalent of your friends backing you up or the authorities arriving. Remove any of those factors, and the fight is not over.
Absolutely wrong, as most good self-defense instructors will tell you, and I can tell you after a decade of being a bouncer. Altercations always follow a set of rules, human behavior. The ability to recognize those rules, play by them, and know when you can bend or break them often determines who will survive the outcome.
You're still stuck in the world of the one dimensional fighter. A boxer is only a boxer. A TKDin is only a TKDin. I would hope anyone training for self-defense has long abandoned this view, and those teaching self-defense realize that they cannot limit themselves to one system.
No art, Taekwondo or otherwise, contains all of the necessities needed to address comprehensive self-defense. Some people will always be better at striking, some people will always be better at grappling, but you have to be able to do them all to a certain degree when it comes to self-defense.
You do not have to be a Judoka to be able to defend yourself with clinchwork and throws, but if you are not training clinchwork & throws in a manner similar to a Judoka, then you're not going to be as successful. The same goes for your striking.
Weapons work also needs to come into that equation.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #160
You are real good about taking little pieces of what was said, never said that was a stamp of approval did I? Then in the next sentence I said I was joking and that we will never agree what SD is. Please quote me right and I will bow to you the all mighty of SD in the world.
What really makes no sense is your comment about service people especially the USMC since my father trained and was part of the USMC Master Drill Instructor tought Judo and Karate to them, he spent thirty eight years in the service and I do not remember them using sport as a form of SD but what do I know being such a person who never ever had any real SD tought to me. Have fun posting and making clear you are the supreme leader in all SD.
So I guess the Olympic TKD programs for the Army Marines and Air Force help teach SD principle WOW, that is goon to know since I teach sport TKD as well. Now I am going to train my people to keep there hands down and do nothing except roundhouses and backswings for the sake of SD principles.
