TKD and weapons

[Manny]

The donjangs I've been learning/training for and WTF/KUKIWON sanctioned by the way have never teach weapons (nunchaku,tonfa,sai,sticks,etc.etc) and I just wonder why? weapons are a part of martial arts.

Some many moons ago I asked my first sambonim why we don't practice ninchakus and he told me something like this.... Here (dojang) we teach students self defense using only our bodies as a weapon, if do it right we don't need any weapon.

Don't know in your dojang but in the many dojangs I've been never saw any kind of weapons training (kobudo), all the dojangs were WTF ones.

Manny

 

[dancingalone]

I've asked a similar question before. Basically, General Choi didn't include weapons study into his curriculum for whatever reason when tae kwon do first organized itself under his direction. Neither did Hwang Kee, the head of the Moo Duk Kwan, and one of the main holdouts from the kwan merger talks.

I don't know if either man studied weapons to any degree if at all. It is true that certain of the kwans had some staff work. I believe MT member Robert McClain has stated several times that the Chayon-ryu system he studies, which blends knowledge from the Kang Duk Kwan, Chang Moo Kwan, and Shudokan karate methods, has staff forms in it.

I current teach kobudo among other things to TKD instructors and students as I imagine many other kobudo/karate teachers do. It's a fairly obvious gap that many TKD students like to explore or fill as they become competent at the basics of their own art.

One point to note is that the nunchaku is an Okinawan weapon. If one is studying in a dojang where they really try to play up taekwondo as a purely Korean art, it might be understandable why they wouldn't want to practice foreign material.

 

[wushuguy]

i wonder how that guy would have done empty hand vs sword, his tkd vs kendo/kumdo/kali/fencing/ or vs chain or spiked club wielding thug?

if one has never trained against weapons or with weapons, all they have is theory of it's usage and what they would do in such situation. not necessarily effective.

too often many korean masters are high and mighty about their unbeatable art of TKD, but there are also the few who realize that TKD is good at some points, and at others they need look elsewhere, weapons being one case. I know a few 4th and 5th dan who study kumdo and other weapon arts secretly, because they know the value of studying, self-defense and traditionally, and they study secretly because the GM of their branch of TKD strictly prohibits any of his students or teachers learning anything other than TKD. but that GM himself studies tai chi and weapons, and qigong...

sometimes it's tradition that dictates that they don't use weapons, other times it's control, or lack of knowledge. when i studied tkd when i was a kid, we learned staff, and escrima sticks, and we were wtf. so I think if there are weapons available depends on if the school is very traditional or if the instructors themselves know weapons or not.

i just wish more of them would just say, we don't do weapons because we don't know them, rather than, we don't do weapons because our knife hand strike is stronger than a sword.

 

[JWLuiza]

I think it was just that Kobudo wasn't being taught at the Japanese universities, and the native Korean weapon arts weren't part of the Kwan founders' education.

I don't think there's anything wrong with TKD or TSD not having weapons.

 

[ATC]

We use to teach nunchucks but stopped. Now we only teach and learn the "Bong" or long staff. We also use to teach some Kumdo but have stopped also since the GM is no longer at our school and he was the one teaching that. Only Black Belts get to learn any weapons taught.

 

[Earl Weiss]

You have to differentiate between what an art teaches and what a school teaches.

First and foremost the TKD curriculum does teach some weapon defense. Knife, gun, and staff . It is also true that to effectively defend against a weapon you need to have at least a basic understanding of what the weapon can do.

Now, there is a practical issue with regard to how much you can teach and learn well and how much time is available. With a full time school you can have a schedule where weapons practice occurs.
Then you would have the question as to what weapons do teach or why don't we teach the ... (insert length) staff, club, sword, spear, throwing stars, Sai, Tonfa, Kama, Handguns of various types, Rope, Whip, Chains of varios sorts, etc.

I always said I would love to do grappling in the morning, striking in the afternoon and weapons in the evening. Sadly I have these bad habits like eating and wanting a warm place to sleep that require me to earn a living.

As it pertains to TKD teaching weapons for offense, all you need to consider is the translation of the name Tae Kwon.

 

[Gorilla]

Should weapons training be for those over 16?

 

[Manny]

i wonder how that guy would have done empty hand vs sword, his tkd vs kendo/kumdo/kali/fencing/ or vs chain or spiked club wielding thug?

if one has never trained against weapons or with weapons, all they have is theory of it's usage and what they would do in such situation. not necessarily effective.

too often many korean masters are high and mighty about their unbeatable art of TKD, but there are also the few who realize that TKD is good at some points, and at others they need look elsewhere, weapons being one case. I know a few 4th and 5th dan who study kumdo and other weapon arts secretly, because they know the value of studying, self-defense and traditionally, and they study secretly because the GM of their branch of TKD strictly prohibits any of his students or teachers learning anything other than TKD. but that GM himself studies tai chi and weapons, and qigong...

sometimes it's tradition that dictates that they don't use weapons, other times it's control, or lack of knowledge. when i studied tkd when i was a kid, we learned staff, and escrima sticks, and we were wtf. so I think if there are weapons available depends on if the school is very traditional or if the instructors themselves know weapons or not.

i just wish more of them would just say, we don't do weapons because we don't know them, rather than, we don't do weapons because our knife hand strike is stronger than a sword.

As soon as I read you reply I recall one time a few months ago when talking my actual sambunim about the weapons thing, he told me his son trains Korean Sword (Gumdo??) wihtout his permition, so sambonim allow his son (certified WTF/KUKIWON) teacher to stay in swor lessons but outside the TKD dojang and not allow him to teach sword to other students. Some time I show dojang with a pair of kali sticks the sambonim saw them ask them and did domo kalli moves, then returned to me and that's wall all. Sambonim told me once he wanted to do a sminar with a kalli profesor but this never realiced.

I've usin sticks as a part of my Kenpo learning were we use some times sticks to do the kenpo techs but this is not kali what so ever.

Manny

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Weapons are not a part of taekwondo. Taekwondo is specifically designed to fight against another unarmed guy. At this point, the popularity of sport TKD makes weapons training unlikely.

Incidentally, not all TKD associations are completely without a weapons curriculum. The ATA has some kind of weapons training, though I believe they pad up their weapons too.

Lastly, in schools that do have "weapons training", it is often little more than doing weapon forms. I generally question whether or not the instructor is really qualified to teach the weapon in question. If all you know is the weapon form (sans any bunkai), then it is just another activity to keep people interested. Not necessarily without value; it does lay the foundation to learn the weapon, but not the same as actually learning the use of the weapon.

Daniel

 

[terryl965]

We teach weapons as an add on, mainly becasuse I love them and some people expect it from a school that teaches a martial art.

 

[dortiz]

Terry,
what weapons and where did the syllabus come from?

 

[dancingalone]

Incidentally, not all TKD associations are completely without a weapons curriculum. The ATA has some kind of weapons training, though I believe they pad up their weapons too.

Lastly, in schools that do have "weapons training", it is often little more than doing weapon forms. I generally question whether or not the instructor is really qualified to teach the weapon in question. If all you know is the weapon form (sans any bunkai), then it is just another activity to keep people interested. Not necessarily without value; it does lay the foundation to learn the weapon, but not the same as actually learning the use of the weapon.

Daniel

As the uncle of 2 ATA youngsters, I have a decent familiarity with ATA "ProTech" programs. I wouldn't recommend them as a source for serious weapons studies. The average instructor has no real idea what he is doing since certification to teach seems to be fairly easy to obtain. Additionally the padded form weapons MANDATED for safety reasons causes the students (and program SOURCE material!) to use unrealistic motions and actions.

There certainly are areas when ATA training can be credible. Weapons are not IMHO.

 

[dancingalone]

Should weapons training be for those over 16?

If one teaches credible, self-defense oriented TKD to children, what's the difference in adding some basic staff or tonfa work too?

 

[dancingalone]

I think it was just that Kobudo wasn't being taught at the Japanese universities, and the native Korean weapon arts weren't part of the Kwan founders' education.

I don't think there's anything wrong with TKD or TSD not having weapons.

I think it was just that Kobudo wasn't being taught at the Japanese universities,

Yes, this is a good point. By and large, Shotokan karate schools generally don't have kobudo instruction either. You have to look to Okinawan karate schools for that, mostly. Since much of TKD can be traced back to a Shotokan heritage, there's the answer to Manny's original question in a nutshell.

Now, should weapons work be a core part of TKD? <shrugs> It really matters not. Kobudo can be readily taught as an add-on program to TKD students sufficiently grounded in basic stances. I have taught many from my Taira lineage perspective successfully. I imagine other kobudo lineages would translate equally well.

 

[punisher73]

I think it was just that Kobudo wasn't being taught at the Japanese universities,

Yes, this is a good point. By and large, Shotokan karate schools generally don't have kobudo instruction either. You have to look to Okinawan karate schools for that, mostly. Since much of TKD can be traced back to a Shotokan heritage, there's the answer to Manny's original question in a nutshell.

Now, should weapons work be a core part of TKD? <shrugs> It really matters not. Kobudo can be readily taught as an add-on program to TKD students sufficiently grounded in basic stances. I have taught many from my Taira lineage perspective successfully. I imagine other kobudo lineages would translate equally well.

Funakoshi really pushed that karate was different. Some people think that is why they dropped alot of the grappling methods, since Judo was already such a big hit. If that were true, it seems that he probably didn't try to teach weapons since the Japanese already had a huge Kendo following. There had to be some niche for him to fill and be presentable to the japanese as a whole.

 

[dancingalone]

Funakoshi really pushed that karate was different. Some people think that is why they dropped alot of the grappling methods, since Judo was already such a big hit. If that were true, it seems that he probably didn't try to teach weapons since the Japanese already had a huge Kendo following. There had to be some niche for him to fill and be presentable to the japanese as a whole.

I've heard some conjecture that Funakoshi's Japanese students were not interested in kobudo, since the weapons taught are 'peasant' weapons. I guess the sword as a weapon of the samurai class is sexier than the staff.

 

[JWLuiza]

I've heard some conjecture that Funakoshi's Japanese students were not interested in kobudo, since the weapons taught are 'peasant' weapons. I guess the sword as a weapon of the samurai class is sexier than the staff.

From what I heard, the Japanese students wanted to fight and not learn forms, weapons, etc.

 

[Earl Weiss]

There certainly are areas when ATA training can be credible. Weapons are not IMHO.

Thats interesting becaus some years ago I took some PPCT classes. If you are not familiar with them, their training is geared to Law enforcement officers, prison guards etc. So, they have a hard core audience and pretty straight forward curriculum as well as a 3 tired approach. Taking the course, Taking a course to be an instructor, and an instructor trainer course.

Anyway, the instructor who was also a cop and defensive tactics instructor for the course told us ho wtheir was an ATA guy at the course and thought it was requred for certain ATA level instructors.

If that were true, as an organization they were definitely headed in the right direction. That doesn't mean all of their schools / instructors have the course as a background.

 

[dancingalone]

Mr, Weiss, I was addressing the certification needed to teach the Pro Tech weapons in the ATA such as the nunchaku (they call it Ssahng Jeol Bong to Koreanize the weapon). They even do some stuff with 'Gum Do' .

In my estimation, the certification requirements must be minimal, as the handful of certified instructors I have seen are unimpressive indeed. Seems like it is a weekend camp of instruction. They get the rubber stamp there and then they're supposed to practice on their own and gain physical competence before teaching it to others. But they're considered 'certified' from the start.

Meh.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

As the uncle of 2 ATA youngsters, I have a decent familiarity with ATA "ProTech" programs. I wouldn't recommend them as a source for serious weapons studies. The average instructor has no real idea what he is doing since certification to teach seems to be fairly easy to obtain. Additionally the padded form weapons MANDATED for safety reasons causes the students (and program SOURCE material!) to use unrealistic motions and actions.

There certainly are areas when ATA training can be credible. Weapons are not IMHO.

Good to know. I only mentioned them because they are the only large org that has weapons specifically as part of their program.

Daniel