TKD Changes

[Laurentkd]

Here's something to demonstrate what I mean, an exercise my instructor repeats on a regular basis. Face a partner, and, full speed and full power, punch at your partner's belt knot, 10 times. Touch every time. Then, still full speed and full power, punch at your partner's solar plexus, 10 times. Touch every time. Then, still full speed and full power, punch at your partner's nose, 10 times. Touch every time. This is focus. If you can do this exercise on a stationary target, change to a moving target. Expect to get hit a few times - after all, it's a martial arts class, and you're fighting - you're going to get hit, right?

Great discussion thus far! Just to add more fuel to the fire.... do your students do this from day one? Surely some sort of training is nessecary before a student is able to punch at full speed full power to a partners's nose and touch it every single time without breaking it. What type of training is done to make a student able to do this? Maybe that is where training with pads should come in. For those first few times when mistakes surely happen, until a student becomes fairly accurate. Then, shed the pads and do the same drill with a student who now knows the basices of how it should be done. Thoughts?

 

[Omar B]

Well, I've seen the pendulum swing in a direction that I didn't approve of. The change from Olympic TKD fro more of a power-based "knock out as the goal, but I can win on points" type of combative sport to a game of who can slap the hogu with a round or cut kick the quickest. Also, how many schools have lost the combative roots of TKD or teach it as an effective self defense system or martial art.

Luckily, it finally appears that at least in a decent percentage of schools, that pendulum is starting to swing back i a more positive direction. Even the WTF is making at least some reforms, so there is hope.

Yeah, I see what you mean man. I've been looking around for a new dojang and all I see are people sparring nott for acuraccy and hitting their mark but for putting their foot up there the quickest. Kicks with no power, just speed yet they couldnt hurt a fly with it. I have yet to fins myself a school that focuses on the martial art and on fighting more.

 

[Kacey]

I have seen this before but it was a simple demonstration of control not a training exercise. You mention full speed and full power but not full contact. Why would you spend your time practicing punching at your adversary and not through them. This sounds like exactly the type of exercise I mentioned in my earlier post, one that develops bad hobbits that are counter to SD, such as instinctively punching just short of your target.

Please understand I do not wish to insult you, I'm sure you and your instructor are quite capable of defending yourselves. All I am trying to say is that I'm positive that the manner in which we sparred at my school contributed significantly to my ability to defend myself and I don't believe we could have sparred as we did (without a much higher rate of serious injury) if not for the protective gear.

I can stop an inch away; I can stop on the target; I can stop an inch in; I can stop farther than an inch in. I choose - because I have developed my focus with my tools - not with my tools covered with 1/2-1" of foam. If you can do it with pads - but not without - then what's the point? You teach yourself, and your students, to focus with the pads included, so what happens when you take the pads off? Can you adjust your focus? If you can - great for you! But if you can't... you're doing yourself a disservice.

I will chime in. I prefer to spar without the pads. That is how I was taught, and we learned to focus because of that. The skill of a student can improve to the point where they can discern EXACTLY how much penetration they give to the target!

Now, that said, it is also okay to occasionally don the pads and to use them to get used to the "tournament ways". But, day to day, no. No pads are needed. Control is needed.

I will say that some students would use the shin pads, the cotton ones that would also cover the top of the foot. I have used those, because the bones in the foot get bruised! But, they are not needed, in my estimation.

Now, some new students today may wish for the pads, but, after they get used to the sparring, and become accustomed to the contact (they become desensitized, they are no longer scared of it!), then, its okay, they will realize they are not necesary.

This is what I was getting at, yes!

Great discussion thus far! Just to add more fuel to the fire.... do your students do this from day one? Surely some sort of training is nessecary before a student is able to punch at full speed full power to a partners's nose and touch it every single time without breaking it. What type of training is done to make a student able to do this? Maybe that is where training with pads should come in. For those first few times when mistakes surely happen, until a student becomes fairly accurate. Then, shed the pads and do the same drill with a student who now knows the basices of how it should be done. Thoughts?

My students start about a foot away, as white belts, so they can get used to aiming at a live target. The required distance gets smaller and smaller as they get higher in rank; by red belt they should be touching the target.

 

[DArnold]

Great discussion thus far! Just to add more fuel to the fire.... do your students do this from day one? Surely some sort of training is nessecary before a student is able to punch at full speed full power to a partners's nose and touch it every single time without breaking it. What type of training is done to make a student able to do this? Maybe that is where training with pads should come in. For those first few times when mistakes surely happen, until a student becomes fairly accurate. Then, shed the pads and do the same drill with a student who now knows the basices of how it should be done. Thoughts?

This is the phylosophy of Musashi.
The only thing there is is the cut.

I fight everyone (white belt through senior) as if they were a danger to me.
Every technique I throw is to take someone out (full speed, full power).
When you practice this way the only thing you need to change is the focus pt.
You never control a technique with speed (unless you want to learn how to throw slow techniques).

Only where you put the focus pt.
Most of the time with pads on people flail and think the pads will protect them.
Frankley if you practice any different with pads on than without, I feel you are wasteing your time.

Now where problems with instruction comes in is that this (practicing without pads) must be stress tested in order for it not to be a waste of time also!

 

[Laurentkd]

My students start about a foot away, as white belts, so they can get used to aiming at a live target. The required distance gets smaller and smaller as they get higher in rank; by red belt they should be touching the target.

Ah-ha! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Laurentkd]

What do you think about using pads for kids versus adults? Our kids always wear pads no matter what for safety. For adults, if we are training for a tournament we wear them and spar using tournament rules, if we aren't then we don't. There are some adults who will still put on some shin guards, and most will still wear a mouthpiece (accidents do happen and my folks spent good money to give me these straight pearly whites!). So basically it is up to the adult to decided to take the risk or not (I believe there is risk to any martial art training). But I think we should keep kids as safe as possible when making contact with each other (or coming close to making contact).

Kacey, do you train kids the same way you have talked about here?

 

[Kacey]

Kacey, do you train kids the same way you have talked about here?

I train all my students the same way. I will say, however, that the YMCA where I teach limits the class to 10 and older. For younger students, it often takes longer to get to the "touch" level - but they still get there.

 

[foot2face]

I can stop an inch away; I can stop on the target; I can stop an inch in; I can stop farther than an inch in. I choose - because I have developed my focus with my tools - not with my tools covered with 1/2-1" of foam. If you can do it with pads - but not without - then what's the point? You teach yourself, and your students, to focus with the pads included, so what happens when you take the pads off? Can you adjust your focus? If you can - great for you! But if you can't... you're doing yourself a disservice.

I think we are butting heads needlessly. I never intended to criticize your training methods just share my own. So please allow me to clarify my position. At my school we operated under the belief that when attacked and confronted with the violent chaos of a fight, thought goes out the window and a person relies on instinct. In a situation like this you do what you train. When sparring we attempted to simulate the pressure of an attack and come as near as possible to a real fight. Our goal was simple, hit your opponent as fast, as hard and as many time as you can without getting hit. While sparring like this, protective equipment is a huge assets. A good pair of boxing gloves and a mouthpiece turn what would have been a broken nose and a few loose teeth into a small trickle of blood. A good chest protector turns what could have been a broken rib into a bruise. Many students, myself included, suffered injuries that would have been far more severe if not for our protective equipment. I am aware that sparring gear is some what controversial, with some considering the use of protective equipment a sporting gimmick not necessary in a TMA, but there are school who use them in a far more practical fashion and find them to be an invaluable training aid.

 

[Kacey]

I think we are butting heads needlessly. I never intended to criticize your training methods just share my own. So please allow me to clarify my position. At my school we operated under the belief that when attacked and confronted with the violent chaos of a fight, thought goes out the window and a person relies on instinct. In a situation like this you do what you train. When sparring we attempted to simulate the pressure of an attack and come as near as possible to a real fight. Our goal was simple, hit your opponent as fast, as hard and as many time as you can without getting hit. While sparring like this, protective equipment is a huge assets. A good pair of boxing gloves and a mouthpiece turn what would have been a broken nose and a few loose teeth into a small trickle of blood. A good chest protector turns what could have been a broken rib into a bruise. Many students, myself included, suffered injuries that would have been far more severe if not for our protective equipment. I am aware that sparring gear is some what controversial, with some considering the use of protective equipment a sporting gimmick not necessary in a TMA, but there are school who use them in a far more practical fashion and find them to be an invaluable training aid.

I don't think I'm quite making myself clear. What do you do when you don't want to do as much damage as possible? I choose the amount of damage I want to inflict, because there are times when full-out hit them as hard as possible is not the appropriate choice - for example, I've been in a few situations at parties when someone who was drunk enough to be stupid would start "trying" things, to see what I'd do, but I can choose to pull the technique, still full speed, still full power, still capable of causing damage should I choose to do so, by changing my focus point. I don't aim for people when I spar - I aim for a series of moving points, which just happen to be attached to a person. Any person off the street can hit hard - and that seems to be what you're focusing on, and it's not what I focus on. I can hit plenty hard, and when it's been appropriate, I've done so - but I can also pull my technique when someone startles me into a reaction and not hurt someone I don't want to injure.

If you're training for nothing but all-out, do the most damage every time you throw a technique, and your goal is to avoid hurting your opponent solely because he's wearing pads - then enjoy! My goal is different than yours - to be able to startle, scare, wound, maim or kill as I choose, and thus my training methods are different as well.

 

[exile]

I think we are butting heads needlessly. I never intended to criticize your training methods just share my own. So please allow me to clarify my position. At my school we operated under the belief that when attacked and confronted with the violent chaos of a fight, thought goes out the window and a person relies on instinct. In a situation like this you do what you train. When sparring we attempted to simulate the pressure of an attack and come as near as possible to a real fight. Our goal was simple, hit your opponent as fast, as hard and as many time as you can without getting hit. While sparring like this, protective equipment is a huge assets. A good pair of boxing gloves and a mouthpiece turn what would have been a broken nose and a few loose teeth into a small trickle of blood. A good chest protector turns what could have been a broken rib into a bruise. Many students, myself included, suffered injuries that would have been far more severe if not for our protective equipment. I am aware that sparring gear is some what controversial, with some considering the use of protective equipment a sporting gimmick not necessary in a TMA, but there are school who use them in a far more practical fashion and find them to be an invaluable training aid.

f2f, it sounds to me as though you're talking about the full-scale, no-limit violence training that people like Iain Abernethy, Geoff Thompson and the British Combat Association guys , and Peyton Quinn's scenario training all use. Here you are training effective kata bunkai (or, the way some of the UK TKD people do it, hyung boon hae) to do maximum damage; the model isn't contest sparring but a sudden street attack where there's a premium on taking your attacker out asap, if need by by massive, traumatic tissue damage (full power hammer fists to the temple, full power knifehand strikes to the throat, breaking-force palm-heel strikes to the assailant's collar bone). Your objective is survival at all costs, which may involve extreme levels of damage to your attacker. And to acquire that ability, you need to train the total responses you expect to apply in that situation... which you obviously can't do unless 'uke' is padded enough that you will not kill him or her with the strikes that you're training.

Am I correct in interpreting the passage I've bolded in your above quote as a reference to something along those lines?

 

[foot2face]

I don't think I'm quite making myself clear. What do you do when you don't want to do as much damage as possible? I choose the amount of damage I want to inflict, because there are times when full-out hit them as hard as possible is not the appropriate choice - for example, I've been in a few situations at parties when someone who was drunk enough to be stupid would start "trying" things, to see what I'd do, but I can choose to pull the technique, still full speed, still full power, still capable of causing damage should I choose to do so, by changing my focus point. I don't aim for people when I spar - I aim for a series of moving points, which just happen to be attached to a person. Any person off the street can hit hard - and that seems to be what you're focusing on, and it's not what I focus on. I can hit plenty hard, and when it's been appropriate, I've done so - but I can also pull my technique when someone startles me into a reaction and not hurt someone I don't want to injure.

If you're training for nothing but all-out, do the most damage every time you throw a technique, and your goal is to avoid hurting your opponent solely because he's wearing pads - then enjoy! My goal is different than yours - to be able to startle, scare, wound, maim or kill as I choose, and thus my training methods are different as well.

If I did not want to do as much damage as possible than I would not use TKD. I was taught that TKD was an all or nothing fighting system. Holding back is the surest way to failure. We viewed the use of TKD like the use of a weapon. When you life is on the line and you shoulder you rifle you don't shoot to startle, scare, wound or maim. It's deadly force or don't press that trigger. When you have to use your TKD you don't hold anything back you either explode on your adversary with violence or you don't, no middle ground. My master know this approach wasn't appropriate for every situation so he supplemented our training with a little Hapkido and Judo, giving us a less violent option for defending ourselves.

 

[foot2face]

f2f, it sounds to me as though you're talking about the full-scale, no-limit violence training that people like Iain Abernethy, Geoff Thompson and the British Combat Association guys , and Peyton Quinn's scenario training all use. Here you are training effective kata bunkai (or, the way some of the UK TKD people do it, hyung boon hae) to do maximum damage; the model isn't contest sparring but a sudden street attack where there's a premium on taking your attacker out asap, if need by by massive, traumatic tissue damage (full power hammer fists to the temple, full power knifehand strikes to the throat, breaking-force palm-heel strikes to the assailant's collar bone). Your objective is survival at all costs, which may involve extreme levels of damage to your attacker. And to acquire that ability, you need to train the total responses you expect to apply in that situation... which you obviously can't do unless 'uke' is padded enough that you will not kill him or her with the strikes that you're training.

Am I correct in interpreting the passage I've bolded in your above quote as a reference to something along those lines?

I'm sorry, I can't speak much on the men above. I never heard of them before coming to this board. I was just describing the way we sparred at my school and as far as I can tell that's the way my master has always done it since he came from Korea. Their does seem to be some similarities. This was not how we trained boon hae though. I wrote in other threads how we divided H2H combat into two categories 1) SD/anti-smothering/anti-grappling and 2) "fighting". The applications of our poomse were used to counter techniques that would stifle our ability to "fight" and were trained a little differently. The sparring I spoke of was used to hone our "fighting" skill. A round would typically last for ten seconds then we would switch partners. It was spontaneous with no set movements. Our goal was to agress on our adversary with extreme violence, taking as little damage as possible, in order to effect a fast knockout.

 

[DArnold]

If I did not want to do as much damage as possible than I would not use TKD. I was taught that TKD was an all or nothing fighting system. Holding back is the surest way to failure. We viewed the use of TKD like the use of a weapon. When you life is on the line and you shoulder you rifle you don't shoot to startle, scare, wound or maim. It's deadly force or don't press that trigger. When you have to use your TKD you don't hold anything back you either explode on your adversary with violence or you don't, no middle ground. My master know this approach wasn't appropriate for every situation so he supplemented our training with a little Hapkido and Judo, giving us a less violent option for defending ourselves.

I would think a less violent option would be to learn how to control your technique, thus making it a versital weapon.

This is the only thing that differentiates anyone with training from anyone else on the street.

If you don't have control with a pistol do you go out and buy a rifle?
And if you don't have control with a rifle do you go buy a cannon?

 

[foot2face]

I would think a less violent option would be to learn how to control your technique, thus making it a versital weapon.

In a dojang, while preforming a demo or when sparring with a low belt it's called control but in a fight it's called holding back. No master I've ever met recommended holding back while in a real fight.

This is the only thing that differentiates anyone with training from anyone else on the street.

I disagree. The only thing that differentiates anyone with training from anyone else on the street is skill. The skill to quickly and efficiently neutralize your adversary, something my training methods allowed me to do.

If you don't have control with a pistol do you go out and buy a rifle? And if you don't have control with a rifle do you go buy a cannon?

I'm pretty sure I can't buy a cannon in my state, but if I could I would. As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as overkill, especially if it's my life that's on the line.

It is clear that we have a difference of opinion when it comes to training methods and fighting philosophy. I hope that these differences will lead to a friendly but vigorous discussion. I'm looking forward to having a hardy debate.

Thanks - Foot2Face

 

[Cirdan]

In a dojang, while preforming a demo or when sparring with a low belt it's called control but in a fight it's called holding back.

No. This is what is called skill.

If you can control your own movements then you can take on your opponent using skill. If you can`t, your only option is force.

 

[DArnold]

No. This is what is called skill.
If you can control your own movements then you can take on your opponent using skill. If you can`t, your only option is force.

His assumption is that every situation is the same and in every situation you need to kill your oponent.

However, not so in real life!

As the saying goes you don't swat a fly with a cannon.

Skill is only viable when used with your brain.

As my instructor taught me...

EVEN A BAD KICK OR PUNCH CAN HURT YOU
So assuming that skill is the end-all-be-all is a fatel mistake.

 

[DArnold]

In a dojang, while preforming a demo or when sparring with a low belt it's called control but in a fight it's called holding back. No master I've ever met recommended holding back while in a real fight.


I disagree. The only thing that differentiates anyone with training from anyone else on the street is skill. The skill to quickly and efficiently neutralize your adversary, something my training methods allowed me to do.


I'm pretty sure I can't buy a cannon in my state, but if I could I would. As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as overkill, especially if it's my life that's on the line.

It is clear that we have a difference of opinion when it comes to training methods and fighting philosophy. I hope that these differences will lead to a friendly but vigorous discussion. I'm looking forward to having a hardy debate.

Thanks - Foot2Face

So you can think of no instance, as you say, "in a real fight" where you wouldn't want to kill your opponent?

 

[FearlessFreep]

Only having skimmed a few later messages here...

Could you be meaning a difference between "holding back" and "holding back"?

There is "holding back" in terms of how much power you put into a technique, which I think is a mistake in a 'real life' situation

And there is "holding back" in terms of what techniques you use an dhow you apply them, which is pretty much legally required.

Sidekick a guy to the gut, go full force, no holding back. But you may not want to spin hook the guy to the jaw unless the danger of the situation really warrants it, or snap that wrist once you have them controlled with the wrist lock or....

 

[foot2face]

So you can think of no instance, as you say, "in a real fight" where you wouldn't want to kill your opponent?

Who's talking about killing? I never advocated they killing of one's opponent. All I'm saying is that when I'm in a fight I want to hit my adversary as hard as possible. I don't understand why a practitioner of a hard-style striking system relating their preference to...strike hard, is so controversial. Some people train in order to control the amount of force they deliver to their target others train to maximize it. I'm the latter, that's all.

His assumption is that every situation is the same and in every situation you need to kill your oponent.

However, not so in real life!

It's not that I think every situation is the same, and I certainly don't assume you always need kill your opponent. It's just that I take my TKD skills very seriously and have a high standard as to when to apply them. If the standard is met then the situation is serious, calling for a stern response. Here's something I wrote in another thread entitled Where's your line? Perhaps it will help you understand where I'm coming from.

While in class my master would give us short lectures about philosophy, personal conduct and such. One of the things he told us was that before you use your TKD ask yourself two questions:

1) Is what your fighting for worth killing for? Any physical altercation, no matter how seemingly benign, can escalate to a point of extreme violence where you will have to take a life! You must also take into account the unintended consequences of your actions. You may kick someone in the leg, intending only to sweep them to the ground but they may fall bad breaking their neck or cracking their scull on the pavement. Now you've just killed a person.

2) Is what your fighting for worth dying for? Basically the flip side of what was mentioned above.

If you answer no to either, walk away, you'll live a longer and happier life. If you answer yes to both, you can fight hard with a clean conscious and show no mercy.

If you are, however, jumped or mugged or just randomly attacked, your attacker has answered yes to both for you. In which case you immediately kick them into the ground and sort things out when you are done!

 

[Kacey]

Who's talking about killing? I never advocated they killing of one's opponent. All I'm saying is that when I'm in a fight I want to hit my adversary as hard as possible. I don't understand why a practitioner of a hard-style striking system relating their preference to...strike hard, is so controversial. Some people train in order to control the amount of force they deliver to their target others train to maximize it. I'm the latter, that's all.

Define "fight". There are lots of situations I can imagine in which I would need to defend myself without wanting to "hit my adversary as hard as possible", as you put it. If someone grabs me, I want to make them let go, as quickly as possible - but that doesn't necessarily mean hitting as hard as I can - it depends on the situation. From a legal standpoint, I want to do the least I possibly can to get out of the situation; doing more than that could lead to me being prosecuted - the law mandates a reasonable response - and hitting someone as hard as possible is not always a reasonable response. For example, I've been "attacked" by drunken men in bars - I don't want to hit them as hard as possible; it makes them puke

It's not that I think every situation is the same, and I certainly don't assume you always need kill your opponent. It's just that I take my TKD skills very seriously and have a high standard as to when to apply them. If the standard is met then the situation is serious, calling for a stern response. Here's something I wrote in another thread entitled Where's your line? Perhaps it will help you understand where I'm coming from.

I don't disagree with the above - but this part of your rationale was not stated previously, and is very relevant to the discussion. I take my TKD skills very seriously too - but I train to respond appropriately, which means I can deliver different levels of response. If you understand that different scenarios require different responses, then we are agreeing using different terminology; if you think you can only use TKD for a serious situation, then you are missing a wide range of possible response scenarios in which your TKD could be used just as well - but with less force in some situations than others.