TKD is Weak on the street as a self defense?

[Gerry Seymour]

Well wet grass isn't really that slippery. As people can still stick flying kicks while standing on it.

I never claimed it was ice. My assertion (easily testable and verifiable) is that wet grass is considerably more slippery than the dojo surfaces I've trained on, with the exception of sweaty wood floors.

Which is the argument for training applicable moves for the street. That you would slip over performing these not wet grass functional moves.

It is an argument, not the argument. It has merit, but doesn't override all other considerations.

Which is the point I was essentially making. In that self defence focused training focuses more on these issues than they need to.

Just how much does my training focus on it?

And it works in their favor to do so because it gives them a niche market. That martial arts that focus on working in the environment it is trained in don't have.

The marketing does tend to lean more on these sorts of things than necessary. That's a valid point.

So let's not say all self defence instruction has this issue. But you certainty do.

I return to my prior question. Just how much do I focus on this?

 

[drop bear]

I never claimed it was ice. My assertion (easily testable and verifiable) is that wet grass is considerably more slippery than the dojo surfaces I've trained on, with the exception of sweaty wood floors.


It is an argument, not the argument. It has merit, but doesn't override all other considerations.


Just how much does my training focus on it?



The marketing does tend to lean more on these sorts of things than necessary. That's a valid point.


I return to my prior question. Just how much do I focus on this?

Considerably more slippery than something that is less slippery unless you are training on something slippery?

Does that sound similar to my argument that people slip over? Which I made about the original argument.

I mean this was the reason why tornado kicks that while they may work in training or in the ring. Won't work on the street. Or that the kick could be caught or there wouldn't be room. All sorts of generalizations.

Now you didn't make that one. But you have certainly jumped on it.

I don't know how much you focus on it. But you have taken this side of the argument.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Considerably more slippery than something that is less slippery unless you are training on something slippery?

Yep.

Does that sound similar to my argument that people slip over? Which I made about the original argument.

It does, and I agreed with your sentiment there. I happen to find it useful to introduce some slippery surfaces (as well as some uneven surfaces) into training, so people can experience the differences on their own, rather than having to take my word for it. You know, so they aren't relying on stories.

I mean this was the reason why tornado kicks that while they may work in training or in the ring. Won't work on the street. Or that the kick could be caught or there wouldn't be room. All sorts of generalizations.

It is, in fact, one reason a tornado kick might not work. It wouldn't be my first thought - I just prefer simpler mechanics - and it doesn't preclude their use. In fact, if I was evaluating a tornado kick for use in the street, one thing I'd do is train it on something slippery. Again, to get some actual evidence to work with.

Now you didn't make that one. But you have certainly jumped on it.

If you say so. It's a reasonable assertion, but one I can't support or counter, since I don't know any tornado kicks.

I don't know how much you focus on it. But you have taken this side of the argument.

Actually, the "side of the argument" I've taken is that it's useful to train on variable surfaces (on purpose) to test what changes there, rather than guessing. You assumed my argument was that this would produce an entirely different approach. In fact, there are some things I'd avoid on slippery surfaces. Why? Because I find them unreliable when I practice them on slippery surfaces. Again, based on evidence.

But, as you've done several times in the past, you're trying really hard to twist my argument into something you can bash. If you stick to my actual argument, you might give me some good food for thought (as you often do). When you counter an argument I'm not even making, that's not much use.

 

[drop bear]

Yep.


It does, and I agreed with your sentiment there. I happen to find it useful to introduce some slippery surfaces (as well as some uneven surfaces) into training, so people can experience the differences on their own, rather than having to take my word for it. You know, so they aren't relying on stories.


It is, in fact, one reason a tornado kick might not work. It wouldn't be my first thought - I just prefer simpler mechanics - and it doesn't preclude their use. In fact, if I was evaluating a tornado kick for use in the street, one thing I'd do is train it on something slippery. Again, to get some actual evidence to work with.


If you say so. It's a reasonable assertion, but one I can't support or counter, since I don't know any tornado kicks.


Actually, the "side of the argument" I've taken is that it's useful to train on variable surfaces (on purpose) to test what changes there, rather than guessing. You assumed my argument was that this would produce an entirely different approach. In fact, there are some things I'd avoid on slippery surfaces. Why? Because I find them unreliable when I practice them on slippery surfaces. Again, based on evidence.

But, as you've done several times in the past, you're trying really hard to twist my argument into something you can bash. If you stick to my actual argument, you might give me some good food for thought (as you often do). When you counter an argument I'm not even making, that's not much use.

Except this is about you bashing my argument in regards to making generalisations.

Which is what I am countering at the moment.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Except this is about you bashing my argument in regards to making generalisations.

Which is what I am countering at the moment.

And you did make a sweeping generalization that ascribed (without evidence) an attitude and approach to everyone in a population. You compared that to me saying wet grass is slippery. Not even close to the same thing.

 

[JR 137]

I can trump all of you wet grass and concrete guys. Anyone train in a lake, barefoot, with some sharp rocks on the bottom?

Didn’t think so.

But I do...

Makes me so much more realistic than you

And yes, I’ve trained on wet grass too...

(Mic drop)

 

[drop bear]

And you did make a sweeping generalization that ascribed (without evidence) an attitude and approach to everyone in a population. You compared that to me saying wet grass is slippery. Not even close to the same thing.

Is all wet grass slippery? Have you provided evidence?

It is exactly the same thing.

And where did I say everyone in a population?

Are you trying really hard to twist my argument?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Is all wet grass slippery? Have you provided evidence?

It is exactly the same thing.

And where did I say everyone in a population?

Are you trying really hard to twist my argument?

Sigh. Go ahead and spar. You can take all the shots you want at arguments I didn't make, man. It won't get you any points, won't make you any smarter or more informed, and won't help anyone else, either. I think this rabbit hole has reached bottom.

 

[New Instructor]

Hi everyone

I took my first TKD ITF lesson yesterday, I really enjoyed it.

I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.

Could someone give me some clarity on this?

The place I just joined has the TKD and also has Street awareness incorporated in to the sessions.

My initial thought was to take TKD and also do either JUDO/JJJ along side with it.

My main goal is to be able to protect my family if a dangerous situation were to occur.

I have heard the same thing. Most people that make those kind of statements are uneducated and don't know what they are talking about. From what I have studied I can tell you that TKD is dry much good for self defence.
Every Martial Art has people that are not a good e?ample to go by when it comes to technique of any kind weather it be basics or Self Defence. Just be aware of where you get your information. Some people are just out to give other martial arts a bad name. I know at my school we actually an outage the students to study multiple arts.

 

[drop bear]

Sigh. Go ahead and spar. You can take all the shots you want at arguments I didn't make, man. It won't get you any points, won't make you any smarter or more informed, and won't help anyone else, either. I think this rabbit hole has reached bottom.

You did exactly what I did. Having some sort of sook about it is not going to change that.

You started this nonsense. Then engaged in it for what? 2 pages. And then complain that it is somehow my fault?

Plenty of times a conversion with you just gets silly and I will just leave it alone.

So this one I didn't. So what? It is just conversation. Don't get so caught up in winning.

 

[skribs]

I have heard the same thing. Most people that make those kind of statements are uneducated and don't know what they are talking about. From what I have studied I can tell you that TKD is dry much good for self defence.
Every Martial Art has people that are not a good e?ample to go by when it comes to technique of any kind weather it be basics or Self Defence. Just be aware of where you get your information. Some people are just out to give other martial arts a bad name. I know at my school we actually an outage the students to study multiple arts.

I would also argue that many Taekwondo schools focus exclusively on things that are not self defense. Taekwondo can mean a number of things, from art (primarily traditional poomsae), acrobatics (such as tricking or advanced jumping kicks), sport (olympic-style sparring), and self-defense.

I could open up a school* and teach only forms, and people could learn balance and get good exercise, but if I don't teach any practical application then I AM teaching Taekwondo, but I'm a terrible self defense school. I could open a school* and teach olympic-style sparring and take my students to a dozen tournaments every year, and we might be an awesome sports team, but if I'm not teaching fighting in situations where you can be kicked below the belt, punched in the head, or grabbed, I'm probably a terrible self defense school. I could open a school* and teach gymtaek, with kicks that start with numbers and flips and twists thrown in, and we would look awesome on a dance floor, but it would be a terrible self defense school. All of these could teach great Taekwondo, specialized - but great at that specialty. These would all be Taekwondo schools that are not lacking in teaching, but are terrible self defense schools, because that's not the discipline being taught.

On the other hand, I could open up a school* and teach only self defense, eschewing forms, eschewing fighting where there's too many rules to be realistic, and eschewing any techniques that are only good for showing off and have no practical application, and have a good self defense school using traditional Taekwondo self defense techniques. It would be just as much Taekwondo as any of the schools in the last paragraph, but it would also be a great self defense school.

*Of course, if I open up a school, it's not going to be a great anything. I'm nowhere near proficient enough as a martial artist or instructor to open up my own school. This is a what-if scenario of if I was at a Master level, I could open up a school with a dedication to a specific aspect of Taekwondo, and it would excel in that aspect.

 

[New Instructor]

If your fortunate enough to study under Instructors that hold rank in many styles and values practical application, I would stick with them.

 

[WaterGal]

I can trump all of you wet grass and concrete guys. Anyone train in a lake, barefoot, with some sharp rocks on the bottom?

Didn’t think so.

But I do...
View attachment 21128
Makes me so much more realistic than you

Oh man, so you must be the reason that my liability insurance company feels they have to specify, in writing, that they don't cover training in lakes or oceans.

 

[skribs]

Oh man, so you must be the reason that my liability insurance company feels they have to specify, in writing, that they don't cover training in lakes or oceans.

So you don't have the coverage to be a strange lady lying in ponds distributing swords?

I guess we need to find a new system of government then.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you don't have the coverage to be a strange lady lying in ponds distributing swords?

I guess we need to find a new system of government then.

No insurance for watery tarts.

 

[DaveB]

When I read your post above, I don’t see a training issue. I see the value of experience. Training isn’t the answer to ecerything.

Except that it wasn't experience that filled the gap, the skills I applied in those situations were from my SD based training.

Experience helped me to avoid fights, not win them.

 

[Steve]

Except that it wasn't experience that filled the gap, the skills I applied in those situations were from my SD based training.

Experience helped me to avoid fights, not win them.

You say that experience didn't fill the gap, but going back and reading your post again, it seems like the opposite is true. I don't think this is worth arguing about. I just think you and I are seeing the same thing and coming to different conclusions. I would say that experience will both help you win fights and avoid them. 10 years of beating the mean streets of London sounds a lot like experience to me.

 

[DaveB]

You did exactly what I did. Having some sort of sook about it is not going to change that.

You started this nonsense. Then engaged in it for what? 2 pages. And then complain that it is somehow my fault?

Plenty of times a conversion with you just gets silly and I will just leave it alone.

So this one I didn't. So what? It is just conversation. Don't get so caught up in winning.

No idea What you two are arguing about but it's definitely Drop Bear's fault.

 

[drop bear]

No idea What you two are arguing about but it's definitely Drop Bear's fault.

Better to be the bad guy than the victim.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Better to be the bad guy than the victim.

Best to be neither, brother.