TKD is Weak on the street as a self defense?

[skribs]

Pretty dewey or so rain-soaked that you're tearing the grass into the soggy mud?

 

[Steve]

Pretty dewey or so rain-soaked that you're tearing the grass into the soggy mud?

What if you have to defend yourself in a giant, mud filled inflatable pool? What if the mud is in the middle of a giant fire ant hill, where heroin addicts toss used needles? Have you trained for that?

This could be fun. I have a pretty good imagination, if we are playing the “what about” game.

 

[skribs]

What if you have to defend yourself in a giant, mud filled inflatable pool? What if the mud is in the middle of a giant fire ant hill, where heroin addicts toss used needles? Have you trained for that?

This could be fun. I have a pretty good imagination, if we are playing the “what about” game.

You live in Washington. I'm surprised that soggy ground is a concept so foreign to you.

 

[Steve]

You live in Washington. I'm surprised that soggy ground is a concept so foreign to you.

I’m kind of an expert. So, why aren’t you asking me about kicking on wet grass? You’d think, if anyone knows wet grass, it’s me and my fellow seattleites.

 

[drop bear]

Pretty dewey or so rain-soaked that you're tearing the grass into the soggy mud?

Just Dewey. Sorry. That was the way the ground was.

I didn't have any birthing agent handy.

 

[skribs]

I’m kind of an expert. So, why aren’t you asking me about kicking on wet grass? You’d think, if anyone knows wet grass, it’s me and my fellow seattleites.

The point is you made it sound like slippery ground is a straw-man argument. The discussion we've been having for the last several pages is literally regarding acrobatic techniques on slippery surfaces, and whether or not it will be easy to use them if all you've trained is in the dojang.

 

[DaveB]

What if you have to defend yourself in a giant, mud filled inflatable pool? What if the mud is in the middle of a giant fire ant hill, where heroin addicts toss used needles? Have you trained for that?

This could be fun. I have a pretty good imagination, if we are playing the “what about” game.

What if you have to defend yourself in a giant, mud filled inflatable pool? What if the mud is in the middle of a giant fire ant hill, where heroin addicts toss used needles? Have you trained for that?

This could be fun. I have a pretty good imagination, if we are playing the “what about” game.

Assessing environment and an evidence based approach to technique choice always gets a good laugh.

 

[Steve]

The point is you made it sound like slippery ground is a straw-man argument. The discussion we've been having for the last several pages is literally regarding acrobatic techniques on slippery surfaces, and whether or not it will be easy to use them if all you've trained is in the dojang.

What point did I make? I thought the point I was making is that you guys are fundamentally misunderstanding drop bears point. How is that a slippery slope or a straw man? The rest is just being silly in response to silliness.

 

[Steve]

Assessing environment and an evidence based approach to technique choice always gets a good laugh.

Wait. Are you suggesting an evidence based approach? I’m genuinely confused. Because, that’s what drop bear seems to be in favor of, as well.

 

[DaveB]

Wait. Are you suggesting an evidence based approach? I’m genuinely confused. Because, that’s what drop bear seems to be in favor of, as well.

Again, thats what he usually does, but because the suggestion in this thread was that an SD focussed school may be more likely to go looking for said environmental evidence than a sport school, DB has been arguing against the use of evidence.

He proposes, and you seem to agree, that because a dojo etc can become slippery, that this is sufficient to understand how one might need to adapt technique based on their environment.

Actually simulating or experiencing different environments (ie evidence gathering) is, in this case, a waste of time for him.

Being able to think up unlikely scenarios apparently makes preparing for common situations a ludicrous idea.

 

[Steve]

Again, thats what he usually does, but because the suggestion in this thread was that an SD focussed school may be more likely to go looking for said environmental evidence than a sport school, DB has been arguing against the use of evidence.

He proposes, and you seem to agree, that because a dojo etc can become slippery, that this is sufficient to understand how one might need to adapt technique based on their environment.

Actually simulating or experiencing different environments (ie evidence gathering) is, in this case, a waste of time for him.

Being able to think up unlikely scenarios apparently makes preparing for common situations a ludicrous idea.

To he clear, I'm proposing that you cannot anticipate every variable in training. I.e. You cannot anticipate all the variables that can occur in real life. This is the "whatabout" game. And while fun, its not all that practical. It just turbs into discussions like this. What about on wet grass? What if it's super muddy and slick? What if the guy has a knife? What if he has a bazooka?


Simply put, I think most martial artists fail even to get to a functional, application level of competence in a single context, much less a higher level of expertise thar would allow you to transfer that competence to other contexts. if you cannot reliably use technique in one context, you will not be able to apply it to different contexts.

And also, it works the other way, positively. Functional ability in one context can be transferred to another.

 

[skribs]

The discussion we've been having for a while is if a tornado kick, or the types of tactics used in sport Taekwondo, are applicable on the street. The two factors we're discussing are that your leg can be grabbed, or that you might slip. Hence where slightly dewy grass that's still got pretty good traction is not as relevant to the discussion as soil that's super-saturated with water.

 

[Balrog]

The discussion we've been having for a while is if a tornado kick, or the types of tactics used in sport Taekwondo, are applicable on the street.

IMNSHO, anyone who uses a tornado kick for self-defense deserves to be knocked on his ***. The best use of the legs and kicking is to take the other guys legs away from him. In a self-defense situation, I advocate to NEVER kick above the belt line. Blow his knee out and run like hell.

 

[skribs]

IMNSHO, anyone who uses a tornado kick for self-defense deserves to be knocked on his ***. The best use of the legs and kicking is to take the other guys legs away from him. In a self-defense situation, I advocate to NEVER kick above the belt line. Blow his knee out and run like hell.

When I first started working 12 years ago, my orientation at Albertson's was conducted by a guy who was about 6'3, 250 pounds. He told us why we weren't supposed to chase after shoplifters with a personal story. He says he chased down a guy who couldn't have been a hair over 5'7 down, and next thing he knew he woke up in the hospital, with his boss saying "I think he got you with his foot."

 

[DaveB]

To he clear, I'm proposing that you cannot anticipate every variable in training. I.e. You cannot anticipate all the variables that can occur in real life. This is the "whatabout" game. And while fun, its not all that practical. It just turbs into discussions like this. What about on wet grass? What if it's super muddy and slick? What if the guy has a knife? What if he has a bazooka?


Simply put, I think most martial artists fail even to get to a functional, application level of competence in a single context, much less a higher level of expertise thar would allow you to transfer that competence to other contexts. if you cannot reliably use technique in one context, you will not be able to apply it to different contexts.

And also, it works the other way, positively. Functional ability in one context can be transferred to another.

Funny that it's only detractors of the method that get into the "whatabout" game. People who havd trained in SD specific schools seem quite happy with a few common scenarios introduced to get people thinking or drilling with obstacles to help get better at being aware of your surroundings.

You see just because you can mischaracterise something doesn't mean that's how it is.

The whole appeal of SD focussed schools was that they moved straight into skill building and application, avoiding (or minimising) forms and impractical elements. Yes I'm sure there are plenty that devalue sparring and don't do enough of it. But then there are those that do, so this idea that you have to pick either functional skill or an understanding of environment is as nonsensical to me as the suggestion that you shouldn't use tornado kicks in SD is to Drop Bear.

 

[Steve]

Funny that it's only detractors of the method that get into the "whatabout" game. People who havd trained in SD specific schools seem quite happy with a few common scenarios introduced to get people thinking or drilling with obstacles to help get better at being aware of your surroundings.

You see just because you can mischaracterise something doesn't mean that's how it is.

The whole appeal of SD focussed schools was that they moved straight into skill building and application, avoiding (or minimising) forms and impractical elements. Yes I'm sure there are plenty that devalue sparring and don't do enough of it. But then there are those that do, so this idea that you have to pick either functional skill or an understanding of environment is as nonsensical to me as the suggestion that you shouldn't use tornado kicks in SD is to Drop Bear.

There's a whole lot of foundational discussion we would need to have before we can talk about this. I guess if I try to sum it up, it would be to say that, as a person who's made a career out of teaching people to do things, I have concerns about most "self defense" specific schools. If the outcomes of the program are specific and objectively measurable, AND the skills being taught will be used "for real" by the students, great. This could be a close quarters program taught to LEO. It could be a women's self defense course for college students. Whatever it might be.

General programs, where you invent stuff that is very unlikely to ever occur... those are problematic.

So, where we talk about whether someone can kick on wet grass, that's more of a sales pitch to me. Selling a feature without benefit. Unless, of course, you're a cop who is in an area where you are likely to be tussling on wet grass from time to time. And even then, occasional practice on actual wet grass will be less useful than frequent practice on slippery mats.

Where I am a proponent of sport based training of any kind over non-sport based training, is that it is a venue for application to people who aren't professionally violent. And even if you are professionally violent, sport training is great for skill development.

Sport is not an essential element of a good training program. Application is essential. All sport is application. Not all application is sport.

Training, no matter how realistic, is not application.

 

[drop bear]

Again, thats what he usually does, but because the suggestion in this thread was that an SD focussed school may be more likely to go looking for said environmental evidence than a sport school, DB has been arguing against the use of evidence.

He proposes, and you seem to agree, that because a dojo etc can become slippery, that this is sufficient to understand how one might need to adapt technique based on their environment.

Actually simulating or experiencing different environments (ie evidence gathering) is, in this case, a waste of time for him.

Being able to think up unlikely scenarios apparently makes preparing for common situations a ludicrous idea.

So because a dojo can get slippery it prepares you for a slippery surface.

And so far I think I am the only one who has gone out and thrown tornado kicks on wet grass. See there is a difference between evidence gathering and waxing lyrical about what might happen in the street.

And yes you dont get that much bang for your buck being an environmental fighting specialist.

I mean how long would it take for me to find this ice rink, learn to fight effectively on it. As opposed to what advantage would it give me as I am going to struggle to find an ice rink should I need to defend myself.

 

[drop bear]

IMNSHO, anyone who uses a tornado kick for self-defense deserves to be knocked on his ***. The best use of the legs and kicking is to take the other guys legs away from him. In a self-defense situation, I advocate to NEVER kick above the belt line. Blow his knee out and run like hell.

The never kick above the belt thing is an urban myth. Just people thinking something is a good idea on a subject they dont understand.

 

[drop bear]

The discussion we've been having for a while is if a tornado kick, or the types of tactics used in sport Taekwondo, are applicable on the street. The two factors we're discussing are that your leg can be grabbed, or that you might slip. Hence where slightly dewy grass that's still got pretty good traction is not as relevant to the discussion as soil that's super-saturated with water.

The soil wasn't supersaturated with water. That was the real environment I found at the time.

So had I been attacked at that time that would have been the environment I would have had to deal with. It would not have been an ice rink. It would not have been a floating platform over an abyss flash gordon style. It would have remained dewey grass.

This is an important distinction because you are arguing what isn't. I cannot throw a tornado kick neck deep in quicksand. So mabye every time someone comes up with a concept I can say. "Yeah but it wont work if you are neck deep in quicksand so therefore you are really not training for self defence"

I mean here is a real enviroment people have had street fights in.

 

[Balrog]

The never kick above the belt thing is an urban myth. Just people thinking something is a good idea on a subject they dont understand.

Ummm...no. It is exactly what I teach, and I teach it for a reason. Head kicks are nice and flashy and showy and great for practicing technique, but they are not practical for self defense. Your balance is better and your kicks are stronger if you keep them at the belt line or lower.