TKD is Weak on the street as a self defense?

[JowGaWolf]

Taekwondo is highly effective for self defense.

You have to specify what type of Taekwondo is effective for self-defense because TKD tricking was never made for the purpose of self-defence. Olympic TKD also falls into that category of not being designed for self-defense.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I mean If you were to go to a next level martial artist like Saenchai we would learn that overlap.

This multi style coupling is hard but you are a better martial artist if you can master it.

Thanks for the video. I smiled through the entire video. This is what I wish people could see and understand about Martial Arts in general and about sparring. It's not some blood sport where everyone is dying on the mat. Sparring and competition are 2 different levels of intensity. There was a lot of control shown in this video. You could tell that Saenchai only threw what his thought his opponent could safely defend against and when he was wrong he tapped gloves with his sparring partner.

There was a lot of laughing and people just enjoying the friendly competition and a chance of a life time. This is definitely the side of martial arts that I wish more people could see.

 

[Balrog]

You have to specify what type of Taekwondo is effective for self-defense because TKD tricking was never made for the purpose of self-defence. Olympic TKD also falls into that category of not being designed for self-defense.

Tricking (also called XMA) isn't martial arts. It's dance routines. Taekwondo is taekwondo. If one styles spars under different rules than another, that doesn't mean the art is not useful for self-defense.

 

[Flatfish]

Taekwondo is taekwondo. If one styles spars under different rules than another, that doesn't mean the art is not useful for self-defense.

You're right, not the art but if the style/dojang doesn't teach the 'right' way, the SD is going to have some really big gaps (see my earlier post above)

 

[JowGaWolf]

Tricking (also called XMA) isn't martial arts. It's dance routines. Taekwondo is taekwondo. If one styles spars under different rules than another, that doesn't mean the art is not useful for self-defense.

The art isn't in question. It's how the art is trained. Not all martial arts are taught with a self-defense focus. For example, Tai Chi is Tai Chi but not everyone trains Tai Chi with a self-defense focus. So if you want to learn Tai Chi as a self-defense then you must let the head instructor know so that they can either teach you in that manner or let you know that you need to train with someone else.

Olympic TKD is TKD, but it has a problem with always having the hands down. This is not self defense. If XMA does martial arts techniques then it is a Martial Art. If they do front kicks, side kicks, punches, elbows, then those are the same things that are done in TKD or Karate.
For example, there are some martial arts techniques in her performance, but they aren't trained for self-defenese. It would be no different than people who do kung fu forms for 30 years and still can't fight.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You're right, not the art but if the style/dojang doesn't teach the 'right' way, the SD is going to have some really big gaps (see my earlier post above)

My first time searching for a Tai Chi class. I had to ask the head instructor if they taught Tai Chi as a fighting system or for only health. During that time (many years ago) I checked with 3 or 4 schools in my area and none of them trained Tai Chi with a self-defense focus. I later learned that I had to go to a kung fu school in order to learn Tai Chi as a fighting system. It's all Tai Chi but it's not taught the same when it's only Tai Chi for health.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

I love watching Saenchai. He almost brings a bit of Capoeira feel to Muay Thai. He definitely understands malandragem.

I guess that footage is from seminars where he spars some of the participants? That would be an awesome opportunity.

The twist lick & roundhouse at 3:41 is interesting. I'll have to keep that in mind for sparring and for a different drill.

 

[JR 137]

It’s the way TKD is trained, not TKD itself. As an example...

My father and his brothers were TKD black belts in Beirut, Lebanon in the mid 60s-late 70s. One of my uncles decided to start again here in NY in the mid 90s.

They all said they practiced the high, spinning and flashy kicks in class, but they never did them during sparring; they did them to develop flexibility, coordination, agility, etc.; they were never taught as actual fighting kicks.

When my uncle started sparring, he kept his kicks at rib height. He was constantly told to try to kick his partners’ head. Then he was repeatedly asked “why are you throwing punches? Punches don’t score points.” His response of “I’m not here to score points” didn’t go over very well. He stuck around long enough to pass his black belt test (in 2 years). He liked the exercise and time away from his wife and kids twice a week.

His black belt was the final straw. He paid for the “black belt plan” where you pay one price and train until you pass without any fees. After he passed his black belt test, the school wanted $250 for the belt. Apparently the fine print said the test was covered, but the belt itself is $250. When they “reminded” him of that, he told them to keep the belt, as he wasn’t there for the belt itself anyway.

All TKD doesn’t operate this way. It’s all about how it’s trained. And there’s nothing wrong with training for the sole purpose of competing. The problem arises when the prospective student is looking for one thing, and the school is teaching something else. And when the school isn’t up front about what’s actually being taught and done.

TKD is an excellent SD art when the teacher and the students have SD as a priority. Same can be said for practically every art.

 

[Balrog]

If XMA does martial arts techniques then it is a Martial Art. If they do front kicks, side kicks, punches, elbows, then those are the same things that are done in TKD or Karate.

XMA is not a martial art, no matter what they call it. I've seen modern dance routines that do what we call martial arts moves. I've seen XMA. Same thing.

 

[TigerHeart]

XMA is not a martial art, no matter what they call it. I've seen modern dance routines that do what we call martial arts moves. I've seen XMA. Same thing.

The video that JowGaWolf posted, this woman shows too many high kicks, high strikes and high blocks are far too high. This is not really a traditional martial art.

 

[Balrog]

The video that JowGaWolf posted, this woman shows too many high kicks, high strikes and high blocks are far too high. This is not really a traditional martial art.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[TrueJim]

What, the internet has finally stopped using Tiffany Larsen's infamous Koryo as its "impractical poomsae" example?

I kid. I have a lot of respect for the athleticism shown here.

 

[TigerHeart]

Thank you for agreeing with me.

I'm not a martial art expert, but I'm saying XMA is still a martial art. It is just modernized and not traditional.

 

[Balrog]

I'm not a martial art expert, but I'm saying XMA is still a martial art. It is just modernized and not traditional.

Sorry, you're wrong. XMA is NOT a martial art by any stretch of the imagination. At best, it is modern dance combined with some gymnastics. If someone depended on XMA training to defend themselves, they would be slaughtered.

 

[Steve]

I don't agree with this. I've trained with too many people who trained multiple arts, and both paths seem to be reasonable. Brain confusion is a part of the learning process. It will probably take longer to learn the first art if it is learned alongside the second, but it won't double the learning time. And in some cases, waiting until the first art is ingrained makes it difficult to get the core concepts of the second art (like transitioning from Shotokan's angles to Aikido's curves), making the second art take considerably longer to integrate.

It's a pretty individual thing. Some folks prefer to dig deep into the first art before adding another. Others do better with the variety of multiple arts.

First, I agree mostly. I would actually take it further. I think the entire idea of confusion is very overstated. Provided that the skills are being applied in some context so that you are building real skill, you will be fine. People learn multiple languages at the same time, multiple jobs at the same time, all kinds of things. They go to college and take classes that are completely disparate and do just fine. Or take classes that are closely related, and also do just fine. Learn multiple sports at the same time. And when there's a physical component, it's even easier.

The most overlooked aspect (which I run into all the time when coaching and developing new managers) is the importance of having a solid framework. A solid foundation can be the framework, which is what we hear a lot. If you have a solid foundation to build the skills on, you will be fine. In this case, the you are bringing a framework with you from previous experience. The key, though, is that one can be provided to you by the school or system. What I mean is, you can learn a style and then build on it as a core. Or you can learn discrete styles all at the same time, but organized for you in a framework. An MMA school is an example of this. You can learn wrestling in high school, then BJJ, then Boxing or Muay Thai. Or you can learn wrestling, BJJ, and Muay Thai all discretely and also connected within the framework of MMA transitions and drills.

Either approach can work really well, but each has strengths and weaknesses. If well rounded skills and integration are the goal, you might actually be better off learning everything all at once. The risk of not doing so is specialization. Damian Maia, a world class athlete by any measure, is never going to be a world class striker or wrestler, for example. I believe that had he integrated his learning earlier, his BJJ might be slightly less advanced, but his other skills would be markedly improved.

 

[Steve]

Sorry, you're wrong. XMA is NOT a martial art by any stretch of the imagination. At best, it is modern dance combined with some gymnastics. If someone depended on XMA training to defend themselves, they would be slaughtered.

Not necessarily true. I'd put my money on the gymnast in most street fights, even against a trained martial artist (depending on the style). They are strong, fast and athletic. Same goes for ninja warriors. They aren't learning to fight in the MMA sense, but they are also strong, fast and very athletic. Since we're talking self defense and not fighting, I believe they'd do very well. If you put them up against a trained fighter, their chances are about the same as anyone else's.

Edit: And just to add, I'm using the term "fighter" in the context it's usually defined around here. I hope it's not controversial to state that most martial arts styles do not train fighters. They train martial artists, which is not the same thing.

 

[DaveB]

It wasn't style specific but you can't train two styles at once? Because training different styles effect the style you train.

MMMMMMM..........

Anyway look at the posts above.

Sigh.. typical Drop Bear.

You've clearly forgotten the reasoning that supported the position I take.

Why would the time it takes to learn different movements or unfix ingrained habits have anything to do with core skills that are independent of style??

You keep wanting to argue but don't want to address the argument.

You had one worthwhile point which took you forever to figure out and I agreed with it. Different style mechanics may make one more or less efficient than another fighter. I simply contest that if the core skills are mastered and the art in question is trained enough, it won't make enough of a difference to be worth mentioning.

Now I can't prove this and you cant prove otherwise so we agree to disagree and that's fine.

All your other attempts to poke holes in my argument just show up how much trouble you have holding more than a headline in mind.

 

[Martial D]

I would suggest that you stop reading things written by people who don't know what they are talking about.

Taekwondo is highly effective for self defense. So is aikido. So is ANY martial art that teaches you situational awareness and from which you gain confidence. Bad guys profile for victims. They look for people who don't appear confident, and especially for people who are not aware of their surroundings.

So they say, but I am not so sure this is true. A lot of the time people that get assaulted are the ones that carry themselves as if they are dangerous, but are not. Generally its young guys spoiling for a fight that take any sign of confidence as aggression.

 

[drop bear]

Sigh.. typical Drop Bear.

You've clearly forgotten the reasoning that supported the position I take.

Why would the time it takes to learn different movements or unfix ingrained habits have anything to do with core skills that are independent of style??

You keep wanting to argue but don't want to address the argument.

You had one worthwhile point which took you forever to figure out and I agreed with it. Different style mechanics may make one more or less efficient than another fighter. I simply contest that if the core skills are mastered and the art in question is trained enough, it won't make enough of a difference to be worth mentioning.

Now I can't prove this and you cant prove otherwise so we agree to disagree and that's fine.

All your other attempts to poke holes in my argument just show up how much trouble you have holding more than a headline in mind.

So then that argument means you can train two styles at once because the core skills are similar? Or you can't train two styles because the styles produce different results.

I mean it is not really proving anything more than showing that you are not making much sense here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So they say, but I am not so sure this is true. A lot of the time people that get assaulted are the ones that carry themselves as if they are dangerous, but are not. Generally its young guys spoiling for a fight that take any sign of confidence as aggression.

I haven't seen a lot of evidence to support this, except where the other person was presenting an aggressive air.