Well rounded taekwondo

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Personally, I prefer stand up grappling arts (like Hapkido and Akido) over ground arts (like BJJ) simply because it is my opinion that being on the ground in a self defense situation is Bad Idea (tm).

Judo is a good place to work from if, especially if you like the idea of competing (even within the dojo). You'll get a more limited range of responses in Judo than in something like Hapkido, because they tend to distill down to what works against other Judoka (and further, often, to what is allowed in competition), which is a much smaller population of techniques than what will work on everyone else

Both wrestling and BJJ have a focus on moving to the ground. The best use of this is that you'd also be training on how to avoid going to the ground. That latter, you'd also get a good focus on from Judo, with the added benefit of much more focus on being able to put the other guy down without necessarily going to the ground, yourself (though there's a reasonable amount of that in Judo, too). With other standing grappling (Aikido, Hapkido, etc.), it depends on the school how much you learn to avoid being taken to the ground. If there's resisted training (two people trying to put each other on the ground), you'll get that benefit. If not, probably not.

Then I'd say jiu jitsu. Wrestlers don't spend a lot of training off their back, judo from what I know spends more time in a standing clinch and works on throwing your oppenont and it has some emphasis on mat work but it's not the focus. But jiu jitsu spends a lot of time on your back teaching either submissions from your back or sweeps and reversals.

Juijutsu akido Krav Maga and Kenpo

I think for this reason, BJJ is an excellent compliment to your TKD training.

Otherwise split the difference and do submission wrestling.

Where BJJ + TKD will get you more threes, I think Judo or Wrestling will get you more 2+ scores on your chart.

hapkido traditionally goes well with TKD, judo will help you grappling while staying standing, BJJ will help you if you end up on the ground. It's up to you what you value more.

I would say BJJ. It helps you with the area you're the least proficient in.

For that combination, I'd be thinking either Judo (because there's a really good focus on not being taken down, plus some reasonable groundwork) or BJJ (because that builds strong competency on the ground, and many places do teach getting up after you get control back)

For what you want, Judo is more likely to enhance your ability to stay standing (and handle a clinch). BJJ is more likely to help you handle things on the ground. Decide whether you're more interested in dominating on the ground (advantage to BJJ) or being harder to take down (advantage to Judo).

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Because no one was really answering my question. So instead you are on here asking Me a question about my question??? Lol!

Read the above post, I quote about 10 different, direct answers that I saw in this thread, before you asked the question. The issue is not that you haven't been given a direct answer, it's that the answer changes depending on what you value, so you will get different answers from different people, rather than a consensus among everyone of "do judo" or "do bjj". You have a decision to make, and we can't make it for you.

If you really want to make the decision, read post 31 by Tony, and make a decision based on that post. In addition to making sure you have whatever it is close enough that you could train first.

 

[Axkick1]

Read the above post, I quote about 10 different, direct answers that I saw in this thread, before you asked the question. The issue is not that you haven't been given a direct answer, it's that the answer changes depending on what you value, so you will get different answers from different people, rather than a consensus among everyone of "do judo" or "do bjj". You have a decision to make, and we can't make it for you.

If you really want to make the decision, read post 31 by Tony, and make a decision based on that post. In addition to making sure you have whatever it is close enough that you could train first.

No lol I wanted someone to break down why a certain grappling style would be beneficial to taekwondo or coincide with the already established techniques of taekwondo. There was 1 or 2 people that did that and that’s great! That’s what I wanted but in the beginning a lot of people were just bantering about topics that were not relevant to my original questions. So I was trying to stear or “guide” the thread back to where I wanted it to go.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

No lol I wanted someone to break down why a certain grappling style would be beneficial to taekwondo or coincide with the already established techniques of taekwondo. There was 1 or 2 people that did that and that’s great! That’s what I wanted but in the beginning a lot of people were just bantering about topics that were not relevant to my original questions. So I was trying to stear or “guide” the thread back to where I wanted it to go.

Most wouldn't necessarily coincide with the already established techniques (with the exception of hapkido, where the two arts are generally taught together). For the most part, it's on you to understand the pros/cons of each art, and decide which is most important for you.

For instance, my first grappling art to cross train was judo (sort of). That was because my style of fighting involves breaking distance, getting close, then disengaging back out of distance. It's not all I can do, but it's what I'm best at. So my biggest issue was people getting a grip while I was in close, and having to fight my way back out. Sparring judokas helped me with that. But that had nothing to do with judo coinciding with techniques I already knew.

Based on generalizations, I would go with either BJJ or wrestling. Reasoning behind that is that TKD (in general) focuses a lot on kicks, so you have that range down, so I would imagine that you can stay in that range, and people would try to close the distance to get away from your kicks. If you know BJJ or wrestling, you can take it to the ground and have an advantage there as well.

But that's based purely on stereotyping/generalizations. That's why I referred you back to post 31, where Tony lays out pros/cons of each so you can decide which one fits best with your strategy, rather than which one has techniques that coincide with TKD techniques.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

No lol I wanted someone to break down why a certain grappling style would be beneficial to taekwondo or coincide with the already established techniques of taekwondo. There was 1 or 2 people that did that and that’s great! That’s what I wanted but in the beginning a lot of people were just bantering about topics that were not relevant to my original questions. So I was trying to stear or “guide” the thread back to where I wanted it to go.

Also, if you hang out on this forum, you'll discover a lot of bantering, and veers off topic. When the posters are answering similar questions all the time, it's natural.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Also, if you hang out on this forum, you'll discover a lot of bantering, and veers off topic. When the posters are answering similar questions all the time, it's natural.

Off-topic? On Martial Talk? Blasphemy!!

 

[oftheherd1]

I want to avoid the ground but I also want a style that gets me out of sticky grappling situation and back to my feet and if I end up on the ground and can’t get up I’d be able to competently hold my own and even negate my attackers ground submissions.

It seems like some people are split on the issue. From what I’m seeing most people seem to recommend Brazilian jujitsu, judo or hapkido. So which of these 3 would be the most beneficial to round out a taekwondo stylist and make him more comfortable on the street or in a grappling encounter?

I am not sure what you really want, nor for that matter, it you know what you really want. I think somebody already asked you but I didn't see what I thought was in informed answer, so it is difficult to give an answer. Confused?

BJJ, Judo and Hapkido all have different philosophies in how they react to an attack. You need to find out what those are, preferably from schools in your area if they exist. What little I know about BJJ and Judo, they have no problem making contact while both are on their feet. But the preferred goal seems to be to get an opponent to the ground and apply some technique for a pin or submission. That is OK if that is what you are looking for to complement your TKD. But as others have stated, I personally would prefer not to be on the ground. From the little I know if either, I think Judo is a little more willing to perform a throw staying on their feet, and walk away if the opponent has the common sense to allow that to be the end of the confrontation. BJJ and Judo practitioners are welcome to correct me because as I said, I don't really know those arts.

There are a lot of flavors of Hapkido. Besides that, Kuk Sool Won has a lot of defenses that are shared between them and Hapkido. But I think most, and certainly the Hapkido I studied, are all very defense minded. We normally wait for and respond to an attack. Many strike and kick defenses will start with a block/evasion, then a grapple, often dislocating a joint, and finishing with the opponent on the ground receiving a strike or kick. Even if an opponent starts with a grapple, we will have a defense that may often result in the opponent being on the ground (not us other than kneeling), and receiving a kick or strike. Those are very common things. That said, we do teach recovery from being taken to the ground, but it is usually at higher belts so you can more easily pull them off based on your prior knowledge.

That is why I would also think if a person is looking for an add-on to TKD or even Karate, Hapkido is a good supplement. But if BJJ or Judo can honestly say they tend to use their grappling to get to a strike or kick, then they might be OK as well. But again, I don't think that is their main thrust. Regardless, if you have gone to Hapkido, BJJ and Judo schools, and prefer one over the other two, do the one you prefer.

 

[drop bear]

I am not sure what you really want, nor for that matter, it you know what you really want. I think somebody already asked you but I didn't see what I thought was in informed answer, so it is difficult to give an answer. Confused?

BJJ, Judo and Hapkido all have different philosophies in how they react to an attack. You need to find out what those are, preferably from schools in your area if they exist. What little I know about BJJ and Judo, they have no problem making contact while both are on their feet. But the preferred goal seems to be to get an opponent to the ground and apply some technique for a pin or submission. That is OK if that is what you are looking for to complement your TKD. But as others have stated, I personally would prefer not to be on the ground. From the little I know if either, I think Judo is a little more willing to perform a throw staying on their feet, and walk away if the opponent has the common sense to allow that to be the end of the confrontation. BJJ and Judo practitioners are welcome to correct me because as I said, I don't really know those arts.

There are a lot of flavors of Hapkido. Besides that, Kuk Sool Won has a lot of defenses that are shared between them and Hapkido. But I think most, and certainly the Hapkido I studied, are all very defense minded. We normally wait for and respond to an attack. Many strike and kick defenses will start with a block/evasion, then a grapple, often dislocating a joint, and finishing with the opponent on the ground receiving a strike or kick. Even if an opponent starts with a grapple, we will have a defense that may often result in the opponent being on the ground (not us other than kneeling), and receiving a kick or strike. Those are very common things. That said, we do teach recovery from being taken to the ground, but it is usually at higher belts so you can more easily pull them off based on your prior knowledge.

That is why I would also think if a person is looking for an add-on to TKD or even Karate, Hapkido is a good supplement. But if BJJ or Judo can honestly say they tend to use their grappling to get to a strike or kick, then they might be OK as well. But again, I don't think that is their main thrust. Regardless, if you have gone to Hapkido, BJJ and Judo schools, and prefer one over the other two, do the one you prefer.

Hapkido would have to actually work though. At some point you have to be grappling someone fighting back. And you have to be beating them.

With a lot of grappling arts this is a given. They grapple people and either win or loose. And so a lot of the grappling is directed towards that end. This is why people go to the ground to finish. Because you are just more likley to win from there.

So while fighting on the ground may not be optimal for self defence because of situational issues. (The ground may be lava) You still have to have a method that wins fights. Then be situationally apropriate.

And unfortunately being on top of someone with your weight pinning them down is about the best way to do that.

Standing wristlocks would in theory be better for self defence if anyone could reliably do them.

What you find tends to happen is that mowing someone in to the ground makes sure they go there. But then you wind up on the ground on top of them.

 

[oftheherd1]

Hapkido would have to actually work though. At some point you have to be grappling someone fighting back. And you have to be beating them.

Are you saying that Hapkido doesn't actually work? I would naturally disagree strongly with that. To put it kindly, I think you just are uninformed on Hapkido. You might want to look again at what I have said about Hapkido. We generally wait for an attack (although we don't have to) and respond to that, usually in a way that does no good for the attacker.

Talking about the ground needs clarification. As you see in the second YouTube video you posted, the attacker does indeed end up on the ground, but not the defender, other than maybe with one or two knees on the ground. Most of what I have seen in BJJ is seems the defender will also be on the ground, usually not just on one knee, but totally on the ground. Again, I am not a BJJ practitioner, so I could be wrong, but from what I have seen, I am not.

In the first You Tube you posted, that appears to be some sort of competition. There have to be rules. The Hapkido I learned did not have rules to be used in competition, as we didn't do competition unless we sparred TKD fashion.

With a lot of grappling arts this is a given. They grapple people and either win or loose. And so a lot of the grappling is directed towards that end. This is why people go to the ground to finish. Because you are just more likley to win from there.

So while fighting on the ground may not be optimal for self defence because of situational issues. (The ground may be lava) You still have to have a method that wins fights. Then be situationally apropriate.

Two important points there, just misinterpreted by you. More likely to win? I can only speak about the Hapkido I studied. We did not practice Hapkido as an art to compete in. Again in the Hapkido I studied, we did not go to the ground, but very likely our attacker would, and be pinned by the locking of a joint.

And unfortunately being on top of someone with your weight pinning them down is about the best way to do that.

Standing wristlocks would in theory be better for self defence if anyone could reliably do them.

Most of the joint locks I learned finished with the opponent on the ground, not me. And very seldom would we be standing and let the opponent stand, while administering a lock. Nor would it have to be a wrist lock only. We did not use our weight to pin an opponent, but rather some lock. That allows the Hapkido person to be much more mobile if needed.

Sorry if you are unable to reliably do a joint lock. But you can't properly blame Hapkido for that, rather your lack of ability. That may be an innate inability, or most likely, a lack of proper instruction.

What you find tends to happen is that mowing someone in to the ground makes sure they go there. But then you wind up on the ground on top of them.

That sounds like something specific to your art, but not to mine. If you are happy with it, great, keep doing it.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In the first You Tube you posted, that appears to be some sort of competition. There have to be rules. The Hapkido I learned did not have rules to be used in competition, as we didn't do competition unless we sparred TKD fashion.

I think drop bear's point in posting those two videos is that the Hapkido used by practitioners against someone who is fighting back looks very different from the Hapkido demonstrated on compliant partners who are trying to make the demonstrator look good.

 

[drop bear]

Are you saying that Hapkido doesn't actually work? I would naturally disagree strongly with that. To put it kindly, I think you just are uninformed on Hapkido. You might want to look again at what I have said about Hapkido. We generally wait for an attack (although we don't have to) and respond to that, usually in a way that does no good for the attacker.

If you can present a case for Hapkido working as it is supposed to then I am happy to hear it.

I am not saying it doesn't work. It is more I haven't seen it work. So where there is a wealth of evidence that arts like judo, BJJ, Wrestling works. I just haven't seen the case made for Hapkido.

 

[oftheherd1]

I think drop bear's point in posting those two videos is that the Hapkido used by practitioners against someone who is fighting back looks very different from the Hapkido demonstrated on compliant partners who are trying to make the demonstrator look good.

I can't argue that. But don't put too much emphasis on wanting to look good. While that is true, as I would suspect anyone demonstrating their art would want to do, it is also not wanting to damage your demonstration partner. I'm sure you know that, but if it isn't said, some who aren't familiar with demonstrations of Hapkido, might misunderstand your intent.

 

[oftheherd1]

If you can present a case for Hapkido working as it is supposed to then I am happy to hear it.

I am not saying it doesn't work. It is more I haven't seen it work. So where there is a wealth of evidence that arts like judo, BJJ, Wrestling works. I just haven't seen the case made for Hapkido.

Good grief! You apparently haven't read anything I have said. You seem to simply wish to portray Hapkido in a bad light, even though you know nothing about it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Good grief! You apparently haven't read anything I have said. You seem to simply wish to portray Hapkido in a bad light, even though you know nothing about it.

Evidence for sport is easy. It's tougher to find evidence (even if it exists) for non-sport training.

 

[drop bear]

Evidence for sport is easy. It's tougher to find evidence (even if it exists) for non-sport training.

It is all the same evidence. If I wanted to make the case for a double leg takedown then elbows. I could make that case 4 ways.

Expert and anecdotal accounts.
Evidence from video in competition.
Evidence from video in street fights.
Actually doing the technique to you resisted.

So the idea that is a sport technique that is only backed by sports evidence is false.

That would be an example of a technique backed by evidence.

I could then make the case for that in sport where applicable or street where applicable.

This is not all that complicated. Where you have to get complicated is when you don't have evidence. Then you have to take all these round about paths to justify a technique.

 

[drop bear]

Good grief! You apparently haven't read anything I have said. You seem to simply wish to portray Hapkido in a bad light, even though you know nothing about it.

OK. I know nothing about it. So if you make a case for it working I am willing to be convinced.

OP knows nothing about grappling. So I have been making a case for what works and why it works.

And so far you have been giving a lot of bad information.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is all the same evidence. If I wanted to make the case for a double leg takedown then elbows. I could make that case 4 ways.

Expert and anecdotal accounts.
Evidence from video in competition.
Evidence from video in street fights.
Actually doing the technique to you resisted.

So the idea that is a sport technique that is only backed by sports evidence is false.

That would be an example of a technique backed by evidence.

I could then make the case for that in sport where applicable or street where applicable.

This is not all that complicated. Where you have to get complicated is when you don't have evidence. Then you have to take all these round about paths to justify a technique.

Wow, a bad misread, DB. Sport is easy to find evidence for, because it is sport. There are competitions, and many of them have video we can watch to see that evidence.

 

[drop bear]

Wow, a bad misread, DB. Sport is easy to find evidence for, because it is sport. There are competitions, and many of them have video we can watch to see that evidence.

Evidence is easy because of sport. And YouTube.

This sport evidence idea is not really accurate.

I mean why can I find so many videos of boxers, for example, in street fights?

Do you think that is a sport thing?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Evidence is easy because of sport. And YouTube.

This sport evidence idea is not really accurate.

I mean why can I find so many videos of boxers, for example, in street fights?

Do you think that is a sport thing?

You're still missing my point. Boxing is easier to find because of all the boxing matches we can also find it in. A non-sport style, all you'll have is the rest (assuming it exists). I've seen punching in street encounters, but unless the video poster tells me it's a boxer, it's not always obvious. If someone punches someone in a street encounter, we have a ton of styles that punch could come from. Many even punch a bit like boxing. We can find evidence of techniques in street encounter videos, but unless we happen to know the defender's style, it's hard to get evidence for an art/system that way. But with sport, we often know the style being used (especially in style-specific competitions), so it's easier to find that evidence.

So, no the "sport evidence idea" is not inaccurate. The evidence is easier to find for sport. Yes, it is mostly the same range of evidence, except arts not used (much/at all) in competition, you can mostly only easily find outside evidence for techniques, not the system, except your first category (expert and anecdotal accounts - something you in the past have universally dismissed as "just stories").

 

[drop bear]

You're still missing my point. Boxing is easier to find because of all the boxing matches we can also find it in. A non-sport style, all you'll have is the rest (assuming it exists). I've seen punching in street encounters, but unless the video poster tells me it's a boxer, it's not always obvious. If someone punches someone in a street encounter, we have a ton of styles that punch could come from. Many even punch a bit like boxing. We can find evidence of techniques in street encounter videos, but unless we happen to know the defender's style, it's hard to get evidence for an art/system that way. But with sport, we often know the style being used (especially in style-specific competitions), so it's easier to find that evidence.

So, no the "sport evidence idea" is not inaccurate. The evidence is easier to find for sport. Yes, it is mostly the same range of evidence, except arts not used (much/at all) in competition, you can mostly only easily find outside evidence for techniques, not the system, except your first category (expert and anecdotal accounts - something you in the past have universally dismissed as "just stories").

You are looking at things backwards. You are not really trying to identify which art is best. You are looking at best methods and that just becomes the art.

Which is what the arts are doing anyway. And why you can't really tell karate from boxing at a certain skill level.

You are identifying meta concepts.

This throws " sport evidence " out the window.

So you basically don't see standing armbars done anywhere. You don't see armbar takedowns done anywhere. You don't see them because there is almost always something easier and safer to apply.

(And they are mostly trained wrong)

And before you worry about street. Your methods have to work first.

That means you pretty much always go for easier and safer. Rather than what seems more street.