what is tkd.......??

[Kong Soo Do]

Earl, with respect, it is semantics. 'For defense only' or 'self defense' is the same thing as intended. But to offer a clarification, the martial arts (at least the civilian self-protection side of the arts) was meant for defensive purposes i.e. you're attacked and then you end the fight by putting the attacker in a position they can no longer sustain the attack. This might be by knocking him out, putting him in a lock so he can't move or disengaging after a good ole fashioned 'stun and run'.

What I'm saying here is that sporting competitions are not a necessary part of a martial art. And if we're honest for just a moment..it is a money maker and business method of keeping the student base (usually young) pumped up and coming back.

Little Johnny is told not to go to school and drop kick the teacher or his fellow students. Don't choke out your little brother either. Walk away from bullies and use your training only as a last resort when no other option is available....but....then we turn right around and face little Johnny off against little Billy for a plastic trinket. All the while the adults are yelling 'git em'. That is a contradiction. That is hypocritical. Where is the 'defense only/self defense' situation in this? And although this will likely chap the hide of a lot of people....it's wrong. It is the worst thing to have ever been implemented in the martial arts imo. I know that is a strong opinion. I know some may 'need' it to help keep the doors open and the kids happy. But that is only because this paradigm has been fostered. It is an add-on to TKD (and other arts) that weren't necessarily in the original design. So this is just my opinion and not meant as a slap to anyone.

And this isn't meant of take the thread in a different direction so my apologies to the OP

 

[Manny]

Now that brings a question to mind. You say you don't do Sport Olympic sparring... do you do any sparring?

I would say sparring (be it Olympic style or otherwise) is a very core/key component of Taekwondo. It's very important for confidence building, teaching the body/mind to cope with adrenaline dumps and getting people used to taking knocks (amongst other things).

While I think MMA would be more effective for self-defence than Taekwondo, any martial art practiced without sparring would be the lowest on the scale IMHO.

Truth to be told in my class we spar very little, of my three students only two (the green belts) are the only ones who show up to class everytime, a couple of weeks ago we did some sparring drills and also sparring and yes we need to do more sparring but there are only to guys in class, maybe if I had 8 to 10 students it will easier to do round robin and do much more sparring. That why we focus on poomsae and basics and one steps.

Manny

 

[Manny]

Truth to be told in my class we spar very little, of my three students only two (the green belts) are the only ones who show up to class everytime, a couple of weeks ago we did some sparring drills and also sparring and yes we need to do more sparring but there are only to guys in class, maybe if I had 8 to 10 students it will easier to do round robin and do much more sparring. That why we focus on poomsae and basics and one steps.

Manny

Some thing I forgot, friday nights are sparring night, my students know they can come up early to dojang and train with my sambonim and his students (15 to 20 students) and they can sparr with yellow to black belts.

Sparring is an important thing inside any martial art so I need to do some changes and incorporate more sesions of it or..... as I wrote come early on fridays train with sambonim and do spaaring with the other students, somo of them very good indeed.

Manny

 

[Earl Weiss]

>>>It is true that an officer once disarmed a bad guy during a robbery…and then handed the gun back to the bad guy! Why? Because in training he and his fellow officers took turns being the ‘bad guy’. The officer would disarm the ‘bad guy’ (a rubber gun) and then hand it back to him so he could do it again. Under duress…he did the same thing. We no longer train that way<<<<

All should take note of this. It was recently reinforced at a USTF weapons course. If you managed to gain control of the weapon and finish the attacker, you would then lay the weapon on the floor for them to pick up for the next drill.

 

[Earl Weiss]

>>>Perhaps we need a new term? The term ‘martial art’ doesn’t effectively mean what it should mean. It is too broad of a brush stroke. Perhaps ‘martial art’ should mean ‘martial sport’ and a new term like ‘martial discipline’ be used to denote a martial system focusing strictly and only on self-defense. <<



I saw an article addresing this once:
http://371078645507472465-a-1802744...Ub1ucMLb5PnXWM4rxOqC5qohOBDhw=&attredirects=0

 

[Earl Weiss]

Earl, with respect, it is semantics. 'For defense only' or 'self defense' is the same thing as intended.

With respect, no it's not. And I think we are pretty much on the same page.

As instructors, I find I have to define terms. For this issue I steal semthing from a Vince Morris, a Karate guy from the UK. He said something to the effect that Just because Karate is an art of Self Defense, does not makeit a Defensive Art."

There is a difference between, being being the Agressor, and being the person who attacks first.

Along these lines is"Pre emption" the need to land the first blow.

 

[terryl965]

Well for me TKD has two venue for today world: S.D. in which we spar but not like sport TKD. It is more realistic with little room for mistakes.

The we teach sport TKD both Olympic and point fighting, this is a Martial sport and should be treated as one, can some of it work for self defense absolutely but for most school theyseperate the two when training people.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

With respect, no it's not. And I think we are pretty much on the same page.

As instructors, I find I have to define terms. For this issue I steal semthing from a Vince Morris, a Karate guy from the UK. He said something to the effect that Just because Karate is an art of Self Defense, does not makeit a Defensive Art."

There is a difference between, being being the Agressor, and being the person who attacks first.

Along these lines is"Pre emption" the need to land the first blow.

I was discussing the "pre emption" thing with a friend recently. I feel that at my stage of training Im reasonably confident in a fight if I throw the first blow, but not as confident if Im fighting off someone who has attacked me first. It makes me wonder, if Im under threat and alone and have to fight to survive, at which point should I strike first even though Im not the aggressor? Ive always said I will only fight if someone attacks me, but by not attacking first you can leave yourself at a real disadvantage (unless you have decades of training under your belt).

 

[Master Dan]

Completely disagree with this. Recently I saw some footage of my GM way back in the day fighting in "anything goes" fighting comps, mainly against the japanese. The fighting was vicious and even the winner usually ended up with bad injuries (it makes the ufc look like a couple of primary school kids fighting). He fought using "old school 1950's tkd", and no disrespect to modern olympic style, but his style was much more adaptable to a real self defence situation. Applying tkd in a situation where leg kicks, head punches, eye gouges, poking, joint manipulation etc etc are allowed ends up a much more 'realistic' mindset to training, and you fight how you train. Im pretty sure if you went back in time and got a hardcore 1950's tkdist and stuck him in a cage with steven lopez the end result would not be good at all for steven. Saying that fighting in comps is a "highly stressfull situation" which prepares for real SD doesnt make much sense to me. Playing footy, running a business, playing in a band, running a marathon etc are also highly stressful situations but they sure as hell dont prepare you for defending yourself. Sorry to stray off topic, but the point Im making is that there is a lot more to tkd than the flashy stuff and if you train tkd with SD in mind then the flashy stuff becomes much less important.

Amen to all of that especially the fact that what a person trains or practices they will do. I constantly break down specific movements and SD based on age and the anatomy of the person both defender and attacker. To many people are being trained blindlly to pass rank advancement but not truly thinking or practicing penetrating controlled specific techniques broke down to base gross motor skills with the ability to see targets of oportunity when the fight becomes fluid. Ears and noses bitten off eyes gouged out horrible sucking noises comming from the throat its not pretty. Our GM always stressed practice your illegal techniques even so much of the mma and ufc when they come into my dojang to train still concern themselves with mainly a sport mentality and while I applaud their heart and conditioning much of what they do in a true SD street encounter could get them killed or injured yes compared to a person who knows nothing maybe better maybe not depends in some cases the person realizing they can do nothing will give them what they want and survive and in the other case the sport person knows just enough to get shot or stabbed.

You guys jump in but I find most of the sport elite that comment about how thier supperior training and lightening kicks will always win the day have never truly been in close combat anything goes training with someone who has had the steaming guts in his hands or the taste of another mans blood in his mouth truly changes the training.

I will say that after you train your students the best you can with real SD skills it does help to send them to Comps to build stress and confidense and condition for being able to take contact. However is is a proven scientific fact that all humans regardless of skill level at any time can be effected by adrenalin dump the black zone choking what ever you want to call it professional and novice alike and in most cases the higher % happens when it happens with out warning no ability to surveye or prepare mentally and I don't give a crap what you say about all your methods of seeing everything before it happens nobody is 100% if you have never once been caught up dead bang its right there in a split second I don't think you ever leave your house?

 

[Earl Weiss]

I was discussing the "pre emption" thing with a friend recently. I feel that at my stage of training Im reasonably confident in a fight if I throw the first blow, but not as confident if Im fighting off someone who has attacked me first. It makes me wonder, if Im under threat and alone and have to fight to survive, at which point should I strike first even though Im not the aggressor? Ive always said I will only fight if someone attacks me, but by not attacking first you can leave yourself at a real disadvantage (unless you have decades of training under your belt).

Hmmm. Saw an article on that once

See item #6. (Of course the whole thing is good!

http://371078645507472465-a-1802744...HE9T7V82JHsJdUtS80pJmoVrmexWL3&attredirects=0

 

[Kong Soo Do]

With respect, no it's not. And I think we are pretty much on the same page.

As instructors, I find I have to define terms. For this issue I steal semthing from a Vince Morris, a Karate guy from the UK. He said something to the effect that Just because Karate is an art of Self Defense, does not makeit a Defensive Art."

There is a difference between, being being the Agressor, and being the person who attacks first.

Along these lines is"Pre emption" the need to land the first blow.

I see where you're coming from here Earl, and I agree. Self-defense can be a pre-emptive strike in the appropriate circumstances. And one could easily consider it as an offensive-defense.

Body language is a big indicator of an imminent attack; clenching of fists, rapid breathing, thousand mile stare etc. Our protocol dictates that if an individual raises their hands above their waist in any type of aggressive manner then it is automatically considered an aggressive act and dealt with appropriately.

Good point to bring up Earl.

 

[Manny]

I am not a big enthusiastic of competing, yes I like to watch the competitions and I like to be center and cahir referee too but my time of competing is gone, I don't have the time and enthusiasm to train to become a competitor (kyorugi) anymore.

It's true a good competitor have many chances of win a street fight, the competitors have good stamina and reflexes and can deliver good blows too si I Higly respect the black belts that compete in a regular basis.

My class consit of the average joe who trains TKD because the work out, to stay in shape and for strret self defense smarts for sure, that's why we amphatice good and strong basics, the way we spar is eluding,blocking and using the fists to the hogu, I will like to use hand to the head but my students needs first to get their safety gear and some kind of foam gloves.

I really don't like the hogu, insted I would like to use gloves,boots,shgin pads,cup,helmet and mouth piece, I think with this safety gear the students can be confortable and will sparr good.

Manny

 

[puunui]

With that said, here is my post from my site that covers much of what I've said above with additional commentary:

There are many factual inaccuracies in your article. Would you like me to go through all of them?

 

[puunui]

Earl, with respect, it is semantics. 'For defense only' or 'self defense' is the same thing as intended. But to offer a clarification, the martial arts (at least the civilian self-protection side of the arts) was meant for defensive purposes i.e. you're attacked and then you end the fight by putting the attacker in a position they can no longer sustain the attack. This might be by knocking him out, putting him in a lock so he can't move or disengaging after a good ole fashioned 'stun and run'.

You are taking two separate concepts at face value and then analyzing it from your own perspective only.

The concept of the martial arts being for self defense only, especially for those martial arts influenced by Japanese culture, came from the Tokugawa Shogunate era in Japan's history. Shogun Ieyasu unified the country and ushered in a era of peace lasting 400 years, which continues today. The problem was that the Samurai still enjoyed the highest class status, and still walked in public with their swords. Another point was the idea of challenge matches were a very real part of the Samurai culture, wherein you tested yourself by challenging another. The duels of MIYAMOTO Musashi speak to this.

So a compromise was developed over time wherein it was understood that the sword should remain in the scabbard unless one's life was endangered. However, Samurai could still hold duels with each other using bamboo or even wooden swords. From this evolved our Do arts of Kendo, Judo, etc., which focus on this idea of mutual combat in a competitive, and non-lethal setting. Taekwondo is runs in line with this with its Olympic based competition format. If you read the Olympic Charter, you will see that one of the goals of competition is to test one's self. There is no conflict between the self defense aspects of Taekwondo and its competitive aspects, because they address different issues.

What I'm saying here is that sporting competitions are not a necessary part of a martial art.

If you believe that at least one goal and function of Taekwondo is to test one's self, then I would say that it is a necessary part of the art. If one does not compete or does not understand the competition aspects of Taekwondo, then a very large part of the art is lost, the end result often being, a rationalization away from competition and an overemphasis on self defense for example.

And if we're honest for just a moment..it is a money maker and business method of keeping the student base (usually young) pumped up and coming back.

Being honest, most instructors will say that tournaments is a money loser for most schools. Many dojang lose students after that student has a bad experience at a tournament. In addition, if one is involved in national competition, then there is financial as well as opportunity costs in travelling, when one could be focusing in on marketing or signing up new students.

 

[Balrog]

What is TKD without jumping/spining kicks? This question keeps hunting me... for many people TKD is a volley of dificult flying/spining/jumping high kicks, for example the korean tigers... when one can't perform that kind of flamboyant kicks are one TKDoing or not?

A few days back my students and I practiced spining kicks and those aimed to the head where a pain in the ...... even for me, I had not did this kicks since a long time, sure I did them them at 18-20 years old but now at 43 my body refuses to perform these kicks.

It was sad for me been a second dan and not acomplished the task, my spining high kicks sucks... and I feel terrible to my students to see me like a instructor who can't kick in a aerial kicking martial art.

Don't feel bad. I'm 62 and I don't do jump kicks worth a damn any more. But I can teach others to do them, and that is what's important.

Jump kicks are fun. They're great for physical/mental discipline and they are certainly spectacular when done correctly. But they are useless for self-defense and I make sure that my students understand that from the start.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

You are taking two separate concepts at face value and then analyzing it from your own perspective only.

That is correct. I can't post someone else's perspective.

Being honest, most instructors will say that tournaments is a money loser for most schools.

Then why keep doing it

 

[puunui]

That is correct. I can't post someone else's perspective.

You can post other people's perspective. I do it all the time. All that is required is understanding the particular issue from the other person's perspective.

Then why keep doing it

Because they apparently feel that it is an important part of the Taekwondo experience, that the benefits outweigh the negative.

 

[puunui]

Looking at the Eastern views (such as Japan), there was a clear delineation between a ‘Jutsu’ (pronounced Jitsu and translated generally as ‘method’) and a ‘Do’ (which translates as a ‘way’) or a ‘Te’ (which translates as ‘hand’). Originally a Jutsu was created and used by the warrior class i.e. Samurai for use in war or law enforcement whereas a ‘Do’ or ‘Te’ was created for civilian use in self-defense situations i.e. defending yourself against a bandit. Again, generally speaking a Jutsu almost always involved extensive use of weapons as the primary focus with empty hand training being secondary. A ‘Do’ or ‘Te’ was almost always the opposite.

There is no three distinctions, in that "Te" was never within its own category. "Te", which was a term used in Okinawa, was shorthand for Toudejutsu (Karatejutsu in Japanese or TangSooSool in Korean). Sometimes they would simply say Te, or Toude (Toute). There were other names such as Naha Te or Shuri Te, but these were descriptive of the place where that particular Te was developed, in Naha city or Shuri city and so forth, in much the same way that Toude was descriptive of where that came from (China). The full name of these would be Naha Te Jutsu, Shuri Te Jutsu or Toude Jutsu. Jutsu was the suffix for these styles.

The Do suffix was NOT a designation "for civilian use in self-defense situations" as you claim, but rather it was primarily used to distinguish arts in which were developed for self discovery or "testing one's self" purposes, as opposed to fighting on a battlefield or else where. Instead of fighting on a battlefield, where the Jutsu arts were used, the battlefield of Do arts was the competition arena, where again, practitioners could test themselves and their training against others who were looking to do the same and in doing so, learn more about themselves. The arts which started this usage was Kendo and Judo, which represented the major weapon and unarmed Jutsu arts.

Where is self defense in all of this? Korean and Japanese martial artists use the term Hoshinsool (Korean) or Goshinjutsu (Japanese) to describe that aspect. It is not a "Do" art because there is no "competition self defense", or self discovery aspect to it -- you are defending yourself.

That is why I think it is strange that you would choose a name like Kong Soo Do, especially given the fact that the biggest proponent of that name, Dr. YOON Kwe Byung (2nd President of the Jidokwan) was also one of the biggest advocates of competition back in the 1950's and early 1960's. It was through Dr. Yoon's connections in Japan that led to the exchanges between Korea and Japan through tournaments. The name Kong Soo Do (Karate Do) was in fact the creation of FUNAKOSHI Gichin Sensei who, at the time of the name's creation, was involved in the conversion of Toudejutsu (Tang Soo Sool), into Karatedo (Kong Soo Do), which was, for lack of a better term, competition Karate. One of the reasons why Funakoshi Sensei stopped the practice of weapons in Japan was because it made it easier to distinguish Karatedo from Kendo and to create a competitive niche for its empty handed aspects as far as tournaments go.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Kong Soo Do is a name that come from our lineage that we wished to re-identify with. Dr. Yoon Kwe Byung studied Shito Ryu under Kenwa Manbuni who was a police officer as well and was quite proficient in the SD aspects of the art.

 

[puunui]

Kong Soo Do is a name that come from our lineage that we wished to re-identify with. Dr. Yoon Kwe Byung studied Shito Ryu under Kenwa Manbuni who was a police officer as well and was quite proficient in the SD aspects of the art.

You stated that your lineage was through the Han Moo Kwan. The founder of the Han Moo Kwan credits his teacher as GM CHUN Sang Sup, not Dr. YOON Kwe Byung. So Dr. Yoon is not in your lineage.