What weapons are Taekwondo?

[andyjeffries]

Bo staff, nunchaku, etc are commonly taught at Taekwondo schools, because they're fun and kids think they're cool.

I would disagree with "commonly". I've *NEVER* trained at or visited a Taekwondo school that's taught weapons. Maybe it's more common in the US.

 

[pdg]

I would disagree with "commonly". I've *NEVER* trained at or visited a Taekwondo school that's taught weapons. Maybe it's more common in the US.

We occasionally get a guest instructor in for a bo or eskrima evening, but there's no implication it's supposed to be part of the curriculum.

 

[TrueJim]

I would disagree with "commonly". I've *NEVER* trained at or visited a Taekwondo school that's taught weapons. Maybe it's more common in the US.

We don't train with weapons at our U.S. taekwondo school, but I think you're right: when I visit other schools in the U.S. I reckon that I'm seeing maybe like a quarter of the schools do? My experience has been that it's a relatively minor part of the program though, even here. Like, they'll teach just one weapon (often staff) and teach only a couple of staff forms.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

For those TKD schools which do include weapons training, I wonder what percentage have a curriculum based on a actual weapons art (i.e. one which was developed by people who actually fought with said weapons) as opposed to something made up by someone with no background in combative use of the weapons.

 

[Earl Weiss]

None of them. Any weapons taught in your system have been imported from other systems. Taekwondo, as it was originally developed, includes zero weapons.

Badda Bing Badda Boom. Someone who gets the meaning of "Taekwondo" "Taekwon-Do" "Tae Kwon Do".
Anyone who is inclined to enlighten me vis a vis Knees, elbows etc. you can save it.

 

[pdg]

Someone who gets the meaning of "Taekwondo" "Taekwon-Do" "Tae Kwon Do".

3 different systems innit bruh

I there are at least a couple of sub-systems for each of those too...

 

[Flying Crane]

For those TKD schools which do include weapons training, I wonder what percentage have a curriculum based on a actual weapons art (i.e. one which was developed by people who actually fought with said weapons) as opposed to something made up by someone with no background in combative use of the weapons.

Which implies a system of foundational basics for the weapon, including application drills, and not just a kata or two all by itself.

 

[skribs]

For those TKD schools which do include weapons training, I wonder what percentage have a curriculum based on a actual weapons art (i.e. one which was developed by people who actually fought with said weapons) as opposed to something made up by someone with no background in combative use of the weapons.

My Master is a 2nd degree in Kendo, so that's where our sword training comes from (although what we get is very limited compared to a dedicated kendo school). I have a feeling his knife and eskrima training comes from Korean Special Forces, and I can't say for sure about the other weapons we teach, but I'm pretty sure he has formal training in those.

The other weapons I'm learning that I intend to use with my demo team, I'm more learning on my own.

 

[Rough Rider]

"The Ssahng Jeol Bong once served the farmer in harvesting his crops by separating the grain from the shaft. The farmer would beat the crop with a tool that comprised of a long staff with a shorter stick attached to the end by a rope"

This statement isnt actual true. its an urban legend of sorts.

You left out the first three words of that quote- "Some sources claim..."

 

[oftheherd1]

"The Ssahng Jeol Bong once served the farmer in harvesting his crops by separating the grain from the shaft. The farmer would beat the crop with a tool that comprised of a long staff with a shorter stick attached to the end by a rope"

This statement isnt actual true. its an urban legend of sorts.

I have to agree with that. I can't think of a more destructive or less efficient way to harvest rice. I think Watergal and Dirty Dog are most correct. When I studied (briefly) TKD there was never any mention of weapons. We only had one student promoted to BB while I was there, no weapons for him and our teacher never mentioned them. Nor defense against them as would be expected; if you learn a weapon you should learn ways to defend against it.

 

[TrueJim]

You left out the first three words of that quote- "Some sources claim..."

Actually, I added that to the wiki article after his very useful input. See? When you guys say something, I listen!

 

[Earl Weiss]

3 different systems innit bruh

I there are at least a couple of sub-systems for each of those too...

I am sorry you lost me. How does this affect weapons inclusion / exclusion?

 

[hoshin1600]

I can't think of a more destructive or less efficient way to harvest rice.

well they did actually use a rice flail.

but "some say" that if nunchuku was an adaptation of a farming item it would have been a part from a horses bridle.

however it would not be hard to conceive the idea of a weapon made of two sticks with some rope between them. they were probably made by some kid messing around in the garage.

 

[hoshin1600]

its also note worthy that almost no one used nunchuku untill Bruce Lee used them in the movies.

 

[pdg]

I am sorry you lost me. How does this affect weapons inclusion / exclusion?

In a couple of the earlier Taekwon-do textbooks there is some limited detail of weapons defence.

As it's not really a traditional art in it doesn't have that long a dedicated history, there can't be any traditional weapons under the same definition.

But, I can't say (because I don't know) whether there are weapons included in the curriculum of Taekwondo, or Tae Kwon Do, or any of the derivatives - have any of the offshoots or derivatives included weapons since inception?

If so, under a looser definition they could be considered "tkd weapons" irrespective of their previous origins.

 

[skribs]

I have to agree with that. I can't think of a more destructive or less efficient way to harvest rice. I think Watergal and Dirty Dog are most correct. When I studied (briefly) TKD there was never any mention of weapons. We only had one student promoted to BB while I was there, no weapons for him and our teacher never mentioned them. Nor defense against them as would be expected; if you learn a weapon you should learn ways to defend against it.

I don't think it's always a 1-to-1.

• A lot of our training with a weapon is equal force, i.e. staff vs. staff, sword vs. sword, etc. We don't really have the time to go in depth on every possible weapon combination or unarmed vs. all weapons. If we were a HEMA school or something similar, we might
• We learn defense against knives and guns, but don't learn as much for when we're using the knife or gun. This is an inversion of the idea
• I'm learning the 3 section staff right now. What are the chances I'll need to defend myself against it? That's not time effective training

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't think it's always a 1-to-1.

• A lot of our training with a weapon is equal force, i.e. staff vs. staff, sword vs. sword, etc. We don't really have the time to go in depth on every possible weapon combination or unarmed vs. all weapons. If we were a HEMA school or something similar, we might
• We learn defense against knives and guns, but don't learn as much for when we're using the knife or gun. This is an inversion of the idea
• I'm learning the 3 section staff right now. What are the chances I'll need to defend myself against it? That's not time effective training

That’s true, but also let’s consider the overwhelming superiority of these weapons, compared to empty hands.

If a competent swordsman or spearman or staffman etc faces off against an unarmed opponent, with sufficient room to wield his weapon freely, and with freedom to use lethal techniques without holding back, then that unarmed fellow is going to die.

The notion that one can build unarmed defenses against these weapons, without somehow creating a situation to stifle the use of the weapon first, I think is fantasy.

That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a good exercise to go through, and it could be fun training. But seriously, the outcome is pretty much a given.

 

[skribs]

That’s true, but also let’s consider the overwhelming superiority of these weapons, compared to empty hands.

If a competent swordsman or spearman or staffman etc faces off against an unarmed opponent, with sufficient room to wield his weapon freely, and with freedom to use lethal techniques without holding back, then that unarmed fellow is going to die.

The notion that one can build unarmed defenses against these weapons, without somehow creating a situation to stifle the use of the weapon first, I think is fantasy.

That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a good exercise to go through, and it could be fun training. But seriously, the outcome is pretty much a given.

I disagree that it's a given....but it's a strong possibility unless there is a huge skill gap in favor of the unarmed individual.

 

[Flying Crane]

I disagree that it's a given....but it's a strong possibility unless there is a huge skill gap in favor of the unarmed individual.

I would say it is all but a given, but only because it is dangerous to speak in absolutes.

You will also notice that I described these fellows as “competent” so they know what they are doing and won’t be caught with low-grade trickery.

Today, this is a purely academic exercise so it does not really matter. But even in the context of an academic exercise, if you wish to practice unarmed defenses against swords and spears and staffs and three-section staffs etc., then you should assume the fellow with the weapon is at least as skilled with the weapon as you are, with your empty hands. And he likely also has equivalent empty -hand skills. If you want to explore such an interaction then it is pointless to assume the guy with the weapon is a buffoon.

 

[skribs]

I would say it is all but a given, but only because it is dangerous to speak in absolutes.

You will also notice that I described these fellows as “competent” so they know what they are doing and won’t be caught with low-grade trickery.

Today, this is a purely academic exercise so it does not really matter. But even in the context of an academic exercise, if you wish to practice unarmed defenses against swords and spears and staffs and three-section staffs etc., then you should assume the fellow with the weapon is at least as skilled with the weapon as you are, with your empty hands. And he likely also has equivalent empty -hand skills. If you want to explore such an interaction then it is pointless to assume the guy with the weapon is a buffoon.

On the one hand, I tend to assume that someone proficient in the use of a staff, sword, etc. probably has the discipline to not be an aggressor in a violent crime. That someone is either using a sword because it's "cool" or "intimidating" and they got it off Amazon, or their "eskrima stick" is a tire iron or baseball bat, that they are not HEMA experts with it, but rather throw the bludgeon equivalent of a haymaker with. So in this regard, defense skills are appropriate.

On the other hand, assuming I'm attacked by someone proficient in melee weapons, I don't plan to roll over. There's the whole "run" aspect, but maybe that guy is faster. Instead, I would attack the lever arm of the weapon at it's weakest point. Make the staff miss and get in close. I'll probably get some bumps and bruises, but the timing is the same as anyone with short legs in Taekwondo sparring. I'm at a disadvantage, yes, but disadvantage doesn't mean automatic loss.