For All The Taekwondo Bashers The Real Truth On Taekwondo From My View

[drop bear]

Why don't boxers train kick defense or takedown defense?



Wow, boxers must suck, they have the worst system!

BJJ must suck, since all they can do is groundfight.

Not so much because there is more nuance attached.

So really good boxers or BJJers can do alright against less experienced MMAers

Kron Gracie Mark Hunt. In a real fight TKD guys can do alright against completely untrained street fighters.

It is when you face more complete fighters that you start getting in to trouble.

And then you need to weigh up the cost of learning to be more adaptable vs the likelihood you might need it.

So a boxer may not learn takedowns if he never faces someone who takes him down. Or a TKD guy may never learn to face a trained guy if he never has to face a trained guy.

But whether someone wants to put the effort in is kind of a different equation to whether someone who will get mangled in a MMA fight is technically street capable.

 

[skribs]

Not so much because there is more nuance attached.

So really good boxers or BJJers can do alright against less experienced MMAers

Kron Gracie Mark Hunt. In a real fight TKD guys can do alright against completely untrained street fighters.

It is when you face more complete fighters that you start getting in to trouble.

And then you need to weigh up the cost of learning to be more adaptable vs the likelihood you might need it.

So a boxer may not learn takedowns if he never faces someone who takes him down. Or a TKD guy may never learn to face a trained guy if he never has to face a trained guy.

But whether someone wants to put the effort in is kind of a different equation to whether someone who will get mangled in a MMA fight is technically street capable.

I forgot. You don't use logic. You just base tour opinion on "what will make the arts I like look good and other arts look bad."

 

[skribs]

This isn’t what you’re saying, though. You’re acknowledging the car won’t get you to work without doing some maintenance, but if you ever have to race it, you have faith.

I'm going to take this analogy in 2 different ways. Each take on the analogy will contradict each other, but that's part of the problem with analogies. I'll try to connect them to points I've made previously.

Take 1: Cars designed for high-end racing (such as a NASCAR or an Indy 500 car) are not designed for the street. They're loud, get horrible fuel efficiency (2-5 MPG), and they're completely stripped down of anything that can provide comfort. They would make a horrible car for someone drive outside of the track. But if I were to compete in NASCAR or Indy 500, I'd need a car specifically built for that. On the other hand, if I were to go to the track and race, or just race someone on the street, I'd be racing against people in more street-appropriate cars, like an Audi or a Corvette. This goes back to my point that you need to be a higher caliber for MMA than the street.

Take 2: This is a stretch of the analogy. My assumption is if I go to the track, I'm going to go up against cars. If I am on the street, I might come across another car, or even a supercar. But I'm guessing that 90% of the people that will force me into a race are riding bicycles. This goes to my point on feeling confident that in the majority of situations, my skills are sufficient to defend myself.

If you think that it's more like 60% of people will be driving cars, then you're right, my confidence is false. But I'm thinking it's more like 10% in this take on the analogy.

 

[TKD Eagle]

My analogy would be different. I don't expect that my car will do well in a race at Talladega. But I do expect that it's good enough to get me away from zombies or some maniac with a chainsaw.

I'm a normal guy. I am not a professional athlete. Even if I trained in boxing, muay thai, bjj, and wrestling every day for the next 5 years, I still would not be a professional athlete. I'd be 47 years old by that point. Something can be good enough for real world use, but not suited to the very highest levels of competition.

 

[Steve]

I'm going to take this analogy in 2 different ways. Each take on the analogy will contradict each other, but that's part of the problem with analogies. I'll try to connect them to points I've made previously.

Take 1: Cars designed for high-end racing (such as a NASCAR or an Indy 500 car) are not designed for the street. They're loud, get horrible fuel efficiency (2-5 MPG), and they're completely stripped down of anything that can provide comfort. They would make a horrible car for someone drive outside of the track. But if I were to compete in NASCAR or Indy 500, I'd need a car specifically built for that. On the other hand, if I were to go to the track and race, or just race someone on the street, I'd be racing against people in more street-appropriate cars, like an Audi or a Corvette. This goes back to my point that you need to be a higher caliber for MMA than the street.

Take 2: This is a stretch of the analogy. My assumption is if I go to the track, I'm going to go up against cars. If I am on the street, I might come across another car, or even a supercar. But I'm guessing that 90% of the people that will force me into a race are riding bicycles. This goes to my point on feeling confident that in the majority of situations, my skills are sufficient to defend myself.

If you think that it's more like 60% of people will be driving cars, then you're right, my confidence is false. But I'm thinking it's more like 10% in this take on the analogy.

These are good points. The problem is that this isn't actually analogous to what you're saying about your TKD. The sticking point here is that you think self defense is actually more predictable and easier to prepare for than MMA. The opposite is true. So, in your analogy, MMA is the street car and "self defense" is the NASCAR race. It's wrong way around.

Simply put, if you can't perform against a fair test of your skill in a controlled environment where you have time to prepare, how could you possibly believe you're prepared for an unfair test of your skill in an uncontrolled that comes out of nowhere?

Now, all that said, I think it's perfectly valid to say (as @TKD Eagle has, that odds are you'll never get into a fight anyway. That's probably true. But that's an entirely different discussion. In that discussion, you're basically saying that it doesn't matter if you can fight, because you're enjoying yourself and getting other benefits from the activity. I personally think that's a very healthy attitude to have.

And lastly, to be clear, it's the same with every style. As I said earlier, everyone who isn't routinely street fighting is going to be transferring their learning from context A to context B. The likelihood of success in this depend on two things. How skilled the person is in context A (which gets into not just what you're learning but how you're learning and applying the skills). And how similar context A is to context B (which is often outside of your control).

For example, I would think that an MMA fighter (context A) would have a pretty easy time adapting to a street fight (context B). I would think that a trained soldier (context A) would be more prepared for an active shooter situation (context B).

 

[Steve]

My analogy would be different. I don't expect that my car will do well in a race at Talladega. But I do expect that it's good enough to get me away from zombies or some maniac with a chainsaw.

I'm a normal guy. I am not a professional athlete. Even if I trained in boxing, muay thai, bjj, and wrestling every day for the next 5 years, I still would not be a professional athlete. I'd be 47 years old by that point. Something can be good enough for real world use, but not suited to the very highest levels of competition.

I get it. But as I mentioned to @skribs , just consider that you may have it backwards. The real world uses for fighting skills are the Talladega NASCAR events, and the competitions are the street driving. If you aren't performing well in competitions under various rule sets, I wouldn't rely on them in something more random, where the stakes are higher.

However, the good news is that, as you acknowledge, this discussion is probably moot. The odds are that you will never need your skills. And if you do, the odds are that your skills are irrelevant in that your likelihood of surviving is unaffected by your martial skill.

Should also mention that "highest level of competition" is a specious statement. I think a much lower bar is very reasonable and realistic. Competition relative to your age, size, and skill level is achievable for pretty much everyone. And it's more about building skill, accumulating experience, and having a realistic understanding of one's actual skill level.

 

[skribs]

These are good points. The problem is that this isn't actually analogous to what you're saying about your TKD. The sticking point here is that you think self defense is actually more predictable and easier to prepare for than MMA. The opposite is true. So, in your analogy, MMA is the street car and "self defense" is the NASCAR race. It's wrong way around.

Simply put, if you can't perform against a fair test of your skill in a controlled environment where you have time to prepare, how could you possibly believe you're prepared for an unfair test of your skill in an uncontrolled that comes out of nowhere?

Now, all that said, I think it's perfectly valid to say (as @TKD Eagle has, that odds are you'll never get into a fight anyway. That's probably true. But that's an entirely different discussion. In that discussion, you're basically saying that it doesn't matter if you can fight, because you're enjoying yourself and getting other benefits from the activity. I personally think that's a very healthy attitude to have.

And lastly, to be clear, it's the same with every style. As I said earlier, everyone who isn't routinely street fighting is going to be transferring their learning from context A to context B. The likelihood of success in this depend on two things. How skilled the person is in context A (which gets into not just what you're learning but how you're learning and applying the skills). And how similar context A is to context B (which is often outside of your control).

For example, I would think that an MMA fighter (context A) would have a pretty easy time adapting to a street fight (context B). I would think that a trained soldier (context A) would be more prepared for an active shooter situation (context B).

More unpredictable, but also lower skill requirement. For example, let's say you're in a spelling bee.

I may tell you that you have one of 5 words, and each word is really challenging to spell. For example:
Electrogalvanazitaion
Unsubstantialization
Ophthalmology
Adrenocorticotrophin
Electroencephalogram

Or I could give you any random word from the dictionary, of which you have a much higher chance of getting a 3- or 4- letter word than something with 20+ letters. It's more random, but chances are that you'll get something easier.

 

[Steve]

More unpredictable, but also lower skill requirement. For example, let's say you're in a spelling bee.

I may tell you that you have one of 5 words, and each word is really challenging to spell. For example:
Electrogalvanazitaion
Unsubstantialization
Ophthalmology
Adrenocorticotrophin
Electroencephalogram

Or I could give you any random word from the dictionary, of which you have a much higher chance of getting a 3- or 4- letter word than something with 20+ letters. It's more random, but chances are that you'll get something easier.

Okay. Last try for me. In your analogy, who would be best prepared to spell "miscellaneous" off the top of their head? Random person, out of nowhere, says, "Hey! Spell miscellaneous correctly or I'm chopping off one of your fingers!"

Person A: who practices spelling words like "horse" and "pizza" (because he expects to only ever be asked to spell words like "taco" and "car.")
Or
Person B: who practices spelling words like electrogalvanization (which you misspelled), unsubstantialization, ophthalmology, adrenocorticotrophin, and electroencephalogram.

I'm going with person B all day long.

 

[skribs]

Okay. Last try for me. In your analogy, who would be best prepared to spell "miscellaneous" off the top of their head? Random person, out of nowhere, says, "Hey! Spell miscellaneous correctly or I'm chopping off one of your fingers!"

Person A: who practices spelling words like "horse" and "pizza" (because he expects to only ever be asked to spell words like "taco" and "car.")
Or
Person B: who practices spelling words like electrogalvanization (which you misspelled), unsubstantialization, ophthalmology, adrenocorticotrophin, and electroencephalogram.

I'm going with person B all day long.

Innthat case, probably neither. Because that silent C is gonna catch them both.

 

[Steve]

Innthat case, probably neither. Because that silent C is gonna catch them both.

Well, I think that about sums it up.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Well, I think that about sums it up.

So are spelling skills more important than math in determining the outcome of a cage match on the street? In this context, is grammar a subset of spelling skills, or is it a separate factor in the fight?

 

[Steve]

So are spelling skills more important than math in determining the outcome of a cage match on the street? In this context, is grammar a subset of spelling skills, or is it a separate factor in the fight?

I was trying to work with @skribs ' analogy. Maybe he can answer your questions about why he chose cars and spelling over math and grammar.

But if you're asking me... I'll presume for the moment you're not trolling. I'd say, if being prepared is the goal,one should work back from worst case, not from best case. So, if your worst case scenario is being able to calculate a formula, and then explain your answer clearly, in writing, using well constructed sentences, then....

The point isn't that one needs to be good at everything to be good at anything. The point is that doing simple math is fine. But it won't help you if you're being asked to do complex math under pressure and with a high cost for failure. Someone who does complex math routinely will be better able to transfer their learning to a new context where high level math is required.

Writing fiction and journalism are two very different kinds of writing. A person who is a strong fiction writer will be better able to transfer his/her skills to journalism than someone who is literate but seldom writes anything.

Finally, someone who is a strong writer, who is also very comfortable with complex math will be more likely to transfer their learning to a different context than someone who can only do one or the other.

And someone who is a strong writer and a competent mathematician is asked to do a relatively simple math problem under pressure and with significant cost for failure, he or she would probably have no problem doing so.

 

[Buka]

People who misspell a lot of words are typochondriacs.

Oh, snap!

 

[Steve]

People who misspell a lot of words are typochondriacs.

Oh, snap!

Boooooooo. Hisssss.

 

[Buka]

Boooooooo. Hisssss.

 

[skribs]

People who misspell a lot of words are typochondriacs.

Oh, snap!

A pastor, a priest, and a rabbit walk into a blood bank.

The rabbit says "I'm a type o."

 

[drop bear]

Sure. But that doesn't really make sense. Does it? Not the advance warning part... the preparation part. It's the difference between planning for something that will happen versus planning for something that might happen.

Let's say for sake of discussion, it's something less dire. So, instead of fighting, it's something like running a 10k/6.2 miles. Most people can run without any additional training (just like fighting). Few can just pick up and run a 10k without some preparation. But the question is, what difference does it make whether you are preparing for a 10k you know you will be running, or you're choosing to prepare to run a 10k that may come at any point? The logic here seems to be that it makes perfect sense to prepare for a 10k you know is coming, like fighting in MMA. But, for whatever reason, there's just nothing to be done about a 10k that might happen any time.

I'm suggesting that the preparation should look pretty similar... if you're acknowledging you need to prepare for fights in one context, it just stands to reason that you would need to do so in another more random, more volatile, less restrictive context.

My coach fought once with 6 days notice by the way. So even the preparation thing isn't guaranteed.

 

[drop bear]

I trust my car to get me to work. The other day, I had a flat tire. A couple years ago, I had a problem with the braking and steering. Yet, for the majority of the time, my car does get me to work. You can realize risks and limitations, and still have confidence, without having false confidence.

You are not selling a car you haven't driven though. Which would be the more accurate example.

Hey maybe take the car for a test drive on a track first?

No it wouldn't be the same because there are rules and time limits.

 

[Buka]

A pastor, a priest, and a rabbit walk into a blood bank.

The rabbit says "I'm a type o."

Lol!

I know I shouldn’t have done this, but I'm getting old and people sometimes piss me off. I was in the McDonald’s drive-through this morning and the young lady behind me leaned on her horn and started screaming something because I was taking too long to place my order. So when I got to the first window I paid for her order along with my own. The cashier must have told her what I'd done, because as we moved up she leaned out her window, waved to me and mouthed "Thank you.", obviously embarrassed that I had repaid her rudeness with kindness.

When I got to the second window I showed them both receipts and took her food too. Now she has to go back to the end of the queue and start all over again. Don't blow your horn at old people, we've been treacherous a whole lot F'n longer than you have.

 

[skribs]

Lol!

I know I shouldn’t have done this, but I'm getting old and people sometimes piss me off. I was in the McDonald’s drive-through this morning and the young lady behind me leaned on her horn and started screaming something because I was taking too long to place my order. So when I got to the first window I paid for her order along with my own. The cashier must have told her what I'd done, because as we moved up she leaned out her window, waved to me and mouthed "Thank you.", obviously embarrassed that I had repaid her rudeness with kindness.

When I got to the second window I showed them both receipts and took her food too. Now she has to go back to the end of the queue and start all over again. Don't blow your horn at old people, we've been treacherous a whole lot F'n longer than you have.

My Dad likes to say "old age and treachery beats youth and enthusiasm. "