TKD and weapons

[terryl965]

Terry,
what weapons and where did the syllabus come from?

Nunchucks, bo- staff andscreamers or kali sticks. For the most part they where all part of my Karate training and also did some stick work with alot folks over forty years of training.

 

[dortiz]

Just curious, in California a lot of the TKD schools had Arnis programs. The school I was at would host Master Presas and have great work shops. It was a great add on program.
It was not pretending to be TKD but a great partner to the program.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

we learn to defend against many differnt types of attacks that may involve weapons (knife , baseball bat , fence pailings etc) , but are not trained to use weapons.

 

[Alex Gillis]

Hi everyone,

In Canada (Ottawa and Toronto), the ITF gyms that I attended for the last 25 years all taught defense against knife attacks and against grabs/holds of various kinds. When I studied with the WTF in Toronto recently and years ago, we learned defense against stick (bat) attacks, as well as various grappling techniques. So, I guess weapons defense depends on the instructors. However, no matter who the instructor, the old TKD books from the 1960s contain instructions about defense against knives and grabs.

Alex Gillis

You have to differentiate between what an art teaches and what a school teaches.

First and foremost the TKD curriculum does teach some weapon defense. Knife, gun, and staff . It is also true that to effectively defend against a weapon you need to have at least a basic understanding of what the weapon can do.

Now, there is a practical issue with regard to how much you can teach and learn well and how much time is available. With a full time school you can have a schedule where weapons practice occurs.
Then you would have the question as to what weapons do teach or why don't we teach the ... (insert length) staff, club, sword, spear, throwing stars, Sai, Tonfa, Kama, Handguns of various types, Rope, Whip, Chains of varios sorts, etc.

I always said I would love to do grappling in the morning, striking in the afternoon and weapons in the evening. Sadly I have these bad habits like eating and wanting a warm place to sleep that require me to earn a living.

As it pertains to TKD teaching weapons for offense, all you need to consider is the translation of the name Tae Kwon.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

One comment that I would make is that learning defense against weapons in taekwondo is not really the same as learning weapons.

Very few of the commercial schools that offer weapons as part of continuing study do so with the idea of teaching you to defend against them. Most often, the students learn weapon forms as part of enrichment of the TKD curriculum, primarily to give students something new and cool to work on.

Daniel

 

[terryl965]

One comment that I would make is that learning defense against weapons in taekwondo is not really the same as learning weapons.

Very few of the commercial schools that offer weapons as part of continuing study do so with the idea of teaching you to defend against them. Most often, the students learn weapon forms as part of enrichment of the TKD curriculum, primarily to give students something new and cool to work on.

Daniel

Daniel I will agree with your statement with a but... since the likelyhood of you going against someone that has a pair of nunchucks or a bo staff is highly not likely we do not teach a self defense aspect with them, we do have sets and counter with both of them but that is mainly for demo's and such. I will teach weapon defense against knives or gun and maybe even a short stick or objects like keys Kubatons and pens and pencils as used as weapons. I just love it when my competitors say they teach self defense against a bo-staff, my question has always been in this day and age who is walking around with one....

 

[dancingalone]

Daniel I will agree with your statement with a but... since the likelyhood of you going against someone that has a pair of nunchucks or a bo staff is highly not likely we do not teach a self defense aspect with them, we do have sets and counter with both of them but that is mainly for demo's and such. I will teach weapon defense against knives or gun and maybe even a short stick or objects like keys Kubatons and pens and pencils as used as weapons. I just love it when my competitors say they teach self defense against a bo-staff, my question has always been in this day and age who is walking around with one....

Just my humble opinion, but I can't be too enthusiastic about self-defense taught against weapons if weapons themselves aren't taught in the curriculum. Many of the anti-knife techniques out there are horrific and probably do more harm than good. And they're that bad precisely because whomever designed them didn't have a realistic understanding of what a blade can do.

I disagree with your point about the bo. Indeed, no one walks around these days with a staff in hand, but implements like long pipes are readily used as weapons. A fatal assault occurred last year in Texas at a construction site. The attacker used some metal pipes, probably slightly shorter than a jo, to bludgeon his victim.

 

[terryl965]

Just my humble opinion, but I can't be too enthusiastic about self-defense taught against weapons if weapons themselves aren't taught in the curriculum. Many of the anti-knife techniques out there are horrific and probably do more harm than good. And they're that bad precisely because whomever designed them didn't have a realistic understanding of what a blade can do.

I disagree with your point about the bo. Indeed, no one walks around these days with a staff in hand, but implements like long pipes are readily used as weapons. A fatal assault occurred last year in Texas at a construction site. The attacker used some metal pipes, probably slightly shorter than a jo, to bludgeon his victim.

The incodent in Texas was with a piece of pipe 24 inches long we cover that with club and short stick defense, I teach knive defense with what I was tought by my father who was a Military Instructor for the USMC back in the days. So far it has helped me and of course I also add on what I learn from knive experts.

 

[JWLuiza]

Just my humble opinion, but I can't be too enthusiastic about self-defense taught against weapons if weapons themselves aren't taught in the curriculum. Many of the anti-knife techniques out there are horrific and probably do more harm than good. And they're that bad precisely because whomever designed them didn't have a realistic understanding of what a blade can do.

I disagree with your point about the bo. Indeed, no one walks around these days with a staff in hand, but implements like long pipes are readily used as weapons. A fatal assault occurred last year in Texas at a construction site. The attacker used some metal pipes, probably slightly shorter than a jo, to bludgeon his victim.

Such an important point. Much of the knife SD presupposes an uneducated assailant (knife-naive...say that five times!). However, someone with even a modicum of Knife experience and all of a sudden, you're dealing with a new grip, a multi-strike attack....basically everything you HAVEN'T trained for.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Hi everyone,

In Canada (Ottawa and Toronto), the ITF gyms that I attended for the last 25 years all taught defense against knife attacks and against grabs/holds of various kinds.

My experience under an ITF is much the same, and I started training with him in 1986. These techniques were usually introduced at around 1st dan, although I did learn a few sweeps and joint locks as a red belt.

Here are a couple of videos that have footage from back in the day:

GM Park, Jong Soo demoing, including defense against a knife:

ITF Hosinsul, with the hapkido influence very evident:

Ahh, the good old days!

Pax,

Chris

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just my humble opinion, but I can't be too enthusiastic about self-defense taught against weapons if weapons themselves aren't taught in the curriculum. Many of the anti-knife techniques out there are horrific and probably do more harm than good. And they're that bad precisely because whomever designed them didn't have a realistic understanding of what a blade can do.

I disagree with your point about the bo. Indeed, no one walks around these days with a staff in hand, but implements like long pipes are readily used as weapons. A fatal assault occurred last year in Texas at a construction site. The attacker used some metal pipes, probably slightly shorter than a jo, to bludgeon his victim.

Now you are getting into another area, which is the quality of the defenses taught.

Teaching a weapon is, in my opinion as an instructor in a weapon art, a lot more than teaching a form set and doing maybe some cool stuff once in a while. Most weapons have arts unto themselves, such as sword, bo, jo, etc., arts that are every bit as thorough and comprehensive as any unarmed art.

Teaching empty hand defense against the weapon should include some training in the use of the weapon, but does not require you to learn the weapon the way one would at say, an iai school. Learning weapon forms and some one step sparring drills with the weapon should be enough to give the student an idea of the dynamics of the weapon and how it works from the perspective of the attacker. But defense against the weapon by no means requires anything resembling a full curriculum for any one weapon.

As for lousy defenses being taught, one issue is that even if the full curriculum is not taught, the instructor should have some qualification in the use of the weapon that he or she is teaching you to defend against.

I was reading a hapkido book that was, by and large, very, very good. But three of the weapons defenses were, frankly, invitations to getting yourself killed. One was a knife defense. In and of itself, it was fine, but nobody attacks you with a knife the way that it was demonstrated in this defense. The other two were sword and pistol. The sword technique (on the part of the attacker) was appalling, and the defense was so-so. Against a guy who knows how to use a sword (or swing a baseball bat), that so-so defense would have gotten the defender at the very least seriously injured.

The gun defense involved moving the gun away from your head, then circling it down and around. The downward arc would have had the gun pointed right at the defender's stomach and/or pelvic area. I'm not even much of a marksman and I can already see the problem here.

Daniel

 

[dortiz]

I get pretty frustrated with most knife defenses being taught. I wish to gosh folks would use a marker or chaulk to analyze their effectiveness in these drills.
I teach very basic moves that take control of the arm and the weapon and focus on driving it sraight to the ground.
Most of the circling and kicks are all just darn right dangerous and borderline stupid to be teaching someone.

 

[dancingalone]

Most of the circling and kicks are all just darn right dangerous and borderline stupid to be teaching someone.

Yep. If I never see another crescent kick defense vs. a knife, it'll still be too soon.

 

[dancingalone]

Teaching empty hand defense against the weapon should include some training in the use of the weapon, but does not require you to learn the weapon the way one would at say, an iai school. Learning weapon forms and some one step sparring drills with the weapon should be enough to give the student an idea of the dynamics of the weapon and how it works from the perspective of the attacker. But defense against the weapon by no means requires anything resembling a full curriculum for any one weapon.

As for lousy defenses being taught, one issue is that even if the full curriculum is not taught, the instructor should have some qualification in the use of the weapon that he or she is teaching you to defend against.

Oh, I agree pretty much with all your post. You can't ask every instructor to know everything, but there's that vague "sweet spot" where the instructor should still know enough about the weapon to be credible when teaching defenses to others. And he should know if the material he is teaching passes the basic smell test or not.

Easier said than done, I suppose. I wonder which is worse... Teaching bad weapons defenses or not teaching them at all?

 

[dancingalone]

My experience under an ITF is much the same, and I started training with him in 1986. These techniques were usually introduced at around 1st dan, although I did learn a few sweeps and joint locks as a red belt.

Here are a couple of videos that have footage from back in the day:

GM Park, Jong Soo demoing, including defense against a knife:

ITF Hosinsul, with the hapkido influence very evident:

Ahh, the good old days!

Pax,

Chris

Couldn't load the 2nd link for some reason but I saw the first video. Chris, is Mr. Park's demo an accurate representation of the knife defenses taught in the ITF? The techs he showed are a mixed bag in my opinion, some clearly more practical than the others.

 

[FearlessFreep]

since the likelyhood of you going against someone that has a pair of nunchucks or a bo staff is highly not likely we do not teach a self defense aspect with them, we do have sets and counter with both of them but that is mainly for demo's and such. I will teach weapon defense against knives or gun and maybe even a short stick or objects like keys Kubatons and pens and pencils as used as weapons. I just love it when my competitors say they teach self defense against a bo-staff, my question has always been in this day and age who is walking around with one....

With respect, Terry, one reason I train in the weapons I do is because they are so much weapons of opportunity. Nobody carries a bo but in a bar, a broom or a cue stick become a bo, even a baseball bat. Same as with sticks and ropes. We're training with ropes now and use normal dobok belts in class but as part of continuing education outside of class I've practiced with my own leather belt, plastic jump ropes, towels, etc... Sticks are similar, they are so easy to pick up in so many scenarios. And we even practice how the same mechanics with a stick can be used with a jacket, for defense.

I have no interest in nunchucks other than 'artistic' for the reason you mention, as with the various scythes and other weird traditional weapons, but it seems to me that staffs and sticks are so adaptable as weapons of opportunity that one could either face form an untrained attacker or utilize to gain an advantage to be worth taking seriously

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I wonder which is worse... Teaching bad weapons defenses or not teaching them at all?

Bad ones, hands down.

I would rather not know any defense and thus not be false confidence. Then I might be more inclined to use verbal skills and more intelligently weigh the options of running and handing over my wallet.

If I as a teacher do not know any credible defenses against a specific weapon or specific scenario, then I will tell my students this so that they know that they will need to look elsewhere for that skill.

If my student cannot defend themselves against a specific weapon, and I have told them that I have no qualification to teach defenses against that weapon, then nobody will be able to come back and say, 'your training didn't work. When I (or my family member) needed it, it let me (or my family member) down.'

I want nobody's death on my hands.

Daniel

 

[FearlessFreep]

If I as a teacher do not know any credible defenses against a specific weapon or specific scenario, then I will tell my students this so that they know that they will need to look elsewhere for that skill.

Actually, that's an interesting thought about "a specific weapon or specific scenario". Obviously there are particular dangers specific to a bat versus a knife versus a gun but above and beyond that, one thing we teach and practice is:

- Sequence off of a punch, kick, or object -
1. Body Evasion (get out of the way!)
2. Block (hard block or soft parry)
3. Manipulation Of The Limb (control the weapon)
4. Counter ( return damage to the attacker : )

and that applies marvelously well across a lot of weapons in a lot of scenarios (note: there are some slight modifications for a gun but the general principle still holds).

So we train the techniques against the weapons, but we train and reinforce the principles behind the techniques. Each technique is an implementation of that sequence. The motivation being that when faced with a weapon and/or situation not trained for, you can still fall back to those principles

 

[dortiz]

"then nobody will be able to come back and say, 'your training didn't work"

One can only pray that they CAN come back to say that.....

"and that applies marvelously well across a lot of weapons in a lot of scenarios (note: there are some slight modifications for a gun but the general principle still holds)."

FearlessFreep,
It does and it does not. A live blade has not much room for error. Pass blocking a fist and countering can equal being sliced twice in a knife situation. What we think translates, can leave us slashed many times.
I agree there are principles that can apply but unless the teacher is making the students think different and be aware of that blade and its contacts then its not really helping. Many teachers are not.

 

[FearlessFreep]

"then nobody will be able to come back and say, 'your training didn't work"


FearlessFreep,
It does and it does not. A live blade has not much room for error. Pass blocking a fist and countering can equal being sliced twice in a knife situation. What we think translates, can leave us slashed many times.

Agreed. Like I said, there are particular threats from each form of weapon so while the principles apply, the mechanics do not always work equally well in each situation. But the principles serve as a guide when facing that weapon or scenario you have not directly trained for or against.

But for knife and gun we spend a lot of time in going over where the blade and/or muzzle are throughout the technique to address just what your are talking about, that being that the continued motion or response motion must be considered.