What weapons are Taekwondo?

[Flying Crane]

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.

You’ll get a broken skull.

This is academic, you won’t encounter this today in the modern age in most parts of the world.

So the assumption for the exercise is that you are living in the year 972, you are a peasant being pursued by the henchmen/tax collectors of the local petty ruler, you are chronically undernourished and they have experience in battle with the staff/spear/sword being carried.

You are dead.

 

[Xue Sheng]

You’ll get a broken skull.

This is academic, you won’t encounter this today in the modern age in most parts of the world.

So the assumption for the exercise is that you are living in the year 972, you are a peasant being pursued by the henchmen/tax collectors of the local petty ruler, you are chronically undernourished and they have experience in battle with the staff/spear/sword being carried.

You are dead.

Kind of like

 

[skribs]

You’ll get a broken skull.

This is academic, you won’t encounter this today in the modern age in most parts of the world.

So the assumption for the exercise is that you are living in the year 972, you are a peasant being pursued by the henchmen/tax collectors of the local petty ruler, you are chronically undernourished and they have experience in battle with the staff/spear/sword being carried.

You are dead.

While entirely correct, I'm not sure how it applies to a martial arts class in 2018.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Plus a little bit of just playing with the thing and figuring out what works and what smacks me in the face.

This is my personal favorite method of weapons training. I tend to learn the latter part first.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

EDIT: Double post.

 

[Flying Crane]

While entirely correct, I'm not sure how it applies to a martial arts class in 2018.

Because the need for defenses against these weapons is so unlikely in the modern age.

If you assume a modern person WITHOUT sword skills will attack you with a sword, and you develop defensive skills based on that assumption, then you haven’t really developed any skills.

So even as a purely academic/hypothetical exercise, you may as well assume a scenario where the guy with the weapon actually knows how to use it and is pretty good with it. That is the only way to even pretend that the exercise has value.

It is unlikely that you can develop believable skills against such a scenario, but at least you are being honest with yourself. At least then you will understand the seriousness of your situation. If you cannot find a weapon or improvise a weapon to level the playing field a bit, you are in dire straights. And I’m not talking about music.

 

[skribs]

Because the need for defenses against these weapons is so unlikely in the modern age.

If you assume a modern person WITHOUT sword skills will attack you with a sword, and you develop defensive skills based on that assumption, then you haven’t really developed any skills.

So even as a purely academic/hypothetical exercise, you may as well assume a scenario where the guy with the weapon actually knows how to use it and is pretty good with it. That is the only way to even pretend that the exercise has value.

It is unlikely that you can develop believable skills against such a scenario, but at least you are being honest with yourself. At least then you will understand the seriousness of your situation. If you cannot find a weapon or improvise a weapon to level the playing field a bit, you are in dire straights. And I’m not talking about music.

Okay, so I assume that the person knows how to use it. Now why do I have to assume that I'm a malnourished commoner without experience?

 

[Flying Crane]

Okay, so I assume that the person knows how to use it. Now why do I have to assume that I'm a malnourished commoner without experience?

I was offering a little historical context to illustrate what kind of scenario was more likely, when an unarmed person faced an adversary(s) with a sword/spear/staff/club.

Ok, so instead assume you have TKD empty hand skills that reflect your reality. Do you believe you can develop a believable curriculum of defensive skills against an armed opponent who is skilled with his weapon, has the room to use it as designed (plenty of room to use a spear or swing a sword or staff, for example) and has no reservations about doing so with homicidal intent?

The academic exercise of the training could be fun, it could be enlightening, but I doubt you will develop a realistic curriculum for such scenarios.

My comments here are in response to an earlier post (by you? I can’t remember, too lazy to look back at the moment...) stating that training with a weapon should also include learning to defend against it. My position is that it is not realistic, at least not without making the assumption that the guy with the weapon is grossly incompetent.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was offering a little historical context to illustrate what kind of scenario was more likely, when an unarmed person faced an adversary(s) with a sword/spear/staff/club.

Ok, so instead assume you have TKD empty hand skills that reflect your reality. Do you believe you can develop a believable curriculum of defensive skills against an armed opponent who is skilled with his weapon, has the room to use it as designed (plenty of room to use a spear or swing a sword or staff, for example) and has no reservations about doing so with homicidal intent?

The academic exercise of the training could be fun, it could be enlightening, but I doubt you will develop a realistic curriculum for such scenarios.

My comments here are in response to an earlier post (by you? I can’t remember, too lazy to look back at the moment...) stating that training with a weapon should also include learning to defend against it. My position is that it is not realistic, at least not without making the assumption that the guy with the weapon is grossly incompetent.

It is possible to catch someone with mediocre skills in a mistake, and take advantage of it. And it is entirely possible to run across someone without any real skill with a weapon. That weapon is still a threat - perhaps an extreme threat, depending upon the weapon - so developing strategies for both of those situations is useful. My view of weapon defense (when looking at traditional weapons) is that you're learning to work against weapons in general, so learning to defend against a sword (not wielded by Musashi) is learning to deal with long-range weapons (including dull ones) and sharp weapons (including short ones).

It's also hella fun.

 

[WaterGal]

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.

Yeah, the stories about how such-and-such martial arts weapons were designed by farmers so they could secretly arm themselves against the local government that banned peasants from carrying swords or whatever always strikes me as a little, uh.... maybe not true. Nunchaku are, basically, a stick on a rope, with another stick as a handle. Armies all over the place used weapons like that in medieval times (i.e. in Europe they used the flail, which was basically the same thing but the hitting end had metal spikes on it), because it means you can use the stick to hit someone harder and from farther away. Swords were expensive, sticks with spikes in them were cheaper and easier to mass produce in ancient times.

 

[Flying Crane]

It is possible to catch someone with mediocre skills in a mistake, and take advantage of it. And it is entirely possible to run across someone without any real skill with a weapon. That weapon is still a threat - perhaps an extreme threat, depending upon the weapon - so developing strategies for both of those situations is useful. My view of weapon defense (when looking at traditional weapons) is that you're learning to work against weapons in general, so learning to defend against a sword (not wielded by Musashi) is learning to deal with long-range weapons (including dull ones) and sharp weapons (including short ones).

It's also hella fun.

Sure it’s hella fun. I’m not saying don’t do it.

But if your assumption in the training is that the guy with the weapon is incompetent, then you haven’t actually developed any defensive skills against it.

So I’m saying, recognize reality for what it is.

 

[skribs]

Sure it’s hella fun. I’m not saying don’t do it.

But if your assumption in the training is that the guy with the weapon is incompetent, then you haven’t actually developed any defensive skills against it.

So I’m saying, recognize reality for what it is.

Yes, you have. If I go against someone with a baseball bat, do I expect them to be a master with every technique you can use with a club, or do I expect them to just swing at my head like they would swing at a baseball?

If you learn to defend against that initial swing, you've probably learned self defense for 90% of the people who would attack someone with a baseball bat, and learning that technique would take significantly less time than learning to defend against a master mace-man and all the techniques they might possess.

Just like learning to defend against a haymaker (the most likely punch you're going to have to deal with on the street) is a lot easier than learning to defend against an advanced boxer or karate expert. Just because I can't defend against Floyd Mayweather doesn't mean that I'm not capable of defending myself in most situations.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, you have. If I go against someone with a baseball bat, do I expect them to be a master with every technique you can use with a club, or do I expect them to just swing at my head like they would swing at a baseball?

If you learn to defend against that initial swing, you've probably learned self defense for 90% of the people who would attack someone with a baseball bat, and learning that technique would take significantly less time than learning to defend against a master mace-man and all the techniques they might possess.

Just like learning to defend against a haymaker (the most likely punch you're going to have to deal with on the street) is a lot easier than learning to defend against an advanced boxer or karate expert. Just because I can't defend against Floyd Mayweather doesn't mean that I'm not capable of defending myself in most situations.

Ok, so what you are really talking about is defending against a low-skilled person swinging a blunt object at you. That is not the same thing as defending against a sword (sharp edge and point, sophisticated techniques), a staff (long reach, blunt thrusting and striking, sophisticated techniques), a spear (sharp point and cutting edge with a long reach, and really fast repeated thrusting stabs and sophisticated techniques), or a three-section staff (long reach, strikes, flexible tie-ups, sophisticated blocks and traps). Those are not the same thing as defending against Jimmy the weekend little-league coach swinging a baseball bat at you. Being able to defend against Jimmy with a bat is not the same as defending against traditional weapons made for war, used with sophisticated methods designed to be quickly lethal.

A bat is not a staff. A bat is not a sword. You might be able to take a glancing blow from a bat. But from a sword, with a sharp edge, that same glancing blow could sever tendons or muscles or limbs or arteries and you are dead.

If you want to defend against Jimmy with a bat, then develop that curriculum with the strengths and weaknesses of a bat in mind. Focus on the few untrained methods of attack that Jimmy is likely to use, with that bat. It isn’t the same thing as a sword or a staff.

So If you want to learn something about using a three-section staff, then go for it, but I don’t think learning unarmed defenses against it is realistic. I train sword, saber, staff, spear, double saber, double butterfly swords and double tomahawks, all in the context of Chinese martial arts. I don’t try to develop unarmed defenses against them. It’s not realistic, and it’s highly highly unlikely I’ll ever need them.

 

[skribs]

Ok, so what you are really talking about is defending against a low-skilled person swinging a blunt object at you. That is not the same thing as defending against a sword (sharp edge and point, sophisticated techniques), a staff (long reach, blunt thrusting and striking, sophisticated techniques), a spear (sharp point and cutting edge with a long reach, and really fast repeated thrusting stabs and sophisticated techniques), or a three-section staff (long reach, strikes, flexible tie-ups, sophisticated blocks and traps). Those are not the same thing as defending against Jimmy the weekend little-league coach swinging a baseball bat at you. Being able to defend against Jimmy with a bat is not the same as defending against traditional weapons made for war, used with sophisticated methods designed to be quickly lethal.

A bat is not a staff. A bat is not a sword. You might be able to take a glancing blow from a bat. But from a sword, with a sharp edge, that same glancing blow could sever tendons or muscles or limbs or arteries and you are dead.

If you want to defend against Jimmy with a bat, then develop that curriculum with the strengths and weaknesses of a bat in mind. Focus on the few untrained methods of attack that Jimmy is likely to use, with that bat. It isn’t the same thing as a sword or a staff.

Why do you assume I was saying that learning defense against a bat means you learn defense against all weapons? You are taking points I didn't make and arguing against them.

I'm saying if you learn defenses against a baseball swing or an overhand strike from a club (be it a bat, eskrima stick, asp, hammer, wrench, tire iron, etc) you've learned to defend against the majority of attacks with that type of weapon. Heck, you could even lump axes into that, as you're generally going to go for the handle instead of the end of the stick weapon.

I agree completely this won't help with swords, spears, staves, nunchucks, 3-section staff, firearms, attack dogs, and all of the other weapons you mentioned.

However, learning to defend against a club (which covers many different tools I mentioned above) you learn to defend against probably the most likely weapon you'll encounter on the street. Similarly, guns and knives are pretty common, at least in the US. I'd place staff next, as any long stick can basically be a staff. So it's not that you need to know how to defend every weapon, but there are a few that are very likely to be used against you.

I'd put swords, spears, nunchucks, and other martial arts or medieval weapons as less likely. Which brings us to...

So If you want to learn something about using a three-section staff, then go for it, but I don’t think learning unarmed defenses against it is realistic. I train sword, saber, staff, spear, double saber, double butterfly swords and double tomahawks, all in the context of Chinese martial arts. I don’t try to develop unarmed defenses against them. It’s not realistic, and it’s highly highly unlikely I’ll ever need them.

As I said earlier, it is incredibly unlikely I would be attacked with one of these, and for that reason I wouldn't train defense against them. However, I do not think that if I made unarmed defense against these weapons my focus, that it would be unrealistic to develop the ability to defend myself against the average user of them. At the very least, you would stand a chance to defend yourself.

The possibility of being attacked by someone with a 3-section-staff and the possibility of developing techniques to defend against it are two different things and two completely different arguments. The former addresses whether it's worth the time to study, while the later discusses whether it's even possible.

You'll also find you're on my side of the argument - you don't have to know the defenses against it to train with it. I agree with you that learning to defend against a master with the weapon is not going to be easy, if possible.

However, I disagree that you need to know how to defeat a master with a weapon for the self defense class to be useful. I disagree that anyone with a weapon has automatically won.

 

[Dirty Dog]

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

If by this you're referring to empty handed defense against a weapon, then of course. If you're referring to using weapons, then I'd like to see a reference please.

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.

This is true of pretty much everything but the strictest Koryu arts; they're all derived from other arts. Even the Koryu arts are derivitive, clear back to Ugg hitting Ogg with a stick and realizing it works better than punching him.
It's not the least unreasonable to say that TKD traditions are what the founders established. That would mean no weapons.

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?

No. Taekwondo was established as an empty hand art. There are certainly branches that have incorporated weapons. For example, the Hwarang or Silla knife form was developed by (if memory serves correctly...) the founder of the GTF (an ITF offshoot). I know the form, though I haven't taught it to anyone. It's a GTF form, not a TKD form. If I started teaching it as a part of our curriculum, it would still be a GTF form, not a MDK or TKD form, because it's not a part of the MDK or TKD as a whole. If our Kwanjangnim endorsed it and it was made a part of the curriculum for the entire system, then maybe it could be considered a MDK form. But it still wouldn't be a TKD form.

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

Very loose. Like, walking through an unused train tunnel loose. I'd say "taekwondo plus weapons" would be more accurate. I suspect most teachers who have any experience in other arts draw from those experiences. I know I do. But it's not taekwondo, and I try to be clear about that.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Ok, so instead assume you have TKD empty hand skills that reflect your reality. Do you believe you can develop a believable curriculum of defensive skills against an armed opponent who is skilled with his weapon, has the room to use it as designed (plenty of room to use a spear or swing a sword or staff, for example) and has no reservations about doing so with homicidal intent?

Sure you can. The first lesson will be "you're pretty much screwed, and your best bet is Run-Fu." Even competent people make mistakes, and the rest of the lessons would be geared towards staying alive until you can either escape or capitalize on a mistake.

If by "realistic" you mean a curriculum that will result in you consistently Hollywooding the other guy, then no, of course not. If by "realistic" you mean recognizing the significant disadvantage you're at, and trying to find a way out, then of course you can.

I've had knives pulled on me three times. The first time I was a 17 year old kid. The other two times were at work. Although I lost an eye the first time, I did survive. And I was uninjured in either of the other two events. Not exactly a large statistical sample, but it does, I think, show that it IS possible to learn effective, realistic defense techniques against a weapon. I'll be the first to admit that it also shows the importance of being lucky.

I don't know if any of the three would be considered "skilled" by your definition. I didn't ask their training or experience. I will say that the biggest difference I personally see between the time I got hurt and the times I didn't was hesitation. The first time, I didn't fight back until he was actually attacking me. The other two times, I attacked while the weapon was still being deployed.

 

[pdg]

If by this you're referring to empty handed defense against a weapon, then of course. If you're referring to using weapons, then I'd like to see a reference please.

As would I...

I have as yet found nothing to suggest the use of weapons was an integral part of any branch.

As has been suggested elsewhere, it's highly likely the use of weapons was taught alongside tkd originally, but it would've been a separate object of training.

Very loose. Like, walking through an unused train tunnel loose. I'd say "taekwondo plus weapons" would be more accurate.

I prefer "chucking a sausage into a cathedral" as a definition of looseness myself

But, the name (with various formats and punctuation) has been hoiked about so much and appropriated so many times...

For instance, there's a school with a club near me that advertises taekwondo, but go on to say they don't use patterns, they "don't confuse students with foreign terms", and they use certain weapons.

I don't consider that tkd, but by using the name they obviously do.

 

[Flying Crane]

Why do you assume I was saying that learning defense against a bat means you learn defense against all weapons? You are taking points I didn't make and arguing against them.

I'm saying if you learn defenses against a baseball swing or an overhand strike from a club (be it a bat, eskrima stick, asp, hammer, wrench, tire iron, etc) you've learned to defend against the majority of attacks with that type of weapon. Heck, you could even lump axes into that, as you're generally going to go for the handle instead of the end of the stick weapon.

I agree completely this won't help with swords, spears, staves, nunchucks, 3-section staff, firearms, attack dogs, and all of the other weapons you mentioned.

However, learning to defend against a club (which covers many different tools I mentioned above) you learn to defend against probably the most likely weapon you'll encounter on the street. Similarly, guns and knives are pretty common, at least in the US. I'd place staff next, as any long stick can basically be a staff. So it's not that you need to know how to defend every weapon, but there are a few that are very likely to be used against you.

I'd put swords, spears, nunchucks, and other martial arts or medieval weapons as less likely. Which brings us to...



As I said earlier, it is incredibly unlikely I would be attacked with one of these, and for that reason I wouldn't train defense against them. However, I do not think that if I made unarmed defense against these weapons my focus, that it would be unrealistic to develop the ability to defend myself against the average user of them. At the very least, you would stand a chance to defend yourself.

The possibility of being attacked by someone with a 3-section-staff and the possibility of developing techniques to defend against it are two different things and two completely different arguments. The former addresses whether it's worth the time to study, while the later discusses whether it's even possible.

You'll also find you're on my side of the argument - you don't have to know the defenses against it to train with it. I agree with you that learning to defend against a master with the weapon is not going to be easy, if possible.

However, I disagree that you need to know how to defeat a master with a weapon for the self defense class to be useful. I disagree that anyone with a weapon has automatically won.

Ok well, when you brought baseball bats into the discussion, that sent a message to me that you were equating the skill sets (defending against Jimmy and defending against a swordsman). My bad, apparently, for not realizing that was not your intention.

As to your last couple paragraphs, my point is simply that if you do not develop defenses against a skilled opponent with the weapon, then you haven’t really developed skills against the weapon. You have only developed defenses against an unskilled weapon user. My point is, be realistic about what you have done. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you can truly defend yourself against someone who actually know someone how to use the weapon. My reason for even making the comment was your earlier comment about studying the weapon and studying defenses against it.

And of course I don’t advocate simply giving up if attacked with a weapon. I advocate running. But beware the false sense of security, if your defenses against the weapon were developed against an unskilled opponent.

In the end, you may be able to defend yourself against an unskilled fellow with a sword, spear, staff, three-section staff, in the highly unlikely event that he should be coming after you.

If the guy actually has some skill with the weapon though, and fully intends to use it, then I doubt it.

Understand your limits.

 

[Flying Crane]

Sure you can. The first lesson will be "you're pretty much screwed, and your best bet is Run-Fu." Even competent people make mistakes, and the rest of the lessons would be geared towards staying alive until you can either escape or capitalize on a mistake.

If by "realistic" you mean a curriculum that will result in you consistently Hollywooding the other guy, then no, of course not. If by "realistic" you mean recognizing the significant disadvantage you're at, and trying to find a way out, then of course you can.

I've had knives pulled on me three times. The first time I was a 17 year old kid. The other two times were at work. Although I lost an eye the first time, I did survive. And I was uninjured in either of the other two events. Not exactly a large statistical sample, but it does, I think, show that it IS possible to learn effective, realistic defense techniques against a weapon. I'll be the first to admit that it also shows the importance of being lucky.

I don't know if any of the three would be considered "skilled" by your definition. I didn't ask their training or experience. I will say that the biggest difference I personally see between the time I got hurt and the times I didn't was hesitation. The first time, I didn't fight back until he was actually attacking me. The other two times, I attacked while the weapon was still being deployed.

These are good examples. I of course also do not know if they were skilled. As I’ve said a couple times now, my comments were in response to a statement, within the context of wanting to learn three-section staff (as well as listing some other traditional weapons like katana) that learning to defend against them is part of it. Those are weapons that give a huge advantages to the user, and if he has skill and room to use them and real intent, then no I do not believe it is possible, Short of a miraculous fluke and extreme luck.

That’s kind of like learning to defend against a skilled guy with a rifle, in an open field, and 40 yards between you. It ain’t happening. If the weapon is being used as it was designed, in an environment for which it was designed, and you are empty-handed, good bye to you.

At any rate, I agree that understanding the severity of your situation and looking for an escape route are the best defenses. But that is not how I interpreted what was intended by the earlier statement.

 

[Earl Weiss]

If by this you're referring to empty handed defense against a weapon, then of course. If you're referring to using weapons, then I'd like to see a reference please.
............................
No. Taekwondo was established as an empty hand art.

I'd say "taekwondo plus weapons" would be more accurate. .

DD Nailed it.