What weapons are Taekwondo?

[skribs]

So is it worthless to know how to defend against someone using unskilled swinging or poking with the sword?

 

[Flying Crane]

Error

 

[Flying Crane]

So is it worthless to know how to defend against someone using unskilled swinging or poking with the sword?

I’m pretty sure I’ve addressed that...

As I’ve said now, facing a skilled swordsman is highly unlikely in the modern day, in most parts of the world. So there is some sense in training to defend against a nincompoop who swings an object at you, which could happen. But be honest with yourself about what these skills are. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you actually are capable of defending against a sword, in the real sense of what that means.

And do keep in mind that what sparked my comment in the first place was a statement by oftheherd that learning the weapon should also include learning to defend against it.

I feel that people tend to not stop and consider what that really means, and that is what I am trying to point out. That is why I am being a stickler about it.

 

[Dirty Dog]

So is it worthless to know how to defend against someone using unskilled swinging or poking with the sword?

I don't think anyone has said, or even implied, this.

 

[CB Jones]

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

As was told to me...Fumio Demura was using nunchaku before Bruce Lee.

Bruce Lee adopted a lot of Fumio techniques and moves from his forms

 

[skribs]

I don't think anyone has said, or even implied, this.

The messages I quoted really seemed to imply this, if not outright state it.

 

[hoshin1600]

As was told to me...Fumio Demura was using nunchaku before Bruce Lee.

Bruce Lee adopted a lot of Fumio techniques and moves from his forms

Well yeah of course there were karate men who used them. I was more referring to an entire generation of kids and adults who were "twirling chucks".

 

[Flying Crane]

The messages I quoted really seemed to imply this, if not outright state it.

My apologies if I wasn’t making myself clear. Honestly, I was trying.

It can be difficult at times to convey a clear message in this medium. If we were talking face-to-face I think it often would be easier.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The messages I quoted really seemed to imply this, if not outright state it.

If you say so. But I honestly don't get that implication from them. At all.
And he's clearly stated that you're misunderstanding him. So why keep insisting he's saying something he's not?

 

[skribs]

If you say so. But I honestly don't get that implication from them. At all.
And he's clearly stated that you're misunderstanding him. So why keep insisting he's saying something he's not?

Because in short answers he says he agrees with me and I read it wrong, but in long answers he says basically the same thing and I don't have a better understanding of what hes trying to say.

 

[Flying Crane]

Because in short answers he says he agrees with me and I read it wrong, but in long answers he says basically the same thing and I don't have a better understanding of what hes trying to say.

I’m willing to give it another try.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ok how a out this analogy: I want to play baseball, but all I’ve ever done is hit a ball off a tee.

Do I have any real batting skills, or am I going to get decimated if I ever face a pitcher with any real skills at all? Do I actually understand batting at all?

If I continue to train by hitting off a tee, will I ever really develop batting skills?

I could keep playing tee ball, although I’m not aware of any adult leagues. I can still develop the gross motor skills of swinging a bat, so that is something. But if a game of baseball is what I am after, hitting off a tee isn’t going to get me there.

 

[skribs]

So in other words if you're going to seek out swordsmen to fight, you better learn to defend against all the sword techniques?

But if you're fighting for the expected attack on the street, which is more likely to be some punk who either stole a sword or bought a sword on ebay with no idea how to use it, then its okay for you to know to defend against the sword version of a haymaker?

 

[Flying Crane]

So in other words if you're going to seek out swordsmen to fight, you better learn to defend against all the sword techniques?

But if you're fighting for the expected attack on the street, which is more likely to be some punk who either stole a sword or bought a sword on ebay with no idea how to use it, then its okay for you to know to defend against the sword version of a haymaker?

I think this might be getting closer to the mark.

Honestly, I think it is very unlikely that you will ever face the punk who stole a sword either. Swords are difficult to carry in a manner that does not attract attention, so people just don’t carry them around. I think if you face such a person, it might be because you broke into his house and he grabbed the cheap sword off the wall to defend his home.

Nontheless, as I’ve said, weapons are interesting and fun to work with and I encourage it. But I also simply encourage people to be realistic in their assessment of their training accomplishments. Don’t fool yourself into believing you truly understand the weapon or how to defend against it, if your training has focused on the untrained punk swinging a cheap sword at you. But you could still benefit from the exercise of it, gaining some additional spacial awareness and body contact and manipulation, and hopefully developing a healthy respect for the weapon and its capabilities.

As to your first comment, I am not sure why you keep focusing on the notion of “all” of the techniques of a swordsman. I think the body of techniques is rather small, but they can be used with a lot of variation and innovation.

What I really have in mind is more in terms of quality of the trained swordsman’s techniques. He will be more refined and precise, with little wasted motion and a very solid guard, attacking with speed and commitment to getting the job done. In my opinion, that is EXTREMELY difficult and unlikely to defend against, it you are not also armed, or have some other factor that evens the playing field for you. Given that a sword is designed to be lethal, once the fight enters into this realm of seriousness, it just isn’t all that possible to half-*** it as the swordsman and sort of cut him a bit and hope he gives up. So it really becomes a battle of all-or-nothing. It isn’t a sparring match where you both go home safe afterwards. It is deadly serious.

 

[pdg]

I think this might be getting closer to the mark.

Honestly, I think it is very unlikely that you will ever face the punk who stole a sword either. Swords are difficult to carry in a manner that does not attract attention, so people just don’t carry them around. I think if you face such a person, it might be because you broke into his house and he grabbed the cheap sword off the wall to defend his home.

Nontheless, as I’ve said, weapons are interesting and fun to work with and I encourage it. But I also simply encourage people to be realistic in their assessment of their training accomplishments. Don’t fool yourself into believing you truly understand the weapon or how to defend against it, if your training has focused on the untrained punk swinging a cheap sword at you. But you could still benefit from the exercise of it, gaining some additional spacial awareness and body contact and manipulation, and hopefully developing a healthy respect for the weapon and its capabilities.

As to your first comment, I am not sure why you keep focusing on the notion of “all” of the techniques of a swordsman. I think the body of techniques is rather small, but they can be used with a lot of variation and innovation.

What I really have in mind is more in terms of quality of the trained swordsman’s techniques. He will be more refined and precise, with little wasted motion and a very solid guard, attacking with speed and commitment to getting the job done. In my opinion, that is EXTREMELY difficult and unlikely to defend against, it you are not also armed, or have some other factor that evens the playing field for you. Given that a sword is designed to be lethal, once the fight enters into this realm of seriousness, it just isn’t all that possible to half-*** it as the swordsman and sort of cut him a bit and hope he gives up. So it really becomes a battle of all-or-nothing. It isn’t a sparring match where you both go home safe afterwards. It is deadly serious.

All of what you've said there pretty much shows that you don't defend against the weapon, you defend against the person wielding it.

Sometimes, someone else having a weapon can work in your favour if they don't know what they're doing...

imo that goes for any weapon, all the way down to hands and feet.

 

[pdg]

Oh, and the original question...

I found a reference.



Bayonet drill...

Goes some way to support the picture @TrueJim posted, and @Dirty Dog asked about reference to

(Adolescent refers to the point in training, not actual age of student)

 

[Flying Crane]

All of what you've said there pretty much shows that you don't defend against the weapon, you defend against the person wielding it.

Sometimes, someone else having a weapon can work in your favour if they don't know what they're doing...

imo that goes for any weapon, all the way down to hands and feet.

This is true, but if your training partners are all unskilled people swinging a weapon that they do not understand, then your skill at defending against an armed opponent is very very low, quite probably to the point where you have a serious and quite dangerous lack of comprehension of what a person of even moderate skill can do with it. Hence my position: you do not really understand how to (or even if it is realistically possible) to defend against the weapon. You do not understand the weapon.

 

[pdg]

This is true, but if your training partners are all unskilled people swinging a weapon that they do not understand, then your skill at defending against an armed opponent is very very low, quite probably to the point where you have a serious and quite dangerous lack of comprehension of what a person of even moderate skill can do with it. Hence my position: you do not really understand how to (or even if it is realistically possible) to defend against the weapon. You do not understand the weapon.

You don't need to understand the weapon over knowing which bits hurt. The weapon itself is almost incidental.

A very unskilled person coming at you with a sword is 'the same' as that unskilled person holding a bat with nails in.

A very skilled swordsman armed with a pointed stick is likely to win against an unarmed opponent.

As far as training to defend - it's still against the person. You can't realistically train to defend against a skilled swordsman unless you can train against a skilled swordsman - I think that bit we agree on.

But, you still aren't training against the weapon - training with said swordsman is unlikely to involve a sword...

 

[Flying Crane]

You don't need to understand the weapon over knowing which bits hurt. The weapon itself is almost incidental.

A very unskilled person coming at you with a sword is 'the same' as that unskilled person holding a bat with nails in.

A very skilled swordsman armed with a pointed stick is likely to win against an unarmed opponent.

As far as training to defend - it's still against the person. You can't realistically train to defend against a skilled swordsman unless you can train against a skilled swordsman - I think that bit we agree on.

But, you still aren't training against the weapon - training with said swordsman is unlikely to involve a sword...

Well you need to understand that a sword has sharp bits that a stick does not. This is obvious, but it makes a big difference in how you engage with the weapon, or against it. So no, it isn’t all the same.

 

[pdg]

Well you need to understand that a sword has sharp bits that a stick does not. This is obvious, but it makes a big difference in how you engage with the weapon, or against it. So no, it isn’t all the same.

But it is the same - avoid the ouchy parts as best you can. That holds for any weapon at all.

You shouldn't really engage with the weapon, you engage with the person holding it. If you can get to the person (or get away) without their weapon's ouchy parts doing their job on you then your chances increase instantly and dramatically.

If you're adamant that the weapon is the be-all and end-all then I'll have to agree to disagree with you.