What weapons are Taekwondo?

[TrueJim]

Taekwondo bayonet training. Just sayin'...bayonets.

 

[pdg]

Taekwondo bayonet training. Just sayin'...bayonets.

Wouldn't that be defence against a bayonet though?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Taekwondo bayonet training. Just sayin'...bayonets.

No, that's training defense AGAINST a polearm (any long-ish stick with a blade at the end), by guys in MA uniforms. We don't really know what art they train in, but it also doesn't really matter. The picture clearly shows defense against, rather than technique for using.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

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.

...

If you can do that, then what?

Mind you, defense against any weapon requires skill. If you are not skilled, which includes fast and accurate, you may indeed be in deep kimchi. But if your attacker relies too much on the weapon, and does not expect a good defense, that will help your chances.

 

[skribs]

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.

Or...you've developed techniques against the most likely use of the weapon. It might not be fully fleshed out, but it will be useful defense in a large majority of the situations you get into.

 

[oftheherd1]

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

I don't really know when he first used them in a movie. I do know that in 1973 I knew a young man who was studying nunchuku at a school.

well they did actually use a rice flail.
View attachment 21330

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.

The normal way I saw was to cut the stalks, let them dry, then take a bunch of stalks and beat (flail) them against a structure made of rice stalks, that curved around but was open at the front. The rice grains fell to the bottom and were periodically collected. The rice stalk structure was usually set on rice mats as your picture shows so any rice that didn't fall straight down was not lost. Then the rice was dried on mats and what you show above was used to separate the rice from the chaff.

But there may well have been different ways used in local areas.

Oh, did they have garages in ancient times in the orient?

 

[oftheherd1]

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

I understand. However in the Hapkido I studied, we learned unarmed defense against sword and knife, and the use of the short stick as a defense against the sword. Mind you, I was only tested to 2nd Dan.

 

[JR 137]

• 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

Realistically speaking, what parts of TMA ARE time effective training? Not including competition what are the chances you’ll actually defend against any head kick? Even better, against any kick at all? Between bartending and helping break up the really bad stuff while I was there, I don’t recall ever seeing a kick thrown. Same any other altercation. I haven’t seen much of anything beyond haymakers, grabbing/shoving like wrestling and judo, a few (American) football tackle-like takedowns, and some restraining stuff like bear hugs and headlock-type stuff. Floatin’ like a butterfly and stingin’ like a bee didn’t happen, nor did jujitsu matches or TKD matches.

I’m not talking strictly bar room brawls here. I’ve seen far more than I’ve been in, and have been more than my fair share.

If we’re maximizing time effectiveness, shouldn’t 99% of our training be based around that stuff rather than dojo fighting?

 

[TrueJim]

No, that's training defense AGAINST a polearm (any long-ish stick with a blade at the end), by guys in MA uniforms. We don't really know what art they train in, but it also doesn't really matter. The picture clearly shows defense against, rather than technique for using.

I don't recall the source of the photo, but I do recall that it claimed that that photo is a group of Vietnamese taekwondo students (specifically soldiers) being trained by Nam Tae Hi. I think it was in The Killing Art that the author talks about bayonet training (as in, bayonet as a weapon) being part of the military curriculum developed by General Choi? I'm working from memory though, I don't have the references handy.

 

[skribs]

Realistically speaking, what parts of TMA ARE time effective training? Not including competition what are the chances you’ll actually defend against any head kick? Even better, against any kick at all? Between bartending and helping break up the really bad stuff while I was there, I don’t recall ever seeing a kick thrown. Same any other altercation. I haven’t seen much of anything beyond haymakers, grabbing/shoving like wrestling and judo, a few (American) football tackle-like takedowns, and some restraining stuff like bear hugs and headlock-type stuff. Floatin’ like a butterfly and stingin’ like a bee didn’t happen, nor did jujitsu matches or TKD matches.

I’m not talking strictly bar room brawls here. I’ve seen far more than I’ve been in, and have been more than my fair share.

If we’re maximizing time effectiveness, shouldn’t 99% of our training be based around that stuff rather than dojo fighting?

If you expect to fight in competition, then there is a very likely chance you will need that skill, and it is effective use of your time to train for it.

 

[Flying Crane]

If you can do that, then what?

Mind you, defense against any weapon requires skill. If you are not skilled, which includes fast and accurate, you may indeed be in deep kimchi. But if your attacker relies too much on the weapon, and does not expect a good defense, that will help your chances.

You can “what if” it to death and come up with a scenario in which you win.

But... if he is as skilled as you, and he has a weapon such as a sword or spear or staff or three section staff with which he is equally skilled, and he has the room to use the weapon as it was designed, then he wins.

That is what weapons do: they tilt the playing field and make the encounter severely unfair.

But to think of a scenario like “ he relies too much on the weapon and does not expect a strong defense”. That is nonsense.

I am assuming a weapon guy who knows what he is about.

You are assuming an unskilled fellow who happened to pick up a weapon and doesn’t have much notion of what to do with it.

 

[Flying Crane]

No, that's training defense AGAINST a polearm (any long-ish stick with a blade at the end), by guys in MA uniforms. We don't really know what art they train in, but it also doesn't really matter. The picture clearly shows defense against, rather than technique for using.

It shows an encounter between two fellows who are both gripping a rifle fitted with a bayonet. How they got into that position is not shown. There could have been a technique for using the bayonet, and there could have been an attempt to defend against it.

The bayonet could be incidental, and they are really just fighting for control to use the last round in the rifle.

 

[Flying Crane]

Or...you've developed techniques against the most likely use of the weapon. It might not be fully fleshed out, but it will be useful defense in a large majority of the situations you get into.

Sure, but likely (in the modern day and age) against a fellow unskilled with the weapon. That isn’t really understanding how to defend against the weapon.

Look. I’ve got some training with a few weapons, and my weapons are realistic and sturdy, not some flimsy toys like we see in Modern Wushu or XMA. I am no weapons master, but I have some familiarity and comfort with a few of them, and an understanding of how they work.

I will state with confidence that with one of these weapons, in a state of combat readiness, meaning they are made of quality materials, they are well constructed, they are sharp where they need to be and strong where they need to be etc., that I could defeat (kill) anybody in an encounter where they are unarmed and I am armed.

The assumptions are simply that I have sufficient room to use the weapon as it is designed (I’m not fighting with a spear while in the crawl space under my house, for example) and I have full freedom to use the weapon with homicidal intent (it isn’t a sparring match where we all go home at the end of the day).

I don’t care who the opponent is. It could be anyone from the Gracie clan, or your own grandmaster, or whomever the current personality of the moment in MMA is, or some obscure grandmaster whoever from wherever. I don’t care who you want to name as my opponent.

If the match is under those conditions, I will win and he will die.

That is what these weapons mean, in the hand of someone who inderstands them.

So if you want to come up with empty hand defenses against the weapon, for real, then that is what you are talking about. Otherwise, you are talking about defending against an unskilled opponent who happens to be holding a weapon with which he is also unskilled.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You can “what if” it to death and come up with a scenario in which you win.

But... if he is as skilled as you, and he has a weapon such as a sword or spear or staff or three section staff with which he is equally skilled, and he has the room to use the weapon as it was designed, then he wins.

That is what weapons do: they tilt the playing field and make the encounter severely unfair.

But to think of a scenario like “ he relies too much on the weapon and does not expect a strong defense”. That is nonsense.

I am assuming a weapon guy who knows what he is about.

You are assuming an unskilled fellow who happened to pick up a weapon and doesn’t have much notion of what to do with it.

You train for what can be defended. A highly skilled knife fighter is probably going to dissect me, especially if he has some empty-hand training, too (so he recognizes the movements). But a less-skilled person with a knife can be dealt with. If I don't have a better option, I'm fighting, either way. When training, there's not much sense in assuming I'll be gutted as soon as I start to defend. We have to be realistic about our limitations (so we know we're not action movie heroes), and train for what we can do rather than simply skipping it because the other guy might be too skilled.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sure, but likely (in the modern day and age) against a fellow unskilled with the weapon. That isn’t really understanding how to defend against the weapon.

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from on this. For folks learning weapon defense, they're often (not always) more concerned with learning to defend against people wielding weapons, than the weapon, itself. I hope that distinction makes sense.

 

[skribs]

Sure, but likely (in the modern day and age) against a fellow unskilled with the weapon. That isn’t really understanding how to defend against the weapon.

It's an understanding of how to defend against a typical deployment of that weapon. Should a school not teach any defense skills unless they teach skills for every possible way in which that can be used?

Should I not go to a martial arts school unless they teach me to defend against punches, open hand strikes, elbows, knees, kicks, grabs, joint locks, throws, chokes, holds, breaks, and compression locks? If I can't defend against boxers, karate experts, wing chun, hapkido, wrestling, jiu-jitsu, and judo, and taekwondo, can I say I don't know self defense because my opponent might use a technique I've not drilled against.

"Oh, you say yours is the perfect self defense, but all you train is defense against punches, kicks, body grabs, arm grabs, and chokes. What if someone attacks you with a 540 hook kick or a Feilong roundhouse? What drills have you done for that?"

This is the sense I get from you. That it's completely worthless to teach self defense against the average user of the weapon (the guy who just grabs you or throws a sucker punch) because you might run into Scott Adkins, and because Scott Adkins would beat you, there's no point in training.

Look. I’ve got some training with a few weapons, and my weapons are realistic and sturdy, not some flimsy toys like we see in Modern Wushu or XMA. I am no weapons master, but I have some familiarity and comfort with a few of them, and an understanding of how they work.

I will state with confidence that with one of these weapons, in a state of combat readiness, meaning they are made of quality materials, they are well constructed, they are sharp where they need to be and strong where they need to be etc., that I could defeat (kill) anybody in an encounter where they are unarmed and I am armed.

The assumptions are simply that I have sufficient room to use the weapon as it is designed (I’m not fighting with a spear while in the crawl space under my house, for example) and I have full freedom to use the weapon with homicidal intent (it isn’t a sparring match where we all go home at the end of the day).

I don’t care who the opponent is. It could be anyone from the Gracie clan, or your own grandmaster, or whomever the current personality of the moment in MMA is, or some obscure grandmaster whoever from wherever. I don’t care who you want to name as my opponent.

If the match is under those conditions, I will win and he will die.

That is what these weapons mean, in the hand of someone who inderstands them.

So if you want to come up with empty hand defenses against the weapon, for real, then that is what you are talking about. Otherwise, you are talking about defending against an unskilled opponent who happens to be holding a weapon with which he is also unskilled.

I am going to say that you are falling into the trap that Oftheherd said, relying too much on the weapon. Complete belief that because you have the weapon, you will win. That's not to say you're unskilled or don't know what you're doing, but simply belief that your skill in the weapon makes you infallible.

So your plan (from an earlier point in the thread) is to run. What if they're faster than you?

 

[Flying Crane]

You train for what can be defended. A highly skilled knife fighter is probably going to dissect me, especially if he has some empty-hand training, too (so he recognizes the movements). But a less-skilled person with a knife can be dealt with. If I don't have a better option, I'm fighting, either way. When training, there's not much sense in assuming I'll be gutted as soon as I start to defend. We have to be realistic about our limitations (so we know we're not action movie heroes), and train for what we can do rather than simply skipping it because the other guy might be too skilled.

I’m not saying you don’t fight back. By all means, fight back (if making an exit is not possible).

But think about the reality of trying to make a curriculum of unarmed defense against a sword. “If he lunges at you like THIS, then you sidestep like THAT and grab his arm and TWIST and poke him in the eye...”. Seriously, that will only work on the most inexperienced swordsman to ever pick up a weapon. that kind of defense will not work on a swordsman with even modest skills.

That’s what I’m trying to get across: defending against a nincompoop holding a sword is not the same as a realistic defense against the sword, by anyone with any level of real skill at all. If is just fantasy.

Again, my comments are in response to an earlier statement that learning the weapon (with a list of katana, bo, nunchaku, and three-section staff, if I remember correctly) should also include learning to defend against it. Well then that should mean defending against someone who actually knows how to use the weapon effectively. Not a supreme weapons master, but someone with genuine competence. And realistically, that is very very unlikely because these weapons are meant to be game-changers. They are meant to create an enormously and insurmountably unfair advantage. Otherwise it is just pretending.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from on this. For folks learning weapon defense, they're often (not always) more concerned with learning to defend against people wielding weapons, than the weapon, itself. I hope that distinction makes sense.

Yes. Someone unskilled who happens to be holding a weapon, vs. the weapon in how it is really meant to be used, by someone who actually knows how to do so.

 

[Flying Crane]

It's an understanding of how to defend against a typical deployment of that weapon. Should a school not teach any defense skills unless they teach skills for every possible way in which that can be used?

I think you don’t understand what a “typical deployment of the weapon” means. I’ll tell you: it is fast and sneaky and repeated and leaves you dead, without a chance to defend against it. It is overwhelming superiority, unless you are defending against a nincompoop. If so, if that’s is what your program is designed against, then your program has no value.

Should I not go to a martial arts school unless they teach me to defend against punches, open hand strikes, elbows, knees, kicks, grabs, joint locks, throws, chokes, holds, breaks, and compression locks? If I can't defend against boxers, karate experts, wing chun, hapkido, wrestling, jiu-jitsu, and judo, and taekwondo, can I say I don't know self defense because my opponent might use a technique I've not drilled against.

"Oh, you say yours is the perfect self defense, but all you train is defense against punches, kicks, body grabs, arm grabs, and chokes. What if someone attacks you with a 540 hook kick or a Feilong roundhouse? What drills have you done for that?"

This is the sense I get from you. That it's completely worthless to teach self defense against the average user of the weapon (the guy who just grabs you or throws a sucker punch) because you might run into Scott Adkins, and because Scott Adkins would beat you, there's no point in training.

Where do you get that idea? I never said it has to be absolutely complete, that you need to do everything or nothing. I said that the skill is not real if it is not realistic against someone with some real skill with the weapon. And I do not believe it is possible to develop that, given the use these weapons are meant for.

Another thing to note: fundamental techniques are what get results, especially with weapons. That stuff is deadly. The flashy fancy stiff is for show and is not combat technique. These weapons typically have a limited body of useful techniques that are used with great effect.

I am going to say that you are falling into the trap that Oftheherd said, relying too much on the weapon. Complete belief that because you have the weapon, you will win. That's not to say you're unskilled or don't know what you're doing, but simply belief that your skill in the weapon makes you infallible.

So your plan (from an earlier point in the thread) is to run. What if they're faster than you?

See, this is where you are trying to play the “what if” game and come up with an unreasonable possibility or exception where your plan wins. Someone with legitimate skills does not put too much belief in the weapon. Rather, he knows what can be done with the weapon and he knows how to accomplish it. He isn’t going to fall for some silly deception and drop his guard. If he intends to kill you with the katana or the spear, then that is what he will do.

As for running, sure that is your best bet. And he could also simply pull a gun and shoot you from 30 paces. Do you think you can develop unarmed defenses against that.

Weapons are meant to create an extreme unfair advantage. Sometimes there is no way out of that.

Now once again, when we are talking about traditional weapons like swords and spears etc. you are not going to encounter this situation, this is a purely academic discussion.

 

[skribs]

I said that the skill is not real if it is not realistic against someone with some real skill with the weapon.

And how does that make the skill somehow not real? It makes the skill limited in scope, certainly, but it doesn't make it not real.

See, this is where you are trying to play the “what if” game and come up with an unreasonable possibility or exception where your plan wins.

To say that the other person is faster than me? How is that an unreal expectation? My mile time is like 9 minutes. It's a very real expectation.