Does Your Martial Art Teach Self Defence?

[KydeX]

IMHO, I don't think that doing neck breaks, striking the back with knees, and jumping on a downed opponent, constitutes SD.

I think it depends. If they carry a weapon my opinion is that anything goes. Also if there are multiple attackers you need to use extra force to make sure they don't get back in the fight. It 's hard to lock down more than one person at a time.


Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Self Defense depends on the context of what is happening at the time. Depending on where you live and the laws of that area. Remember that "Self Defense" is a legal term and defense. In some areas if someone breaks into your house depending on the context ie. they are committing a felony, have a weapon (ie. knife, gun, etc.), threatening your families life you may be allowed to use lethal force. This of course depends on the area and the laws in your particular area. That is why it is so important to understand the laws in your area. In many places in the United States a home intruder has a high likelihood of meeting someone with a firearm. (definitely at all my families homes) This of course would be the preferred tool to use in self defense to protect your family. (it probably will be the easiest to justify in the United States depending of course on the area and you would have the power of the NRA coming to your side) Secondary tools would be knife, baseball bat, shinken, (legal where I live Chris it is to bad that it is not legal where you live) a whole assortment of other tools, with probably the least positive thing to utilize would be empty hand self defense. In a home invasion in the middle of the night there is a good chance that the bad guy's will have weapons/tools almost immediately turning it into a lethal force encounter. (though you cannot count on this and have to be certain in the moment) Your going to have to take care of business within the context of the law of your area, state, country. It may be that you have to respond with lethal force or less and that could include utilizing a tool/weapon or even utilizing lethal force empty handed. Or it may be that all you can or should do is restrain the individual. Or yet again just report it to the police if they run off after realizing you are there. All of this would of course depend on what is happening in the context of that home invasion and what you need to do appropriately in self defense. There are simply a lot of variables in any self defense situation and you cannot pigeon hole your response into a very narrow set of circumstances. I am very fortunate in IRT to have several lawyers training as well as in Nevada a Prosecuting Attorney to turn to for advise. It is essential to have legal advise in your martial training and have a good understanding of that legal advice and the laws in your area. Know the laws where you live!!!

I think it is also naïve to only think that RBSD systems practice, teach self defense and the legal implications and laws of their area. I guess this is because I have experienced multiple systems having a legal, law component to their teaching and several were systems that had a very large sporting aspect to them. Some certainly do it better than other ones though. I will however go and say that their are a number of systems out there that do not take into account the law of the land and their students suffer greatly for this. We as martial practitioner's owe it to try and educate not only the public but also other martial practitioner's!

 

[MJS]

I think it depends. If they carry a weapon my opinion is that anything goes. Also if there are multiple attackers you need to use extra force to make sure they don't get back in the fight. It 's hard to lock down more than one person at a time.


Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

Sure. Perhaps I should've used better wording, as reading this, it seems a bit misleading. Whatever we do, we should (IMO anyways) assess the situation and act accordingly. The things that I described, were things that were done, after the attacker throws a punch. I'm sorry, but while I could justify the use of deadly force in certain situations, breaking a neck, if the guy is simply punching us, would be a bit hard to prove justifiable, in court.

 

[wimwag]

I think it depends. If they carry a weapon my opinion is that anything goes. Also if there are multiple attackers you need to use extra force to make sure they don't get back in the fight. It 's hard to lock down more than one person at a time.


Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

Kydex, look up the legal definition of "disparity of force."

 

[K-man]

.
Not quite what I was meaning when I said "unrealistic attacks". I meant that the actual structure of the attacks was not similar to a "real" attack... they are stylised representations of forms of violence and attack. A technique like Renyo, for instance, has an attack which is a right punch, followed by a right kick, then a right grab to the lapel. That's an unrealistic sequence, really. But that's fine... it's meant to be. It's teaching distancing concepts (changing and flowing between ranges) by moving from a striking range to a kicking distance, then closing in to a grappling one. There are, of course, other lessons involved (such as handling an opponent responding by trying to escape a joint lock and so on), but it's just not meant to be a realistic sequence. Many Kukishinden Ryu kata involve a long string of attacks (right punch, left punch, right kick, left kick, right punch... or right punch, left punch, right kick, right punch.... or right punch, left punch, right punch, left kick... and so on), which teach a method of moving evasively, handling a constant attack, disrupting rhythms, picking your timing, staying in control of your distance etc, but again, it just ain't what would ever be actually encountered. It's not a realistic attack.

That said, it doesn't mean that the attacks aren't done "realistically" (in terms of targeting, power, intent etc). They absolutely are. In fact, I don't think the techniques work properly unless it's a proper attack in that sense. Attacks are done tight, precise, guarded, balanced, and so forth (at least... they're meant to be...). It's only in demonstrations that show each "part" of the action, and in the very, very early stage of learning any particular kata that there should ever be an arm "just left out there", or the attacking side should be just waiting for the defender's movements. There is, of course, some variation, as well as some alternate reasons for some of what is seen (the punches aren't actually punches....), but that's taking us further away, and will only complicate things.

You are right. I thought the reference was to the typical attacks you see in Aikido or karate, running in with a hand in the air like a flag flying or a fist held out as a sacrificial offering. I had forgotten about the stupid combinations we had to perform to fit in with someone's understanding of how a technique might be applied.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

IMHO, I don't think that doing neck breaks, striking the back with knees, and jumping on a downed opponent, constitutes SD.

As I often say, it all depends.

Kydex, look up the legal definition of "disparity of force."

Good suggestion and interesting reading.

One that was worth a look ...
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/legal-news/disparity-of-force/
:asian:

 

[Kframe]

Thanks for your post. So, in your opinion, do you feel that both SD and a martial art, can be learned at the same time? I may be wrong, but I got the impression from Chris' post, that you can only do one or the other. Again, maybe I'm just not understanding correctly. As for the sword techs...yeah, that's probably not SD. LOL! Of course, when I was doing Kenpo, there were quite a few techs, that were 'overkill' for lack of a better word. IMHO, I don't think that doing neck breaks, striking the back with knees, and jumping on a downed opponent, constitutes SD.

I don't know about Chris parkers, feelings but here is mine. Some arts, were designed for war. Combat on the field of battle. Some were designed for Dueling. Each art has its own context that it was designed for. Most were not designed solely for self defense. That how ever does not mean that you can not use what is taught for self defense. Just that the context of the art is one thing, but you can use it for another. Its like WTF TKD or Boxing or MMA each one was built for a sporting context yet can and is used quite nicely for some self defense situations. Some combat arts have things that fit quite well for defending your self in certain situations. Its all about the context of the art and what it was really designed for.

I hope that makes sense..

 

[Kframe]

Self defense for martial artists can be a tad more complicated. You see in some areas, or if you have a not so clean self defense situation unfold, they can use your experience against you. To the lay man and the prosecutor you are considered to be a weapon, having such skill that you should not need to break a neck. Its not universally true, but something to consider.

 

[K-man]

Self defense for martial artists can be a tad more complicated. You see in some areas, or if you have a not so clean self defense situation unfold, they can use your experience against you. To the lay man and the prosecutor you are considered to be a weapon, having such skill that you should not need to break a neck. Its not universally true, but something to consider.

I think it probably depends on whether you are the aggressor or the victim.

This is is where a trained person has misused his MA ability.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-arts-fighters-hands-feet-deadly-weapons.html

And from another forum ...

First, in the United States at least, the question of whether hands (or other body parts) of a boxer, martial artist or any other person even qualifies as a "deadly" or "lethal" weapon depends largely upon how "deadly weapon," "lethal weapon," or "deadly force" is defined (usually by statute, which is then interpreted by the courts). _See,_ _e.g.,_ Vitauts M. Gulbis, "Parts of the Human Body, Other Than Feet, as Deadly or Dangerous Weapons for Purposes of Statutes Aggravating Offenses Such as Assault and Robbery," 8 A.L.R.4th 1268 (1981 and supplements); Christpher Vaeth, "Kicking as Aggravated Assault, or Assault With Dangerous or Deadly Weapon," 19 A.L.R.5th 823 (1995 and supplements). Most statutes have been interpreted to require an object external to the human body before a "deadly weapon" element can be met. For example, in _Minnesota v. Bastin_, 572 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1997), the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the trial court's conclusion that the left fist of the defendant, a former licensed professional prize fighter, was a "deadly weapon."


Some courts in the United States have concluded, however, that a criminal defendant's experience in boxing or martial arts should be considered when deciding whether s/he possessed a required intent to cause harm. For instance, in _Trujillo v. State_, 750 P.2d 1334 (Wyo. 1988), the Wyoming Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault after he punched someone in the head. His history as a trained boxer was one bit of evidence supporting the jury's findings on his mental state. Likewise, in _In the Matter of the Welfare of D.S.F._, 416 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. App. 1988), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the actions of the defendant, who had "substantial experience in karate," were sufficient to demonstrate his knowledge that he was hitting the victim with sufficient force to break the victim's jaw.

:asian:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Most were not designed solely for self defense.

Agree with you 100% there. In my art of Chinese wrestling, to develop tiger spirit is very important. You act like a tiger and trying to eat your opponent alive. I assume when a tiger tries to eat a deer, it's not self-defense at all.

If your opponent

- attacks, you move back.
- attacks again, you move back again.
- attack the 3rd time, you move back the 3rd time, but you immediate jump back in and "eat him alive".

 

[RTKDCMB]

Self defense for martial artists can be a tad more complicated. You see in some areas, or if you have a not so clean self defense situation unfold, they can use your experience against you. To the lay man and the prosecutor you are considered to be a weapon, having such skill that you should not need to break a neck. Its not universally true, but something to consider.

That is always good incentive to try to stay out of trouble.

 

[Chris Parker]

Out of curiosity, what are you learning in your training...a martial art, SD, both, neither? IMHO, I would say that while everyone's personal reasons will differ, the vast majority of arts, will teach both...the art/history, as well as SD.

Ah, this might not be short....

The first question would be, which part of my training? My martial arts, well, there I'm training a martial art... my self defence training, well, that's self defence. Each topic is separate, each skill set is separate... although it can get a little confusing as both are taught in the same class. Of course, that takes us into the question of what each of them are... and why I'm so adamant in my separation of them.

What I will say here (I'll cover more of the rest as we go) is that the students personal reasons are completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. It really doesn't matter what the student is looking for... they might well be looking for self defence in a martial arts class, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're actually getting. I mean, I want a nice, healthy meal at the end of the day... but ordering from Pizza Hut doesn't make it so just because that's what I want.

Firstly, there's nothing wrong with continually researching, analyzing, and asking questions. The thing that may help is to realize that the answers to those questions may take a while in coming and that's okay. Martial arts is a marathon, not a sprint. Much of the understanding you are seeking is going to come incrementally, one small insight at a time. Perhaps you can start a private martial arts diary where you record your questions and the answers you are finding. When you look back on what you've written a year or two or three later, you may be surprised to see how your perspective gradually changes.

Much wisdom here....

For what it's worth, I spent almost a decade training in the Bujinkan before I moved on to other arts, and from my current perspective I have a lot of problems with their training methodology. Chris can do a good job of explaining the theory behind that methodology. Based on my own experiences (over 30 years in the martial arts, about 10 years in the Bujinkan) I disagree with that theory. You don't have to take my word or his - spend some time seriously training in your new art and draw your own conclusions.

The theory is one thing, whether or not it's applied correctly (or properly) is another... but that's getting off topic.

That said, I don't think my time in the Bujinkan was a waste. I learned a lot of useful lessons that I have been able to apply to my life and to the other arts that I have studied since. Hopefully you will also get some useful benefits.

Seconded.

I feel the same way too. Onetime I saw a Karate demo. The guy throws a punch. His opponent did 6 moves on him while his arm was still frozen in the air. An realistic attack will be your opponent makes one move, you respod with one move. Your opponent changes. you then respond with another move.

IMO, Aikido depends too much on wrist control. It's like the Judo sleeve hold, it gives too much distance between you and your opponent. experienced Judo guy will know that holding under the elbow will reduce the distance between him and his opponent. That will give his opponent less freedom to react and move around. When wrestlers wrestle, they usually keep distance very close between each other.

In the following 2 clips, you can see that the "elbow control" will reduce the distance between you and your opponent than the "wrist control" will.

Yeah.... like K-Man, I'm not sure you're quite getting what you're seeing when you look at Aikido there... nor about the real distinction between different arts, and the way they work.... or why.

This arm locking technique is central to ... but it has no real place in Aikido.

This is what I will call "style boundary". Why should we put restriction on ourselves such as "My style doesn't do this"? We are the masters. Style is just our slaves.

In the following clip, it's easy to see that "elbow distance clinch" can be established quickly. You may not like to use it, but you can't prevent your opponent from using it on you.

[video=youtube;Ng8_2N7yuEo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng8_2N7yuEo[/video]

"Style boundaries" are not only a good thing, they're essential. Without them, you don't have a system, you have a mess... you have disparate "techniques", and no focus or definition. It's less than just fighting, then... it's nothing. Every single system has to have some stylistic boundary... the kickboxing clip you use is a good enough example. Only one opponent, no knives... on either side. Unless you're going to suggest that someone could pull a blade, there's a boundary.

The reasons boundaries exist is that they give definition. Without them, there's nothing.

I don't wanna speak out of line, considering im a newbie, but I think I kinda get what CP is saying, at least with regard to what im doing in Taijutsu. It was said, earlier in this thread that, a sword can be a good tool for self defense in the right context. I didn't say anything but I disagree. Now sure, a few months ago I believed the same. Then I was allowed to sit in on the head instructor and the assistant instructor training during the advanced class. It was sword techniques that day. I didn't see any self defense there. What I saw, was how to kill someone very very violently if they try to attack you with a weapon. In one case, the bad guy would have had his hand amputated at the wrist,(or at least very badly cut) and his throat slashed and his kidneys carved in two. All in just a few movements. That was not self defense, that was how to counter murder your enemy. Sure were I am, if he breaks in, it is by law considered a forcible felony and the law says I can use lethal force then that would work. How ever that wont work every were, and honestly is only rarely appropriate.

For your information, Kukishinden Ryu sword is largely geared around a duelling context... sure, there's the killing... it's not always a "counter", though....

Chris parker Thank you for your insights. There is a lot to digest there, im going to have to give it time. So some attacks are not just representative of unarmed attacks? That adds a interesting twist on everything. Your advice on being patient and introspective are well taken. I do have a issue with patience.

Wait for the PM....

About the Akban, i was watching there videos because it was the most complete area on youtube to see many of the ryu kata. Did they really add in bits of aikido and boxing?

There's certainly influence from there... as well as other areas... Doron Navon incorporated a fair bit of his Judo experience as well... then their "sparring" approach influences things as well....

As far as the complete look at the kata, the way the AKBAN guys do them isn't necessarily the way they are done elsewhere.... don't look at them as definitive, but can be an interesting reference.

I personal don't like to train "If you do ..., I'll do ...". If my opponent never uses a certain move on me then I'll never have chance to use my counter move on him. It's a bit too conservative approach for my taste. I like to train "I'll do this on you no matter you like it or not." I like to put my opponent in "self-defense" mode. I don't like my opponent to put me in "self-defense" mode.

I assume I'm not training "self-defense" by some of your guy's definition.

Hmm... no, not self defence to my mind. And as far as the idea of not liking to train "if you do this, I'll do...", well, that's the way the learning of tactical responses work. Hmm.

Thanks for your post. So, in your opinion, do you feel that both SD and a martial art, can be learned at the same time? I may be wrong, but I got the impression from Chris' post, that you can only do one or the other. Again, maybe I'm just not understanding correctly. As for the sword techs...yeah, that's probably not SD. LOL! Of course, when I was doing Kenpo, there were quite a few techs, that were 'overkill' for lack of a better word. IMHO, I don't think that doing neck breaks, striking the back with knees, and jumping on a downed opponent, constitutes SD.

No, I don't think they can realistically be taught together (well, as the same thing). It'd be like playing tennis and badminton at the same time, on the same court. There are certain similarities, and some definite cross-over... but martial arts are martial arts, and self defence is self defence.

Self Defense depends on the context of what is happening at the time. Depending on where you live and the laws of that area. Remember that "Self Defense" is a legal term and defense. In some areas if someone breaks into your house depending on the context ie. they are committing a felony, have a weapon (ie. knife, gun, etc.), threatening your families life you may be allowed to use lethal force. This of course depends on the area and the laws in your particular area. That is why it is so important to understand the laws in your area. In many places in the United States a home intruder has a high likelihood of meeting someone with a firearm. (definitely at all my families homes) This of course would be the preferred tool to use in self defense to protect your family. (it probably will be the easiest to justify in the United States depending of course on the area and you would have the power of the NRA coming to your side) Secondary tools would be knife, baseball bat, shinken, (legal where I live Chris it is to bad that it is not legal where you live) a whole assortment of other tools, with probably the least positive thing to utilize would be empty hand self defense. In a home invasion in the middle of the night there is a good chance that the bad guy's will have weapons/tools almost immediately turning it into a lethal force encounter. (though you cannot count on this and have to be certain in the moment) Your going to have to take care of business within the context of the law of your area, state, country. It may be that you have to respond with lethal force or less and that could include utilizing a tool/weapon or even utilizing lethal force empty handed. Or it may be that all you can or should do is restrain the individual. Or yet again just report it to the police if they run off after realizing you are there. All of this would of course depend on what is happening in the context of that home invasion and what you need to do appropriately in self defense. There are simply a lot of variables in any self defense situation and you cannot pigeon hole your response into a very narrow set of circumstances. I am very fortunate in IRT to have several lawyers training as well as in Nevada a Prosecuting Attorney to turn to for advise. It is essential to have legal advise in your martial training and have a good understanding of that legal advice and the laws in your area. Know the laws where you live!!!

Agreed with the overall advice, Brian (and honestly, I'm fine with the idea of live swords not being legal for people to just have lying around...). However, this is where one of my big distinctions between martial arts and self defence lies... while some martial art classes (yours and mine, Brian) include covering such essential aspects of self defence as part of what they offer, such topics are not part of the martial art itself. If there is any consideration of legal aspects, it's to do with the legal systems of the arts context (this comes up occasionally in Koryu)... but a martial art from a different culture especially simply can't be designed to cover such aspects as the legal system where you are... or the social structure, forms of violence, and more. Other non-martial art topics that are part of a self defence syllabus include de-escalation, pre-fight indicators, and so on.

I think it is also naïve to only think that RBSD systems practice, teach self defense and the legal implications and laws of their area. I guess this is because I have experienced multiple systems having a legal, law component to their teaching and several were systems that had a very large sporting aspect to them. Some certainly do it better than other ones though. I will however go and say that their are a number of systems out there that do not take into account the law of the land and their students suffer greatly for this. We as martial practitioner's owe it to try and educate not only the public but also other martial practitioner's!

I'd ask which systems actually covered the legal aspects, though. I know of a lot of classes that cover it (more or less), but no martial art that does. Getting past that distinction can help understand where I'm coming from, I feel.

You are right. I thought the reference was to the typical attacks you see in Aikido or karate, running in with a hand in the air like a flag flying or a fist held out as a sacrificial offering. I had forgotten about the stupid combinations we had to perform to fit in with someone's understanding of how a technique might be applied.
:asian:

Hmm... not sure that I'd refer to it as anything like a "stupid combination"... at least, not once the reasons were understood. And it's not anything to do with someone's understanding of how a technique "might" be applied... there isn't any "might" about it. If there is, then the structure needs to be looked at more closely.

I don't know about Chris parkers, feelings but here is mine. Some arts, were designed for war. Combat on the field of battle. Some were designed for Dueling. Each art has its own context that it was designed for. Most were not designed solely for self defense. That how ever does not mean that you can not use what is taught for self defense. Just that the context of the art is one thing, but you can use it for another. Its like WTF TKD or Boxing or MMA each one was built for a sporting context yet can and is used quite nicely for some self defense situations. Some combat arts have things that fit quite well for defending your self in certain situations. Its all about the context of the art and what it was really designed for.

I hope that makes sense..

Yep, I'd agree with that quite nicely. There are subtleties that can be explored (such as what "for the battlefield" actually means), but all in all, yep.

Self defense for martial artists can be a tad more complicated. You see in some areas, or if you have a not so clean self defense situation unfold, they can use your experience against you. To the lay man and the prosecutor you are considered to be a weapon, having such skill that you should not need to break a neck. Its not universally true, but something to consider.

Yep. To add to K-Man's examples, there was a case local to here about 15 years back... a young kid (late teens) got involved in a fight with another kid in a parking lot outside of a bar. The first kid had done a year or so of kickboxing, and during the fight, kicked the other in the head, knocking him to the ground, where he hit his skull. He died in hospital a number of days later. This was an exaggerated monkey dance, very much social violence, with a crowd around egging the kids on... but, as one of them died, the young, relatively inexperienced kick boxer, was brought up on manslaughter charges. The judge in the case gave him the maximum sentence (from memory, it was the better part of a decade), saying that, "as a trained martial artist, you should be able to control yourself to the point that you can defend without causing any injury to your opponent". He essentially thought that, because the kid did kickboxing, he was a "martial arts expert"... and should be able to magically stop any attack effortlessly and without violence. The judge was thoroughly clueless, but that doesn't matter... the kids training was considered far more than "effective"... and worked against him when it went to court.

Agree with you 100% there. In my art of Chinese wrestling, to develop tiger spirit is very important. You act like a tiger and trying to eat your opponent alive. I assume when a tiger tries to eat a deer, it's not self-defense at all.

Ha, no, it's not.... again, context is key.

That is always good incentive to try to stay out of trouble.

As if more were needed, yes, it is.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Chris just one example regarding having legal aspects in a martial system would be my Tae Kwon Do instructors curriculum and manual. He basically wrote in a shorthand example of legal issues and how to get by that is pretty simple but effective. Less in depth than what you or I are probably teaching but effective none the less. He was a 9th Degree in one Tae Kwon Do system an 8th in another with a 9th probably coming posthumously. His system integrated both of he major Tae Kwon Do systems WTF and ITF. Legal aspects were integral and every practitioner would get that while training in his system. (we are talking thousands of people over time) I might add that he was way ahead of his time on many, many levels!

 

[MJS]

Ah, this might not be short....

The first question would be, which part of my training? My martial arts, well, there I'm training a martial art... my self defence training, well, that's self defence. Each topic is separate, each skill set is separate... although it can get a little confusing as both are taught in the same class. Of course, that takes us into the question of what each of them are... and why I'm so adamant in my separation of them.

In my experience from the schools that I've seen/been a part of, that's the way it's taught...all in the same setting. IMO though, it seems that in many cases, except in a very traditional school, you really don't see much of the art/history side.

What I will say here (I'll cover more of the rest as we go) is that the students personal reasons are completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. It really doesn't matter what the student is looking for... they might well be looking for self defence in a martial arts class, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're actually getting. I mean, I want a nice, healthy meal at the end of the day... but ordering from Pizza Hut doesn't make it so just because that's what I want.

Ok. OTOH, this is why I say to research. If you're looking for something specific, well....

No, I don't think they can realistically be taught together (well, as the same thing). It'd be like playing tennis and badminton at the same time, on the same court. There are certain similarities, and some definite cross-over... but martial arts are martial arts, and self defence is self defence.

See above.

 

[K-man]

Hmm... not sure that I'd refer to it as anything like a "stupid combination"... at least, not once the reasons were understood. And it's not anything to do with someone's understanding of how a technique "might" be applied... there isn't any "might" about it. If there is, then the structure needs to be looked at more closely.

Believe me, we had stupid combinations. For example, to demonstrate the application of hasami uke
( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MugjBJwQiug&desktop_uri=/watch?v=MugjBJwQiug ) Uke would front kick with the right foot while simultaneously punching to the face with the right hand. These techniques were called yakusuku kumite or 'pre-arranged sparring'. ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tpHzGz1ZU0k&desktop_uri=/watch?v=tpHzGz1ZU0k ) They were really examples of kihon kumite or the simple explanation of different techniques. Most were fine, even if the attack wasn't 'realistic' but some were just plain stupid.

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris just one example regarding having legal aspects in a martial system would be my Tae Kwon Do instructors curriculum and manual. He basically wrote in a shorthand example of legal issues and how to get by that is pretty simple but effective. Less in depth than what you or I are probably teaching but effective none the less. He was a 9th Degree in one Tae Kwon Do system an 8th in another with a 9th probably coming posthumously. His system integrated both of he major Tae Kwon Do systems WTF and ITF. Legal aspects were integral and every practitioner would get that while training in his system. (we are talking thousands of people over time) I might add that he was way ahead of his time on many, many levels!

Cool. That, to me, sounds more like his school curriculum, though, rather than the martial arts syllabus itself... I know is sounds kinda nit-picking, but the distinction is rather important.

I'll see if I can put it this way.... Tae Kwon Do is a Korean system, developed in the 50's from Japanese forms of karate. It was introduced to the Korean army (for a range of reasons and applications), and was given a role as a focal point for a new Korean identity. What part of TKD teaches the legal system of a mid-Western American state? If such a legal system is applied to the way TKD is taught, is it part of TKD itself, or is it part of the approach of a particular teachers school? Personally, I've only seen the latter. And, in that sense, it is separate from the martial art itself.

In my experience from the schools that I've seen/been a part of, that's the way it's taught...all in the same setting. IMO though, it seems that in many cases, except in a very traditional school, you really don't see much of the art/history side.

Yeah, I've seen the same thing... and I get the confusion. I get why many people think the martial art itself is geared up for self defence... where is might just be the instructors approach. After all, my comments have never been that a martial arts school doesn't teach self defence... it's been that the martial art itself doesn't, and isn't geared towards it.

Ok. OTOH, this is why I say to research. If you're looking for something specific, well....

Sure. And that goes into the student's choice of system... but it really doesn't effect what the system itself is in the first place.

Believe me, we had stupid combinations. For example, to demonstrate the application of hasami uke
( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MugjBJwQiug&desktop_uri=/watch?v=MugjBJwQiug ) Uke would front kick with the right foot while simultaneously punching to the face with the right hand. These techniques were called yakusuku kumite or 'pre-arranged sparring'. ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tpHzGz1ZU0k&desktop_uri=/watch?v=tpHzGz1ZU0k ) They were really examples of kihon kumite or the simple explanation of different techniques. Most were fine, even if the attack wasn't 'realistic' but some were just plain stupid.

Yeah... that explanation of hasami uke fits what I was talking about with it not being about someone's understanding of how it "might" fit... this is a case of not knowing, and trying to make something up. The actual reasons for hasami uke, I would posit, are rather different... but I'm sure you already got that!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I can see certainly how you could say that but...... he ran an organization that had literally thousands of people in it and multiple schools. (he is now deceased) This was his version and his organization's version (which still survives) of Tae Kwon Do and it was integral to the training. (literally a part of it) It was part of his vision of Tae Kwon Do and he was a Grandmaster. So......... you could say it was not separate from his system of Tae Kwon Do. This is just one example.

 

[alexis101]

Definitely yes it does! :sp34:

Self-defence and discipline :s143: