How effective is your martial art?

[zDom]

]At the moment I am studying Taekwondo and I love it. Do I think it is an effective martial art maybe no! I think it is a very short sighted martial art that is very dynamic in that watching it in action is very impressive.
but dealing with an attacker who come in close I would be worried.

One of things I did personally during my training in TKD was train specifically for extremely close range — at or nearly chest to chest with opponent.

For one, nearly ALL striking opponents, I find, freak out when I am this close. Something about personal space is probably part of it. But also insecurity about not knowing what to do to someone that close.

I, on the other hand, trained myself to be very comfortable at close range.

There are a number of techniques I uses at this range:

• upset punch: this punch starts palm down at the hip, then torques over to a palm-up position at the end of the strike (opposite of your typical reverse punch).

Elbow stays in tight, should remain touching your side.

Using the hip motion, this can be a VERY powerful technique despite its short movement. It is also a VERY very strong wrist position. The heavy bag in our dojang is extremely hard - lots of sand in the bag, and the bottom of the bag is almost like a rock due to settling. I can smoke the bottom of the bag with this technique full power.

Direction of movement is often a little upward.

Target is typically floating ribs, but can be solar plexus or even thrown high section when it becomes an uppercut but with the TKD "snap" at the end of the technique which adds power.

• Hook kick to the back of the head. Very fun. Their eyes usually bug out because the technique surprises them.

• Axes kicks and/or crescent kicks. These kicks are MEANT to be thrown from close quarters, especially the crescent kicks.

• "step away" backside kick. Suppose you are starting so close to the opponent your left shoulder is actually touching them (you can actually practice this on a heavy bag starting with shoulder touching bag).

Step away with left foot, turning clockwise*— a fairly large step — to create some distance. Immediately look over your right shoulder and fire a right back kick.

• jump away backside kick. A backside kick, but instead of jumping UP and jump backside kicking, jump up and AWAY from target to create some distrance.

These are just a few very effective techniques that I have found work great over the years (given you train them and become comfortable at fighting in close quarters).


Another fun thing to do with close ranges is: hit them with some upset punches or crescent kicks, then as they back up to get back to their comfort zone, step out into a front stance to smoke them with a reverse punch, immediately followed by a front kick.

If you time it right, you can give hit them with two free techniques as they back away

 

[kidswarrior]

• Hook kick to the back of the head. Very fun. Their eyes usually bug out because the technique surprises them.

Are you saying you do this from chest-to-chest positon, or close to it?

• crescent kicks. These kicks are MEANT to be thrown from close quarters, especially the crescent kicks.

Yeah I've seen this and heard from some of its victims. If only I could do it.... Instead, I have to just cheat, as in low kick to shin, or step on ankle and roll my foot forward, etc., etc. :wink1:

 

[Adept]

So What is the most effective martial art?
if im wrong about the above tell me!

If you do decide to post can you explain your art and thoughts.

The most effective martial art is the one you invent from yourself, drawing on all the things you have learned and combining them in a style suited just for you.

 

[Jenna]

The most effective martial art is the one you invent from yourself, drawing on all the things you have learned and combining them in a style suited just for you.

Hey mister Adept I like that and find myself agreeing with it because every art has scope within it to adapt around the practitioner.. not to change it and put it on its head but to mould it in subtle ways to make it a better fit.. or maybe I am misinterpreting.. Anyways.. nice thought..
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[zDom]

Are you saying you do this from chest-to-chest positon, or close to it?

well, for hook kick it would be more "(my) shoulder to (their) chest" but more close to it than actual contact — and that would be starting position as you lean back for a hook kick that high

 

[Sukerkin]

Eloquent as ever, Tellner but this time, altho' I agree with your broader, military history, points, I sad that I can't say that we're singing the same tune .

With the examples you cite, it is true that your argument holds water and I can't fault the logic e.g. a little person is not likely to be a great sumo. However, I think the philosophy that most people are referencing when they speak of 'the person not the art' or 'the art in the person' is truer than you're giving it credit for.

As has been said elsewhere, each style has it's emphasies (what is the plural of emphasis :lol:?) and introduces different things at different places but many eventually cover all of the same ground.

For example, Lau is fundamentally a rapid movement, evasive, striking and locking art. It is true that I did very little of what would be recognised as grappling but we did a fair bit of floor work to have counters to grappling if evading failed, including pressure-point strikes (altho' I always had my doubts that I could do those accurately if someone had me on the ground and was trying to pull my arms off !).

All that said, re-reading your post again, I do take your point that if every art did cover everything then there would only be one (am I the only one who heard a whisper of "Highlander!" then ?).

I do think tho' that in the final analysis, it's the fighter (and the training) and not the style that makes something work or not.

 

[kidswarrior]

well, for hook kick it would be more "(my) shoulder to (their) chest" but more close to it than actual contact — and that would be starting position as you lean back for a hook kick that high

OK, that I can see. Can't do it, but can picture it. Do you guys use 'Billy Jack' as inspiration and/or a training tape?

 

[Last Fearner]

Hello chrismay!

I hope what I share with you here will be taken in a positive light. These are my personal, and professional opinions about Taekwondo specifically, and the Martial Art in general.

Do I think it is an effective martial art maybe no! I think it is a very short sighted martial art that is very dynamic in that watching it in action is very impressive.
but dealing with an attacker who come in close I would be worried.

Is Taekwondo an effective Martial Art? What is your goal? If it is to improve yourself, become healthy, come to understand and appreciate the universe better, learn to protect yourself and defend the lives of others, then yes, Taekwondo is effective. Although, not every instructor who claims to teach Taekwondo teaches it properly, completely, and effectively.

If your Taekwondo training does not cover close in self defense, and groundwork along with long range striking, then it is lacking what should be there. Mind you, it is not Taekwondo that is "lacking." It is what is being presented as Taekwondo that is lacking. If you are a beginner, and your teacher has not yet shown you all of the facets of Taekwondo, then you have nothing to worry. However, if your teacher does not include this in intermediate to advance levels, then your teacher's knowledge of complete Taekwondo might be lacking.

when told by a lower ranking student that Aikdo wasn't effective and didn't work. The sensei smiled and said "YOUR Aikido doesn't work...mine works just fine."

This is excellent, and so true!

If I may paraphrase: "Your Taekwondo doesn't work in close range,......mine works at all ranges just fine!"

On the subject of it "Being the person and not the art," this statement is absolutely accurate whether others fully understand it or not. It has nothing to do with "Pious mouthings." The truth is, the "Art" itself IS the correct response in any given situation. What is the best thing to do in this particular environment, under these conditions, against this number of attackers, using the specific method of attack that they are using? There will always be an ideal response, and there will be many less ideal responses that will still prove effective. The ART offers this through nature. It is what it is.

The confusion comes in when so-called "instructors" believe they are teaching students effective and thorough Martial Art skills under any name. Then, that name gains the reputation of the teacher who misrepresented the true nature of the real ART. If someone believes that their particular school is presenting the Art properly, but it is, in fact, not, then the failure would be in the presentation of the material. The lie would be to say, "It is not my instructor, it is me." Now, that might be true in many cases, but it might very well be the instructor.

Understand this!!! It is not necessary to learn everything, and practice every possible move, to be effective without limitations in your self defense skills. Anyone who believes that you must learn all of these to be effective, does not fully understand mastery of the Martial Art.

For example: Have you ever watched a professional magician do a trick, and be totally amazed, mystified, stumped? Ever wonder how they did it. You might guess, but would you be right. I have studied the art of prestidigitation (magic). I have yet to see a magic trick or stage illusion that I do not know how it is done. The reason being, lacking any true powers of magic, there are only so many ways you can perform these tricks. Some magicians are better at the presentation than others, but it is all done the same, and I can duplicate any one of them.

When you are confronted by an attacker (not speaking of firearms or projectiles at the moment), they can not harm you so long as they just stand there. They must move. Nature dictates there are only three methods of movement: 1. Stationary (non-movement or spinning in place) 2. linear (straight-line movement) and 3. circular (curved movement). You can have combinations of these there, but anything beyond this does not exist in nature, thus it can not occur.

When an opponent attacks you, they will be doing one of three things: 1: Striking you (hand, elbow, foot, knee, shin, head, etc.), 2. Throwing you (pushing, projecting, sweeping, reaping, flipping, etc.), or 3. Holding you (grappling is a means to an end. You are either holding to control, to damage, to achieve submission, or you are grappling to escape. Grappling is the process that gets you there. The "hold" is the technique that achieves the goal).

Some people will train intensely, and solely on grappling and the use of holds. Because all of their time is spent on this, you will not likely be better than them at this skill set. If someone trains solely on throwing, but no striking or holding, then they will likely be superior to you at throwing. A student who is diverse enough to be able to strike, throw, and hold will be able to function in any given situation, but will not be superior in ALL of those areas.

However, this absolutely does not mean that a striker who is brought to the ground will likely lose the fight. All that is necessary to avoid being "weak" in that area, or having "limitations" against a grappler, is to train in a handful of techniques that are highly effective on the ground to 1. prevent devastating attacks, 2. damage your opponent, and 3. Release from holds, and escape. There are only so many ways that a person can place a hold on your body, so it does not take a life-time to learn the few methods of escape that work in every single grappling situtation.

"All the Chung Do Kwan in the world will not help you the tiniest bit if you're fighting ankle deep in slippery mud.

These are undeniable limitations on the styles."

My response is, Chung Do Kwan does help if you train while ankle deep in slippery mud (which I do). Not only are these not "undeniable limitations" to Taekwondo, they are not limitations at all. I live in Michigan where we have bad winters, with slippery, icy, snow covered ground. I teach my students how to use all of their Taekwondo training at the right times, in the right circumstances. When the environment is not safe for kicking, then we use other skills (hand strikes, joint locks, pressure points), and even go to the ground and begin breaking knees and kicking the groin.

If I choose, I will take my opponent down in the mud, dirt, snow, water, etc., with me, and apply my "Taekwondo Chung Do Kwan - hoshinsul, or hapkido until I am the only one able to stand up and walk away. Absolutely no limitations there - and I am not at all engaging in "delusion" nor "madness." What I have been taught in Taekwondo, and what I teach is reality, and it works in any given situation.

People lose fights because of ill-timing, bad reflexes, poor judgment, not being alert, and not being properly trained and prepared to handle the situation. This is not the limitation of the Martial Art. This is a deficiency in the student either due to their own fault, or the lack of training offered to them. You don't need to know everything - - you just need to know a few "right" things and apply them correctly, at the right time.

Oh.... One more thing....

Quote by kidswarrior:
"Do you guys use 'Billy Jack' as inspiration?"

:lfao:

CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[Adept]

Hey mister Adept I like that and find myself agreeing with it because every art has scope within it to adapt around the practitioner.. not to change it and put it on its head but to mould it in subtle ways to make it a better fit.. or maybe I am misinterpreting.. Anyways.. nice thought..
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

Sort of. I've been struggling to find an appropriate analogy. The best I've got at the moment is a school.

Think of martial arts over-all as a school, or a university. The different arts are different classes, covering different things. Some of them may be similar, and there will no doubt be a lot of cross-over between some classes. But the important thing is to pick the relevant classes to you, to tailor your education to your goals, and not get trapped in a single class simply for it's own sake.

In this (and another thread in the TKD forum) close-range options for a TKD fighter are being discussed. My stand-out thought on the matter is "Why limit ourselves to TKD?" Just pick the most relevant techniques for you, and train them.

 

[IWishToLearn]

I once beat a grizzly bear to death with my Art. This was acomplished by pushing my recently purchased Statue of David over on top of pinning him to the ground. I then repeatedly beat it about the head with a few lesser Van Goghs, and one or two Monets, which I never really liked anyway. I think the blood stains were an improvement.
Overall Ive found Da Vinci's work to have little stopping power when trying bludgeon an opponent, while a Picasso tends to wind them more than anything else.
For real KO force, Im gonna have to go with a Zhou Dynasty Wine Jar, which although it smashes on impact, so do they.

LMAO! This has to be one of the top 10 posts ever on MT.

 

[zDom]

OK, that I can see. Can't do it, but can picture it. Do you guys use 'Billy Jack' as inspiration and/or a training tape?

Actually, its been so long since I've seen that movie (and LONG before I started martial arts) that I've added it to my Netflix list — especially since Bong Soo Han (the HKD master who actually DID the stuff) recently passed away.

I'm kind of hoping someone will get it in their head to do a re-make or new Billy Jack series. Hapkido could certainly use some media attention; we're due for some

 

[Last Fearner]

Quote by kidswarrior:
"Do you guys use 'Billy Jack' as inspiration?"

:lfao:

CM D.J. Eisenhart

Hey kidswarrior, I wanted to make sure you weren't offended by my laughing smiley about the "Billy Jack as an inspiration" question. It just struck me as funny at the time. When the Billy Jack movies first came out in the 1970s, I was in High School. They were the talk among everyone. I really enjoy them, and have the entire set of 4 DVDs (Born Losers, Billy Jack, Trial of Billy Jack, and Billy Jack Goes to Washington).

Although I like the movies (particularly #2 and #3), I have learned a bit more than to be impressed with the kicking skills demonstrated. Even in the scenes where it is clearly not Tom Laughlin doing the kicks, there is not a lot to be "inspired" by. My Native American heritage brings the philosophy a little closer to home with me, but even that is portrayed a bit over the top.

The thing I find the most impressive is that this guy (Laughlin) and his small group put together a feature film outside the mainstream of Hollywood. With a low budget, not following union rules, and landing a major star in Born Loser (Jane Russel), he managed to create a cult-classic. If anyone wants a good background story, get the DVDs of these films and listen to the commentary by Tom Laughlin and Delores Taylor as you watch the film. I think it is awesome what they accomplished, although I don't agree with their current politics at all!

Anyway, kidswarrior, sorry if I offended you with my laughter. I just don't find many Martial Art movies to be inspiring. :mst:


Last Fearner

 

[still learning]

Hello, How effective the art or the person? ....When you get into a real fight? ...only than you will know what you have learn...works for you?

NO two situtions or fights will be the same.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine sometimes when you are ALL alone walking down the street with all the stores close with some blind allys....and one or more person (large or large group) ...approaches you...and says?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Think you can handle this? ...remember in the DOJO/training place...you are comfortable and NO fear of a real fight with unknown attackers. All the time you practice in a NO FEAR ZONE.

Try it someday when the mall closes...and you have to walk to your car at the end of the parking areas...and you see some strangers hanging near your car....(and they look like bad people)...

For reals and in practice...two different worlds..OUR American soldiers train for battle....when they get there...they will all tell you...IT IS DIFFERENT! ..........Aloha

PS:When you get into a REAL sitution/'s you will understand this more....

 

[FearlessFreep]

I'm kind of hoping someone will get it in their head to do a re-make or new Billy Jack series. Hapkido could certainly use some media attention; we're due for some

I hope not. I watched that movie last week and there was *one* good scene in the whole thing, the fight scene in the park. The rest was pretty stupid.

 

[zDom]

But that's why its a great candidate for a remake! You shouldn't remake movies they did right the first time

 

[kidswarrior]

Hey kidswarrior, I wanted to make sure you weren't offended by my laughing smiley about the "Billy Jack as an inspiration" question. It just struck me as funny at the time. When the Billy Jack movies first came out in the 1970s, I was in High School. They were the talk among everyone. I really enjoy them, and have the entire set of 4 DVDs (Born Losers, Billy Jack, Trial of Billy Jack, and Billy Jack Goes to Washington).

Although I like the movies (particularly #2 and #3), I have learned a bit more than to be impressed with the kicking skills demonstrated. Even in the scenes where it is clearly not Tom Laughlin doing the kicks, there is not a lot to be "inspired" by. My Native American heritage brings the philosophy a little closer to home with me, but even that is portrayed a bit over the top.

The thing I find the most impressive is that this guy (Laughlin) and his small group put together a feature film outside the mainstream of Hollywood. With a low budget, not following union rules, and landing a major star in Born Loser (Jane Russel), he managed to create a cult-classic. If anyone wants a good background story, get the DVDs of these films and listen to the commentary by Tom Laughlin and Delores Taylor as you watch the film. I think it is awesome what they accomplished, although I don't agree with their current politics at all!

Anyway, kidswarrior, sorry if I offended you with my laughter. I just don't find many Martial Art movies to be inspiring. :mst:


Last Fearner

No, Last Fearner, I didn't take it that way at all. I only saw the one theatrical release (think it was at Balboa Naval Hospital PX--where Vietnem was on the minds of everyone, even if no one talked about it--kinda the elephant in the room), and haven't seen or heard much about it since. Knew it was a low-budget affair by watching (even though at that age, how much I 'knew' is open to question ). The part I'll never forget is the park scene, when Billy said 'I'm going to kick you right here' (side of face while standing a few inches(?) away), and I thought, No way. I admire the work all the more for the 'real' martial arts displays, and the fact the project made a splash in spite of very little mainstream help.

So certainly no offense taken. I made the comment kind of tongue in cheek re: the movie as training, yet also as a serious salute to the art of Hapkido. :asian: But thanks for thinking of me.