Kong Soo Do

[puunui]

I would suggest, rather than hijacking multiple threads, simply take it to email, PM or start your own thread. But stick with what's really bugging you, our difference of opinion on SD vs. sport training.

Ok, started a new thread entitled "Kong Soo Do". If you have any factual responses to my posts in other topics regarding this subject, please place it here.

What "bugs" me is people who put forth erroneous facts out in the public. I spent a lot of time doing historical research, real research, and I guess on some level it is offensive to see people who have not done as much work put out erroneous opinions as facts.

No, I used almost nothing from the web actually. I think you are now engaging in debators tactics because you are a bit bent-out-of-shape by our disagreement on self defense vs. sport training. This is why your spreading out your comments in different threads (which actually don't have much to do with what your talking about).

The only person who seems a bit bent out of shape is you. You are the one getting all mad, and have turned to attacking me instead of responding to my facts with facts of your own.

As for nothing from the web, I saw your webpage. Your statement is incorrect. I even see stuff that I posted on the web on your webpage. There is also information posted by friends of mine on the web on your webpage. I know this because we were the ones who initially posted the information on the web.

I used the JAMA publications, interviews (in person or written), as many various older books on TKD, HKD, Shuri Te, Shorin Ryu, Shotokan etc as I could put my hands on.

Which various older books did you consult on Taekwondo and Hapkido? I have a pretty large book collection, chances are that I have all the books you are talking about above. But I am just interested in the korean books. Did you happen to reference any of GM LEE Kyo Yun's books? He has wrote several over the years.

I spoke with different practitioner here in the U.S. as well as overseas.

Any from Korea?

As I mentioned in the other thread you've hijacked, I'm comfortable with their evaluation and comments. If you're not...well that's a shame. But you pouting isn't going to change what we do or how we do it.

I'm not pouting, although you seem to be getting more and more upset the more I introduce facts to the discussion. Instead of attempting to attack me personally, why not respond to the facts I have presented with facts of your own? That way, perhaps the discussion can lead to a meaningful place.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

What "bugs" me is people who put forth erroneous facts out in the public. I spent a lot of time doing historical research...]

The facts are that Korea has done numerous historical rewrites. If your research on a particular point differs from mine, it would be because you have chosen to believe a particular version in preference to another. I applaud your taking the time to do research of your own, I wish more people did.

…it is offensive to see people who have not done as much work put out erroneous opinions as facts.

I feel exactly the same way about your statement that sport training equates to effective self-defense training. It does not.

The only person who seems a bit bent out of shape is you. You are the one getting all mad, and have turned to attacking me instead of responding to my facts with facts of your own.

And how have I gotten bent out of shape? You were the one that basically hijacked two (or three?) different threads by ping-ponging questions about the label we've chosen to use for what we teach. I asked you to take it to email, PM or start a thread.

Which one of these did you consider an attack?

I even see stuff that I posted on the web on your webpage. There is also information posted by friends of mine on the web on your webpage. I know this because we were the ones who initially posted the information on the web.

What we posted was quite a bit of names and dates. Are you saying you’re the only one in the world to put the name of a martial artist and his birth/death dates on the web? You’re trying to represent commonly found information as your own. That is disingenuous.

I'm not pouting, although you seem to be getting more and more upset the more I introduce facts to the discussion]

Once again, not upset in the least. And you are not introducing facts into the discussion, you are introducing your opinion. And that's fine. I am introducing my own as well.

The real crux of the matter is that it seems to bother you that we chose the name Kong Soo Do to represent what we teach i.e. self-defense. The term Kong Soo Do is basically the Korean version of Karate i.e. empty hand way or way of the empty hand. Karate does now have a sport methodology of training. In my opinion, that is very unfortunate. But the facts are that it originally was meant for civilian self-defense. The various originators of karate didn't decide to come up with a system of self defense to win trophies or ribbons. They came up with a system of defense in order to protect themselves. Sport came later.

The type of TKD that I learned contained joint locks (manipulation and destruction), chokes, throws, cavity pressing etc in addition to the normal BKP. The reason it contained this information is because that is what was taught to the various Kwan founders from the various styles of Karate they studied i.e. Shotokan, Shito Ryu, Shuri Ryu etc. Many of these individuals used it in their vocation. Many used it in personal self-defense. Others didn’t' use it at all.

Regardless of the fact that sport was introduced, it was self-defense first and foremost. And it is my professional opinion that self-defense and sport training are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. And since real world data clearly indicates that how we train is how we respond, the sport model fails on many levels. I have already gone into great detail on the how’s and whys, but would be more than happy to do so again.

Sport training can be geared towards point sparring or submission contests or towards demonstrations i.e. forms (sometimes set to music or with glow-in-the-dark weapons etc). Although contact/submission matches are physical, they aren't self-defense oriented. Here's why;

A referee is involved for the purpose of enforcing pre-determined rules that were mutually agreed upon by each opponent.


There are often timed rounds with a short break in-between where a player can catch his/her breath, get a drink of water, get some advice from a trainer.

• The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
• The opponent is unarmed.
• The opponent is alone with little chance others will join in.
• Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
• The opponent usually isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
• If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
• The prize is a ribbon, plastic trophy or maybe cash.

Such training could utilize refined motor skills. It could employ a particular strategy i.e. wear the opponent down, put them against a corner and tie them up with a submission etc. Such strategy may involve making the match go long on time.



As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

• Where there is no referee enforcing rules. You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
• There are no rules.
• There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
• The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. I will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
• The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
• The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
• There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
• The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
• To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
• The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes.

SD training relies solely on gross motor skills. If it isn't a gross motor skill, it isn't a self-defense technique. Under duress you will lose the ability to operate with refined motor skills. You may have tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of dexterity in your extremities etc. SD training does everything possible to address these situations and deal with them.


SD training deals with the O.O.D.A. loop and flinch response. SD training is often outside the Dojo/Dojang. It should often be in street clothes. Shoes. Dim light conditions. Position of disadvantage. Sloping surfaces, grass, asphalt, close quarters etc.[/quote]

Many believe that years of training are necessary in order to defend themselves or ‘master’ the art. On this I’ll call B.S. This is not a correct statement and is not backed up by real world data. For example; the edged weapon defense developed by Darren Laur and promoted by Peter Boatman is very probably the best system of edged weapon defense, bar none, in the world. It is certainly the best documented in actual LEO edged weapon encounters.

• Fact: Prior to the implementation of this program, officers in Great Britain were injured in 87% of the edged weapon encounters.
• Fact: After implementation, the injury rate dropped to 17%.
• Fact: This program is taught to line officers in a single 8 hour course and focuses on gross motor skill responses.
• Fact: Refresher training was annually but increased to 18 months since it was demonstrated to be effective long after the initial training and was retained in long term memory.
• Fact: My own agency (and those that use the system) have refresher training from 1-2 years since it has been demonstrated to be effective long after initial training which was less than 8 hours in duration.

Another example would be WWII combatives as developed by Fairbairn and O'Neill and taught to the FSSF, SAS and other special forces units. The training was anywhere from 8-24 hours. Based on gross motor skills. This system was effective in personal H2H combat and the results were usually lethal. According to a CIA report, WWII combatives as taught was found to be retained in long term memory and usable DECADES after the initial training with a high rate of success.


Long hours of training may make one feel good about what they train in...but it isn't necessary for self-defense IF what you train in is actually geared towards self-defense. As mentioned, it is gross motor skills that are easily learned and retained in long term memory. Knowledge of the O.O.D.A. loop, flinch response and adrenaline induced factors. Most 'modern' martial arts don't train in these things and don't even know what they are.

I found that when I used the term TKD, most people automatically got the picture of flashy, acrobatic kicks and tippy tap sparring. This is not disrespect intended to the TKD instructors here, but it is what it is and this is often the perception people have.


When the term TKD is used, do most people think of;

• Throwing an attacker?
• Using a joint lock or destruction?
• Using a choke?
• Grappling (realistic and not MMA)?
• Ground fighting (realistic and not MMA)?
• Cavity pressing?
• Sealing the artery?
• Misplacing the bone or tendon?

It has been my experience that people do not think of these things and TKD as going hand-in-hand. Yet that is the type of training I've received (and others). Since my student base has always been heavy on L.E., Corrections, E.P. agents and off-duty military I have seen the need NOT to use the term TKD. It turned off these people from the very start without them actually seeing what it was we offered. Again, no offense to TKD instructors and this may not be your experience. But it was mine (and others).


Having been a S.O.G. team commander I am aware of the needs of the military. Having been an E.P. agent I'm aware of the needs of corporate security. Since I'm in L.E. and instruct in all high liability areas I'm aware of the needs of L.E. and Corrections. And please note, this doesn't make me special or better than anyone and is not presented as such. I'm not bullet proof and I don't wear a big 'S' on my chest. But I want to establish that I am have been and am in a high liability vocation and teach for that vocation(s). This is why I firmly have the stance that I do in regards to sport training not being the best bet for L.E. or military use.

I found that reverting to the term Kong Soo Do, which over half of the Kwans used originally was a much better link to the self-defense aspects of the art.

And once again, if you’re historical perspective doesn't totally jive with mine then so be it. It doesn't change the reason we have reverted to this label. It doesn't change what and how we teach. It doesn't change my perspective on SD vs. sport training. Who wore safety gear or who 'desperately' wanted sport aspects introduced do not change the fact that Kong Soo Do comes from Karate which originally was designed for personal civilian SD.

 

[puunui]

The facts are that Korea has done numerous historical rewrites. If your research on a particular point differs from mine, it would be because you have chosen to believe a particular version in preference to another. I applaud your taking the time to do research of your own, I wish more people did.

Korea? Who is that exactly? And I am not choosing a particular version in preference to another. What I said was, which you ignored, that all of the pioneers pretty much have the same basic story, that the story does not change. The sole exception might be General Choi, but you don't even cite to or mention him in your historical works.

I feel exactly the same way about your statement that sport training equates to effective self-defense training. It does not.

What you consider self defense and what I consider self defense are probably two different things. Special Ops, bodyguard, or even police work is not "self defense", at least from the perspective of most students. Ordinary students do not get paid to put themselves in harm's way. That is the offensive use of the martial arts, not self defense. Nothing wrong with that. Self defense involves avoiding those types of situations altogether, something that you and your "students" do not do. In fact, you do the opposite you put yourself into situations where the probability of a hostile life threatening situation is much greater, especially when compared to the 3 to 8 year old that is the typical student in a Taekwondo school.

And how have I gotten bent out of shape? You were the one that basically hijacked two (or three?) different threads by ping-ponging questions about the label we've chosen to use for what we teach. I asked you to take it to email, PM or start a thread. Which one of these did you consider an attack?

Read your post again. Instead of responding to my facts with facts of your own, you choose to focus on me instead of the subject matter. And you are still doing it.

What we posted was quite a bit of names and dates. Are you saying you’re the only one in the world to put the name of a martial artist and his birth/death dates on the web? You’re trying to represent commonly found information as your own. That is disingenuous.

I posted all kinds of facts in response to your posts. Why not respond to those instead of this sort of vague accusation? That way we can talk about the same thing.

The real crux of the matter is that it seems to bother you that we chose the name Kong Soo Do to represent what we teach i.e. self-defense. The term Kong Soo Do is basically the Korean version of Karate i.e. empty hand way or way of the empty hand.

When did the term Karatedo come into being, and under what circumstances?

Karate does now have a sport methodology of training. In my opinion, that is very unfortunate. But the facts are that it originally was meant for civilian self-defense. The various originators of karate didn't decide to come up with a system of self defense to win trophies or ribbons. They came up with a system of defense in order to protect themselves. Sport came later.

What is your evidence or facts that Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) was meant for "civilian self defense"? I've already posted numerous times facts, which show otherwise. "self defense" in Japanese is goshinjutsu, or Hoshinsool in Korean, not Karatedo or Kong Soo Do. The term Karatedo came about because the Okinawan Karate pioneers in Japan wanted Karate to be accepted along the same lines as Kendo and Judo. This is why a standardized uniform was adopted, as well as a rank system. If Karate were for self defense only, there would be no need for rank or a standardized uniform, which is why there wasn't any in Okinawa.

The type of TKD that I learned contained joint locks (manipulation and destruction), chokes, throws, cavity pressing etc in addition to the normal BKP. The reason it contained this information is because that is what was taught to the various Kwan founders from the various styles of Karate they studied i.e. Shotokan, Shito Ryu, Shuri Ryu etc. Many of these individuals used it in their vocation. Many used it in personal self-defense. Others didn’t' use it at all.

So because you learned it (from who, GM Dunn? Does he even live near you?) then the Kwan founders must have known it too right? Is that what your research turned up?

Regardless of the fact that sport was introduced, it was self-defense first and foremost. And it is my professional opinion that self-defense and sport training are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. And since real world data clearly indicates that how we train is how we respond, the sport model fails on many levels. I have already gone into great detail on the how’s and whys, but would be more than happy to do so again.

How would you know if "sport", especially competition under the WTF Rules is on the opposite side of the spectrum when it is clear that you have never seen a competition under the WTF Rules? For your information, trophies are not given out at WTF tournaments and there are no glow in the dark nunchaku either. But now you are trying to hijack the topic by moving the discussion away from the origin and use of the term Kong Soo Do. If you want to discuss this, please start another thread.

I found that when I used the term TKD, most people automatically got the picture of flashy, acrobatic kicks and tippy tap sparring. This is not disrespect intended to the TKD instructors here, but it is what it is and this is often the perception people have.

People have all sorts of misconceptions about the martial arts. Instead of avoiding the whole thing by using a term which they are probably not familiar with (Kong Soo Do), I choose instead to try and educate people. That is what martial arts instructors do.

It has been my experience that people do not think of these things and TKD as going hand-in-hand. Yet that is the type of training I've received (and others). Since my student base has always been heavy on L.E., Corrections, E.P. agents and off-duty military I have seen the need NOT to use the term TKD. It turned off these people from the very start without them actually seeing what it was we offered. Again, no offense to TKD instructors and this may not be your experience. But it was mine (and others).

Then it is your job to educate them about why their preconceived notions are erroneous and invalid.

Having been a S.O.G. team commander I am aware of the needs of the military. Having been an E.P. agent I'm aware of the needs of corporate security. Since I'm in L.E. and instruct in all high liability areas I'm aware of the needs of L.E. and Corrections. And please note, this doesn't make me special or better than anyone and is not presented as such. I'm not bullet proof and I don't wear a big 'S' on my chest. But I want to establish that I am have been and am in a high liability vocation and teach for that vocation(s). This is why I firmly have the stance that I do in regards to sport training not being the best bet for L.E. or military use.

But then again, all of that is not self defense. The Seal Team that killed Osama Bin Laden, they weren't engaged in a self defense scenario. It certainly wasn't "civilian" self defense, which is another of your basic premises. Again, you, like that Seal Team, chose to put yourself in harm's way, breaking rule number one of most martial arts instructors -- which is avoidance of a potential hostile situation if at all possible.

I found that reverting to the term Kong Soo Do, which over half of the Kwans used originally was a much better link to the self-defense aspects of the art.

None of the original five kwans originally used the term Kong Soo Do to describe their art. The Chung Do Kwan and Song Moo Kwan used the term Tang Soo Do, the Moo Duk Kwan used the term Hwa Soo Do, and the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu and the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kwon Bup Bu used the term Kwon Bup. The term Kong Soo Do wasn't used until the 1950's.

And once again, if you’re historical perspective doesn't totally jive with mine then so be it. It doesn't change the reason we have reverted to this label. It doesn't change what and how we teach. It doesn't change my perspective on SD vs. sport training. Who wore safety gear or who 'desperately' wanted sport aspects introduced do not change the fact that Kong Soo Do comes from Karate which originally was designed for personal civilian SD.

No facts are being changed except by you. Just because you insist on saying that Kong Soo Do was for personal civilian use self defense does not make it so. Again, the term Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) was changed from Toudejutsu in an effort to get Toudejutsu accepted by Japan, specifically the Japanese intelligencia, in much the same way that Kendo and Judo was accepted. Tang (China) was changed to Kong (Empty) in part to emphasize Karate's competition niche, which is striking without weapons. Japan already had a weapon based competitive martial art (kendo) as well as a weaponless grappling martial art (Judo); what it didn't have was a competitive martial art based on empty handed striking.

People in Japan weren't interested in self defense when Karate was being introduced because Japan is a relatively crime free safe place. One of the first times i went to Japan and rode the bullet train, I saw five year old girls catching the train by themselves. That is how low on the scale the concept of "self defense" is to the Japanese people. Even now in predominantly Japanese neighborhoods in Hawaii, people still don't lock the doors to their homes. The martial arts almost died out because there was simply no need for it in Tokugawa Japan.

But they were interested into physical contests, through Judo and Kendo, Sumo, and other sports. The Okinawan instructors, notably Funakoshi Sensei and Mabuni Sensei (not Manbuni) recognized this. So they set about to change and modernize Karate into something that was acceptable to the Japanese people, who again were not interested in self defense as a whole. So they created a standardized uniform, modeled from Judo, adopted a ranking system also from Judo, and even adopted a rule set that again came from Judo, the ippon concept where you "win" if you have one clean blow, just like you win if you have one clean throw in Judo. Funakoshi Sensei respected Judo's Kano Sensei so much that he bowed at the entrance of the Kodokan each time he passed it. Of course he respected Kano Sensei -- for giving him the blueprint for transforming Toudejutsu into a modern Japanese sport, in the same fashion the Jujitsu and Kenjutsu were transformed into the sporting Do counterparts.

And by the way, this isn't about you. I am not even trying to convince you or to get you to change your position, if for no other reason than because you are "pot committed" to where you are. The real audience is the readers. They are the "jury" so to speak, and they get to decide the validity of the position of each side, based on the evidence presented.

 

[Dan Anderson]

Hi Guys,

A different slant. I began my martial arts training in Kong Su Do. The founder of the school in Portland, Oregon was a medical student, Moon Yo Woo. He called his school the Yan Mu Kwan. His lead student in Portland, Bruce Terrill, taught Kong Su until 1969. I began Kong Su in 1966 and have resurrected my training in it a couple of years ago. I have received a 3rd degree black belt in Kong Su.

According to research done in Dragon Times, Kong Su was brought to Korea by students who went to university in Japan. Kong Su is the pronunciation of the ideograms kara te. The Kong Su I learned was very close to Shotokan karate.

I now teach Kong Su at my school. I don't know if the original Kong Su is still alive somewhere in the US or Korea ever since the advent of taekwondo but I do know several people are using the term to differentiate between taekwondo and what they do.

Yours,
Dan Anderson

 

[Kong Soo Do]

And I am not choosing a particular version in preference to another.

Yes, I think that you are.

What I said was, which you ignored, that all of the pioneers pretty much have the same basic story, that the story does not change.

No, that is not correct. Just using one example, the Han Moo Kwan claims to have never been part of the Jidokwan. Yet, I've seen in various periodicals (such as the JAMA) that the Jidokwan claims the Han Moo Kwan came from them. At some point, one needs to simply chose which seems the most reasonable, plausible story. But in truth, it really doesn't matter. Whether a persons lineage came through Shito Ryu or Shotokan it ultimately goes back to Itosu as a focal point. Beyond that, White Craine seems to be the common focal point. But in the end it doesn't matter from the perspective of self-defense. I've taken Korean history with a grain of salt and feel I'm much closer to whatever the truth is than people that claim TKD is 2000 years old.

What you consider self defense and what I consider self defense are probably two different things.

I think that is something that we can fully agree upon.

Ordinary students do not get paid to put themselves in harm's way. That is the offensive use of the martial arts, not self defense. Nothing wrong with that. Self defense involves avoiding those types of situations altogether, something that you and your "students" do not do. In fact, you do the opposite you put yourself into situations where the probability of a hostile life threatening situation is much greater, especially when compared to the 3 to 8 year old that is the typical student in a Taekwondo school.

And thanks to Earl Weiss (sp?), I should probably start using the term Defensive Tactics. But as it is, SD can be offensive when necessary and appropriate. In the proper circumstances it can be pre-emptive. It can involve de-esculation. It can involve deliberate offensive tactics, again where necessary and appropriate. Don't get hung up on the term itself. Karate was designed for use by civilians in protecting themselves. Sport came later. We can go in circles on this point if you like, or simply agree to disagree.

What is your evidence or facts that Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) was meant for "civilian self defense"?

Feel free to do a search for yourself. You'll be surprised to see what you find. Start with Itosu for starters. Then feel free to go forward or backwards as the mood strikes you. It certainly wasn't for competition.

The term Karatedo came about because the Okinawan Karate pioneers in Japan wanted Karate to be accepted along the same lines as Kendo and Judo. This is why a standardized uniform was adopted, as well as a rank system.

I'm well aware of the requirements place upon Funakoshi in order to get Karate into the Japanese mainstream. I've read about the various meetings that were sponsored (by a newspaper if memory serves, but don't remember off hand the individuals name). It does not negate the SD aspects that predate its inclusion on Japan.

Then it is your job to educate them about why their preconceived notions are erroneous and invalid.

No, because many of their opinions are valid. TKD is replete with self-inflicted black eyes that I'm not associated with and I do not intend to have to explain it each and every time I interview a student. We prefer the method we've chosen.

None of the original five kwans originally used the term Kong Soo Do to describe their art.

Once again, we disagree. I'll post back when I can list specifically which ones and the terms they used.

The term Kong Soo Do wasn't used until the 1950's.

I'm thinking more around 1946 or 1947. But it really doesn't matter.

Just because you insist on saying that Kong Soo Do was for personal civilian use self defense does not make it so

Sigh, just because you insist it doesn't does not make it so.

For example (just one resource);

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/brief-history-kata

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/there-nothing-peaceful-about-pinans

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/no-first-attack-karate

One quote in terms of self-defense or defensive tactics or self preservation or whatever term you'd like to use;

In his book 'Karate-do Kyohan' Gichin Funakoshi wrote, "When there are no avenues of escape or one is caught even before any attempt to escape can be made, then for the first time the use of self-defense techniques should be considered. Even at times like these, do not show any intention of attacking, but first let the attacker become careless. At that time attack him concentrating one's whole strength in one blow to a vital point and in the moment of surprise, escape and seek shelter and help."

And by the way, this isn't about you. I am not even trying to convince you or to get you to change your position

It really isn't about you either. I don't know you. And whether we ever agree or not on terminology or history is a moot point. My focus is the 'personal protection' side of the arts and getting people to understand the difference between self defense and sport training methodology.

I appreciate you providing a venue to do this.

The real audience is the readers. They are the "jury" so to speak, and they get to decide the validity of the position of each side, based on the evidence presented.

Excellent, we have another thing that we totally agree on. I'm sure we have many others as well.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Hi Guys,

A different slant. I began my martial arts training in Kong Su Do. The founder of the school in Portland, Oregon was a medical student, Moon Yo Woo. He called his school the Yan Mu Kwan. His lead student in Portland, Bruce Terrill, taught Kong Su until 1969. I began Kong Su in 1966 and have resurrected my training in it a couple of years ago. I have received a 3rd degree black belt in Kong Su.

According to research done in Dragon Times, Kong Su was brought to Korea by students who went to university in Japan. Kong Su is the pronunciation of the ideograms kara te. The Kong Su I learned was very close to Shotokan karate.

I now teach Kong Su at my school. I don't know if the original Kong Su is still alive somewhere in the US or Korea ever since the advent of taekwondo but I do know several people are using the term to differentiate between taekwondo and what they do.

Yours,
Dan Anderson

Thank you Dan. I've not met you but have heard a great many good things about you. And to clarify, we are using the term KSD as a means to distinguish ourselves from what many now consider modern TKD. We could have used something like 'Old School TKD' or 'Combat TKD' or some other catchy title. We simply felt that Kong Soo Do best fit what we teach and our focus.

Thank you again.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Thank you Dan. I've not met you but have heard a great many good things about you. And to clarify, we are using the term KSD as a means to distinguish ourselves from what many now consider modern TKD. We could have used something like 'Old School TKD' or 'Combat TKD' or some other catchy title. We simply felt that Kong Soo Do best fit what we teach and our focus.

Thank you again.

You are not he first to do this. We have a local tkd school who have removed the word "tkd" from their name because they teach "self defence" tkd and wanted to differentiate what they do from "modern sport tkd". I train at a school where the principle focus is self defence not sport and when sport tkdists come and train with us they get a real shock, not because we are better or worse (there is nothing wrong with sport tkd), but because tkd when trained for self defence is a completely different animal. I have said for a while now that "sport" tkd should be given a different name so the lamen on the street understands that there is sport tkd and then the martial art of tkd, two completely different things. As I said in another thread, put steven lopez (who Im a huge fan of and have the utmost respect for) in a ring with a traditional tkdist and have them "fight" and steven wouldnt last 5 minutes.

 

[puunui]

Yes, I think that you are.

Because you are not understanding what I am writing. For example:

No, that is not correct. Just using one example, the Han Moo Kwan claims to have never been part of the Jidokwan. Yet, I've seen in various periodicals (such as the JAMA) that the Jidokwan claims the Han Moo Kwan came from them.

What I said was: "What I said was, which you ignored, that all of the pioneers pretty much have the same basic story, that the story does not change. " As far I know, no pioneer has written an article for JAMA.

At some point, one needs to simply chose which seems the most reasonable, plausible story.

Again, there is no need to do that, because, again, the pioneers' story is pretty much the same, at least the ones I have spoken to, including but not limited to a Kwan Jang who you claim a lineage through, GM LEE Kyo Yun.

But in truth, it really doesn't matter. Whether a persons lineage came through Shito Ryu or Shotokan it ultimately goes back to Itosu as a focal point.Beyond that, White Craine seems to be the common focal point.

Itosu Sensei passed away by the time the name was changed from Toudejutsu (Tangsoosool) to Karatedo (Kongsoodo). Mentioning White Crane adds nothing to the discussion with respect to Kongsoodo as more than mentioning Itosu Sensei.

But in the end it doesn't matter from the perspective of self-defense. I've taken Korean history with a grain of salt and feel I'm much closer to whatever the truth is than people that claim TKD is 2000 years old.

None of the pioneers speak about the 2000 year old thing, not really. When asked about history, they all pretty much begin with the original Kwan Jang studying in Japan and/or Manchuria.

And thanks to Earl Weiss (sp?), I should probably start using the term Defensive Tactics. But as it is, SD can be offensive when necessary and appropriate. In the proper circumstances it can be pre-emptive. It can involve de-esculation. It can involve deliberate offensive tactics, again where necessary and appropriate.

What does any of that have to do with "Civilian Self Defense" and the niche you seem to occupy, which involve people who are paid to place themselves in danger (unlike civilians, whose first line of "self defense" is to avoid dangerous situations in the first place?

Don't get hung up on the term itself. Karate was designed for use by civilians in protecting themselves. Sport came later. We can go in circles on this point if you like, or simply agree to disagree.

Karatejutsu (Toudejutsu/Tangsoosool) may have been "designed for use by civilians in protecting themselves, but not Karatedo (Kong Soo Do). You are confusing the two terms, by talking about Itosu Sensei, White Crane and whatever else.

Feel free to do a search for yourself. You'll be surprised to see what you find. Start with Itosu for starters. Then feel free to go forward or backwards as the mood strikes you. It certainly wasn't for competition.

Again, Itosu Sensei had nothing to do with the name Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) because he had already passed away when the term was first used.

I'm well aware of the requirements place upon Funakoshi in order to get Karate into the Japanese mainstream. I've read about the various meetings that were sponsored (by a newspaper if memory serves, but don't remember off hand the individuals name). It does not negate the SD aspects that predate its inclusion on Japan.

We are not talking about the "self defense aspects that predate its inclusion on Japan", because prior to Japan the art was called Toudejutsu (Tangsoosool), not Karatedo. The name Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) was created in Japan, by Funakoshi Sensei, after Itosu Sensei passed away. So the "self defense aspects that predate its inclusion on Japan" is irrelevant to purposes of the name Karatedo (Kong Soo Do).

No, because many of their opinions are valid. TKD is replete with self-inflicted black eyes that I'm not associated with and I do not intend to have to explain it each and every time I interview a student. We prefer the method we've chosen.

Then you need to be educated.

Once again, we disagree. I'll post back when I can list specifically which ones and the terms they used. I'm thinking more around 1946 or 1947. But it really doesn't matter.

Well, there was one person out there who truly believed that the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan called its art "Kong Soo Do" or "Kwon Bup Kong Soo Do", but later that person retracted that, ironically after he spoke to GM LEE Kyo Yun about the matter. GM Lee told him the name of the art back then was Kwon Bup, not Kong Soo Do. No one called their art Kong Soo Do in the 40's in Korea. It's really not in dispute.

Sigh, just because you insist it doesn't does not make it so.

For example (just one resource);http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/brief-history-kata

I looked at this first article and it does not mention anything about the difference between Toudejutsu and Karatedo. So that article really does not help you.

It really isn't about you either. I don't know you.

I'm just a guy that you quote information on your webpage using information that I posted on the internet.

And whether we ever agree or not on terminology or history is a moot point.

It's not a moot point to me.

My focus is the 'personal protection' side of the arts and getting people to understand the difference between self defense and sport training methodology.

Again, how would you know, since it is obvious that you have never been to a competition under the WTF Rules? Again, competition under the WTF Competition Rules do not award plastic trophies and do not utilize glow in the dark nunchaku. Bill Wallace and/or Joe Lewis as far as I know never competed nor coached at a competition under the WTF Competition Rules. You might be thinking about non contact point fighting, which is different from competition under the WTF Competition Rules.

 

[Omar B]

Oh yeahhhhh, another epic argument thread!

:ours a cup of coffee and waits::

 

[miguksaram]

I've taken Korean history with a grain of salt and feel I'm much closer to whatever the truth is than people that claim TKD is 2000 years old.

I am curious as to what Korean history books you have read to derive to this conclusion.

 

[miguksaram]

TKD is replete with self-inflicted black eyes that I'm not associated with and I do not intend to have to explain it each and every time I interview a student. We prefer the method we've chosen.

You must have a lot of educated parents and kids who come in to your school if they are already questioning you about the validity of TKD.

So since your focus is on self-defense, what type of real world scenarios do you use? Do you prescribe to any of the methods such as Paul Vulnak's PFS or the RMCAT or CRT? Or do you mostly run predetermined scenarios such as "grab my wrist like this" or "punch towards like that"?

You also mentioned that sometimes a good offense is a valid self-defense move. Can you explain when this would be acceptable?

 

[miguksaram]

My focus is the 'personal protection' side of the arts and getting people to understand the difference between self defense and sport training methodology.

Ok, then who stands a better chance a person who does a few push-ups and then practices specific scenarios with non-resisting partners or someone who is being trained like an athlete, practicing kicking and punching repetitions and then placed against a live resisting opponent who is fighting back?

According to this statement of yours, boxers, MMA fighters and Judo players would not be able to defend themselves since they practice for sport not "personal protection".

 

[andyjeffries]

You also mentioned that sometimes a good offense is a valid self-defense move. Can you explain when this would be acceptable?

Say if someone has attacked someone nearby (establishing a perceived threat) and they then come for me and my family with us having no viable escape route - an offensive technique is valid-pre-emptive self-defence (and UK law allows for it).

"There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves: R v Deana, 2 Cr.App.R. 75."
UK's Crown Prosecution Service*

* I guess the US equivalent is the States Attornies? This is the government body that decides whether a case should be prosecuted or not.

If you meant morally acceptable, I stand by the answer above - my children and wife come before some drunk violent idiot in the priority order!

(I don't want to get in to the debate about Kong Soo Do, but I feel that pre-emptive self-defence is very valid)

 

[miguksaram]

Say if someone has attacked someone nearby (establishing a perceived threat) and they then come for me and my family with us having no viable escape route - an offensive technique is valid-pre-emptive self-defence (and UK law allows for it).

While I agree with your actions they are not entirely offensive. The person, who you just witness attacking someone else, has now turned his aggression towards you and your family with intent to do harm. You actions were defensive not offensive.

In the scenario above you would be offensive if you struck the person who just attacked the other person without really knowing that you were next on the his hit list. In which case, at least in Illinois, USA you could face criminal charges of assault.

(I don't want to get in to the debate about Kong Soo Do, but I feel that pre-emptive self-defence is very valid)

I agree, if there was a threat of being harmed, pre-emptive self-defense would be best.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I am curious as to what Korean history books you have read to derive to this conclusion.

You don't need to go to the history books for this, simply look at the information flyers at the front doors of some Dojangs. And this isn't necessarily limited to TKD, the 'TSD Karate' Dojang...or would it be Dojo(?) that closed it's doors a year or so ago use to use this same tactic.

You and I have discussed this before on Martial Warrior as well.

Ok, then who stands a better chance a person who does a few push-ups and then practices specific scenarios with non-resisting partners...

I would not know as I don't train people this way.

...or someone who is being trained like an athlete, practicing kicking and punching repetitions and then placed against a live resisting opponent who is fighting back?

Would this be the individual that;

• Trains only for one type of fight (standing with no chance of going to the ground)?
• Trains with a referee that enforces arbitrarily set rules?
• Trains with rules that you and your opponent are required to abide by?
• Trains in a well lit, level, dry surfaced environment?
• Trains for a 'fight' that was set at a pre-determined time and place?
• Allows a nice prep and warm up time before the 'fight' begins?
• Allows you to quit if you've had enough?
• Has a 'resisting' opponent that may be trying to score a point but isn't trying to harm, maim or kill you?

Got to be honest with you, I don't like the chances of either of your examples against a violent felon who is determined.

I don't know...does anyone have any stories of high level black belts in (any) art getting their **** handed to them by a street fighter/ex-felon/determined attacker/someone that isn't as 'well trained' but really good with a few street proven movements? Or do the high level black belts always win the day?

According to this statement of yours, boxers, MMA fighters and Judo players would not be able to defend themselves since they practice for sport not "personal protection". Today 09:32 AM

That is your statement, not mine. My statement is that the training methodology is different and one is vastly more effective than the other. And in many regards, based upon real world research, sport training is a detriment.

It is a fact that you will revert to your training under duress. If you're a boxer, and that is all you've trained for and someone takes you to the ground you will be at a disadvantage. If you train for Judo and someone uses a weapon or improvised weapon while you're trying to grab and throw you'll be at a disadvantage. MMA fighters are tough but the training is geared as I've listed above. That's just the way it is.

You must have a lot of educated parents and kids who come in to your school if they are already questioning you about the validity of TKD.

Yes I do actually. Many of the people I teach/have taught formerly trained in sport TKD at some point in their life. Even the civilians didn't want this type of training. NO ONE ever came in and was disappointed we weren't teaching sport.

As I've mentioned multiple times, Royce Gracie has taught his BJJ at S.E.P.S.I. where I've also taught academies. He had to adjust the training away from MMA BJJ and back to (for lack of a better term) 'street' BJJ for Officers. Why? Because the MMA BJJ is worse than useless for what Officer's need it for. And this translates over to what civilians need as well. As a result, there were two 'go-to' schools within four counties for realistic training; mine and Fred Crevello (sp?). That's why I had students from the surrounding four counties. This is not a boast! This isn't a 'yea me' statement. I just don't know any other way to make the point that there are educated people that know what they want and are serious enough to travel to get it.

Puunui,

I didn't forget about you. But since our conversation started I've received about a dozen PM's saying it is fruitless to talk with you, that it is a waste of time and some other things that I'd rather not mention. I see us ping-ponging back and forth with each others comments and it really not swaying the other in any meaningful way.

So with this in mind, I think I'll just do this;

"Puunui, you are absolutely right about everything you've spoken on. In fact, I'm now convinced beyond question that you have been right about everything you've ever spoken on in every thread you've ever participated in and I'm confident you'll continue to be right in all future threads regardless of the subject. This of course means that I've been completely wrong about everything as well. Thank you very much for spending the time to correct me. You're the very best."

Now that is out of the way you can sleep better at nights. I know I will.

Now of course I'm still going to teach the way I've always taught, and list my research the way I have, and use the name Kong Soo Do as I have been....but I'm now a much better martial artist for having been on this merry-go-round with you.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

In the scenario above you would be offensive if you struck the person who just attacked the other person without really knowing that you were next on the his hit list. In which case, at least in Illinois, USA you could face criminal charges of assault.

I would have to question this Mig. Most SD statutes allow you to come to the aid of another person. If Illinois does not allow this, specifically in State Statute I would be shocked.

 

[dancingalone]

Yes I do actually. Many of the people I teach/have taught formerly trained in sport TKD at some point in their life. Even the civilians didn't want this type of training.

I'll confirm this happens. I've had people come to my school asking to learn 'good' martial arts vs. commercialized martial arts.

I don't see this as unusual either. People switch martial arts schools and styles all the time due to things like finances, scheduling, personality conflicts, etc. Why would a desire to focus on a specific segment of MA such as self-defense be any different?

Not everyone looking for MA instruction is a wet-behind-the-ears newbie.

 

[Master Dan]

I think its a shame that TKD has such a weak or narrow opinion in the publics mind that we are now reverting back to the old days when the Masters had to put Korean Karate on thier dojangs so people would come in? Why did they come in because they first wanted to learn self defense not compete in sport Taekwondo but that is what was given to them and SD later.

Now decades later masters and dojang owners have had to learn that a 100% focus on only sport TKD does not pay. I watch my GM council a master that had a hudge dojang maybe 10,000 square feet all matted for sport TKD had lost 75% of his students in the last several years because he was forcing everyone to do only sport TKD.

Nothing wrong with those who want to do full contact sport tkd but I agree with Kong Su Do that sport TKD is not true good SD and in fact if the person your defending your self agains is so lame that your going to use head kicks and all the sport technique you should be talking to them or some thing else?

 

[miguksaram]

You don't need to go to the history books for this, simply look at the information flyers at the front doors of some Dojangs. And this isn't necessarily limited to TKD, the 'TSD Karate' Dojang...or would it be Dojo(?) that closed it's doors a year or so ago use to use this same tactic.

But wait you said was

I've taken Korean history with a grain of salt and feel I'm much closer to whatever the truth is than people that claim TKD is 2000 years old.

How can you say you don't need to go into Korean history books when you are claiming to know Korean history better than those people who tout the 2000 year old history? (I assume you mean Koreans). That makes no sense. Please elaborate on your knowledge source of Korean history if not by Korean history books.

You and I have discussed this before on Martial Warrior as well.

Are you referring to the 2007 discussion about TSD? If so that is hardly the same discussion we are having here.

I would not know as I don't train people this way.

Then how do you train them to be "street" effective? Do you utilize those programs I mentioned in my last post?

Would this be the individual that;

• Trains only for one type of fight (standing with no chance of going to the ground)?
• Trains with a referee that enforces arbitrarily set rules?
• Trains with rules that you and your opponent are required to abide by?
• Trains in a well lit, level, dry surfaced environment?
• Trains for a 'fight' that was set at a pre-determined time and place?
• Allows a nice prep and warm up time before the 'fight' begins?
• Allows you to quit if you've had enough?
• Has a 'resisting' opponent that may be trying to score a point but isn't trying to harm, maim or kill you?

Got to be honest with you, I don't like the chances of either of your examples against a violent felon who is determined.

Not what I asked. I asked if you felt was better prepped than the other? However, the underlying question is how do you teach for the streets that makes your methods superior than someone who trains for both art and sport?

I don't know...does anyone have any stories of high level black belts in (any) art getting their **** handed to them by a street fighter/ex-felon/determined attacker/someone that isn't as 'well trained' but really good with a few street proven movements? Or do the high level black belts always win the day?



That is your statement, not mine. My statement is that the training methodology is different and one is vastly more effective than the other. And in many regards, based upon real world research, sport training is a detriment.

It is a fact that you will revert to your training under duress. If you're a boxer, and that is all you've trained for and someone takes you to the ground you will be at a disadvantage. If you train for Judo and someone uses a weapon or improvised weapon while you're trying to grab and throw you'll be at a disadvantage. MMA fighters are tough but the training is geared as I've listed above. That's just the way it is.

See above. I am interested in what you are offering in your training that would better prepare a student. How real world are you?

 

[miguksaram]

I would have to question this Mig. Most SD statutes allow you to come to the aid of another person. If Illinois does not allow this, specifically in State Statute I would be shocked.

Note the 'could' in the sentence. Nothing is definite. How do we know that the guy attacking the person was not the victim of an assault turning the tide on the attacker? Why good Samaritan laws are around, doesn't mean they will automatically void you of any responsibility.