Taekwondo and self defense
- Thread starter terryl965
- Start date
Koshiki
Brown Belt
My school's self-defense training is the direct result of our TKD training. Not ITF/WTF, but the earlier stuff that was basically Karate. The self-defense comes from the kata/forms, the traditional techniques, and practicing what is contained there with an opponent. We also have a bit of a CMA influence, but that is more in a supporting role of affect the slight mannerisms of our motion, rather than the general principles of the technique.
If TKD is centered around the pre-sport Karate technique and mindset, the self-defense should be there. If TKD is centered on sport-sparring and tournament forms, than seld-defense may have to be gleaned from elswhere.
I just realized I drifted from the question. My school addresses SD by aiming everything we do in the system at Self-Defense.
If TKD is centered around the pre-sport Karate technique and mindset, the self-defense should be there. If TKD is centered on sport-sparring and tournament forms, than seld-defense may have to be gleaned from elswhere.
I just realized I drifted from the question. My school addresses SD by aiming everything we do in the system at Self-Defense.
Balrog
Master of Arts
The underlying foundation of martial arts training is self-defense. One doesn't specifically have to have self-defense training per se, it's part and parcel of your daily training. You might do some specific scenario training, such as knife defense, but the general concepts are the same.
MAist25
Blue Belt
I agree with what was stated above. The techniques are all there, its just a matter of how they are practiced. If practiced as a sport, the style makes for a very fun game. If practiced for combat, Taekwondo is just as effective as any other system out there. The answer does not lie in the techniques themselves, but the way in which they are trained. I come from an old-school Moo Duk Kwan dojang and all of our techniques are based on self defense and live combat. Its not that the techniques I do are not taught in WTF TKD, but I train with the mindset of using the techniques to protect myself rather than score a point. That is the difference.
ralphmcpherson
Senior Master
Our GM has a lot of experience in hapkido and originally incorporated that into our self defence training. Over the last forty years many black belts who have anything to offer have incorporated their knowledge into the curriculum also. The result is a good mix of different self defence ideas stemming from hapkido, aikido, krav maga, zendokai, karate etc.
hungryninja
Orange Belt
I teach S.D. on the basis of principles. They have the tools (techniques) and practice against common attacks or threats. I have them ultimately practice it under stress.
We have seperate TKD and Hapkido programs. The former is mostly sport-oriented, and the latter is mostly self-defense-oriented. We always ask prospective students about their goals for learning martial arts so we can steer them in the right direction, though around 1/4 of students end up doing both.
My question for any school that claims to teach SD is simply: how do they know that what they're teaching is SD? What is their litmus test? Is the material taught from experience or theory? At what point do they know a technique or principal is effective against determined, violent attackers? Only then can we begin to see if the school is set up to teach SD.
Manny
Senior Master
I think the answer depends on two points. 1.-Yes the techs you use everyday can be used to defend ourselves, for example a dolyo chagui to the head works wonderfull when used to the knee or the thigh, an ap chagui delivered to the bladder OUCH!! a fist to the troat is devastating, a hand knife to the troat or the neck works, however we should 2.-Practice these techs in simulated street scenarios to try to mimic the real thing!
Manny
Manny
Koshiki
Brown Belt
To be fair, It's pretty difficult to ever know, 100%, that what you teach or are taught is effective. You can drill and drill and flow-train out the wazoo, but in reality, you don't KNOW that something will be effective until you've had to use it. And even then, you know only that it was effective once. I'm sure we've all pulled off some bit of impressive, flashy, game ending improvisation during whatever sparring-oriented games we play in class, that we could likely never do effectively again, even in a more controlled situation. But frankly, I know a few martial artists who do and have been in a lot of "real" world altercations. They may have more experience, but the few I'm thinking off are mostly people who's general outlook/character I don't respect quite as much. Anyone who has managed to street-test most of what they do is intrinsically, well, probably not making the BEST life-choices, unless they work at a specifically violence-oriented job...
The closest you can come, really, is simulation and speculation. You learn the principles in as controlled a manner as possible, gradually upping the resistance until you are as close as you can get to actual fighting without hospitalizing anyone. If something shows itself to not have a high rate of success, modify it until it does. If it still generally fails, ditch it. I've practiced specific techniques, occasionally thought that I've fixed a flaw or improved the overall structure, and then had people more experienced (or less!) come along and say, "here, try what you're doing," after a crack and an ow, you suddenly realize that perhaps the original way was better. Or perhaps the new way turns out to be better. At the beginning of this year I had a sore neck for a whiiiiile because I thought I had improved on a full-nelson escape. I hadn't. Finding that out definitively was not enjoyable, but it was enlightening.
As with anything, you must test and test and test, and realize that your testing will never be foolproof, and be ready to admit mistakes and innovate and say, "I've taught that poorly for years, I feel terrible about it. Here's how it can be better."
It really comes down to, you cannot and should not try to street-test everything you do. First off, you'll get yourself killed. Second off, you'll go to prison, and third off, even if you miraculously escape both fates, you are acting morally. So you simulate, and you test, and you practice with other styles and approaches, and you borrow what works and toss or re-work what doesn't.
And you end up never knowing that what you do will always be effective. But I believe you can get pretty close, if you don't mind getting a little banged up and cranked around.
OP
OP
I know Gorilla that is why I start them....
It is like asking who is a real TKD'er or not...
Gotta love open ended questions.
This was your OP:
In response to Gorilla's comment on a 'never ending' argument, your reply was:
So I have to ask, is this a legitimate question in your OP? Are you really wanting to hear various opinions on the subject? It seems like maybe you're simply trying stir something up?
In response to Gorilla's comment on a 'never ending' argument, your reply was:
terryl965 said:
So I have to ask, is this a legitimate question in your OP? Are you really wanting to hear various opinions on the subject? It seems like maybe you're simply trying stir something up?
But it's only a 'never ending' argument if someone wants to argue about it. Let's be honest about it, there is a difference in the methodology of self defense martial arts and sport martial arts. That doesn't demean one or the other. Both have a purpose, the validity of which is up to the individual. Who is qualified to teach SD? Honest question. As I submitted above, someone that teaches from experience and not theory. To be clear, that doesn't mean going out an getting into fights. At some point however, a technique or principle or tactic needs to have been used by someone in the lineage that can verify that something works against violent, resisting bad people (taking into account that nothing works on everyone all the time). Someone that teaches sport, who in turn was taught by someone that only taught sport (and so on) may know a great deal about sport martial arts but little or nothing about self-defense. Or worse, try to apply sport methodology to a self defense scenario. Same can go the other way with someone that strictly teaches self defense trying to coach someone entering a competition venue. Either way the student is short changed.
Now, if a sport instructor is serious about incorporating actual, practical self defense into the training they have two options. One is to continue teaching with a sport methodology and claiming it is valuable for self defense. The other is to seek out those in the self defense community (which isn't hard to do) and learn from them. Learn what works, what doesn't and why. See what they already know that can have some carry over. Same would have to apply if the situation was reversed.
This isn't limited to just what kind of strike or kick to use and where. It is the mind set, situational awareness, fight or flight, flinch response and all that SD related stuff. This normally isn't touched on in a sport training venue because a lot of it isn't needed for a controlled environment.
Taekwondo, Karate, Jujutsu or whatever can be a great sport art and suck for SD or be great for SD and suck in a sport venue. Two different animals, two distinct training methodologies. The neat thing about Taekwondo and Karate etc is that one can train either way depending on the goal(s) of the student.
My only peeve is when one method of teaching claims to cover both venues.
I'm not talking about a 'technique' being effective 100% of the time, none are. Nothing works on everyone all the time. As I mentioned above though, it is the methodology that differs dramatically between the two venues. There are specific SD related principles that have a documented effectiveness rating. This is why they are adopted by various agencies. This is what I'm referring to when I state teaching from experience vs. theory.
Does a spinning back kick have a good track record in a chaotic street fight? No. Does that mean the spinning back kick sucks? No. But it is the wrong tool for the job for the majority % of the time. Too many factors exist that make it bad choice for a 'street fight' i.e. possibility of weapons being involved, possibility of multiple attackers, location and circumstances beyond the control of the defender. All of which aren't really a consideration in a sporting venue. Same can be said for taking someone to the ground and getting them in a cross body mount or kamora or triangle lock or whatever. In a competition it can get you the 'W' but in a 'street' attack it can get you killed. So teaching from experience is knowing the difference between the two venues and what the 'street' venue requires.
I go by the philosophy that if I haven't used it, or wouldn't use it against a violent, determined attacker then I won't teach it. In this area I have just a tad of experience. I would be doing a disservice by trying to teach someone to score points for example as it isn't my thing. The reverse is also true and much more serious.
That is a great post!!!!
SJON
Blue Belt
I do a dedicated TKD-based SD syllabus for people who want it, and a simplified version of the same as a once-a-week plug-in module for the "conventional" TKD class.
