Taekwondo Doesn't work on someone skilled

[Tames D]

I'd watch it. Do we have a TKD volunteer?

Tames D, what style do you do? Just so I can get the title correct in my TKD vs ... writeup

JKD. Feel free to tear it apart.

 

[Dinkydoo]

JKD. Feel free to tear it apart.

Ah see, there's the problem. JKD can be more of a concept than a style so I'm going to have to call it: TKD Vs Tames D

Then again, the TKD guy probably isnt representative of all TKD trained all over the world, so maybe I should title the video - Fighter 1 Vs. Fighter 2 (Tames D)

Get it?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Since art bashing isn't allowed here, and challenge posts are cause for an immediate ban, I'm going to suggest that this might not be a good direction to take this thread.

Bottom line for me is that I'm involved in physical confrontations on a much too regular basis, and I'm completely satisfied with how the things I've learned have worked. Now, you could argue that since I have had some (minimal) experience of other arts, that what I do is not "pure" TKD. I'd say that easily 90% of my training time has been in TKD, so that's "pure" enough for me.

The relative skill of the two people involved is probably the single biggest factor in predicting the outcome. But luck is also a factor. As is surprise. Doesn't much matter how skilled you are if you're sucker punched.

 

[Tames D]

Ah see, there's the problem. JKD can be more of a concept than a style so I'm going to have to call it: TKD Vs Tames D

Then again, the TKD guy probably isnt representative of all TKD trained all over the world, so maybe I should title the video - Fighter 1 Vs. Fighter 2 (Tames D)

Get it?

Call it what you want Dinky. I don't think I will have a problem defending myself against a taekwondo dude. No problem.

 

[Tames D]

NO. It's my opinion that Taekwondo is junk.

Just my opinion. Total JUNK

 

[JowGaWolf]

The relative skill of the two people involved is probably the single biggest factor in predicting the outcome.

That and the focus of the training. Some people do martial arts solely for the purpose of doing forms, staying healthy, or for point sparring. The type of training that they do is going to reflect that purpose. If a martial art school only teaches a martial art for the use of Point Sparring then we shouldn't expect the fighting skills to be beyond that. It's just better to say that the school doesn't focus their TKD training for UFC fighting.

The fact that I've seen some UFC fighters use TKD kicks to knock people out tells me not to underestimate it. I'm not a big fan of TKD but I know better to underestimate it's ability to damage. A person that uses TKD for fighting purpose doesn't mean that everything that will be thrown at me will be a kick.

 

[Gnarlie]

Just my opinion. Total JUNK

Wow this is like being in a Youtube comment thread.

That opinion doesn't carry much credibility when you express it in that way, you know? Are you 14, or what?

There are people here supporting their opinions with evidence. They don't agree with you. Based on the lack of evidence from you, and the mode in which you choose to express yourself, I'm more inclined to share their opinion than yours.

 

[Dinkydoo]

Noted DirtyDog. I wasn't actually intending on setting up a YouTube challenge match between Tames D and a TKD volunteer...just trying to use it symbolically to make a point.

Call it what you want Dinky. I don't think I will have a problem defending myself against a taekwondo dude. No problem.

Specifically, why do you think that is? I'm not a TKD guy but I'm interested in your thought process here.

 

[Star Dragon]

If you look at my previous posts you will see that I already have:

Joe Rogan smack talking TMA's like kung fu

Well, that is your opinion that the phenomenon can be fully explained that way. There is no prove for one explanation or the other.

A source for your claim would be a good start.



I will await.

I was thinking about what might qualify as a "source". There is MUCH to be found on chi but what would it satisfy your criteria of something being "scientific"? Science as you understand it has a materialistic bent, so trying to grasp something like chi in its context, we run into some fundamental difficulties. The conflict between materialism and vitalism goes back at least to ancient Greece, and it's unlikely that we will be able to resolve it here.

Believe me that I was once a sceptic myself, but meanwhile I know about the existence of chi from personal experience. If you are really interested in the topic, I suggest you momentarily suspend your objection and try to experience it yourself too. There are numerous methods. A simple one that might at least give you a hint is this one:

 

[Earl Weiss]

W. There are numerous methods. A simple one that might at least give you a hint is this one:

Seriously?

 

[TrueJim]

For my part, I don't believe in "chi" per se, but I do believe in

No, seriously...I think the way the mind influences the abilities of the body is more complex and powerful than our intuition tells us, but that's all explainable by science. There's no mystical force involved (unless, perhaps, it is midi-chlorians, which of course are totally realzz!)...but there is some pretty complex biology and neuroscience at work.

 

[Gnarlie]

Well, that is your opinion that the phenomenon can be fully explained that way. There is no prove for one explanation or the other.



I was thinking about what might qualify as a "source". There is MUCH to be found on chi but what would it satisfy your criteria of something being "scientific"? Science as you understand it has a materialistic bent, so trying to grasp something like chi in its context, we run into some fundamental difficulties. The conflict between materialism and vitalism goes back at least to ancient Greece, and it's unlikely that we will be able to resolve it here.

Believe me that I was once a sceptic myself, but meanwhile I know about the existence of chi from personal experience. If you are really interested in the topic, I suggest you momentarily suspend your objection and try to experience it yourself too. There are numerous methods. A simple one that might at least give you a hint is this one:

Science works like this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not even ordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim.

As yet, in the history of mankind, nobody has proven chi to exist despite all those who have claimed that it does, therefore a scientific and rational mind would lean towards it not existing.

In addition to that, every mystery ever solved by mankind has turned out to have a rational, non-supernatural explanation. A rational and scientific mind would posit that if chi exists, then it is a term describing non-spiritual, non-magical, non-mystical, purely physical, chemical and biological phenomena.

As a third point, and this is true of other spiritual and mystical phenomena, if chi really existed as a supernatural paranormal force, someone who could control it would be making serious money out of it. A lot more money than Dillman makes. The military would be using it. Hospitals would be using it.

Until some extraordinary evidence surfaces that satisfies my personal criteria, I remain skeptical.

 

[TrueJim]

...if chi really existed as a supernatural paranormal force...

Also, if chi really did exist, people would be able to repeatedly and objectively demonstrate its effects, which means we could study it scientifically...it would stop being supernatural and paranormal. "Chi" would simply become another scientific force that we could characterize and measure.

Using "dark matter" as an example, even though we don't know what "dark matter" is, we can repeatedly and objectively measure the effect dark-matter has on how galaxies evolve. That puts "dark matter" into the realm of science rather than mysticism.

So when deciding when something falls into the realm of science rather than mysticism, the deciding characterization isn't "whether or not we understand it"...it's "whether or not we can repeatedly and objectively observe it." At best, the effects of chi are entirely subjective, meaning chi will always have to fall into the realm of the supernatural.

 

[RTKDCMB]

JKD. Feel free to tear it apart.

Why would we do that?

 

[RTKDCMB]

I was thinking about what might qualify as a "source".

Actually I was asking for a source of your claim that quantum physics was beginning to embrace the 'reality of spirit'.

That is a source - of amusement.

 

[TrueJim]

Actually I was asking for a source of your claim that quantum physics was beginning to embrace the 'reality of spirit'...

There has been some conjecture in legitimate scientific circles that any manifestation of a self-aware consciousness (i.e., a "mind") might require quantum mechanics as its underlying mechanism. The theory is that a completely deterministic calculating machine (like a conventional computer) cannot manifest a self-aware consciousness. Again though, this is pure conjecture. Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-...&qid=1446758881&sr=8-3&keywords=Roger+Penrose

It should also be noted that this has nothing to do with chi, "reality of spirit", mysticism, the supernatural, or the paranormal. This is a conjecture about which laws of physics are needed to explain consciousness. As an aside, having read the above book, I was unconvinced by Penrose's arguments; I'm inclined to think that consciousness can probably be implemented deterministically. (There's a school-of-thought that conjectures that consciousness is a purely deterministic algorithm that the brain uses to decide which sensory input is most important to an individual's survival; in other words, consciousness is an algorithm that decides what we should be paying attention to; one part of that algorithm is a model of ourselves within the context of our environments...hence, self-awareness. No quantum mechanics needed.)

 

[Star Dragon]

Actually I was asking for a source of your claim that quantum physics was beginning to embrace the 'reality of spirit'.

David Bohm, Paul Cezanne and Creativity - F. David Peat

That is a source - of amusement.

Glad that you got a laugh out of it then, at least.

 

[Tez3]

David Bohm, Paul Cezanne and Creativity - F. David Peat
.

Well written but not proof of anything. The author often starts sentences with 'I believe', which is a very good way of writing as he's expressing his views but is not stating they are facts. It's thoughtful but also it's an opinion so I wouldn't say it proves that 'chi/ki' exists as such.

 

[Balrog]

No resistance = no real technique. It's that simple.
"Martial" means having to do with or suitable for war.
And "art" means skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. If you aren't learning something suitable for combat through repetition, you are learning how to dance and punch the air. Not apply techniques in a life or death situation. The community needs to be aware that pure taekwondo schools in our world today will not teach you the fundamental skills for self-defense and how to fight. Sure it may look good in movies, but in the ring, on the street, ect. It won't work. There may be some schools out there however, that offer taekwondo in addition to other martial arts. But a pure taekwondo school would not do that for you.

Wow. Another bucket of BS about Taekwondo.

It never ceases to amaze me how people just love to get on YouTube, etc., and parade their ignorance for the world to see. Quite obviously, they never bothered to ask a simple question: if Taekwondo is so useless, why does the Korean army teach it to their soldiers? I've seen those guys in action, and they are brutal.

 

[drop bear]

Wow. Another bucket of BS about Taekwondo.

It never ceases to amaze me how people just love to get on YouTube, etc., and parade their ignorance for the world to see. Quite obviously, they never bothered to ask a simple question: if Taekwondo is so useless, why does the Korean army teach it to their soldiers? I've seen those guys in action, and they are brutal.

Because they have guns and so don't really need to fight anybody.

Sorry but its in the army is not really a good argument.