TKD is Weak on the street as a self defense?

DaveB

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
291
By finding evidence of your own to counter those claims.

No.

The starting premise shows such a failure to understand what evidence actually is that doing as you suggest would just compound the error.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,494
Reaction score
5,401
No.

The starting premise shows such a failure to understand what evidence actually is that doing as you suggest would just compound the error.

evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun
  1. 1.
    the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The only facts or information has been provided by me. Everyone else has backed their opinion with nothing.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,494
Reaction score
5,401
When
Has
Anyone
Said
These
Kicks
Will
Never
Work?

Sorry, but you've missed that the last several times I've written it, so I figured I'd make it easier to spot. If you are arguing against the idea that these kicks will never work in a situation outside of Olympic sparring, nobody is saying that. You're basically trying to prove the Earth is round if you're arguing that it's possible to use these kicks and tactics.


However, you seem to be arguing that:

  1. The surface you are on makes no difference in how effective your kick will be, and that it should be easy to do tornado kicks on an icy road
  2. That if you haven't practiced on slick ground, it will be easy to fight on slick ground
  3. That the risk of injury is not greater if you are on a hard ground (like the street) as opposed to a padded Taekwondo dojang
  4. That there is no additional risk of your kicks being countered in a match where grabbing the leg is allowed, or on the street where the only rule is survival
So tell me, which is it that you're arguing? Are you arguing that A) it is possible for a Taekwondo kick to work outside of the dojang and in adverse conditions? If so, congratulations, you've just spent pages and pages arguing against something that nobody is arguing.
Or are you arguing that B) what works in the Taekwondo ring will work just as easily in the real world? In which case a few highlight videos, half of which are obviously fake, aren't going to do anything.



I mean, with how realistic half of those fights looked, I might as well be arguing against the idea that a Kamehameha Wave is practical for self defense.

I am arguing the scope of what you called huge differences between what someone trains and what they have to perform in a street fight.

From those videos what was the huge differences that made those kicks work as opposed to a kick working in sparring or competition?

Otherwise I just come up with huge differences myself.

In the street there is more space.

You will be wearing shoes that provide more grip.

The attacker won't know TKD to readily defend himself.

The attacker could be intoxicated lowering his reaction time.

The hard surface will make the damage from the kick more effective.

The lack of padding will make the kick more effective.

Not constricted by rules the kicker will be more dangerous.

Using weapons will make the kicker more dangerous.

So because of the huge differences what works in a TKD ring would work more easily in the real world.

I mean does this argument work both ways or not?
 

DaveB

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
291
evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun
  1. 1.
    the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The only facts or information has been provided by me. Everyone else has backed their opinion with nothing.

Not true, my sign was perfectly good evidence. As is your refusal to film yourself kicking on an ice rink.

More to the point though is that you haven't posted a fact or information. You think you have and that's why there's little point discussing with you.

The rest of us know that there is nothing we can post that would be sufficient evidence because no video alone can convey a circumstance like the level of friction between a surface and a given shoe. Nor can a random video be ecpected to represent a given individuals technique.

Look at it this way.:

a physicist a mathematician and a statistician are travelling on a train.
They see a cow in a field.

The physicist says, "all cows in this land are Brown."
The mathematician corrects him saying, "one cow in this land is brown."
The statistician corrects them both saying, "one cow in this land is brown, on one side."

In most of these forum threads you take the role of the physicist in a room full of mathematicians and statisticians.
 

DaveB

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
291
I am arguing the scope of what you called huge differences between what someone trains and what they have to perform in a street fight.

From those videos what was the huge differences that made those kicks work as opposed to a kick working in sparring or competition?

Otherwise I just come up with huge differences myself.

In the street there is more space.

You will be wearing shoes that provide more grip.

The attacker won't know TKD to readily defend himself.

The attacker could be intoxicated lowering his reaction time.

The hard surface will make the damage from the kick more effective.

The lack of padding will make the kick more effective.

Not constricted by rules the kicker will be more dangerous.

Using weapons will make the kicker more dangerous.

So because of the huge differences what works in a TKD ring would work more easily in the real world.

I mean does this argument work both ways or not?

Of course it does, hence people train.

Obviously there can be advantages to an environment as well as disadvantages. I'm not sure if I for one agree with everything you listed, but again this feels like an answer to an argument no one has made.
 

RTKDCMB

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
728
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Look at it this way.:

a physicist a mathematician and a statistician are travelling on a train.
They see a cow in a field.

The physicist says, "all cows in this land are Brown."
The mathematician corrects him saying, "one cow in this land is brown."
The statistician corrects them both saying, "one cow in this land is brown, on one side."
That reminds me of something I heard on Landline:

The difference between an optimist, a pessimist and a realist is as follows;

The optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel.

The pessimist sees only the darkness.

The realist sees the train.

The train driver just see three idiots standing on the track.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,407
Reaction score
4,003
Location
Covington, WA
For my part I was simply suggesting that environment is one of the considerations of goal oriented training (specifically SD in this discussion) that sport training doesn't usually address.

There are other things that drop bear will make equally circuitous and irrelevant arguments to avoid conceding aren't included in sport training, but as I mentioned before DBs tactic is to home in on a single aspect so the big picture is lost.

His argument is "all you need for anything is sport training", and it is surpisingly fun watching him tie him and his straw men into knotts to support his belief.

Funny thing is I don't especially disagree. I think if all you want to do is sport that it will likely build enough attributes and skills to help in many SD situations. I just also see the benefits of learning specific skills and knowledge relevant to the goal.
Do you really think drop bear’s argument is “all you need for anything is sport?” If so, I have completely misunderstood him for a long time. I always thought he was about avoiding appeals to authority, conjecture and the hazards of speculation.
Not true, my sign was perfectly good evidence. As is your refusal to film yourself kicking on an ice rink.

More to the point though is that you haven't posted a fact or information. You think you have and that's why there's little point discussing with you.

The rest of us know that there is nothing we can post that would be sufficient evidence because no video alone can convey a circumstance like the level of friction between a surface and a given shoe. Nor can a random video be ecpected to represent a given individuals technique.

Look at it this way.:

a physicist a mathematician and a statistician are travelling on a train.
They see a cow in a field.

The physicist says, "all cows in this land are Brown."
The mathematician corrects him saying, "one cow in this land is brown."
The statistician corrects them both saying, "one cow in this land is brown, on one side."

In most of these forum threads you take the role of the physicist in a room full of mathematicians and statisticians.
I think you're giving yourselves way too much credit. In your joke, the statistician is the one challenging presumptions and tenuous generalities. The only person I see around here doing that consistently is Drop Bear.

The argument I see from Drop Bear (right or wrong) is essentially this:

No technique is appropriate all the time.
It is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight.
If it is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight, it is also impossible to train for every contingency (whether that's wet grass or lava or a full grown mountain gorilla).
Mental elasticity (or I would say developing ability to improvise) allows one to account for unforeseen variables in a street fight.
There are ways to train that develop mental elasticity.

It's not that complicated an argument, as I see it. His response is generally very predictable. If you say, "X technique never works in Y situation." He will say, "How do you know that?" A reasonable question, I think.

for what it's worth, I agree with him for the most part. I think there are ways other than MMA training to develop the ability to improvise in real time, but not any that are better.
 

skribs

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
5,692
Reaction score
1,366
I am arguing the scope of what you called huge differences between what someone trains and what they have to perform in a street fight.

From those videos what was the huge differences that made those kicks work as opposed to a kick working in sparring or competition?

Otherwise I just come up with huge differences myself.

In the street there is more space.

You will be wearing shoes that provide more grip.

The attacker won't know TKD to readily defend himself.

The attacker could be intoxicated lowering his reaction time.

The hard surface will make the damage from the kick more effective.

The lack of padding will make the kick more effective.

Not constricted by rules the kicker will be more dangerous.

Using weapons will make the kicker more dangerous.

So because of the huge differences what works in a TKD ring would work more easily in the real world.

I mean does this argument work both ways or not?


You seem to have still missed the point. You are saying the kick CAN be effective. NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH THAT. Do you deny that training for the ring is different than training for the real world?

I'm not going to argue with your individual points (which I find plenty of problems with). What is the case that you are making? What is your goal here, that you're trying to convince us? Is it:

1) That Taekwondo sparring training CAN work in the street?
2) That Taekwondo sparring training is USUALLY effective in the street?
3) That Taekwondo sparring training without ever training for different conditions, will still be perfect on the street?

Let me know what it is you're trying to say, because I don't even know that. I don't want to hear your points or your reasons why, or your "evidence" or your videos with a mic drop. I just want to know what is your thesis, your overall point here?
 

DaveB

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
291
Do you really think drop bear’s argument is “all you need for anything is sport?” If so, I have completely misunderstood him for a long time. I always thought he was about avoiding appeals to authority, conjecture and the hazards of speculation.

I think you're giving yourselves way too much credit. In your joke, the statistician is the one challenging presumptions and tenuous generalities. The only person I see around here doing that consistently is Drop Bear..

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.

I just see a different dogma coming from him. He appeals to the authority of YouTube videos all the time and to me the thinking that says of all the martial artists in the world and all the training sessions, I can draw inference from the tiny sample put on film, is much closer to the physicist.

Plus I work in stats...

The argument I see from Drop Bear (right or wrong) is essentially this:

No technique is appropriate all the time.
It is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight.
Not this time.

Usually he argues along those lines but here, when presented with the mere possibility of environment making x technique unwise, he's gone hell for leather trying to argue that through normal sport based training one can kick on ice with dojo levels of safety and effectiveness.
If it is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight, it is also impossible to train for every contingency (whether that's wet grass or lava or a full grown mountain gorilla)..
Nobody said it was, but getting an understanding of how easy it is to apply zenkutsudachi from Shotokan in a busy pub might be useful for a city dweller like myself, might it not? Well apparently not, according to Drop Bear.

Mental elasticity (or I would say developing ability to improvise) allows one to account for unforeseen variables in a street fight..
All fine.

There are ways to train that develop mental elasticity.

No, he's distinctly not saying that. He's saying that mental elasticity is a byproduct of sport training.
He is discounting the possibility of developing said quality in other ways such as through goal oriented training.

It's not that complicated an argument, as I see it. His response is generally very predictable. If you say, "X technique never works in Y situation." He will say, "How do you know that?" A reasonable question, I think.
That would be ok but NOBODY is making any such argument. Hence the repeated statements that NOBODY is making any such argument, or variations thereof.

for what it's worth, I agree with him for the most part. I think there are ways other than MMA training to develop the ability to improvise in real time, but not any that are better.

I agree. I just don't think doing other stuff automatically makes your training suck.
 
Last edited:

Balrog

Master of Arts
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,715
Reaction score
402
Location
Houston, TX
They shouldn't.

This is a common issue in martial arts schools that we train ourselves to overlook, but low grades should not be able to lay a finger on black belt grades.
I disagree. The Black Belt should have the control and discipline to "spar down" to a couple of levels above the student. For example, if I spar a Green Belt, I'll step it down to roughly Blue or Brown. I want the lower rank to learn how to spar, not just be a punching bag. They can best do that by sparring people better than them, but not astronomically better than them.

Now, the lower rank Black Belts are a different story. I don't spar that much any more because I have too many physical issues. But when the 1st and 2nd Degrees start getting a little cocky, every once in a while, I'll gear up and show them that the nearly 70 year old Old Fart still has a move or two left in him. :D
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,407
Reaction score
4,003
Location
Covington, WA
Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.

I just see a different dogma coming from him. He appeals to the authority of YouTube videos all the time and to me the thinking that says of all the martial artists in the world and all the training sessions, I can draw inference from the tiny sample put on film, is much closer to the physicist.

Plus I work in stats...
Okay. Real quick. I'm not saying you are or are not a statistician. Good lord, man. You used an allegory. I was commenting on that allegory.
Not this time.

Usually he argues along those lines but here, when presented with the mere possibility of environment making x technique unwise, he's gone hell for leather trying to argue that through normal sport based training one can kick on ice with dojo levels of safety and effectiveness.

Nobody said it was, but getting an understanding of how easy it is to apply zenkutsudachi from Shotokan in a busy pub might be useful for a city dweller like myself, might it not? Well apparently not, according to Drop Bear.

All fine.



No, he's distinctly not saying that. He's saying that mental elasticity is a byproduct of sport training.
He is discounting the possibility of developing said quality in other ways such as through goal oriented training.


That would be ok but NOBODY is making any such argument. Hence the repeated statements that NOBODY is making any such argument, or variations thereof.



I agree. I just don't think doing other stuff automatically makes your training suck.
My opinion based on what I've read is that he isn't saying your training sucks or doesn't suck. He's saying you don't know if your training sucks if you have no evidence that it doesn't suck. And even this is a gross mischaracterization using a word I haven't heard him use ("sucks"). That's your word, I think. The word I see from him a lot is evidence. If you say that a roundhouse (or tornado) kick doesn't work on wet grass, he says, "Sure it can." And then several posts later, hyperbole is used to create a logical red herring where you are now talking about fighting in an ice rink.

One thing. I distinctly recall earlier in the thread that this all started because some folks were suggesting that a tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass. So, I mean, it does seem like there was some argument that direction, despite your insistence that no one ever said that. I may be wrong. I haven't gone back in the thread to double-check, but that's my recollection.

Play the ball, not the man. That's all. You guys can go back to it. I've shared my opinion. I'll go back to watching from the sidelines. :)
 

skribs

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
5,692
Reaction score
1,366
Okay. Real quick. I'm not saying you are or are not a statistician. Good lord, man. You used an allegory. I was commenting on that allegory.
My opinion based on what I've read is that he isn't saying your training sucks or doesn't suck. He's saying you don't know if your training sucks if you have no evidence that it doesn't suck. And even this is a gross mischaracterization using a word I haven't heard him use ("sucks"). That's your word, I think. The word I see from him a lot is evidence. If you say that a roundhouse (or tornado) kick doesn't work on wet grass, he says, "Sure it can." And then several posts later, hyperbole is used to create a logical red herring where you are now talking about fighting in an ice rink.

One thing. I distinctly recall earlier in the thread that this all started because some folks were suggesting that a tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass. So, I mean, it does seem like there was some argument that direction, despite your insistence that no one ever said that. I may be wrong. I haven't gone back in the thread to double-check, but that's my recollection.

Play the ball, not the man. That's all. You guys can go back to it. I've shared my opinion. I'll go back to watching from the sidelines. :)


People weren't saying a Tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass. They were saying you're more likely to slip on wet grass than in the controlled environment of the ring. Nobody has said a tornado kick will never work on wet grass. If I missed it, please point it out to me.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,407
Reaction score
4,003
Location
Covington, WA
People weren't saying a Tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass. They were saying you're more likely to slip on wet grass than in the controlled environment of the ring. Nobody has said a tornado kick will never work on wet grass. If I missed it, please point it out to me.
Well, maybe not in these words. I think the tornado kick and wet grass thing is a hold over from another thread, and I don't have time to find that. But I'll do my best to lay out how it came up in this thread. @drop bear said:
I don't like how people tout that the focus is different. You set an objective. Then test your gear to see if your system works to fulfill that.

This is how TKD basically works.

And let's break this down to one unlikely move. The tornado kick.

(Quick side note here the criteria of self defence basically fits the criteria of assault. Motive ability delivery system. But that is another thing)

Now the tornado kick as much as it shouldn't work, knocks people out. The reason we know this is because we can see it.

Now we don't have to make up a bunch of logic to support this. You are either knocking fools out with it or you are not.

It won't mystically work or fail because you are in a street or a ring. The same circumstances that make the technique work. Make the technique work everywhere.
In the note above, he says it either works or it doesn't. I think it's pretty clear he's not saying "always" or "never." A reasonable person would read the above and understand that "sometimes" is implied. It either works "sometimes" or it does not. "The reason we know [that a tornado kick works sometimes] is because we can see it."
This is absolutely true, but the issues SD focus deals with are the other stuff: is the ground suitable for a tornado kick?
How can I make distance on this guy who is getting in my face since he's not the same weight class and a shove may not cut it?
If I shove him first will there be legal ramifications?
What if he catches my kick which is illegal under our rules?
etc etc etc.
Here @DaveB introduced the suitability of the ground, among other things.

See the only difference is really the last one. And even that changes via rule sets. So they can catch in ours if they want.

All these other factors occur everywhere.

You can't throw a tornado kick anywhere if you slip over or don't have the space.

If you can't push a guy backwards. You can't push him backwards.

These mechanics just occur. Suggesting there are these impossible street physics just isn't real.

They generate like a superstition. And quite often have as much validity.
This is where @drop bear pushes back, pointing out that characteristics of executing the technique are not unique to "the street." You can slip in the ring, just as you can slip anywhere. Slipping in the ring is common, particularly when sweaty (or bloody) dudes have been rolling around in them.

Except that they don't occur in a sport only environment. When have you ever trained tkd on wet grass.

And yes the ruleset makes a big difference, but that's also the point. Not every ma is mma. And even mma isn't real life.
And we made it to wet grass.

So, while I think it's a nice, meandering path, it's still a direct one. How about this? While I think that the thrust of the above can be correctly summarized to say, "Tornado kicks don't work on wet grass," I can see where you might disagree.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,494
Reaction score
5,401
Of course it does, hence people train.

Obviously there can be advantages to an environment as well as disadvantages. I'm not sure if I for one agree with everything you listed, but again this feels like an answer to an argument no one has made.

There are advantages and disadvantages to an environment. But they have less effect than the capability of the practitioners.

If you are getting your head kicked off in the gym. Jumping on to slippery grass is probably not really going to help you.

I actually asked this of a guy who went from muay Thai with 12 oz gloves and muay Thai with MMA gloves.

Same everything else.

And so I though that because of the massive differences specific training would be needed.

And no. It really doesn't.

Now what this means is you can train to become a wet grass fighting specialist. But you are then taking time, focus and feedback away from just learning how to fight.

Which will put you behind.

Now self defence people beat up this difference not to make people more effective. But to make their product more relevant. Which is why we hear so much about these differences.

It is Luke women's deodorant. Different package, floral smell, same stuff.

You just pay more for it.
 
Last edited:

skribs

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
5,692
Reaction score
1,366
The people you posted videos of are probably used to being on slick surfaces. Without being used to doing a tornado kick on a slick surface, do you disagree you are more likely to fall?

I go back to what I said before - go to an ice rink, or go out on a slick day, and try your tornado kicks. Report back to us with how manageable it was compared to practicing in the dojang. Until then, I'm not going to accept highlight reel videos that may or may not be scripted of people who may or may not have practiced heavily for the ice.
 

DaveB

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
291
Okay. Real quick. I'm not saying you are or are not a statistician. Good lord, man. You used an allegory. I was commenting on that allegory.
My opinion based on what I've read is that he isn't saying your training sucks or doesn't suck. He's saying you don't know if your training sucks if you have no evidence that it doesn't suck. And even this is a gross mischaracterization using a word I haven't heard him use ("sucks"). That's your word, I think. The word I see from him a lot is evidence. If you say that a roundhouse (or tornado) kick doesn't work on wet grass, he says, "Sure it can." And then several posts later, hyperbole is used to create a logical red herring where you are now talking about fighting in an ice rink.

One thing. I distinctly recall earlier in the thread that this all started because some folks were suggesting that a tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass. So, I mean, it does seem like there was some argument that direction, despite your insistence that no one ever said that. I may be wrong. I haven't gone back in the thread to double-check, but that's my recollection.

Play the ball, not the man. That's all. You guys can go back to it. I've shared my opinion. I'll go back to watching from the sidelines. :)

The statement that started this was:
This is absolutely true, but the issues SD focus deals with are the other stuff: is the ground suitable for a tornado kick? How can I make distance on this guy who is getting in my face since he's not the same weight class and a shove may not cut it?
If I shove him first will there be legal ramifications?
What if he catches my kick which is illegal under our rules?
etc etc etc

One element of the general point, focussed on to the point where context is lost.

Instead of finding evidence of sport clubs including non competition elements in their routine training, we have videos of people falling over during tkd demos.

All that's being said is that environment can affect how you have to fight and that an SD focussed Tkd school should pay more attention to factors like this than a sport tkd school.

Bear in mind that two people with sport tkd experience have attested to this, but that pales compared to tkd demo vids where people do and don't fall over.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,494
Reaction score
5,401
1512511593594712955183.jpg
The people you posted videos of are probably used to being on slick surfaces. Without being used to doing a tornado kick on a slick surface, do you disagree you are more likely to fall?

I go back to what I said before - go to an ice rink, or go out on a slick day, and try your tornado kicks. Report back to us with how manageable it was compared to practicing in the dojang. Until then, I'm not going to accept highlight reel videos that may or may not be scripted of people who may or may not have practiced heavily for the ice.
The surface of my gym gets slick, real word gyms do.

An ice rink. In the Whitsundays.

I could maybe go to the beach or something
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,407
Reaction score
4,003
Location
Covington, WA
There are advantages and disadvantages to an environment. But they have less effect than the capability of the practitioners.

If you are getting your head kicked off in the gym. Jumping on to slippery grass is probably not really going to help you.

I actually asked this of a guy who went from muay Thai with 12 oz gloves and muay Thai with MMA gloves.

Same everything else.

And so I though that because of the massive differences specific training would be needed.

And no. It really doesn't.

Now what this means is you can train to become a wet grass fighting specialist. But you are then taking time, focus and feedback away from just learning how to fight.

Which will put you behind.

Now self defence people beat up this difference not to make people more effective. But to make their product more relevant. Which is why we hear so much about these differences.

It is Luke women's deodorant. Different package, floral smell, same stuff.

You just pay more for it.
for some reason I think of the movie dodgeball. “If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.”

I think the sports guy would say, if you can’t dodge a ball, you won’t be able to dodge a wrench, but a spoon won’t hurt you, either way.

The statistician would say, “there is no spoon.”

Or maybe not. Sorry. I’m not taking this seriously enough. I’ll try harder.
 
Last edited:

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,494
Reaction score
5,401
for some reason I think of the movie dodgeball. “If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.”

We use that term a lot.

Of course we don't have any dangerous fighting ice rinks.

So maybe it will change.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,494
Reaction score
5,401
View attachment 21136
The surface of my gym gets slick, real word gyms do.

An ice rink. In the Whitsundays.

I could maybe go to the beach or something

OK so I went on to the grass which was pretty Dewey. And honestly my kick was more effected by my ability to do the kick. Than being on grass.
 

Latest Discussions

Top