bushido_man96

The Tenets of TKD: Courtesy: Treat others with respect, be polite, encourage a sense of justice and humanity, and being helpful to your fellow man. "The Golden Rule." Integrity: Do the right thing, and do the thing right. I've often heard it said that integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking. Being honest, not lying, and putting forth your best efforts in order to benefit others. Perseverance: When things are going right, going smooth, and come easy, it's easy to keep going. Perseverance is doing so when things aren't easy, aren't smooth, and you'd rather be doing something else. Setting goals and following through with them to the end. Not giving up. "Patience leads to virtue or merit." Don't be "the little engine that could." Instead, be "the little engine that does." Self-Control: In actions, words, deeds, and thoughts. "With great power comes great responsibility." As Martial Artists, we have a duty to those around us to exercise self-control. We should be seeking to make things better around us. Indomitable Spirit: "Seven times down, eight times up!" Training in Martial Arts can drive our bodies to the breaking point at times. Indomitable spirit is what keeps us going. A mental strength to keep trying and to keep working, even when our bodies say "stop!" Doing what's right, even in the face of persecution. These are very brief descriptions; I'm sure pages could be written on each, and probably already have by better people than me. But these are but a glimpse into our dojang tenets.

It probably does happen, but I'm willing to believe that it isn't pursued a lot. The ones that do do it, though, will cast an ill shadow on the rest of the industry, which sucks.

1/26/2025 Three Style Cross Training Seminar, Day 2, Session 1. Aikido: 12:30 - 3:30 pm. This session was taught solely by the sensei of my Aikido dojo. We started talking about some body mechanics and how the "unbendable arm" theory applies to the connecting of the body together in order for it to be strong and structured. After some time experiencing this principle, we did a couple variations of iriminage. I'm getting a little better at picking up the little nuances of the techniques. We did some weapons defenses, using a tanto upside down as a beer bottle/club attack, defending with a "buddy drop" technique after getting behind the attacker. Next was a kotegashi defense against a knife thrust with a takedown and disarm to finish. Next was some rolling work. I help up ok doing this. I started very low and really tried to focus on the nuances of the roll. We augmented the rolling by getting some help from a partner to simulate more of a breakfall. This, I seemed to struggle with. I know my descriptions here make it seem like there wasn't as much accomplished in this session, but we did quite a few repetitions on each section and really got a lot done, and I really enjoyed it.

Oh, Bob, it pains me to hear this! I'll be praying for you my friend. Keep up the good fight!

With your permission, @Wastelander, I'm going to put together a printout of your explanation above and the other article to perhaps present to the other black belts at our school as an alternate training method.

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. I do see the value in the training, and it is worth incorporating into our training.

Taekwondo Textbook, vol 1, Introduction to Taekwondo, put out by Kukkiwon. They've supposedly "updated" the history of TKD section, so I'll be interested to read that.

Yeah, crazy deal. Some explanations should be forthcoming on that incident. Prayers to all their families.

That Tucker thing is quite the deal. There will probably be a large settlement that comes out of that. I think the Saints will bring in McCarthy. Not sure why, just seems like the right pick for that organization.

Thanks for reading, @Wastelander! I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's cool to see we have similar thoughts on the subject. Love it!

1/25/2025 Three Style Cross Training Seminar, Day 1, Session 2 This session was the TKD session. The CI of our school taught the first session, I taught the second, and an instructor from out of Colorado Springs taught the third. The three of us got to talking, and we all hit it off really well, and hopefully will be doing some networking in the future. TKD: 5:00 - 8:00 pm. Hour 1: Our school owner taught this one, and I went around and assisted. He covered some of our basic stances, and how they differ from how others do them. We did some basic punching in sitting stance, stepping and lunge punching in front stances, and did advancing front kicks and side kicks. With advancing and punching, he talked about what I call "hand-foot timing," getting that strike out just as the foot lands for maximum power and weight behind it, along with generating power from the hips. He spent quite a bit of time on the technical aspects of techniques, especially the side kick. He finished with a partner drill where one partner would just move in and present a target and the other partner would move into a position to strike a vital point or valid target area. Some students ended up turning it into a bit of free-flowing back-and-forth, but it seemed like everyone was having fun. When doing the techniques, he spent some time in breaking down the differences from how some of the other styles would approach them; like our front stance has both feet pointing straight forward, whereas the Karateka tend to have the back foot pointed out at more of a 45 degree angle, maybe a little less than that. He was pushing for them to work with our way of doing it to see the difference. Hour 2: This was my session. Some time ago, I came up with a class idea to hopefully work with our black belts on focused around tai-sabaki that shows up in our one-step sparring. The focus wasn't on doing our TKD one-steps, but on using the initial movements to get into positions to avoid being attacked and to hopefully gaining a positional advantage while avoiding the attack. I started by demonstrating a few of our one-steps with the CI, showing the order of operations for starting the one-step, attacker doing his attack, and the defender responding with the one-step and then finishing and resetting for the next. This was also mainly to show some of the initial body shifting that we'd be using in the session. Then I had everyone partner up. The attacker would go to the traditional start position, which was step back right leg into left front stance, left down block and kihap/kiai. The Karate students were familiar with ippon kumite, so they were pretty well set here. It was new for the Aikido students, though. The defender would then yell to signal ready to start, and the attacker would step forward and right lunge punch. At this point, I showed them what body shift I wanted them to work with, and do that back and forth. After a few, I had them add a block of their choice while shifting (in case their shift was a little late, or to help control a limb), then after some reps they would add an attack after the block, or just attack if the block was not needed or wanted. I also made them do the drill from both sides, which meant the attackers had to step back and block on the opposite side to start. This threw off our own students a bit, as they had never experimented with that. Here are the shifts I had them work through: 1. Stepping straight back into a back stance. It doesn't really gain positional advantage, but it is basic and gets away from the attack. 2. Stepping forward at an angle to the outside of the attack in front stance. This provides great target opportunities on their flank and reduces the number of weapons they can bring to bear. 3. Stepping to the inside of the attack at an angle in a back stance. This usually involved the inside foot shifting slightly towards the outside foot to make a good angle. This direction is not as ideal as #2, due to the attacker still having all his tools to bring to bear. However, it does provide the defender with lots of targets on the attacker, and it can put the defender in a position I refer to as "crossing the T," where the defender is side-on to the attacker, who is full facing the defender. Great for sparring. With each of those, we went up the ladder of adding blocks, blocks/strikes, or just strikes, or joint locks for the Aikidoka or takedowns for the grapplers. I didn't assign specific techniques for the students to do. I'd give suggestions here and there, and offer up my feedback as a TKDer if they asked. My goal was that I wanted them to see how they could apply their art or what they had learned earlier in the BJJ session. The last variation that I did was to make the drill more real-life scenario. Instead of the front stance/down block start position (because that's how fights start, right?...), I had the attacker take a more aggressive stance, and the defender was put in a "fence" position (hands up and open, strong leg back, in a placating position to deescalate, but also ready to move and defend/attack). I allowed any attack the attacker wanted to throw; punch, kick, takedown attempt, etc. I thought it went really well, and the students were thinking and exploring, which was the point of it all. I think they all liked it, and I had a blast teaching it. Hour 3: This Master Instructor talked a lot about having a self-defense mindset and being aggressive with blocks and strikes. He demonstrated how to shorten the blocking and striking techniques from the more traditional variations done in forms/hyung/katas while still getting power into the techniques with the hips. We drilled getting outside on straight punches with a quick block, then to securing the arm by staying connected for a break or some other control option. We did the same for push front kicks, getting outside and blocking, then turning the block into a hooking/scooping motion to secure the foot, then strike to the knee with a hard "inside block" technique. He also talked about de-sensitivity training (he uses a drill where he lets students slap in the face) to show that taking a glancing blow won't derail your chances at successfully defending yourself. This had more to do with that self-defense mindset. His goal was to make their day a bad day by choosing the wrong target. He finished with a drill in using the double knife hand block (with chamber folded in front, as opposed to reaching back for the chamber, which I like better anyway) to defend a haymaker style punch in much the same way that I've taught the startle-flinch response in SPEAR DT training. Very cool. He had a great approach to training, and it was all great stuff. This finished out day one of the seminar. Lots of good training, and everyone was so appreciative of everyone's different styles and approaches.

I definitely see this as a good exercise to train with others and bounce ideas off of. If you would try to make it a competition, what kind of protective gear would you require, and how would you set up the point system?

Thanks for the reminder of this from the other thread! It was good to revisit. I like the idea of starting with the connections. My BJJ coach is always talking about establishing connections, usually at two points, in order to break balance and set up takedowns or clinches. One thing I did notice is the lack of respect for the strikes in the sessions. The focus falls to the joint locking and takedowns, and I saw a few strikes that were simulated to the face that was there no reaction to. I don't know if this is something that is more effective in the harder version of the drill, but it was something I noticed. I can see lots of value in doing this drill while cross-training with other styles, especially grapplers.

@DarthPenguin, school size in the state of Kansas is categorized by 1A-6A, with 1A being the schools with the smaller enrollment and 6A having the highest enrollment. This year, we dropped from 2A to 1A. For the purposes of wrestling at the high school level, 1A, 2A, and 3A schools are combined for regionals and state tournament. Kenneth competed in their league tournament today, but it did not go well. He lost his first match getting pinned in the first period, and lost his second match getting pinned in the second period. I thought he had something going in the second match, getting a position he wanted, but the opponent did some slick reverse and threw him right over onto his back. Both were upper classmen, both juniors if I recall. One might have been a senior. The way the cross bracketing fell, he didn't get a chance to face the other underclassman in the bracket, who I think he would have beaten handily. But, we've got some more work to do yet, and regionals is a few weeks away. That will determine if he can get into the state tournament or not.

This article springs from reading the book Ho Sin Sul; Conceptual Self Defense, by Daeshik Kim and Jung Nam Lee. On pp. 17-18 of that book is a section titled “Levels of Application.” Reading that section made me think right away about the use-of-force continuum that applies heavily to law enforcement, but also how there is a force continuum that applies to civilians as well. Although a civilian won’t be held to the same standard that a law enforcement officer would, a continuum still applies, and if instructors neglect to instruct their students on this along with teaching physical self-defense, they do their students a disservice. I have written a previous article titled Force Continuum for the Civilian Martial Artist, which can be referenced here: After reading this section of the book, I felt like it provided a framework to start from for an actual civilian use-of-force continuum. It could probably be better fleshed out, but it’s at the least a good place to start the conversation from. According to Kim and Lee, there are five possible levels of application: Escape, Control, Breaking, Take Down, and Final Response/Take Out. As a law enforcement defensive tactics instructor, complying with the use-of-force continuum is a very important aspect of training. As a Martial Arts instructor of the general public, I find it’s an important topic to present to them in order to do the best job I can in helping them protect themselves from an attack, and in a courtroom should their actions land them there. Reading this section of this book sparked a fire, and I hadn’t written anything in a while, so here we are. Brace yourselves, I’m going to ramble. Level 1: Escape Described by Kim and Lee on pp. 17: This level would be very low on what I would refer to as the “civilian use-of-force continuum.” If you can respond to an attack in such a way as to deter the attacker’s original intent, then that’s a win. Most predators are looking for easy prey; they don’t want to get hurt and they don’t want to get caught. Any sign of resistance, such as releasing confidently from a grab and getting into a defensive position, could convince them they’ve chosen the wrong target. What would be even better is learning to recognize pre-contact cues that would help you recognize that an attack is coming and move into position pre-emptively for a solid defense. At this point, enough has been done that going up the use-of-force continuum may not be necessary. Remember, I am discussing self-defense situations here, which are often ambush attacks, and not a mutual, squared-up challenge to a fight. Those are two very different scenarios. Level 2: Control As stated by Kim and Lee in paragraph two, pp. 17: At this point, we are looking at gaining control of the attacker as opposed to escaping. Perhaps this is someone who “just wants to fight” and so continues with their aggression. As Kim and Lee state, by gaining control through some lock or hold, we are in position to assess the threat levels and give commands to gain compliance. This is very much what I teach the law enforcement officers I instruct, as it is necessary to avoid excessive use-of-force while accomplishing the goal of apprehension. In the civilian instance, apprehension is not the goal. Escape is the goal. The civilian martial artist can use this position of control to determine what kind further force is necessary, with their safety as the primary goal. The civilian martial artist can still give commands to gain compliance. If compliance is gained and it is safe, we can hold until help or authorities arrive, or disengage and get to safety, and use-of-force can stop. The most important aspect of use-of-force is taken from this section: This is what I emphasize to not only the officers I instruct, but also to our students when teaching self-defense, and when teaching self-defense seminars. It is not impossible for the person attacked to have roles reversed and become the aggressor, depending on the circumstances. When enough is accomplished and an attacker is retreating, chasing them down to “teach them a lesson” can end up with an otherwise good person facing some charges themselves. These can be extreme circumstances, to be sure, often the stuff of movies, but it can and does happen. It is important to work in scenarios when training, and to provide opportunities for the practitioners to see where they have gone far enough in self-defense, and when they have gone too far. De-briefing scenarios afterwards is a good way to learn. Level 3: Breaking The last part of paragraph two, pp. 17, states: This is where we get to the point in self-defense where things are becoming really serious. Sometimes, something can happen so fast and a defender could be so afraid of great bodily harm or death that they commit to a technique 100%, and with such speed and conviction that a joint or bone gets broken in the process. If this is an unintended occurrence, a defender should be sure to articulate that in the wake of the situation. When sliding up and down the force continuum, it is important to not only be able to articulate how one felt when defending themselves, but also the words and actions of the attacker, especially one with weapons. If they say, “I’m going to kill you,” that would be important to articulate later on in justifying the amount of force you used. I placed emphasis in the phrase of the above quote for a reason; to emphasize that the most extreme use-of-force is not necessary in every situation. Again, it is important to assess the situation as it develops to determine how to continue. I know this is easier said than done, but it is still an important aspect to train. If a weapon is involved, control becomes even more important, and an attacker’s reluctance to relinquish that weapon may lead you further up the use-of-force continuum. A solid control hold may have to result in a break of the joint/limb, which could be easily justifiable. Even a person without a weapon who continues to fight and demonstrates intent to harm you may require that you break a bone or joint in order to get them to stop. This can be very easily justifiable. Level 4: Take Down Kim and Lee, paragraph four on pp. 17: If controlling the opponent in a hold isn’t working, a takedown may be necessary. It can be easier to control someone on the ground by limiting their mobility, as opposed to standing and the attacker still having some mobility. It’s important to note that this step can be reached without breaking a joint or limb in level three. The takedown could be one of two varieties. One, in which the attacker and defender both end up on the ground, with the defender hopefully in a controlling position, preferably on top. The other, in which the defender is still standing, and the attacker has either been forced down to the ground in a controlled manner or slammed to the ground via throw. Both have their pros and cons, and preference will likely be based on the defender’s skill level and knowledge base (BJJ/wrestler vs Aikido/Hapkido/Traditional Jujitsu). A slam could be disabling, but if it isn’t warranted, it could become problematic later on. If a weapon is involved, justification for a disabling takedown is much easier. Now, I would be remiss in stating the obvious here in that it would not be necessary to go through levels one, two, and three in order to get to level four to justify a takedown. This book was published in 1988, and since that time ground fighting has become much more prominent. Many skilled practitioners would be comfortable in taking an adversary to the ground from the start of a confrontation. One could also argue that a takedown falls into level two, control. It's important to keep in mind that use-of-force can be fast-changing and isn’t always fluid. Kim and Lee state in paragraph five on pp. 17 and 18: In the early days of use-of-force in law enforcement, it was called the use-of-force “ladder,” in which it was expected that you crawled up each “rung” of the “ladder” in order, one at a time (or that was the argument, anyway). It is now taught as a “continuum” on which one can escalate or deescalate at any time based on how the situation evolves and changes. A situation could very easily go from a simple escape, to a presented weapon and the need to defend life with deadly force. Always analyze and reassess! Level 5: Final Response As Kim and Lee mention here, this level is at the top of the force continuum. They speak of striking the opponent most likely while they are down, or choking them out, in order to neutralize them. When considering this course of action, it is very important to be justified in doing so. It may be that the attacker refuses to relent, or that a weapon is still a clear and present threat. Many things can come into consideration, and I cover those in my other article (size disparity, female vs male, age disparity, etc.). The authors don’t actually mention using lethal force, but this is the point at which it could come into play if necessary. It would be for the best if mere incapacitation could be achieved. As I have said previously, a defender must constantly analyze and reassess the situation in order to protect themselves other than physically. To quote Kim and Lee again: Conclusion I hope this has been informative and interesting to read, as well as helpful when considering self-defense. I love to delve into the use-of-force continuum and how it relates to self-defense. If it generates some discussion, that’s great as well. Thanks for reading my ramblings!