TKD verus other arts

[joesteph]

Some styles are simply better than others. Not all martial arts were created equally, and not all of them are designed to do the same thing.

Under what circumstances, Jim, are some better than others? One scenario might favor a particular martial art or group of related martial arts, and another scenario might favor completely different ones.

Modern day fighting/combat is much different than it was say, 1000 years ago. Some styles have changed with the time- others have not.

It's sound to agree that a martial art shouldn't remain static, but evolve over time. New martial arts come into being, taking from existing knowledge, seeing existing arts in a new light, forming new applications, and producing something unique, while some older ones might no longer hold their allure if they fall behind the times, that they have stagnated.

A karate practitioner will never be able to teach you to throw like a judoka, and a wrestler wil never be able to teach you how to punch as well as a boxer. Different styles are proficient at different things, some of them being much more (or much less) effective in a modern day altercation.

I think this might be interpreted as a "call to arms," Jim, that the martial artist with broader knowledge (and so a greater arsenal) is in a better self-defense position than one who holds to the ways of a single art, and so to a single perspective.

Most styles of martial arts were not taught as a means to defeat your opponent- they were taught as a means to generate time or space from your opponent allowing you to draw a secondary weapon with which to continue the fight.

This makes me think of the samurai in Japan and the hwa rang in Korea. Nowadays, we have an emphasis on the average citizen seeking to protect him- or herself in a street situation, especially to be able to escape from the scene and call the police. It doesn't take away from the police and the military needing their own martial arts training, but most martial artists of today are not members of these organizations, and we can't expect the police in particular to be everywhere at once to protect us. Barring everyone carrying weapons, we fall back on our own awareness and self-defense capabilities.

Edited October 2, 2008 by joesteph

[BLueDevil]

I just keep things simple, as Ive always said on this kind of subject: Its not what you train its how you train.

Your training should prepare you for as much as humanly possible and it should also teach you how to dictate the fight and where you want it to go. If your a grappler your school should teach you how to get yoru opponent where you want them and if your a striker you should be able to maintain the distance for optimal power/technique etc. Train how you would fight in the real world and yes I believe any style could hold thier own in a real life situtation.

[bushido_man96]

Most styles of martial arts were not taught as a means to defeat your opponent- they were taught as a means to generate time or space from your opponent allowing you to draw a secondary weapon with which to continue the fight.

This makes me think of the samurai in Japan and the hwa rang in Korea. Nowadays, we have an emphasis on the average citizen seeking to protect him- or herself in a street situation, especially to be able to escape from the scene and call the police. It doesn't take away from the police and the military needing their own martial arts training, but most martial artists of today are not members of these organizations, and we can't expect the police in particular to be everywhere at once to protect us. Barring everyone carrying weapons, we fall back on our own awareness and self-defense capabilities.

I think that this tends to still be the case, especially when you talk about what self-defense based systems teach. They teach you to do what you need to do in order to flee to safety, and then call in help, etc. This idea is still reasonable today.

[MMA_Jim]

Some styles are simply better than others. Not all martial arts were created equally' date=' and not all of them are designed to do the same thing.

[/quote']

Under what circumstances, Jim, are some better than others? One scenario might favor a particular martial art or group of related martial arts, and another scenario might favor completely different ones.

Yes, I made an example of that when I mentioned Kendo.

If you're fighting in a mountainous terrain with unstable ground, perhaps the low fighting stances of Kung Fu would serve you best.

Wearing a suit of armor and without your primary weapon, the throws in Judo would do quite well to put your opponent on his back and give you time to draw your secondary weapon.

If you have a baton or knife available, kali or eskrima would be quite effective.

In modern day hand to hand combat, be it civilian combat (i.e. street fight) or military combat (hand to hand) styles such as those shown in MMA competition have proven to be the most effective.

Modern day fighting/combat is much different than it was say, 1000 years ago. Some styles have changed with the time- others have not.

It's sound to agree that a martial art shouldn't remain static, but evolve over time. New martial arts come into being, taking from existing knowledge, seeing existing arts in a new light, forming new applications, and producing something unique, while some older ones might no longer hold their allure if they fall behind the times, that they have stagnated.

This is contrary to the statement that all martial arts are equal, and the practitioner proves the difference.

A karate practitioner will never be able to teach you to throw like a judoka, and a wrestler wil never be able to teach you how to punch as well as a boxer. Different styles are proficient at different things, some of them being much more (or much less) effective in a modern day altercation.

I think this might be interpreted as a "call to arms," Jim, that the martial artist with broader knowledge (and so a greater arsenal) is in a better self-defense position than one who holds to the ways of a single art, and so to a single perspective.

Thats true in theory, but not in practice.

What makes someones fighting style effective is the efficiency of their techniques- NOT the number of techniques. A person who spends too much time studying too many different styles may never learn the important details of the moves hes executing. Early UFC's were full of people who had trained in numerous martial arts and attained black belts in them (sometimes 5 or more styles). Not only did they not do as well as those who were trained solid in one style, they often actually lost to such practicioners, due to their opponents having a better understanding of their fighting techniques.

To give an example, a blue belt and a black belt in jiu jitsu both know how to throw a basic armbar. A black belt will get the armbar more often because he understands the move much moreso and can utilize numerous setups all leading to that one techinque. In theory, they both know the armbar, but in practice the experience of the black belt prevails.

Most styles of martial arts were not taught as a means to defeat your opponent- they were taught as a means to generate time or space from your opponent allowing you to draw a secondary weapon with which to continue the fight.

This makes me think of the samurai in Japan and the hwa rang in Korea. Nowadays, we have an emphasis on the average citizen seeking to protect him- or herself in a street situation, especially to be able to escape from the scene and call the police. It doesn't take away from the police and the military needing their own martial arts training, but most martial artists of today are not members of these organizations, and we can't expect the police in particular to be everywhere at once to protect us. Barring everyone carrying weapons, we fall back on our own awareness and self-defense capabilities.

This is exactly why all martial arts arent created equal. Modern day martial arts, such as Judo and Jiu Jitsu, and sportive martial arts that allowed combat barring armor and weapons (wrestling, boxing, muay thai) have proven to be more effective for modern day combat

[joesteph]

What makes someones fighting style effective is the efficiency of their techniques- NOT the number of techniques. A person who spends too much time studying too many different styles may never learn the important details of the moves hes executing. Early UFC's were full of people who had trained in numerous martial arts and attained black belts in them (sometimes 5 or more styles). Not only did they not do as well as those who were trained solid in one style, they often actually lost to such practicioners, due to their opponents having a better understanding of their fighting techniques.

I was thinking in terms of two (possibly a third--but not more) dan rankings in the martial arts, Jim, complementing one another, such as one focusing on striking and the other on grappling. I think that knowledge gained below dan ranking in other arts (usually related, such as another striking art and/or grappling art) might prove useful, too.

I'm taking a break from the Elite XC bouts right now, having watched Gina Carano, who's more of a stand-up fighter (with wicked knee strikes when she's in close) against a grappler. Each tried to fight "her" fight, but there has to be knowledge of the "other way" in case the grappler takes down the striker, or the striker keeps on his/her feet. Gina won the bout--on her own terms, from what I saw.

I can't argue against overkill in trying to master everything, but I believe knowing complements to one's main style/focus is essential. (I'm not going into an MMA ring, but I'm glad that my instructor in Soo Bahk Do brought in/introduced some grappling--self-defense not traditional to the art--as a "just in case.")

Hmmm . . . Is the striking art most applicable to MMA Muay Thai, and the grappling art most applicable JiuJitsu? That would be a different discussion.

[tkdo21]

I have been doing taekwondo for 3 and a half years now and I toltally agree about the lack of groundfighting. I also think its the practitioner and the style that suits him that counts, not just the style. I use taekwondo kicks and some jumping attacks, traditional boxing hands, muay thai knees and elbows and jumping attcks, and soon will be starting either jujutsu and/or bjj for the groundfighting. Im not trying to be a jack of all trades master of none, im just looking for things to complement tkdo and muay thai (my main styles). I think the bjj/jj will benifit me like boxing has.

[joesteph]

. . . traditional boxing hands . . .

I think the bjj/jj will benifit me like boxing has.

I use traditional boxing hands too, tkdo. I've found myself better guarded and better able to fire off punches. A free online copy of the great boxer Jack Demsey's 1950 book (don't worry about the year; he's a timeless champion) is available from a web site that calls itself Scribd, at:

http://www.scribd.com/

When you get there, scroll down to Search and just put in Jack Demsey. You're able to read it online or download it for free. There are many other publications there, too.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[tkdo21]

Thanks joesteph. Great book.

[Truestar]

Luckily my head instructor and some students are interested in UFC, which has added more grappling and groundfighting to our curriculum in the past few years.

My instructor has always been very realistic and teaches various applications of Tae Kwon Do. He will show you the effectiveness of a roundhouse high, or low dependent on the situation. The stereotype of Tae Kwon Do being "all high kicks" doesn't fit with our school. I've been able to learn a somewhat traditional martial art, but have been lucky enough to have been taught grappling techniques that may not be the usual in Tae Kwon Do schools.

And that's what my purpose of getting this topic out here was for: stereotypes. My friend thinks TKD is useless in a street fight, when in fact when it really boils down to it it's the martial artist, not the martial art.

[NightOwl]

Couldn't agree more with your response to the article Jim. You summed up pretty much everything I was thinking while reading it very nicely.

On the Krav, I have see some schools that highly emphsis transition to and from weapons, giving them yet another distinct advantage. Again, milage will vary depending on who you train with.

As for the LE side of things, I think not nearly enough time is spent dealing with the grappling aspect of suspect control. My ground skills h ave done nothing but help me, even while I'm carrying all that stuff around. Is it different, sure. Which means that LE's should be traiinng on occasion with all their gear on. They should also be working on retreiving their primary weapon while in several positions and getting it to a firing position.

Right now, the overriding school of though seems to be "just don't go down", and yet most all the actual training in DT done by departments won't even talk about takedown defense, let alone actually working out of bad spots once you're there. There are a few notable exceptions, but they are that, exceptions.

There is also alot of garbage out there in the LE community when it comes to ground fighting that wouldn't work on an untrained mope, let alone anyone with skill. And there are more of those people out there all the time with the increase in the popularity of MMA events. Way too many to have such a little emphsis placed on it community wide. For some reason, nobody ever seems to consider that the average high school wrestler could probibly dump the average patrol cop on his back without a ton of effort.

Not to mention that to get cuffs on, as Jim mentioned, you've got to be hands on with this guy. In other words, you're in tight proximity. Just where a half trained grappler all drunked up would think it a good idea to tie up and go to the ground.

Grappling skills should definalty be taught more in LE applications. Both standing jujutsu (a japaneese background) and BJJ have both been verry handy to me in the past.

Sorry, now I'm ranting . I think I started just trying to say I agreed with Jim

Hey, old post but I just saw it

I'm curious if you could give examples of police training (what doesn't work but also what they do teach that does) and how you incorporate your training into that. Most of the hand to hand stories and training I read and hear about comes from military guys. I've heard sentiments such as yours but never really knew the details.