From: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com To: the_dojang-digest@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Subject: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #780 Reply-To: the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Errors-To: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Precedence: The_Dojang-Digest Mon, 18 Dec 2000 Vol 07 : Num 780 In this issue: the_dojang: Re: Re: Multiple attacker - grappling the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #776 the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #779 the_dojang: Books/Styles the_dojang: Re: Re: Tongue-in-cheek critique the_dojang: . ========================================================================= The_Dojang, serving the Internet since June 1994. ~1000 members strong! Copyright 1994-2000: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Replying to this message will NOT unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe the_dojang-digest" (no quotes) in the body (top line, left justified) of a "plain text" e-mail addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. To send e-mail to this list use the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com See the Korean Martial Arts (KMA) FAQ and the online search engine for back issues of The_Dojang at http://www.MartialArtsResource.com Pil Seung! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Emactkd@aol.com Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:46:06 EST Subject: the_dojang: Re: Re: Multiple attacker - grappling <> Yeah. What he said. Rick Foley ------------------------------ From: Migukyong@aol.com Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:45:42 EST Subject: the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #776 sorry ray.. that explains it. i'm on 6.0 frank ------------------------------ From: Neal Konecky Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:47:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #779 Thank you for your suggestions, Mike and Craig. Mike, at this point, I am looking for kicking drills, not just for mt training, but to add some new material to my classes. For self defense, I train in another style, so at this point, I am not as concerned about that.>> > There are so many thousands out there. What specific subjects are you > interested in? > (Grappling, Realistic Self Defense, etc.) > > Mike Anderson > > ------------------------------ > From: "Craig Stovall" > Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 11:21:02 -0600 > Subject: the_dojang: Neal's Videos > > Neal, > > Depends on what you're looking for? Are you looking for anything in > particular? You may want to check out Panther and World Martial Arts. > > Panther tends to be less "pricey", but WMA tends to be of higher quality > production and a little more cutting edge in terms of material. Check them > out at: > > www.panthervideo.com > > www.groundfighter.com > > Also, check out the video offerings from the Straight Blast Gym. Very good > material, and they have some good package deals. www.straightblastgym.com > > If you're looking for TKD videos then Turtle Press should be a good place to > look. Unique Publications also has some TKD sets if I'm not mistaken...not > sure about their URL. Panther has several TKD sets. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ From: CMPorter@webtv.net (Chris Porter) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:54:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: the_dojang: Books/Styles The Muye Do Bo Tongji is worth the money(under$30.00) It has a lot of interesting information about weapons uses an a brief spot on empty hand training. I also brought a book called Practical Hap Ki Do textbook by Master Choe Hui Son It also is interesting at least to a non- Hap Ki Do person. All this talk about various styles, their history, which is "Real" ,"True" etc. is enough to make me sick. A style is a name given to his or her method of training and teaching and that is it. The individual must have learned something, somewhere in order for them to have had life experiences that led them to "create" (read name) their own style. All styles have originated out of a need to label things, maybe out of ego, out of organizational needs or as a way to mark the passage of time. If you do not have a direct lineage to the person who named the style, then you do not practice that style, you practice someone else's interpretation of a given style. In other words if your teacher is not directly link to General Choi ,or Grandmaster Choi, then your do not train in Tae Kwon Do or Hap Ki Do respectively. Style is a way to label, to crystalize, to relate, don't get so caught up in your style that you lose your identity and your ability to use common sense. I train in MOO GONG DO am I loyal to the style, not at all, I am loyal to my Do Ju Nim for teaching me all that he has learned in his lifetime. Did Grandmaster Kim wake up in 1982 and invent his art without any martial back ground? The answer is no but does it matter what style he trained in ,in his past?. It is my belief that MGD is his personal interpretation of the Martial Arts of Korea as he learned them. I am not so foolish as to lose the chance to learn from this man because he and his interpretation is not yet known around the world by thousands of people. So what is my point? Recognize style for what it is, look way beyond it to your teacher, is he or she someone you want to learn from? Can they teach you what you want to learn? ------------------------------ From: "Christopher Spiller" Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:29:43 -0000 Subject: the_dojang: Re: Re: Tongue-in-cheek critique I have returned! Sorry this has taken so long. I was out of toiwn over the weekend and have been very busy at work trying to get my work load down to a manageable heap before Christmas. By the way, this is a really long posting, hope it's legible. >From: "Craig Stovall" >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:08:12 -0600 >Subject: the_dojang: RE: Tongue-in-cheek critique > >Chris wrote: > >"What I was trying to convey in my last post was a tongue-in-cheek critique >of an argument going on in the digest about how some Taekwon-Do is "real" >and some is not and that to be proficient in self-defense one has to study >"real" self-defense, not Martial Arts." > >Well, since I was involved in that "argument" as you say, I feel compelled >to respond. Frankly, I don't recall anyone making the assertion that in >order to gain fighting ability someone had to study "real self-defense" as >opposed to "martial arts". My own contribution to that "argument" was more >of a technical critique of TKD's curriculum within the context of a >real-world physical confrontation. > >I realize your critique wasn't leveled squarely at me, and it's not the >purpose of this post to "call you out". However, I would appreciate it if >you'd take the time to express your thoughts in regards to "self-defense >vs. >martial arts". I assume that you have some opinion on this or you would >not >have taken the time to interject your comment. > >Perhaps we could all learn something from your thoughts on this subject. >Regards. Mt thoughts on the subjest boil down to if you are not getting self-defense training in your Martial Arts training, you're getting cheated. And if you're getting Martial Arts training you should be getting (at least some) self defense training. Hey, I'm the first to admit a running flying sidekick isn't the best technique in all situations. From: "Craig Stovall" Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:14:19 -0600 Subject: the_dojang: "Real" TKD for the Street? CKCtaekwon wrote: "You would think they would be glad he calls it Combat Hapkido. I teach taekwondo, the real kind :), taekwondo for the street and I am very glad other schools in the area call theirs Olympic Taekwondo. I am not a big fan of Olympic TKD and am glad that they choose to differentiate between Real TKD and Olympic Style." First of all, I'd love to know exactly what encompasses "real" TKD. Second, the statement seems to imply that Olympic Style TKD is somehow watered down, and/or less legitimate than the "real" stuff...again, not quite sure how "real" TKD is defined. Personally, I don't practice Olympic Style TKD, but I respect them for their emphasis on competition and athletic training...I don't think you can get any more "real" than that. Third, the statement seemed to imply that the speaker trained in TKD for the express purpose of handling street violence. At the risk of starting a list-wide flame war...I have to say that the idea of training TKD for street fighting is a dead-end road. If you're worried about the street, do yourself a favor and switch systems. As a relative newcomer to the martial arts (a mere 16 years of study and training) I'd like to offer some point-by-point discussion of why TKD (in the pure sense) is ill-suited for street defense." I do have to disagree with you about this. I have also been studying Taekwon-Do for a relatively short time (14 years). But I have found it to be effective for the few encounters I have had when I have had to defend myself. The fights did not go to the ground because I controlled the distancing, took the opponent by surprise (I'm a shrimp - who would have thought I'd fight?), and hit them HARD; this seems to be something that a lot of people forget to work on in practice. Besides a few street encounters I have had the opportunity to spar with other stylists on occasion (no, NOT tournament fighting ;-). I have found Taekwon-Do to be effective against judoka, kung fu men, karate, and jujutsu. Does this mean I won every match? No. But I did feel comfortable with my skills and didn't feel like a fish out of water. "1. The art is completely devoid of any and all realistic clinch fighting. I'm not talking about hip throws, and standing joint-locks...I'm talking about aggressively pummeling for inside head/arm control, working for underhooks, and establishing a solid base from which to work close-range weapons (headbutts, knees, elbows). That's the flavor for grappling on the street...TKD doesn't address it, and if you ARE addressing it in your curriculum, then by definition you aren't doing pure TKD...you've added something else." Taekwon-Do does, in fact contain techniques such as elbow and knee strikes, upper-cuts, hooks, and other close-in punching and kicking techniques. If you haven't learned them that is another matter, and if you haven't practiced them that, too, is another matter. By the way, how many streetfights have you been in? You do seem to be quite knowledgeable about what kind of techniques are used by the less desireables out there. This is a real question, not sarcastic at all. "2. The art is totally devoid of anything that looks or feels like real groundfighting. I'm not talking about teaching your students some simple umpa-and-roll mount escape, or guard pass picked up at a Gracie/Machado roadshow. I'm talking about aggressively establishing and maintaining critical ground positions (mount, bottom scissor/guard, side control, scarf hold), escaping from extreme positions of disadvantage while under duress (opponent is dropping bombs from the high-mount position), active ground transitions and controlling a scrambling opponent (leg rides, turk rides, half nelsons), and "finishers" (joint locks, strangulations/chokes, compressions, etc). TKD does not have these things in its curriculum...if you're doing them, you ain't doing TKD." While I would agree with MOST of what you have stated, Taekwon-Do DOES in fact contain some joint locking techniques that can be used to control opponents. Granted, not nearly as many as Hapkido, Jujutsu, etc. but they ARE there. "I would be interested to know what reference work or instructor you are citing when you say, "if you're doing them, you ain't doing TKD." 3. Weapons awareness and defense is seriously lacking. Most, but not all, of the stuff I've seen passed along as "self-defense against weapons" is pure tripe. Hard style blocks against a knife thrust, assuming you can kick knives out of people's hands, failure to deal with the fact that grappling and weapons attacks happen simultaneously (heck, no grappling to begin with), unrealistic attack assumptions (guy holding a knife to your throat...yeah, right), the list goes on. Look, any "street fighting" curriculum that focuses on anything that happens above the fifth-grade playground level had damned well better START with weapons, and then move into the "best case" scenarios later (guy/gal decides to fight by the Marquis de Queensbury rules). TKD doesn't start with weapons defense, spends most of it's "flight time" against attacks that will never come (your sparring partner kicks you in the chest...Mr. Streetfighter plays a different game), and doesn't teach it's students to USE weapons ("numchucks" don't count)." I agree with most of this, too. Frankly, it seems that most of what we should practice for would involve loaded guns with live ammo and various edged weapons with only the occasional club/blunt weapon. I would be willing to hear suggestions on how to handle this (seriously). Then again, I have not been confronted with a weapon. "4. Too much emphasis on kicking. Street-fighting is NOT 75% kicking...I don't claim to know to any degree of accuracy what percentage of tricks used in a self-defense situation could be classified as "kicks", but I DO know that 99.99% of TKD schools are heavily slanted toward training the kick as a primary tool/tactic. A kicking game is important...but highly refined kicking techniques are NOT what gets you home or keeps you out of the morgue." Streetfighting isn't 75% kicks, but then again, Taekwon-Do isn't either. As for technical breakdown, I'd say that hand techniques outnumber foot techniques. Emphasis in practice might be different, however. As for kicks, they have been VERY effective when I have used them. Again, you don't have to go for flash, but you do have to kick fast and HARD. "5. Not enough emphasis on power hitting with the hands. Want to learn how to be a terror on the street, but only have time to study one discipline...learn to box. Get in the gym, hit the focus mitts, hit the heavy bag, work the speed bag, and then get in the ring with someone who knows what they are doing and BANG AROUND. Six months of this type of training under a competent instructor is better than ten years of one-step throat strikes, eye spears, and simulated nut grabs put together. There's a reason we walk on our feet, and eat with our hands people...don't try to reinvent the wheel when you fight. Learn to hit with the hands...HARD...period. Closed fist, open palm...take your pick...I don't care. The biomechanical principles of boxing are the most efficient manner to hit a person with speed, economy, and power...if this weren't the case, boxers would not fight the way they do...they'd be doing it another way...it's the product of an "evolutionary" process much in the same way the Fosbury Flop surplanted the straddle jump and Western Roll. Learn from other people's headaches because that's the highest form of learning. TKD TYPICALLY doesn't do a good enough job of getting people to fight with their hands. One culprit is the heavy slant towards kick training. The other culprit is the fact that too much time is spent on biomechanically inefficient knife-hand, ridge-hand, and back-hand strikes." While I agree that powering hitting should be an important part of everyone's training I have to disagree with your analysis regarding the biomechanical inefficiancy of techniques such as knife-hands, reverse knife-hands, etc. They work. Period. I knocked a guy over with a backfist to the back of the head. That was it. As for more "esoteric" techniques, well the Chinese systems have an abundance of them and they make them work. My friends in kung-fu are not peope I would want to mess with, and they all look like they're a cross between ballet dancers and, well, I don't know what. "6. Virtually no takedowns and/or defenses against takedowns. Again, I'm not talking about hip throws, or step-behinds on your training partner who just lovingly hugged you from behind. I'm talking about taking an aggressive, resisting attacker to the ground with doubles, singles, high-crotch takedowns, throws from head/arm control, etc. Also, the importance of defending against the takedown can't be understated. I'm not one of these yahoos who claims to have been in dozens of street fights, but I've been in my share and I've seen my share. Bottom line...people will shoot on you, either as a primary tactic or out of desparation from getting the stuffing beat out of them. Sprawl, sprawl, sprawl...one of the most important self-defense skills you can possess, and TKD DOES NOT TEACH IT...if you claim to be teaching this, you have modified the curriculum." Again, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, I have practiced takedowns, throws, joint locks, etc. on opponents who have ranged from agreeable and helping to mildly resisting, to really resisting. If you put the time in to practice, these techniques will work. Everywhere? All the time? No. But nothing does that. Again, I wonder what curriculum you are referring to when you say that Taekwon-Do doesn't include these techniques. Does it include a lot of them? No. But it does include some of them. "Now, a couple of things in closing. This post wasn't meant to poormouth TKD, or point out it's inherent weaknesses. I dare anyone to show me a perfect system. I also didn't point out all of the great things TKD can do for people (and has certainly done for me)...promotes fitness and health, teaches values, instills confidence, provides a vehicle for expression, and facilitates personal development. LOTS of positives in TKD. However, it's NOT geared for dealing with a serious, real world attack. If you think it is, I urge you to reevaluate your position. Now, does this mean TKD can't be used for self-defense...ABSOLUTELY NOT. That is NOT what I am saying. There are thousands of anecdotes to support the fact that TKD students have successfully used their hard-earned skills to defend themselves. The point that I am trying to make is that if you are using TKD as a vehicle for self-defense WITHOUT modifying and "improving" the curriculum in a fundamental way (not talking about incremental changes...go back to my six points) then you are being inefficient with your time and the time of your students. Toyota Camry is a great automobile...see how far that bad boy can get you in an average off-road environment. Different tools for different purposes...no more, no less." I wonder if Won Kuk Lee, Hwang Kee, Gen. Choi, and other kwan founders would think about this. In point of fact, Gen. Choi has stated in several interviews that Taekwon-Do was formed to complement the training that ROK soldiers were already receiving (i.e., armed). Check out the Jan. 2000 issue of Taekwon-Do times for this. I agree that Taekwon-Do wasn;t formed to be an armed MA, but it was formed to allow one to defend themselves. "It's not my intention to insult or call into question the best intentions of others. It's just my opinion that: 1. Terms like "street" and "combat" are bandied about so much these days that they have essentially lost their true meaning." Agreed. But then again, I don't hang out in the tough parts of town for a reason. (A gun is a great equalizer, and I don't like a lot of the poeple who have decided to become "equals" ;-) "2. People (no one in particular) are misapplying arts that were never meant to operate in particular environments. Taking TKD to a street fight is like taking Judo to a boxing match. There's a disconnect." Again, I have to disagree here. In my opinion, it's not the environment that's in question here, it's the level of training and fitness of the people involved. The average boxer is going to be in better shape than the average judoka because they spend a lot of their time building up their muscles to take a hit (along with work on bobbing, weaving, etc.). "My six-point list was far from complete in terms of laying out the specific skill sets needed to efficiently thrive in a REAL street attack, but I'm confident that it illustrates some of the primary principles that are indicative of the "street" (depends on your definition I guess). At least I hope it can drive the understanding that traditional TKD is sorely lacking in many areas. My gosh...don't get me STARTED on the psychological aspects/ramifications that TKD doesn't address...I direct anyone to Tony Blauer and his pioneering work in this regard." Again, I will agree with you on this point with one caveat. The psychological aspect of things could be addressed alot better if training methods were improved (please note I did NOT say change the art). Would it be perfect? No, because it wouldn't be like basic training in the military (and from what I have heard that isn't perfect either). "Not trying to start trouble...just my feeble attempt to help. I try to respect all ways and viewpoints, and accept with delight any opinions contrary to my own. I've found that's the best way to learn." Well, here are a whole lot of opinions contrary to your own (and I am betting many other people's). I agreed with a lot of what you had to say, but it seems to me that your main complaint is agaist training methods and secondarily against actual techniques (but I admit this could be a misread of your position). Taekwon, Chris "Every experience of beauty points to infinity." Hans Urs von Balthasar _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 8:10:39 PST Subject: the_dojang: . ------------------------------ End of The_Dojang-Digest V7 #780 ******************************** It's a great day for Taekwondo! Support the USTU by joining today. US Taekwondo Union, 1 Olympic Plaza, Ste 104C, Colorado Spgs, CO 80909 719-578-4632 FAX 719-578-4642 ustutkd1@aol.com http://www.ustu.org To unsubscribe from the_dojang-digest send the command: unsubscribe the_dojang-digest -or- unsubscribe the_dojang-digest your.old@address in the BODY of an email (top line, left justified) addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com. Copyright 1994-2000: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Standard disclaimers apply.