The No Bullshit Fighting Member

Discussion in 'The Dojang' started by NoBullShitFighting, Feb 14, 2013.

  1. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    By the way, there are no rules in the street, so the kicks and punches, the grapples etc are not restricted. protecting yourself uttilising a 175mph kick to the ribs or leg will destroy any potential assailant.

    If you want me to supply proof of the kick speed then its easily found from a proven check. a nine stone person kicking at that speed to a knee or rib you only need Albert to say E=Mc2
     
  2. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Oh, and a point I meant to raise earlier, Its fine to teach ranged striking, close striking, standing grappling and ground fighting, but unless you spar and preferably compete in a way that combines them at least some of the time you might get good at each individual part, but not proficient at combining them.

    Oh, and another, MMA is a very new sport, and its still developing. I think in the wrong direction, but thats just my opinion. Noone could argue that the vale tudo guys were not tough as nails, but their technique lacked in some areas. I found that more interesting, as they exposed the holes in each others systems. I would be willing to bet no TKDist ever won a high vale tudo tornament.
     
    NoBullShitFighting likes this.
  3. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    Okay, I'll move on to my opinions on MMA and self-defense, but let me just say that my argument for particular cases I've made before are still standing, and up for falsification for those who wants to address it. I may not be able to give as much credit as I like, I see that there are contributions that really needs to get some love on that like button. Some times I will not answer right away as I am managing other arguments in the same thread.

    So let me get into the self-defense first. How I would separate it from sparring and how I would see it in context with sparring. That is the first argument I will make. My standpoint is that sparring can help the student gain competence important for a real life self-defense situation. As the student draws self-defense competence from the resistance that is given. An example of this is learning to utilize different ranges, react to telegraphing body language, condition oneself to keep eyes open when taking a jab and maintaining balance when 'riding the flow' of the battle.

    However, the relevance is dependent of the range of expression allowed. You will probably close your eyes when taking a jab in the guard for the first time, even if you have 4 years of WTF sparring underneath your belt. As the olypic rules didn't allow you to adapt to this type or resistance. Rules and regulations does not automatically limit the expression, blue_knight was very relevant and true when he said that WTF TKD rules restrict punching for the sake of ensuring the expression of kicking. WAKO kickboxing have similar rules, one needs to have at least 8 kicks in one round or you get minus points. Also, some level of limited expression is very important for safety reasons, as Blue_Knight also pointed our: We can't gauge each other eyes out in the ring. So a fuller expression isn't always a good thing. At least in the case of self-defense the idea is to survive in the ring in order to survive on the street, so dying or having serious injury in the ring would be very counter-productive.

    As a result there will be self-defense techniques that can not be used in sparring. So one needs to research alternative methods. While staying as close to realism as possible while maintaining safety, with this idea in mind I suggested defending against a red marker with face+eye-protection(not getting the marker in the eye to allow strikes at head) and traditional free fingers ITF and karate padding. Also there are techniques that just must be teached in a one-step, like catching a jab inside of the inner arm in the guard, then hitting the elbow with the outer arm, breaking he attackers arm. And techniques that does not meet a certain standard, because they are meant for exhibition could be moved over to lessons regarding acrobatics, and not be taught as self-defense. Also, one should add techniques that are relevant if they are not found within taekowndo from outside resources like Krav Maga, SCARS and professionals that educates security guards for a living. Also learning the theories such as Monkey Dance, social violence and the psychology of a bully or other things they might encounter. Bottomline: They will learn self-defense first and Taekwondo second, to satisfy strict standards for being able to handle oneself when about to meet with a potentially dangerous situation. I believe that the taekwondo will always shine through anyways, though the priority is to survive, and if possible, escape.

    The basic argument here is that I believe the taekwondo self-defense system is uncomplete. It does not deal with certain scenarios. Other self-defense systems deals with these areas and can be adopted to fulfill the needs of a person who learns Taekwondo for better protecting themselves. If these systems also have tactics that are simpler and more effective than our way, we should embrace that technology and seek to improve it. Rather than beating our dead horse.
     
    John McNally likes this.
  4. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    All points of view are of course valid for that indevidual, however the military use it still, so understanding that it depends on the school as to whether full application is implemented.
     
    NoBullShitFighting likes this.
  5. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    Subjective experience is only available to the subject who experienced it. So it should be kept outside of a debate as other can't test it, this leads to people having to take others word for it, which in turn leads to authoritative arguments like "I'm right because I have a black belt". Points of views that only has the validity of one individual words should therefore be frowned upon if it is given to much importance. Ethos and logos!
     
  6. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    Just curious, what would be the right direction. You don't need to give reasons and write a long response. I'm just curious. I like the exposing holes in their systems relevance.
     
  7. Nightwing

    Nightwing Member

    Actually they don't. The Korean Military now teaches a martial art called Gongkwon Yusul because they also realized that traditional TKD is lacking as a martial art; unless the training is changed/modified to fit into actual reality.
    In korean but just watch the first couple of minutes-



    P.S. To Bowlie's comment about what General Choi felt about ground fighting and just standing up, I agree whole heartedly with your comments and that's why I posted the quote. TKD doesn't have a comprehensive ground fighting system like Judo, Sambo, or BJJ does; what it does have is some very basic defenses against being punched and kicked and ways in which to punch and kick on the ground, that's it.
     
    NoBullShitFighting likes this.
  8. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    But you will need kicking range to pull it off. Best if you hit with either foot or shin, perhaps knee if the kinestetic chain is well aligned. The longer in on the leg the person is positioned, the less traveling distance for the wheight, this equals less force.

    I'm not hating on kicking. It is great for kicking range, but when the attacker moves in for the body it is a different range with different rules. cleaning the center-line for a bridge, hitting pressure points with the bone of finger-joints, small joint manipulation, pinching hard to tear off flesh, headbutt, elbows, eye gauging and more. And punching in sparring can be a way to work against some resistance relevant to adapt to in order to better manage such feats.
     
  9. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    I loved the last concept in the video. About combination. They seek to hopefully throw a everlasting combo by continuously reading the opponents movements and answering with the best deployed technique from the finish position of their own last move. That is the ideal flow for me as well. And they compared it to tekken, a bold move well played.
     
  10. Blue_Knight

    Blue_Knight Active Member

    I don't like having to post long replies that most people don't want to read, but I also do not like being attacked with vague generalized statements that call my shared experience "claims" without someone providing proof of opposing points of views.

    I find it consistent that when the person does not have a solid argument, they invariable refer to the other person as "he" "him" and "his" like they are trying to rally support among the group to gang up on "him." I am a real person, Nightwing, and I'm right here. When you quote my posts, please speak directly to me, and be specific with proof to back up your claims.

    "Mysticism" is a false characterization. I never said it, implied it, nor is it true. It is a matter of personal responsibility of sharing certain insights openly on the internet. I never said it was "secret" but it is dangerous, and not everyone knows it.

    This is a fact. The beginner student does not know any of what I know. The advanced student does not know half of what I know. The Black Belt does not know everything that I know. Yes, there are levels of knowledge to be revealed and learned only at the Black Belt level and beyond, and only when the student is ready on an individual basis. This is not "mysticism" but wisdom in teaching a deadly art. If that doesn't satisfy you - - too bad!

    You have something to say here? A counter-point perhaps?
    The knowledge we possess today is built on the knowledge and accomplishments of those who came before us - the "Masters of old" as you say. "True Taekwondo" is merely a concept of true knowledge as opposed to falsehoods. It does not mean that there is only ONE way to apply the techniques, but the Korean Martial Art has curriculum that follows a unique philosophy and tactic. To stray from that core concept is teaching something other than Taekwondo. However, "True Taekwondo" is more about what is in the mind and heart of the individual, and less about what is on paper, or how wide a particular stance is.

    Here again, you paraphrase my statements as a "claim" as though you are about to PROVE it false, but then say nothing. NO counter-point. NO proof of anything. You are saying nothing here. What is YOUR argument?
    If you have a rifle that is manufactured of low quality (misfires, jams, doesn't shoot straight), then blame the weapon or the manufacturer. However, if you own a high quality weapon, and many experts have hit their targets consistently with it, but you miss frequently - - blame the shooter (and possibly the instructor who taught you to shoot poorly).

    Do you have an opposing point of view or are you just going to misquote me and add nothing more? What you allude to here pretty much sums up my life as a school owner and my 37 year career as a Taekwondo Instructor. What I teach is authentic as opposed to the many frauds and low quality instructors who are often the ones who give Taekwondo a bad reputation.
    The reality is - - I know what I know; I know it works; I know it is authentic as taught in Korea; and I know it is valuable. I am not a hobbyist. I make a living at what I teach, so I don't give away the knowledge for free, or I would be out of business. More importantly, though, I accept a responsibility to be cautious what I share, and with whom.

    As I smile in amusement, I'm thinking it appears that you are either a student of the ITF with biased notions, or you have been mislead by internet theories. If you want to know "everything" that is in the Korean Martial Art of Taekwondo, you need to study directly from a Master (not a book, video, or internet) and learn what is taught in Korea, as well as elsewhere.

    No, that is Choi's "Kwan" (Chang Hon system). The "ART' of Taekwondo was created through a group effort of many masters, and branched off in several directions with many associations and a lot of books published - not just Choi's version.

    First of all, not to be flippant, but if something WAS kept secret or "hidden" how would you know it. In every Martial Art that I have attained the Black Belt rank in (Judo, Aikido, Karate-do, and Taekwondo) there are always things passed on in classes and seminars that were never written down in books or any syllabus. Many things not taught until after Black Belt level.

    You got that right - - "as he saw it."

    Well... it is not. That is a known fact. Were you intending to offer a counter-point, or just quoting me again.

    People might mean Kukkiwon when they say WTF, but it is wrong & misleading. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

    No they are not. They are about as different in purpose and structure as you can possibly get.

    What two "styles?" If you mean "styles" of fighting in a tournament under specific rules, then I did not said they are the "same" but there is not a vast difference in the way Black Belts fight when competing in ITF, WTF, or ATA.

    Examples please. What kicks and punches are different, and exactly how?

    Explain that please. I know the theories of power from each, and see no difference. They are based on laws of physics.

    That's my point as well about imitators, but it is much more than just kicks that each TKD association has in common.

    Yes, what I said is all true. Thank you for agreeing with me, and supporting my point!

    BINGO! I believe I made this point earlier. Style changes readily with the performer, but a system is more consistent.

    You are correct that there is not "ONE" way or method, hence different systems and schools of thought that differ slightly.

    Well, here you have begun this verbal attack with "this reeks of.." then finished without stating any specifics, or an opposing point of view, or ANY facts to support anything. What's your point? Are you disputing something? Please state what!

    The FACTS are that MMA matches use gloves that pad the impact so a deadly strike of the fist is not possible. The FACT is that many of these matches go three rounds with a rest period, and if anything is not safe or legal, the referee separates the fighters and re-starts the match. NONE of this is reality fighting, so can not deemed an accurate representation of self defense.

    It seems apparent that you misunderstand this statement. It is not about us being able to beat one or two (which we can), the objection is that the rules ignore the potential damage that kicks and hand strikes can do before and after going to the ground. We would have to shift our whole strategy and training to compete that way, but you fight in the street the way you train, and we do not want to fight in the ground in REAL LIFE when multiple attackers or weapons might be present. MMA games do not take these real issues into account when comparing what techniques and tactics are "more effective" as a Martial Art.

    OK - watch MMA matches closely! How often do you see one guy get taken down, then the pounding where he attempts to cover his head and do nothing until the referee stops the match or the round ends (ha ha ha). There are ample opportunities to slip a thumb or finger into an eye socket, or quickly strike the trachea - even at close range on the ground. They don't do it, because IT'S NOT ALLOWED. Thus the fight continues for the grappler to win, when it may well have been over long ago.

    If spend most of my time training to kill someone quickly, and you spend most of your time training to grapple...
    who is likely to be better at grappling?
    who is likely to be better at killing quickly?
    I'll take breaking bones and deadly strikes to kill quickly over grappling any day!

    Apparently, you did not grasp the analogy. It is not an issue of "ranges." The analogy shows one soldier is skilled at shooting, but the other is better with a knife. The problem with the competition is that the shooter is not permitted to shoot his weapon, which removes his "effective" abilities. Let's say two guys face off in a ring, and they give the sniper a paint gun so he doesn't actually kill the other guy. The guy with the knife charges, and the guy with the paint gun tags him with several paint balls hitting potentially deadly targets. Naturally, this does not even slow the other guy down, so the guy with the knife tackles the guy with the gun (who continues to shoot his opponent with non-lethal paint balls). The other guy places the knife to his throat and says, "tap out or I will cut you." There! The knife is more deadly and a more effective than the gun! BS (Bull Snot)

    Thank you for agreeing with me. Yet, it is not just the "range" that is the problem, but permitted force and targets.

    NO. None of it makes any sense. That's why I say the whole concept of trying to compare Martial Art systems and their "effectiveness" based on sports where the rules prevent reality has no logic to it.

    I will be more than happy to converse with you if you keep it short with one or two points per post
    Thank you,
    Blue Knight
     
  11. Blue_Knight

    Blue_Knight Active Member

    I agree with your point here, bowlie. It reminds me of High School wresting. Three rounds - in the first round, both are on their feet, but they both have basically the same objective - - to try and take the other guy down. What if the objective of one wrestler was simply not to be taken down? It changes their whole strategy. In the next two rounds, the guy on the bottom is working to either escape, or reverse to the top position so he can then switch to the objective of pinning, or simply maintaining control. What if he didn't waste time training on reversals and pin maneuvers, but only on being the best at escapes?

    My wrestling coach used to tell us about a former wrestler who had only worked ONE move - - a counter to a single leg take-down that turned into a pin hold. He was so good at that ONE move, that he could work it from any angle. He would bait his opponents by sticking one leg forward and just dare them to take a single-leg takedown.

    In principle, I agree with this notion not to try and stay in the fight to win, but to SURVIVE - - whatever that takes. I teach to "escape" holds and controls, then do major damage. The problem with the mind-set of escaping as running away is that it only applies to specific circumstances. When I am in public with my three sons (each of which dealing with autism), I don't have the option of just escaping or getting away. Every possible scenario I consider and train for must include the best means of protecting my children. In a serious life-or-death situation, I would typically have to completely disable, knock out, or kill a violent or armed attacker.

    Well, I have defended against knives and other weapons, disarming attackers, and subduing them. It is very dangerous, and if the attacker is skilled, or on drugs, there are added risks, but you do what you gotta do when the stuff goes down. I teach methods to fight against all sorts of weapons. There are inherent risks, and it depends greatly on the skill of both the attacker and defender, as well as the timing of when to act. Even though we might get cut or shot and wounded, we have to at least have options for a fighting chance rather than just do nothing because there is a weapon.

    Yes, I agree with that as a standard strategy. Of course, each situation might vary and affect your priorities.


    Sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I have seen many Taekwondo Instructors (a lot of American Masters) who did not have proper training in throwing, yet were taught sweeps, reaps, and flips for one-steps and Hoshinsul. They did them poorly, incorrectly, and it looked very sloppy - yet they did not know any better. I have also worked with some Koreans who retained the influence from the early Kwan era when the Judo had been adopted into "Yudo" in Korea. They were very skilled at throws, and although I already had a background in Judo, I could see how they were integrating it with the Taekwondo, as was the original intent when the Kwans united.

    For many years, I have taught flips and throws as a subset of Taekwondo skills known as "Yusul." This means that it is not a stand-alone art (like Judo or Jujutsu) which work toward their own strategic end, but rather are the "techniques" of grappling that compliment the goal of Taekwondo. Too many modern TKD schools have discarded this portion of the original training, and their students suffer for it. I believe that like any other technique (a good punch, kick, or joint lock) there is the most ideal way to perform a throw to make it work effectively, and that knowledge does not belong exclusively to any one system, but should be in every system. How often and when you use it is contingent upon the situation, and the tactical goals of your particular system, but the techniques are basically the same if done correctly. Taekwondo does not have a better way of flipping than Judo, but it should not have an inferior technique in this area. It is up to the practitioner as to how much they are going to practice the technique and how good they are going to be at it. I have seen both good and bad in Taekwondo schools, but I don't care for the notion of trying to learn a complete second system that is often contrary to your base art.



    I agree. As my wrestling coach used to say when asked "how do you get out of this hold?... "The best way to get out of any hold is to not get into it."

    Of course, we do have to have a plan B to get out of any hold if we do find ourselves in that predicament.

    Blue Knight
     
  12. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Right direction for MMA? I dont think it can go in the right direction. The original MMA tornaments were interesting because people didnt have whole systems. Now its inevitably changed to an art in its own right, and lost the magic that made the early fights so interesting. I dont think you can change that, its just a natural consequence of success.
     
  13. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    Let me just say in some aspect your correct as that is the point of distant technique however personal space is extended and reaction times also, so the aspect of kicking from a practitioner is very very quick, i would not allow the attacker close to me and if the attackers/s did get close then i would use the other elements of TaeKwon Do, snaps tears,locks and all the other throws and destroying sides.

     
  14. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    Of course and agreed again in some, as you point out yourself, but your also pointing out your experience in this debate, so this is where we must both agree, discussions can only come from experience.

    Please note i do not care about badges as many in fact far to many rely on them to say they are the best, but each are only as good as the instructor teaching in each class experience.
     
    NoBullShitFighting likes this.
  15. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    please remember i meen no offence to any one and also please note i like the discussions as it shows me many different standing persons have.
    I would like to say i too come from Karate at 9yrs of age, by 15 yrs i had earnt (with lots of bumpbs and bruises) black belts in two styles, then Aikido for a while, But then i come across TKD and i have stuck with it because it suits be as i learnt and studied very much in depth not just 2 hours or less a week like many.
    Morning training, in the work break training, eavening after work training and then studying, this gave me the championships i won in many different locations and areas, but there are a million different groups and ares now lol.

    Lets just say that i must agree in so many schools and locations today, Taekwondo is not taught as it was meant to be and has become watered down.

    I unfortunatly see and know many black belts and even thier instructors that just do not deserve or even in some cases, should not be teaching.

    But i would help them improve, i also do not believe that i am the best instructor around. but i will point all in the best direction possible and open many peoples eyes to what the art of Tae Kwon DO has in its arsenal.

    Dont judge all practitioners by the teachings of an instructor with lack of knowledge.

    Sorry its a long read :) i can discuss this for a while.
     
  16. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    Well, you could regulate the different styles so that the fighters would have to use a clean style. This is often done in TV-events such as when people are testing what is better "KARATE VS. TAEKWONDO!!!" and is really popular, especially on youtube.

    I think that martial artist really like these tournaments for the difference in expression. It is fun whenever there is a really different fighter in the cage, like wing-chun with aikido, though they lose after a while.
     
    John McNally likes this.
  17. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member


    Your right and also its down to the fact that its always going to be difficult to get two poeple from two arts that are both of the simular abilty.

    I dont think we need to compare but just be the best we can be in the art we do.
    After all it is about the indevidual been the best they can be.
     
  18. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    However this would require a skill. If you have never faced a jab before you will probably close your eyes. So some of this skill can be developed in a sparring that allows punching to the face. That was my point when I talked about how sparring and self-defense goes together.

    I need to emphasize this. Because there are people that are concerned that sparring doesn't have any relevance for self-defense at all. Unless it is everything goes with knives and no padding, this is a belief with very little reliability. Even Brucle Lee said something along the lines of "Nothing can prepare you for a real fight", but when he did he was referring to the wing-chun and Thai-chi meditation he taught at that time, before he made JKD. JKD was a response and focused heavily on sparring and utility of safety equipment to allow a fuller expression, as at the time it was less usual to punch in the face and not fight in fixed stances dictated by style.
     
    John McNally likes this.
  19. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    Well said and yes we spar to get the student used to the situation and to use the skills or at least start improving them.
    A tingly nose and watery eyes has ended many fights.

    Or even stubbing a toe.

    The only way to be prepared to fight is to fight.
    Bare knuckles hurt a lot more than padded ones, in my early days i remember this well as we didnt have the money to buy the initial thin pads.
     
    NoBullShitFighting likes this.
  20. NoBullShitFighting

    NoBullShitFighting Active Member

    That is not entirely true though, if we interpret the oneness philosophy of taekwondo. Il-yeo and also to some extent derived from Tong-Il as a pinnacle of growth. every martial art systems seeks to perfect the human way of fighting. Since we have the same biology, same kinesthetic chain, organs, legs and arms, the end result of a martial art taken to its full perfection will always be the same. A boxer who has taken the jab and perfected it to maximum will have the same jab as a taekwondo practitioner who has perfected the jab to the maximum. The road just started of from boxing instead of taekwondo, but it reached the same destination. So in that aspect every martial art is unified.

    That is also why it is so arrogant to assume that ones martial art is the best and being conservative to changes that stand a real chance of enhancing it. It also halts the growth, when something isn't growing it is usually dying.
     

Share This Page