Is TKD really no good in a "real" fight?

**Lord Henry** · 10-07-2009, 13:51

Right off the bat I want to say that I don't want to start any fights with this topic. I don't want to talk about whether TKD is, or should be, a sport or a martial art and I don't want to get into the WTF verses ITF debate.

What I'm interested in is that there seems to be a general acceptance (I find it here on budoseek, on other websites, and even from some people at my dojong) that WKD is not very effective in a "real" (for that read "getting started on in the street") fight.

Where I train we occasionally practice TKD in it's Olympic form (which I enjoy but I don't want it to be the focus of this thread). However, for the most part we practice what I think of as TKD as a martial art. We practice kicks and hand strikes to all areas of the body, elbow and knee strikes, throws and joint locks. We probably spend 50% of the time purely on kicks and the other 50% on the rest.

Now I freely admit that I have little experience of other martial arts. However, other than a lack of wrestling and ground work I feel that all of the bases are covered in what I'm taught. I also feel that many of the moves and combinations that we learn bear some similarity to what I see in Muay Thai, which generally is considered a good "street fighting" martial art.

So, sorry for my long preamble, but my questions are these: 1) Is it fair to say that TKD is not a good martial art for "real" fights, and 2) if so, why and what makes other arts better suited?

Thanks as always.

Owen

**Eliz** · 10-07-2009, 14:16

Originally Posted by Lord Henry

Right off the bat I want to say that I don't want to start any fights with this topic. I don't want to talk about whether TKD is, or should be, a sport or a martial art and I don't want to get into the WTF verses ITF debate.

What I'm interested in is that there seems to be a general acceptance (I find it here on budoseek, on other websites, and even from some people at my dojong) that WKD is not very effective in a "real" (for that read "getting started on in the street") fight.

Where I train we occasionally practice TKD in it's Olympic form (which I enjoy but I don't want it to be the focus of this thread). However, for the most part we practice what I think of as TKD as a martial art. We practice kicks and hand strikes to all areas of the body, elbow and knee strikes, throws and joint locks. We probably spend 50% of the time purely on kicks and the other 50% on the rest.

Now I freely admit that I have little experience of other martial arts. However, other than a lack of wrestling and ground work I feel that all of the bases are covered in what I'm taught. I also feel that many of the moves and combinations that we learn bear some similarity to what I see in Muay Thai, which generally is considered a good "street fighting" martial art.

So, sorry for my long preamble, but my questions are these: 1) Is it fair to say that TKD is not a good martial art for "real" fights, and 2) if so, why and what makes other arts better suited?

Thanks as always.

Owen

The short answer: It depends entirely on the focus of your dojang and whether or not you are being presented with real attacks.

Some dojangs train for competition, some have a heavy concentration in tradition and forms work, but I know there are a few schools around here that really put a huge emphasis on street defense.

I think most would agree that kicking, blocking and punching are more then acceptable methods of defense.

What is missing in TKD, in my opinion, is ground work and joint locks.

Now that is just my short answer (I have to get dinner started). Hopefully some others will chime in here with a few more details.

**doubleouch** · 10-07-2009, 14:59

What's a "real fight?" Do what makes you happy. If you train TKD somewhere for a while and are still wondering then it means there is a problem with the training methods at your school. Practice should closely mimic the event being trained for. If your practice looks way different than the event YOU think you are training for then you'll never know if you are getting functional. Or, you are actually training for some other different kind of event.

**Tony Dismukes** · 10-07-2009, 16:20

I think Elizabeth and Cane are on the money.

Way back when I trained in TKD, many years ago, the curriculum was something like the following.

1) Repetition of various kicks. There was no distinction made between kicks that were effective for self-defense and those that were (at best) useful for sport or demonstrations.*

2) Forms. These were clearly derived from Shotokan karate and involved stepping around in low, wide stances, demonstrating hard-style blocks and punches.

3) Sparring. This involved completely different body mechanics and techniques from the forms. Participants would bounce around on their toes and throw kicks to the limited target areas allowed by the rules. The low stances and hard-style blocks from the forms were never used.

4) Self-defense. Once again, the body dynamics and techniques were pretty much completely different from the forms and the sparring. This mostly involved pre-set defenses against various grabs or other basic attacks that were performed in a static and not very realistic manner.

5) One-step sparring. This was more of a blend between the forms and self-defense than it was anything to do with the sparring. In these exercises, the "attacker" would step forward with a lunge punch from too far away, so that full extension the fist would not quite reach the "defender", and leave the punch fully extended. The the defender would "block" the punch and perform some sort of pre-set counter.

*(When I asked my instructor after class if the straight-legged inside-to-outside crescent kick to the head was really an effective street technique, his response was "You no worry about that. You train hard two years, you get black belt, you fight good.")

Needless to say, I would not consider this sort of training to be effective for developing self-defense skills. If I thought that my limited exposure to TKD was representative of all TKD schools, then I would have a very low opinion of the art. However, I'm quite sure that there are a lot of TKD schools out there which do a much better job of training students for self-defense. You just have to look at how the individual instructor is presenting the art.

**doubleouch** · 10-07-2009, 19:57

That's funny Tony. I wonder how many of us had that exact same experience... We were all training in the dark back in the days before the UFC came along.

**Prince Loeffler** · 10-07-2009, 20:59

How does one define a style in a "real" fight ? If I punch him in the face and I trained in TKD , would I being doing a karate style "fight" ?

**Jonathan Randall** · 10-07-2009, 22:30

I think a better way to phrase the question would be this:

"Can TKD be any good in a fight?".

Answer:

Of course it can, depending upon how it is taught and trained in. Tony's done an excellent job of breaking down the TKD experience many of us had, and the limitations thereof, but as Eliz Seuferling stated, groundwork and joint locks are limited and you do need some exposure to this as well. Ok, the TKD instructor down the street from where I used to live obtained a purple belt in GJJ and now gives workshops on such skills. I bet there are folks like this in your area as well.

**Tony Dismukes** · 10-07-2009, 23:06

Just in case it's not clear from the description, my actual complaints about my TKD experience were as follows:

1) The forms, sparring, and "self-defense" all relied on completely different body mechanics, so practicing one did nothing to reinforce the others. In the event of a real fight, which set of movements would you fall back on?

2) Sparring rules disallowed 90 - 95% of the attacks that a real attacker might throw at you. (Of course, sparring can never fully emulate a real fight, but this was ridiculous.)

3) Practicing defenses against punches that couldn't even reach you in the first place teaches bad distancing and timing.

4) Emphasis on the flashy parts of the curriculum over the reliable "bread-and-butter" techniques.

5) "You train hard two years, you get black belt, you fight good." - Low standards to attract students and tempt them with belt ranks instead of challenging training experiences.

6) "Self-defense" techniques practiced against static, unrealistic attacks.

None of these flaws are necessarily inherent to the martial art of Tae Kwon Do - they're just part of how it's being taught in certain schools. A good instructor can certainly teach TKD without falling into these mistakes, and I'm certain that many do. Such an instructor should produce students who can do very well in the unarmed striking aspects of a real fight.

**David Craik** · 10-08-2009, 05:01

Tae Kwon Do is the standard martial art of the South Korean military, I've sparred with their guys on a few occasions and think they would do very well in a 'real' fight. So I guess it depends on your dojang, the TKD they do and I did in the '80s doesn't look much like the TKD I have seen today.

**doubleouch** · 10-08-2009, 11:19

Well put Tony. That was exactly my experience with TKD.

**Lord Henry** · 10-08-2009, 14:07

As always thank you all for the insightful responses. As a couple of people have legitimately raised the issue of what I mean by a "real" fight I thought I would give a bit more detail. The reason that this question is on my mind at the moment is that I'm currently training as a defence barrister (or defence atterny for those of you in the US). When I qualify I will be spending a lot of time meeting clients in police stations, prisons, drug rehabilitation centres, and other environments where people are more likely than normal to become physically aggressive. Whilst I'm confident that I will mainly keep myself safe through situational awareness and talking people down before things get violent I would also like to know that I have a few tools in the bag if I have no other choice but a fight. I have therefore become a bit concerned by the opinion that some people seem to have that I might as well just take up sprinting rather than TKD for the purposes of self defence.

Tony has made some very interesting points. Possibly worryingly his first post pretty accurately describes how I have been instructed in TKD and on reflection I would say that points 1,2,3, and 6 of his second post are valid in relation to my training. In defence of my instructor I would say that he certainly does enforce high standards and expectations and when teaching techniques and combinations there is an strong emphasis on "what works" (don't throw a kick that they are likely to catch, don't turn your back on an opponent unless you are sure that you can land the strike without getting hit). However the comments about the artificial nature of sparring and one step sparring, and about the fractured nature of the curriculum, are completely fair.

Again I apologise for going on for so long but given what I've said do you think that I should be looking for a new dojong, looking for a new martial art, or am I panicking and should stick where I am?

Owen

**Tony Dismukes** · 10-08-2009, 14:45

Again I apologise for going on for so long but given what I've said do you think that I should be looking for a new dojong, looking for a new martial art, or am I panicking and should stick where I am?

What are your reasons for training? If you primarily do TKD for the exercise, the sport, or the social interaction and you are happy at your current school, then I see no reason for you to change.

If self-defense is a major concern, then you might visit some other dojos in your area and see what they have to offer. Now that you know some concerns with your current instruction, you have some ideas of what to look for when evaluating other schools.

**Jonathan Randall** · 10-08-2009, 18:56

Originally Posted by David Craik

Tae Kwon Do is the standard martial art of the South Korean military, I've sparred with their guys on a few occasions and think they would do very well in a 'real' fight. So I guess it depends on your dojang, the TKD they do and I did in the '80s doesn't look much like the TKD I have seen today.

Yup, and that is why the question would be better phrased as "Can TKD be effective", with an answer of YES - depending upon how it is trained. One of my 1980's TKD instructors learned in the ROK Armed Forces (he actually fought in the Korean War). His training was completely different than what I experienced in the ATA. Less techniques with him but drilled much harder and with more practicality. He also insisted students learn basic throws and how to fall and regularly drilled these. His purple belts had better rounded skills with far less flash than today's 3rd dans possess, IMHO. They might not have been able to tap someone with their foot as quickly, but if they hit you, you knew it.

**doubleouch** · 10-10-2009, 13:16

In the situations you mentioned I think a flying side kick to the head would be inappropriate. Probalby dropping into a kata would not work either. I'd imagine some sort of grappling art suplimented with some good old fashioned boxing would be far better. For self defense most of what you learn in most TKD schools is extra. There is a lot of "art" that isn't really related to defending yourself at all. Everything you'd learn in a boxing ring would translate easily. As would most of the grappling at a good BJJ or Judo school.

**TonyU** · 10-10-2009, 13:25

One doesn't drop into a kata.

**David Craik** · 10-10-2009, 15:12

X 2.

'Drop into a kata'...

**Lord Henry** · 10-13-2009, 14:33

OK, I appreciate that I am going off (my own) topic, and if a mod feels that this thread now belongs somewhere else (though I'm not sure where) then I very much understand that. However, as everything that follows has been prompted by this thread (and in particular Tony's insightful and thought provoking posts) I thought that the right place for this post was here.

The responses to my original question have lead me to question what I am really looking for in a martial art. While the challenge and the fitness and the social experience are all important it is self defence that really matters to me. To me this means an art with a wide spread of skills (strikes, kicks, throws, locks, and groundwork). Further, for me especially, this means an art that is not rooted in physical strength (at 175cm and 65kg I'd be lucky to survive a stand up slug fest with your average cheerleader).

So, I have embarked on a quest for the 'right' art for me (or the right art for me at this time in my life). This week I have attended a Hapkido class and an Aikido class, and I have a Ju Jitsu class lined up for Thursday. I intend to start a separate thread to cover this little adventure that I'm on (any suggestions on where that should be posted?), but as this was that thread that started all of this I just wanted to say thank you to you all for starting me on the first step to what will hopefully be a better relationship with the martial arts.

Thank you all again,

Owen

**Eliz** · 10-13-2009, 15:43

If you are posting about your journey, I would suggest General Martial Arts.

.......

Originally Posted by Doubleouch

Probalby dropping into a kata would not work

**Hack Foo Doe** · 10-15-2009, 07:23

That's the Issue with TKD and TSD, regards their use of Hyungs, Poomse or Kata (as it will be called for the rest of the post)

Not much "REAL" use or application of the forms is taught. This is due to the Masters who were taught by their Japanese Instructors were not given the full training involved.

The Self-Defence techniques are there for what reason (its like buying a Dog and barking yourself)? Kata is all you need, if you know how to apply it that is.

If you look at "REAL" kata then you will see so many usages of the forms.

Take Naihanchi (Naifanchi chodan) many Japanese Karateka spent anywhere upto 10 years perfecting the form. There are so many usages of these movements. It is completely a Grappling form for both Stand-up AND Groundfighting.

Also if we take Chil Sung Ee Ro Hyung from TSD my version of this is completely different to the one I was taught. It involves locks, throws, Chokes, neck wrenches and even joint/bone breaks and dealing with multiple attackers

Real TKD and TSD are genuine arts that are really effective but the bouncy bouncy (no guard) tippy tappy spinny spinny Olympic style would not work in the street.

I think you should look more to another art formed by a famous Korean he went by the name of Mas Oyama and he founded Kyokushinkai - this is a more effective art for real street fights - it was formed from Sosai's experience as a street fighter etc and involve full contact fighting (in sparring no strikes to the face/joints are allowed but as experienced Martial artists you'll know how easy it is to strike those areas anyways).

I hope I have not offended anyone as it was not the direction of my post, just stating my observations (My Uncle was/is 4th Degree in TKD)

**Tony Dismukes** · 10-15-2009, 08:21

Originally Posted by Tony Dismukes

None of these flaws are necessarily inherent to the martial art of Tae Kwon Do - they're just part of how it's being taught in certain schools. A good instructor can certainly teach TKD without falling into these mistakes, and I'm certain that many do.

Okay, now I'm curious. I've heard consistently good things about the ROK approach to TKD, but they can't be the only ones doing a good job of teaching TKD for self-defense. I'd be interested to hear from any of our other TKD practitioners - how do your schools do in avoiding the six training flaws that I listed earlier?