Does TaeKwonDo teach a false sense of security?

[RedJunkRebel]

Do you think TaeKwonDo gives people a false sense of security? We know it can be great for fitness and for sport but is this what the world needs? Or do you think most people need a more practical art such as Wing Chun? I'm interested to read some of your thoughts on this...

[taltos]

Do I think TaeKwonDo gives people a false sense of security? No. I think that certain students give themselves a false sense of security by not taking their training realistically and seriously. I think certain instructors give their students a false sense of security by not being realistic in their appraisal of a student's skill and in their training curriculum. And I think certain co-students give each other a false sense of security by not respecting them enough to actually ensure that they "have it." I don't think this is something that any one style/school/system/family/lineage has a monopoly on. It is far too prevalent across the board IMO.

-Levi

[anerlich]

You are far more likely to die of lifestyle-related heart disease than of a violent assault, so arguably fitness and sport ARE what the world needs.

Your post assumes that WC is practical, and more practical than TKD - for some purpose. If your purpose is developing lower body flexibility, WC comes a distant second.

For self defense, it's debatable whether either art is as practical as many other disciplines, and also whether WC itself does not engender a similar false sense of security.

IMHO most people find it harder to learn to kick effectively and safely than they do to strike with their hands, and there are other issues that may effect this such as choice of streetwear, etc. so perhaps from that POV you could be correct.

The "theory" of TKD may be less effective than that of WC, but OTOH many TKD competitors will train harder and have greater athleticism than most WC'ers.

In the end, what difference does it make?

[Knifefighter]

Many TKD practioners gear up and spar with full contact force, which is more than some WCer's whose haredest sparring is doing chi sao, can claim. In those cases, it's not the TKD people who have a false sense of security.

[SAAMAG]

A false sense of security, just as knifefighter just said with specifics, is derived from never stepping foot into a testing ground to see if your style works, with someone "actually trying to hit you".

I just had a conversation with a friend of mine who is taking wing chun now...and he told me that the only experience anyone in the class has ever had even close to real combat was chi sao. UHHH OHHH. Looks like KF has a point to all his ranting....

Don't get me wrong...I love wing chun, and believe it has more streetfighting relevance than most styles do...but at the same time, no one doctrine has all the answers in the totality of fighting. Except maybe Shaolin Do....hehehe.

[kiddle]

Originally posted by RedJunkRebel
Do you think TaeKwonDo gives people a false sense of security? We know it can be great for fitness and for sport but is this what the world needs? Or do you think most people need a more practical art such as Wing Chun? I'm interested to read some of your thoughts on this...

This week I hung out with a Wing Chun Instructor in New York and had a blast. I asked him what's special about Wing Chun and that started a lesson on the basics, which prompted me to reply to this question. No offense intended.

I don't think some Abstract thing, like an Art, can give people a true or false sense of security. Its hard to measure abstract things, we should make physical goals which certainly can be tested. The trick lies in how to test, compare and evaluate. Maybe we will get it right, perhaps we won't.

Kid

[sihing]

By "false sence of securtiy" you mean someone feels that because they have learned a MA they think they will have no problems when being attacked. The first problem with this is the anticipation of the outcome of a random event to which know one has complete control. The key here is to realize that our training and skills are only tools that can help (to varying degrees depending on the quality of skill), and that the uses of these skills is a last resort and that there are many other ways to deal with physical confrontations. If your skill level is very high, the thoughts of a confrontation will not arise and this will show in the way you are preceived by others, confidence and the aura of "competence" is what people will see, therefore one would not be a "easy" target or weak by those looking for trouble. If the skill level is in question, one may try to convince themselves that they possess high skill and therefore their arrogance will shine through. They portray themself in a vulnerable way to which
trouble makers see as a weakness and a easy target.

James

[Wayfaring]

When I studied TKD I didn't get a false sense of security.

I got a sense of flexibility, a sense of sparring every class, a sense of power with legs, a sense of aerobic and anerobic conditioning.

And some downright pretty outstanding 3 minute heavy bag drills.

Rgds,
Dave

[couch]

When I was younger and practising Kung-Fu, I used to say:

Karate sucks, Kung-Fu is better.
TKD sucks, Kung-Fu is better...more complete, yada, yada.

But now that I've been in the MA for a little while and have seen what other people can do with their MA, I've shut my mouth.

Because it's better that these people are on my side and not against me. ;)

I don't think that any one art gives a false sense of security. I think it is up to each individual student to train effectively and realistically. You can't just go into a kwoon, learn all the forms or poomses(sp?), spar a bit and be ready for the life-or-death attack.

If one wishes to train for sport, then fine. Cardio, fine. But if you want to make it work on the street, that's an individual deal. I think that people confuse the differences. Look at all those people doing Tae Bo thinking that their learning how to defend themselves. (Well, Billy puts that on the back of the box, unfortunately.)

Peace,
Kenton Sefcik

[Ultimatewingchun]

In theory...some styles offer more real-world application technique than others...(obviously TKD's lack of any serious striking skills is an example)....

BUT....

it's all in the training - and the individual.

Had someone with many years of martial arts experience join my school once after he saw his TKD instructor get knocked out by some guy off the street with some boxing skills who walked into the TKD school one day and challenged the instructor...got past his legs to the inside and dropped him with some hook punches...

but I've also seen many Wing Chun people who would be kicked and dropped by almost any good TKD blackbelt.

How do you train?

And how good are you as an individual?

Those are the key questions...not what style(s) you do.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
In theory...some styles offer more real-world application technique than others...(obviously TKD's lack of any serious striking skills is an example)....

BUT....

it's all in the training - and the individual.

Had someone with many years of martial arts experience join my school once after he saw his TKD instructor get knocked out by some guy off the street with some boxing skills who walked into the TKD school one day and challenged the instructor...got past his legs to the inside and dropped him with some hook punches...

but I've also seen many Wing Chun people who would be kicked and dropped by almost any good TKD blackbelt.

How do you train?

And how good are you as an individual?

Those are the key questions...not what style(s) you do.

It is a bit of both, agreed. Just because someone puts their name in the school registry doesn't mean the will have skill in Wing Chun. But the examples above, is it the result of the Art being less effective or the practitioner not being able to use the Art they practice, due to lack of practice or just not able to apply the movements of the Art for whatever reason. We too have had tons of people from different Art's come in and join the school. Some just wanted to learn something different and heard about Wing Chun's uniqueness, while other's heard about Wing Chun effectiveness and dropped what they were learning and joined for that reason. When ever I talk with these people I tell them what I think about the Wing Chun art, never about the other Arts or how lousy/good they are, so there is never a comparison of effectiveness, but I do tell them that IMO WC is the most effective MA because that is what I believe, but I preface that with the words "You have to learn and understand the Art very well, and practice hard and consistently to achieve skill in it". So as with anything worthwhile, it is not handed to you on a silver platter.

James

[monkeyspoon]

I do tae kwon do. Now, in the past I have been afraid to mention this, as i have always feared becoming a partial artist.

But im a few years into both tae kwon do and wing chun, i took up both being naive and thinking, surely there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. I have gone through periods where I thought i should stop tae kwon do, so as to protect the things I have trained in wing chun. But I see tae kwon do as good all around fitness, flexibility and FUN. I enjoy it, and to me that's important.

To answer the question, it can give a false sense of security. But one thing ive thought is that if you get into a situation where you have to fight, you need to be confident, just for that period of time.....you need to want to take the guys head off. The danger is that you think you can fight on the street in the same way you do in sparring, this also depends on how you go about your sparring i guess. Where i train theres no take downs, no grappling of any kind, no strikes to the back, nothing below the belt, set starting distances, lots of bouncing etc, lots of sneakiness and trickery. It is great to train with people of different shapes and sizes that have contrasting abilities and to once in a while it makes you realise just how diversely people can move etc.

So in a confrontation, i wont be thinking 'tae kwon do mode' but to be honest, im not going to be 'wing chun mode'. its going to be 'hit him and stop him hitting me mode' and hope that all the skills developed by drills and chi sau and sparring and everything kicks in automatically. Throughout my training though i evaluate everything i learn and i always think about how i would apply it and if it would work for me...this needs to be done whatever style you do. All these opinions of mine may change over time though, its still early days for me, but im always going to try and be fit (cv style) in addition to the wonderous benefits of wing chun.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good thoughts, Owen.

[Matrix]

Hey Victor,
The url that you have in your profile for your homepage seems to be out of date or something.
Just thought you might like to know..

[Matrix]

Originally posted by taltos
I don't think this is something that any one style/school/system/family/lineage has a monopoly on. It is far too prevalent across the board IMO. I think that Levi's comment pretty much sums it up for me.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Yeah...I know, Bill.

My website is down right now.

Thanks.

[Tom Kagan]

Originally posted by RedJunkRebel
Do you think TaeKwonDo gives people a false sense of security? We know it can be great for fitness and for sport but is this what the world needs? Or do you think most people need a more practical art such as Wing Chun? I'm interested to read some of your thoughts on this...


Practical? By that, do you mean being able to commit, at will, a violent act for whatever purpose deemed necessary?

Within that context, if any martial art taught today were practical, all of the world's military would drop their weapons and assume their particular art's JongSao position. A boxer would drop their grenade launcher and put up their dukes. Groundfighters would ditch their M4 to lie down and pull guard. Escrima practitioners wouldn't call for air support, they'd whip out a stick.

If you definition of practical is associated with violence, then weapons are practical - having friends are practical. However, that perspective is already fostering a false sense of security.

Is a practical martial art about violence? Ambushes are practical. Stalking is practical. It's been that way since society began and a caveman named Ooaaoock picked up a rock and bashed his neighbor's skull in for discarding Manmouth bones in front of his cave while his neighbor was walking the pet dino. The ancestors who created and refined VingTsun were not stupid; They did not live in a vacuum; They knew this - do we? ;)





Everyone who talks about "self-defense" in a martial arts context, sooner or later mentions (hopefully) that the first choice in a potentially violent scenario should be to run as fast as you can away from danger and towards safety.

Is that premise true? When was the last time you worked on perfecting your running form? When was the last time you worked on perfecting your skills at obstacle negotiation while sprinting? What was the last supposedly practical self-defense martial art that ever trained these important "self-defense" skills?




Martial arts are about a person learning to express their true nature within the confines of a set of rules and methods intended to bring the person to the point where they actually can express their true nature (in whole or in part).

So, you don't like the rules and/or methods which define TaeKwanDo or VingTsun? Pick another martial art.

You don't like the basic rules which define martial arts? Pick another art or sport like ballet or baseball.

You don't like sports? Pick something like origami or painting.

You don't like any of these things? Find something.

Find something - anything! Otherwise, you are without "hope for the future."

[kj]

Tom, hands down to you when it comes to perspective and sparking introspection. Thanks for another great and reflective post.

Regards,
- kj

[Tom Kagan]

Originally posted by kj
Tom, hands down to you when it comes to perspective and sparking introspection. Thanks for another great and reflective post.

Regards,
- kj


You know, one of the things I managed to learn while studying VingTsun was how to take a compliment. Sometimes, I used to actually argue with someone who would say something positive to me. The perfectionist in me would be hard pressed to accept they knew what they were talking about - kind of nutty, don't you think?

Now, at least I'm at a point where I can eke out the occasional "thank you" or, at least, stay quiet and nod.


So, thank you. I appreciate your words. But, sheesh! You're beginning to embarrass me. :D


For what it's worth, I greatly enjoy your cyberspace version of VingTsun "TongueFu", too.

:)

[RedJunkRebel]

Thanks for everyone's responses so far. From what I gather, many here don't believe the theories and principles of Wing Chun to be more practical than those of TaeKwonDo. From the responses above, it seems as though most people's opinions are that it doesn't matter which art you study... believing more that its a matter of the individual. Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

[Knifefighter]

Of course it matters what art you study. If someone has only trained a standup system and never done any groundfighting or grappling and is taken to the ground by someone who has been trained in groundfighting for a long period of time, the groundfighter will generally demolish him.

But that is only one part of the equation. The other two parts are how the system is trained and the attributes of the person who is training.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Of course it matters what art you study. If someone has only trained a standup system and never done any groundfighting or grappling and is taken to the ground by someone who has been trained in groundfighting for a long period of time, the groundfighter will generally demolish him.

But that is only one part of the equation. The other two parts are how the system is trained and the attributes of the person who is training.

I actually agree with you here Dale (believe it or not I can do that, lol), so good post. But the same is true of the person training solely in groundfighting, facing the standup fighter, if he stays there he will be in trouble. That's the thing, don't play their game but play your own, and be familiar with there game also. My main problem with crosstraining is time commitment. If you have the time to do it then that's great and obviously it will not harm you as long as you have your base system and add on to it, but if you don't have the time, like most people, then what do you do? Be a jack of all trade's or Master of One?

James

[Airdrawndagger]

Quick Question:

Do ANY of you think that you have mastered Ving Tsun?? If not then how do you know if you can't handle a grappler if you were? Or any other fighters or systems...
Those are the real questions that need to be answered, and no one can. So it is really based on belief and how much you believe in VT. Til that happens then its all speculation.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by RedJunkRebel
From what I gather, many here don't believe the theories and principles of Wing Chun to be more practical than those of TaeKwonDo. That was not the question that was asked. So I'm not sure how you're drawing that conclusion from the responses. Having studied both TKD and WC, there is little doubt in my mind that WC is a superior art. That is just my opinion, based on my experience.
TKD can be effective, therefore there is not necessarily are false sense of security. However, I think there are better arts/systems out there.

[RedJunkRebel]

Originally posted by Matrix
Having studied both TKD and WC, there is little doubt in my mind that WC is a superior art. TKD can be effective, therefore there is not necessarily are false sense of security. However, I think there are better arts/systems out there. Why do you believe Wing Chun is superior to TKD and why do you think there are better arts/systems than TKD?

[Airdrawndagger]

Having studied both arts for a number of years I can only comment on the following regarding the 2 arts.

1. When you engage in a fight the majority of fights do not envolve facing of, and majority of the time you are not allowed the distance, time, or opportunities to launch a sound offensive strike using the tools that TKD has to offer. You need room to kick someones head with a round house or flurry of kicks.
Wing Chun can be performed in very tight quarters allowing you to take advantage of WC's arrsenal.
2. TKD is used alot in sport, with emphasis on point scoring. And although scoring a point takes skill, WC trains for actual real life combat and was divised to beat all other arts.
3. WC simply has more to offer in regards to both offense and defense and is alot more sophisticated in philosophy and principle.

I still practice some TKD. It is very good for flexability and exercise. Don't get me wrong, if you are kicked by an experienced TKD guy you will suffer a great deal of pain, but the offensive and defensive stratagies that TKD has to offer is limited, and can be over come by basic WC stratagies. I remember when I sparred a 3rd degree black belt who was a marine at the time. He was 6'2 and was in shape. He had some of the fastest kicks id seen, and i knew if he kicked me then it wouldn't feel good, but I knew that if I stepped into his kicking range he would not be able to use 80% of his weapons. Once i stepped in he was easily controled and attacked.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Airdrawndagger
Don't get me wrong, if you are kicked by an experienced TKD guy you will suffer a great deal of pain, but the offensive and defensive stratagies that TKD has to offer is limited, and can be over come by basic WC stratagies. Airdrawndagger,
This is very true. Never underestimate an opponent. Preconceived notions about specific arts can get you in trouble.

[Airdrawndagger]

Very True
You cannot try to anticipate an attack or out come of an attack, you can only react to the situation. People come in all shapes and sizes, with different wills and ambitions. The same person who my not be a very good at one art or style, may very well be extremely proficient in another.
Can you defend yourself using TKD? Of course you can! That isn't my point, my point is that WC has greater advantages when it comes to attack and defense.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by RedJunkRebel
Why do you believe Wing Chun is superior to TKD and why do you think there are better arts/systems than TKD?
RedJunkRebel,

I certainly don't want to offend any TKD people. Like I said previously my opinions are based solely on my own experience.

The fact that WC has core principles and philosophies makes it better than TKD. Centerline, body unity and structure are fundamental concepts that are intergrated in WC and are taught from day-one. TKD does not have any equivalent concepts that are explicitly taught. The TKD "system" as I see it is a progression of more complex skills that require to do them to jump higher, and kick faster and harder as you move up the ranks so to speak.

TKD teaches a progression that I see as more athletic/gymnastic in nature, that while they require more "skill", that skill does not necessarily translate into practical fighting ability. For example, first you learn a hook-kick, then a 180-degree hook, then a 360 degree hook, then a jumping 180 degree hook. Sorry, but I think the hook kick is dangerous enough as you expose your back to the opponent momentarily, although it can be very effective if you can land it. But a jumping hook kick leaves you extremely vulnerable to counter attacks. Jumping kicks of any kind, while flashy and nice for demos, leave you up in the air while your opponent can easily move around you. Then you need to land and recover. therefore not practical IMO.

TKD has what I think is an over-emphasis on kicking to the real detriment of hand techniques. Depending on the federation of TKD, hand techniques are not widely used outside of forms. Which brings up the point that I think that TKD has too many forms. It becomes a question of memorizing forms that seem to have no real function, unlike WC, which has few forms which serve as the unwritten text book for the art.

TKD 'sparring' has too many rules, which again removes it from pratical application. I don't know how many times I trapped a kick in 'sparring', and was told it was "illegal". Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

TKD tries to teach If-A-happens-then-respond-with-B. WC allows the flow of the interaction to dictate the response. In TKD they try to determine what the opponent will do, and reply with the appropriate response. In WC, I just take the center-line and respond to what my senses tell me. I don't need to hope that I guess correctly, or feel that I need to out-think the opponent as if we were playing a game of chess.

I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that. For all of these reasons and more, I think that WC is superior to TKD. At least it is for me.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Airdrawndagger
Can you defend yourself using TKD? Of course you can! That isn't my point, my point is that WC has greater advantages when it comes to attack and defense. Airdrawndagger,
I certainly agree with your point.

Another funny thing, is that I had an experience very similar to your 3rd Degree Black Belt story above. Small world. :)

[Airdrawndagger]

What happened?

[rogue]

That isn't my point, my point is that WC has greater advantages when it comes to attack and defense.
Only if you train as realistically as possible. All the theory, structure and rooting won't help you if you can't even use it in free form sparring.

[anerlich]

"Quick Question:"

Actually you ask several questions, but who cares.

"Do ANY of you think that you have mastered Ving Tsun?? If not then how do you know if you can't handle a grappler if you were? Or any other fighters or systems..."

What if you've mastered grappling? if the person who's mastered grappling meets the person who's mastered WC, who wins? We're at irresistible force/immovable object ... or to be more accurate, trapped in a quagmire of the speculation you mention below.

"Those are the real questions that need to be answered, and no one can."

They are not real questions, they are hypothetical questions. The only answers that can be given are hypothetical.

"So it is really based on belief and how much you believe in VT. Til that happens then its all speculation."

Belief (faith), or speculation. Neither is a substitute for empirical investigation.

[Airdrawndagger]

Originally posted by anerlich
"Quick Question:"

Actually you ask several questions, but who cares.

"Do ANY of you think that you have mastered Ving Tsun?? If not then how do you know if you can't handle a grappler if you were? Or any other fighters or systems..."

What if you've mastered grappling? if the person who's mastered grappling meets the person who's mastered WC, who wins? We're at irresistible force/immovable object ... or to be more accurate, trapped in a quagmire of the speculation you mention below.

"Those are the real questions that need to be answered, and no one can."

They are not real questions, they are hypothetical questions. The only answers that can be given are hypothetical.

"So it is really based on belief and how much you believe in VT. Til that happens then its all speculation."

Belief (faith), or speculation. Neither is a substitute for empirical investigation.

The point is that we can speculate and pull the ole "What if" questions out of the barrel of "what ifs" until the end of time.

Thats why opinions are speculative, because there are no absoulutes.
If by stating empirical investigation you mean fighting other styles than if you don't believe you will win, or you don't believe in yourself, or you don't believe in your abilities than there will never be any empirical investigation.... not the substitute but the defining charateristic of mastery.

[anerlich]

If by stating empirical investigation you mean fighting other styles than if you don't believe you will win, or you don't believe in yourself, or you don't believe in your abilities than there will never be any empirical investigation.... not the substitute but the defining charateristic of mastery.

That's true of any test, battle or endeavor. It is completely independent of stylistic considerations, which is the subject of the thread. It applies equally to TKD, WC or grappling stylists, or those that might combine them.


The point is that we can speculate and pull the ole "What if" questions out of the barrel of "what ifs" until the end of time.

Exactly. So why did you bring up the "Are you a master? If not then how do you know if you can't handle a grappler if you were? " thing?

Asbel Cancio v. Dave Beneteau. David Levicki vs Rickson. How's that for empirical evidence?

[anerlich]

I edited my post to reflect irrefutable events. I got carried away.

[Airdrawndagger]

Originally posted by anerlich
That's true of any test, battle or endeavor. It is completely independent of stylistic considerations, which is the subject of the thread. It applies equally to TKD, WC or grappling stylists, or those that might combine them.



Exactly. So why did you bring up the "Are you a master? If not then how do you know if you can't handle a grappler if you were? " thing?

Asbel Cancio v. Dave Beneteau. David Levicki vs Rickson. How's that for empirical evidence?

If you do not know why I brought up the "Are you a master"? question then you have really missed the point, which I have explained and will not explain again... And it never started with "What if":D
2 encounters that make no difference to me because 2 fights certainly do not prove or disprove anything but the ability or lack of ability of 4 people. Hardly concrete evidence that would solidify your point.

Getting back to the suject, you can only create a false sense of security if you underestimate your opponent. You cant blame the tools you use to fight, just the fighter using the tools.

[SevenStar]

it's the training methods.

[anerlich]

If you do not know why I brought up the "Are you a master"? question then you have really missed the point, which I have explained and will not explain again

The point no doubt deserved to be missed, and I'm glad you're not going to try articulating it again.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by crimsonking
Re the thread title - It's not the art, it's the teacher. While I certainly agree that a great teacher is vital to any study, I would also say that a great teacher, teaching a flawed system is limited by that system. On the other side of the coin, a great system can lose all of it's greatness when 'taught' by a poor instructor.

IMO, what you want is a superior art, taught by a great teacher.

[taltos]

Originally posted by Matrix
IMO, what you want is a superior art, taught by a great teacher.

True. And to finish it off...

The perfect combination is a superior art, taught by a great teacher to a dedicated student.

-Levi

[Matrix]

Originally posted by taltos
The perfect combination is a superior art, taught by a great teacher to a dedicated student. Nice point. :)

[shaolinsoccer]

I think all depends on your instructor. When I was taking TKD we had a 2nd Dan calling himself Master & saying he could do this & that, & TKD was a "deadly art". Then he would have new students breaking boards and blocks. Sure, they had a false sense of security. Being able to break a board does not mean you will be able to fight your way out of a situation. Most of the TKD stylists I've known are not that great of fighters, but sure think they are/were.

[Airdrawndagger]

Originally posted by anerlich
The point no doubt deserved to be missed, and I'm glad you're not going to try articulating it again.

Well Im glad you do such a good job at missing the point.:p

[rogue]

Originally posted by shaolinsoccer
I think all depends on your instructor. When I was taking TKD we had a 2nd Dan calling himself Master & saying he could do this & that, & TKD was a "deadly art". Then he would have new students breaking boards and blocks. Sure, they had a false sense of security. Being able to break a board does not mean you will be able to fight your way out of a situation. Most of the TKD stylists I've known are not that great of fighters, but sure think they are/were.
So they have much in common with WC peeps.:p