tae kwon do

[Garth Barnard]

If there is documented history of the soldiers unit being taught boxing for combat purposes, and the soldier used the same boxing techniques in combat to dispatch an opponent, then is suppose the answer would have to be yes!

I don't give in that easy!

Take it easy,

Garth Barnard.
B.F.M.A.A.

[Thai Bri]

OK then clever dick! How about if he stuck a finger up his nose? Eh? Eh?

[Damian Mavis]

Ya Great Sage I agree with you, I've never thought TKD was created through military use, I've always known TKD was the unification of several different arts and heavily influenced by karate.

Damian Mavis
Honour TKD

[Garth Barnard]

Originally posted by Thai Bri
OK then clever dick! How about if he stuck a finger up his nose? Eh? Eh?

Ok, ok, you win, you remain undefeated, but don't ever, ever, call me clever!

Regards,

Garth Barnard.

[ryanhall]

but don't ever, ever, call me clever

Clever girl...

And Bitty remains atop the internet debators ranks.

[Szczepankiewicz]

And Bitty remains atop the internet debators ranks.

All HAIL the KING baby!

[Garth Barnard]

LMAO, all this kicking dirt on my shoes - I love you guys!

So, forget opinions, what qualities define a martial art for it to be called a military art?

[Thai Bri]

Its all semantics I suppose. Isn't "martial" supposed to mean war like anyway? But we use the word to refer to oriental (mostly) fighting arts.

A guy called Matt Larsen was on the forum some months back. He is in charge of the unarmed combat training of US Army Rangers. He uses BJJ as the core of what he teaches! So does that mean BJJ is a military art?

I don't know much about foreig armies, but in WW2 a style developed and is loosely called WW2 Combatives. The founders had already studied many Oriental and Western arts, and reduced them down to a very small syllabus of nasty, yet easy to learn, techniques. It was then taught to the newly formed British Commandos and the US Marines (amongst others). So, for me, that qualifies as a military art.

But I have a problem trying to use that term about something that is trained in bare feet, white pyjamas and with air punching.

[greyfox13]

hey! those white pyjamas your reffering to are quite comfy

[Tom Yum]

Combatives

I watched a combatives class held by ROTC guys. Looks legit to me!

Attacker throws a waist level kick. You trap foot and pull while stepping back. Attacker gets the "rug" pulled out from under him. If done fast enough, he lands on his head as what happened once. The guy kicking had to shake it off.

The other technique I saw was against a mid level roundhouse. Block and trap ankle, post the shoulder and step in to sweep.

These are classical karate/muay thai techniques.

[eXcessiveForce]

Damian,

I won't "cop-out" with my explanation. TKD is integrated into the Korean Military now, but it is was not developed as a military art during Korea's military exploits. The Koreans use it as a fitness and perhaps training tool, but the fact of the matter is that it did not develop as part of warfare, nor was it ever used in warfare. It's combat applications and theories have never been used in war. During the Japanese occupation of Korea, Koreans learned karate which they later moded into TKD.

As I've stated before, TKD is a post-war development. It was not developed to combat soldiers, weapons or any of that nonsense. People who try to justify TKD in terms of it's military background have yet to prove anything tangible. For starters, it's clear that TKD doesn't owe any of it's roots to Hwrang Do or Tae Kyun. Hwa Hrang Do (mispl) was long gone before TKD arrived and anyone who has ever observed Tae Kyun will tell you that there is very little similarities between the two systems whether it be kicking or theories.

TKD, in all regards is Korean karate. The kicks are exactly the same, except with more emphasis. The hand techniques are the same, although many of the circular movements have been filtered. That much of it is FACT.



Most martial arts will reflect some sort of tradition, lineage. Karate, the code of Bushido and Kendo were adopted into the Japanese Military and by all accounts had a profound effect on Korea. No doubt that an art that was carried over from karate would hold some military conduct.



At my dojang, we also were very militant, but that doesn't mean we were actually practicing military arts. We probably looked more ridiculous than military in pajamas.

Don't confuse the idea here. TKD is an indirect product of war, but it wasn't forged through war. There's a difference between being militarysque and actually being military. Bunker raids are military, digging holes is military, TKD is NOT.

Great sage you are confused. THE ATA was started by H.U. Lee. He was hired by the American Military to train the americans to fight on the ground against the Koreans. He was SPONSERED for immigration to the united States by Richard Reed a U.S. Service man. That is why the ATA started in Omaha Nebraska, Because that is where Strategic Air Command is. And that is where Richard Reed ended up.
H. U. lee was a TKD instructor for the Korean Military and it was taught during the Korean Conflict to both Korean and Americans.

[m.artist]

im not a fan of tkd neway so i really don't care..buti do like hapkido and hwarang-do(sp wrong maybe) though

[eXcessiveForce]

I don't really understand why anyone really cares if an art was used by a military or not. Does it matter? Military combat is not based on hand to hand fighting anymore anyway.

Nor does military mean efficiency, perfection, usefullness, or well designed.

also realize that the military often does not design their own weapons or systems. They are built or designed by others and implemented by the military.

Many people in the military have not even been in a combat situation. Nor does being military make you better at killing people.

Take a style and work on it. get good at it find out what works for you and what does not. test what you know against others. If it works keep it. If not change it until it does work against others.

Or do it because you enjoy it.

At the end of the day does it really matter what someone trains it. Someone may train TKD 4 days a week and combatives 3 days a week. Or they may have done MMA for 10 years and are now doing Tai chi. Does doing Tai chi make them less effective?

Very few people study pure arts anymore. Most arts change over time. Most of them move from functional to functionless. But a few may go full circle from function to non function back to function.
It is all up to the person and their goals.

A student of mine who is a purple belt in TKD (middle low rank) was recently in a fight with a person wielding a knife. He stopped his attacker with a distraction and a sidekick that sent the guy flying and smashing through a table. He then left the bar. He was unhurt. This does not necessarily make what i'm teaching effective, in fact I think he got fairly lucky that the other guy actually let him see the knife before he came at him. What does this prove though? Nothing, my student lived, another student may have ended up dead. Fighting is always a roll of the dice no matter what system.

hell, someone here may be dumb enough to get angry at a person driving on the road and pull them over to start a fight. Lets just say that you did that and didn't realize that the person you just pulled over and are trying to assault are Richard Dimitri, Sammy Franco, Matt Thornton or Demi barbito.
Most of the people he have made a huge mistake not because of the style that they do but simply because they are in a fight with a person well above their level. And yet it doesn't mean that they might not win.

[m.artist]

I don't really understand why anyone really cares if an art was used by a military or not. Does it matter? Military combat is not based on hand to hand fighting anymore anyway.

Nor does military mean efficiency, perfection, usefullness, or well designed.

also realize that the military often does not design their own weapons or systems. They are built or designed by others and implemented by the military.

Many people in the military have not even been in a combat situation. Nor does being military make you better at killing people.

Take a style and work on it. get good at it find out what works for you and what does not. test what you know against others. If it works keep it. If not change it until it does work against others.

Or do it because you enjoy it.

At the end of the day does it really matter what someone trains it. Someone may train TKD 4 days a week and combatives 3 days a week. Or they may have done MMA for 10 years and are now doing Tai chi. Does doing Tai chi make them less effective?

Very few people study pure arts anymore. Most arts change over time. Most of them move from functional to functionless. But a few may go full circle from function to non function back to function.
It is all up to the person and their goals.

A student of mine who is a purple belt in TKD (middle low rank) was recently in a fight with a person wielding a knife. He stopped his attacker with a distraction and a sidekick that sent the guy flying and smashing through a table. He then left the bar. He was unhurt. This does not necessarily make what i'm teaching effective, in fact I think he got fairly lucky that the other guy actually let him see the knife before he came at him. What does this prove though? Nothing, my student lived, another student may have ended up dead. Fighting is always a roll of the dice no matter what system.

hell, someone here may be dumb enough to get angry at a person driving on the road and pull them over to start a fight. Lets just say that you did that and didn't realize that the person you just pulled over and are trying to assault are Richard Dimitri, Sammy Franco, Matt Thornton or Demi barbito.
Most of the people he have made a huge mistake not because of the style that they do but simply because they are not in a fight with a person well about their level. And yet it doesn't mean that they might not win.

i couldn't have said it better.....i mean that....

[darrianation]

Its all semantics I suppose. Isn't "martial" supposed to mean war like anyway? But we use the word to refer to oriental (mostly) fighting arts.

A guy called Matt Larsen was on the forum some months back. He is in charge of the unarmed combat training of US Army Rangers. He uses BJJ as the core of what he teaches! So does that mean BJJ is a military art?

I don't know much about foreig armies, but in WW2 a style developed and is loosely called WW2 Combatives. The founders had already studied many Oriental and Western arts, and reduced them down to a very small syllabus of nasty, yet easy to learn, techniques. It was then taught to the newly formed British Commandos and the US Marines (amongst others). So, for me, that qualifies as a military art.

But I have a problem trying to use that term about something that is trained in bare feet, white pyjamas and with air punching.

I agree with Bri. A lot of people are going around saying they take or study combatives. Look I don't think you can honestly say you study combatives if you are a civilian. Combatives includes the use of bayonet training, using your weapon (rifle) as a club if someone was to grab it or if it malfunctioned at the wrong time. Also practice clearing jams in a hurry. It also includes non-lethal techniques for use in crowd control or in a sensitive environment that you can't just simply kill some one. Police have to do this stuff a lot and the military too, to a lesser degree.

So unless you are training in this stuff you are not learning combatives. The only civilians that usually learn this stuff are police, professional security people (body guards) and right wing militia people (who are usually crack pots).

I wish people will stop using the word combatives so loosely.