Tae Kwon Do obsolete for Self Defense | Thread profile

Got your attention? : ) One thing that occasionally goes through my mind is that Tae Kwon Do is a very hard striking, brutal art when it comes to application of the techniques. When we talk about 'traditional' Tae Kwon Do here, we talk about the Korean military being feared for their deadly skills. Tae Kwon Do is not about control and submission, it's about damage and destruction. It's ...

Good post, FF. Two things occur to me off the bat: (i) a Maserati may be happiest when accelerating to 200mph in ten seconds or so, but it's still possible to drive it legally at highway or town speeds... you have to use judgment. I think it's the same thing here. (ii) the flip side is, a grappling/controlling art still leaves you with the problem: what do you do with the assailant once ...

Deescalation only works before they attack. Once they attack, I am a firm believer in disabling my opponent, not deescalation. I have no interest in trying to figure out what to do with the guy I've just grappled into a pretzel and hope that he doesn't get a hand free to pull a knife. Nor do I have any interest in maintaining such close proximity to an assailant. No, I want him down and ...

Just because you can punch an inch (or more) into an attacker's body (with corresponding damage) doesn't mean that you have to - this is where focus becomes important. For example: someone attacks me. Based on the nature of the attack, I may: a) Punch an inch in front of the person's nose; b) Punch the surface of the person's nose; c) Punch an inch behind the surface of the person's nose. ...

Just because you can punch an inch (or more) into an attacker's body (with corresponding damage) doesn't mean that you have to I guess part of my thinking in this is that, in legal and social contexts, the distinction may not be relevant.

Quote: Originally Posted by FearlessFreep Just because you can punch an inch (or more) into an attacker's body (with corresponding damage) doesn't mean that you have to I guess part of my thinking in this is that, in legal and social contexts, the distinction may not be relevant. As I said, it depends on the...

Quote: Originally Posted by Kacey Just because you can punch an inch (or more) into an attacker's body (with corresponding damage) doesn't mean that you have to - this is where focus becomes important. For example: someone attacks me. Based on the nature of the attack, I may: a) Punch an inch in front of the person's nose; b) ...

Quote: Originally Posted by zDom Exactly. I knew I had reached another level in my taekwondo not when I could hit HARD (which I got the hang of relatively soon) but when I could do what Kacey is talking about, when I got that ability to dial up or dial down the level of contact with minute adjustments in penetration....

I think there is something being missed. Yes, it shows good personal and physical control to be able to punch 'partially' However, I do not think you wold find much sympathy in telling the police officer "I punched him, but not as hard as I could've" Or the judge. Or trying to articulate the nuance to the jury, or to opposing lawyer. Even if you don't face assault charges for your ...

Well, think of it this way: any TMA is really an appeal of last resort—when the only alternative to doing a certain amount of damage is getting seriously damaged yourself, or seeing a loved one injured, maybe very badly. It's for situations in which you have no choice, when nothing else is going to work. Such situations are probably not all that common, but they do occur, whether we like it or ...