Fencing vs. Taekwondo

[PalmFrond]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

The "martial" aspect of martial arts has been lost. Its no longer about fighting, its about looking good.

Have a read of 'Barefoot Zen', by Nathan S. Johnson. It's about the transformation of 'martial arts' descended from the Shaolin systems (i.e. some kung fu, karate, TKD etc.). According to him, most of the techniques contained in the forms were never meant to be used for combat, but for pushing hands/moving meditation with a partner.

[striker]

Originally Posted by Sildar

Well said, sir, well said.

There's no such thing as too much epee.

Sildar and Chris Umbs (if he is reading this post),

I have an off topic but a quick and basic question about the history
of the ROW. I do not recall learning any ROW rules when I took
Taekwondo classes back in college.

Is there such a thing called ROW when you learn historical weapons
such as Rapier, Smallsword, Quarterstaff, etc ? Do you teach ROW
to the students of historical weapons ? As far as I know, the
ROW is not a modern invention. The person who extended the
weapon first, threatening the valid target was considered to have
the upper hand and in a better position to make a hit.

[striker]

Originally Posted by Christopher J Umbs

And to make it really interesting. Many traditional martial artists DESPISE the olympic style of TKD or other judged styles like Wushu
( http://members.aol.com/martyeisen/mantis/Interview.htm) mostly for focusing on flashy moves that you'd never do on the street.

Chris

Chris,

Thanks for the link. It was an interesting and a very informative read.

I also enjoyed reading the interview which he talks about Bruce Lee
titled:

"The Roots of Jeet Kune Do - Bruce Lee and the Master Mark Connection ".

http://members.aol.com/martyeisen/mantis/Lee.htm

[Sildar]

Originally Posted by striker

Is there such a thing called ROW when you learn historical weapons
such as Rapier, Smallsword, Quarterstaff, etc ? Do you teach ROW
to the students of historical weapons ? As far as I know, the
ROW is not a modern invention. The person who extended the
weapon first, threatening the valid target was considered to have
the upper hand and in a better position to make a hit.

Striker,

The short answer is no.

Historical masters taught students to always attack in such a way that the opponent is unable to attack you immediately, either by physically controlling the blade or carefully controlling the timing. Obviously, being the first to extend does not prevent your opponent from hitting you, so saying that the person who extends first "has the right of way" would be meaningless in the context of a duel. ROW is purely a convention for scoring in competition.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. If not, feel free to pm me, I don't want to derail this thread any further.

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

The "martial" aspect of martial arts has been lost. Its no longer about fighting, its about looking good. I think fencing is more of a martial art, because its a means to an end, and that end is winning. The techniques might not be useable in a real fight, but its more of a fight than TKD, which is basically dancing with bloody noses. I would know, I did it for a while.

Respectfully, I'd have to strongly disagree with you. Both of them have their methods of killing. Take the tips off an epee and have them sharpened and you have a fight on your hands with even a beginner. A seasoned epeeist like Obry, Kolobkov, etc. and likely I'll be reading about you in some rag about a "Fencing Death at Dawn" or some such nonsense.

Then there's TKD.

I don't know how many more people die or receive severe injury daily in the Olympic branch of TKD. But since over 30 million worldwide practice the art. I guarantee you there are more deaths a year than in the last decade of fencing. And those are accidental. If martial means death to you then look no farther. TKD has probably the largest hand to hand arsenal of fighting there is. We have more kicks and do teach elbows, knee, forearm and many different hand strikes. Its up to you to train as a deadly martial artist or some collegiate sportTKD player.

I don't know that fencing teaches children or anyone "how to live" but TKD does have very strict, unbreachable etiquette and rules to live by.

It's naive to think that there won't be some trauma from a jump spinning back kick to the head. If you want to see what Tae Kwon Do really looks like then I would highly suggest watching a movie like Best of the Best. Both combatants, the Rhee Brothers, are real life 6Dan black belts in Olympic TKD.

Incidentally, the misnomer Olympic TKD should go away. There is only ONE Tae Kwon Do. Just like there's Historical and modern "olympic" fencing. The fencing now is the real fencing as it has (d?)evolved.

Today's taekwon do is the only sanctioned art by the South Korean Government and WTF(the USFA of Korean TKD). It is taught to the Korean military, police and PE (K-12)all in the same way. The curriculum is very much standardized.

However, there is a convention similar to ROW as a convention in TKD and it is almost solely responsible for the martial distaste most people have.

Despite the fact that TKD teaches the same punching and kicking movements as seemingly more hardcore arts like Kyokushinkai karate it does penalize punching by:

a) not allowing them to the head at all

b) only scoring 1 point versus 2 or 3 for any kick... and even then you have to hit you opponent SO hard as to create "trembling shock"

Actually rule A most of us surmise was to disallow boxing type movements and in combination with rule b was to create a favorable environment for old fashioned technique like reverse punches.

Allowing punching to the head really creates a different style of fighting. While we train it in real life our method of sport combat disallows it in its ruleset. We didn't want to encourage brute strength fighting and gross motor skills like we see in the UFC today. We did want to encourage technical mastery. AS such....no head punching. Otherwise some heavy weight boxer can come in and do markedly well. Doesn't make it TKD however.

Sport TKD and TKD in general has always been 30% fists and 70 legs. Now its something like 95% legs 5% fists, again due to the point structure and convention.

But remember sport TKD is a part of World TaeKwonDo Federation TKD. It is not the whole curriculum. Oddly enough, at the local tourney level you still see some of us using our punches to set up the dazzling array of kicks TKD is known for. And forms and breaking contests are still a large part of advancement in rank.


Fatfencer
PS: ATA, ITF, Jhoon Rhee's, etc. are all a more "historical' taekwondo as compared to that which is sanctioned by the South Korean Government. Altough it is clearly Tae Kwon Do in the larger sense of the name. It is not "Tae Kwon Do" as we'd define it today.

Most everyone knows that Gen. Choi Hong Hee was a primary founder, if not THE founder of the art. But due to his North Korean(read: communist) leanings the South Koreans sent him packing. If there was or is a Japanese influence to this art it is from him. The Japanese occupation made a strong impression on many in his generation.

Tae Kwon DO has also evolved and like fencing will continue to do so. But when the older generation of TKD wants to humble the younger they simply start punching!

Fatfencer

[Captain Hook]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

No, no and finally, NO.

Silly clothes and pretense != art.

silly clothes, c'mon you know deep down you want to try a pair of those decorative tights on and shake your booty

martial disciplines or combat sports i think have more in common than a lot of those who practise them would like to admit.

Bruce Lee's use of fencing and other more western combat forms as a basis of JKD is a powerful reflection of how all martial arts are dependant on timing and distance.

The illusion and romanticism of different 'styles' of combat (especially Eastern) just hides these similarities.

I consider fencing a combat sport, however it's one hit halt nature means the key components of any real conflict (timing, distance) are expressed in a far more intricate manner than many 'martial arts' even come close to approaching.

[bjacobs]

Combat sports have actually supplanted martial arts now a days, when it comes to learning to fight, so long as you pick sports with appropriately loose rules.

If you learn how to box, you'll be a person experienced and skilled at knocking people out who are seriously trying to knock you out yourself.

If you learn to wrestle, you'll become skilled at taking someone down or throwing them and then controlling them on the ground, someone that's trying their hardest to take you down.

If train in the sport of mixed martial arts, you'll learn how to knock out or submit someone with a combination of striking and grappling who is honestly trying to do the same to you.

Sports are the place to look now adays for actual unarmed fighting ability, so long as you pick sports that do not have overly restrictive rules that warp a sparring match too far from a fight; tae kwon do is an example of a combat sport that sometimes does this, in that they arguably wear too match padding to care about some of the consequences of their mistakes, get points for hits regardless of whether they actually have an effect, and in some rule sets are stopped and restarted after every hit is scored. But in general sports are the way to go; you can count on athletes to weed the garbage from their programs, as the effectiveness of what they do is objectively tested with every fight or tournament they enter. Current mixed martial arts organizations have enough freedom in them (only mouth piece, cup, and four ounce, fingerless gloves that allow grappling, full contact striking allowed, fighting in the clinch and on the ground allowed, submissions such as chokes and joint locks allowed) that it seems safe to consider what works there to be useful anywhere else.

[fatfencer]

Nah, not really. Street fighting is a much different animal. Even if the assumption is unarmed street combat surroundings play a deep role.

For example. Blackbelt bjj people or even todays MMA fighters don't train standing submissions/breaks as a rule. Some do, most don't. What if one is attacked in an urban setting and immediately goes to the gracie guard?

Likely he'll get his head bounced repeatedly off the concrete.

And multiple attackers? BJJ/MMA guys are really in trouble then. They know just enough BAAAAAASIC kicks and punches but are likely to get overwhelmed in a hurry.

More standard karate arts like Kyokushin and TKD... yes even Olympic TKD has multiple attacker theory. I'm not saying its the greatest but in the case of multiple attackers its punching and kicking that will save you. Not ground and pound.

Finallly MMA/BJJ specifically forbids small joint manipulation and nerve/cavity striking. Silly really since thats all the real high level martial artists regardless of style will do. THAT my friends is REAL fighting.

But this discussion is rapidly leaving fencing in favor of a Martial arts discussion. Seriously we should get back to something far more interesting...fencing.

Fatfencer

[Valerio Versace]

The truth is that "street fighting" is a big can of worms. Regardless of which martial art you practice, learning how to PERFORM IN COMBAT is a different skill.
If you are an expert martial arts pratictioner, you will know the notes, then you need to learn how to play them on an instrument.
I found myself involved in a few school brawls... the most important question to ask yourself is: "What is your goal?"
Really, the matter is about 90% psychological, unless your opponent is WAY stronger than you, and by that I mean that the difference between you and him must be HUGE.
If the situation isn't too critical and you want to avoid serious harm at all costs, the best solution is to take some and shut up: it's hard to be involved in life or death situations, or otherwise highly risky fights. If you have only one opponent and you want to finish the brawl quickly, giving a demostration of strength, just hit him as soon as you can where it hurts. He punches you on the abdomen? Come on, you can handle a few... just kick his knee or punch him right in the face, and he'll probably decide that it's better to forfeit than receiving a serious beating: no one really wants to get hurt, and if your opponent doesn't really know how far you could go in hurting him, he'll probably decide that he doesn't want to discover that.
The most important rule is to never start fights: that puts you to a big psychological disadvantage, because your opponent doesn't know how dangerous you can be, and he can't simply say: "I quit!"
For what he knows, you may as well be there to send him to the hospital, even if that aren't your true intentions.
So, if you don't have the guts to quit, and both you and your opponent are getting hurt, he probably won't be the one to quit.
If your opponent starts the fight instead, you can specifically aim to make him quit, which is usually one of the best options.

[dramamine]

My dad used to be all hardcore into TKD for like 20 years, he can do a lot of cool stuff but even he admits practicality wise it isn't the best. I had a funny experience once when my dad took me to my first Muay Thai class the instructor spent probably 30 seconds explaining why Muay Thai was not "pretty" and "girly" like TKD. I don't necessarily agree but my dad got a kick out of it.

The only TKD I have ever watched looked so boring, every time someone connected with a clean shot they stopped the match. There were times when like, someone would blow the whistle, buddy would walk forward and kick other dude, they blow the whistle, stop, etc. The guy doesn't look hurt in the slightest, and they continue. I'm sure there's more to it but it looked dumb.

My only experience watching forms was some weird expo which I'm pretty
sure was not exclusive to TKD. I saw it on TV one night, and it went like this: One guy comes out, does the most amazing butterfly twists, punches, kicks and and crazy flips and gets and 8 out of 10, then some other guy comes out and just looks like he is crapping his pants holding stances that look hardly more complicated than an en garde position and screaming at the top of his lungs, and he gets a 9.

Then again my dad tells me that not all TKD is like what I watched, he did the more traditional simple style whereas nowadays he views a lot of it as hollywood flash type stuff. Also with more popular martial arts (karate, kung fu, and TKD for example) there are many 'McDojos' started by guys with little experience for lucrative reasons; many people have butchered the image of traditional martial arts by charging large sums of money for meaningless belts. I mean seriously, there were grade 7's in my junior high who had third degree black belts. It's too bad that it is a blemish on real arts.

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by edew

Not only that, the best, coolest move in fencing (foil, at least, but probably the same in saber and epee) is the simple straight attack timed just right. Kinda hard to evaluate form for a simple straight attack. Everybody gets a "10" when done out of context of another opponent.

Exactly!
Having fenced first before doing Kung Fu, I could never take doing kata seriously because I felt it was just hollow.

[agooding2]

I actually enjoyed the comparison between TKD and fencing.

That said, having participated in boxing and trained in TKD and kickboxing there is a realism to the sport versions that is missing in the martial art versions. There is nothing quite like getting in the ring with someone trying to hurt you. Makes fencing seem a fairly relaxed sport in comparison.

At the same time, the martial versions can go further in training techniques that are illegal in even mixed martial arts like Ultimate Fighting. The eye gouge, biting, groin grab and attacks to joints are illegal with good reason as is the use of weapons.

Also techniques that work in the sport version, within the confines of a padded ring floor, use of handwraps and protective gloves may not work in a real environment. Try hitting someone in the head with your bare hands or doing a body slam on concrete and you'll see what I mean.

Sport Tae Kwon Do is a sport. I'm okay with that. Traditional martial arts have evolved to the point where they are more an art than martial. I'm okay with that too, just as long as the practitioners realize this.

-- Andrew

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Valerio Versace

The truth is that "street fighting" is a big can of worms. Regardless of which martial art you practice, learning how to PERFORM IN COMBAT is a different skill.
If you are an expert martial arts pratictioner, you will know the notes, then you need to learn how to play them on an instrument.
I found myself involved in a few school brawls... the most important question to ask yourself is: "What is your goal?"
Really, the matter is about 90% psychological, unless your opponent is WAY stronger than you, and by that I mean that the difference between you and him must be HUGE.
If the situation isn't too critical and you want to avoid serious harm at all costs, the best solution is to take some and shut up: it's hard to be involved in life or death situations, or otherwise highly risky fights. If you have only one opponent and you want to finish the brawl quickly, giving a demostration of strength, just hit him as soon as you can where it hurts. He punches you on the abdomen? Come on, you can handle a few... just kick his knee or punch him right in the face, and he'll probably decide that it's better to forfeit than receiving a serious beating: no one really wants to get hurt, and if your opponent doesn't really know how far you could go in hurting him, he'll probably decide that he doesn't want to discover that.
The most important rule is to never start fights: that puts you to a big psychological disadvantage, because your opponent doesn't know how dangerous you can be, and he can't simply say: "I quit!"
For what he knows, you may as well be there to send him to the hospital, even if that aren't your true intentions.
So, if you don't have the guts to quit, and both you and your opponent are getting hurt, he probably won't be the one to quit.
If your opponent starts the fight instead, you can specifically aim to make him quit, which is usually one of the best options.

You're right on the money. The only modification I'd make is to add some wisdom that an old Airborne guy (Canadian, not American) said to me:

"All things being equal, the bigger guy will beat the holy hell out of the smaller guy."

The things that I found useful about fencing in a combat art kind of way was the sensitivity to distance and timing and the instinctive training of a riposte. The understanding of how to foil the attack (pun intended) by letting it fall short (distance parry) or taking it flat by stepping in (infighting) was useful to not getting beaten with whatever item the other guy was trying to hit you with. Punches and kicks actually work a lot like flicks and thrusts, believe it or not and replying (riposting) is equally important to getting the other guy to leave you alone. Knowing how to stay close enough to be useful without being so close that you get clobbered was intrinsic to any of the multiple bar fights I've ever participated in. That, and when it comes to street fighting, nothing quite compares to a car antenna.

When it came to multiple combat theory, I found the teachings in Aikido to be the best around. Basically, move outside the circle and throw the other guy into as many other guys as possible. The purpose of hitting another guy in Aikido theory is to cause them to blink long enough for you to apply a control and guide them wherever they should be for your best protection. This really works well when you're getting jumped.

I never seriously thought about this concept until I saw a skin-head take a baseball bat to the groin, not even blink, and beat the living hell out of the guy who hit him. He wasn't wearing a cup. Consequently, I'm not a big fan of any combat art that includes strikes solely or primarily (even BJJ which is still essentially: beat the guy, tackle the guy, choke the guy, go home). I've been hit hard a few times and the only ones that mattered were the ones that hit just the right place (you might say I'm a little thick-headed).

And you're also right on the money when you say that nothing beats the feeling of another guy really trying to beat the living crap out of you. It's terrifying and your number one defense is to change your mindset quick-fast. If you have your brain about you then identifying your goals for being in the fight realisitically is an invaluable asset.

Hope this helps.

James.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

The ultimate martial art? Nike jujitsu.