27 December 2011
Martial Arts at an Old Age
I watched this video of a 98 year old Judo grandmaster who continued practising Judo at a very advanced age. Albeit weakness, she is still to a degree active in her art and teaches Judo three times a week. You can read more about Grandmaster Keiko Fukuda here. I find this very inspiring because for me the martial arts is a lifelong endeavour, a lifelong pleasure. For it to be a lifelong activity one has to take care of your body. Many practitioners are forced to retire from their practice prematurely because of injuries and unnecessarily wear and tear. It is unfortunate that so few martial art schools emphasize healthy living and healthy training practises.
For many martial artists that focus on sport their competitive ambition cause them to end their practiseat quite a young age. Here in South Korea the national (WTF) Tae Kwon Do team members typically retire from competition in their early to middle twenties, and sadly usually with arthritis! The intense training may win them Olympic medals, but the price is lifelong aches and pains. (We see similar early retirement and associated arthritis in other strenuously physical sports such as gymnastics.)
In its early form (ITF) Taekwon-Do was a hard style martial art. Although quite effective, the strain put on the joints on those early practitioners caused many of them to suffer in the long-run. It is not unusual to hear of those old practitioners having severe arthritis, austere knee and hip-joint pains and even associated surgeries such as hip-replacements. There life is one of constant painkillers and other remedial drugs. Fortunately, there came a change. The modification from an original hard style to the inclusion of soft style principles in Taekwon-Do is one of ITF Taekwon-Do's greatest evolutions. Not only did it diversify the arsenal of techniques, it also brought a healthy balance to the style with much less stress on the joints. The unnecessarily hard techniques have been tempered with soft style principles that are still tremendously powerful, but with less strain on the body.
Instructors bear a responsibility to teach safe training methods and to promote a healthy lifestyle, but ultimately the responsibility is with the individual practitioners. Each person should know that while the human body is surprisingly resilient, the way we treat it will affect its long term health. Health into old age is seldom chance, and more often the result of living sensibly, adhering to sound health principles.
Wednesday morning I woke up with a severely aching knee. The previous evening I did Taekwon-Do followed by a Yoosool (Korean jiu-jitsu) session. I don't know if the kicking was the cause or the grappling. During the Taekwon-Do class I led us through a series of seldom practised kicks, like low twisting kicks, sweep kicks and so on. During the Yoosool class I grappled a couple of times and it is hard to tell during a grappling bout how one's legs are bent. Be it as it may, Wednesday I suffered from unusual pain on the outside of my knee. Luckily I have a good knee guard which I wore for the day and had the good sense to keep it relatively still for much of the day. I also applied some ointment (eucalyptus oil). While it was still a little tender on Thursday evening, after a good long warm-up and loosening up of the joints, I was able to teach a fairly effective class, followed by another Yoosool session. Had I stubbornly ignored the pain, trying to prove my toughness, and gone back to training on Wednesday again, I'm sure I would still have have suffered from acute pain. Health is a gift that is not to be unduly neglected—it is often something we can actively manage and nourish.
It is my wish, as we enter 2012, that you will continue to grow in technique and health, so that you can still enjoy your martial art training well into your golden years.
21 December 2011
A South Korean Tricking Performance & Movie
The video shows some Koreans doing a Taekwon-Do tricking performance. I think it was as part of a promotion for the recent Thai / Korean family film The Kick 더 킥. See the trailer below and read more about the film at HanCinema.
16 December 2011
Taekkyeon
The end of the semester always keeps me busy, this year more so than most, so I don't have the chance to add posts as regularly as I'd like. In any case, I saw this little insert about Taekkyeon, one of the main martial styles from which Taekwon-Do developed, on Arirang, a television station dedicated to promoting Korea and Korean culture.
The insert on Taekkyeon is a little skewed as it might imply that there is only one master dedicated to the survival of Taekkyeon, when in fact there are three main branches of Taekkyeon, also stemming from the late Teacher Song Duk-ki whom is credited for resuscitating Taekkyeon after its suppression during the Japanese occupation.
The three branches are the Korea Taekkyon Association (KTA), the Korea Traditional Taekgyeon Association (KTTA), and the Kyulyun Taekyun Association (KTA). Personally I think the KTA (Kyulyun Taekyun Association) is the form of Taekkyeon that follows most closely the teachings of Teacher Song Duk-gi, and is therefore technically the most traditional Taekkyeon system. (Although I'm sure each of the three groups will claim the same.)
The insert on Taekkyeon is a little skewed as it might imply that there is only one master dedicated to the survival of Taekkyeon, when in fact there are three main branches of Taekkyeon, also stemming from the late Teacher Song Duk-ki whom is credited for resuscitating Taekkyeon after its suppression during the Japanese occupation.
The three branches are the Korea Taekkyon Association (KTA), the Korea Traditional Taekgyeon Association (KTTA), and the Kyulyun Taekyun Association (KTA). Personally I think the KTA (Kyulyun Taekyun Association) is the form of Taekkyeon that follows most closely the teachings of Teacher Song Duk-gi, and is therefore technically the most traditional Taekkyeon system. (Although I'm sure each of the three groups will claim the same.)
03 December 2011
Totally Tae Kwon Do
There is a particularly nice essay in this month's issue by Stuart Anslow (the editor of Totally Tae Kwon Do) on the Korean word Eui-Ri 의리, meaning fidelity, which is an important concept in Korea and the martial arts. It starts on p. 63.
28 November 2011
Weapons Training in Taekwon-Do & the Bayonet
Sometimes I am asked if Taekwon-Do has any weapon training. The answer is no; Taekwon-Do does not have weapons as part of its official syllabus.
This is, of course, a half truth, as most Taekwon-Do instructors will tell you: An important part of Taekwon-Do self-defence training is defence against weapons. Because one needs to understand the dynamics of a weapon in order to protect yourself against it, many Taekwon-Do practitioners actually train in weapons.¹ While the promotional syllabus of Taekwon-Do may not require you to wield any weapons, it will require you to demonstrate defences against weapons and to do so you will likely need to familiarise yourself with that weapon. Therefore, weapon training does exist in Taekwon-Do, but somewhat unofficially.
If we were to look for an authentic Taekwon-Do weapon, what would it be?
It is my opinion that if Taekwon-Do were ever to have included offensive weapon training in the syllabus, it would most likely have been the bayonet. Taekwon-Do developed out of the ashes of WWI, WWII and the Korean War. Apart from the firearms, the other most common battlefield weapon was the bayonet—a rifle fitted with a dagger at the front. Most of the original Taekwon-Do masters who helped pioneer Taekwon-Do were military soldiers with battle experience, so they would have done at least basic training with the bayonet. Apart from firearm training, the bayonet would have bean the main weapon they would have trained in.
It is not surprising that the ITF Encyclopaedia includes self-defence suggestions against bayonets. Not only was it a weapon employed by the Korean military, but even before the modern Korean army existed, the bayonet had been a very threatening presence in Korea. The bayonet was a common part of the Japanese soldiers' arsenal during the time that they occupied Korea and during Imperial Japan's invasion into the rest of Asia.
I do not know exactly what the bayonet training in the ROK Army consisted of, but it is not too difficult to infer the basic techniques. Looking at the types of bayonet attacks against which defences are suggested in the ITF Encyclopaedia, we can deduce that these were the likely offensive bayonet techniques that were taught in the ROK Army.
The ITF Encyclopaedia shows two uses of the weapon. Either the bayonet is used to thrust or slash, or the butt of the rifle is used as a strike. Straight bayonet thrusts to the torso, particularly the solar plexus, and to the throat are the main attacks; side slashes with the bayonet, straight rifle butt strokes at the chest and face, and other types of strokes with the rifle butt are auxiliary attacks. I will see if I can get my hands on an actual ROK Army bayonet training manual; until then, we can learn from other military manuals, such as the U.S. Army Field Manual.
Although modern warfare is becoming increasingly impersonal with battles often fought at a distance and drone strikes becoming progressively popular, the bayonet is still a common part of most military basic training. Active use of the bayonet have still been used as recently as the Iraqi war. There is a report of British troops employing a bayonet charge during the Iraqi War in 2004: "approximately 20 British troops in Basra were ambushed and forced out of their vehicles by about 100 Shiite militia fighters. When ammunition ran low, the British troops fixed bayonets and charged the enemy. About 20 militiamen were killed in the assault without any British deaths."
Interestingly, Japan has a sport similar to Kendo, but based on the bayonet instead of the sword, called Jukendo ("Way of the Bayonet"). A wooden rifle replica is used, with a blunted tip instead of an actual bayonet. Unlike actual bayonet attacks that include strikes with the rifle butt, and bayonet slashes, Jukendo seems to only allow straight thrusts with the bayonet. The main targets are the opponent's throat, chest and side of the lower abdomen. Because strikes with the rifle butt are not allowed, the competitors often find themselves very close to each other, but without any course of offence, which I find disappointing. If I were to make a Jukendo version for training in Taekwon-Do, it would definitely include strikes with the rifle butt.
Footnote:
1. While I won't call myself an expert in any weapon, I have trained in the long staff (based on Tang Soo Do and Hapkido syllabi), the middle staff (based on Tang Soo Do and Filipino Stick Fighting syllabi) and the short stick (based on Tang Soo Do and Hapkido syllabi). My first Taekwon-Do instructor also taught principles for adopting weapons into the Taekwon-Do patterns. I'm not sure if he used the principles of any particular system, but it is not much different from what I've learned from either Tang Soo Do or Hapkido's use of weapons. In Hapkido I was introduced to some sword techniques by two different Hapkido masters, both teaching it somewhat differently; they focussed on Gomdo and Kendo respectively. Hapkido is also known for its use of the cane. I have also done some knife-training and a little gun training. Ironically, as a boy that grew up on a farm in South Africa, I've never been a fan of guns.
This is, of course, a half truth, as most Taekwon-Do instructors will tell you: An important part of Taekwon-Do self-defence training is defence against weapons. Because one needs to understand the dynamics of a weapon in order to protect yourself against it, many Taekwon-Do practitioners actually train in weapons.¹ While the promotional syllabus of Taekwon-Do may not require you to wield any weapons, it will require you to demonstrate defences against weapons and to do so you will likely need to familiarise yourself with that weapon. Therefore, weapon training does exist in Taekwon-Do, but somewhat unofficially.
If we were to look for an authentic Taekwon-Do weapon, what would it be?
 |
| South Korean soldiers with bayonets. Image Source |
 |
| Japanese soldiers using bayonets on Chinese prisoners of war. Image Source |
I do not know exactly what the bayonet training in the ROK Army consisted of, but it is not too difficult to infer the basic techniques. Looking at the types of bayonet attacks against which defences are suggested in the ITF Encyclopaedia, we can deduce that these were the likely offensive bayonet techniques that were taught in the ROK Army.
 |
| Female members of South Korea's Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) join a bayonet drill at the Army Cadet Command camp in Seongnam south of Seoul on January 19, 2011. Image Source |
Although modern warfare is becoming increasingly impersonal with battles often fought at a distance and drone strikes becoming progressively popular, the bayonet is still a common part of most military basic training. Active use of the bayonet have still been used as recently as the Iraqi war. There is a report of British troops employing a bayonet charge during the Iraqi War in 2004: "approximately 20 British troops in Basra were ambushed and forced out of their vehicles by about 100 Shiite militia fighters. When ammunition ran low, the British troops fixed bayonets and charged the enemy. About 20 militiamen were killed in the assault without any British deaths."
Interestingly, Japan has a sport similar to Kendo, but based on the bayonet instead of the sword, called Jukendo ("Way of the Bayonet"). A wooden rifle replica is used, with a blunted tip instead of an actual bayonet. Unlike actual bayonet attacks that include strikes with the rifle butt, and bayonet slashes, Jukendo seems to only allow straight thrusts with the bayonet. The main targets are the opponent's throat, chest and side of the lower abdomen. Because strikes with the rifle butt are not allowed, the competitors often find themselves very close to each other, but without any course of offence, which I find disappointing. If I were to make a Jukendo version for training in Taekwon-Do, it would definitely include strikes with the rifle butt.
Footnote:
1. While I won't call myself an expert in any weapon, I have trained in the long staff (based on Tang Soo Do and Hapkido syllabi), the middle staff (based on Tang Soo Do and Filipino Stick Fighting syllabi) and the short stick (based on Tang Soo Do and Hapkido syllabi). My first Taekwon-Do instructor also taught principles for adopting weapons into the Taekwon-Do patterns. I'm not sure if he used the principles of any particular system, but it is not much different from what I've learned from either Tang Soo Do or Hapkido's use of weapons. In Hapkido I was introduced to some sword techniques by two different Hapkido masters, both teaching it somewhat differently; they focussed on Gomdo and Kendo respectively. Hapkido is also known for its use of the cane. I have also done some knife-training and a little gun training. Ironically, as a boy that grew up on a farm in South Africa, I've never been a fan of guns.
22 November 2011
Civilian Self Defence
I've used the phrases “Civilian Defence” and “Civilian Self-Defence Systems” a couple of times on this blog before, particularly during the recent controversial post “Why Taekwon-Do Is Not Good for Self-Defence” and its follow-up. I think that before I can continue my argument, I need to clarify what I mean by “Civilian Defence,” and what I understand a “Civilian Defence System” to be.
Civilian Defence
For me¹ “civilian defence” refers to the principles, strategies and techniques employed by civilians, as opposed to (military) combatants, to defend themselves within a civilised context; in other words, in a society where the rule of law is generally upheld—thus not in the contexts of war or anarchy. Civilian defence is purposed to defend (the members of) civil society from uncivil elements and to uphold the laws that keep such a civil society in place. In the context of war, civil laws are to a degree suspended, i.e. martial law; and during a state of anarchy, civil laws are ignored or non-existent. However, in a civil society a civilian defending him or herself has to do so within the bounds of the law governing the society he or she lives in. Breaking society's expectations of civility, even for the purpose of self-defence, may result in prosecution. While a civil society allows self-defence, it does so with certain conditions.
A “civilian defence system” is the system of principles, strategies and techniques taught, followed and practised by a fraternity (e.g. club / martial art style) of civilians with the intend to defend themselves within the conditions provided by civil society.
A Civil Society²
What do I mean by a “civil society”? Simply, it is a society where there is a rule of law governing on the basic principles derived, in part, from the Silver Rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” In short, “Harm None.” In a civil society this rule is even extended to criminals and to your attackers. The law will allow you to defend yourself, but only to a degree; certain conditions apply. Use of violence by a civilian is frowned upon in a civil society . While the use of violence for the purpose of self-defence is typically permissible within the confounds of the law of a civil society, it is restricted. For instance, your use of force in self-defence may not be “excessive”; that is, you are not allowed to use any more violence and/or physical force than is absolutely necessary to dissuade the immediate threat and unless you can prove serious threat to life and limb, you cannot cause grave harm or long-term harm to your attacker. Were you to break your attacker's knee or maybe grope out an eye ball, law will probably look very unfavourably upon you, even if the attacker “deserved” such reaction from you.
The law sees all acts of violence as illegal. When you use violence in order to defend yourself, you are also doing something illegal. However, this unlawful action is temporarily permissible in order to protect your own “life and limb” or that of a third party. To legally use violence in self-defence, as Mr Eades pointed out in his article, it must be in a response to a criminal attack upon you (or a third party). Furthermore, your defensive reaction must be both a reasonable and necessary response directed against the attacker. In other words, most people in this civil society should agree that it was a reasonable reaction. Breaking someone's knee for slapping you in the face is not a reasonable response. Also, your reaction must be “necessary to avert the attack”; this means that if there is another option available to you to have prevented choosing a violent defensive response, you are obligated to take it. That means that if an intoxicated guy drunkenly swings a punch at you and you can comfortably sidestep and avoid the attack, then that is probably a more suitable action than stepping in and doing an elbow strike to the guys temple, followed by two knee strikes to the gut!
A civil society, therefore, is a society based on the Silver Rule and requires civil behaviour. Even in your dealings with an aggressor, the law in a civil society still requires from you a certain degree of civility—your self-defence is only legally permissible provided you keep certain conditions.
Civilian Self-Defence Systems
A civilian self-defence system caters for civilians wanting to protect themselves, while adhering to the conditions of self-defence required by the law. A military combat system centres almost exclusively around very hard, brutal and even lethal techniques. A civilian self-defence system cannot be based solely on the same arsenal of techniques. A civilian self-defence system may indeed be lethal; however, it must provide a broad spectrum of techniques, including a wide section of techniques that are not unnecessarily brutal. In should include a “soft” alternative. In other words, a civilian self-defence system must include principles, strategies and techniques that provide “civil” solutions to a violent attack, if possible.
Furthermore, a civilian self-defence system is highly contextual. What is “civil” behaviour in one culture is not necessarily “civil” behaviour in another culture; also, the threats and likely types of attacks and criminal profiles differ widely in different places. The type of civilian self-defence training that Koreans in South Korea with its extremely low crime rate and absence of guns require are drastically different from South Africa with its high crime rate and an abundance of guns and other weapons.
Non-Ideal Civilian Self-Defence Systems
As I argued before, original Taekwon-Do does not provide such “civil” solutions, primarily because of its military origin. For this reason, original Taekwon-Do is not a good civilian self-defence system. I am not saying that Taekwon-Do cannot be a good civilian self-defence system. It can be. However, it requires a re-evaluation of its original purpose; i.e. a rethinking of its principles and strategies. It also requires an augmentation of its original arsenal of techniques.
While I believe that original Taekwon-Do, like Krav Maga, is not a good civilian self-defence system because of its military roots, it does not follow that I believe simply any traditional system is unequivocally a good alternative. Take Shatar Vidya, the traditional Indian martial art that focusses on traditional bladed weapons. There is practically no way one can use this art with its spears and swords and other weaponry for everyday civilian self-defence. The mere carrying of those weapons in public are likely illegal. (Then again, this style also developed from a military context, even though it is practised as traditional martial art now.)
Just because a martial art is traditional style that did not develop from a military context does not by default make it a good civilian self-defence system, either. Take Aikido for instance. One would be tempted to think that because Aikido is so overtly “civil” it is the perfect civilian self-defence system. Unfortunately Aikido's lack of hard techniques (deficiency in basic guards, blocks and strikes), shows it to be as limited in scope and application as a fully offensive military combat system like Krav Maga. The solution is not replacing one extreme with another extreme, but rather a blend of hard and soft, offensive and defensive principles, techniques, and strategies.
I also believe that most traditional martial arts, even though they have a wide arsenal of techniques, may still be bad civilian self-defence systems because of the principles and strategies that are not focussed on modern contextual realistic self-defence scenarios. Take for instance my article: “I Don't Like Your Self-Defence”. Most martial art schools do not teach proper self-defence, and while the martial arts themselves may have the potential to be effective civilian self-defence systems, the way they are taught make them poor self-defence systems. In fact, most martial art schools are not self-defence focussed. Instead they are health focussed, like most Tai-Chi groups; or sport focussed , like Judo, WTF, or MMA gyms; or focussed on character building and discipline for children, like most Karate and Tang Soo Do schools; or disciplines for ascetic development like most Aikido and Shaolin centres. Any martial art club where the principle focus is on health, sport, character building, and ascetic development, or other such martial art related aspect, will inevitably neglect true self-defence training. It is merely a case of priorities. If self-defence training is not the first priority, then it is obviously a lessor priority. Determining if something is a priority is, at least in part, decided upon how much attention it receives.
Footnotes:
1. The first time I heard of the concept of “civilian defence systems” was, I think in 2007. It was during my annual trip in South Africa—I was hanging out with a friend of mine, James Reader, a psychologist and host of creativity workshops. James explained to me this concept, as he understood it from his instructor, Bob Davies, a renowned Karate instructor from KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. I hoped to meet with Master Davies at the time, but was told that he was on a sabbatical of sorts for ascetic purposes, and not meeting with anybody. My return visits in South Africa never afforded me the time to look Master Davies up. My interest in the idea of “civilian defence” made me research it online, where I discovered the blog of Dan Djurdjevic, who wrote an extensive post on the topic.
2. The keen (ITF) Taekwon-Do practitioner will note the correlation between “civil society” and what General Choi Hong-Hi, the principle founder of Taekwon-Do, called “Moral Culture” (ITF Taekwon-Do Encyclopaedia, Volume 1, p. 45-68). In his treatise on the topic, Gen. Choi quotes Confucius: “to promote the sense of morality one must treat others with faithfulness and sincerity based on righteousness, and to eliminate completely vicious thinking.”
Civilian Defence
 |
| Image Source |
A “civilian defence system” is the system of principles, strategies and techniques taught, followed and practised by a fraternity (e.g. club / martial art style) of civilians with the intend to defend themselves within the conditions provided by civil society.
A Civil Society²
 |
| Image Source |
The law sees all acts of violence as illegal. When you use violence in order to defend yourself, you are also doing something illegal. However, this unlawful action is temporarily permissible in order to protect your own “life and limb” or that of a third party. To legally use violence in self-defence, as Mr Eades pointed out in his article, it must be in a response to a criminal attack upon you (or a third party). Furthermore, your defensive reaction must be both a reasonable and necessary response directed against the attacker. In other words, most people in this civil society should agree that it was a reasonable reaction. Breaking someone's knee for slapping you in the face is not a reasonable response. Also, your reaction must be “necessary to avert the attack”; this means that if there is another option available to you to have prevented choosing a violent defensive response, you are obligated to take it. That means that if an intoxicated guy drunkenly swings a punch at you and you can comfortably sidestep and avoid the attack, then that is probably a more suitable action than stepping in and doing an elbow strike to the guys temple, followed by two knee strikes to the gut!
A civil society, therefore, is a society based on the Silver Rule and requires civil behaviour. Even in your dealings with an aggressor, the law in a civil society still requires from you a certain degree of civility—your self-defence is only legally permissible provided you keep certain conditions.
Civilian Self-Defence Systems
 |
| A military combat system and a civilian self-defence system differ in principle, strategy and technique. |
Furthermore, a civilian self-defence system is highly contextual. What is “civil” behaviour in one culture is not necessarily “civil” behaviour in another culture; also, the threats and likely types of attacks and criminal profiles differ widely in different places. The type of civilian self-defence training that Koreans in South Korea with its extremely low crime rate and absence of guns require are drastically different from South Africa with its high crime rate and an abundance of guns and other weapons.
Non-Ideal Civilian Self-Defence Systems
As I argued before, original Taekwon-Do does not provide such “civil” solutions, primarily because of its military origin. For this reason, original Taekwon-Do is not a good civilian self-defence system. I am not saying that Taekwon-Do cannot be a good civilian self-defence system. It can be. However, it requires a re-evaluation of its original purpose; i.e. a rethinking of its principles and strategies. It also requires an augmentation of its original arsenal of techniques.
 |
| Shastar Vidya -- Image Source: BBC |
 |
| Aikido -- Image Source |
 |
| Image Source |
Footnotes:
1. The first time I heard of the concept of “civilian defence systems” was, I think in 2007. It was during my annual trip in South Africa—I was hanging out with a friend of mine, James Reader, a psychologist and host of creativity workshops. James explained to me this concept, as he understood it from his instructor, Bob Davies, a renowned Karate instructor from KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. I hoped to meet with Master Davies at the time, but was told that he was on a sabbatical of sorts for ascetic purposes, and not meeting with anybody. My return visits in South Africa never afforded me the time to look Master Davies up. My interest in the idea of “civilian defence” made me research it online, where I discovered the blog of Dan Djurdjevic, who wrote an extensive post on the topic.
2. The keen (ITF) Taekwon-Do practitioner will note the correlation between “civil society” and what General Choi Hong-Hi, the principle founder of Taekwon-Do, called “Moral Culture” (ITF Taekwon-Do Encyclopaedia, Volume 1, p. 45-68). In his treatise on the topic, Gen. Choi quotes Confucius: “to promote the sense of morality one must treat others with faithfulness and sincerity based on righteousness, and to eliminate completely vicious thinking.”
14 November 2011
Taekwon-Do and the Law
In preparation for my continued discussion on Taekwon-Do's value for civilian defence, I pulled the following article by Mr David Eades from the archives of The Sidekick¹ -- Issue #5, December 2006.
Although different approaches to self-defence are covered in the dojang, seldom is the legal consequences contemplated. In this article by Boosabumnim David Eades he looks at the legal requirements for self-defence to stand up in the South African courtroom. This is the first in a series of articles centred on the theme: Taekwon-Do and the Law. – Editor.
The nature of Taekwon-Do opens the door to serious legal concern, in the next few articles I will attempt to discuss these issues and contemplate the possible legal situations that may arise both in and out of class. A responsible practitioner should be aware of his or her abilities and the consequences that may flow from using the art.
It is important to understand when criminal liability arises so I will discuss this first and then lead onto the topic of self-defence. To commit a crime the State must prove that there was a:
1. Voluntary human act or omission
2. that is unlawful,
3. intentional,
4. and committed by a person capable of committing a crime (capacity).
From the above it is clear that only humans may commit criminal acts and in certain situations it does not require a person to act, e.g. a parent has a duty to protect his/her child. The act must further be in breach of some law thus making it unlawful. You cannot be prosecuted for a law that does not exist or only existed after you committed the crime. Except for killing a person you may only be found guilty if you intended the consequences that occurred (even if you did not directly intend the consequence but only foresaw that they may occur), however for culpable homicide the court will accept negligence. As a Taekwon-Do practitioner your knowledge of the human anatomy and how to cause damage is heightened and the court will take this into account when determining whether you had the necessary foresight to have intended the consequences that occurred. Generally children below 14 years and people not capable of understanding their actions cannot commit a crime as they do not understand what they are doing, this strictly falls into the scope of intention.
Self-defence is a justification to committing a crime, basically you are saying, “Yes, I did commit a crime, but it was justifiable as it is in the defence of my own legally protected interests.” The self-defence action therefore renders the unlawful actions lawful.
To act in “legal” self-defence it must be in response to:
a) an attack,
b) upon a legally protected interest,
c) that was unlawful.
Therefore, the attack must have commenced or have been imminent against a person’s property, ‘life and limb’ or a third party. The attack must also be unlawful; therefore, the defence does not work against lawful infringements such as a lawful arrest.
Consequently the defence must be:
a) necessary to avert the attack,
b) a reasonable response, and
c) directed against the attacker.
In South African Law there is no absolute duty to retreat, however as Taekwon-Do students who are aware of their ability to cause damage this should generally be a first response. The best form of defence is to avoid the situation; however, there are certain situations where a person is placed in a situation where self-defence is the only option. If the attack has finished, self-defence will not justify one’s actions. The defence must also be proportional to the attack. This does not mean that if your attacker pulls out a knife you cannot pull out a gun, rather if your life is clearly not in danger you cannot in a response to an attack kill your attacker. The court will look at your actions and decide if your action was reasonable, therefore it is a subjective test that does not require strict liability. Finally, the defence must be directed at the attacker and not a third party. (An attack at a third party may be justified under the grounds of necessity but that is another article for another issue.)
Here are a few examples of when one cannot act in self-defence:
In assessing whether a person acted in self-defence the court will look at the above factors and decide if the person acted reasonably or not. Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty and in all criminal cases the State must prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, so it is more likely that you will be found innocent than guilty (unless you are guilty). If it turns out that the person did act in self-defence her actions will be seen as lawful and she will not be criminally liable.
In writing this article, I have relied heavily on Burchell, J. Principles of Criminal Law. 3rd Ed. Juta, Cape Town.
---
Footnote 1: The Sidekick was a quarterly eZine I edited for the SA-ITF. Because we did not receive enough regular submissions it was decided to suspend it indefinitely. The research and consequent articles I would have contributed to The Sidekick I now submit to Totally Tae Kwon Do magazine every month.
Taekwon-Do and the Law: The Legalities of Self-Defence
By David Eades
By David Eades
 |
| Image Source |
The nature of Taekwon-Do opens the door to serious legal concern, in the next few articles I will attempt to discuss these issues and contemplate the possible legal situations that may arise both in and out of class. A responsible practitioner should be aware of his or her abilities and the consequences that may flow from using the art.
It is important to understand when criminal liability arises so I will discuss this first and then lead onto the topic of self-defence. To commit a crime the State must prove that there was a:
1. Voluntary human act or omission
2. that is unlawful,
3. intentional,
4. and committed by a person capable of committing a crime (capacity).
From the above it is clear that only humans may commit criminal acts and in certain situations it does not require a person to act, e.g. a parent has a duty to protect his/her child. The act must further be in breach of some law thus making it unlawful. You cannot be prosecuted for a law that does not exist or only existed after you committed the crime. Except for killing a person you may only be found guilty if you intended the consequences that occurred (even if you did not directly intend the consequence but only foresaw that they may occur), however for culpable homicide the court will accept negligence. As a Taekwon-Do practitioner your knowledge of the human anatomy and how to cause damage is heightened and the court will take this into account when determining whether you had the necessary foresight to have intended the consequences that occurred. Generally children below 14 years and people not capable of understanding their actions cannot commit a crime as they do not understand what they are doing, this strictly falls into the scope of intention.
Self-defence is a justification to committing a crime, basically you are saying, “Yes, I did commit a crime, but it was justifiable as it is in the defence of my own legally protected interests.” The self-defence action therefore renders the unlawful actions lawful.
To act in “legal” self-defence it must be in response to:
a) an attack,
b) upon a legally protected interest,
c) that was unlawful.
Therefore, the attack must have commenced or have been imminent against a person’s property, ‘life and limb’ or a third party. The attack must also be unlawful; therefore, the defence does not work against lawful infringements such as a lawful arrest.
Consequently the defence must be:
a) necessary to avert the attack,
b) a reasonable response, and
c) directed against the attacker.
In South African Law there is no absolute duty to retreat, however as Taekwon-Do students who are aware of their ability to cause damage this should generally be a first response. The best form of defence is to avoid the situation; however, there are certain situations where a person is placed in a situation where self-defence is the only option. If the attack has finished, self-defence will not justify one’s actions. The defence must also be proportional to the attack. This does not mean that if your attacker pulls out a knife you cannot pull out a gun, rather if your life is clearly not in danger you cannot in a response to an attack kill your attacker. The court will look at your actions and decide if your action was reasonable, therefore it is a subjective test that does not require strict liability. Finally, the defence must be directed at the attacker and not a third party. (An attack at a third party may be justified under the grounds of necessity but that is another article for another issue.)
Here are a few examples of when one cannot act in self-defence:
- X, in attempting to rob Y, attacks Y but shortly thereafter realises he cannot overpower Y and abandons the attack. If while walking away Y attacks X, Y cannot claim that she was acting in self-defence because the attack had finished.
- X, Y’s unruly but harmless friend, starts ‘play fighting’ with Y. Y cannot claim she was acting in self-defence if she causes serious damage to X because the defence was not proportionate.
- If X approach Y but does not pose a serious threat, Y cannot pull out a gun and shoot X. The response must be reasonable to the attack. However if Y can prove that she reasonably felt that her life was being threatened by X she may rely on self-defence.
- Where X attacks Y and Y throws a stone at X in self-defence, but misses and hits Z, a passer-by, Y cannot rely on self-defence to validate her actions. However, she may rely on necessity or the fact that she lacked the intention to cause Z harm.
In assessing whether a person acted in self-defence the court will look at the above factors and decide if the person acted reasonably or not. Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty and in all criminal cases the State must prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, so it is more likely that you will be found innocent than guilty (unless you are guilty). If it turns out that the person did act in self-defence her actions will be seen as lawful and she will not be criminally liable.
In writing this article, I have relied heavily on Burchell, J. Principles of Criminal Law. 3rd Ed. Juta, Cape Town.
---
Footnote 1: The Sidekick was a quarterly eZine I edited for the SA-ITF. Because we did not receive enough regular submissions it was decided to suspend it indefinitely. The research and consequent articles I would have contributed to The Sidekick I now submit to Totally Tae Kwon Do magazine every month.
09 November 2011
Shastar Vidya
I recently read the BBC article "The Only Living Master of a Dying Martial Art", about the Indian martial art Shastar Vidya. It was quite interesting. Then today on Google+ I stumbled onto this related video (below). I have a feeling that I will make reference to this martial art in a future post I'm planning to write. In the meantime, anyone interested in traditional and / or weapons styles, might find it interesting.
02 November 2011
Totally Tae Kwon Do
Other interesting articles that I look forward to read is the one on Bill 'Superfoot' Wallace, whom I have always admired. Even though Mr. Wallace is of an advanced age, he is still as flexible as ever and continues to teach. What an inspiration for us who wish to be involve in the martial arts for all our lives! Another article that is sure to be interesting is the one on adrenaline and the physiological affects it has on your body during a fight. I'm also curious about the article on "Training Troops in a War Zone!" We find the roots of Taekwon-Do in the military, so it will be interesting to see how (if at all?) Taekwon-Do is still applied for military combat purposes.
26 October 2011
Taekwondo Hall of Fame Citation
 |
| Image Source: Taekwondo Hall of Fame |
Great was my surprise towards the end of the ceremony when I also heard my own name called. At first I thought it must have been some kind of mistake, but was indeed my name and title, "Research & Education Director for South Africa-ITF", printed on it. Since I wasn't sure what to make of this, I even went so far as to contact the Taekwondo Hall of Fame executive director, Master Gerard Robbins, to ask him why I had received a citation from the organization and how I should report back to my national governing body (SA-ITF). He graciously indulged me and seemed somewhat surprised that I should ask such a question. I guess not that many people ask why they receive something when they receive it; I hope that my inquiry wasn't discourteous. He explained that I received the citation because of my work in research and education for South Africa and for my support of the Taekwondo Hall of Fame and referred to the post I wrote on Master Noemi Prone as an example of said support. He added that: "You can report back to South Africa that you were recognized by the Taekwondo Hall of Fame with a citation for your hard work."
 |
| Me and Master Gerard Robbins, Executive Director of the Taekwondo Hall of Fame. |
Also, for sake of clarification, I was not inducted into the Hall of Fame; I was merely given a general "citation"--an honourable mention. The Taekwondo Hall of Fame has different levels for honouring someone. There are two types of certifications awarded by the Hall of Fame: a citation and an induction. The latter, of course, is when someone becomes a member of the Hall of Fame. This is not the case for someone receiving a citation. Furthermore, as I understand it, there are general citations and specific citations; examples of specific citations are citations for leadership, coaching, and so on. These carry more value than general citations as the one I received.
19 October 2011
The Blue House
 |
| Me in front of the "Blue House" |
 |
| The Reception Hall at the Blue House, with its two adjacent buildings: "Choongmoo" and "Sejong". |
 |
| A statue of Admiral Yi Sun-Shin, at Gwangwhamun Plaza, Seoul. |
 |
| A statue of King Sejong the Great, in Gwanghwamun Plaza, Seoul. |
Another martial art related thing at the Blue House is probably the awful incident that occurred in 1968. Thirty-one North Korean assassins infiltrated the Blue House, purposed to murder then President Park Chung-Hee. The commandos were highly skilled combatants, trained in various skills, including martial arts. During the ensuing conflict with Blue House security 28 of the 31 commandos were killed, one escaped and one was captured. South Korean casualties counted to 26 deaths and 66 wounded—mainly police and military, but also some civilians.
 |
| Kim Shin Jo, the North Korean commando that was captured during the "Blue House Raid" of 1968. |
 |
| Kim Shin-Jo, South Korean citizen and Christian pastor. |
Some interesting facts about Kim Shin-Jo: he is still alive. He is around 70 years old and lives in South Korea as a South Korean citizen. He has converted to Christianity and is actually a pastor of a protestant church in Seoul. While the martial art connection interests me, I'm equally intrigued by the power of the Gospel: what an amazing power that can disarm a hardened killer at an intrinsic level, by changing his life, his way of thinking—turning hatred into mercy!
"I tried to kill the president. I was the enemy," Kim said. "But the South Korean people showed me sympathy and forgiveness. I was touched and moved." -- CNN Article
18 October 2011
Why Taekwon-Do is Not Good for Self-Defence -- Some Clarifications
To my surprise a recent post in which I argue that Taekwon-Do is not a good system for civilian defence opened up a can of worms on a martial art forum. Actually it is not really surprising as the post was intended to be somewhat controversial. I am after all saying that the “Korean Art of Self-Defence” is not good for self-defence. What was surprising is not that people are talking about it, but rather who is talking about it. I would have thought that primarily Taekwon-Do people would take offence, but it seems like it is some people in the traditional martial art community in general, rather than the Taekwon-Do community in particular, who is taking offence. And coming to my defence are Taekwon-Do practitioners, but also practitioners of other traditional martial arts; including in part Dan Djurdjevic, a fellow blogger and martial artist to whom I have referred to on a number of occasions here on the Soo Shim Kwan blog.
You can see the thread where the discussion is happening here.
I decided that I'm not going to engage in the conversation on the thread. Not because I don't like such discussions, but rather because of the lack of time at present to devote to it on a forum. (Forum discussion usually span days and I'm in the middle of Midterm exams requiring me to grade a multitude of papers for at least two weeks.) Also, the post I wrote is part of a larger series of posts (at least in my mind) that started with “What's the Difference Between Taekwon-Do and Hapkido?” and continued with “Techniques: when serious harm is not intended”. Since I'm still in the process of building my argument through these posts I don't want to argue my case just yet as I'm still exploring it for myself.
Back to the thread I mentioned: What I have garnered from the discussion there is that I might be misunderstood to say that Taekwon-Do (and by implication all traditional martial arts) are too dangerous for self-defence because every traditional technique is so potentially lethal. To this I have to reply both yes and no. I will not speak for other traditional arts like for instance Karate, because I'm not a Karateka. I'm speaking solely now for (ITF) Taekwon-Do. Yes, I think that original Taekwon-Do, which I called “authentic”[1] Taekwon-Do in the mentioned post, is not appropriate for civilian defence, because, yes, it is/was too lethal.
Taekwon-Do—contrary to what the South Korean marketers would have you believe—is not 2000 years old. It did not start as a traditional martial art. While original Taekwon-Do does have roots in primarily Shotokan Karate and some Taekkyeon, as well as some other styles, it's primary development occurred in the 29th Infantry Division of the South Korean Army. At that time it's purpose was as a military combat system. The immediate context was World War II and the Korean War—this is what it was developed for: as a system of hand-to-hand combat to be used in the types of wars of the time. Those involved in developing it were war veterans and some of them, for example Major Nam Tae-Hi, had actual hand-to-hand combat experience on the battlefield. It was later applied and battle tested during the Vietnam War. This is the context of Taekwon-Do's development—actual real war. There are different sources you can read up on this. The one I like the most is A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do
. (I'm looking forward to read Master George Vitale's recent doctoral thesis on the history of Taekwon-Do.)
In its original form, Taekwon-Do was excessively hard and not appropriate for civilian defence. The type of training involved is also not something that most normal civilians would wish to endure. Practically all of those original masters are suffering from serious arthritis, terrible knee and / or hip joint problems and other ailments that can be directly linked to the harsh type of training they partook in. Original Taekwon-Do, as practised in the early South Korean military, was not meant for civilian use. Taekwon-Do only later became a traditional martial art taught to civilians; the moment it started being taught to civilians it started to change.
The other point I made in my post was that Taekwon-Do as it is mostly taught today is nothing like original Taekwon-Do. It is something that is terribly watered down and it too is not appropriate for civilian self-defence, not because it is necessarily too dangerous; rather the opposite. In this watered down state, what is taught as “self-defence” is usually unrealistic. (See: “Why I Don't Like Your Self-Defence”.) It is furthermore not good as a civilian defence system because unlike many other traditional martial arts it does not have a fully developed arsenal of “control” techniques. While control techniques are not the only valuable techniques for civilian defence, they definitely are one important set of techniques for civilian defence.
The reason Taekwon-Do does not have a proper arsenal of control techniques is because it was not originally meant as a civilian defence system—it was meant as a military combat system. The original control techniques that Taekwon-Do could have inherited from the styles (e.g. Karate and Taekkyeon) it developed out of were mostly dropped because such techniques were not considered effective for military combat. Remember that a military combat system is an infantryman's last resort. It is used when your artillery failed. You don't use it to control the enemy, like a policeman might do with a petty-criminal, you use it in a desperate act of defence in which it is quite likely that you will die, lest you eliminate the enemy soldier directly in front of you as swiftly as possible.
The other thing that prevented Taekwon-Do from building up an arsenal of control techniques is that another martial art entered the civilian scene while Taekwon-Do was still focussing on the military scene—Hapkido; and unlike Taekwon-Do, Hapkido was at the time almost exclusively preoccupied with control techniques. Early Hapkido (known as Hapki-Yoosool) was for all intends and purposes basically Japanese jujitsu—more specifically, Daito Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu. This earliest form of Hapkido had practically no strikes or kicks. These only came later. I'm hypothesizing that while Taekwon-Do filled the military combat niche back then, Hapkido filled the civilian defence niche. No wonder that when Taekwon-Do did become a system taught to civilians in Korea it evolved into something wholly different—a sport, in the form of WTF taekwondo [2]—for that was the obvious remaining niche [3]. Hapkido techniques were assimilated into Taekwon-Do, but this obviously occurred later.
For Taekwon-Do to function as a proper civilian defence system requires a number of things. I mentioned some of those things in the previous post. For one, it must take account of what is currently taught as self-defence and admit that it is not very reflective of reality. Also, it needs more “soft” style techniques. This is what I'm currently researching—the soft techniques in Taekwon-Do and how they can be used for civilian defensive purposes. The specific type of techniques I'm currently preoccupied with is pushing techniques.
I'm not saying that Taekwon-Do cannot be used for (civilian) self-defence. It can. However, the current thing that is most commonly taught as “self-defence” in many Taekwon-dojang is not appropriate for actual real life self-defence. Neither is a complete return to Taekwon-Do's military combat roots. The solution is to be found some place else and will also require the adoption of “foreign” techniques. Many instructors have already done so (as have I), so some people reading this post may actually have no idea what the whole fuss is about.
Finally, I'm speaking of “civilian self-defence” contextualised within a relatively “civil society.”
Footnote 1: I used the term “authentic” Taekwon-Do in the previous post, rather than “original” Taekwon-Do. The reason is because of the many splits in Taekwon-Do many people are claiming to teach “original” Taekwon-Do. What I am actually trying to say when I use “authentic” or “original” Taekwon-Do with in the context of these post is that early form of Taekwon-Do that developed within the 29th Infantry Division of the South Korean Army in the 1950s.
Footnote 2: The taekwondo currently taught to soldiers in general in the South Korean military is not the original actual combat focussed version that it once was. Now it is a version of Kukki/WTF taekwondo and soldiers are actually awarded Kukki/WTF black belts during their military service. Soldiers in special force units, for instance the South Korean navy seals learn a different and much more effective hand-to-hand combat system.
Footnote 3: There is actually another remaining niche, an ascetic one. In Korea the most iconic martial art focussing on asceticism is probably Seon Moo Do (Zen Martial Way), practised at two or three Buddhist monasteries in South Korea. There is, however, no mainstream martial art with a clear ascetic focus in Korea, in the same way as Aikido in Japan. Most all Korean martial arts have some ascetic components, ITF Taekwon-Do slightly more so than most, but it is not so heavily focussed that one could call them true ascetic martial arts, and none really fill the ascetic niche. Unlike Japan that is a mostly secular society and an ascetic martial art like Aikido may actually fill some “spiritual” need, Korea is not as secular. Both Christianity and Buddhism are very active in South Korea, so that an ascetic search is more likely to be catered for by religion than martial arts.
You can see the thread where the discussion is happening here.
I decided that I'm not going to engage in the conversation on the thread. Not because I don't like such discussions, but rather because of the lack of time at present to devote to it on a forum. (Forum discussion usually span days and I'm in the middle of Midterm exams requiring me to grade a multitude of papers for at least two weeks.) Also, the post I wrote is part of a larger series of posts (at least in my mind) that started with “What's the Difference Between Taekwon-Do and Hapkido?” and continued with “Techniques: when serious harm is not intended”. Since I'm still in the process of building my argument through these posts I don't want to argue my case just yet as I'm still exploring it for myself.
Back to the thread I mentioned: What I have garnered from the discussion there is that I might be misunderstood to say that Taekwon-Do (and by implication all traditional martial arts) are too dangerous for self-defence because every traditional technique is so potentially lethal. To this I have to reply both yes and no. I will not speak for other traditional arts like for instance Karate, because I'm not a Karateka. I'm speaking solely now for (ITF) Taekwon-Do. Yes, I think that original Taekwon-Do, which I called “authentic”[1] Taekwon-Do in the mentioned post, is not appropriate for civilian defence, because, yes, it is/was too lethal.
 |
| The Taekwon-Do pagoda (monument) at the military base on Jeju Island where "original" Taekwon-Do was developed as part of the 29th Infantry Division in the 1950s. |
. (I'm looking forward to read Master George Vitale's recent doctoral thesis on the history of Taekwon-Do.) |
| Centre: Major Nam Tae Hi, teaching Taekwon-Do to the Vietnamese Military in the 1960s. Image Source |
The other point I made in my post was that Taekwon-Do as it is mostly taught today is nothing like original Taekwon-Do. It is something that is terribly watered down and it too is not appropriate for civilian self-defence, not because it is necessarily too dangerous; rather the opposite. In this watered down state, what is taught as “self-defence” is usually unrealistic. (See: “Why I Don't Like Your Self-Defence”.) It is furthermore not good as a civilian defence system because unlike many other traditional martial arts it does not have a fully developed arsenal of “control” techniques. While control techniques are not the only valuable techniques for civilian defence, they definitely are one important set of techniques for civilian defence.
The reason Taekwon-Do does not have a proper arsenal of control techniques is because it was not originally meant as a civilian defence system—it was meant as a military combat system. The original control techniques that Taekwon-Do could have inherited from the styles (e.g. Karate and Taekkyeon) it developed out of were mostly dropped because such techniques were not considered effective for military combat. Remember that a military combat system is an infantryman's last resort. It is used when your artillery failed. You don't use it to control the enemy, like a policeman might do with a petty-criminal, you use it in a desperate act of defence in which it is quite likely that you will die, lest you eliminate the enemy soldier directly in front of you as swiftly as possible.
 |
| A photo of Hapkido "founder" Choi Yong Sul with students in 1951. While Taekwon-Do was developing in the military, Hapkido was being established outside the military; i.e. as a civilian martial art. Image Source |
For Taekwon-Do to function as a proper civilian defence system requires a number of things. I mentioned some of those things in the previous post. For one, it must take account of what is currently taught as self-defence and admit that it is not very reflective of reality. Also, it needs more “soft” style techniques. This is what I'm currently researching—the soft techniques in Taekwon-Do and how they can be used for civilian defensive purposes. The specific type of techniques I'm currently preoccupied with is pushing techniques.
I'm not saying that Taekwon-Do cannot be used for (civilian) self-defence. It can. However, the current thing that is most commonly taught as “self-defence” in many Taekwon-dojang is not appropriate for actual real life self-defence. Neither is a complete return to Taekwon-Do's military combat roots. The solution is to be found some place else and will also require the adoption of “foreign” techniques. Many instructors have already done so (as have I), so some people reading this post may actually have no idea what the whole fuss is about.
Finally, I'm speaking of “civilian self-defence” contextualised within a relatively “civil society.”
Footnote 1: I used the term “authentic” Taekwon-Do in the previous post, rather than “original” Taekwon-Do. The reason is because of the many splits in Taekwon-Do many people are claiming to teach “original” Taekwon-Do. What I am actually trying to say when I use “authentic” or “original” Taekwon-Do with in the context of these post is that early form of Taekwon-Do that developed within the 29th Infantry Division of the South Korean Army in the 1950s.
Footnote 2: The taekwondo currently taught to soldiers in general in the South Korean military is not the original actual combat focussed version that it once was. Now it is a version of Kukki/WTF taekwondo and soldiers are actually awarded Kukki/WTF black belts during their military service. Soldiers in special force units, for instance the South Korean navy seals learn a different and much more effective hand-to-hand combat system.
Footnote 3: There is actually another remaining niche, an ascetic one. In Korea the most iconic martial art focussing on asceticism is probably Seon Moo Do (Zen Martial Way), practised at two or three Buddhist monasteries in South Korea. There is, however, no mainstream martial art with a clear ascetic focus in Korea, in the same way as Aikido in Japan. Most all Korean martial arts have some ascetic components, ITF Taekwon-Do slightly more so than most, but it is not so heavily focussed that one could call them true ascetic martial arts, and none really fill the ascetic niche. Unlike Japan that is a mostly secular society and an ascetic martial art like Aikido may actually fill some “spiritual” need, Korea is not as secular. Both Christianity and Buddhism are very active in South Korea, so that an ascetic search is more likely to be catered for by religion than martial arts.
12 October 2011
Targeting Plexuses
 |
| Image Source |
For this reason I like to target pressure points that are easy to access; in other words, the target area is relatively big. Therefore, I like to target plexuses. A “plexus” is a cluster of intersecting nerves; in other words, a group of nerves (pressure points) that come together in a type of nerve knot.
 |
| Celiac Plexus with Surrounding Organs Image Source |
 |
| Image Source |
 |
| Image Source |
 |
| Image Source |
 |
| Image Source |
In summary, plexuses are clusters of nerves. Unlike a single pressure point that requires very precise activation, a plexus is bigger and therefore easier to activate. The solar plexus is probably the most famous plexus in the martial arts, but it is actually quite difficult to reach as it is embedded deep into the torso. Much more attainable plexuses are the brachial plexus and the cervical plexus, both situated in the neck area. When training to attack these targets make sure to do so under the supervision of a professional.
10 October 2011
Why Taekwon-Do is Not Good for Self-Defence
In this post I want to explain why I think Taekwon-Do is not good for self-defence and it is probably not for the reasons you might expect. Paradoxically, I think that authentic Taekwon-Do is too good a system, and for this very reason it is a bad form of defence for civilians.
Taekwon-Do is called the Korean Art of Self-Defence. The Korean version of the Condensed ITF Encyclopaedia states: “이런 점이 태권도를 호신예술이라 부르는 리유의 하나이라 하겠다.” The definition of Taekwon-Do is distilled in this idea: Taekwon-Do as a 'self-defence art'—호신예술. When taught and trained properly, I do not doubt the effectiveness of Taekwon-Do as a good combat system. Unfortunately it is exactly this point that has me concerned. Taekwon-Do is too effective. When trained particularly for combat, Taekwon-Do looks almost exactly like Krav Maga, another exceptional combat system. The problem with both these styles is that they are brutally effective. When performed correctly they will seriously injure the opponent, possibly fracture something, and can cause death. The reason for this is that both styles were developed as systems of combat for military purposes. There is a reason why Alex Gillis called his book on Taekwon-Do's history “A Killing Art”.
When you are on the battlefield with your attacker intending to kill you, retaliation of the kind that authentic Taekwon-Do and Krav Maga offers is reasonable—in fact, it is expected. However, very few of us are combatants engaging national enemies. Our attackers may indeed be violent criminals intend on killing us, in which case we need to defend ourself at the level of brutality that such an encounter necessitates, but a significant percentage of attacks do not by default require the type of aggression and savagery asked for by a combatant on a battlefield. As non-combatants, in other words as civilians, living in normal society rather than the battlefield, we are required by law to act civil. Even when we are attacked, law puts certain limits on self-defence. Law does not allow me to break the knee of a pickpocket. Law will look very unfavourably on me for fracturing with repeated elbow strikes the skull of a man that hit me once in the face. Killing someone unless I can prove that my life was in definite jeopardy will have me incarcerated. The law only allows me to use the amount of force to escape from the situation and nothing more. Imagine being attacked by your drunk Uncle Fred at the family reunion. This is where the problem with martial arts like Taekwon-Do and Krav Maga comes in. We have great arsenals of combative techniques, but a lousy arsenal for civilian defence. Styles like Taekwon-Do and Krav Maga lacks the more civil techniques required when you do not need to fracture someone's skull.
In modern society where the rule of law is generally in effect, a softer type of martial art that will limit the physical damage to the opponent is better. Proper Taekwon-Do, like Krav Maga, is too barbarous.
Since true combative violence is frowned upon by normal society, Taekwon-Do has undergone some serious changes, particularly in the way it is packaged to the masses. The focus has moved away from it being taught as an actual military combat system, to it being presented as sport or a recreational activity. Emphasis is put on tournament sparring, which has little value for actual self-defence; or emphasis is put on it as an artistic discipline, not much different from dance or an ascetic discipline such as yoga. Self-defence practised in this version of Taekwon-Do is highly stylised, basically choreographed performances. What is left is something that looks like it could be used for self-defence, but it has been tamed to such a degree that if a real violent attack were to occur, combined with the chaos that goes along with real life violence, it would be ill-equipped to handle the situation. Basically, it is a type of pre-arranged sparring pretending to be self-defence.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that Taekwon-Do provides us with two extremes, neither of which is ideal for civilians in a civil society wanting to defend themselves. On the one hand we have a brutal combat system that is of value for combatants on a battlefield, but does not provide us with the delicate tools to properly take care of a much less violent civilian situation, like when your drunk uncle Fred gets raucous at the family reunion. The Taekwon-Do combatant is equipped with kicks, punches, strikes, all of which will severely hurt dear uncle Fred. On the other hand, we have a recreational activity with ritualised and stylistic combat mimicking which is great for teaching children discipline or wonderful as an artistic or ascetic recreation. Regrettably to achieve this level of “civility” Taekwon-Do has been watered down so much and been stylised to such a degree that if a real violent situation occurs, it often lacks the authenticity of genuine fighting that real self-defence against real violence call for.
It is within the context of normal civilians living in generally law-abiding societies that I think Taekwon-Do is not a good system for actual self-defence. The type of “self-defence” required in these societies are not the type of “self-defence” that real Taekwon-Do offers. What authentic Taekwon-Do offers is much too barbarous to fit in a civil society and its usuage is likely to get you thrown in jail. An apt form of “self-defence” in a relatively civil society will be a system with less hard attacks and more controlling (i.e. “soft style”) techniques.
I believe that there is a solution to this problem, but it will require a serious rethinking of how Taekwon-Do is practised. It will require a re-evaluation of what self-defence in a civil society—rather than the battlefield—looks like. It will require a re-evaluation of the types of techniques that are typically trained, with a new emphasis on “soft” techniques, and may even require the adoption of “foreign” techniques. And finally, it will require the honesty to admit that what is often practised as “self-defence” are instead stylized rituals that mimics fighting, but is not the real thing. We have to rethink the purpose of Taekwon-Do as a civilian defence system, rather than a martial system, i.e. a system intended for warfare.
Now having said that Taekwon-Do is not good for self-defence in a typically civil society, there are societies that are not as civil as the one I allude to above, where crimes are often violent and life threatening. I'm thinking, for example, of my home country, South Africa. In such a violent society almost all direct encounters with crime are potentially life threatening. Self-defence in this type of society is much different from a society like the one I live in presently, South Korea, where cases of violent crimes are ridiculously low. In a country where violent crimes are prevalent, authentic Taekwon-Do with its brutishly effective techniques are indeed a good system for self-defence. Unfortunately, Taekwon-Do is seldom taught in its authentic combat focussed form, so that what people often learn are the “stylistic combat mimicking” I spoke about earlier, instead of the “Killing Art” it originally was.
Of course, speaking about self-defence, it is important to remember that training in self-defence is a much bigger issue than merely the acquisition of an arsenal of techniques.
If you are really interested in self-defence, consider these books as starters:
I highly recommend both.
Taekwon-Do is called the Korean Art of Self-Defence. The Korean version of the Condensed ITF Encyclopaedia states: “이런 점이 태권도를 호신예술이라 부르는 리유의 하나이라 하겠다.” The definition of Taekwon-Do is distilled in this idea: Taekwon-Do as a 'self-defence art'—호신예술. When taught and trained properly, I do not doubt the effectiveness of Taekwon-Do as a good combat system. Unfortunately it is exactly this point that has me concerned. Taekwon-Do is too effective. When trained particularly for combat, Taekwon-Do looks almost exactly like Krav Maga, another exceptional combat system. The problem with both these styles is that they are brutally effective. When performed correctly they will seriously injure the opponent, possibly fracture something, and can cause death. The reason for this is that both styles were developed as systems of combat for military purposes. There is a reason why Alex Gillis called his book on Taekwon-Do's history “A Killing Art”.
 |
| Korean Soldiers in Vietnam were versed in early forms of Taekwon-Do Image Source |
In modern society where the rule of law is generally in effect, a softer type of martial art that will limit the physical damage to the opponent is better. Proper Taekwon-Do, like Krav Maga, is too barbarous.
Since true combative violence is frowned upon by normal society, Taekwon-Do has undergone some serious changes, particularly in the way it is packaged to the masses. The focus has moved away from it being taught as an actual military combat system, to it being presented as sport or a recreational activity. Emphasis is put on tournament sparring, which has little value for actual self-defence; or emphasis is put on it as an artistic discipline, not much different from dance or an ascetic discipline such as yoga. Self-defence practised in this version of Taekwon-Do is highly stylised, basically choreographed performances. What is left is something that looks like it could be used for self-defence, but it has been tamed to such a degree that if a real violent attack were to occur, combined with the chaos that goes along with real life violence, it would be ill-equipped to handle the situation. Basically, it is a type of pre-arranged sparring pretending to be self-defence.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that Taekwon-Do provides us with two extremes, neither of which is ideal for civilians in a civil society wanting to defend themselves. On the one hand we have a brutal combat system that is of value for combatants on a battlefield, but does not provide us with the delicate tools to properly take care of a much less violent civilian situation, like when your drunk uncle Fred gets raucous at the family reunion. The Taekwon-Do combatant is equipped with kicks, punches, strikes, all of which will severely hurt dear uncle Fred. On the other hand, we have a recreational activity with ritualised and stylistic combat mimicking which is great for teaching children discipline or wonderful as an artistic or ascetic recreation. Regrettably to achieve this level of “civility” Taekwon-Do has been watered down so much and been stylised to such a degree that if a real violent situation occurs, it often lacks the authenticity of genuine fighting that real self-defence against real violence call for.
It is within the context of normal civilians living in generally law-abiding societies that I think Taekwon-Do is not a good system for actual self-defence. The type of “self-defence” required in these societies are not the type of “self-defence” that real Taekwon-Do offers. What authentic Taekwon-Do offers is much too barbarous to fit in a civil society and its usuage is likely to get you thrown in jail. An apt form of “self-defence” in a relatively civil society will be a system with less hard attacks and more controlling (i.e. “soft style”) techniques.
I believe that there is a solution to this problem, but it will require a serious rethinking of how Taekwon-Do is practised. It will require a re-evaluation of what self-defence in a civil society—rather than the battlefield—looks like. It will require a re-evaluation of the types of techniques that are typically trained, with a new emphasis on “soft” techniques, and may even require the adoption of “foreign” techniques. And finally, it will require the honesty to admit that what is often practised as “self-defence” are instead stylized rituals that mimics fighting, but is not the real thing. We have to rethink the purpose of Taekwon-Do as a civilian defence system, rather than a martial system, i.e. a system intended for warfare.
 |
| Image Source |
Of course, speaking about self-defence, it is important to remember that training in self-defence is a much bigger issue than merely the acquisition of an arsenal of techniques.
If you are really interested in self-defence, consider these books as starters:
I highly recommend both.
What do you know about pushing techniques?
Readers of this blog, I need your input!
I'm in the process of researching pushing techniques 미로술기 in Taekwon-Do for a post I wish to write. Unfortunately there are hardly any resources available on the topic and the ITF Encyclopaedia also has very little to say about the topic.
If you think you understand how pushing techniques work in Taekwon-Do, or if your instructors have ever explained pushing techniques in any special way, or if you have seen interesting approaches to pushing techniques, please let me know.
Any ideas are welcome.
Cheers!
Sanko
I'm in the process of researching pushing techniques 미로술기 in Taekwon-Do for a post I wish to write. Unfortunately there are hardly any resources available on the topic and the ITF Encyclopaedia also has very little to say about the topic.
If you think you understand how pushing techniques work in Taekwon-Do, or if your instructors have ever explained pushing techniques in any special way, or if you have seen interesting approaches to pushing techniques, please let me know.
Any ideas are welcome.
Cheers!
Sanko
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)