Author Topic: Tae kwon do really is effective  (Read 10346 times)

RC Money

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 972
  • I don't knock on doors...I knock doors down.
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2011, 04:04:51 PM »
TKD has the flashiest kicks not hardest, and they tend to land them with the foot not the shin.

Swede!

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3316
  • www.letskillsometime.com Direct link in signature
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2011, 04:06:13 PM »
TKD has the flashiest kicks not hardest, and they tend to land them with the foot not the shin.

not talking about the flashy sport tkd kicks, talking about the spinning back kick / spinning side kick / side kick or whatever they're called.

Swede!

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3316
  • www.letskillsometime.com Direct link in signature
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2011, 04:07:49 PM »

Rami

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8120
  • One Hundred Percent
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2011, 04:09:46 PM »

RC Money

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 972
  • I don't knock on doors...I knock doors down.
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2011, 04:12:29 PM »
not talking about the flashy sport tkd kicks, talking about the spinning back kick / spinning side kick / side kick or whatever they're called.
Still just about every MT kick has bad intentions on it, not hating on TKD specificly I like their diversity.

Swede!

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3316
  • www.letskillsometime.com Direct link in signature
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2011, 04:13:18 PM »
Still just about every MT kick has bad intentions on it, not hating on TKD specificly I like their diversity.

Dont get me wrong. MT is Faaaar superior. Just talking about single hardest kick

Swede!

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3316
  • www.letskillsometime.com Direct link in signature
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2011, 04:14:48 PM »
who the hell is this?

dexter jackson....

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2011, 04:24:15 PM »
You can't make a fair comparison with someone trained in any martial art with someone who has trained in any. You have to compare apples to apples. A train Tae Kwon Do fighter and a trained Jiu-Jitsu fighter.

Here Rorion Gracie is well into his forties fighting a much young and much better shape Hapkido (similar to Tae Kwon do) black belt.



Here Rorion's son, Rener, is having a go at a Tae Kwon Do black belt.


Swede!

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3316
  • www.letskillsometime.com Direct link in signature
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2011, 04:27:36 PM »
You can't make a fair comparison with someone trained in any martial art with someone who has trained in any. You have to compare apples to apples. A train Tae Kwon Do fighter and a trained Jiu-Jitsu fighter.

Here Rorion Gracie is well into his forties fighting a much young and much better shape Hapkido (similar to Tae Kwon do) black belt.





I love that video

cephissus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7596
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2011, 04:35:32 PM »

Natural Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11164
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2011, 04:42:10 PM »
im working on a funny dex chop for a thred start at md lol.
"working"?

Swede!

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3316
  • www.letskillsometime.com Direct link in signature
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2011, 04:43:57 PM »

apply85

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3833
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2011, 05:48:57 PM »
hapkido and tkd are not really similar, there is striking taught in hapkido but the emphasis is on wrist locks and the such, while tkd is all punching and kicking, these are two martial arts I studied when I was young, mt and bjj being the ones I studied when I got older

badlad

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2011, 06:15:49 PM »
Donkeys kick pretty hard. My advice - never go looking for a fight with a donkey. Or a horse for that matter. But my experience is only limited to donkeys otherwise I am talking out of my ass

johnny1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2486
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2011, 06:39:38 PM »
This is imo the hardest kick in the world if done correctly and with power.


the spin kick is Very powerful they really knock the wind out of you big time....if you can Land it on a MOVING TARGET which is why you usually see them land when someone is already weakened, tired etc, Muay tai kicks to the Legs and Ribs are somewhat easier to land and considering the Consistent Volume you can put out...Time and Time again and again they are Designed to Fuck you up Fast especially if you are out of Condition, the Tae kwon Do kicks (to the head) are real Dangerous again....IF you can land them make no mistake there...Getting a Shin across your Chin/any part of your face @ speed.....goodnight

Parker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 53475
  • He Sees The Stormy Anger Of The World
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2011, 06:58:01 PM »
imo Bullshit. Hardest kick is probably the side kick /turning side kick whatever its called

Not obviously the most effective.. but I would have to say the single hardest kick would be from a tkd fella. Mostly from the extreme momentum.
Do you remember the National Geographic Fight Science vid I post about 6 months ago, that measured the kicks of TKD, Karate, MT, Capoeira? Then you'd be surprised at which one had the hardest kick.

Ursus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11338
  • Getbig!
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2011, 07:22:31 PM »
Did Fight Science not prove it was Muay Thai?

Parker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 53475
  • He Sees The Stormy Anger Of The World
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2011, 07:35:11 PM »
Did Fight Science not prove it was Muay Thai?
Initially it was capoeira...but there were factors.

supernick

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2011, 07:59:27 PM »
Somebody once told Chuck Norris that the round house kick was un effective.  This has offically been recorded as the worst mistake ever made. :)

Swede!

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3316
  • www.letskillsometime.com Direct link in signature
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #44 on: September 17, 2011, 04:05:19 AM »
Do you remember the National Geographic Fight Science vid I post about 6 months ago, that measured the kicks of TKD, Karate, MT, Capoeira? Then you'd be surprised at which one had the hardest kick.

Fight Science are Horrible.

And its all about Who throws it.

Capoiera Sucks but once in a while (only time ive seen it)



Rogan also says tkd has the hardest kick, and has commented  1000+ fights and have trained martial arts his entire life he should know more then any of us. So I just leave it at that and if anyone still doesn't agree then its ok =)

Parker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 53475
  • He Sees The Stormy Anger Of The World
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2011, 04:51:35 AM »
Fight Science are Horrible.

And its all about Who throws it.

Capoiera Sucks but once in a while (only time ive seen it)



Rogan also says tkd has the hardest kick, and has commented  1000+ fights and have trained martial arts his entire life he should know more then any of us. So I just leave it at that and if anyone still doesn't agree then its ok =)


fight science is about the science, the measurement. Period Point Blank.
It matters not what Joe Rogan has said, you go by the data that is provided. Not by what somebody has said, regardless of his experience or commentation.
You go by the measured data.

Capoeira has to be modified for modern ring fighting, in it's current form it won't work in the ring, unless one focuses on the trips, single kicks, and avoidance manuevers. But it has to be paired with another martial art to be effective in it's currence form---a grappling or striking martial art.
And this is something that the current leadership doesn't want to do...
It change the whole aspect and one of the fundamental  rules to capoeira---the strong protect the weak, and changes it to the strong dominates the weak. No longer are you in the roda to befriend and apply trickery to a "game", but to dominate and hurt the opponent---imagine many of those kicks connecting with a novices chin or chest---you are looking at a broken jaw and ribs, or worse.

kevcat

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #46 on: September 17, 2011, 05:19:34 AM »
How about its to do with the person throwin the kick and not some fuckin technique.Yes i train in martial arts and im speaking in facts ;)

Swede!

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3316
  • www.letskillsometime.com Direct link in signature
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #47 on: September 17, 2011, 05:21:57 AM »
fight science is about the science, the measurement. Period Point Blank.
It matters not what Joe Rogan has said, you go by the data that is provided. Not by what somebody has said, regardless of his experience or commentation.
You go by the measured data.

it about How they measure also. and they have come to some stupid stupid conclusions. They're probably paid to hype certian fighters. SOmetimes its a huge heavy bag sometime its a small and sometimes the have tkd guys punch etc. Its a stupid non scientific show. Just shows cool measurements. They need to be identical EVERY time to fairly judge.

wasnt the MT Knee the most powertful on the show..

and Cain Velasquez hits almost twice as hard as james toney apaprently  ::) James Toney threw a punch with 1200 lbs.

by Al Alvir

The couple of sports science shows aired on TV – namely Sports Science and Fight Science – are filled with intriguing concepts and some seemingly high-tech devices but miss on some key aspects of science and striking science.  The shows sell laymen, including me, some pristine numbers in language we easily understand without the proper responsibility of providing solid factors – dependent variables, independent variables, controlled variables, etc.  Whatever the jargon is, notice that they don’t test and re-test the data, and some of the experiments seem fishy.

When we see that James Toney threw a punch with 1200 lbs. of force, Randy Couture, a 1000 lb. punch, Lucia Rijker, a 900 lb. punch, Cain Velasquez, a 2300 lb. punch, and Ricky Hatton, a 3300 lb. punch (tested by a Dr. Li and Biosense Medical LTD and later noted to only be 885 lbs. of force), we may think it is as clear-cut as men stepping on a scale right out of the shower.  But upon a little perspective of watching fights and seeing these guys and gal punch, some of us should become a bit skeptical of the science these shows proclaim.  First and foremost, there are numerous ways, with varying power, to throw every punch.

Second, although SAFO Group has no resident physicist, I could throw a bunch of variables that we aren’t privy to in the shows – I guess it’s for the shows’ watchability.  Max force, kinetic energy, velocity, momentum, acceleration, impulse-momentum theorem, collision time, Newton’s second law, are all somewhat missing.

In boxing and mma, it’s “collision” that counts, not force per se (max force is more important).  It’s snap, or impulse (specifically, the impulse-momentum theorem), that separates the punchers from guys with just heavy arms who can register high numbers in pounds of force.  This is why punchers all learn the dynamic of popping the shoulder (and twisting the wrist to a lesser, but still important, extent) producing snap.  Not to say that the fighters who register high numbers in force can’t register high numbers in an impulse-momentum theorem, but measuring force cannot be enough.  The impulse-momentum theorem is arguably the best way to really measure knockout power.  These science shows may be selling a sensationalized and flawed experiment even if force was the right measurement.  The “force,” however, seems inauthentic.  I had suspected that if the fighters sat on the dummies that were used to test their power, the equipment would register their weight in force.  It would be akin to pushing punches, as many beginners practice with the belief that it provides more power.  According to practical science, Fight Science data is bogus.  The laws of Physics do not rely solely on impact biomechanics, as the show relies, but by factors of “size and form of target (measuring punch or kick) sponginess and extremity.”  This is impossible to do accurately.  Perhaps that’s why limited data is sold on dumb shows.  Power and the power to concuss may be more irrelevant than anyone has hypothesized.

In striking, especially punching, scientists fail to understand that strikes have a point of snap – the emphasis at impact – trying to shake the opponent’s brain as much as possible.  Perhaps it is scientists’ lack of understanding of punching that keeps them testing the wrong things and making false comparisons.  Some of the “heaviest hands” considered in boxing history may have relatively low knockouts to land ratios (MotionFACT™ promises to provide that data).

Follow-through in punching misrepresents power.  Follow-through may send someone’s head farther, but it doesn’t directly translate into concussive power in regards to jolt.  Fighters need to snap at the target; although follow-through can make-up for some snap, it is the least efficient way to punch. Besides telegraphing, it is compensation for something that can be done without so much need for momentum.  And what follow-through are we talking about?  If you’re thinking of a couple inches behind the target, you may understand punching better than others (I consider that to be “at” the target).  But it’s reasonable to consider, for arguments sake and in this study, that follow-through means continuing through the target as if it were a ball being sent as far as possible.  Follow-through may register and provide more weight, but that is not enough of a test.  Force, therefore, is not enough.  Boxers train snap, acting as a sort of “recoil” (although not literally) rather than the “crumple” (akin to follow-through) in which car engineers aim for in their designs.  The crumpling of cars makes it safer for passengers because there is less change in momentum and the cars are stabilized.  The idea is that these physics translate into concussive power; you don’t want your strike stabilizing someone’s head (unless you actually crumple the person’s head, and that’s highly unlikely).  This is one hypothesis as to why knees may register so high in “pounds” of force, but produce fewer knockouts than one may presume (although knees observably land a relatively low number of times to the head in fights, as they are relatively easy to defend – the data of knees effectiveness for concussing needs further inquiry).  As for punches, what do you follow-through to if you are hitting an immovable object?  You’d probably want to transfer energy, not absorb it.  The point is that a fighter’s goal is to transfer the most amount of force IN THE LEAST AMOUNT OF CONTACT TIME.

At Biosense Medical LTD, where they tested Ricky Hatton’s punch and compared it to their data of Premier League Footballers (soccer players), the data showed that a 140 lb. Ricky Hatton punched twice as hard as the soccer players’ average power kick (approx. 400 lbs. of force).  If you, like the people of Fight Science, believe that data translates into how you should fancy being hit in the face, you’ve either never been punched or never been kicked – that’s science for ya.

So, when you’re watching one of these grand shows, keep in mind that their science is flawed science… irresponsible, myth-making, and definitely not “sweet.”

*We maintain that Fight Science and Sports Science may know what they’re doing, but they’re selling a product that they need to make tangible even though it misses the mark.  Don’t believe everything you see on tv.

Swede!

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3316
  • www.letskillsometime.com Direct link in signature
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #48 on: September 17, 2011, 05:23:15 AM »
How about its to do with the person throwin the kick and not some fuckin technique.Yes i train in martial arts and im speaking in facts ;)

Doubtful.

A certian rotation/technique will ofc add more power to a kick. a rotation for example. common sense. Front kick compared to a side kick for example. Both are kicks that land straight forward for different power due to technique.

For example ONE heavybad that Everyone hit.

kevcat

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: Tae kwon do really is effective
« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2011, 05:31:19 AM »
Doubtful.

A certian rotation/technique will ofc add more power to a kick. a rotation for example. common sense. Front kick compared to a side kick for example. Both are kicks that land straight forward for different power due to technique.

For example ONE heavybad that Everyone hit.

Youre not getting it.I understand English isnt your first language but listen carefully....Its still the person throwing that kick that matters.Have 20 people throw 1 chosen kick and someone will throw it harder than the rest, its kinda simple.I dont know what youre disagreeing with? ::)