Introduction
The Korean term Hoshinsul is translated as, “self-defense.” It is derived from the verb, ho-shin-ha-da, to protect or preserve oneself. “Self-defense,” is a method, set of techniques or strategies utilized to defeat an attack in order to prevent physical harm to oneself, loved ones and those we have chosen to protect. Hoshinsul includes a broad spectrum of techniques from Taekwondo, Judo, Hapkido, Jui-Jitsu, Karate and any number of other martial disciplines. Hoshinsul is generally considered to be unarmed self-defense, employed in response to both unarmed and armed attacks.
In order to meaningfully discuss self-defense, we must first come to an understanding of what constitutes an “attack.” It is critical that martial artists have a clear understanding of the nature of, ”attack,” well before they experience circumstances that may constitute an attack and necessitate the use of martial arts to defend themselves. If they have not done so, it is far too late to engage in this line of thought when actually under attack! Recently, when groups of Taekwondo students were polled concerning the nature of an attack, responses to the questions, “What is an attack?” “When do we know we are under attack?” varied widely, from attempted grabs, punches and strikes to being subject to verbal insults and profanity. One student suggested that we are under attack when our feelings are hurt! Responses to this question generally correlated with the student’s age, with adult students more concerned with actual physical aggression than their younger counterparts.
If we confine our analysis to physical attacks, discussions of what constitutes an “attack,” reveal that most attacks exhibit two common elements: immediacy and the intent to inflict physical harm. An “attack,” is best understood as the immediate threat of physical harm. Stated differently, we are under attack when we are subject to violence.
The term, “assault,” is often used interchangeably with the term,” attack.” In legal terms, “assault is threatened battery or an intentional attempt by violence, to inflict bodily harm on a person.” The term,” battery, “means the unlawful or unprivileged touching or beating of another person. Since an assault is legally defined as unlawful, it is the right of individuals to protect themselves from criminal assault. The above definitions of both, “attack,” and, “assault,” are consistent with the time-honored adage, “No one puts their hands on you without your permission.”
The Nature of Violence
Those who despise violence are warriors fit to work for kings.-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
In the narrow sense, violence is defined as, “…the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.” (Miriam Webster). Wikipedia defines violence as, “…the expression of physical force against self or other compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt.” The Center for Disease Control (CDC) defines violence as, “injury inflicted by deliberate means.”
Violence comes in many forms and is experienced in broad variety and on many different levels; from a threat display that escalates to physical contact, to an argument that becomes a fight, to a date rape, to having to control a quarrelsome drunk friend, to a verbal confrontation that becomes physical, to an intruder in a home invasion, protecting oneself against an abusive ex-spouse, deflecting uninvited advances in the workplace, a road rage incident, to someone trying to kill you with a weapon. All of the preceding describe forms of violence and all represent different conditions and pose different problems and require different levels of response (adapted from nononsenseselfdefense.com).
Because violence can be experienced in such variety, self-defense training must enable the defender to deal with a multitude of threats, but we should be mindful that it is not possible to prepare a specific defense for every conceivable attack. We must allocate our time and effort to prepare ourselves for the forms of violence we are most likely to experience.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) maintains statistics for crimes committed in the United States. This information would be enormously useful if criminals of violence were classified by victim age, demographic group, and type of attack. If, for example, this information would tell us that a victim of a specific age or demographic group was most often subject to a particular attack, we could prepare accordingly; for example, men under the age of eighteen are most likely to be grabbed and punched in the face, men over the age of seventy are most likely to be knocked down, etc. Unfortunately, this is not the case and the sort of specific, detailed information described above is not found in any database. We are left with an understanding of the nature of likely attacks gleaned from martial arts instruction, anecdotal information (“All fights go to the ground.”), and our own personal experience.
Ethical Considerations
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster-Friedrich Nietzsche
How should we respond to an attack? As martial artists, if we are unable to avoid a confrontation, our response is to utilize our training to avoid injury to ourselves and those we protect (the subject of this discussion is, after all, self-defense!). What actions are appropriate? Do we injure the attacker in the course of defending ourselves? If so, to what degree? Much like considering the nature of attack well before we find ourselves in a situation where an attack is imminent, it is incumbent upon all martial artists to weigh the ethical consequences of the actions undertaken to defend ourselves. Is it appropriate, for example, to respond to a shove to one’s shoulder in the course of a heated argument with a powerful side kick that breaks three ribs? If we knock or throw an assailant to the ground, is it appropriate to repeatedly kick the assailant in the head while he is in an indefensible position? These are, perhaps, extreme examples, but as we must understand that the actions we employ to defend ourselves may result in serious injury, even fatalities. What, then, from an ethical perspective, is the appropriate response to an attack?
This is not a new question; martial artists have grappled with this issue for ages. The founder of Shotokan Karate-do, Gichin Funakoshi’s famous edict, Karate ni sente nashi, there is no first attack in Karate, is often cited as the guiding principle of unarmed self-defense. Funakoshi expanded upon this idea by stating, “…I teach my students…never to go on the offensive with their karate skills…” (Gichin Funakoshi, Karate-do, My Way of Life). Masatoshi Nakayama, an early student of Funakoshi who rose to the rank of 9th Dan and founded the Japanese Karate Association (JKA), elaborated further upon Funakoshi’s dictum:
Karate ni sente nashi means literally that there is no first attack in Karate. But this does not only mean that karateka will not make the initial move to start a fight. Master Funakoshi repeatedly told us that it is also a strict prohibition against carelessly using the techniques of karate. This also means that a karateka should never act in a manner that would create an atmosphere of trouble.
Nakayama’s interpretation of Funakoshi’s dictum extends the prohibition against the first attack to state that Karate-do should never be employed irresponsibly. The clear inference is that if it is necessary to employ Karate-do, it should be used defensibly, responsibly and with minimal force.
Taekwondo Grandmaster Richard Chun echoes Funakoshi’s dictum as described in the introduction to his work, What is Tae Kwon Do?
…Tae Kwon Do’s rule is to use the minimum force necessary to subdue, defeating him with minimum harm to his body.
Grandmaster Chun clearly shares Master Funakoshi’s understanding of the appropriate use of force when engaged in self-defense; the level of force should be the minimum amount required to subdue the assailant. As martial artists, then, we must have a clear understanding of what constitutes minimal force.
Minimal force is simply the force necessary to defeat an assailant’s attack and escape without injury. Stated differently, a martial artist’s response should be scaled to the nature of the attack. If, for example, one is attempting to subdue a rowdy, physically aggressive drunk, an arm bar or choke may be the appropriate technique to employ. If the assailant attacks with the intent of inflicting serious injury or attacks with a weapon, our response escalates to include powerful striking techniques: sidekicks, knee strikes, elbows, etc., which may result in serious injury to the assailant.
The nature of the attack is not the only consideration when scaling one’s response. Rory Miller, in his excellent work, Facing Violence, in his discussion of the appropriate use of force in a self-defense situation, notes:
There are many elements that will influence how much force is necessary. The size, strength, health and sometimes age of the Threat matters, as well as your own size, strength, and age. An un-armed six-year-old should not require the same force to restrain as an enraged linebacker.
The principle of only utilizing the force necessary to defeat an attack and avoid inflicting harm should also take into consideration the physical attributes-size, age, athleticism, apparent skill level, etc.-of the attacker. If one is attacked by a large, angry, young man, one’s response should be very different than if one is approached by a frail homeless person, even if the latter is persistently obnoxious!
The logical extrapolation of the principle of the use of minimal force in self-defense is to defeat an assailant without inflicting bodily harm. In the martial art of Aikido, defeating an attacker without harming them is considered the highest level of ethical self-defense. A. Westbrook and O. Ratti describe this approach to self-defense in their work, Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere:
The last and highest level is the goal of intensive practice, but it requires more than that. It requires an ethical intention. A man must sincerely desire to defend himself without harming others. He must be well on his way toward integration of the mind and body, of physical means and ethical motives.
In a perfect world, such an approach to self-defense may well be workable; sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. Also, this approach also presumes that the defender is fully aware of the number of assailants, the possibility of concealed weapons, the efficacious execution of technique, etc. Self-defense is, more often than not, messy, and it is difficult if not impossible to scale our response with precision.
The use of force, especially the powerful kicking and striking techniques of Taekwondo, even if applied conservatively, nearly always result in injury to the assailant. The noted Aikidoka Kenji Tomiki proposed a hierarchy of self-defense responses:
I divide bujutsu up into three levels. The first is the level of violence. Here we willingly try to injure an adversary by every physical means at hand. In the second level, although we don’t take life, we forcefully break an arm or disable our adversary. However, in the third approach, there are no injuries at all. This method controls violence.
In addition to the ethical considerations described above, the use of martial arts to defend oneself also has serious legal ramifications.
Self-Defense and the Law
Martial artist and attorney Peter N. Georgiades, J. D., 3rd Dan Judo, in his lucid article The Law and Self Defense defines, “self-defense,” as, ”…the justified use of force upon another, to avoid harm which our law has recognized as being worse than that which would occur absent the use of force.” Although the legal code varies from country to country and in the United State, from state to state, and especially, from locality to locality, the position of the law concerning defending oneself by the use of force is clear: one is permitted to defend oneself provided it is an effort to avoid harm. Karl Duff provides a slightly different definition in, Martial Arts and the Law, “self-defense,” is,”…the exercise of a fundamental right to resist harm, offensive touching, force or violence by a sufficient quantum of force or violence to assure self-protection.” Such permission is not, however, unconditional.
The law permits the use of force when defending against an attack. When is the use of force justified? How much force is appropriate under the law? At what point does the use of force become excessive? Mr. Georgiades explains that “Force, in this context, gets its common and ordinary meaning; it consists of any form of impact upon the person of another…” “Deadly force,” is specially defined. It means, “force which under circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Note that the legal standard is not the intention, but, “readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” A powerful kick to the head is, “readily capable,” regardless of what may be intended. In Pennsylvania, (where Mr. Georgiades and I reside) there is a statute which defines when the use of force against another is justified to defend oneself, captioned: Use of Force in Self-Protection. Mr. Georgiades paraphrases this statute as follows, “…one may use force upon another when one believes such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or another against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion, and the harm one seeks to avoid to himself is greater than that which would occur absent the use of force. These elements are the crux of our laws of self-defense: (1) immediacy, (2) necessity, (3) absence of legal right in the other party and (4) “choice of evil,” analysis. ” Mr. Georgiades provides the following criteria to determine when one may legally employ reasonable force, not to include deadly force:
- One reasonably believes;
- He is in imminent danger;
- Of physical harm or injury to his property;
- The threat cannot be avoided without either giving up some right or privilege or using force;
- He was free from fault in provoking the incident; and
- The level of force employed is no more than necessary to avoid threat. (Peter N. Georgiades J. D., The Law of Self Defense)
The use of deadly force is quite another matter. The level of responsibility placed upon one seeking to employ deadly force is much higher. The criteria for the lawful use of deadly force are as follows:
- One reasonably believes;
- He is in imminent danger;
- Of suffering serious bodily injury or death
- It is necessary to use deadly force to prevent the harm
- He was free from fault in provoking the incident and;
- He did not violate a duty to retreat. (Peter N. Georgiades, J. D., The Law of Self Defense)
The use of force employed in self-defense must be the minimum required, “…no more than necessary to avoid threat…,” for stopping the present danger of an attack. Retaliation for past attacks or preemptive action against future attacks does not suffice to justify the use of force (there are exceptions to the prohibition against the use of preemptive force; a number of women have won acquittals in cases involving the preemptive use of force against perpetrators of domestic violence). The level of force used in self-defense must be proportional to the attack: against an attack of lethal force, an attack with a deadly weapon, for example, a defense utilizing lethal force is generally condoned; only a non-lethal defense is permitted against an attack of non-lethal force. The distinction between lethal and non-lethal attacks is not always clear. In the past several years, several US states have passed, “Stand Your Ground Laws,” which do not require a defender to retreat in the face of imminent danger before employing lethal force. In other countries, Great Britain, for example, the use of physical force, let alone lethal force, is not justified if the defender could have left the potentially violent situation safely. In his work, Facing Violence, Rory Miller summarizes this principle,” You may use the minimum level of force that you reasonably believe is necessary to safely resolve the situation.”
The question of when the use of force is legally sanctioned and how the law determines the appropriate level of force does not lend itself to a facile answer. Failure to respond to an attack with the appropriate level of force-excessive force-may have dire consequences for the defender. Mr. Peter Georgiades, J.D., again in his article, the Law of Self-Defense notes:
One who studies a martial art for the purpose of self-defense is training to commit an act which could well change his life forever. Putting aside the personal and moral implications of directing force against another, and even assuming we are successful in protecting the physical integrity of our bodies and those of the people we undertake to protect, the legal consequences which may follow our doing violence to another can be personally, professionally and economically ruinous. In recognition of this, most martial artists have, at one time or another, sought to understand the legal limits placed upon the use of force. It is not easy.
As the foregoing discussion indicates, under the law, the use of force in the course of defending oneself must be prudent, minimal and no more than necessary to avoid harm. If in the course of defending ourselves we injure the assailant beyond what is legally considered necessary, we may find ourselves subject to civil or even criminal prosecution; from a legal perspective, the defender has become the assailant.
(Note: The legal issues associated with self-defense are numerous and complex. The above discussion is by no means complete and only intended to touch upon the main legal issues in the context of a broader discussion of Hoshinsul.)
Hoshinsul Mind
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift-Albert Einstein
The power of intuitive understanding will protect you from harm until the end of your days- Lao Tze
The role of the mind in Hoshinsul has long been the subject of discussion among martial artists. When we are under attack, our responses may range from fear and confusion to outrage and anger. Responses to attacks often include a surge in adrenalin as we experience the, “flight or fight,” syndrome. If we are to successfully engage in self-defense, we must learn to overcome disruptive emotions and acquire a mindset that facilitates an immediate, effective response.
Our ability to successfully respond to an attack is often attributed to, “reflex,” or, “muscle memory.” In fact, a, “reflex, “is a hard-wired physical reaction to a stimulus,” an eye blink, for example. “Muscle memory,” refers to our ability to re-acquire a skill in a relatively short period of time after an interruption in training. Neither of these descriptions adequately describes how we are able to respond to an attack with effective, well-executed self-defense techniques.
In my experience, the term that best describes this process is, “intuitive;” successful self-defense flows from an intuitive grasp of movement and technique that operates at a level that transcends rational analysis. “Intuition” is the ability to know without reasoning; it, “understands without apparent effort, quick and ready insight seemingly independent of previous experiences or empirical evidence. “ (Wikipedia); “…immediate apprehension or cognition…the faculty of attaining direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and interference.” (Miriam Webster). In any number of other arenas, “intuition,“ or intuitive insight is thought to result when one is steeped in objective data and information. I recall a mathematics professor explaining to an advanced calculus class that the methodology one must employ to construct a proof to an esoteric theorem was, “intuitive.” Such intuition was thought to result from the experience of proving numerous theorems. My own experience in marketing has been similar: I often, “feel,” or, “know,” a movement in a particular market is about to occur well before it is observed. (Note: As principal in my company, American International Resources, Inc., I track and participate in a number of global ferroalloy markets.) In his work Blink, The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell describes this phenomenon in considerable detail.
In the case of martial arts, the constant repetitive training-the seemingly endless kicking drills in Taekwondo; Uchi komi , repetition fitting, in Judo-is analogous to the immersion in objective data described above. Coupled with full contact free sparring, this inculcates in a martial artist an ability to respond intuitively without the intervention of one’s rational faculties. When engaged in Taekwondo kyorugi or Judo randori and, hopefully, Hoshinsul (!), we respond to our opponent’s attacks immediately, circumventing the sequential processing of information. We do not, for example, say to ourselves, “He is attacking with a right roundhouse kick; I will counter with a left-back kick.” Such analysis is simply too slow and, if employed, guarantees defeat. The mental process which governs our actions when we are engaged in combat transcends rational analysis.
In the practice of Buddhism, Enlightenment consists of abandoning delusions of the Self. In doing so, one achieves mushin, no-mindedness. This state of mind is often associated with martial arts practice and is thought to be entered into when engaged in martial arts training. Mushin is an abbreviation of mushin no shin, “the mind without the mind.” No mind. When experiencing mushin a martial artist’s mind is free from thoughts of anger, fear or ego during combat. Zen master Takuan Soho, in his work, The Unfettered Mind, describes this phenomenon.
The mind must always be in a state of, “flowing,” for when it stops anywhere that means the flow is interrupted and it is this interruption that is injurious to the mind. In the case of the swordsman, it means death. When the swordsman stands against an opponent, he does not think of the opponent, nor of himself, nor of his enemy’s sword movements. He just stands there with his sword which, forgetful of all technique, is ready to follow the dictates of the subconscious. The man has offered himself as the wielder of the sword. When it strikes, it is not the man, but the sword in the hand of the man’s subconscious that strikes.
Professor Alan Back, in his work The Way to Go, co-authored with the late GM Daeshik Kim, describes the role of mushin in combat in the following passage.
By eliminating the illusion of the self, you eliminate a filter that obstructs the reality of a situation. You stick to what the situation presents in its immediacy. You do not think about how your practice will affect your self-esteem, your ego, your reputation, your future. You do what the situation requires…Only the relations remain. The duality of you and the opponent, subject and object vanish. The relations form a complex harmony.
If one is able to achieve mushin while practicing martial arts, one is able to respond immediately, without the intervention of a thinking ego. It is interesting to note that in Buddhism Enlightenment, satori, is often described as a transcendent flash of intuition; it is thought to occur at the intuitive level, or, in the words of Master Takuan Soho, the subconscious. Both our understanding of self-defense as,”intuitive,” and Professor Back’s description of mushin describes a state of mind that allows the martial artist to respond to an attack immediately, without the encumbrance of emotion or the interruption of rational analysis.
Hoshinsul
Move=Block-Counterattack
All of the previous discussion has been concerned with the important issues of knowing when we are under attack, the nature of violence, the ethics of self-defense, the legal aspects of self-defense and the role of the mind in self-defense. It is time to turn our attention to what constitutes effective self-defense.
The first principle of self-defense is to avoid injury. In my fifty-odd years of experience in martial arts, which includes Judo, Ju-Jitsu, Karate, and Taekwondo, I have been exposed to and practiced a multitude of self-defense techniques. All of the self-defense I consider to be effective incorporates three elements: movement, blocking and a strong counter-attack.
- Movement- In simplest terms, we move to avoid being grabbed, controlled or struck by an assailant. Both Judo and Taekwondo utilize specific, deliberate movement: Judo practitioners drill tai sabaki, ayumiashi and tsugiashi from the moment they step on the mat; Taekwondo Ein employ a broad spectrum of balditgi when fighting. It is interesting to note that in Olympic style Taekwondo, defense often relies completely upon movement. If we grant that movement is an essential element of self-defense, where do we move? Simply, we move to a position that avoids the attack and is the optimal position from which to mount an effective counterattack. The extent to which movement can be effectively employed is also strongly affected by one’s environment: if one finds oneself with one’s back to a wall, for example, it is impossible to step backwards!
- Blocking- In order to avoid injury, one must employ effective blocking techniques. Taekwondo includes a bewildering array of blocking techniques; the Taekwondo Textbook (Kukkiwon, 2006), illustrates no fewer than eighty-two blocking techniques. makki! Taekwondo blocks are generally, “hard blocks …designed to hurt the opponent in the course of defending oneself by using the wrist or hand blades, which, if trained hard, may inflict impacts on the other person’s vital points, making the latter’s arms and legs incapacitated.” (Taekwondo Textbook) It is important to note that Taekwondo also includes a limited number of, “soft,” blocks, batangson makki, for example, which utilizes the palm of the hand. Also, makki techniques are often used in conjunction with grasping techniques, japki, to control an attacker.
- Counterattack- When engaged in self-defense, it is imperative to bring the confrontation to a safe conclusion as quickly as possible. It is imperative that the defender render the attacker incapable of initiating further attacks, within the parameters discussed previously. Counterattacks must be simple, powerful and effective. The time-honored criterion for scoring a point in Taekwondo kyorugi competition, “trembling shock,” is often defined as displacing the opponent’s center of gravity. Striking techniques employed in self-defense must be no less powerful and, at a minimum, meet this standard! As a rough approximation of this idea, if more than two or three striking techniques are required to subdue an attacker, the counterattacks are too weak. Counterattacks are certainly not limited to striking techniques; throws, joint locks and chokes are all effective counterattack under the appropriate circumstances (Note: An old joke among Judoka is, that when attacked, they hit the assailant with the largest object they can find: the earth!).
Historically, martial arts have taken a variety of approaches to develop the skills required for success in combat, ranging from disciplines that rely primarily upon striking, Taekwondo, Karate and Muay Thai, for example, to those that only practice grappling, best exemplified by Brazilian Ju-Jitsu and Olympic Judo. (Note: These remarks consider Karate and Judo as currently practiced; grappling techniques in original Okinawan Karate kata and Judo atemi waza notwithstanding.) The evolution of each martial art resulted from a multitude of cultural and historical influences far too numerous to enumerate here. The fundamentally different nature among martial arts also clearly follows from how the distance at which combat is experienced is viewed. If combat is thought to primarily occur at close quarters, grappling techniques are favored; if from a distance, striking techniques. Although a number of martial arts claim to be comprehensive and effective under all circumstances. Few, if any, actually meet this high standard.
The role of distance in combat is central to not only understanding the evolution and history of martial arts, but to understanding effective self-defense. The distance between attacker and defender is a critical parameter, obviously determining the selection of techniques employed in self-defense; the extent to which this distance is effectively managed, or not, determines the outcome of a confrontation. The Japanese sword art of Kenjutsu accords particular attention to this concept. Kenjutsu practitioners are taught that a, “proper distance, “mai ai, must be maintained between combatants if one is achieve victory. “Proper distance,” is defined as the distance at which one is able to strike his opponent without being struck. This concept is particularly applicable to Taekwondo kyorugi and hoshinsul, perhaps even more than in Kenjutsu, where a difference in length-of- limb can be overcome with a longer weapon. Unless one is engaged in combat with one’s identical twin (!), one combatant nearly always benefits from a difference in length-of-limb which translates into a tactical advantage. If one’s limbs are longer than one’s opponent one is able to attack and defend from the, “outside,” at the distance that facilitates strong striking and frustrates counterattacks.
Taekwondo is noted, indeed identified, with powerful kicking techniques, which are rightfully considered long range techniques. However, Taekwondo’s repertoire of techniques is not limited to long range techniques. After even a cursory look at Taekwondo’s Taeguk, Palgue and Yudanja poomsae, one is immediately struck by the number and variety of techniques employed at a multitude of combat ranges. This suggests the techniques of Taekwondo lend themselves to classification by combat range; this is true of martial arts techniques in general.
Both attacks and the martial arts techniques utilized to defend against them fall into four ranges: long or kicking range; punching and open hand striking range; elbow, knee strike and joint lock range; grappling, grasping techniques and choking range
- Kicking Distance- All of the kicking techniques for which Taekwondo is justly renowned are included in this category. The minimum distance is understood to be the distance of a kicking technique executed from a static position, front kick ap chagi or side kick yeop chagi from a front stance ap koobi seogi, for example. The use of stepping as in stepping side kick balbucheo yeop chagi or stepping whip kick balbucheo huryeo chagi greatly increases the effective distance for these techniques.
- Punching and Open Hand Technique Distance- This distance is the length of the arm at full extension, as in the execution of thrusting Jireugi techniques. It is less than kicking distance. Techniques employed at this range also include fist techniques-forefist jumeok, backfist deungjumeok, bottomfist mejumeok, etc.-and open handed techniques such as knife hand strikes sonnalchigi, palm strikes batangsonchigi, arc hand strikes ageumsonchigi, etc.
- Elbow and Knee Strike Distance- This is the distance at which one is able to execute elbow and knee strikes, palgupchigi and mureupchigi. It is less than punching distance. This distance is also where joint locks may be effectively applied: Judo’s armpit lock waki gatame and belly arm lock hara gatame come to mind. A number of standing chokes may also be applied at this distance: again from Judo, reverse cross choke gyaku juji jime , shoulder lock kata gatame….
In Taekwondo free sparring kyorugi, practitioners are protected by rules that limit target areas for all techniques and hand strikes to only those utilizing the fore fist jumeok. In Hoshinsul , there are no rules. Vulnerable areas may be attacked with any technique. Kicks to the lower extremities, arc hand strikes to the throat, two finger spear hand strikes to the eyes, ridge hand strikes to the groin are all techniques that are illegal in kyorugi but encouraged in Hoshinsul! When targets such as the assailant’s eyes, ears, throat, groin, spine, kidneys, knees, ankles, etc. are struck, an assailant is rendered incapable of further aggression and the confrontation is brought to a swift conclusion. It is important to note none of the targets listed above can be armored with muscle. No amount of strength training and resulting additional muscle will protect these vulnerable areas. Hoshinsul, then, should primarily focus on attacking these targets, an approach which allows smaller, less physically imposing individuals to successfully defend themselves against larger, stronger aggressors.
All of the discussion above concerns attack and defense while standing. When engaged in self-defense, however, we may find ourselves taken off our feet and forced to defend ourselves while on the ground. The oft repeated declaration, “ALL FIGHTS GO TO THE GROUND,” however, is false; many confrontations end with one or both combatants on their feet. (Note: One usually hears this declaration from practitioners of grappling-only martial arts!) The salient point is that SOME fights DO go to the ground, which imposes upon martial artists the need to acquire the skill set required to defend oneself should they find themselves in this predicament. Judo ground techniques Ne Waza or katame waza meet this requirement, consisting of holding or pinning techniques osaekomi waza, arm bars kansetsu waza and choking techniques shime waza, Judoka are awarded points for successfully executing these techniques in competition and train to become efficient on the ground by, “back-to-back,” ground fighting.
Although possessing the skill set to effectively defend oneself on the ground is essential for effective self-defense, ground fighting should never be engaged in intentionally. One should never deliberately, “pull guard,” nor follow an assailant to the ground following a successful throwing technique to apply katame waza. To do so is to sacrifice mobility and expose the defender to possible attacks by as yet unknown additional assailants, further attacks with a concealed weapon, etc. If, for example, the defender has successfully defeated an initial attack, taken the attacker to the ground and immobilized the attacker with a well-executed cross arm lock ude juji gatame, he is vulnerable to, indeed defenseless against, a kick to his head from a second attacker. After one has successfully defeated an attack, one should always remove oneself from harm’s way as soon as possible. (Note: Brazilian Ju-Jitsu, BJJ, is a martial art that focuses almost exclusively upon grappling. With all due respect to my BJJ brethren, BJJ had its genesis in Judo. Mitsuyo Maeda, a second generation student of Judo’s founder, Jigaro Kano, and an accomplished Judoka and successful challenge fighter with reportedly over 2,000 victories, taught Carlos Gracie and other members of the Gracie family Judo early in the twentieth century. The martial art taught by Maeda to the Gracie family evolved into BJJ. Kosen Judo, a school of Judo which focuses on ground fighting katame waza, is nearly indistinguishable from BJJ.)
Grappling and ground fighting techniques complement the powerful standing striking techniques of Taekwondo and Karate, enabling the martial artist to defend himself under a variety of circumstances. Several of this and the last century’s greatest martial artists, including the late GM Daeshik Kim, Hanshi Joseph Hedderman, GM Chan-yong Kim and GM Kyu Ha Kim, embraced this approach.
The answers to the question of how one should train to acquire the skills to successfully defend oneself are many and varied. Indeed, one might consider the full spectrum of martial arts to be self-defense training. Approaches range from formal training in the dojang to, “reality based scenario training,” in everyday environments. Students of Taekwondo typically acquire basic techniques by repetitive drilling, after which they are introduced to self-defense via one, two and three-step sparring before graduating to choreographed self-defense routines. Once sufficient skills are acquired, students engage in controlled free sparring. Students of numerous martial arts follow a similar path. Judo students, for example, perform hours of repetition fitting uchi komi to develop strong technique to prepare for rigorous free sparring randori.
The best training for self-defense is unplanned and unstructured, qualities which are also found in free sparring. It is the unstructured nature of free sparring that makes it excellent training for self-defense. In spite of the fact that in order for free sparring to be practiced safely, potentially dangerous techniques (elbow strikes, knee strikes, spear hand strikes, etc.) and particularly vulnerable targets (eyes, groin, knees, etc.) are prohibited, free sparring closely mimics the flow of actual combat. Free sparring is the only training method that provides this experience. The term, “sparring,” kyorugi, kumite or randori is so broad as to be ambiguous and the subject of considerable debate; it is applied to, “non-contact sparring,” practiced by several styles of Karate, the full-contact bare-knuckle sparring found in Kyukushin Karate and Enshin-ryu Karate, to the martial sports of Muay Thai and Mixed Martial Arts, MMA. A detailed discussion of the virtues and flaws of the various approaches to sparring is well beyond the scope of this discussion. Sparing, however, is not fighting. That said, in order for sparring to be useful as self-defense training, it must correspond as closely as possible to actual fighting; it must be practiced with as much contact as possible within reasonable bounds of safety. Self-defense training, including free sparring, becomes even more realistic when practiced wearing street clothes in a variety of environments.
Often a particular martial sport is held up as equivalent to fighting. This is simply not the case. The addition of each rule and the use of each piece of protective equipment moves martial sport further from the realm of actual fighting. The same might be said of rule changes to martial sports intended to make them more, “spectator-friendly.” At present, in a number of circles, MMA, is considered to be, “closest to real fighting,” or, at a minimum, the standard against which the efficacy of other martial arts is to be measured. It is important to note that NO martial sport is equivalent to actual fighting, although clearly some are closer than others. MMA may indeed be close, but MMA is strikingly different than actual fighting. One only has to consider the use of weight classes, protective equipment, and the rules against prohibited techniques in force in MMA, not to mention the number of opponents (!), to understand the difference. To quote Mr. Paulo Fernando Augusto, noted Brazilian Jiu-jitsu practitioner and accomplished Judoka, “…you cannot tap out on the street!”
In 2009, I had the privilege of attending a kyorugi seminar presented by Master Jimmy Kim, 1988 Taekwondo Olympic Gold Medalist. Master Kim summarized his approach to kyorugi with the exhortation, “Make them miss; make them pay!” I was struck by the similarity between Master Kim’s advice and the formula for effective self-defense, “Move-block-Counterattack.”
Final Thoughts
The ultimate test of any system of self-defense is simply this: does it enable the defender to escape an attack without injury? The previous discussion has established that it is wise for Taekwondo practitioners and, indeed, all martial artists, to give considerable thought to questions such as: when we are under attack? How much force may be ethically employed to defend ourselves, and, when is our response to an attack acceptable under the law? The time for such reflection is well before we find ourselves in a situation that may require the use of our martial arts skills. If we wait until the moment of truth, it is too late. We have also seen that the mind plays a critical role in self-defense, operating at an intuitive level that transcends rational thought. In order to be effective, self-defense must be immediate, simple, powerful, applicable at a number of combat ranges and, most importantly, able to prevent an attacker from inflicting harm. In the preface to his work Advancing in Taekwondo Grandmaster Richard Chun summarizes the Taekwondo practitioner’s approach to self-defense in the following passage
We must endeavor to avoid a confrontation before it becomes a physical threat. If attacked, we should not use excessive force to defend ourselves. Moderation is an important principle which we must develop, and this can only be done by knowing ourselves, our strengths, and our weaknesses. Only then can we know our opponent, his strengths, and his vulnerabilities.
The ability to defend ourselves, our loved ones and those we are charged to protect, is the common goal among all systems of martial arts. Indeed, it is the raison d’etre for martial arts. To do so effectively requires not only years of dedicated training, but a clear understanding of the issues involved in the execution of self-defense.