Is Tae Kwon Do the least effective martial art?

Question

I would say it's up there.

Answer 1

None of the martial arts is ineffective, saying so only shows that you have never learned nor studied any of the art forms. Like many have said before, it's just that some are more effective in different situations. So please be more open minded and respectful towards others.

PS: Differences and variety is good, otherwise we would all be wearing the same uniform and studying from the same book. I'm a 1st degree BB in Taekwondo

Answer 2

Mmm, I don't think so. Watching the masters spar, all you really see is basic tehniques performed in the most efficient, powerful way possible-- which is what you want in a fight. In rough-housing with non-martial artists, I have used some of the principles I've been taught, like a solid stance and constant moving. Even some of the more flamboyant kicks, the skip side-kick comes to mind, are great when well-placed. While you can't kick someone's butt on the street using Tae Kwon Do alone, the things that you learn from it are doubtlessly of use.
Recently, I had the chance to wrestle at a Scout function. While I couldn't punch or kick, the things that my instructor stresses in class (Back straight, breathe, solid stance, keep moving) came naturally outside of class and I was nearly undefeated.
It's not the least effective, but it's not foolproof, either. Any school of thought or method will have its flaws.

Answer 3

Least Effective Martial Arts

Answer 4

Not the least effective, no- but certainly not my first choice.
Martial arts evolve just as everything else does. As with everything else, some things become obsolete and others are no longer socially acceptable.
Tae Kwon Do was originally developed to fight riders on horseback, hence the reason that 70% of the martial art is kicking.
In a sense, Tae Kwon Do lost it's effectiveness because it became too civilized. Notice that it's no longer socially acceptable for the most part to headbutt somebody during an altercation nor is it acceptable to kick them in the groin. (At least in most circles, it's considered "...fighting dirty...")
As a result of becoming civilized there were a great number of martial arts that phased out techniques that were designed not only to cripple an opponent but to cause serious injury or death. Now the goal is to simply defend yourself and for the most part incapacitate the opponent. The focus has shifted to discipline, etc.
Other martial arts have developed much the same way, such as Wu-Shu, where acrobatics were integrated and it essentially became an exhibitionist martial art rather than a practical one.
If you are looking for a more effective martial art that hasn't completely lost it's effectiveness with regards to causing injury, etc. I would suggest something along the lines of Capoiera that only recently came out of the jungle. Or perhaps Dim Mak, which is known as the "death touch" martial art where during studies was shown to use extensive knowledge of anatomy to cause extreme trauma to an opponent.

Answer 5

It's been awhile since I've been an active student of the martial arts, but I really think that TKD has gotten a raw deal. Sure, it's primarily a striking art, utilizing many kicks and a few hand techniques, but when performed by a master, it can be very effective. If I had to vote for a least effective martial art, I would pick Tai Chi. It's great for health, but has very little combat application until the highest levels and only in certain styles.

Answer 6

So called "American Tae Kwon Do" is practiced mostly as a sport and exercise routine. In this aspect it is excellent because it increases a person's strength, flexibility, and dexterity. It also allows people to spar against each other without a large chance of injury. Using this style of fighting in a street fight would be pretty useless, however the basis for this style was learned and developed as a true martial art. It was also developed to counter riders on horseback, so a lot of the moves, like spinning kicks are designed to hit someone that cannot change their position quickly.

No martial art is "ineffective," however some are better suited for actual hand to hand combat.

Answer 7

WTF Olympic style foot tag is not the only Taekwon-Do. In neutering it for sport purposes Kim Un-Yong did finally manage to seperate it from it's Karate origins, but took it so far toward Tae Kyon that it's barely a martial art. Tarmac promotions didn't help either. Making every assistant instructor willing to fly to America an instant master only further diluted the instructional quality, and even though the WTF is falling apart now, the damage is done.

There aren't many WTF schools I would send anyone to today, but some of the USTA and ATA schools still have teachers whose teachers trained old style and they keep the standards high. They teach a well rounded art that is not that distinguishable from Japanese hard styles with some Hapkido thrown in.

When I finally quit teaching in the mid nineties there were still some Chung Do Kwan schools out there in remote areas like Blue Wave Dojang on the Olympic peninsula, and their students, trained in Korean Karate where focus was still taught, could hit like freight trains.

But overall I agree with you. The quality is pretty poor, and training for tournament play, while good exercise, is not martial arts.

Answer 8

TKD is not the least effective, but it's not the most effective either.
while it uses good defensive techniques for a Martial Artist, it also has flashy moves for show, as any Martial Art can have.

it is a good martial art to start from, I will say that; and then to learn at least one other or more Martial Art afterwards is better.

but I would go with something like Judo, Jujitsu, Hapkido, or Aikido, for the ground fighting aspects.

Answer 9

Watch the Jackie Chan movie Drunken Master. The end fight scene will change your mind about that really fast. Also, if you watched Olympic style sparring, you would change your mind. To answer your question, no it is not. Kicks are much more powerful and fast than you think they are. It is not like all we do in taekwondo is kicks. We learn to use punches to set up our kicks. In the school I go to (Kim's Academy) I asked the black belts if they have gotten in any fights before. They usually take out the other person with one or two hits. Before I started I kind of thought the same thing. Once you start it, you realize how good of a martial art it is. One think that makes it so good it really lengthens your zone of attack and defense. My reach in a fight is so much longer than other peoples. I am guessing you don't like taekwondo for a reason.

Also, every martial art isn't made for everyone. If you have loose hips and long legs, taekwondo is a very good martial art. Everyone is meant to do something else.

Answer 10

Effective in what? A Mixed martial arts match? A street fight?

Every Martial Art has an effective aspect to it. TKD allows for flexibility and fitness, along with tournament competition that will aid you in knowing how to fight.

I would say that Tai Chi, or any martial art in which you never spar, and require a complicated multiple step method of finishing off your attacker is far less effective that TKD.

At least TKD spars, concentrates on fitness, and you get a chance to see what some of your moves are capable of doing in the competition ring. However something like Dim Mak, Thai Chi, and any other "mystic" "so deadly can never use it" martial art is going to be highly ineffective.


There is a huge difference between learning something, and training your body to actually do something. I could know every single amazing technique there is out there, but until I do it on a regular basis against a stranger who is wanting to take my head off too, I will never ever ingrain it into muscle memory to use under fight or flight circumstance.