# Self-Defense vs. Martial Arts?



## arnisador (Sep 4, 2003)

How many people feel they principally teach self-_defense_ as opposed to a martial _art_?

If teaching a traditional martial art, do you think your art contains all one needs for self-defense or that there are extra, external to the art self-defense considerations one must teach also?


----------



## MJS (Sep 4, 2003)

When I was teaching, I stuck with the material that was part of the curriculum- (the tradition).  If I was working with someone outside of the class, then I'd tend to gear it more SD.  

There has been a huge debate reagrding the cross training topic, and what is and what isnt included in the teachings.  IMO, if you are interested in learning a teaditional art, thats fine.  If you are concerned with SD, the learning something that is simple, quick, and to the point, is the best route to go.  Also, making sure that you are training with aliveness and resistance, you will find that you will get the most out of your training.

I have watched alot of classes and have seen how many of the people train.  1 person throws an attack, and the other one defends.  Thats it!!  Is that how its going to happen in real life?  

Do I think that my main art (Kenpo) contains everything that is needed?  NO!  There are many pricniples that are not included, which are very important.  Why are they left out? Who knows.  Maybe people think that they are not important.  IMO, standing in a stationary stance, throwing punch after punch and kick after kick, is not going to help you.  You need to train with some movement.

I'm sure that there will be some that disagree with the above statement, and some that agree.  Again, I"m speaking for myself and the way I gear my training.

Mike


----------



## arnisador (Sep 4, 2003)

I'm not thinking of crosstraining in another art per se, but rather an emphasis on, perhaps, awareness, escapes, getting free and running, or "dirty tactics" that are either not in the art or are buried.


----------



## MartialArtsGuy (Sep 4, 2003)

I dont even know what to think about this anymore. People have so many differing opinions. Some people think SD is the same as MA, some dont. All I can do is share me personal experiences.

My personal focus is SD, but I have always said I do MA. I dont even pay that much attention to style names any more. 

I just allow myself to be exposed to many sources of MA info, and than I see what works for me. I train basics from all different sources, coordinate them in drills, and refine & test them with hard sparring and more drills. I tend to bring everything in under some kenpo ideas. (economy of motion, point of origin, checking) But, I dont "look" like many kenpoists do when I move. Not only am I open to the physical aspects from varying sources, but also conceptual aspects. 

I do this because my focus is self-defense and IMHO the martial arts have alot of good things for SD but they also have alot of stuff that is not so good when your focus is SD. SD is strictly SD but MA can serve many purposes.(spiritual, health/fitness, etc.....) Some think it is mundane to focus only on the SD aspect. Some think it's wrong. I think it's loads of fun.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 5, 2003)

I think they are circles that overlap in areas. Martial Arts have many of the parts of self-defence , but are missing some key points (for example situational awarness and legal issues) and include other skills that self-defense generally ignores (for example cultural, historical and asthetic applications). 

The danger is when people use the wrong parts of the art in the wrong situations. If someone knows I practice the arts and asks to see some I would show them a sayaw or kambangan (dance) but I wouldn't show combative applications; on the other side if I was confronted on the "street" I would attack by quick efficient and effective tactics not fancy drills or dances. 

To see the difference in MAs and self-defense all you have to do is look at the attitude and mindset of a person who labels himself a martial artist as compared to someone who labels himself a self-defense instructor. Most of the time the differances are glaring.


----------



## MJS (Sep 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *I'm not thinking of crosstraining in another art per se, but rather an emphasis on, perhaps, awareness, escapes, getting free and running, or "dirty tactics" that are either not in the art or are buried. *



Oh I agree!  I dont think that you need to drop the art that you've been doing for the past 20 yrs and start up fresh with something else.  But, if you took an idea from another art or modified the way that you're doing things in your current art, you could make it more geared towards SD.  

Mike


----------



## SpiritFists936 (Oct 29, 2003)

where i come from we only teach self defense, our techniques are to dangerous to spar with effectivley, and we have no sport influence at all, anyone iterested in self defense should look into Shen Chuan, its an awsome self defense system, but dont take my word for it, ask around.


----------



## stickarts (Oct 29, 2003)

we teach martial arts in which self defense is only one component.
Martial arts are all possible moves while self defense is only most probable moves that would work.
We certainly have "holes" in our training.It is pretty tough to do it all, since it would take unlimited time, energy, and knowledge! plus, i don't think one NEEDS to do it ALL, although you should certainly work on being well versed in all ranges.
trying to do it all would result in jack of all trades, master of none!!
What i find interesting are those that profess to have knowledge and strong opinions about a real fight when they have never been in a real fight!! LOL!! Hardly a qualified opinion!
We are more about sharing the good values of martial arts, not trying to create Rambos!! :0) each student then focuses on where their strength and interest lies and chooses their own path. some go for the combat, some go for the spiritual and tradition.


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 29, 2003)

Martial arts and self defense should be one in the same-I said should be- 'MARTIAL' art.  Wasn't that its original intention? What the heck happened along the way?


----------



## stickarts (Oct 29, 2003)

since most of us aren't having to use it daily to survive now- a-days, i think it serves additional / different purposes than it did centuries ago!


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 29, 2003)

Hey Frank, yeah, I know what you're saying. However,  I remember way back when, I had on my enrollment applications "Why do you want to study a martial art?" , many would respond, 'excercise, concentration, self discipline, etc, etc. , everything but self defense. Then later, if they stayed they would confide that their main purpose was self defense. I wonder if that really is everyone's true objective now but for some reason or another some don't want to admit it?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *Martial arts and self defense should be one in the same-I said should be- 'MARTIAL' art.  Wasn't that its original intention? What the heck happened along the way? *



Well, if one thinks of martial as military, a soldier may be compelled to stand and fight where a civilian might defend themsleves by running away. That's the distinction, I think--martial applications, which may be offensive, may differ from self-defense applications.


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 30, 2003)

I may have misunderstood. I had thought the post mean't self defense vs. an "art", for instance just taking it as a 'hobby' or for exercise, self discipline, etc. vs. taking it to defend oneself. I see what you mean though. My mistake.   "Joe"


----------



## arnisador (Oct 30, 2003)

I really was trying to get at the things that would not necessarily be construed as 'fighting'--running away, verbal de-escalation, situational awareness, and other stuff associated with defending oneself that isn't in the "punch, punch, kick" mode.


----------



## MJS (Oct 30, 2003)

Sure, being able to talk your way out of a situation is something that should be first on the list.  In the long run, you'll probably save yourself alot of trouble down the road if you can talk the situation down rather than start punching.  Especially considering we live in a very sue happy world, you could very easily find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit from the very person that was trying to attack you.  How messed up is that????  This guy is trying to rob you with a knife, you defend yourself and in the process, maybe break his arm.  Now he's gonna sue you because you assaulted him????

Mike


----------



## arnisador (Oct 30, 2003)

But there are tips for how to do this to maximize the likelihood of it working--how many people teach it, and even more so, how many people consider part of their martial _art_ as opposed to an add-on?

What I'm getting at is--if we all agree that these things are so important, how come thery're not an explicit part of Karate training (or whatever art)?


----------



## kkbb (Oct 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *But there are tips for how to do this to maximize the likelihood of it working--how many people teach it, and even more so, how many people consider part of their martial art as opposed to an add-on?
> 
> What I'm getting at is--if we all agree that these things are so important, how come thery're not an explicit part of Karate training (or whatever art)? *



Interesting observation..... Our students are taught the 4 rules of self defence - anticipate, talk, walk, & defend.  Each point is discussed with them (examples etc...)  
I think, to take the 3 first rules and spend any real time would surely be recieved poorly.  Why would anybody want to pay for that info?  It's the 4 th one that everyone wants...and willing to pay for.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 30, 2003)

You're probably right from a commercial point of view. Yet, trained negotiators/crisis managers often do better--there _are_ things to learn about "talking"!


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 31, 2003)

There are many good books on the topic of verbal judo and active listening.  It might be good to interview local law enforcement trained in negotiation techniques, or even have them do a talk for your class.  

One component of a self defense focused program I tried to promote (but wasn't always successful at for many reasons) was to create a community network.  Commercially it makes a program stand out, legally it aligns your self defense instruction with your local and state laws, and public relation-wise it may help students/instructors who get into a situation if their program has a good image in the local law enforcement perception.  I did find some hesitance and lack of enthusiasm at times.  So this didn't become as big a component as I would have liked.  Not to mention there are so many other things to worry about while running a school, but I still think it is worth the effort.

Has anyone else tried to get training or speakers along these lines?

Paul Martin


----------



## lvwhitebir (Oct 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Especially considering we live in a very sue happy world, you could very easily find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit from the very person that was trying to attack you.  How messed up is that????  This guy is trying to rob you with a knife, you defend yourself and in the process, maybe break his arm.  Now he's gonna sue you because you assaulted him????*



He has a right to sue you, but there better be a damn good reason why he wins the suit.  Every state law that I've looked at allows for deadly force to be used if the person has a weapon, you believe he intends to use it, and you have no other choice but to attack (can't flee).  

The legal problems come in when you continue the attack after he gives up (like chasing him), if you attack without real provocation (no real fear for your safety), or if you use far more force than is necessary to stop the altercation (break his arm when he just pushed you).

The general idea is that you have the right to protect yourself, but you don't have the right to punish the offender.  That's society's job.

IMO, don't blame the courts, blame the macho attitude that is prevalant that says I'm allowed to bash his head in because he dissed my girl.

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Oct 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *Martial arts and self defense should be one in the same-I said should be- 'MARTIAL' art.  Wasn't that its original intention? What the heck happened along the way? *



Some sources I've read believe that the Shaolin arts were originally developed to defeat yourself, instead of another.  It's original intent was to develop strength, stamina, flexibility, humility and respect.

As mentioned before, the martial arts have a lot of aspects that you can explore.  It's not just self defense, but character development, exercise, competition, and artistic expression.  It's your choice what you want to get from it.

WhiteBirch


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 31, 2003)

> As mentioned before, the martial arts have a lot of aspects that you can explore. It's not just self defense, but character development, exercise, competition, and artistic expression. It's your choice what you want to get from it.



Very well put.




> There are many good books on the topic of verbal judo and active listening. It might be good to interview local law enforcement trained in negotiation techniques, or even have them do a talk for your class.



I was hoping to host one of the Verbal Judo guys in for a seminar, but the financial risk was too large.  I had intended to co-host it with the Police Department to defray the cost...but they didn't have a budget for it.

This is good stuff, I think.  "Verbal judo", or whatever one wants to call de-escalating a fight, would be a valuable component of a self defense program, particularly for kids (if you adapted it to their age...kids don't talk to kids like adults talk to adults...and they have different social dynamics).  It could be put into any S.D. or M.A. program.

Back to topic:  I teach S.D. as a part of the M.A., but focus on the art more than I'd like to.  I think any style has to look at their methods and put it into a modern context.

Somebody wrote that standing in place and throwing line kicks doesn't work well for S.D., and that movement is required.  Good point...but changing the drill really doesn't change the art that much, does it?  And if it did, isn't that a perfectly acceptable evolution?  If you modify the art you teach to reflect a more realistic SD approach for the 21st century it isn't so different than what people were doing with their arts 400 years ago.  



> Well, if one thinks of martial as military, a soldier may be compelled to stand and fight where a civilian might defend themsleves by running away. That's the distinction, I think--martial applications, which may be offensive, may differ from self-defense applications.



They teach tactical retreat, or the retrograde, in the military as a matter of doctrine.  Defensive and offensive tactics are distinguished as well


SCS


----------



## Black Bear (Jan 23, 2004)

There is martial art, there is martial science, and there is martial athletics. 

I did martial art for maybe four years or so, and realized that what I was looking for was self-defense, ie. martial science. In martial art, you can't say that any one thing is better than another, any more than you can say that ballet is better than opera. In martial science, you hold yourself to a far more rigorous standard. Things must be empirically sound, they must correspond well to the current context in which self-defense must be used. Multiple assailants, cold/impact/projectile weapons have to be dealt with, cement-friendly groundfighting must be included, psychology in terms of fear management, interpersonal dynamics, pedagogy, etc. Techniques are gross-motor and adrenaline-friendly. etc. etc. etc. 

Basically I found the answers I was looking for, and am now focusing more on martial athletics as an ongoing training/hobby thing.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 25, 2004)

It seems that Self Defense had become the label people in the U.S. are most comfortable with. There are also schools who claim they deal with "combat". Then there are the arts, which are clearly unmistakeable, such as Iaido. So you can break it up into 3 classes, Self Defense, Combat, and lastly the Arts, which are ways to preserve traditional teachings, whether or not they are applicable today.

I think that most versions of what is taught today come from the Arts and Combat training, but have been "softened" to be more palettable to society. They have children's classes, or family classes, or cardio-this and that, which really do not give justice to Martial Arts. Look at Tae-bo...yukk..anways...

Bottom line, there's a school, studio, dojo, what-have-you that will fill someone's needs.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 26, 2004)

I think that conditioning as a component to a martial arts class is a good thing.  Very little physical strength/conditioning is built into the majority of martial arts classes.  The problem is when people take cardio kick/tae bo... EXCLUSIVELY and think that they can kick A** and take names.  I think the Martial Art term is still applicable, what needs to be clarified from the instructor down to the beginner is what you want to do with your art.

Some of the things mentioned make sense:  self defense, cultural preservation, athletics, artistry... If you are running a family martial arts center and don't do a thing with community policing, DARE, Stranger Danger... or any of the other civilian based legal/state penal issues of force and deadly force, then you really shouldn't put self defense on the door.  There are SO many skills that have nothing to do with sparring, kata and physical technique that fall under Self defense training.


Paul martin


----------

