# Sports relation to Self Defence.



## alcatraz (Jul 9, 2010)

In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.

That's not to say that other reasons for participating in Martial Arts are not legitimate, but we should be asking the question, 'Do these other reasons bond with, or detract from that Self-Defence element?"

Perhaps the nearest non self-defence aspect of training which is closest in relation to SD is the sport element.

I know, I know...Sport is NOT self defence, etc, blah, blah, blah...But surely some form of contact training is preferential to none, and the various sport formats do allow, rule sets notwithstanding, a degree of pressure testing your art in a controlled enviroment.

This got me to thinking however.

As you can tell, I'm a huge advocate of Sport Martial arts, and that comes from my background and experiences, but, do some methods and systems delude their students into believing that their particular sport format will transfer well into a live self-protection scenario?

For example, some  Sport Karate formats teach students to pull techniques prior to impact, and as for WTF Taekwondo..I'm sorry to say that in my 33 years studying Martial Arts (24 of which have been as an adult) I can see no practical transfer from mat to street from that particular format.

On the other hand Sporting formats such as MMA, Kyokushinkai, Lei Tai, Muay Thai, and other Kickboxing methods, are more suited as a base for crossover intoSelf-Defence/Protection.

I know it's not what you train, but rather how you train, but are certain methods of sport martial arts more detrimental to self-defence than others?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 9, 2010)

Well, it's only within the last few decades that people in the self defense community have tried to attach a negative connotation to "sporting" aspects of martial arts in general.

From jousting, to fencing to the earliest Egyptian wrestling inscribed on tomb walls, to modern pugil stick training, military training has *ALWAYS* had some degree of a "sporting" component. It's a necessary concession to reality: If your only goal was to prove conclusively, every time, that a technique works for "real", it won't take very long before you'll have no students who can move. Whether in a formal, national military context or a simple social tribe/pack situation, weakening/injuring the members of one's own group unnecessarily is not conducive to that group's survival.

The big sticking point tends to come up among the "Pavlov's Dog" crowd: the assertion is generally made that one will fight the way one is conditioned to, and indeed there have been cases of someone releasing a hold after their opponent "tapped", or where someone successfully disarmed a weapon and then handed it back because of long repetition of doing just that in practice, or of cops found dead with empty revolvers and pockets full of spent brass because at that time( 1970s) they were told to pick up their brass after ejecting on the range, and ended up doing so during Go Time, which gave the scumbags enough advantage to win that one.

What I find puzzling is that no one has just come out and plainly said: Do nothing which is useless. If you have to use your art, forget how to be nice. It REALLY ISN'T HARD to adapt.

It's a simple enough matter to stop handing back the practice knife right away and give your brain the signal that this is a new sequence.

A "safe" joint lock can be taken to it's natural, actual conclusion of a break without even changing the mechanics of the movement.

If you have to throw someone, it's REALLY not that hard to swap out which side you throw from so that they land face down instead of face up, or pin face down instead of face up( where they can still compete/fight you/see you).

If you're one of those rare people who can actually throw a kick above waist level with sufficient force to break something of substantial resistance, I like your chances of sweeping/blowing out a leg/ankle/knee BELOW the waist.


It's always made out that a "sports fighter" won't be able to adapt to "teh d34dly str33tz" and I guess I just can't see the impossibility or even the difficulty provided one has self defense intent in mind to begin with.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 9, 2010)

alcatraz said:


> In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.
> 
> That's not to say that other reasons for participating in Martial Arts are not legitimate, but we should be asking the question, 'Do these other reasons bond with, or detract from that Self-Defence element?"
> 
> ...


Whilst I agree mostly with what you say regarding WTF sparring (I hate the format), I dont think it can be said to have NO benfits. I remember reading somewhere that olympic tkdists have the fastest reflexes of almost any sport on earth. Also, they are incredibly fit, faster than you possibly imagine (they can kick you twice before you can blink) and have a very good understanding of range and distancing and are used to being hit in the head. For these reasons I dont think it can ever be said that a form of sport MA has NO self defence benefits, especially bearing in mind that the average guy on the "street" is an unfit pub fighter who knows a couple of dodgy punches. I agree it has limited applications to the street but I dont believe it can ever be said that their are absolutely no benefits. You say muay thai (for instance) crosses over better, and I agree that their kicks and punches are devastating and thy train hard, but do they teach methods to defend yourself without brutally maming your opponent or to defend against weapons or multiple attackers? I believe learning ways to disarm an attacker or ways to subdue an attacker without harming them is also important for real life self defence. If some drunk meat head wants to fight you sometimes it is better to put them to the ground in a 'softer' manner (such as the way a police officer would do it) rather than knocking them out with a flurry of punches (particularly from a legal perspective) and arts such as boxing, kickboxing etc may not always teach these techniques.


----------



## MJS (Jul 9, 2010)

alcatraz said:


> In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.


 
Agreed.  



> That's not to say that other reasons for participating in Martial Arts are not legitimate, but we should be asking the question, 'Do these other reasons bond with, or detract from that Self-Defence element?"


 
IMO, it depends.  If the MAs turely are about SD, then it shouldn't detract from it, but instead be a side benefit of the main goal.  Ex:  Lets take fitness.  You could have a 1hr class, and spend 20-30min of that class, working fitness, doing things like stretching, cardio, strength, etc., but you could also a) do a quick 5min warmup or b) expect the students to warm up on their own, and get right into the meat of the lesson.  With a hard, strenuous class, the cardio is now a side benefit, not the mail focus.



> Perhaps the nearest non self-defence aspect of training which is closest in relation to SD is the sport element.
> 
> I know, I know...Sport is NOT self defence, etc, blah, blah, blah...But surely some form of contact training is preferential to none, and the various sport formats do allow, rule sets notwithstanding, a degree of pressure testing your art in a controlled enviroment.


 
It could be Sd depending on how its trained.  I'll also give the sports arts credit for certainly things such as the contact and fitness.  Look at a MMA guy and look at the average TMA guy.  Chances are you'll see a much more fit MMAist.  Many schools have members who're scared of getting hit, as they may break in half, yet a MMA guy is very used to the hard contact.  



> This got me to thinking however.
> 
> As you can tell, I'm a huge advocate of Sport Martial arts, and that comes from my background and experiences, but, do some methods and systems delude their students into believing that their particular sport format will transfer well into a live self-protection scenario?
> 
> ...


 
I agree with your last paragraph...its how you train.  Personally, I think that both the TMAs and MMAs can benefit from each other.  Take a MMA guy and in addition to the sport side, show them how to defend against some common street attacks, some weapon defense, and IMO, you'll have a heck of a force to deal with.


----------



## Shifu Steve (Jul 9, 2010)

I attempted to invoke an older chain but I have fallen short.  In a prior post (something about sport vs self defense about a month or two ago) there was some great feedback on the point of martial arts.  Obviously controversial but nonetheless relevant.  Chris Parker drove the discussion.  I believe his overall point, which resonated with my understanding, was that the martial arts were not designed for sport or self defense (for they are far too intricate).  This obviously could be juxtaposed to personal reasons for studying, but the point that they (in general) take years to master they are not specifically designed for either.  Yes, they can be adapted for one or the other, but the history tells a different story.  Chris help me out here...


----------



## alcatraz (Jul 10, 2010)

Shifu Steve said:


> I attempted to invoke an older chain but I have fallen short. In a prior post (something about sport vs self defense about a month or two ago) there was some great feedback on the point of martial arts. Obviously controversial but nonetheless relevant. Chris Parker drove the discussion. I believe his overall point, which resonated with my understanding, was that the martial arts were not designed for sport or self defense (for they are far too intricate). This obviously could be juxtaposed to personal reasons for studying, but the point that they (in general) take years to master they are not specifically designed for either. Yes, they can be adapted for one or the other, but the history tells a different story. Chris help me out here...


 
However, the etymology of the English word, Martial, is taken from the root Mars, the Roman god of not just war, but also the Roman god of conflict. 

As self defence/protection is about surviving a potential violent conflict, I stand by my opening sentence in this thread, that, in my opinion, the primary reason for studing martial arts should be with Self Defence/Protection at the forefront of reasons for training in the first place.

It is also my opinion that if SD is not the primary reason for studying Martial Arts, then when needed, ones training becomes as useful as a chocolate fireguard.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 10, 2010)

The purpose of martial sport, originally, was to hone warrior skill during times of peace by engaging in male ritual hierarchical combat.  That's why knights jousted.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 10, 2010)

Cause Steve asked so nicely.... 

Er, settle in, it's a long one...... sorry.



alcatraz said:


> In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.
> 
> I'm afraid I really don't agree with that at all. In fact, I can personally think of absolutely no martial arts geared towards self defence, so to train them with that frame of mind (only) is to actually miss the point of them. Now, that's not to say that aspects of martial arts cannot be used, helpful, or highly advantageous in a self defence situation/scenario, however to think that that is what they are designed for is, I feel, to fundamentally misunderstand the teachings, training methods, ideologies, and actual precepts of the arts. But, being me, I'll give some examples to demonstrate my point:
> 
> ...


 


alcatraz said:


> However, the etymology of the English word, Martial, is taken from the root Mars, the Roman god of not just war, but also the Roman god of conflict.
> 
> Very true, but it is more to do with "having reverence to the god Mars". And that is just the origins of the word, not necessarily it's application today.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 10, 2010)

Ah there's a nice post Chris!

Now then about the MMA bit lol. Most who train MMA, here at any rate, may have one fight a year if even that, we train MMA *AND* SD, we do train for multiple attacks and weapons, mostly because a lot of us have jobs that need the expertise of fighting more than one, you know police, doormen, teachers etc, we do tend to know we'll need it at some point during any given night or day.
I think you have to distinguish between MMA fighters such as the pros you seen on the telly who earn a living at it so will only train for fights and the rest of us who train MMA as a martial art. There are very few full time fighters, in the UK I can count them on one hand but while they do fit your decription, the rest of us don't.
The SD 'type' we follow is the 'Geoff Thompson' type if you know what I mean? We have good instructors here, Karl Tanswell, Iain Abernethy etc. It's realistic as these guys have done the doors, done the fights that sort of thing. You could say we do MMA for relaxation lol!
I rather think it's because we do this my tolerance for child blackbelts is low which gets me into trouble on other threads!
I can't be as eloquent as you when explaining these things, grrr you annoy me when you say so perfectly what I want to say!!  But I do think people should not imagine everyone who does MMA is a pro fighter!


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 10, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Ah there's a nice post Chris!
> 
> Now then about the MMA bit lol. Most who train MMA, here at any rate, may have one fight a year if even that, we train MMA *AND* SD, we do train for multiple attacks and weapons, mostly because a lot of us have jobs that need the expertise of fighting more than one, you know police, doormen, teachers etc, we do tend to know we'll need it at some point during any given night or day.
> I think you have to distinguish between MMA fighters such as the pros you seen on the telly who earn a living at it so will only train for fights and the rest of us who train MMA as a martial art. There are very few full time fighters, in the UK I can count them on one hand but while they do fit your decription, the rest of us don't.
> ...


Is that the way its normally done in MMA in regards to multiple attackers, wepaons defences etc? The only MMA gyms I know of train a combo of kickboxing, boxing, some groundwork and a hell of a lot of cardio work and train more for the sport aspect of MMA . I do live in a different country though and have not trained MMA but was under the impression that most places dont focus heavily on the SD aspects.


----------



## alcatraz (Jul 11, 2010)

Chris, do you have a fire alarm in your house?

If so, why have you fitted that fire alarm?

Is it because you expect your house to be burnt down, or is at as a precautionary measure to aid you in the event of a fire breaking out?

It is exactly the same for Martial Arts. I said right of the bat that there are many legitimate reasons for studying martial arts, but (and I qualified my statement by adding 'In my humble opinion') I stand by my opening statement that the primary focus should be on Self-Defence/Self-Protection.

I also explained the etymology of the word 'Martial', and unless someone is planning on going to a war-zone, or out of their way to start fights, what other logical reason can there be for studying Martial Arts?

You don't go to a knitting class unless you want to learn to knit.

Ergo, one doesn't go to a class which teaches a fighting art unless one wishes to learn fighting skills.

Also, I do NOT advocate Sport Martial Arts as a substitute for reality training, however, your non-elite (average) MMA athlete, solely by the nature of their full contact training is going to be better prepared for a live violent confrontation than someone who does not train in methods which employ heavy to full contact in their Martial Art studies.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2010)

First, it is the nature of mankind to compare oneself against others in tests of physical prowess.  Always has been, always will be.

Second, sport allows such testing to be (mostly) non-lethal and (somewhat) objective in determining a winner and loser.  Not perfect, but it's the closest we can come to determining if A can bash B's brains out without actually having to see B's brains on the dirt.

Third, sport allows those who cannot or will not otherwise compete in person to enjoy the vicarious thrill of thinking that they have in some manner contributed to the success of the person or team they have elected to support or compete by proxy.

Fourth, advertising drives sales, and since fans like sports and fans buy things, advertising supports sports.

So sport satisfies competitive urges in a controlled and non-lethal manner, it provides entertainment, and it sells products.

Thus completing the great cycle of life.

Personally, I don't care for it, but that's just me.

EDIT: And the discussion on self-defense versus sport has been going on a long time...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&pg=5162,6790593&dq=jitsu+sport&hl=en


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 11, 2010)

Hey Irene,



Tez3 said:


> Ah there's a nice post Chris!
> 
> Now then about the MMA bit lol. Most who train MMA, here at any rate, may have one fight a year if even that, we train MMA *AND* SD, we do train for multiple attacks and weapons, mostly because a lot of us have jobs that need the expertise of fighting more than one, you know police, doormen, teachers etc, we do tend to know we'll need it at some point during any given night or day.
> I think you have to distinguish between MMA fighters such as the pros you seen on the telly who earn a living at it so will only train for fights and the rest of us who train MMA as a martial art. There are very few full time fighters, in the UK I can count them on one hand but while they do fit your decription, the rest of us don't.
> ...


 
Shucks, thanks....

I would actually suggest that your guys are training in MMA and a Self Defence/Protection syllabus, and that the two are actually different. They may be taught together, but that doesn't make them the same thing. For example, I teach martial arts, and I also teach self defence/protection, and I teach them in the same class. But I also recognise that the two are different concepts with different requirements, and radically different approaches.

By your own words there, you train in MMA *and* SD, as your requirements (and those of the guys and girls around you) are rather more immediate than most. But the weapon defence, groups, etc are not really MMA, as MMA is a competitive training format based on single opponents, unarmed, and in a defined place and time. Really (and I've said this before as well), MMA is not "Mixed Martial Arts" at all. It's a Multi Ranged Unarmed Combat Themed Sports Training System, but the acronym for that is just awkward (MRUCTSTS.... hmm, just doesn't flow). It took the name of "mixed" originally from the early UFC concept of particular systems versus other particular systems, hence mixed martial arts (different martial arts) competitions. As the training and competitions evolved (with strikers learning some grappling, grapplers learning how to strike, through to a more balanced overall skill set), the name that was originally coined for the competitive format itself was adopted by the training methods to the point that it was deemed a new system. But it is by definition concerned with the competition aspect, and the training that goes along with it.

As said, I really think that you and your colleagues are simply training two different approaches simultaneously, rather than MMA being your SD training. However, as with most SD systems (such as the RBSD systems), the SD aspect will rely on the other training (traditional, modern, sport, or whatever your background is) to give the mechanics, whereas SD is far more concerned with the principles and approach. This is exactly what Geoff and Iain do as well, really. They use the Karate background for the mechanics and the framework for their SD approaches (really enjoy Geoff's work in particular, by the way), rather than simply need to re-invent the wheel. A martial art will teach how to mechanically hit, and you get that in your MMA training, whereas the SD aspect will give the when and why to hit. Does that make sense?


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 11, 2010)

Hi Alcatraz,



alcatraz said:


> Chris, do you have a fire alarm in your house?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 11, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> A martial art will teach how to mechanically hit, and you get that in your MMA training, whereas the SD aspect will give the when and why to hit. Does that make sense?


 
I think that sums up simply what it really boils down to.

As i've long maintained the main difference between the ring of the combat sport and the 'street' (for lack of a better term) is simply in mindset and application. 

The ring is a set place with a set starting time, while the street is often about awareness, avoidance, preemption and the element of surprise.  But when it comes to the physical blows themselves, what works in the ring works well on the street, with a proper understanding of the difference in application.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 11, 2010)

Chris perfect sense again!
I think what I was more trying to say is that the MMA clubs here have more depth perhaps than many realise. Yes SD and MMA are done separately but are very closely linked. Here we tend to have MMA 'clubs', this denotes more a collection of like minded individuals training together, most MMAers here from a TMA background still. they don't train just MT, BJJ and boxing, their interest is wider than that. We have a couple of 'gyms' such as Wolfslair where training for MMA is hardcore, Rampage was there for a while, but even here you will see TKD classes. 
My posts I think are more about the peception of MMA than the differences between MMA and SD, I want people to see there's more to it or at the very least there should be more to it than sweaty men in gyms just doing MT, BJJ and boxing.
Not that there's anything wrong with sweaty men you understand....sigh!

I want people to see that while I agree SD and MMA are trained separately we have huge interest here in training both, when we train we tend to train the elements we use in MMA separately anyway. We will have a stand up session ( includes karate btw), grappling session, escapes, locks sessions etc etc SD is taught as a separate session as well. We tend not to have fitness sessions as it eats into the club time and is better done outside the club, we'll have it sometimes if people want to ways to get fit. I'd like people to see what we do as something much deeper than they assume MMA is from watching the television.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I think that sums up simply what it really boils down to.
> 
> As i've long maintained the main difference between the ring of the combat sport and the 'street' (for lack of a better term) is simply in mindset and application.
> 
> The ring is a set place with a set starting time, while the street is often about awareness, avoidance, preemption and the element of surprise.  But when it comes to the physical blows themselves, what works in the ring works well on the street, with a proper understanding of the difference in application.



Minor quibble; rules intended for safety prohibit certain strikes in sport. Since we do what we train to do, in SD one might pass over methods that might more quickly end an altercation.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 11, 2010)

Yep. The main issue is the "proper understanding of the difference in application". This is absolutely necessary, however most people seem to put it in at the wrong time (ie "when in a real situation, I'll turn off the "sport" mindset and go into SD mode"). The difference needs to be understood at the level of training the responces in the first place, as in a real situation your conscious mind (the part that would say "hang on, this isn't a competition") basically goes walkabout. So you need to train with that SD mindset if that is the responce you want, rather than with a sporting mindset.

The addition to Bill's point is that you may indeed pass over more effective methods, but you may also find yourself going for things that are counter-productive in an SD situation, such as trading blows, not escaping, looking to go to ground without first taking care of possible members of a group etc etc etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 11, 2010)

If we do what we train why then do the soldiers that do MMA manage to fight successfully in MMA, fight in combat succesfully and fight I mean 'defend' themselves so successfully in street/club situations? All three things train differently. Why are peple so sure that we stay in one frame of mind in situatons, I can succesfully change tack when at work or when in the club and then again between street situations and I'm not a very good martial artist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If we do what we train why then do the soldiers that do MMA manage to fight successfully in MMA, fight in combat succesfully and fight I mean 'defend' themselves so successfully in street/club situations? All three things train differently. Why are peple so sure that we stay in one frame of mind in situatons, I can succesfully change tack when at work or when in the club and then again between street situations and I'm not a very good martial artist.



When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I had a friend who came home from Vietnam and gouged the eyes out of a man who broke into his car. With his thumbs. He said it was how he was trained.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 11, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If we do what we train why then do* the soldiers that do MMA manage to fight successfully in MMA, fight in combat succesfully and fight I mean 'defend' themselves so successfully* in street/club situations? *All three things train differently.* Why are peple so sure that we stay in one frame of mind in situatons, I can succesfully change tack when at work or when in the club and then again between street situations and I'm not a very good martial artist.


 
I'll try to explain this one. The highlighted aspects above are the important bits...

There are different aspects of the mind of a human being, which have developed seperately over our evolution, starting with the primal survival aspect (sometimes refered to as the Lizard Brain), which then had a social and emotional aspect imposed on top of that (refered to as the Mammalian Brain), and finally the conscious mind on top of that. The oldest is the Lizard Brain, and it is purely concerned with existing from one moment to the next. It is this part of your brain that regulates your breathing, your heartbeat, your sleep and hunger. It is primal and simple, but being the oldest (first evolved) part, it is incredibly strong. In fact, it is the strongest part of your brain, and is in control of pretty much everything.

The Mammalian Brain developed next, and gave us our socialisation and emotional responces, allowing interaction with others, leading to social groups and structures. Think of the same type of social groupings that you see in chimpanzees and you can see the effects of the Mammalian Brain. Chimps express many emotions, and work in a social group, interacting and co-operating quite well. But the human conscious mind hasn't made an appearance here, a number of aspects of it are missing, most notably language. This part of your brain, as mentioned, gives you your emotional responces, which goes towards explaining why you can be "controlled" by your emotions, even in spite of your conscious thoughts (the Mammalian Brain is older than the Conscious Brain, so it's stronger. However the Lizard Brain still trumps it for sheer controlling strength).

The most recent evolution of our brain is the Conscious Brain. This is, realistically speaking, a last-minute tack-on to the actual powerhouse that is our brain. This part, however, is the loudest. As mentioned, one of the key aspects of the Conscious Brain is language, and the recognition and application of it. This allows the communication of ideas, which leads to invention, which leads to technical improvements and adaptations, but also lends itself to internal chatter. This internal chatter makes us think that the Conscious Brain is in control, simply because that's the part we keep hearing all the time. It's actually the weakest of all, is the easiest to take out of the equation, and is in control of very little. But as it is always chattering away, saying "Look at me, listen to me, I am the real you, what I say is true, if I think it then that is the truth!", when none of those claims are actually true (this is what I was getting at with Alcatraz earlier when I was talking about his actual reasons for training, and it being far more than just self defence).

The real you is actually made up of the Lizard Brain and the Mammalian Brain, with a little bit on top from the Conscious Brain, but honestly very little of that. The Lizard Brain and Mammalian Brain combine to make up what is refered to as the Unconscious Mind (or Subconscious, which is a more Jungian term). The real you is not what you think you would do, the real you is what you would actually do. The real you is not what you reason the reality should be, it is what your unconscious knows the reality is.

The aspects of your personality are made up of various layers, namely; 
- Experiences. These are the list of encounters of various types that relate to  particular aspect of life. The important thing to realise here is that the Unconscious Mind cannot differentiate between reality and fantasy, so if your entire experience in something (say, martial arts) is from watching movies, then that will be taken as the basis for your next few aspects of your personality. 

- Beliefs. Coming directly from your experiences, you form your beliefs. If you experience touching a hot stove and being burnt, you get the belief that getting burnt (and by extension touching hot things) hurts. 

- Values. From your experiences you get your beliefs. However your beliefs are non-judgemental, they are neither positive nor negative. That is where values come in. From touching the hot stove and learning that getting burnt hurts, most will typically get the value that getting burnt, and being in pain, is not very pleasant, so it will not be valued very highly. On the other hand, though, if after being burnt your mother comes over and dotes a large amount of attention on you, making an over-the-top fuss, maybe giving you treats you would normally never get, then you may associate that reward with the attention from being injured, and then value it highly in order to promote the same attention and reward again. So the one experience can lead to very different values, depending on how it all goes down, and previous experiences (not getting rewards before, for example, can lead to a high value for them due to their scarcity, leading to a high value for recieving them, even trumping the low value for feeling pain).

- Behaviours. This is where those beliefs and values are expressed, and despite what most people think, your behaviours are not governed by your conscious mind at all. They are an expression of your unconscious beliefs and values, just with your conscious mind chattering over the top, making it seem like it's in control. In our example, if the burnt child develops the standard "pain = low value", then the individual could have behaviours that lead them to avoid such experiences again, in a positive, balanced individual that means a degree of healthy caution, in a less balanced one a severe phobia. If the burnt child develops a high value (for the percieved associated reward), then that could lead them to seek out such experiences, leading to dangerous experiences, ranging from being an adrenaline junkie, to more S&M type personalities.

The most important thing to notice in the above is that the Unconscious Mind will always choose what it percieves as the best of any presented options. The child who values pain highly chose it as the better option due to the percieved rewards associated.

Another thing to realise is that these processes take place early in your development. In fact, most of your core value and beliefs, and by extension your behaviours, and therefore what we refer to as your personality, are set by the time you are 7 (leading to the classic Catholic statement "Give me a boy until he is 7, and I will give you the man"), with final adjustments being taken on up til about the age of 16. After that, the main methods of changing any aspect of your personality are either therapy, or a traumatic incident.

Essentially, therapy and a traumatic incident are the same thing, just with a different timeline, and more control over the therapy form. In both cases the person is exposed to experiences that confront the established beliefs, forcing an alteration to that belief, or simple abandoning it entirely. This naturally leads to new values, which gives new behaviours, leading to a personality change. I'm sure you've all heard of people who have had a "life-changing experience", been involved in a major accident (or know someone who has), gotten a major illness, and so on. These are examples of traumatic experiences, forcing established beliefs to be challenged, and then new beliefs taking over.

Martial arts are actually very much the therapy version of this (although if I am asked to get someone good at self defence in a hurry, it is much more the traumatic version....), in that you are guided through a range of experiences (techniques, training drills, pressure tests, competition, sparring etc) which challenge your beliefs about what is powerful, effective, and so on in regard to fighting, martial arts, and anything related in your Unconscious Mind, leading to new values, which in turn give rise to new bahaviours. In essence, this means that if you train in such a way that you experience what you consider success in competition, your belief will most likely become that the competitive form of training is good, effective, powerful etc, you will value it highly, and your behaviours will change to match successful actions in the competitive form you train in. Essentially the behaviours match what you value highly out of your new beliefs, based on your experiences.

So the next thing is to realise what is actually happening when you are forming these new beliefs. In your Unconsious Mind there are certain compartments, boxes for certain aspects of your life. These boxes might be "Pleasure", "Relaxation", "Fun", "Taste", and so on. Each of these have their place in either the Lizard Brain or the Mammalian Brain. For example, those listed above will most likely be placed somewhere in the Mammalian Brain, as they are more to do with emotional/sensual inputs and experiences, rather than the pure survival aspect of the Lizard Brain. So you need to understand which part of the brain you are programming when you are training, and that really comes down to how you train it. If you train in a half-hearted fashion, or a light-hearted fashion, then you are basically telling your Unconscious Mind that what you are experiencing is "Fun", or "Pleasure", maybe even "Relaxation", meaning that it is not put into the "Survival", "Serious Life Saving Skill" box in the Lizard Brain.

As you said above, each is trained differently. And that is important (this is why I could say that your MMA training and your SD training is seperate), as if they weren't then there would be bad news. If everything was trained the same (MMA, SD, Military Methods), then the MMA part would see real injuries very often (from training it with the mindset of either SD or Military), or dangerous tactics and strategies would be employed in a real situation (from training them with an MMA mindset). So the more seperation you can generate, the simpler it is to adapt, as all that really needs to happen then is for the Unconsious Mind to recognise the situation it is in, and look to previous experiences in that field to generate the correct beliefs, values, and behaviours. That way an MMA guy who also trains SD and as a member of the Armed Forces can always go to what is appropriate, whereas someone who trains exclusively in MMA can have some issues. The difference is not in the technical approach, it's in the understanding of the mindset in training (what I was talking about in the post above, you don't have the option of changing your mindset in a real situation, so you choose your mindset for the results you want in your training, and that is where you can change things around). And by training with the different mindsets for different situations, that is how you can adapt to different situations as they happen. And that is what I am talking about when I talk about the frame of mind in the situation. It needs to be addressed beforehand (in training), as you will only have available to you what you have already put in.

Okay, that was a long one as well.... hope it made some kind of sense!


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 11, 2010)

It did Chris...but.........what about the female brain? 

I defy you to explain that one!! :lol: 


It does annoy me though when people assume things about MMAers, it's as if they can't possibly be able to stop thinking about rules, refs illegal techniques etc because they train for competitions. I think they are far more liable to be able to change than those who when punching always pull their punches or who only ever punch the air. Athletes manage to train for pentathons, triathons, decathlons etc so why wouldn't we be able to train MMA *and* SD? And make them both work.
I think the perception is still that MMAers are thick! they get fit and hit people. The truth is yes they are fit but they also play physical chess during a fight, a lot of intelligent thinking is required to be a fighter in the cage.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 11, 2010)

You really want me to start discussing female psychology here? Really?

I completely agree that MMA athletes are intelligent, frankly if they weren't I don't think they'd last too long!

In terms of how an athlete can train for a pentathlon, triathlon, etc with no issues, well that's partially because the same type of adrenaline dump doesn't occur (taking the conscious mind out of the equation), and also because they do the same thing: train each event seperately so that they know how to pace themselves differently for each type of competition. This really is closer to sports martial arts training. Start chasing that same athlete with a knife, and you'll see a running method rather different to their training and competing, I wager.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> It did Chris...but.........what about the female brain?
> 
> I defy you to explain that one!! :lol:
> 
> ...



I have nothing but respect for any sport fighter, including MMA fighters.

I don't think that changes the basic premise that we do what we have trained ourselves to do. After many years in law enforcement, I found that I seldom go for face strikes or joint-breaking; I was trained to use non-lethal restraining techniques. I had to work to overcome that tendency; wrestling someone to the ground in an armbar takedown left me reaching for cuffs that were not there, waiting for my partner to dive in who did not exist.

I still instinctively tend to look for a trip instead of a snap kick knee breaker. But in a pure SD situation, the latter would tend to end the threat immediately.

And it's not really about intelligence, the first response is ingrained and requires no concious intervention. Sport is all about thinking and planning. SD tends to be sudden and unplanned. You go with what comes naturally to you at the time, mostly.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 11, 2010)

Ah, missed a bit with this one....



Tez3 said:


> It did Chris...but.........what about the female brain?
> 
> I defy you to explain that one!! :lol:
> 
> ...


 
Now, my above long-winded post about the various levels of the mind I was hoping may have helped dispell this idea that you can still "think" your way through this type of thing. Really, it just doesn't work that way, as (as stated above) you are dealing purely with an unconscious responce in these situations, rather than conscious choice (to "stop thinking" about the rules would be conscious-mind, not unconscious responce). So the first realistic thing to do is to take out any kind of "Well, I think this makes sense, so that's what I'd do!" approach to these ideas, because I guarantee you that that will not be what you actually do (which is why anytime someone here or elsewhere has asked "what would you do if....?" I have said it's impossible to answer without being in the situation itself. You really don't know until you're in it, so to speak).

The conscious mind is not the powerful part of yourself. It is not in control, despite all the noise it makes. And if you ever find yourself thinking "well, I'd do this", then you have missed the reality of how this actually works, mainly because under the high stress, high adrenaline conditions of a real assault, that part of you that thinks "well, I'd do this" is the part of you that shuts down. If you rely on it, you're relying on nothing.

With your comment about MMA fighters being able to "change" more readily than non-contact style fighters, well no, really. Neither is more likely to change, as again that is a conscious mind aspect. What I feel you are getting at is that the MMA guy will be more able to land powerful, solid strikes in his own defence than the non-contact guy, yes? Okay, that's agreed, but the thing to realise is that that is not changing or adapting to an SD situation. The MMA guy will simply follow his training, which involves hitting and hitting hard. But he won't necessarily be doing anything that different to the ring (opponent in front of me, my job is to knock them out), whereas if he was adapting and changing to an SD mentality, he may look for options such as avoidance, escape, verbal defusion and so forth, which are not covered in MMA training. The non-contact guy, on the other hand, if it does come to physical blows, will potentially still pull their strikes (the MMA guy won't, although he may not go for a full knock-out punch first off, as he'll be used to wanting to last a number of rounds, and wear down his opponent. An SD guy, in a physical situation, should be looking for a straight knock-out pretty much immediately), simply because that is how they trained.

But here's the thing. I explained above the ways our behaviours (including our abilities to fight and defend ourselves) are formed (experiences give beliefs, beliefs give value, value + belief give behaviours). Now, you may think that that makes it all very easy to generate a certain set of behaviours, but unfortunately (as demonstrated with our burnt child above) the way it all happens is rather individual. There is every likelihood that the non-contact guy (on an unconscious level), despite experiencing success in his chosen sport, just doesn't believe what he does is powerful for use in a real situation. That can lead to his training all being put in the box in his head marked "Sport", and nothing in the one marked "Survival!" So, even if he has years, or even decades of training behind him, when it really comes down to it, nothing comes out, as there is simply nothing there (where it needs to be) to come out. By the same token, an MMA guy could have an experience where he really injures someone, in a match or in training, which leads to an unconscious belief that if he does something he will permanently injure someone, which he gives a very low value to (or gives a high value to not hurting anyone), meaning that his expressed behaviours (what he does under the high stress high adrenaline conditions of an assault, which is actually a fair bit different to the stress and adrenaline conditions of a match) make him hold back, in which case a non-contact guy could concievably be better adapted to a real assault or attack. Gee, this is fun isn't it?

The only way to know is to check behaviours by simulating the conditions that you want to be able to perform under as closely to reality as possible. Andy Moynihan here, for example, recently underwent a reality shooting experience, where they went to the extreme of drawing blood to simulate a number of effects. Now, that's a bit extreme for most people, but it's very realistic.

But to be effective in all areas here, you would need to do exactly what you have said here: "Train MMA *and* SD... and make them both work". If you train them both seperately, and compartmentalise them in different sections of your unconscious responces (by employing the appropriate mindset to each, and not allowing them to get confused in your head), then yes, it can absolutely work. But training just MMA and thinking that is SD training, or really any martial art or sport, and thinking it's by definition SD training, won't. What you will be doing is training for the conditions of the training itself, whether that is a sport, a tradition, or something else, and typically you are training a skill set that is removed, in some cases very far removed from what would be required for SD application. The mechanics may, and probably will work, but that is not what SD training is about.

Oh, and you may notice that the above explaination of the conscious/unconscious mind(s) is how I read posts here and elsewhere. These posts are really simply expressions, or behaviours, which show me (by writing style, word choice, care of construction, and so on) a fair amount of the values and beliefs of the persons writing them, which can give me a fair few clues about the experiences that lie behid them. There's typically a lot more revealed than most think.... and that may go a way to explaining my personal behaviours in my posting style as well. I'll let you think on that one...


----------



## alcatraz (Jul 12, 2010)

Chris,

How do you then explain those who trained to a high level in their particular sporting format, and yet were still able to 'switch on' when it came to a violent live situation?

For many, many years, I was succesful in both Semi-Contact sporting formats such as WKF/WUKO Kumite, Semi-Contact (Points), and Light-Contact (Continuous); and later I dabbled with some sucess in Knockdown Karate, and Full-Contact Kickboxing formats.

At the same time, I was also working in the Nightclub Security industry, and had to 'switch on' on a near nightly basis. 

I also grew up in what was a rather 'rough' part of Glasgow, and as a teen found myself in many scrapes. Despite the fact I competed in Sport Karate as a teen, due to the way my instructor taught us, I was able to defend and protect myself.

In recent years, I've found myself having to defend my wife and myself from someone who pulled a knife on us in a cinema carpark.

This idea that someone who has trained to any sort of level in a sporting Martial Art format can't switch between modes is flawed, as I could give at least a dozen examples (albeit anecdotal) of people who have trained in Sport Martial Arts 'switching on' and defending & protecting themselves (and others).

Also, I have never said anywhere in any of my posts that Sport training should replace SD training as a viable alternative, and if you re-read my opening post correctly, you will see that I actually suggest the opposite.

The point I WAS making is that some sporting formats which are full-contact in nature do lend themselves to SD better than some so called non-sporting Martial Arts.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2010)

I think nearly anyone would be able to switch quicker than someone who only ever punches air to be honest! The whole point of learning to punch is to hit something even if it's only a pad. Hitting nothing for your entire training does nothing, I've seen places where they do that and the instructors carefully positioning the arms and fists to be 'just so' perfect in techniques but these people don't know how to hit someone!

It's not me saying that MMA fighters can't switch and I've never said it's a 'thinking' thing, they do it automatically but the point is they do it, I know I've seen it and done it. *What I've been saying it that those who say MMA is all very* *well in the ring/cage but when there's no* *rules/ref/rounds etc then MMA fighters can't turn it on because we fight as we train are wrong*, I'm saying, well yes they can, why they can do it is of less interest tbh than the fact they can fight without being constricted by rules thus proving they can turn to whatever they need to do. There are plenty who say MMAers ( and other fighters) can't fight in the street because they only ever train to fight with rules.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I think nearly anyone would be able to switch quicker than someone who only ever punches air to be honest! The whole point of learning to punch is to hit something even if it's only a pad. Hitting nothing for your entire training does nothing, I've seen places where they do that and the instructors carefully positioning the arms and fists to be 'just so' perfect in techniques but these people don't know how to hit someone!
> 
> It's not me saying that MMA fighters can't switch and I've never said it's a 'thinking' thing, they do it automatically but the point is they do it, I know I've seen it and done it. *What I've been saying it that those who say MMA is all very* *well in the ring/cage but when there's no* *rules/ref/rounds etc then MMA fighters can't turn it on because we fight as we train are wrong*, I'm saying, well yes they can, why they can do it is of less interest tbh than the fact they can fight without being constricted by rules thus proving they can turn to whatever they need to do. There are plenty who say MMAers ( and other fighters) can't fight in the street because they only ever train to fight with rules.


Its all relative though. I agree that throwing punches to the air is nowhere near as effective as actually hitting something. But to be fair, I dont think its accurate to say that hitting air achieves 'nothing'. If you get one guy who sits around on the couch all day and does nothing and compare him to someone who throws 200 punches a week at the air, I can tell you who will throw the better punch. It may not be ideal, and I certainly wouldnt train that way but people tend to be too quick to dismiss things as 'useless'. Different training methods have varying degrees of teaching effective ways to defend yourself but very few things are 'useless'. I gave the example earlier of WTF sparring, people say its 'useless', but it does teach timing distancing, getting hit, reflexes etc. Yes, its very limited, but not useless.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Its all relative though. I agree that throwing punches to the air is nowhere near as effective as actually hitting something. But to be fair, I dont think its accurate to say that hitting air achieves 'nothing'. If you get one guy who sits around on the couch all day and does nothing and compare him to someone who throws 200 punches a week at the air, I can tell you who will throw the better punch. It may not be ideal, and I certainly wouldnt train that way but people tend to be too quick to dismiss things as 'useless'. Different training methods have varying degrees of teaching effective ways to defend yourself but very few things are 'useless'. I gave the example earlier of WTF sparring, people say its 'useless', but it does teach timing distancing, getting hit, reflexes etc. Yes, its very limited, but not useless.


 
Sorry, hitting air *is* useless, all you get is bad joints. The best punch is one that connects, the guy on the couch will be aiming to hit so more chance of him getting the KO than the guy who hits air, who doesn't know how to connect.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 12, 2010)

Hi alcatraz,



alcatraz said:


> Chris,
> 
> How do you then explain those who trained to a high level in their particular sporting format, and yet were still able to 'switch on' when it came to a violent live situation?
> 
> ...


 
Hey Irene,



Tez3 said:


> I think nearly anyone would be able to switch quicker than someone who only ever punches air to be honest! The whole point of learning to punch is to hit something even if it's only a pad. Hitting nothing for your entire training does nothing, I've seen places where they do that and the instructors carefully positioning the arms and fists to be 'just so' perfect in techniques but these people don't know how to hit someone!
> 
> It's not me saying that MMA fighters can't switch and I've never said it's a 'thinking' thing, they do it automatically but the point is they do it, I know I've seen it and done it. *What I've been saying it that those who say MMA is all very* *well in the ring/cage but when there's no* *rules/ref/rounds etc then MMA fighters can't turn it on because we fight as we train are wrong*, I'm saying, well yes they can, why they can do it is of less interest tbh than the fact they can fight without being constricted by rules thus proving they can turn to whatever they need to do. There are plenty who say MMAers ( and other fighters) can't fight in the street because they only ever train to fight with rules.


 
No, I don't think anyone suggests that MMA guys and girls can't fight, just that the training is geared to fighting in a ring, which has different needs, requirements, focus', ideals, aims, forms of success, and so on, than self defence. The argument is more that, as Bill said, if all you have in your toolbox is a hammer, you tend to treat everything like a nail.

You know what, I love a good anecdote, and these pretty much sums up our approach to self defence versus the approach of a sporting system (in this case BJJ). The first is one of our black belts in Sydney, the second is me during my time cross-training in BJJ as part of my preparation for my latest grade assessment.

1) One of our Black Belts in Sydney decided to broaden his knowledge and experience by going along to do some training in a BJJ school local to him. The class was great, but the focus was a little different to what he was used to. As these guys were ground-specialists (and we're not), he was pretty much taken to school a fair bit (so was I in my BJJ time... got them a few times, picked it up faster than a number of others, but still, it's their element, not mine), which is a great lesson in ego, amongst other things. As our Black Belt was changing after a class, the BJJ instructor noticed the word "Ninjutsu" on the Black Belts bag, and asked about it. Our guy explained that it was a old survival art, and covered a fair bit. The BJJ instructor said "You know what jiu-jitsu is? Say I'm in a bar, and I turn around and knock into a guy, and I spill his drink, well I can just get behind him and choke him out! That's jiu-jitsu! So, what's ninjutsu about then, huh?". Our Black Belt replied "It's about buying the guy another drink."

No machismo required, just being aware enough to recognise what is really needed to look after yourself.

2) During one particular session I was being taughta mounting position transitioning into a controlling arm-lock. As I performed the move, I stopped to look at it a little more thoroughly. The instructor saw me, came over, and misinterpretting why I had stopped, reassured me that I was doing it correctly. "If you get them like that, they can't do anything!" he proudly told me. "Okay" I said "but what about my groin? I feel a little exposed here." "Oh, no, he can't do that. It's against the rules."

Frankly, the technique was great. But from a less-limited perspective, it was flawed in that there was no consideration for the openings it created, as they couldn't be taken advantage of within the rules. I was also constantly told how it was for real fighting, and then had my knee position corrected (to where I felt far less control, and more vulnerable) as "that is where you need to be to get the points." Suffice to say that BJJ isn't for me... and a workshop with Royce Gracie actually confirmed that quite solidly.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2010)

Chris, there's a fair few posts on MT and other places where people say that MMA is no good because we train for rules and refs etc. I know peoples mindsets about this lol and that they get their info from watching UFC, ugh.

We don't train for BJJ points, I know they do things a bit differently, such as getting points for knees on stomach etc. If we put a knee on the stomach it's because it's going to meet their spine. We do differentiate between what is good for MMA and what is good for defending yourself, sometimes it's just a small adjustment, sometimes it's a recommendation not to use it for one or the other. We do a fair bit of control and restrain stuff too as well as the stuff we do for multiple attackers (that tends for us to be more as in a riot situation against non English speaking people and the regimental dinners)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Minor quibble; rules intended for safety prohibit certain strikes in sport. Since we do what we train to do, in SD one might pass over methods that might more quickly end an altercation.


 
While that would, in theory, seem correct.......I suspect in practice it often doesn't manifest itself that way.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 12, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Yep. The main issue is the "proper understanding of the difference in application". This is absolutely necessary, however most people seem to put it in at the wrong time (ie "when in a real situation, I'll turn off the "sport" mindset and go into SD mode"). The difference needs to be understood at the level of training the responces in the first place, as in a real situation your conscious mind (the part that would say "hang on, this isn't a competition") basically goes walkabout. So you need to train with that SD mindset if that is the responce you want, rather than with a sporting mindset.
> 
> The addition to Bill's point is that you may indeed pass over more effective methods, but you may also find yourself going for things that are counter-productive in an SD situation, such as trading blows, not escaping, looking to go to ground without first taking care of possible members of a group etc etc etc.


 
It's been my real world experience that the benefits gained for those skills practiced under realistic stress, i.e. heavy sparring, give far more advantages than practicing skills many deem 'too dangerous' for hard sparring.

In other words, in the real world, folks get knocked out by those who have 'merely trained sport boxing' for example, more times than not.

It goes back to the old Mike Tyson quote about 'everyone having a plan until they get punched in the nose'........well, if you're not getting punched in the nose while trying that eye gauge, there's no realistic expectation you'll pull it off when someone is punching you in the nose.  

Again, my personal experience supports this........lots of folks I know with theoretical 'lethal skills' have been rendering unconscious by a mere 'sport fighter'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If we do what we train why then do the soldiers that do MMA manage to fight successfully in MMA, fight in combat succesfully and fight I mean 'defend' themselves so successfully in street/club situations? All three things train differently. Why are peple so sure that we stay in one frame of mind in situatons, I can succesfully change tack when at work or when in the club and then again between street situations and I'm not a very good martial artist.


 
A punch is a punch and a kick is a kick.  The only realistic difference is one of mindset, and it suggests that the mindset of those who enter the ring in a combat sport are probably more geared to the kind of killer instinct necessary to prevail in a 'street fight'. 

The reason many folks get in to boxing and MMA is that they LIKE hitting people and getting hit, they enjoy fighting, and are quite willing to engage in it.  That mindset is the FIRST step to prevailing in ANY violent encounter.  Far more important than the specific techniques.

Now, one could argue, with some measure of merit, that 'the willingness to runaway' is a key component of 'self-defense'.......and by some measure it is.........but if what we are talking about is the ability to engage in and impose your will in a violent confrontation, then the kind of temperament that drives many to engage in 'combat sports' is the exact mindset necessary to prevail in other violent encounters.

That's the same kind of aggressive personality that drives one to climb mountains and join Special Operations units...........the need to express oneself in an aggressive manner and overcome near impossible obstacles.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I had a friend who came home from Vietnam and gouged the eyes out of a man who broke into his car. With his thumbs. He said it was how he was trained.


 
That's BS...(on his part, not yours)....I train to shoot people, too, but that doesn't mean I shoot everyone who resists arrest.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Chris, there's a fair few posts on MT and other places where people say that MMA is no good because we train for rules and refs etc. I know peoples mindsets about this lol and that they get their info from watching UFC, ugh.
> 
> We don't train for BJJ points, I know they do things a bit differently, such as getting points for knees on stomach etc. If we put a knee on the stomach it's because it's going to meet their spine. We do differentiate between what is good for MMA and what is good for defending yourself, sometimes it's just a small adjustment, sometimes it's a recommendation not to use it for one or the other. We do a fair bit of control and restrain stuff too as well as the stuff we do for multiple attackers (that tends for us to be more as in a riot situation against non English speaking people and the regimental dinners)


 
Yeah, I was refering more to this thread in particular, I don't think anyone has suggested that MMA guys can't fight here. My apologies for any misunderstanding. One of our Instructors in Brisbane has been cross-training in MMA for a little while now, so such myths don't really exist for us!



sgtmac_46 said:


> It's been my real world experience that the benefits gained for those *skills practiced under realistic stress*, i.e. heavy sparring, give far more advantages than practicing skills many deem 'too dangerous' for hard sparring.
> 
> In other words, in the real world, folks get knocked out by those who have 'merely trained sport boxing' for example, more times than not.
> 
> ...


 
While, again, I'm far from saying that sport systems don't give benefits my point is more about the highlighted section above. By training in such a way (realistic pressure, sparring being one version, not my favourite, but one) you are far more likely to generate success than if you don't. Regardless of whether it is a sporting system, hard contact, or not. But once more, this is only focused on the physical side of things, and that is a very limited, machismo approach.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2010)

Handy hint for ease of eye gouging...always lick your fingers first, saves the eyeball sticking to your fingers.

 I've found that people who do the gouging the eye out with only the thumb are also very good at the striking the nosebone until it goes into the brain strike too.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 12, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> While, again, I'm far from saying that sport systems don't give benefits my point is more about the highlighted section above. By training in such a way (realistic pressure, sparring being one version, not my favourite, but one) you are far more likely to generate success than if you don't. Regardless of whether it is a sporting system, hard contact, or not. But once more, this is only focused on the physical side of things, and that is a very limited, machismo approach.


 
Machismo gets a lot of negative press in the age of the common man.......but the reality is that in violent physical altercations (fleeing aside) machismo, testosterone, whatever you want to call it..........is a key element of imposing your will.


Now, don't get me wrong.......I do agree that there is a difference between combat sports and combat, as i've mentioned...........but that difference can be overstated.  There's a reason why boxers who find themselves in a street confrontation quite often knock their assailants unconscious in short order, even multiple assailants (despite not 'training' for multiple assailants).  The skills of hitting and getting hit translate very well.


----------



## alcatraz (Jul 12, 2010)

Chris, 

You keep bandying statements that I don't understand Martial Arts, or I dont understand self-defence, and you also keep refering to my comments as being my point of view as though that is something negative.

Nowhere have I said that my POV is correct and all others are wrong. However, as this is a discussion board, I'm sure that my POV and perspective are as valid as your own. Yes?

First of all; I understand Martial Arts very well. After 33 years of study, and research, I think it's safe to say I know my subject matter rather well.

Second. I understand the field of self defence/protection very, very well, as this is *my* primary concern in the study of martial arts, and one which I pass onto my students.

I know all about physical and verbal indicators, prevention, etc, etc..but at the end of the proverbial day, the physical aspect of what we as martial artists do, is train to fight, and whilst we hope that we never have to use that training, the fact is that whenever we practice a drill, or a Kata, or spar, that activity is geared towards a physical endgame.

Which brings me to the next point. The point of this threas was to discuss my opinion, that those who train in full-contact sporting formats are more likely to be able to defend themselves in a violent altercation than someone who may study self-defence/protection in what I call a theory based art.

Let's, as an example, take the opposite ends of the martial spectrum.

You have Mr Smith who has decided that he wants to learn Martial Arts for Self-Defence and joins a GKR Karate class.

You have Mr Jones who has decided that he would like to train to fight under a full-contact sporting system such as MMA.

Now let's say that Mr Jones and Mr Smith are the same age, and, provisionaly the same fitness level. They both put the same hours into their training.

If both Mr Smith and Mr Jones were attacked, I would bet 12 to the dozen that Mr Jones would be more likely to survive a violent confrontation than Mr Smith, despite the fact that Mr Jones was only training for a sport.


----------



## alcatraz (Jul 12, 2010)

Oh and as a PS, Chris.

I also said that Self Defence/Protection was my PRIMARY reason for studying Martial Arts, but nowhere have I said it was my sole reason.

I enjoy the aesthetics of Martial Arts, I enjoy the history, I enjoy the diversity, and yes, I enjoy the sporting side, as a spectator, participant, and coach.

But those reasons are secondary to the self-defence/protection element.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 12, 2010)

Okay, I'll address this.



alcatraz said:


> Chris,
> 
> You keep bandying statements that I don't understand Martial Arts, or I dont understand self-defence, and you also keep refering to my comments as being my point of view as though that is something negative.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> That's BS...(on his part, not yours)....I train to shoot people, too, but that doesn't mean I shoot everyone who resists arrest.



When he was in Vietnam, he shot anyone who appeared to pose a threat, and he did it without thinking much about it - that kept him alive.  If he fought hand-to-hand, he did it with his life on the line and no consideration for the enemy's life; after all, it was his job to take that life.  These were the rules under which he and many wartime servicemen not only trained, but operated.  It is hard to leave that all behind when transitioning back to civilian life, and many have found it nearly impossible, to their detriment.

A law enforcement officer must put their life on the line to not only make an arrest, but to use the minimum force necessary to to effect that arrest.  This requires less instinctive reaction and more level-headed thinking.  That may mean a moment's hesitation; officers are put in grave danger simply because they cannot respond without conscious thought, as a serviceman might in wartime; but that is the nature of the job.

I trained to shoot people in the military also; and I trained to shoot as a civilian LEO well.  I was quite able to avoid reacting to an attack by using lethal methods when the situation did not call for it.  But I was not in combat, fighting hand-to-hand for my life.  That reaction was not ingrained in me.  Had it been, I might well have also found it difficult to transition back to a world where the first reaction is not necessarily the most lethal one possesses.

I know from personal experience that reactions can be trained; and that once trained, they are hard to restrain.

An example; if someone walks up behind you and drops a book loudly, you will jump.  Nearly everyone will.  Through training, you can turn that normal and instant reaction into a defensive move instead of merely jumping out of your skin.  Once that training is ingrained, there is a danger that even someone innocently playing a prank by dropping a book behind you is going to get a reaction you would not otherwise give them.  That's the nature of the training I am speaking of.

When one has time to process threats and respond appropriately, one can of course override their training and respond as the situation calls for.  However, trained reactions are very hard to overcome, as they happen before conscious thought does.  That's their advantage; sometimes it is their disadvantage.


----------



## Shifu Steve (Jul 12, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Cause Steve asked so nicely....
> 
> Er, settle in, it's a long one...... sorry.


 
Ask and you shall receive.  Chris when it comes to adding content to a discussion you have effectively cornered the market.  Well done sir.


----------



## MJS (Jul 12, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Cause Steve asked so nicely....
> 
> Er, settle in, it's a long one...... sorry.


 

I'm afraid I really don't agree with that at all. In fact, I can personally think of absolutely no martial arts geared towards self defence, so to train them with that frame of mind (only) is to actually miss the point of them. Now, that's not to say that aspects of martial arts cannot be used, helpful, or highly advantageous in a self defence situation/scenario, however to think that that is what they are designed for is, I feel, to fundamentally misunderstand the teachings, training methods, ideologies, and actual precepts of the arts. But, being me, I'll give some examples to demonstrate my point:

While I have said many times that people train for various reasons, and there're many different benefits to the arts, I'm going to have to disagree that there were no arts developed with sd as the main purpose.  I think the thread that I started a while ago, regarding the "Martial" in the martial arts, is relevant.  For myself, I feel that was the main goal originally, however over time, that goal changed.  Personally, I dont use the martial arts to lose weight, make friends, have something to do after work, to get stronger, etc.  I do them for SD.  The things that I listed, are IMO, the side benefits of training.  If I want to lose weight, I'll go on my own diet and lift weights.  Has that actually happened to me though?  Sure, but again, thats not why I train.  I'll join a gym for my strength building.


----------



## MJS (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If we do what we train why then do the soldiers that do MMA manage to fight successfully in MMA, fight in combat succesfully and fight I mean 'defend' themselves so successfully in street/club situations? All three things train differently. Why are peple so sure that we stay in one frame of mind in situatons, I can succesfully change tack when at work or when in the club and then again between street situations and I'm not a very good martial artist.


 
Question for you:  Would you say that happens to you, because of the way you train?  I believe you've stated that your gym trains both MMA and self defense, therefore, I think it'd be an easier transition for you, compared to a gym thats purely sport.


----------



## MJS (Jul 12, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> It's been my real world experience that the benefits gained for those skills practiced under realistic stress, i.e. heavy sparring, give far more advantages than practicing skills many deem 'too dangerous' for hard sparring.
> 
> In other words, in the real world, folks get knocked out by those who have 'merely trained sport boxing' for example, more times than not.
> 
> ...


 
I'll preface my comment by saying that I have nothing against the sport arts.  I've said many times that I feel that the TMAs can benefit from MMA, and vise versa.  Anyways...maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying that only the sport arts are training with realism and heavy contact.  If thats so, I'll have to disagree, as there are some TMAs that do engage in heavy contact.


----------



## MJS (Jul 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When he was in Vietnam, he shot anyone who appeared to pose a threat, and he did it without thinking much about it - that kept him alive. If he fought hand-to-hand, he did it with his life on the line and no consideration for the enemy's life; after all, it was his job to take that life. These were the rules under which he and many wartime servicemen not only trained, but operated. It is hard to leave that all behind when transitioning back to civilian life, and many have found it nearly impossible, to their detriment.
> 
> A law enforcement officer must put their life on the line to not only make an arrest, but to use the minimum force necessary to to effect that arrest. This requires less instinctive reaction and more level-headed thinking. That may mean a moment's hesitation; officers are put in grave danger simply because they cannot respond without conscious thought, as a serviceman might in wartime; but that is the nature of the job.
> 
> ...


 
Am I safe to assume that this could apply to a sport fighter who also, much like the people you mention here, operate under a specific rule/mindset?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 13, 2010)

MJS said:


> I'll preface my comment by saying that I have nothing against the sport arts. I've said many times that I feel that the TMAs can benefit from MMA, and vise versa. Anyways...maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying that only the sport arts are training with realism and heavy contact. If thats so, I'll have to disagree, as there are some TMAs that do engage in heavy contact.


 
That's not actually what i'm saying.........what I am saying is that heavy contract sport training will 99 times out of 100 beat so-called 'self-defense' training that isn't supplemented with heavy contact.

Fighting is fighting, really............and you learn to fight by fighting.  Anyone who says 'Well, getting punched in the face by a boxer in the ring.......well, that's not anything close to getting punched in a street fight' has never stepped in the ring to really test that theory.  As I mentioned before, there is a difference between combat sports and self-defense, but many folks VASTLY overstate that difference.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When he was in Vietnam, he shot anyone who appeared to pose a threat, and he did it without thinking much about it - that kept him alive. If he fought hand-to-hand, he did it with his life on the line and no consideration for the enemy's life; after all, it was his job to take that life. These were the rules under which he and many wartime servicemen not only trained, but operated. It is hard to leave that all behind when transitioning back to civilian life, and many have found it nearly impossible, to their detriment.
> 
> A law enforcement officer must put their life on the line to not only make an arrest, but to use the minimum force necessary to to effect that arrest. This requires less instinctive reaction and more level-headed thinking. That may mean a moment's hesitation; officers are put in grave danger simply because they cannot respond without conscious thought, as a serviceman might in wartime; but that is the nature of the job.
> 
> ...


 
I don't buy the ole' 'I'm a trained killer, so I responded out of instinct' thing on his part.........the reality is that such training ingrains MORE control on the part of the recipient, not LESS!

IF he gouged out the assailants eye, it's because he decided to.....and blamed it on his training and experience after the fact.

Now if you want to argue that his training and experience engrained a certain mindset toward violence, on that part i'll agree. Such training and experience DOES alter ones tolerance for violence, causing a very low-threshold for extreme violence, but actions are still conscious actions, even if the responses are instinctive in the sense of how fast they react......they still intended to do exactly what they did.


----------



## alcatraz (Jul 13, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> That's not actually what i'm saying.........what I am saying is that heavy contract sport training will 99 times out of 100 beat so-called 'self-defense' training that isn't supplemented with heavy contact.
> 
> Fighting is fighting, really............and you learn to fight by fighting. Anyone who says 'Well, getting punched in the face by a boxer in the ring.......well, that's not anything close to getting punched in a street fight' has never stepped in the ring to really test that theory. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between combat sports and self-defense, but many folks VASTLY overstate that difference.


 
Exactly!!


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 13, 2010)

MJS said:


> I'm afraid I really don't agree with that at all. In fact, I can personally think of absolutely no martial arts geared towards self defence, so to train them with that frame of mind (only) is to actually miss the point of them. Now, that's not to say that aspects of martial arts cannot be used, helpful, or highly advantageous in a self defence situation/scenario, however to think that that is what they are designed for is, I feel, to fundamentally misunderstand the teachings, training methods, ideologies, and actual precepts of the arts. But, being me, I'll give some examples to demonstrate my point:
> 
> While I have said many times that people train for various reasons, and there're many different benefits to the arts, I'm going to have to disagree that there were no arts developed with sd as the main purpose. I think the thread that I started a while ago, regarding the "Martial" in the martial arts, is relevant. For myself, I feel that was the main goal originally, however over time, that goal changed. Personally, I dont use the martial arts to lose weight, make friends, have something to do after work, to get stronger, etc. I do them for SD. The things that I listed, are IMO, the side benefits of training. If I want to lose weight, I'll go on my own diet and lift weights. Has that actually happened to me though? Sure, but again, thats not why I train. I'll join a gym for my strength building.


 
Hey Mike,

As I said, I can think of exactly zero martial arts designed for self defence, developed for it, or even really suited to it. Many were developed for combative means, but that is very different to being developed for, or even suited for self defence. There are many aspects that can help enormously, but that is not what they are designed for. They are realistically too complex, too involved, and too often designed for methods of combat not seen in a modern context. This even extends to more modern systems such as Kajukenbo and Krav Maga. Krav Maga, for instance, was designed with military uses in mind, which is highly combative, but not self defence.

As the methodology of both are so different, if a martial art was designed with self defence in mind, I don't think it would be very good at such an aim. Something designed with self defence in mind would be a DefTac program, or RBSD course, but neither of these fit the description of "martial art", as they are lacking the depth and range, as well as the "art" aspect.


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> That's not actually what i'm saying.........what I am saying is that heavy contract sport training will 99 times out of 100 beat so-called 'self-defense' training that isn't supplemented with heavy contact.
> 
> Fighting is fighting, really............and you learn to fight by fighting. Anyone who says 'Well, getting punched in the face by a boxer in the ring.......well, that's not anything close to getting punched in a street fight' has never stepped in the ring to really test that theory. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between combat sports and self-defense, but many folks VASTLY overstate that difference.


 
I agree, however, I simply said that that there are many SD related arts, that do engage in heavy, hard contact.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find, say a Kajukenbo school, that didn't do heavy, hard contact.  

Additionally, I could point you to a thread that I started in the Kenpo section, in which I said that I think that many Kenpoists could benefit from some boxing training.  

Again, please dont mistake what I'm saying.  I'm not against sport arts at all.  I've been a big fan of the UFC since day 1.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Now if you want to argue that his training and experience engrained a certain mindset toward violence, on that part i'll agree. Such training and experience DOES alter ones tolerance for violence, causing a very low-threshold for extreme violence, but actions are still conscious actions, even if the responses are instinctive in the sense of how fast they react......they still intended to do exactly what they did.



Very simply; if someone sneaks up behind you and drops a book very loudly, do you jump?  If so, tell me how that's voluntary.  In my experience, the only ways for me to prevent myself jumping was a) know that it was coming and brace myself for it, or b) train myself to replace the 'jump' instinct with something else.  And if b, then that is the new 'jump' and it's just as involuntary as jumping was.

Studies have shown that when a person burns themselves on say a hot surface, they jerk back their hand* faster *than the amount of time it takes for the information from the nerves to travel to the brain, be processed, and travel to the muscles telling them to contract.  That means it happens on a level that not only doesn't require thinking, it is faster than thinking could happen.  It's a failsafe, an override.  Yes, it can be overridden, especially if the person knows the burn sensation is coming and prepares for it, but when caught unawares, this response is autonomic.

As to my friend who gouged out the eyeballs; all I can say is he was not a complete individual. I believe today the term would be 'PTSD' but back then we didn't know what to call him.  I didn't know him before he went to Vietnam, but those who did said he had changed in many ways.  I believe his response was one that was outside of his ability to control at that time, and based upon the training he had received.  I have no doubt I could refrain from such a response, but I'm not sure it was in his power to do so.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> As I said, I can think of exactly zero martial arts designed for self defence, developed for it, or even really suited to it. Many were developed for combative means, but that is very different to being developed for, or even suited for self defence. There are many aspects that can help enormously, but that is not what they are designed for. They are realistically too complex, too involved, and too often designed for methods of combat not seen in a modern context. This even extends to more modern systems such as Kajukenbo and Krav Maga. Krav Maga, for instance, was designed with military uses in mind, which is highly combative, but not self defence.
> 
> As the methodology of both are so different, if a martial art was designed with self defence in mind, I don't think it would be very good at such an aim. Something designed with self defence in mind would be a DefTac program, or RBSD course, but neither of these fit the description of "martial art", as they are lacking the depth and range, as well as the "art" aspect.



I'm not sure I can agree with that.  Self-defense is the primary purpose of most martial arts that I'm aware of.  Unarmed combat is a different animal, and it often requires a lack of defense of self, since combat has a primary requirement of destroying the enemy, as opposed to preserving one's own life.

Unless you think of the two words 'self' and 'defense' in a completely different way than I understand them, I'm not at all sure what you mean.

As an example, a self-defense scenario for being pinned down under enemy fire would be to find a covered position and then find a means for escape, or a means to stop the enemy fire without exposing oneself to the risk of being shot.  Armed combat clearly has a component of self-defense in it; one seeks cover from enemy fire.  But leaving is not generally the appropriate response in combat - one must take risks, because the primary purpose is to close with, engage, and destroy the enemy; person survival, though important, comes second to the mission.

In basic terms, self-defense means running away from the sound of gunshots in the distance.  Combat means running towards that sound.  The fact that each involves similar skills doesn't change that basic premise.


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> As I said, I can think of exactly zero martial arts designed for self defence, developed for it, or even really suited to it. Many were developed for combative means, but that is very different to being developed for, or even suited for self defence. There are many aspects that can help enormously, but that is not what they are designed for. They are realistically too complex, too involved, and too often designed for methods of combat not seen in a modern context. This even extends to more modern systems such as Kajukenbo and Krav Maga. Krav Maga, for instance, was designed with military uses in mind, which is highly combative, but not self defence.
> 
> As the methodology of both are so different, if a martial art was designed with self defence in mind, I don't think it would be very good at such an aim. Something designed with self defence in mind would be a DefTac program, or RBSD course, but neither of these fit the description of "martial art", as they are lacking the depth and range, as well as the "art" aspect.


 
I dont know Chris, after reading Bills reply, I think I'm leaning more in his direction.  Take a look at this:  From John Bishops Kajukenbo page...

[FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana]What is Kajukenbo?[/FONT]





[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]Brutal, deadly, overkill, street effective. These and many other such terms have been used to describe the martial art system known as kajukenbo. 




Kajukenbo gained it's reputation for being brutally effective decades ago in the U.S. Territory of Hawaii. In the Hawaii of the 1940s the enemy was not the ancient battlefield soldier, it was the common street criminal. Instead of swords and spears he armed himself with knives, clubs, and guns. Even when unarmed he did not fight by any rules. He punched, kicked, gouged, bit, and stomped. If you encountered one of these brutal street fighters you were in for a life or death battle. Kajukenbo was designed to win such a battle. 




Since then it's eclectic use of five martial arts and it's no-nonsense approach to self defense has contributed to it's rapid growth and strong reputation as an highly effective self defense system.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana][/FONT] 
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana][/FONT] 
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]*The Development of Kajukenbo*




Kajukenbo is a prime example of American ingenuity. It is also America's first martial art system, having been founded in 1949 in the U.S. Territory of Hawaii. One of today's foremost instructors in kajukenbo is Gary Forbach from San Clemente, California. According to him, kajukenbo's inception came about in 1947 when five Hawaiian martial arts masters calling themselves the "Black Belt Society" started on a project to develop a comprehensive self defense system. These five men of vision were Peter Choo, the Hawaii welterweight boxing champion, and a Tang Soo Do black belt. Frank Ordonez, a Sekeino Jujitsu black belt. Joe Holck, a Kodokan Judo black belt. Clarence Chang, a master of Sil-lum Pai kung fu. And Adriano D. Emperado, a Kara-Ho Kenpo black belt and Escrima master. 



[/FONT]
That says to me anyways, that its a SD system.  Much like Bill said, when I hear the word "combat" the first thing that comes to my mind is a battlefield.  A soldier fighting an enemy.  The main goal is taking out the enemy.   When I hear "self defense" the first thing that comes to my mind is avoiding a bad situation, be it by just walking away, verbally defusing the situation and if need be, physically fighting.  IMO, the goal of SD is to use enough force to end the confrontation.  I'm not intending, unless I too am faced with deadly force, of actually killing someone, and even then, we still need to be careful, even if we may be justified.


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I don't buy the ole' 'I'm a trained killer, so I responded out of instinct' thing on his part.........the reality is that such training ingrains MORE control on the part of the recipient, not LESS!
> 
> IF he gouged out the assailants eye, it's because he decided to.....and blamed it on his training and experience after the fact.
> 
> Now if you want to argue that his training and experience engrained a certain mindset toward violence, on that part i'll agree. Such training and experience DOES alter ones tolerance for violence, causing a very low-threshold for extreme violence, but actions are still conscious actions, even if the responses are instinctive in the sense of how fast they react......they still intended to do exactly what they did.


 
I'll refer back to the Krav Maga and Kajukenbo Fight Quest episodes.  In both cases, we have Jimmy and Doug, resort back to their training...grappling, in many instances, which, IMO, was not the best thing to do.  They each said it...that it was hard to break those habits.  Youtube has those clips for viewing, if you care to check them out. 

Again, I have to agree with Bill.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 13, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Fighting is fighting, really............and you learn to fight by fighting. Anyone who says 'Well, getting punched in the face by a boxer in the ring.......well, that's not anything close to getting punched in a street fight' has never stepped in the ring to really test that theory. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between combat sports and self-defense, but many folks VASTLY overstate that difference.


 
Well, my argument is simply that self defence isn't fighting. There is obviously and necessarily a physical component to it, but that is actually the minority. Oh, and for the record, I have spent some time in a boxing facility, we do hit hard ourselves (in various training drills and methods), and I have been hit hard in assaults, and yes, I can see some differences due to the reasons for hitting. Of course, I firmly believe such impact is required if you want to realistically prepare yourself for the possibility, and hard sparring/sport systems are one method of that. I also believe, though, that sport systems are moving away from the self defence aspect, so it's a matter of which form "speaks" to you, really.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not sure I can agree with that. Self-defense is the primary purpose of most martial arts that I'm aware of. Unarmed combat is a different animal, and it often requires a lack of defense of self, since combat has a primary requirement of destroying the enemy, as opposed to preserving one's own life.
> 
> Unless you think of the two words 'self' and 'defense' in a completely different way than I understand them, I'm not at all sure what you mean.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I think we have rather different ideas there. I'll attempt to clarify:

Self defence is the protection and defence of yourself. The entire aim is, as I tell my students, "get home safe". It deals purely with concepts focused on this idea, including a hierachy of protective principles, starting with awareness of danger, awareness of environment, recognising indicators of danger, avoidance of danger, evasion of danger (slightly different), defusing dangerous situations, an understanding of the effects of adrenaline (on both your and their part, including the psychology that goes along with it), and then we start to get to the physical aspects.

The physical aspects that we cover include (and have included) pre-emptive striking, group defence, knife defence, baseball bat defence, pistol defence, shotgun defence, use of knife, use of baton, ground escapes, ground defences, ground offence, close-quarter brawling, and more particular to us, such as what we refer to as Ninjutsu Fight Science, Street Throwing, Street Kicking, and more. This, the physical side of self defence, gets it's mechanics from the martial art, however it is not martial arts itself. And this is the last-resort aspect of self defence, really.

Conceptual aspects that we cover include (and have included) partner protection, body-guarding principles (designed for friends and families, protecting children and so on), anti-surveilance tactics, anti-road rage protective driving skills, drills to handle adrenaline and the effects of a sudden assault, and far more. These all come under the heading of self defence to me, but are not physical (although there are physical drills to get these ideas across).

I would ask, in your example Bill, what martial arts you can name that actually fit your own description of self defence, though. You class the difference as, if I am reading you correctly, "self defence is running away if you can, combative is going towards the conflict and danger". Now, to me, your description of "combative" is a good description of a number of martial arts, whereas your "self defence" description doesn't really suit at all. In fact, Ninjutsu is the only martial art I have come across that teaches escape and avoidance, as well as retreat as part of their syllabus, and that is only the Togakure Ryu syllabus.



MJS said:


> I dont know Chris, after reading Bills reply, I think I'm leaning more in his direction. Take a look at this: From John Bishops Kajukenbo page...
> 
> [FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana]What is Kajukenbo?[/FONT]
> 
> ...


 
And it says to me that it's a martial art, based on other martial arts, taught in a martial art way. And, bluntly, from everything I've seen from Kajukenbo, I wouldn't rank it as a self defence system (not saying it isn't effective or practical, just saying that it misses the mark for self defence, as revealed in the first quoted section). It is overkill, relying on fine-motor targeting and complex sequences, all of which are not what is desired of a self defence system (which should be gross motor, simple sequences, just enough to get away, and so on). They do, of course, use the term "self defence" in their description, but I'd disagree with them.

Once again, I'm a little confused. Both yourself and Bill have described self defence as escape if possible, if required use enough physical methods to get away, and so on, whereas combat is more "fighting an enemy", which really is the provision of martial arts. So we both appear to be saying the same thing here....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, my argument is simply that self defence isn't fighting. There is obviously and necessarily a physical component to it, but that is actually the minority.



Yes, I agree.



> Yeah, I think we have rather different ideas there. I'll attempt to clarify:
> 
> Self defence is the protection and defence of yourself. The entire aim is, as I tell my students, "get home safe". It deals purely with concepts focused on this idea, including a hierachy of protective principles, starting with awareness of danger, awareness of environment, recognising indicators of danger, avoidance of danger, evasion of danger (slightly different), defusing dangerous situations, an understanding of the effects of adrenaline (on both your and their part, including the psychology that goes along with it), and then we start to get to the physical aspects.



I agree with that as well.



> The physical aspects that we cover include (and have included) pre-emptive striking, group defence, knife defence, baseball bat defence, pistol defence, shotgun defence, use of knife, use of baton, ground escapes, ground defences, ground offence, close-quarter brawling, and more particular to us, such as what we refer to as Ninjutsu Fight Science, Street Throwing, Street Kicking, and more. This, the physical side of self defence, gets it's mechanics from the martial art, however it is not martial arts itself. And this is the last-resort aspect of self defence, really.



I also agree with that.



> Conceptual aspects that we cover include (and have included) partner protection, body-guarding principles (designed for friends and families, protecting children and so on), anti-surveilance tactics, anti-road rage protective driving skills, drills to handle adrenaline and the effects of a sudden assault, and far more. These all come under the heading of self defence to me, but are not physical (although there are physical drills to get these ideas across).



I also agree.



> I would ask, in your example Bill, what martial arts you can name that actually fit your own description of self defence, though. You class the difference as, if I am reading you correctly, "self defence is running away if you can, combative is going towards the conflict and danger".



You quote me correctly, but I don't think I explained myself well enough.

I can shoot a man in self-defense, or I can shoot a man because he is my country's enemy and I have been ordered to shoot him.  One is self-defense and the other is not.  One is a last resort and the other is my primary mission.  However, learning to shoot in the context of the former is indeed self-defense training.  When one learns to shoot in the context of self-defense, one generally also learns about shoot-don't shoot scenarios and the requirement (if a state has one) of the Duty to Retreat versus any Stand Your Ground statutes, civil versus criminal liability and so on.

One cannot say, therefore, that learning to shoot is NOT self-defense training. It clearly is, if it is presented in the context of self-defense.  When I learned to shoot in the military, it was not to defend myself as much as it was to destroy the enemy.  The rules we learned were the rules of engagement, not the rules of self-defense.  Same mechanical skills, though.



> Now, to me, your description of "combative" is a good description of a number of martial arts, whereas your "self defence" description doesn't really suit at all. In fact, Ninjutsu is the only martial art I have come across that teaches escape and avoidance, as well as retreat as part of their syllabus, and that is only the Togakure Ryu syllabus.



All I can speak for is Isshin-Ryu, but I can believe that most martial arts are not significantly different in that they are taught in the context of self-defense.  The first duty is to the self, self-preservation. If that can be safely done by retreat, then than is the lowest-risk solution to the problem and therefore the one that should be chosen in that circumstance.  If it cannot be done safely by retreat (as judged by the individual) then other factors come into play.  These follow (as you noted) an escalating set of responses up to and including the application of violence in defense of self, from martial arts training to firearms and other destructive weapons and finally, deadly force.

All of these, employed in the context of self-preservation, are indeed self-defense.  How could they not be - they 'defend' the 'self', and hence the description.

Can one train in martial arts not for self-defense, but for other purposes?  Sure, and in that context it would not be correct to call such training self-defense training.  However, it does not change the primary and stated purpose of those arts, which to the best of my knowledge, is to train individuals to defend themselves against attack.



> And it says to me that it's a martial art, based on other martial arts, taught in a martial art way. And, bluntly, from everything I've seen from Kajukenbo, I wouldn't rank it as a self defence system (not saying it isn't effective or practical, just saying that it misses the mark for self defence, as revealed in the first quoted section). It is overkill, relying on fine-motor targeting and complex sequences, all of which are not what is desired of a self defence system (which should be gross motor, simple sequences, just enough to get away, and so on). They do, of course, use the term "self defence" in their description, but I'd disagree with them.



I suspect they exist along a continuum, from tai chi, akido and judo to more direct and perhaps deadly empty-hand martial skills.  What one person finds to their personal liking and which suits their body type, reaction speed, strength, flexibility, age, and mental acuity are not mine to judge (call that 'to each their own').  They are all 'self-defense' if that is the context in which they are taught (and hopefully used).



> Once again, I'm a little confused. Both yourself and Bill have described self defence as escape if possible, if required use enough physical methods to get away, and so on, whereas combat is more "fighting an enemy", which really is the provision of martial arts. So we both appear to be saying the same thing here....



A gun is a self-defense weapon; when used in that context.  It is a murderer's tool when used in that context.  It is a weapon of war when used in that context.  Hell, it's a hammer for tent stakes when used in that context.  Still, it remains the same gun.  It is the context in which it is used that matters.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

Discussions like this make me regret we are all so far apart, how good would it be if we could discuss this face to face and show each other what we mean, what great training! Then a few beers after!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 13, 2010)

Man that's a long thread on an old worn out topic.
IMO it gets a :deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse on the beat a dead horse scale

Not wanting to jump into the melee I will just say what I have to say about this and they get out of the way



alcatraz said:


> In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.


 
agreed



alcatraz said:


> That's not to say that other reasons for participating in Martial Arts are not legitimate, but we should be asking the question, 'Do these other reasons bond with, or detract from that Self-Defence element?"


 
Yes and no depending on how and what is trained



alcatraz said:


> Perhaps the nearest non self-defence aspect of training which is closest in relation to SD is the sport element.


 
Again yes and no, modern Wushu is the sports element and it has little applicationbut more on this later.



alcatraz said:


> I know, I know...Sport is NOT self defense, etc, blah, blah, blah...But surely some form of contact training is preferential to none, and the various sport formats do allow, rule sets notwithstanding, a degree of pressure testing your art in a controlled enviroment.


 
And some traditional MA is not really defense anymore eitherbut again more on that later

But on the controlled environment bit now. Just about all MAist, sport or traditional train in a controlled environment and I feel that once you pull either outside in the rain, heat or snow on uneven ground for the first time they will be in for a surprise.



alcatraz said:


> This got me to thinking however.
> 
> As you can tell, I'm a huge advocate of Sport Martial arts, and that comes from my background and experiences, but, do some methods and systems delude their students into believing that their particular sport format will transfer well into a live self-protection scenario?
> 
> For example, some Sport Karate formats teach students to pull techniques prior to impact, and as for WTF Taekwondo..I'm sorry to say that in my 33 years studying Martial Arts (24 of which have been as an adult) I can see no practical transfer from mat to street from that particular format.


 
No argument from me. I knew a Kenpo person that was good at kenpo but fought a lot of tournament matches which appeared to have left her with a problem when it came to actually making a fist without a clove on. If she hit anyone without a glove she was going to break a finger or two. Also a TKD school that I once saw was focused strictly on hitting areas of the body that would give you points for a points sparing match and this ruled out several areas you would really want to hit in a real fight and that could cause some serious issues if faced with reality outside the ring. And as for modern Wushu (sports Wushu) it is form only and some of those exaggerated beyond the safety of the practitioner and I do not really see a lot of cross over there at all.



alcatraz said:


> On the other hand Sporting formats such as MMA, Kyokushinkai, Lei Tai, Muay Thai, and other Kickboxing methods, are more suited as a base for crossover intoSelf-Defence/Protection.


 
Real Muay Thai trains rather hard as does real MMA and that can give one an advantage in striking and being hit by a strike. Where some (not all TMA) do not always train in this manor and there is a world of difference (enough to get you to hesitate when you shouldnt) between really being hit or really hitting something and pulling a strike or using half power to strike. 

My usual example comes from Sanshou (Cung Le  sports Sanshou and MMA) I have no doubt if I were dumb enough to try and challenge him to a fight outside (or inside the ring) I would lose badly. But with that said I am not so sure my Sanshou sifu would and they are 2 different versions of Sanshou, Cung Les being sport and my Sanshou sifus being military. However I do not think either would be guaranteed a quick, easy and pain free victory. There are some MMA guys I would never want to go up against but I have seen a few TCMA guys (one Taiji) that I think could handle them fairly well but again there is no guarantee. There is one thing all these people share however and that is they all train or trained very hard in their chosen style and that is what matters more, IMO, than much of the sport vs. non-sport debate.

If the tech is right it all comes down to the training



alcatraz said:


> I know it's not what you train, but rather how you train, but are certain methods of sport martial arts more detrimental to self-defence than others?


 
Yes, modern Wushu is very detrimental IMO as are some forms of training for sports TKD and Karate matches. However if things like Muay Thai, Sanshou and even MMA are trained properly I do not see them as detrimental, I just see them as another martial art.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You quote me correctly, but I don't think I explained myself well enough.
> 
> I can shoot a man in self-defense, or I can shoot a man because he is my country's enemy and I have been ordered to shoot him. One is self-defense and the other is not. One is a last resort and the other is my primary mission. However, learning to shoot in the context of the former is indeed self-defense training. When one learns to shoot in the context of self-defense, one generally also learns about shoot-don't shoot scenarios and the requirement (if a state has one) of the Duty to Retreat versus any Stand Your Ground statutes, civil versus criminal liability and so on.
> 
> ...


 
And Tez, absolutely agreed! I'm sitting here thinking how easy it would be to demonstrate what I'm talking about, and how hard it is to find the right words.... still don't think I've really gotten it across the way it is in my head yet... but it's close!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> And Tez, absolutely agreed! I'm sitting here thinking how easy it would be to demonstrate what I'm talking about, and how hard it is to find the right words.... still don't think I've really gotten it across the way it is in my head yet... but it's close!



It's very difficult to quote your response, since you put it inside of another quote, but I only have a couple things to say, so I'll forgo direct quotes and responses.

I understand what you're saying.  But although I do not see you as having a malicious intent, the word game you're playing can be used that way very easily and often is.

One man is pro-life.  Another is pro-choice.  But the first calls the second 'pro-murder' and the second calls the first 'anti-choice'.  There is no functional difference in the words themselves, they're descriptive enough.  But they convey powerful emotional values that give the believe in question a completely different connotation.  I sincerely doubt that a person who is pro-choice is in favor of actual murder.  I likewise doubt that a person  who is pro-life is against people having choices.

And so it is with martial arts as self-defense training.  Marketing term?  Sure, I get that.  Nobody is likely to open a studio to encourage parents to send their kids to learn to maim and kill others.  But I am also sure that there are others who will classify martial arts training centers as 'murder classes'.  I don't know what the hell the difference is, except for the intent of the instructors and the students.  So I choose to go by that.  The stated purpose *is* the purpose, unless someone can demonstrate to me that it is an actual lie.

That said, what is your point in insisting that self-defense is not actually self-defense?  Yes, a punch is not the same as running away, and running away is not normally part of typical martial arts training (the exception you gave noted).  Yet a punch can be and is often employed in a purely self-defensive mode, that is certainly the manner in which it is taught in my dojo and I would presume most others, and that's what I choose to call it.

Strictly speaking (as you seem to be insisting upon), a punch is offensive, so how can it be defensive?  Well, I would argue that not only do many punches have defensive applications as blocks as well, but that offense *is* or can be defense.  If someone draws back to punch me and I cannot, for whatever reason, block that punch, but I can punch him first and harder and prevent his punch from landing, I have served the self-defense modus quite well.

Words mean things.  Marketing is certainly a factor, I get that.  But it's not the only factor, and I believe that calling martial arts training 'self defense' training is not only acceptable, but more accurate than anything else you could call it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Strictly speaking (as you seem to be insisting upon), a punch is offensive, so how can it be defensive? Well, I would argue that not only do many punches have defensive applications as blocks as well, but that offense *is* or can be defense. If someone draws back to punch me and I cannot, for whatever reason, block that punch, but I can punch him first and harder and prevent his punch from landing, I have served the self-defense modus quite well.
> 
> Words mean things. Marketing is certainly a factor, I get that. But it's not the only factor, and I believe that calling martial arts training 'self defense' training is not only acceptable, but more accurate than anything else you could call it.


 

Just as a note: In Xingyiquan attack is defense and defense is attack and to stay within CMA (not Xingyiquan) Pan Qingfu is very big on efficiency and teaches many punches that are also blocks. But then this is not uncommon in CMA, it is rather common actually, same goes for kicks too.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2010)

Xue Sheng said:


> Just as a note: In Xingyiquan attack is defense and defense is attack and to stay within CMA (not Xingyiquan) Pan Qingfu is very big on efficiency and teaches many punches that are also blocks. But then this is not uncommon in CMA, it is rather common actually, same goes for kicks too.



Well, strictly speaking, let's say that a man is standing in front of me with a very large knife in his hand, and he is advancing towards me and he says he is going to gut me like a fish with it.  I know I am not a very fast runner, and I have my doubts that I can outrun him.

From a strictly defensive point of view, I can wait for his attack and hope that I can block or parry it, defending myself from the actual as opposed to the anticipated attack.

However, let's say I see a piece of wood and I pick it up and wind up Babe Ruth style and let him have it right in the laughing gear.  He drops the knife, I then run away.

The hunk of wood was a hunk of wood.  It never stopped being one.  How I used it made all the difference.  And I used it defensively, can anyone argue with that?  Yet it was a preemptive attack, I did not wait for him to actually attempt to stick me with his big ugly knife.  Still self-defense?  Yes, still self-defense.

Fair to call training in _'how to pick up a great hunk of wood and brain an attacker with it'_ _'self-defense in the ancient art of wood-fu?'_  I would say yes.

Learning to swing a stick around can be classified as many things, from batting practice to pugil stick fighting to self-defense.  If my intent is to learn self-defense and the instruction is called self-defense, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that it is self-defense training.  Calling it anything else is perhaps a bridge too far.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, strictly speaking, let's say that a man is standing in front of me with a very large knife in his hand, and he is advancing towards me and he says he is going to gut me like a fish with it. I know I am not a very fast runner, and I have my doubts that I can outrun him.
> 
> From a strictly defensive point of view, I can wait for his attack and hope that I can block or parry it, defending myself from the actual as opposed to the anticipated attack.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not exactly sure but I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. You just typed more and used a hunk of wood... I used Xingyiquan


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, my argument is simply that self defence isn't fighting. There is obviously and necessarily a physical component to it, but that is actually the minority. Oh, and for the record, I have spent some time in a boxing facility, we do hit hard ourselves (in various training drills and methods), and I have been hit hard in assaults, and yes, I can see some differences due to the reasons for hitting. Of course, I firmly believe such impact is required if you want to realistically prepare yourself for the possibility, and hard sparring/sport systems are one method of that. I also believe, though, that sport systems are moving away from the self defence aspect, so it's a matter of which form "speaks" to you, really.


 
I know you addressed this to someone else, but I'll toss in my .02 anyways.   I do agree with you that Sd and fighting are different.  IMO, a fight is a pre-determined thing.  Two willing people, agree to meet at a certain place, at a certain time, and agree to fight.  SD would be when someone is standing at the ATM and someone comes up and tries to mug them.  







> And it says to me that it's a martial art, based on other martial arts, taught in a martial art way. And, bluntly, from everything I've seen from Kajukenbo, I wouldn't rank it as a self defence system (not saying it isn't effective or practical, just saying that it misses the mark for self defence, as revealed in the first quoted section). It is overkill, relying on fine-motor targeting and complex sequences, all of which are not what is desired of a self defence system (which should be gross motor, simple sequences, just enough to get away, and so on). They do, of course, use the term "self defence" in their description, but I'd disagree with them.


 
According to what I feel SD is, which I listed above, it does in fact meet those needs.  The overkill and other comments..lol...Kenpo is said to be the same thing.  If you saw some of the Kenpo/Kajukenbo SD techs., yeah, it would look like over kill, due to how long the techs can be.  However, if you read further, what GM Forbach states, its simply a continuation of the tech., in the event the badguy is not stopped within the first few moves.  IMO, its foolish to think that someone will be stopped after 2 or 3 hits.  Therefore, you may need to continue on with more.  I may be missing it, but where are you reading that its fine motor targeting and complex sequences?  I think you may be misunderstanding the art itself, and coming to that conclusion.  

Are you saying that you should not stop the attacker from coming at you further?  So if I'm understanding you right, your theory is if someone is choking you, you should simply knock their arms off, and run away, vs. not only knocking the arms off, but doing counter strikes as well.  



> Once again, I'm a little confused. Both yourself and Bill have described self defence as escape if possible, if required use enough physical methods to get away, and so on, whereas combat is more "fighting an enemy", which really is the provision of martial arts. So we both appear to be saying the same thing here....


 
A soldier gets dropped in an area with a mission...take out the bad guys at all costs.  If I'm at the ATM, someone comes up behind me, and pulls a knife, yes, I'm going to be defending myself against him, and most likely will be doing more than just enough to get away.  I want to incapacitate him enough to not be able to come after me.  That, IMO, is SD.


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Discussions like this make me regret we are all so far apart, how good would it be if we could discuss this face to face and show each other what we mean, what great training! Then a few beers after!


 
That would be great!   I do agree, that many times, its hard to read what someone is trying to say, and form that mental picture of it.


----------



## myusername (Jul 13, 2010)

I've really enjoyed reading this thread and everyone's contributions and in a way I agree with everybody on some level.

I'll try not to go over old ground with my contribution.

On the subject of whether martial arts are self defence or not I have to say I'm leaning with *Bill* on this. The fact that you are learning how best to perform combative techniques means that martial arts can be more readily applied to self defence than most other activities. When people originally sign up to learn self defence they are on the whole expecting to learn how to defend themselves physically when there is no other choice. Obviously with greater awareness we learn that self defence is about much more than this ranging from threat avoidance to first aid and how to talk to the police following a situation where you have had to use physical force. 

However, I would argue that on the whole self defence is about knowing how to fight if it all goes wrong. The benefits of knowing how to fight influence most other aspects of self defence. Knowing how to fight can give somebody an air of confidence that results in them much less likely to be targeted as a victim. Speaking from my own experience knowing that I have the tools to back up my words enabled me to scare away potential attackers when confronted and unable to leave the scene.

Furthermore, when students are being taught the philosophy, ideals and tenets of a martial art surely this also provides self defence principles. Most arts teach respect, discipline, humility, indomitable spirit, courtesy. I would argue that a student who embraces those principles are much less likely to put themselves in a conflict situation. This humility should prevent the student becoming drawn into an ego driven match fight and enable them to walk away if able without fear for their own pride.

For example I remember reading in one of Gichin Funakoshi's books that he was quite cross with himself for getting embroiled in an arm wrestling match that resulted in an altercation. He did not consider this the way of karate and as such was against the principles of self defence. We can see that threat avoidance was important to what he considered martial arts to be.

Therefore, I personally believe it is perfectly ok for a martial arts school to market themselves as self defence. 

On the wider topic of this thread I attended a seminar recently by the creator of the jujutsu syllabus I am studying (Kevin O'Hagan.) He suggested that it is perfectly ok for a martial artist to have an encyclopedia of techniques that they know and practice in the dojo as long as they carry a "mental notebook" with them that contains the no nonense high percentage finishers that they use for self defence. I figure that this is very close to *Chris's* comments on the need to compartmentalise techniques in to what is for fun and what is for self defence, I do this myself when training.

However, I think that one should not dismiss any technique as useless. For example I remember reading in one of Geoff Thompson's books an example of him using an axe kick as a gesture to his opponent's mates who were perhaps thinking of stepping in. The axe kick was used on an opponent he had beaten and was lying prone on the floor! Regardless of the ethics of this behaviour Geoff obviously felt that he needed to do this to secure his own safety. As *Andy* stated earlier in the thread it is about the application rather than the technique. Many RBSD minded people may consider the axe kick an unnecessary technique but applied in Geoff Thompsons situation it served a self defence purpose.

With this in mind I would say that it is up to the individual what is appropriate to move from the "encyclopedia" to the "mental notebook". I have met black belts who can throw a reverse turning kick faster than I can throw a right cross! I wouldn't dream of telling that person that they should never use a reverse turning kick in a self defence situation and that this move is just for sport TKD. I would however state that I personally would be safer using the right cross!

I might of digressed a little here so to summarise, the point I am making here is that in my view martial arts can be classed as self defence but I agree that it is down to how it is applied and also that I wouldn't dismiss any technique sporting or not as universally useless for self defence, as again it all comes down to the appropriateness of it application.

Just my thoughts on this enjoyable thread


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 15, 2010)

Sorry to take so long to answer, my internet died yesterday.... er, right. Now, I always try to answer any questions or counter-arguments posed to me (I just love a good, informed, intelligent debate!), so here goes.

To preface this, I am not expecting to suddenly turn anyone to my way of thinking. Frankly, if you'd posed my own concept and current understanding to me probably two years ago, I would have disagreed completely myself! However, this is representative of my current understanding, based on the last 23 years+ training and studying, including a wide variety of systems, and a lot of research into other arts, as well as my study, research, and understanding in now teaching my own students (and gaining even more understanding of what my own instructors have done before me).

Oh, this will be quite a long one, by the way. Ready? Cool.



Bill Mattocks said:


> It's very difficult to quote your response, since you put it inside of another quote, but I only have a couple things to say, so I'll forgo direct quotes and responses.


 
Yeah, sorry about that. Hopefully this is better?



Bill Mattocks said:


> I understand what you're saying. But although I do not see you as having a malicious intent, the word game you're playing can be used that way very easily and often is.


 
To be honest, Bill, I'm not playing a word game here at all. They really are two different things, so it's more about accurate terminology and descriptions. Of course, I recognise that I am working against a lot of established doctrine here, but hey, I've done that before!



Bill Mattocks said:


> One man is pro-life. Another is pro-choice. But the first calls the second 'pro-murder' and the second calls the first 'anti-choice'. There is no functional difference in the words themselves, they're descriptive enough. But they convey powerful emotional values that give the believe in question a completely different connotation. I sincerely doubt that a person who is pro-choice is in favor of actual murder. I likewise doubt that a person who is pro-life is against people having choices.


 
That would be more the word games. However, I disagree that that is similar to what I am saying. Hopefully I'll be able to get across what I mean a little clearer here. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> And so it is with martial arts as self-defense training. Marketing term? Sure, I get that. Nobody is likely to open a studio to encourage parents to send their kids to learn to maim and kill others. But I am also sure that there are others who will classify martial arts training centers as 'murder classes'. I don't know what the hell the difference is, except for the intent of the instructors and the students. So I choose to go by that. The stated purpose *is* the purpose, unless someone can demonstrate to me that it is an actual lie.


 
Not a lie so much as a mis-terminology. And the stated purpose only gives the percieved intention, not the actual makeup of the thing in question. Otherwise you could state that your purpose in eating chocolate cake is to lose weight, so does that make it a diet? Maybe, honestly. Not a good one, but a diet none the less (if we're playing word games...). But does that mean that the chocolate cake is designed to help you lose weight?



Bill Mattocks said:


> That said, what is your point in insisting that self-defense is not actually self-defense? Yes, a punch is not the same as running away, and running away is not normally part of typical martial arts training (the exception you gave noted). Yet a punch can be and is often employed in a purely self-defensive mode, that is certainly the manner in which it is taught in my dojo and I would presume most others, and that's what I choose to call it.


 
Now this is the type of thing I am hoping to clear up. My contention has been, from the outset, not that martial arts cannot be used for self defence, or that that is not one of their benefits, but that self defence is not what they are designed for. I have never once claimed, said, or thought that self defence isn't actually self defence (honestly, I'm not really sure where you got that idea from).

Arguing the mechanics of self defence-applicable actions is actually kind of beside the point, to be honest. Once again, I'm not arguing that martial arts cannot be used for such purposes, I am looking to the structure, teachings, methods, basis', philosophy, histories, and applications of martial arts, and putting those against the needs and requirements of self defence in a modern setting (in other words, what do you need in your training if you are concerned only about self defence, and how much of that is present or not present in martial arts training [speaking of the arts in a pure form, not adapted or altered], as well as how much other content, how many other concepts, and so on exist in the martial arts).



Bill Mattocks said:


> Strictly speaking (as you seem to be insisting upon), a punch is offensive, so how can it be defensive? Well, I would argue that not only do many punches have defensive applications as blocks as well, but that offense *is* or can be defense. If someone draws back to punch me and I cannot, for whatever reason, block that punch, but I can punch him first and harder and prevent his punch from landing, I have served the self-defense modus quite well.


 
Again, the mechanics of a technique used in self defence is really beside the point of my argument here.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Words mean things. Marketing is certainly a factor, I get that. But it's not the only factor, and I believe that calling martial arts training 'self defense' training is not only acceptable, but more accurate than anything else you could call it.


 
Okay, I'll expand here.

As I said, I am looking at this by looking at the needs of self defence versus the methods, teachings and so on of martial arts. To begin with, let's look at what is required for self defence training.

Well, let's see. Honestly, we all seem to agree on what self defence training should include and involve. They include an understanding of the law, an understanding of the effects of adreanline, awareness, a range of tactics from avoidance to verbal defusion, a focus on handling the pre-fight, and so on. As a last resort, it includes physical methods of responding to violence or aggression, including striking, grappling, weapon defence, group defence, and more. The physical technology is by necessity gross motor, simple sequences, and easily repeatable under adrenaline and stress (which should be tested).

This is different from a martial art in that the martial art:

- Has no concept of the law of the society it is involved in, instead being expressed through techniques from another place and time, and being influenced by those circumstances.

- Does not have tactics such as avoidance or verbal defusion, and has no dealing with the pre-fight in a modern setting.

- Is often geared towards only specific ranges of technical application (karate geared towards striking and kicking primarily, BJJ geared towards grappling, particularly groundwork, kenjutsu focused on the use of sword).

- The technical aspects are typically a mix of gross motor and fine motor methods (including fine-target striking), involving complex sequences of actions, and in order to teach their skill sets often require a compliant partner (so we understand, that is not a criticism, simply an observation of the realities of how these systems work. To train the techniques you require a training partner trained in similar methods, which is compliance in a form. It can be hard training, with resistance within the systems requirements, but that still keeps it compliant, and takes it away from self defence by sheer virtue of being performed against attacks and methods from another time and place).

So, what is a martial art?

A martial art is a collection of philosophies and teachings expressed through the medium of combative or combative themed physical methods. This philosophy can be political, social, spiritual, or even physical. The focus in on teaching the concepts, philosophies, strategies, and tactics of the system in question, and is shaped by the cultural aspects of it's source/origin. The combination of the philosophy and the cultural gives a martial art it's "flavour", or particular approach, as these factors give the technical aspects.

These technical aspects are driven by the origins of the system itself. Japanese systems will focus on grappling skills (particularly stand-up), Chinese and Okinawan systems will look to striking and kicking, and so on. The particular methods of striking will be peculiar to the art itself as well. And that method is only very rarely close to resembling actual violence. Even in those more modern systems that have more modern attacking methods (Krav Maga, for example), the source/origin (in this case military usage) remove it from being designed for self defence as an ideal.

The only things that actually do deal primarily with self defence (to the point that they don't feature any of the other benefits that martial arts offer) are RBSD systems and DefTac programs.

Once more, I am not saying that martial arts cannot be studied for their self defence usage, that they have no self defence use, that their techniques cannot be used for self defence, or anything of the kind. All I am saying is that if you are studying the martial art itself, despite the reasons you may be studying it, the art is not designed for modern self defence in a modern setting in its technical approach, its philosophy, its teachings, or its methodologies. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, strictly speaking, let's say that a man is standing in front of me with a very large knife in his hand, and he is advancing towards me and he says he is going to gut me like a fish with it. I know I am not a very fast runner, and I have my doubts that I can outrun him.
> 
> From a strictly defensive point of view, I can wait for his attack and hope that I can block or parry it, defending myself from the actual as opposed to the anticipated attack.
> 
> ...


 
Now, you must forgive me here Bill, but I'm going to be a little blunt. What you are describing here is an application of self defence, in this case using a hunk of wood to defend against a knife-wielding assailant. This is simply not an argument in this regard, and is frankly a rather simplistic and innaccurate understanding. By this reasoning, and using this example, playing baseball is your self defence training, and really no self defence training is needed, so refer to it as "self defence in the ancient art of wood-fu" doesn't really work. And once more, martial arts are not their techniques (mind you, neither is self defence training).

And while it can certainly be said that the name defines the thing, that is not the reality in this case. See the above chocolate cake analogy.

Now onto Mike....

Hey Mike,



MJS said:


> I know you addressed this to someone else, but I'll toss in my .02 anyways.  I do agree with you that Sd and fighting are different. IMO, a fight is a pre-determined thing. Two willing people, agree to meet at a certain place, at a certain time, and agree to fight. SD would be when someone is standing at the ATM and someone comes up and tries to mug them.


 
Well, yes, that is an application of self defence, but I am not talking here about the application of the act of defending yourself, I am talking about the focus and suitability of various training methods (martial arts in particular) as self defence training specifically (and primarily). I only answered the way I did to clarify a point in responce to another post, really. 



MJS said:


> According to what I feel SD is, which I listed above, it does in fact meet those needs. The overkill and other comments..lol...Kenpo is said to be the same thing. If you saw some of the Kenpo/Kajukenbo SD techs., yeah, it would look like over kill, due to how long the techs can be. However, if you read further, what GM Forbach states, its simply a continuation of the tech., in the event the badguy is not stopped within the first few moves. IMO, its foolish to think that someone will be stopped after 2 or 3 hits. Therefore, you may need to continue on with more. I may be missing it, but where are you reading that its fine motor targeting and complex sequences? I think you may be misunderstanding the art itself, and coming to that conclusion.


 
That's a fair comment... however I am looking at the training methods and what they are teaching. And if the primary concern is really and genuinely self defence, then the overkill aspect shouldn't be there. I agree that you should certainly train with the idea that what you do may not be as effective as you may hope, and you may need to continue (again, we train that way ourselves, often building in technique "fails" for students to deal with), but to deliberately train the techniques in such a way is to ingrain certain habits that are not ideal. Of course, these systems are far from alone in this. Oh, and I'm also looking at the way those strikes are applied, by the way.



MJS said:


> Are you saying that you should not stop the attacker from coming at you further? So if I'm understanding you right, your theory is if someone is choking you, you should simply knock their arms off, and run away, vs. not only knocking the arms off, but doing counter strikes as well.


 
Absolutely not. For one thing, that would deny the "awareness" aspect of self defence... if you are not aware enough to recognise that the assailant can and will continue their assault, frankly you've missed a big part of your self defence!

Let's see if I can get across how I see self defence. In the most basic form, self defence (the way I approach it, and teach it in my school) is best summed up in three words: Get Home Safe. Don't stop until it's safe to do so, but by the same token, once you've done enough to get home safe (or get away safely), that's it. Case in point from tonights class.... I'm currently focusing on baseball bat defence. In basic terms, bad guy threatens, then attacks, defender gets distance, then says a verbalisation to get attention of witnesses (and cause a slight distraction), leaps out from the initial attack (as would be natural), then intercepts, controls, and strikes to finish with two strikes to the same target. This is because the first "softens" the opponent, and the second does the damage. At this point the attacker should be pretty well out of things enough for you to get away, so that is drilled, however if the attacker is still "with it", then the defender will need to continue. Control isn't released until the attacker is taken care of.

I then demonstrated overkill, which involved the defender continuing to hit, kick etc, eventually taking the bat, and turning that on the attacker. This, I explained, is bad. It's assault. And if police turn up then, all they see is you hoding a baseball bat over the top of a fallen person... what do you think they'll think? 



MJS said:


> A soldier gets dropped in an area with a mission...take out the bad guys at all costs. If I'm at the ATM, someone comes up behind me, and pulls a knife, yes, I'm going to be defending myself against him, and most likely will be doing more than just enough to get away. I want to incapacitate him enough to not be able to come after me. That, IMO, is SD.


 
Can be, absolutely. And such skills can be found in martial arts... however that is not the same as saying that martial arts are designed for self defence, particularly if the skills are taken from a different form of attack (from another time and place, and another culture). And again, I'd caution against overkill in training or in action. The aim is to get home safe. If you believe that the attacker will get up and come after you, by all means do what you have to to "dissuade" him from such a decision... but leave the overkill. It's not doing you any favours in the long run. And you know I say that with respect.



myusername said:


> I've really enjoyed reading this thread and everyone's contributions and in a way I agree with everybody on some level.
> 
> I'll try not to go over old ground with my contribution.
> 
> On the subject of whether martial arts are self defence or not I have to say I'm leaning with *Bill* on this. The fact that you are learning how best to perform combative techniques means that martial arts can be more readily applied to self defence than most other activities. When people originally sign up to learn self defence they are on the whole expecting to learn how to defend themselves physically when there is no other choice. Obviously with greater awareness we learn that self defence is about much more than this ranging from threat avoidance to first aid and how to talk to the police following a situation where you have had to use physical force.


 
Combative techniques are not the same as self defence. They can be applied as such, but combative does not equate to self defence in any way, really. In terms of people signing up to learn self defence in their local martial art school, well, over here the big thing right now is Zumba, a latin dance-based aerobics class marketing itself as the latest and greatest weight loss exercise program... sadly, it's little more than the latest Tae-bo fad. But it's marketed as a weight loss exercise program, and people buy it as that. That, however, doesn't make it so. It's really little more than new fancy dressing for a basic aerobics program (and honestly a rather weak one at that, judging from the class in the hall I teach in on Tuesdays that's there before me).

I do like the mention of talking to the police afterwards, and preparing people for that. Again, that is something we have dealt with, and will continue to, but it's not part of the martial art side of things. I don't know of any martial art that does teach it. Mainly because it's not part of martial arts, although it is a part of a complete self defence concept.



myusername said:


> However, I would argue that on the whole self defence is about knowing how to fight if it all goes wrong. The benefits of knowing how to fight influence most other aspects of self defence. Knowing how to fight can give somebody an air of confidence that results in them much less likely to be targeted as a victim. Speaking from my own experience knowing that I have the tools to back up my words enabled me to scare away potential attackers when confronted and unable to leave the scene.


 
I would argue that martial arts can teach the "how to fight" aspect, and self defence is related far more to when and why to fight. Again, martial arts can deal with the mechanics, self defence deals with the concepts such as the when and why.



myusername said:


> Furthermore, when students are being taught the philosophy, ideals and tenets of a martial art surely this also provides self defence principles. Most arts teach respect, discipline, humility, indomitable spirit, courtesy. I would argue that a student who embraces those principles are much less likely to put themselves in a conflict situation. This humility should prevent the student becoming drawn into an ego driven match fight and enable them to walk away if able without fear for their own pride.


 
Frankly, self defence has little to do with such ideals. Martial arts, on the other hand, often do. Now, these ideals if properly embraced can help a student have the confidence to walk away before a situation turns physical, but it can also lead a student into a situation they don't need to be in, depending on the personal interpretation and individuals in question.



myusername said:


> For example I remember reading in one of Gichin Funakoshi's books that he was quite cross with himself for getting embroiled in an arm wrestling match that resulted in an altercation. He did not consider this the way of karate and as such was against the principles of self defence. We can see that threat avoidance was important to what he considered martial arts to be.
> 
> Therefore, I personally believe it is perfectly ok for a martial arts school to market themselves as self defence.


 
With Funakoshi's story there (and many others like it that I know), that is more a moral idealism rather than the actual system itself. I personally quite like that such an ideal has been integrated into the teachings of the arts, but if you take an unbiased look at the arts, what they teach, and how they express such teachings, idealism like that is rather artificially tacked on top of the system itself. 



myusername said:


> On the wider topic of this thread I attended a seminar recently by the creator of the jujutsu syllabus I am studying (Kevin O'Hagan.) He suggested that it is perfectly ok for a martial artist to have an encyclopedia of techniques that they know and practice in the dojo as long as they carry a "mental notebook" with them that contains the no nonense high percentage finishers that they use for self defence. I figure that this is very close to *Chris's* comments on the need to compartmentalise techniques in to what is for fun and what is for self defence, I do this myself when training.


 
... Close. I wasn't talking about a need, rather a natural phenomenon of learning, and how it needs to occur for applicable skills to be imprinted where and how you need them. But if those "no nonsense" techniques are drilled often under realistic pressures and adrenaline, then yes, I'd agree with the basic concept there. And that is again distinguishing between what is martial arts training and what is self defence training.



myusername said:


> However, I think that one should not dismiss any technique as useless. For example I remember reading in one of Geoff Thompson's books an example of him using an axe kick as a gesture to his opponent's mates who were perhaps thinking of stepping in. The axe kick was used on an opponent he had beaten and was lying prone on the floor! Regardless of the ethics of this behaviour Geoff obviously felt that he needed to do this to secure his own safety. As *Andy* stated earlier in the thread it is about the application rather than the technique. Many RBSD minded people may consider the axe kick an unnecessary technique but applied in Geoff Thompsons situation it served a self defence purpose.


 
Yep! I'm familiar with both the story and the psychology behind it's use. And I would absolutely say that that is an example of the mechanics of martial arts coming into play in self defence (although from memory that was him acting as a bouncer at the time...). Geoff also has a great distinction between what martial art training is and self defence training. The two are rather different.



myusername said:


> With this in mind I would say that it is up to the individual what is appropriate to move from the "encyclopedia" to the "mental notebook". I have met black belts who can throw a reverse turning kick faster than I can throw a right cross! I wouldn't dream of telling that person that they should never use a reverse turning kick in a self defence situation and that this move is just for sport TKD. I would however state that I personally would be safer using the right cross!


 
Ha, yeah. I may point out to them that the room required is not often available in most modern assaults... but if they can get the distance, go for it! Frankly, I have no problem with anyone using any martial arts technique from any art for self defence, provided it can work, has a legal result (not lethal or overkill unless truly called for... and in true life and death defence, all bets are off!) as self defence training can take it's mechanics from pretty much anywhere, including martial arts (you just need to make sure you can perform it under pressure, which typically requires gross motor actions and simple sequences).



myusername said:


> I might of digressed a little here so to summarise, the point I am making here is that in my view martial arts can be classed as self defence but I agree that it is down to how it is applied and also that I wouldn't dismiss any technique sporting or not as universally useless for self defence, as again it all comes down to the appropriateness of it application.
> 
> Just my thoughts on this enjoyable thread


 
The difference is not technical for the most part. Martial arts can be used for self defence. My point has simply been that that is not what they are designed for, not that they cannot be used for such purposes. I hope that at least is clear now.


----------



## MJS (Jul 15, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Now onto Mike....
> 
> Hey Mike,


 
Welcome back. 





> Well, yes, that is an application of self defence, but I am not talking here about the application of the act of defending yourself, I am talking about the focus and suitability of various training methods (martial arts in particular) as self defence training specifically (and primarily). I only answered the way I did to clarify a point in responce to another post, really.


 
Earlier, I believe you mentioned RBSD.  Now, personally, I enjoy what some of the RBSD guys, ie: Franco, Quinn, Thompson, Ryan, etc., have to offer.  However, IMO, they're not really teaching anything that is already found in Kenpo, TKD, Shotokan, etc.  I mean, we see punches, we see kicks, but the main differences that I see, is in the application.  Its their delivery method that is different.  That being said, I think its safe to say that it comes down to how you train.





> That's a fair comment... however I am looking at the training methods and what they are teaching. And if the primary concern is really and genuinely self defence, then the overkill aspect shouldn't be there. I agree that you should certainly train with the idea that what you do may not be as effective as you may hope, and you may need to continue (again, we train that way ourselves, often building in technique "fails" for students to deal with), but to deliberately train the techniques in such a way is to ingrain certain habits that are not ideal. Of course, these systems are far from alone in this. Oh, and I'm also looking at the way those strikes are applied, by the way.


 
Again, dont mistake the 'overkill' for something that its not.  I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that our interpretations are different.  For example...someone goes to punch me.  I block the punch, counter punch, and take the guy down.  Now, just because he's down, we both know that doesnt mean the fight is over.  So, I take him down, and punch a few more times.  The badguy stops fighting, thus I stop as well....and get the hell out of there, call the cops, etc.  I think you're taking the 'overkill' as me suggesting that once he stops fighting, that I continue on, with more punches, and use his ribs for a football.  No, thats not what I'm talking about.  





> Absolutely not. For one thing, that would deny the "awareness" aspect of self defence... if you are not aware enough to recognise that the assailant can and will continue their assault, frankly you've missed a big part of your self defence!


 
Agreed, and I've spoken highly about being aware many, many times.  



> Let's see if I can get across how I see self defence. In the most basic form, self defence (the way I approach it, and teach it in my school) is best summed up in three words: Get Home Safe. Don't stop until it's safe to do so, but by the same token, once you've done enough to get home safe (or get away safely), that's it. Case in point from tonights class.... I'm currently focusing on baseball bat defence. In basic terms, bad guy threatens, then attacks, defender gets distance, then says a verbalisation to get attention of witnesses (and cause a slight distraction), leaps out from the initial attack (as would be natural), then intercepts, controls, and strikes to finish with two strikes to the same target. This is because the first "softens" the opponent, and the second does the damage. At this point the attacker should be pretty well out of things enough for you to get away, so that is drilled, however if the attacker is still "with it", then the defender will need to continue. Control isn't released until the attacker is taken care of.
> 
> I then demonstrated overkill, which involved the defender continuing to hit, kick etc, eventually taking the bat, and turning that on the attacker. This, I explained, is bad. It's assault. And if police turn up then, all they see is you hoding a baseball bat over the top of a fallen person... what do you think they'll think?


 
See what I said about.  That should answer this part.   You and I have had many good discussions, both online and via PM, so I think its safe to say that more often than not, you and I are on the same page.  I think thats the case here, despite the misunderstanding of the word overkill.  

The same word as been used to describe Kenpo as well.  I get the impression that because our techs. have the tendancy to be so long, that people look at that as overkill.  IMO, if the fight is still active, then if I it the guy once, twice or 10 times, as long as he's still fighting, then IMO, its not overkill.  I think that some people think that it should be over in 1 or 2 shots.  Yeah, in the perfect world maybe, so they look at Kenpo/Kaju, see us whack the guy 10 or more times, and assume that we're doing overkill.  Again, it comes down to the situation.  As I said, if I take the guy out and keep beating him, stomping him, so he becomes part of the pavement, yeah, doesnt take a rocket scientist to know thats too much. 





> Can be, absolutely. And such skills can be found in martial arts... however that is not the same as saying that martial arts are designed for self defence, particularly if the skills are taken from a different form of attack (from another time and place, and another culture). And again, I'd caution against overkill in training or in action. The aim is to get home safe. If you believe that the attacker will get up and come after you, by all means do what you have to to "dissuade" him from such a decision... but leave the overkill. It's not doing you any favours in the long run. And you know I say that with respect.


 
See the above for the overkill comments.  No sense in rehashing that again.   I still stand by my views of Sd and combat.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 16, 2010)

Hey Mike,



MJS said:


> Welcome back.


 
Thanks! It was a hairy day and a half, I tell you what... 



MJS said:


> Earlier, I believe you mentioned RBSD. Now, personally, I enjoy what some of the RBSD guys, ie: Franco, Quinn, Thompson, Ryan, etc., have to offer. However, IMO, they're not really teaching anything that is already found in Kenpo, TKD, Shotokan, etc. I mean, we see punches, we see kicks, but the main differences that I see, is in the application. Its their delivery method that is different. That being said, I think its safe to say that it comes down to how you train.


 
Actually, they are. But what they're teaching that's different is not the mechanics, as that is not where self defence training is focused, it's in the preparation for realistic application of the mechanics learnt in martial arts (such as Geoff Thompson's and Iain Abernathy's karate backgrounds). So if you are looking for differences in striking methods, you are simply looking at the wrong thing. And really, that has been my entire point throughout this thread, the mechanics are not what define either martial arts or self defence training.  



MJS said:


> Again, dont mistake the 'overkill' for something that its not. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that our interpretations are different. For example...someone goes to punch me. I block the punch, counter punch, and take the guy down. Now, just because he's down, we both know that doesnt mean the fight is over. So, I take him down, and punch a few more times. The badguy stops fighting, thus I stop as well....and get the hell out of there, call the cops, etc. I think you're taking the 'overkill' as me suggesting that once he stops fighting, that I continue on, with more punches, and use his ribs for a football. No, thats not what I'm talking about.


 
Well, this to me just goes back to earlier in the thread, where we were discussing "you respond/act/fight the way you've trained". If your training consists of long, involved, complex sequences involving a large number of strikes and other responces to a single attacking action, well, there is every likelihood that at least aspects of that will come out. What will also come out is the sense of targeting trained, which may or may not be considered an escalation of the situation (martial arts really don't have such a concern, but self defence training needs it).

Oh, and my example was a (only slightly) over the top representation, not meant to be indicative of Kajukenbo or Kenpo training at all. More along the lines of the type of thing I have seen in various articles, seminars, and so on over the years (for example, in Australia we have a martial arts magazine called Blitz, and one of the most popular features of this particular publication is their "Technique Workshop". This features a variety of martial artists giving examples of their systems answer to similar attacks, such as a jab, cross combination. All too often there are techniques against something like a simple grab in which the "defence" includes multiple strikes, all the way to stomping the downed attackers head. That is overkill, and that was more the template I was using). 



MJS said:


> See what I said about. That should answer this part.  You and I have had many good discussions, both online and via PM, so I think its safe to say that more often than not, you and I are on the same page. I think thats the case here, despite the misunderstanding of the word overkill.


 
Yeah, I think we're on the same page about 98% of the time, really, and even when we're not, it's a healthy respect for each others opinions. At least, I hope so....?



MJS said:


> The same word as been used to describe Kenpo as well. I get the impression that because our techs. have the tendancy to be so long, that people look at that as overkill. IMO, if the fight is still active, then if I it the guy once, twice or 10 times, as long as he's still fighting, then IMO, its not overkill. I think that some people think that it should be over in 1 or 2 shots. Yeah, in the perfect world maybe, so they look at Kenpo/Kaju, see us whack the guy 10 or more times, and assume that we're doing overkill. Again, it comes down to the situation. As I said, if I take the guy out and keep beating him, stomping him, so he becomes part of the pavement, yeah, doesnt take a rocket scientist to know thats too much.


 
Personally, I would be more inclined to believe that the longer strings of techniques in a single defence are a teaching tool for a range of different reasons, none of which feature the word "thug". That again would take away from martial arts training, as well as self defence training. 

Personally, I believe that the actual reasons for the training method involving long strings of movements are more about learning flow, targeting, speed, consistency, adaptation, and a way of teaching various possibilities for a single attack and it's defence. In this sense, the actual practicality of the technique itself is secondary to the skill development it achieves. This makes a lot more sense (to me, at least, from my understanding of the training methods and reasons of quite a number of different systems) than "if he isn't down, this is giving me ways of continuing". That approach would be an additional to the initial defences, not make up the actual techniques in the main.  



MJS said:


> See the above for the overkill comments. No sense in rehashing that again.  I still stand by my views of Sd and combat.


 
And I stand by mine. Really, I think we're just classifying things differently. But I'm right, for the record (ha!)...


----------



## MJS (Jul 16, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! It was a hairy day and a half, I tell you what...


 
Yeah, I definately cherish the 'net, especially when I'm working double shifts at work, such as today.  




> Actually, they are. But what they're teaching that's different is not the mechanics, as that is not where self defence training is focused, it's in the preparation for realistic application of the mechanics learnt in martial arts (such as Geoff Thompson's and Iain Abernathy's karate backgrounds). So if you are looking for differences in striking methods, you are simply looking at the wrong thing. And really, that has been my entire point throughout this thread, the mechanics are not what define either martial arts or self defence training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm gonna lump this all together because its relavant to what I'm about to say.   My Kenpo inst. and I had an interesting chat yesterday about the number of techs in the system as well as the complexity of them.  Him and I are both on the same page when it comes to stuff like that.  Personally, he had said that he'd much rather take the most common street attacks, and come up with a handful of techs. to address each.  Drill the **** out of them, do them alive, keep them simple, etc. because that is what people will remember.

I've said many times, to other Kenpoists, that when it comes time for the spontaneous drills, its VERY rare, that I'll ever do a Kenpo tech.  Instead, what I do, is parts.  I take the tech and use it as a base/foundation to build from.  I'm always telling the people that I teach, to not be bound by a tech.  

I've also commented on how brutal some of the techs. are.  A simple lapel grab results in a hyper-extended, possibly broken arm?  Now, situation depending, that may be warranted, but IMO, if we can't come up with other, less violent options, then we need to sit down and re-evaluate our training.  I know that I can.   Like I always say...assess the situation, and adjust your response accordingly.  

I'm sure my opinions are not popular with some in the Kenpo world, and thats fine with me.  Frankly, I really dont care.  I'm not trying to Police the Kenpo world, nor am I concerned with teaching the pure gospel of Parker.    The art needs to be tailored to the person, not the other way around. 





> Yeah, I think we're on the same page about 98% of the time, really, and even when we're not, it's a healthy respect for each others opinions. At least, I hope so....?


 
Thats correct. 





> Personally, I would be more inclined to believe that the longer strings of techniques in a single defence are a teaching tool for a range of different reasons, none of which feature the word "thug". That again would take away from martial arts training, as well as self defence training.
> 
> Personally, I believe that the actual reasons for the training method involving long strings of movements are more about learning flow, targeting, speed, consistency, adaptation, and a way of teaching various possibilities for a single attack and it's defence. In this sense, the actual practicality of the technique itself is secondary to the skill development it achieves. This makes a lot more sense (to me, at least, from my understanding of the training methods and reasons of quite a number of different systems) than "if he isn't down, this is giving me ways of continuing". That approach would be an additional to the initial defences, not make up the actual techniques in the main.


 
Well, the same could be applied to a joint lock flow series.  Nobody is going to expect the person to actually flow thru X number of locks, but its teaching something, much like the long techs.  Of course this is also something that my teacher and I talked about....the ideas that some teach, that the techs. will definately save your ***.  Sure, they might, however, IMO, we need to look at other things as well.  





> And I stand by mine. Really, I think we're just classifying things differently. But I'm right, for the record (ha!)...


 
No, I'm right...:moon:   :lol:


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Jul 16, 2010)

Self defense is such a loaded term, I really only use it because it's a fairly common word and most people understand when i tell them our school is devoted to self defense over everything else, they get it.

 But I really hate the word, #1 it suggest a defenseive mindset, unless you have lots of cover, have weapons and are in a good defensive position, thinking defensivly is a good way to get dead.

 I think in terms of counter assult (That's what I call it when I do private SD training, I want the very name to spell out what we are about.

 Now barring morality, being a good person yadda yadda it's not about running around hitting everyone that makes you nervious but it is about meeting their attack or threat of attack in an explossivly violent manner, to go on the offensive from step one. (This goes into a huge missconception of Jujutsu, it's not a defensive art it's an attacking art it just tend sto deal off of the enemies attacks, useing the openings created to do what must be done.)

 You want to take control of the tempo of the engagement, become proactive and not just reactive.

 It's been proven in war and personal combat again and again. WHen in the open, you must become aggressive, does not mean you always take the first shot, but when you go you go and you go to win at all cost.

 Just like a gun, martial arts are a tool. Use them for sport, fun, personal defense or to be a complete bully, it's how they are used that defines whether it was self defense or it was naked aggression.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> I'm gonna lump this all together because its relavant to what I'm about to say.  My Kenpo inst. and I had an interesting chat yesterday about the number of techs in the system as well as the complexity of them. Him and I are both on the same page when it comes to stuff like that. Personally, he had said that he'd much rather take the most common street attacks, and come up with a handful of techs. to address each. Drill the **** out of them, do them alive, keep them simple, etc. because that is what people will remember.


 
Okay... but I'm going to break them up, because it's more fun! This, by the way, is the exact same approach we take when we look at what is required for our self defence curriculum. But my point, as ably demonstrated by your example here, is that this is different to the martial arts aspect. If this was the way the martial art was taught, the way it was structured, and the way it was developed, then you (and your instructor) wouldn't need to make such sweeping alterations and adaptations to it. Martial arts as a basis for self defence training, absolutely. But the martial art itself is not self defence training unless it is altered in such a way, leaving behind the martial art side of itself.



MJS said:


> I've said many times, to other Kenpoists, that when it comes time for the spontaneous drills, its VERY rare, that I'll ever do a Kenpo tech. Instead, what I do, is parts. I take the tech and use it as a base/foundation to build from. I'm always telling the people that I teach, to not be bound by a tech.


 
Which would mean that my interpretation of the reasons and benefits of the training method (long, involved techniques) is pretty close to the truth, as that is represented by your experiences. You are taking from the range of trained options presented in the martial art-trained techniques ones that work for yourself in a drill closer to self defence. Very cool.



MJS said:


> I've also commented on how brutal some of the techs. are. A simple lapel grab results in a hyper-extended, possibly broken arm? Now, situation depending, that may be warranted, but IMO, if we can't come up with other, less violent options, then we need to sit down and re-evaluate our training. I know that I can.  Like I always say...assess the situation, and adjust your response accordingly.


 
Oh, we've got some stuff that is just as, or more brutal than that.... I can think of a few Koto Ryu techniques in which the "attacker" simply walks towards you, so you hit them, grab with, uh, *intent*, and apply a kicking throw to damage/break their knee as you throw them forward onto their head... some may call that brutal, I suppose. And again, this is a removal of martial art training from self defence.



MJS said:


> I'm sure my opinions are not popular with some in the Kenpo world, and thats fine with me. Frankly, I really dont care. I'm not trying to Police the Kenpo world, nor am I concerned with teaching the pure gospel of Parker.  The art needs to be tailored to the person, not the other way around.


 
Oh, I don't know that I have any Gospel that needs spreading.... oh, the other Parker. Right. Okay....



MJS said:


> Well, the same could be applied to a joint lock flow series. Nobody is going to expect the person to actually flow thru X number of locks, but its teaching something, much like the long techs. Of course this is also something that my teacher and I talked about....the ideas that some teach, that the techs. will definately save your ***. Sure, they might, however, IMO, we need to look at other things as well.


 
Exactly. And once again, this is a removal of martial arts training from self defence training. Again, though, martial arts can form a great basis for self defence training, but in and of themselves, they are not self defence. 



MJS said:


> No, I'm right...:moon: :lol:


 
Yes, you are right... but I'm more right! Ha!


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 16, 2010)

Hi Gaius,



Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> Self defense is such a loaded term, I really only use it because it's a fairly common word and most people understand when i tell them our school is devoted to self defense over everything else, they get it.
> 
> But I really hate the word, #1 it suggest a defenseive mindset, unless you have lots of cover, have weapons and are in a good defensive position, thinking defensivly is a good way to get dead.
> 
> ...


 
I completely agree about the term self defence there. To me it implies a need for there to be an attacker, which is just too close to a victim mentality, as well as being too passive in many cases.

However, to go so far as to think in terms of counter assault, then I think you may be going to far the other way. My personal term is self protection, which is defensive, evasive, and offensive, simply taking the best approach as the situation dictates. There's just a bit too much "naked aggression", "explosive violence", and so on here for this to come across as maturely balanced. Certainly offensive tactics form a part (against a group, or an escalating threat they are ideal), but to have it as your main approach is just as limited as having defensive actions only as your main approach.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> Again, dont mistake the 'overkill' for something that its not. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that our interpretations are different. For example...someone goes to punch me. I block the punch, counter punch, and take the guy down. Now, just because he's down, we both know that doesnt mean the fight is over. So, I take him down, and punch a few more times. *The badguy stops fighting, thus I stop as well....and get the hell out of there, call the cops, etc. I think you're taking the 'overkill' as me suggesting that once he stops fighting, that I continue on, with more punches, and use his ribs for a football*. No, thats not what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shifu Steve (Jul 16, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> So, what is a martial art?
> 
> A martial art is a collection of philosophies and teachings expressed through the medium of combative or combative themed physical methods. This philosophy can be political, social, spiritual, or even physical. The focus in on teaching the concepts, philosophies, strategies, and tactics of the system in question, and is shaped by the cultural aspects of it's source/origin. The combination of the philosophy and the cultural gives a martial art it's "flavour", or particular approach, as these factors give the technical aspects.


 
This has been my understanding as well however with one departure. The underlying concepts learned from training, while initially derived from the particular martial art, can be absorbed, reapplied to a different medium, and extrapolated outside of the original context they were learned in. I'll get to the reason I make this point...



Chris Parker said:


> Once more, I am not saying that martial arts cannot be studied for their self defence usage, that they have no self defence use, that their techniques cannot be used for self defence, or anything of the kind. All I am saying is that if you are studying the martial art itself, despite the reasons you may be studying it, the art is not designed for modern self defence in a modern setting in its technical approach, its philosophy, its teachings, or its methodologies.


 
Good point. I quoted this because it illustrates part of what I was getting at above. A "traditional" martial art (in general terms) inandof itself was not intended for much beyond whatever it's underlying philosophy was. So in that respect while the application of the philosophy or the combative medium through which it is expressed may have numerous applications, the point is those applications have to be derived from it (i.e. they are an extension of what it is).



Chris Parker said:


> Combative techniques are not the same as self defence. They can be applied as such, but combative does not equate to self defence in any way, really. In terms of people signing up to learn self defence in their local martial art school, well, over here the big thing right now is Zumba, a latin dance-based aerobics class marketing itself as the latest and greatest weight loss exercise program... sadly, it's little more than the latest Tae-bo fad. But it's marketed as a weight loss exercise program, and people buy it as that. That, however, doesn't make it so. It's really little more than new fancy dressing for a basic aerobics program (and honestly a rather weak one at that, judging from the class in the hall I teach in on Tuesdays that's there before me).


 
Chris are you teaching Zumba to Ninjas? Just kidding. Again here I see what you're saying and don't fundamentally disagree but I use your point here as my soap box. While I think the term "self defense" is probably best applied to a mindset of avoiding danger and "getting home safe" just like martial arts use combative techniques as a means to an end I would imagine SD uses a variety of mediums to achieve safety. The examples thrown out there are adequate but my take is that combative techniques are one of those mediums. Now the context in which they are trained in a TMA may diverge from how they need to be applied in an SD situation but like I said earlier I think a lot of those combative concepts taught in TMAs don't have to stay within the confines of the dojo. The caveat being that they are trained correctly.



Chris Parker said:


> The difference is not technical for the most part. Martial arts can be used for self defense. My point has simply been that that is not what they are designed for, not that they cannot be used for such purposes. I hope that at least is clear now.


 
Very clear. Even though I've seen this topic rehashed a few times I think it's important to beat to death in some ways. Because of the marketing you and Bill were discussing I feel that students don't always understand the inherent differences between the martial art they study, combat, sport, and self defense. There are always very careless and general statements when it comes to these subjects. Qualifying what the martial arts are in relation to how they can be applied is a worthwhile pursuit in my opinion.


----------



## teekin (Jul 16, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> MJS said:
> 
> 
> > Again, dont mistake the 'overkill' for something that its not. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that our interpretations are different. For example...someone goes to punch me. I block the punch, counter punch, and take the guy down. Now, just because he's down, we both know that doesnt mean the fight is over. So, I take him down, and punch a few more times. *The badguy stops fighting, thus I stop as well....and get the hell out of there, call the cops, etc. I think you're taking the 'overkill' as me suggesting that once he stops fighting, that I continue on, with more punches, and use his ribs for a football*. No, thats not what I'm talking about.
> ...


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 17, 2010)

Hey Steve,



Shifu Steve said:


> This has been my understanding as well however with one departure. The underlying concepts learned from training, while initially derived from the particular martial art, can be absorbed, reapplied to a different medium, and extrapolated outside of the original context they were learned in. I'll get to the reason I make this point...




The defining issue, I believe, is what is defined as martial arts training. I am defining it as the training in the art itself, as exemplified through it's techniques and training methods. The more you move away from that, the less you are training in the art. It's reasons such as this that people can't just make their own new Ninjutsu system, for example.




Shifu Steve said:


> Good point. I quoted this because it illustrates part of what I was getting at above. A "traditional" martial art (in general terms) inandof itself was not intended for much beyond whatever it's underlying philosophy was. So in that respect while the application of the philosophy or the combative medium through which it is expressed may have numerous applications, the point is those applications have to be derived from it (i.e. they are an extension of what it is).


 
Ah, but that underlying philosophy can be quite expansive, including many aspects and adaptations, and still remain the same martial art. But by altering the methods and approach that is where it moves away from being the same art, and becomes something else. That is where self defence training (although based on the technical curriculum of a martial art in many, or in fact, most situations) is different and seperate from martial art training. 




Shifu Steve said:


> Chris are you teaching Zumba to Ninjas? Just kidding. Again here I see what you're saying and don't fundamentally disagree but I use your point here as my soap box. While I think the term "self defense" is probably best applied to a mindset of avoiding danger and "getting home safe" just like martial arts use combative techniques as a means to an end I would imagine SD uses a variety of mediums to achieve safety. The examples thrown out there are adequate but my take is that combative techniques are one of those mediums. Now the context in which they are trained in a TMA may diverge from how they need to be applied in an SD situation but like I said earlier I think a lot of those combative concepts taught in TMAs don't have to stay within the confines of the dojo. The caveat being that they are trained correctly.


 
Absolutely self defence requires physical techniques as well as the other aspects (awareness, avoidance etc), and those physical techniques are best taken from established methods such as martial arts, however they cannot simply be transported across from one to the other. Martial arts can be used as a basis, but the difference needs to be addressed. Martial arts are not self defence training in and of themselves. And self defence training is unrealistic and incredibly lacking if it does not address the physical side of things. 




Shifu Steve said:


> Very clear. Even though I've seen this topic rehashed a few times I think it's important to beat to death in some ways. Because of the marketing you and Bill were discussing I feel that students don't always understand the inherent differences between the martial art they study, combat, sport, and self defense. There are always very careless and general statements when it comes to these subjects. Qualifying what the martial arts are in relation to how they can be applied is a worthwhile pursuit in my opinion.


 
Words are important, as Bill said earlier. But the words have a meaning, whether the user of them realises them or not, and describing martial arts as self defence is to misapply both terms. This is why I say I teach martial arts and self defence. But I do tend to get a little, uh, pedantic from time to time, or so I'm told...


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2010)

Karate was formed for the purpose of self defence, nothing else. It wasn't for sport, it wasn't to get you fit, it wasn't for gaining any spiritual enlightenment, It was to fight against 'ruffians and scoundrels'. It had, in fact still does have what you need in the katas. However these days people have taken karate and 'modified' it, beautified it, changed it and gelded it but it's still there the old stuff and it still works if anyone chooses to actually train in karate as it should be done. We have people who are saying that side side products of karate is self defence, the purpose is to get fit or to become more spiritual ( I wonder if they have read Motobu's comments "_It is necessary to drink alcohol and pursue other fun human activities. The art of someone who is too serious has no flavour" )_
It's been turned into a sport and a childcare activity_,_ now everyone arguing about whether a martial art can be self defence or whether it's something different. Karate done as the founders intended is self defence, nothing else, pure self defence. Modern thoughts make things difficult and clouded, western reverence of estern 'mysticism' has turned martial arts into something it was never meant to be. Oh how people complicate things. The philosophy behind karate was simple,' you attack me, I'll walk away and you won't'. There was no 'respect' thing going on, no tenets of behaviour no spirituality, just self defence, everything else came form outside, peoples, personal beliefs, religions etc and was inserted into karate to make it this 'art' thing we have now. Rather sad in my opinion but than goodness there's enough around who can see the purpose of karate, what it's for and can use it as a very good self defence system.


The beaurty of MMA is that it is what it says it is on the tin, martial arts, a great deal of techniuws are also in the katas, if people stop useing them as dances and actually looked at whats in there they'd not need anything else.


----------



## MJS (Jul 18, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Karate was formed for the purpose of self defence, nothing else. It wasn't for sport, it wasn't to get you fit, it wasn't for gaining any spiritual enlightenment, It was to fight against 'ruffians and scoundrels'. It had, in fact still does have what you need in the katas. However these days people have taken karate and 'modified' it, beautified it, changed it and gelded it but it's still there the old stuff and it still works if anyone chooses to actually train in karate as it should be done. We have people who are saying that side side products of karate is self defence, the purpose is to get fit or to become more spiritual ( I wonder if they have read Motobu's comments "_It is necessary to drink alcohol and pursue other fun human activities. The art of someone who is too serious has no flavour" )_
> It's been turned into a sport and a childcare activity_,_ now everyone arguing about whether a martial art can be self defence or whether it's something different. Karate done as the founders intended is self defence, nothing else, pure self defence. Modern thoughts make things difficult and clouded, western reverence of estern 'mysticism' has turned martial arts into something it was never meant to be. Oh how people complicate things. The philosophy behind karate was simple,' you attack me, I'll walk away and you won't'. There was no 'respect' thing going on, no tenets of behaviour no spirituality, just self defence, everything else came form outside, peoples, personal beliefs, religions etc and was inserted into karate to make it this 'art' thing we have now. Rather sad in my opinion but than goodness there's enough around who can see the purpose of karate, what it's for and can use it as a very good self defence system.
> 
> 
> The beaurty of MMA is that it is what it says it is on the tin, martial arts, a great deal of techniuws are also in the katas, if people stop useing them as dances and actually looked at whats in there they'd not need anything else.


 
What a great post!!  You hit the nail on the head with what you said here, and this has always been, and always will be, one of my biggest pet peeves in the martial arts today...the fact that so much has been watered down and changed.  Some dont want to admit it, and I can't help but refer back to the thread I started a while back, about what happened to the 'martial' in martial arts, but this is what they were all about...fighting.  You gain what I consider to be the 'side benefits' of training, but IMO, the main goal is learning to fight.  Pretty sad when you go to a tournament and you have seperate kata divisions...traditional and modified.  I wonder if the masters of old, are rolling in their graves, at the sight of the cartwheels and assorted gymnastics routines that you see today.  I probably would end up getting my *** kicked by someone doing a cartwheel, because I'd be laughing so damn hard, it'd be too difficult to fight.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 18, 2010)

MJS said:


> What a great post!!  You hit the nail on the head with what you said here, and this has always been, and always will be, one of my biggest pet peeves in the martial arts today...the fact that so much has been watered down and changed.  Some dont want to admit it, and I can't help but refer back to the thread I started a while back, about what happened to the 'martial' in martial arts, but this is what they were all about...fighting.  You gain what I consider to be the 'side benefits' of training, but IMO, the main goal is learning to fight.  Pretty sad when you go to a tournament and you have seperate kata divisions...traditional and modified.  I wonder if the masters of old, are rolling in their graves, at the sight of the cartwheels and assorted gymnastics routines that you see today.  I probably would end up getting my *** kicked by someone doing a cartwheel, because I'd be laughing so damn hard, it'd be too difficult to fight.


could it be that its watered down these days because the need to be able to fight is no longer as important in current day society. Back when these arts originated there were many lawless societies, someone could be killed on the street and no one would care, there was rape and pilleginging, people's farms had to be protected from outlaws etc etc, basically you had to know how to fight whether you liked it or not. These days it is very easy to go through your whole life without ever having to defend yourself as long as you are half sensible. I can understand that there are certain occupations where self defence is a must but we no longer have gangs of outlaws coming into our homes at night and killing us in our sleep (at least not where I live anyway). These are the reasons its been watered down in my opinion, because if only people who need to know how to defend themselves did karate then there would be some very empty dojos around. I think its more that many clubs have 'moved with the times'. Dont get me wrong, I dont agree with it, I train at a club that is very traditional in its teachings and is very old school but I can accept that there are people out there who want to know some basic self defence in case the situation ever arises but they dont want to do some hard core traditional karate class and so many clubs have just provided a facility where people can do this. There are still many 'hardcore' clubs around and if thats what people want its still available, its just not for everyone I guess.


----------



## teekin (Jul 18, 2010)

MJS said:


> What a great post!! You hit the nail on the head with what you said here, and this has always been, and always will be, one of my biggest pet peeves in the martial arts today...the fact that so much has been watered down and changed. Some dont want to admit it, and I can't help but refer back to the thread I started a while back, about what happened to the 'martial' in martial arts, but this is what they were all about...fighting. You gain what I consider to be the 'side benefits' of training, but IMO, the main goal is learning to fight. Pretty sad when you go to a tournament and you have seperate kata divisions...traditional and modified. I wonder if the masters of old, are rolling in their graves, at the sight of the* cartwheels and assorted gymnastics routines* that you see today. I probably would end up getting my *** kicked by someone doing a cartwheel, because I'd be laughing so damn hard, it'd be too difficult to fight.


 
Cartwheels? In a Karate Kata? Really? Why? was there a point? 

Lori


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

MJS said:


> What a great post!! You hit the nail on the head with what you said here, and this has always been, and always will be, one of my biggest pet peeves in the martial arts today...the fact that so much has been watered down and changed. Some dont want to admit it, and I can't help but refer back to the thread I started a while back, about what happened to the 'martial' in martial arts, but this is what they were all about...fighting. You gain what I consider to be the 'side benefits' of training, but IMO, the main goal is learning to fight. Pretty sad when you go to a tournament and you have seperate kata divisions...traditional and modified. I wonder if the masters of old, are rolling in their graves, at the sight of the cartwheels and assorted gymnastics routines that you see today. I probably would end up getting my *** kicked by someone doing a cartwheel, because I'd be laughing so damn hard, it'd be too difficult to fight.


 
Thank you! You may have guessed but I've been training with Iain Abernethy at the weekend which always renews my zeal about how karate should be done! We were doing the Bunkai for Naihanchi, the one that has everything you need to fight in it....including ear biting! Also in there are takedowns we use in MMA, brilliant.

It's been watered down less I believe for the lack of need to defend yourself more for the greed of taking in loads of money. You can train karate as a self defence system and still get all the benefits people claim, self confidence, fitness etc but you have to train hard, these days people simply don't want to do that. They want belts, competitions, pointless sparring and they want it easy. When people say they train traditionally what do they mean? Loads of bowing,nice clean ironed uniforms, calling the instructors sensei, tenets on the wall? or do they learn to fight? Not sparring against other martial artists, fun though that is, but really learning to fight.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 19, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Thank you! You may have guessed but I've been training with Iain Abernethy at the weekend which always renews my zeal about how karate should be done! We were doing the Bunkai for Naihanchi, the one that has everything you need to fight in it....including ear biting! Also in there are takedowns we use in MMA, brilliant.
> 
> It's been watered down less I believe for the lack of need to defend yourself more for the greed of taking in loads of money. You can train karate as a self defence system and still get all the benefits people claim, self confidence, fitness etc but you have to train hard, these days people simply don't want to do that. They want belts, competitions, pointless sparring and they want it easy. When people say they train traditionally what do they mean? Loads of bowing,nice clean ironed uniforms, calling the instructors sensei, tenets on the wall? or do they learn to fight? Not sparring against other martial artists, fun though that is, but really learning to fight.


when I say I train traditionally I mean we train hard, we walk out out of the dojang sore and out of breath, we spar hard and if you are not up to speed you dont grade. We train techs that may not look pretty but they work. Yes, we have the other traditions such as bowing , clean ironed uniforms etc (as you stated above), tenants etc and I have no problems with that. The way I see it people have a choice, if they want hard realistic training like I do then there are tonnes of clubs around that offer that. For others who prefer a 'lighter' workout (from a martial perspective) and have other goals then there are also lots of clubs that cater for their needs. Its no different to purchasing a car, a meal or a house, there are different models to suit different people's needs and I personally dont have a problem with that. I dont really understand the theory that martial arts have been watered down to make more money. I know of several clubs that train very hard, old school style where the owners have become quite wealthy out of running their club. There are a lot of people out there who want to train hard so there is certainly a market out there to cater for those people. The club I train at has over 4000 members and the hard realistic training has only contributed to those numbers.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> when I say I train traditionally I mean we train hard, we walk out out of the dojang sore and out of breath, we spar hard and if you are not up to speed you dont grade. We train techs that may not look pretty but they work. Yes, we have the other traditions such as bowing , clean ironed uniforms etc (as you stated above), tenants etc and I have no problems with that. The way I see it people have a choice, if they want hard realistic training like I do then there are tonnes of clubs around that offer that. For others who prefer a 'lighter' workout (from a martial perspective) and have other goals then there are also lots of clubs that cater for their needs. Its no different to purchasing a car, a meal or a house, there are different models to suit different people's needs and I personally dont have a problem with that. I dont really understand the theory that martial arts have been watered down to make more money. I know of several clubs that train very hard, old school style where the owners have become quite wealthy out of running their club. There are a lot of people out there who want to train hard so there is certainly a market out there to cater for those people. The club I train at has over 4000 members and the hard realistic training has only contributed to those numbers.


 

the thing is though karate wasn't intended to be a one size fits all model, it wasn't intended to cater for different needs, it was desinged with one purpose in mind, to be able to defend yourself against the bad guys. Nothing less and nothing more. To train traditionally one one have to do that also, no gradings etc. 
You ionly have to look at many places to see where it's been watered down to make money and I'm not taking this thread down the route of teaching tiny children again, black belt clubs, sparring clubs, patches, special uniforms, gymnastic katas etc.

Training until you are out of breath doesn't mean you are training correctly, you can do that in a gym frankly. Those that say they are old school? Do they just do one kata for nine years? If not they aren't 'old school' they just like hitting each other, old school is a daft expression anyway, none of us were around in the 1800s so how can people say they train old school? Going into Bunkai and immersing yourself in their depth, that's 'old school', training those techniques are 'old school'. To be truly 'old school' they have to train Jissen not the fancy sparring stuff, more Motubu less Funakoshi I'm afraid. Reading Motubu will also shove the tenets thing out of the window as well.
We don't have thousands we have a few, don't make any money as we don't try to, we just teach people to fight.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Jul 19, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Gaius,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Most people we get in front of us these days are not people who have had to fight much if at all in their life, most are very good people who do not have exp with real life and limb violence, most modern people do not have a good mindset for violence.

 I am not telling them to strike first allways (but striking first can be a good idea) but when you are assulted, you dont have time to play mindgames and tel yourself "I am going to control the situation" by that time you'll be bleeding or worse. You go in for the kill, once you have them there, then you show restraint, then you can give mercy (and if your in a Nation of Laws, you have to stop short of maiming or killing him unless he is still activly a threat.

 Fighting is a hard subject, it is martial, of Mars and Mars has no use for the softer sides of life, although Mars can protect those things.

 Armies that want to win train their troops to be aggressive, someone sticking a gun to your head on the street just did an act of personal warfare, handle him in kind.

 Someone shooting off their mouth, but no real threat, then by all means walk away from it.

 You can seperate martial arts from violent behaiviour but you weaken the arts and more importantly the Artist ability to perform in combat.

 Martial arts are a GRRRRRR type of subject, yes the deeper elementsd bring much peace and calm but that is part of the longer ride and people at day 1 have no need or use for that when they came to learn to fight, if they stay then it's appropriate (and daresay needed.)

 Assult, Close enter kill, are a part of it and IMO needed elements of one's first few years of martial training.

 Yes years into it and you can have a differnt mindset, my last fight showed that as I controlled him and hurt him just enough whereas years ago I would have kept going untill he either ran, begged, went out or was broken up enough to not be a threat.

 Matruaty is central to allowing people to train aggressivly and not make a Thug Tank but I also see many so called SD Instructors who hide behined "Maturaty" and "restraint" because they would not know real violence if it came up and tire ironed them. Fighting is ****** and low, you need to get ****** and low, you need to become Mad Dog Mean unless you have attainded a more open, combative mindset. Civility allrady was a non factor, time to lend the eye a "Terrible Aspect" as Shakspear said about war.


----------



## MJS (Jul 19, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> could it be that its watered down these days because the need to be able to fight is no longer as important in current day society. Back when these arts originated there were many lawless societies, someone could be killed on the street and no one would care, there was rape and pilleginging, people's farms had to be protected from outlaws etc etc, basically you had to know how to fight whether you liked it or not. These days it is very easy to go through your whole life without ever having to defend yourself as long as you are half sensible. I can understand that there are certain occupations where self defence is a must but we no longer have gangs of outlaws coming into our homes at night and killing us in our sleep (at least not where I live anyway). These are the reasons its been watered down in my opinion, because if only people who need to know how to defend themselves did karate then there would be some very empty dojos around. I think its more that many clubs have 'moved with the times'. Dont get me wrong, I dont agree with it, I train at a club that is very traditional in its teachings and is very old school but I can accept that there are people out there who want to know some basic self defence in case the situation ever arises but they dont want to do some hard core traditional karate class and so many clubs have just provided a facility where people can do this. There are still many 'hardcore' clubs around and if thats what people want its still available, its just not for everyone I guess.


 
The town that I live in is, IMO, pretty mild on the crime side.  I mean, compared to the larger cities.  However, just down the street, at the local supermarket, there have been numerous purse snatchings.  Head about 20min north of me, and you'll find Hartford, Ct, where shootings, among other things, happen on a daily basis.  Even the city that I work for has alot of crime.  

While things have changed from the old days, and despite how aware we are, which I will add, is a good thing, to be aware, I think its foolish to say that the need for Sd isn't as important.  Its the people who think that it'll never happen to them, that will end up with something happening.  

No longer have people coming into our homes?  Take a look at this:

This was a very popular home invasion that happened.  There are a few threads on here about it.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-steven-hayes-cheshire-home-invasion-0317,0,3111424.story

These dirtbags raped the guys wife, tied the daughters to their beds, beat the **** out of the father, and lit the house on fire.  The father was the only survivor.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...rd-Home-Invasion-87583057.html?corder=regular

http://www.al.com/crime/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/123305134696040.xml&coll=1

http://www.wfsb.com/news/14106757/detail.html

This one happened in the town that I live in.  The woman lives not far from me, and the condo complex in which the car was found, is not far from mine.

There are others, but I think you see my point.  Why have the arts been watered down?  To suit the masses.  What the public wants, is usually what the school owner gives.  Parents are afraid of too much contact, thus the owner doesnt do alot.  So, my question is...the owner is giving the 'impression' that what he's teaching will work, when in reality, when little Joey gets his *** kicked, I'd bet anything the parents are going to ask the school owner what happened.  But you're right, and I've said it before too...thank God there're still some schools around that offer quality instruction and dont serve up fries and a coke along with the belt. LOL


----------



## MJS (Jul 19, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> Cartwheels? In a Karate Kata? Really? Why? was there a point?
> 
> Lori


 
Was there a point?  I have no idea.  Check these out. 




 




Note the weapons katas as well.


----------



## teekin (Jul 19, 2010)

Wow, MJS. So some of the girls have heavy gymnastics backgrounds don't they? Some of the kicks are wonderful to watch and I'd sure go see this in person if it was close but I like both Gymnastics and Kata. Some it it reminds me of synchronised swimming though. I mean there are Swimmers, Ian Thorpe, and Synchro swimmers. So there is real Kata and then there is that. Neato!:uhyeah:

Lori


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 19, 2010)

MJS said:


> The town that I live in is, IMO, pretty mild on the crime side.  I mean, compared to the larger cities.  However, just down the street, at the local supermarket, there have been numerous purse snatchings.  Head about 20min north of me, and you'll find Hartford, Ct, where shootings, among other things, happen on a daily basis.  Even the city that I work for has alot of crime.
> 
> While things have changed from the old days, and despite how aware we are, which I will add, is a good thing, to be aware, I think its foolish to say that the need for Sd isn't as important.  Its the people who think that it'll never happen to them, that will end up with something happening.
> 
> ...


I understand there is still a need for self defence these days but I dont believe it is as important as it was 'back in the day'. Almost all of my mates have never had to defend themselves at any time in their life and probably never will. I doubt the same could have been said back in the days that karate was born when defending yourself was sometimes an everyday occurance.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 19, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> the thing is though karate wasn't intended to be a one size fits all model, it wasn't intended to cater for different needs, it was desinged with one purpose in mind, to be able to defend yourself against the bad guys. Nothing less and nothing more. To train traditionally one one have to do that also, no gradings etc.
> You ionly have to look at many places to see where it's been watered down to make money and I'm not taking this thread down the route of teaching tiny children again, black belt clubs, sparring clubs, patches, special uniforms, gymnastic katas etc.
> 
> Training until you are out of breath doesn't mean you are training correctly, you can do that in a gym frankly. Those that say they are old school? Do they just do one kata for nine years? If not they aren't 'old school' they just like hitting each other, old school is a daft expression anyway, none of us were around in the 1800s so how can people say they train old school? Going into Bunkai and immersing yourself in their depth, that's 'old school', training those techniques are 'old school'. To be truly 'old school' they have to train Jissen not the fancy sparring stuff, more Motubu less Funakoshi I'm afraid. Reading Motubu will also shove the tenets thing out of the window as well.
> We don't have thousands we have a few, don't make any money as we don't try to, we just teach people to fight.


the problem is that ALL things evolve and it is unrealistic to think that in 2010 karate will be trained the exaxct way it was hundreds of years ago. These days people may want to learn some self defence as a hobby and they dont want to come home covered in bruises and broken bones and where does the line get drawn? In the old school training people sometimes trained for hours and were not allowed to drink water during their training, they conditioned their bodies to the point of doing long term damage  , some of them could barely walk by the time they hit their 40's from all the HARD training. These things were always going to change with time and as society changed, these days you would probably get sued if you made people train that way. There was a lady recently who was grabbed in an under ground carpark not far from where I live, she used some basic techs she had learnt at her local karate club and ran away and made it home safely. For her, today's version of karate worked.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> the problem is that ALL things evolve and it is unrealistic to think that in 2010 karate will be trained the exaxct way it was hundreds of years ago. These days people may want to learn some self defence as a hobby and they dont want to come home covered in bruises and broken bones and where does the line get drawn? In the old school training people sometimes trained for hours and were not allowed to drink water during their training, they conditioned their bodies to the point of doing long term damage , some of them could barely walk by the time they hit their 40's from all the HARD training. These things were always going to change with time and as society changed, these days you would probably get sued if you made people train that way. There was a lady recently who was grabbed in an under ground carpark not far from where I live, she used some basic techs she had learnt at her local karate club and ran away and made it home safely. For her, today's version of karate worked.


 
Why do people assume that training all those years ago was about bruises and broken bones, again that's a modern thing, training all those years ago was in *kata*, yes kata! You talk about old school but are talking about the 1960s, I'm talking about the origins of karate, that's how it should be done and according to you that's what people what, self defence training with added bonus! In the real old days they wouldn't spar with each other, karate wasn't meant for that, it's not for use against trained martial artists,it's for self defence and kata holds all that you need. One kata in particular, they would spend years studying it and doing it, no bruises and broken bones for them but perfect practice of kata.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 20, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Why do people assume that training all those years ago was about bruises and broken bones, again that's a modern thing, training all those years ago was in *kata*, yes kata! You talk about old school but are talking about the 1960s, I'm talking about the origins of karate, that's how it should be done and according to you that's what people what, self defence training with added bonus! In the real old days they wouldn't spar with each other, karate wasn't meant for that, it's not for use against trained martial artists,it's for self defence and kata holds all that you need. One kata in particular, they would spend years studying it and doing it, no bruises and broken bones for them but perfect practice of kata.


If kata is ALL you need then why do people keep saying that to learn to fight you have to hit and get hit, and apparantly hitting the air is 'useless'? Now all of a sudden kata is all you need. Personally , Id much rather spar against trained martial artists, their speed, power and precision is much more advanced than someone on the street. Each to their own I guess.


----------



## MJS (Jul 20, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> Wow, MJS. So some of the girls have heavy gymnastics backgrounds don't they? Some of the kicks are wonderful to watch and I'd sure go see this in person if it was close but I like both Gymnastics and Kata. Some it it reminds me of synchronised swimming though. I mean there are Swimmers, Ian Thorpe, and Synchro swimmers. So there is real Kata and then there is that. Neato!:uhyeah:
> 
> Lori


 
IMO, if someone can jump into the air and do something fancy or drop into a split, thats fine.  I'm in no way, jealous of them.  That stuff is fine for show, but for SD....IMO, I dont see any value in it.


----------



## MJS (Jul 20, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I understand there is still a need for self defence these days but I dont believe it is as important as it was 'back in the day'. Almost all of my mates have never had to defend themselves at any time in their life and probably never will. I doubt the same could have been said back in the days that karate was born when defending yourself was sometimes an everyday occurance.


 
You're entitled to your opinion.  I'll respect that.   I'm simply saying the stats are out there.  Yes, depending on area, that will play a part in it.  I could most likely walk in my neighborhood at 2am and make it home with no issues.  Walk around a larger city at 2am...well, those odds of making it back home safe are slim.  Then again, as I said, even in my small town, crime happens.  Car theft, cars broken into, cars vandalized, a home invasion, purse snatching....I'd be crazy to think that crime doesnt happen, just because I havent been a victim.


----------



## MJS (Jul 20, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> If kata is ALL you need then why do people keep saying that to learn to fight you have to hit and get hit, and apparantly hitting the air is 'useless'? Now all of a sudden kata is all you need. Personally , Id much rather spar against trained martial artists, their speed, power and precision is much more advanced than someone on the street. Each to their own I guess.


 

I"m not as big a fan of kata as others, but I think the main differences may be if you're doing the kata on someone.  I do kata, and I always try to teach at least 1 application for the moves, however, I prefer to spar as well.  I feel that you need to balance out your training equally, vs. focusing on just one thing.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2010)

Oh dear, its getting quite peevish isn't it? they practised kata and didn't spar against each other in play fights with points if they touched each other, *they learnt kata and they learnt to fight* with the end product being a dead attacker. There was no sport, no weekly training to 'feel good', no promising to be a good little boy outside the dojo, these guys were deadly serious with the emphasis on deadly.No nice competitions in sparring or kata to see who did the techniques nicely. They worked or they died, or were maimed at best.
The kata weren't designed to be 'performed' they were/are a living aide memoire of techniques to be used in earnest. It wasn't to learn confidence, balance or anything else, it was your ancient DVD of techniques. The founders would turn in their graves if they could see what it's turned into, apart from Funakoshi I suppose, it's mostly his fault, this 'fairyfication' of kata, no wonder people don't like it much. Karate was never intended to be a _sport_ for the delectation of the west, played at and mucked around with. It wasn't intended for 'sparring' it was intended for fighting as self defence.
Sparring as done by most martial artists is a two way thing between martial artists using the same techniques against each other, even if you hit hard  it's give and take, fighting on the other hand is against someone who wants to knock your block off or worse and you are defending yourself for real. Thats the difference. Sparring is sport - fighting is not  sport. Learn to fight otherwise when you get attacked you will enter that two way conversation and lose. In full contact competition such as MMA your opponent is trying to knock you out firstly sub you if they can't KO you so you had better learn to defend yourself pretty quick. However they will still use martial arts techniques whatever the rules. The best way to defend is to attack ( and yes there is a first strike in karate, of course there is, the first to move usually wins) so learn to attack, learn to fight, sparring till you get sweaty doesn't count.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 20, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear, its getting quite peevish isn't it? they practised kata and didn't spar against each other in play fights with points if they touched each other, *they learnt kata and they learnt to fight* with the end product being a dead attacker. There was no sport, no weekly training to 'feel good', no promising to be a good little boy outside the dojo, these guys were deadly serious with the emphasis on deadly.No nice competitions in sparring or kata to see who did the techniques nicely. They worked or they died, or were maimed at best.
> The kata weren't designed to be 'performed' they were/are a living aide memoire of techniques to be used in earnest. It wasn't to learn confidence, balance or anything else, it was your ancient DVD of techniques. The founders would turn in their graves if they could see what it's turned into, apart from Funakoshi I suppose, it's mostly his fault, this 'fairyfication' of kata, no wonder people don't like it much. Karate was never intended to be a _sport_ for the delectation of the west, played at and mucked around with. It wasn't intended for 'sparring' it was intended for fighting as self defence.
> Sparring as done by most martial artists is a two way thing between martial artists using the same techniques against each other, even if you hit hard  it's give and take, fighting on the other hand is against someone who wants to knock your block off or worse and you are defending yourself for real. Thats the difference. Sparring is sport - fighting is not  sport. Learn to fight otherwise when you get attacked you will enter that two way conversation and lose. In full contact competition such as MMA your opponent is trying to knock you out firstly sub you if they can't KO you so you had better learn to defend yourself pretty quick. However they will still use martial arts techniques whatever the rules. The best way to defend is to attack ( and yes there is a first strike in karate, of course there is, the first to move usually wins) so learn to attack, learn to fight, sparring till you get sweaty doesn't count.


I think your first paragraph sums up nicely why people dont train like that today. Also, I train in a tkd club where when we spar my opponents are trying their hardest to knock me out and vice versa. When I was younger i trained in a karate club where people were also trying to knock your head off, so I can assure you its not just MMA where your opponent is trying to knock you out. You really should visit more dojos before insinuating that its only MMA where you spar to knock your opponent out.


----------



## Steve (Jul 20, 2010)

Well.  I think it's clear what needs to be done.  50 karateka trained only through the use of kata, 50 untrained thugs, and 50 "sports" martial artists.  We wall off New York, toss them all in, wait a few months and see who's declared king.

Otherwise, this is all conjecture.  Of course, I have my own opinions about what works and what doesn't.  But I also think we should all train how we like, in whatever way makes sense to us and hope that none of us ever has to find out whether any of it works.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 20, 2010)

I have to agree with stevebjj, that people should 'train how they like'. It is so hard to compare the way it was done hundreds of years ago to now because these days people have a life. I would love to have the time to climb to the top of a hill and live up there training kata all day long and fighting bad guys at night in fights to the death. Unfortunately these days people have jobs, work long hours and have other interests. I, for instance, run a business and its simply not realistic for me to show up to work covered in bruises, scratches and blood. Sure, I could explain to my clients that I was off fighting to the death last night and they'll have to excuse my appearance but I dont think it would go down that well. The bottom line is that some people want to learn some self defence, get fit and get some confidence or whatever else they get out of it, and best of luck to them. And for people who want to do it "the old way" their are clubs that cater for that also, I fail to see the problem. I know some people will say that without the old fashioned training its 'useless', but I think reading many of the stories of everyday people who have used what they've been taught to fend off attackers (thanks bill mattocks), proves that any form of training is an advantage over no training.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I think your first paragraph sums up nicely why people dont train like that today. Also, I train in a tkd club where when we spar my opponents are trying their hardest to knock me out and vice versa. When I was younger i trained in a karate club where people were also trying to knock your head off, so I can assure you its not just MMA where your opponent is trying to knock you out. You really should visit more dojos before insinuating that its only MMA where you spar to knock your opponent out.


 
Wrong, wrong, wrong, I'm sorry but you have misread me. Karateka trying to knock each others heads off isn't training for self defence! In the street you won't be fighting someone who will give and take the same way as you do in sparring. I heard sparring decribed the other day as a two way conversation which is fine, great fun in fact but if you are attacked outside the dojo it's not a conversation, you should not be giving the other guy a chance to speak even. *Sparring is different from fighting* and you are getting peevish because you are missing my point. 
As to how many dojos and dojangs I've been to....an awful lot actually.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I have to agree with stevebjj, that people should 'train how they like'. It is so hard to compare the way it was done hundreds of years ago to now because these days people have a life. I would love to have the time to climb to the top of a hill and live up there training kata all day long and fighting bad guys at night in fights to the death. Unfortunately these days people have jobs, work long hours and have other interests. I, for instance, run a business and its simply not realistic for me to show up to work covered in bruises, scratches and blood. Sure, I could explain to my clients that I was off fighting to the death last night and they'll have to excuse my appearance but I dont think it would go down that well. The bottom line is that some people want to learn some self defence, get fit and get some confidence or whatever else they get out of it, and best of luck to them. And for people who want to do it "the old way" their are clubs that cater for that also, I fail to see the problem. I know some people will say that without the old fashioned training its 'useless', but I think reading many of the stories of everyday people who have used what they've been taught to fend off attackers (thanks bill mattocks), proves that any form of training is an advantage over no training.


 


You think these people all those years ago learning kata and to fight had nothing else to do? They had livings to earn just as now, they were farmers, labourers, servants etc so course they didn't have a lot of time either. If they'd been rich they would have had swords and weapons for crying out loud or could have afforded protection. These were people like us who had to learn to defend themselves because no one else would defend them, they didn't have the luxury of being able to train whenever they wanted, it would have been after working in the fields or for their bosses all day. We have it a darn sight better than they ever did.

The thing is there is no problem with how anyone wants to train unless they start saying that what they do is best or that what they do is the way the old masters did it because yo can bet neither are right.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 21, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You think these people all those years ago learning kata and to fight had nothing else to do? They had livings to earn just as now, they were farmers, labourers, servants etc so course they didn't have a lot of time either. If they'd been rich they would have had swords and weapons for crying out loud or could have afforded protection. These were people like us who had to learn to defend themselves because no one else would defend them, they didn't have the luxury of being able to train whenever they wanted, it would have been after working in the fields or for their bosses all day. We have it a darn sight better than they ever did.
> 
> The thing is there is no problem with how anyone wants to train unless they start saying that what they do is best or that what they do is the way the old masters did it because yo can bet neither are right.


Ive never heard anyone on here say that what they do is the 'best' or that they do it the 'way the old masters did it'. Ive heard people say they train old school (old school does not refer to hundreds of years ago, it generally means the way they trained in the 50's and 60's ) and Ive heard people say they are happy with the system they train in, so you shouldnt have any problems then.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Ive never heard anyone on here say that what they do is the 'best' or that they do it the 'way the old masters did it'. Ive heard people say they train old school (old school does not refer to hundreds of years ago, it generally means the way they trained in the 50's and 60's ) and Ive heard people say they are happy with the system they train in, so you shouldnt have any problems then.


 

I can see you don't get my points about karate and have little interest in it's beginnings or what it's for.... which is actually very relevant for self defence today so best I leave it there. I've not heard people talk about 'old school' and most of the people I train with have been training since the sixties and seventies as we were all younger then but not children.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Ive never heard anyone on here say that what they do is the 'best' or that they do it the 'way the old masters did it'. Ive heard people say they train old school (old school does not refer to hundreds of years ago, it generally means the way they trained in the 50's and 60's ) and Ive heard people say they are happy with the system they train in, so you shouldnt have any problems then.


 
Oh i've seen plenty of 'we are the best' among TMA's over the years.......one of the huge issues many TMA practioners have with combat sports, particularly MMA, is that it exposed many of the weaknesses and flaws within their systems.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong, I'm sorry but you have misread me. Karateka trying to knock each others heads off isn't training for self defence! In the street you won't be fighting someone who will give and take the same way as you do in sparring. I heard sparring decribed the other day as a two way conversation which is fine, great fun in fact but if you are attacked outside the dojo it's not a conversation, you should not be giving the other guy a chance to speak even. *Sparring is different from fighting* and you are getting peevish because you are missing my point.
> As to how many dojos and dojangs I've been to....an awful lot actually.


 

Ehh.....see, but that's the problem.........hard sparring is realistic in the sense it's a give in take when folks of the same level. Many folks who disagree with sparring believe their skills are so lethal that they would simply take the other person.

The reality that hard sparring exposes the misconceptions and flat erroneous beliefs because many times those techniques which we perceive as being so effective are difficult to pull off against someone who isn't cooperating.

Sparring IS somewhat different from fighting......but the harder the sparring the more like fighting it becomes.  The reality is that i've been in real fights and i've been in quite a few matches and hard sparring sessions.  Most of the guys i've sparred with put up a greater fight than most of the guys i've fought for real in the street, and quite frankly, the street fights often felt like disorganized sparring sessions with opponents who often weren't that skilled, but were at varying degrees of motivation.

I think folks sometimes make far too much of 'the street'........which, certainly, can be unpredictable, and as a result, dangerous..........but it's not that mysterious.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 23, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Oh i've seen plenty of 'we are the best' among TMA's over the years.......one of the huge issues many TMA practioners have with combat sports, particularly MMA, is that it exposed many of the weaknesses and flaws within their systems.


I think you are going to hear plenty of 'we are the best' eminating from any sport, MMA included. I still dont think MMA exposed anything, for two reasons. 1. MMA is a sport not a fight. 2. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont recall anyone of any note entering the UFC from a TMA background. Heaps of very ordinary TMA guys have had a go but no one recognised as exceptional within their art (unlike BJJ, for instance). The TMA guys I saw were so technically flawed they would be flat out being 2 years off a black belt at any reputable club, their footwork alone was disgraceful. But again, correct me if Im wrong.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I think you are going to hear plenty of 'we are the best' eminating from any sport, MMA included. I still dont think MMA exposed anything, for two reasons. 1. MMA is a sport not a fight. 2. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont recall anyone of any note entering the UFC from a TMA background. Heaps of very ordinary TMA guys have had a go but no one recognised as exceptional within their art (unlike BJJ, for instance). The TMA guys I saw were so technically flawed they would be flat out being 2 years off a black belt at any reputable club, their footwork alone was disgraceful. But again, correct me if Im wrong.


 
Actually, the UFC is a sport.......MMA is a concept.

As for the UFC it began as a competition of various TMA backgrounds. There was absolutely nothing stopping 'anyone of note' from entering the UFC except the ego's desire to avoid being beaten.

Hard competition risks the ego, and many folks have built their entire being on their reputations.......that's why 'no one of note' entered the UFC........but it's not a defense of them, it's a statement of their lack of desire to test their art against any real competition. I certainly understand their reasons, but I don't respect them for it.

I've made it clear my views are that if someone claims to know how to fight, then asking them to prove it is perfectly acceptable. If they only claim to know how to dance in a very impressive fashion, then that's another story.

And the fact is that their 'footwork' was 'disgraceful' because they had learned a system of footwork that they couldn't apply when someone was punching them in the face or taking them off their fight.

I find it quite humorous, though, that many other systems seemed to flourish within the MMA framework........such as Muay Thai, Boxing and Wrestling, despite the fact that the folks who were coming in from those areas weren't any more accomplished in their given art than the TMA's folks.

The problem comes with this fixed idea of what MUST work being taught as dogma........once it becomes ingrained, folks begin defending that dogma against all evidence to the contrary.......their mental constructs become more real than reality to them.

To reiterate........UFC is a sport.......MMA is a concept......a buffet of techniques from a vast variety of disciplines that enable greater freedom of action.  MMA is, in essence, the same thing Bruce Lee was doing with JKD.........take what is useful, leave the dogma.  Now, the sport, with it's rules, creates a certain measure of dogma, but that doesn't diminish the concept, which was to take useful components of various martial arts, and 'MIX' them, creating a 'Mixed Martial Art' that is unique to the individual fighter, based on his own strengths and weaknesses............as opposed to the dogmatic teaching of a fixed martial art that is what some MASTER has determined is a one size fits all system.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 23, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Actually, the UFC is a sport.......MMA is a concept.
> 
> As for the UFC it began as a competition of various TMA backgrounds. There was absolutely nothing stopping 'anyone of note' from entering the UFC except the ego's desire to avoid being beaten.
> 
> ...


I totally disagree with your line that "the only thing stopping them was their ego". You are obviously of the assumption that all people feel the need to prove a point to others. There are many factors preventing people from entering ranging from simply not caring what others think through to not living in america where the ufc was held or injury or age or having no interest whatsoever in competitive fighting or not having the necessary time to take off work to train for such an event. As stated many times before, why would a successful TMA fighter who has sponsors, coaches and a successful career (some earning good money), throw all that away to go and train for an event they have no interest in. I suppose you will say they should do it to 'prove a point', but most people are not of that mentality, they are happy doing what they are doing and couldnt care less what someone else thinks of their art. Sure, you'll get the odd dodgy guy who will enter to try and make a name for themselves but you only have to google their name to see that no one has ever heard of them, probably because their achievments in their given art are nil.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I totally disagree with your line that "the only thing stopping them was their ego". You are obviously of the assumption that all people feel the need to prove a point to others. There are many factors preventing people from entering ranging from simply not caring what others think through to not living in america where the ufc was held or injury or age or having no interest whatsoever in competitive fighting or not having the necessary time to take off work to train for such an event. As stated many times before, why would a successful TMA fighter who has sponsors, coaches and a successful career (some earning good money), throw all that away to go and train for an event they have no interest in. I suppose you will say they should do it to 'prove a point', but most people are not of that mentality, they are happy doing what they are doing and couldnt care less what someone else thinks of their art. Sure, you'll get the odd dodgy guy who will enter to try and make a name for themselves but you only have to google their name to see that no one has ever heard of them, probably because their achievments in their given art are nil.


 
If you're going to make a claim, back it up. Otherwise don't make the claim. It's that simple. Fighting is the only topic of argument that a fight can prove who is actually right.

I put zero stock in the statements of people who say 'Well, I COULD do X if I wanted to......but I don't....' The only reason for saying it to begin with is to prove the point that they claim they don't care about.......but it usually means the person who is making the claim doesn't actually even believe what they are saying.

As I said, you're wrong in saying they 'have no interest in it'........what they have is no interest in losing their reputations by losing such a match. It's a lot easier to stick to their own limited pond, and make claims that being the master of their own pond somehow means they are effective at fighting.


That's not to say that everyone really does have to prove it.........but if they're not prepared to prove it, don't make the claim that they could......if they only wanted to.  Talk is cheap.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 23, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> If you're going to make a claim, back it up. Otherwise don't make the claim. It's that simple.  Fighting is the only topic of argument that a fight can prove who is actually right.


I think you have just summed up in a nutshell why people will continue to disagree on this topic for years to come. People dont always live their life having to 'prove' things to others, I certainly dont, not just with martial arts but with most things in life in general. If Ive found something works for me then I know it works, I dont need to go and 'back up my claim', why would I? I know it works. Other people feel the constant need to 'prove' their beliefs to others, and good on them but for me life is too short to care about what others think and Im sure many people live their life the same way, so when I hear about 'backing up claims' it really makes no sense to me at all. People back their claims up on the street when they are in an unavoidable altercation and are forced to use what they've learnt. When they win they know it works, they dont need to join the UFC to drive their point home.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I think you are going to hear plenty of 'we are the best' eminating from any sport, MMA included. I still dont think MMA exposed anything, for two reasons. 1. MMA is a sport not a fight. 2. Correct me if Im wrong,* but I dont recall anyone of any note entering the UFC from a TMA background.* Heaps of very ordinary TMA guys have had a go but no one recognised as exceptional within their art (unlike BJJ, for instance). The TMA guys I saw were so technically flawed they would be flat out being 2 years off a black belt at any reputable club, their footwork alone was disgraceful. But again, correct me if Im wrong.


 

Bas Rutten
Georges Saint Pierre
Michael Bisping
Dan Hardy
Chuck Liddell
Lyota Machida
Neil Grove 
Fedor Emelianko
Anderson Silva
Crocop etc etc

I don't think I need to go on. I could of course, I could take a few pages but hopefully I've made my point. 
Take Bas Rutten *2nd Dan TKD* and 5th Kyokushin karate, no, he's no good is he, oh and he does that funny SD stuff too.

The UFC is a company, a promotion it's never a style nor a martial art, just a business the same as McDonalds and Hoover. No one needs it in particular.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I think you have just summed up in a nutshell why people will continue to disagree on this topic for years to come. People dont always live their life having to 'prove' things to others, I certainly dont, not just with martial arts but with most things in life in general. If Ive found something works for me then I know it works, I dont need to go and 'back up my claim', why would I? I know it works. Other people feel the constant need to 'prove' their beliefs to others, and good on them but for me life is too short to care about what others think and Im sure many people live their life the same way, so when I hear about 'backing up claims' it really makes no sense to me at all. People back their claims up on the street when they are in an unavoidable altercation and are forced to use what they've learnt. When they win they know it works, they dont need to join the UFC to drive their point home.


 
Martial Arts is not life in general.......at it's core it's the training of martial skill, and effective versus ineffective is perfectly legitimate debate, and challenging other styles is a perfectly legitimate pursuit in the quest of determining the strengths and weaknesses of particular styles.

As for 'knowing it works', how do you 'know it works'? Evidence or faith? If it's evidence, that's what i'm demanding. If it's faith, it's not even worth discussing.

Me, I don't live on faith.......martial skill, for me, is a piece of equipment........and I stress test all my equipment.  If it breaks I want to know why, and if it's inferior and needs to be replaced, or if it simply needs to be modified.


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I think you are going to hear plenty of 'we are the best' eminating from any sport, MMA included. I still dont think MMA exposed anything, for two reasons. 1. MMA is a sport not a fight. 2. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont recall anyone of any note entering the UFC from a TMA background. Heaps of very ordinary TMA guys have had a go but no one recognised as exceptional within their art (unlike BJJ, for instance). The TMA guys I saw were so technically flawed they would be flat out being 2 years off a black belt at any reputable club, their footwork alone was disgraceful. But again, correct me if Im wrong.


One of the things that early UFCs exposed is that good technique looks bad in an uncontrolled environment against another skilled opponent.  Had Royce lost, it might be recognized now that he wasn't the best in his style.  I mentioned this a while back in another thread, but Royce was picked because he was young and looked unassuming.  Had Rickson or one of the other more experienced Gracies competed, the effect would have been much less dramatic.  

Gerard Gordeau was a world Savate champion and a notorious dirty fighter.  Fred Ettish was like, 3rd or 4th dan in Kenpo, IIRC.  I can't remember all of the guys in the early UFCs, but if necessary, I can go back and rewatch them to catch everyone's credentials.  I remember a couple of high ranking karate guys from various styles, as well as at least a few kung fu.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 24, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Martial Arts is not life in general.......at it's core it's the training of martial skill, and effective versus ineffective is perfectly legitimate debate, and challenging other styles is a perfectly legitimate pursuit in the quest of determining the strengths and weaknesses of particular styles.
> 
> As for 'knowing it works', how do you 'know it works'? Evidence or faith? If it's evidence, that's what i'm demanding. If it's faith, it's not even worth discussing.
> 
> Me, I don't live on faith.......martial skill, for me, is a piece of equipment........and I stress test all my equipment.  If it breaks I want to know why, and if it's inferior and needs to be replaced, or if it simply needs to be modified.


I would like to think that if someone got attacked on the street and got their *** kicked they would realise that what they've trained doesnt work and would persue something else or try training differently. Anyone I train with who had to protect themselves found that what we have been taught worked, I train with police officers and others who use their skills on a daily basis. I know it works, Im not about to join the UFC to prove it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I would like to think that if someone got attacked on the street and got their *** kicked they would realise that what they've trained doesnt work and would persue something else or try training differently. Anyone I train with who had to protect themselves found that what we have been taught worked, I train with police officers and others who use their skills on a daily basis. I know it works, Im not about to join the UFC to prove it.


 
How often do you test it on the streets? Here's the reality....most opponents on the street are unskilled and unmotivated. The fact that someone manages to pull off a given technique against some half drunk thug isn't really evidence that it's a superior technique.

I made a point in another thread that the heavy sparring i've had have been tougher and better tests than the several street encounters i've had.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> One of the things that early UFCs exposed is that good technique looks bad in an uncontrolled environment against another skilled opponent. Had Royce lost, it might be recognized now that he wasn't the best in his style. I mentioned this a while back in another thread, but Royce was picked because he was young and looked unassuming. Had Rickson or one of the other more experienced Gracies competed, the effect would have been much less dramatic.
> 
> Gerard Gordeau was a world Savate champion and a notorious dirty fighter. Fred Ettish was like, 3rd or 4th dan in Kenpo, IIRC. I can't remember all of the guys in the early UFCs, but if necessary, I can go back and rewatch them to catch everyone's credentials. I remember a couple of high ranking karate guys from various styles, as well as at least a few kung fu.


 
Yeah, but they didn't win, so they weren't very good, because if they had been good in those systems, they would have won.......it's a circular kind of logic.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 24, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> How often do you test it on the streets? Here's the reality....most opponents on the street are unskilled and unmotivated. The fact that someone manages to pull off a given technique against some half drunk thug isn't really evidence that it's a superior technique.
> 
> I made a point in another thread that the heavy sparring i've had have been tougher and better tests than the several street encounters i've had.


Many of the people I train with 'test' it regularly, most because of their line of work. They train to defend themselves in 'real life' situations and most real life situations involve unskilled and unmotivated people. Its rare that a super fit full time proffessional fighter is going to start a fight with you. Also, I dont really care whats 'best', there is no 'best', it depends on the individual and if you enjoy what you train and it works on the street then who really cares about aligning each martial art in order of how 'effective' they are as that is of no consequence. I think it was determined years ago that there is no 'best' martial art and as people have said over and over again, its the artist not the art, so if its worked for you on the 'street' then keep training and enjoy it I say.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Many of the people I train with 'test' it regularly, most because of their line of work. They train to defend themselves in 'real life' situations and most real life situations involve unskilled and unmotivated people. Its rare that a super fit full time proffessional fighter is going to start a fight with you. Also, I dont really care whats 'best', there is no 'best', it depends on the individual and if you enjoy what you train and it works on the street then who really cares about aligning each martial art in order of how 'effective' they are as that is of no consequence. I think it was determined years ago that there is no 'best' martial art and as people have said over and over again, its the artist not the art, so if its worked for you on the 'street' then keep training and enjoy it I say.


 
Lets just hope some super fit fighter doesn't start a fight with you, then. So long as the opponents are geriatric drunks things work out ok. 

My perspective, as one who, because of his 'line of work' trains for 'real life situations' is a firm believer that if what I do will work on the super fit and super tough, it will work on geriatric drunks.......the reverse, however, is not true, and THAT is the real point here.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 25, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Lets just hope some super fit fighter doesn't start a fight with you, then. So long as the opponents are geriatric drunks things work out ok.
> 
> My perspective, as one who, because of his 'line of work' trains for 'real life situations' is a firm believer that if what I do will work on the super fit and super tough, it will work on geriatric drunks.......the reverse, however, is not true, and THAT is the real point here.


If 99% of people come up against a super fit pro fighter they are screwed. For a start most people are not 'proffessional' fighters, they dont train full time. Also, what chances does an elderly person have against a super fit pro fighter a third of their age. People train for 'real life' situations and in most cases that means the person attacking you is not a pro fighter. For me personally, I am resigned to the fact that if a pro fighter attacks me I will lose because I dont train the hours they train so irrespective of which martial art I choose to do i am little to no chance against a guy who fights for a living. No MA will have you prepared for EVERY situation, an attacker may have a gun, there may be 20 attackers, they may be a pro fighter etc etc , but Im happy if my MA can have me prepared for MOST situations in a REALISTIC setting. Fighting in a cage is not something I will realistically come up against.


----------



## ATC (Jul 25, 2010)

Well I look at it like this. If there was one end all art (so called best art) then everyone would be doing only that. Why do anything else. It would have prevailed long ago. Punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. And everything in between is just that too. Everyone gets beat sometime and if not then you just didn't fight enough, that's all.

Back to the actual topic of "does training for sport detract from SD" I say no. In most cases when SD will be needed, the aggressor is not suspecting his victim to fight back. If I train in sport I still train to hit, and hit hard. My footwork and distance is most likely spot on, and my reflex action lightning fast compared to someone not expecting a fight, let alone some average Joe that is not in a sport train athletes shape or level of conditioning. Plus the sport trained athlete will have built up some level of body conditioning as well making it possible to withstand an average Joes punch or hit.

We have people in our dojang that only do SD training and all, again I did say ALL of our sport competitors run circles around them in all situations in the dojang. That mean both sparring and SD drills. The sport guys are just faster, stronger, and better with all techniques.

Now that is not to say that the SD only guys won't or can't hold their own in a real SD situation. It is that the sport guys level of training is far superior than the SD guys. Because they spar constantly vs. others that are also just as good or better in fluid and give and take fashion. They develop timing and distance that you cannot get if you are not training and then competing at constantly. You just can't drill SD in the same fashion.

So in the end I believe that sport enhances or helps your SD if you are also training SD as well.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 25, 2010)

ATC said:


> Well I look at it like this. If there was one end all art (so called best art) then everyone would be doing only that. Why do anything else. It would have prevailed long ago. Punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. And everything in between is just that too. Everyone gets beat sometime and if not then you just didn't fight enough, that's all.
> 
> Back to the actual topic of "does training for sport detract from SD" I say no. In most cases when SD will be needed, the aggressor is not suspecting his victim to fight back. If I train in sport I still train to hit, and hit hard. My footwork and distance is most likely spot on, and my reflex action lightning fast compared to someone not expecting a fight, let alone some average Joe that is not in a sport train athletes shape or level of conditioning. Plus the sport trained athlete will have built up some level of body conditioning as well making it possible to withstand an average Joes punch or hit.
> 
> ...


couldnt agree more, I simply cannot understand the mindset that certain forms of sparring are 'useless'. Somebody who spars regularly is light years ahead of some guy on the street who does no training. At the very least they are learning distancing, reflexes, they gain strength and conditioning and in a lot of cases they work their asses off when compared to some 'average joe' who just throws a punch and hopes for the best.


----------



## ATC (Jul 25, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> couldnt agree more, I simply cannot understand the mindset that certain forms of sparring are 'useless'. Somebody who spars regularly is light years ahead of some guy on the street who does no training. At the very least they are learning distancing, reflexes, they gain strength and conditioning and in a lot of cases they work their asses off when compared to some 'average joe' who just throws a punch and hopes for the best.


I hear ya. You are preaching to the choir on this one. When I was younger and still messing around with competition and hard as a rock (Don't train that much so now I am soft compared to my 20's) I had a situation while in a club when a guy was not watching what he was doing and ran smack into me (I also was not paying attention). Well the guy bounced off me and fell down. I was able to spot him at the last second and shift to brace in a way as to protect myself. Well that was not the thing that got me, it was what the guy said afterwards. He stated that he felt like he hit a wall. He told me that I was as hard as a brick wall. I laughed and just helped him up but in my mind I was like yeah I better be, I workout every day to be that way.

Just about every serious sport fighter I know is rock hard. Even the skinny ones. They are solid and light on their feet and quick as lightning too. If needed to, they'd drop a good percentage of the population if they had to pretty quickly.

Now with that said I am not...and I repeat...not saying that you could not train in SD only and not do the same. I am just saying that sport won't detract from SD if you are training SD.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2010)

And if the sparring is the type I've seen at some places, the absolutely no touch ever sparring? is that still useful?


----------



## ATC (Jul 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> And if the sparring is the type I've seen at some places, the absolutely no touch ever sparring? is that still useful?


To some extent but I do believe that you need to make contact, even if a medium amount to have the greatest benefit. With no contact at all your distance is adjusted to always just miss your opponent and you will get use to doing just that. Plus if you don't make contact then there is no need to block anything really as you will not get hit so why really block. And if you are not hitting, taking hits, and blocking hits then how do your condition your body?

You will still benefit from the foot work and endurance conditioning but little else. You have to touch and with some force at that.

No touch is great for beginners but at some point you have to progress beyond that.


----------



## MJS (Jul 25, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> How often do you test it on the streets? Here's the reality....most opponents on the street are unskilled and unmotivated. The fact that someone manages to pull off a given technique against some half drunk thug isn't really evidence that it's a superior technique.
> 
> I made a point in another thread that the heavy sparring i've had have been tougher and better tests than the several street encounters i've had.


 
I'm not going to quote all of your posts, but I will this one, as it was one that really caught my eye.  I'll start by saying this...as I've said many times, I feel that both MMA and TMA can benefit from each other.  I've adopted many of the MMA methods into my training, as have many of my training partners and teachers.  Obviously that says something.  I do agree with the sparring.  Personally, I love doing this.  I've gotten more out of that, than the typical point sparring that many schools do.

Second, I too, am not a fan of talking about all the 'deadly' stuff that can be done.  Not saying that its all BS, but again, as I've said before, if thats all that people have in their tool box, is that stuff to fall back on, then IMO, they've missed out on some stuff.  For myself, I dont like to fall back on that.  

Regarding the first part of your post here...back in the early days, the guys who founded Kajukenbo would do just that...go out and test it on the streets.  Of course, doing that today, would probably get you arrested.  So, people have to scenario train, bust their *** in the dojo training hard, etc.  Then again, when LEOs run thru various training scenarios, they probably stand a very good chance of testing that stuff in the street.  Of course, hopefully it all works, because if it doesnt, it could be a matter of life or death.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> And if the sparring is the type I've seen at some places, the absolutely no touch ever sparring? is that still useful?


Its usefulness is very limited in my opinion, but not 'useless'. As a teenager I did a form of karate that sparred the way you described. When I first started I had no idea how to throw a punch correctly, I couldnt kick at all, knew nothing about footwork and I was very unfit. After a year I could throw some basic punches, I knew a few basic kicks, I was significantly fitter and was light and quick on my feet. In the grand scheme of things I still couldnt fight very well BUT I was a lot better than when I first started. So basically, what I was taught was limited but was not 'useless'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 26, 2010)

MJS said:


> I'm not going to quote all of your posts, but I will this one, as it was one that really caught my eye. I'll start by saying this...as I've said many times, I feel that both MMA and TMA can benefit from each other. I've adopted many of the MMA methods into my training, as have many of my training partners and teachers. Obviously that says something. I do agree with the sparring. Personally, I love doing this. I've gotten more out of that, than the typical point sparring that many schools do.
> 
> Second, I too, am not a fan of talking about all the 'deadly' stuff that can be done. Not saying that its all BS, but again, as I've said before, if thats all that people have in their tool box, is that stuff to fall back on, then IMO, they've missed out on some stuff. For myself, I dont like to fall back on that.
> 
> Regarding the first part of your post here...back in the early days, the guys who founded Kajukenbo would do just that...go out and test it on the streets. Of course, doing that today, would probably get you arrested. So, people have to scenario train, bust their *** in the dojo training hard, etc. Then again, when LEOs run thru various training scenarios, they probably stand a very good chance of testing that stuff in the street. Of course, hopefully it all works, because if it doesnt, it could be a matter of life or death.


 

And that's my point.......there has to be a way to truly test the equipment without having to rely on 'My master said it would work' or 'my master's cousins uncles nephews next door neighbor once used this in the means streets of south Boston.'


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 26, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> If 99% of people come up against a super fit pro fighter they are screwed. For a start most people are not 'proffessional' fighters, they dont train full time. Also, what chances does an elderly person have against a super fit pro fighter a third of their age. People train for 'real life' situations and in most cases that means the person attacking you is not a pro fighter. For me personally, I am resigned to the fact that if a pro fighter attacks me I will lose because I dont train the hours they train so irrespective of which martial art I choose to do i am little to no chance against a guy who fights for a living. No MA will have you prepared for EVERY situation, an attacker may have a gun, there may be 20 attackers, they may be a pro fighter etc etc , but Im happy if my MA can have me prepared for MOST situations in a REALISTIC setting. Fighting in a cage is not something I will realistically come up against.


 
No MA will have your prepared for EVERY situation.....but my goal is to prepare for as many as possible.  Training simply to be able to deal with a geriatric drunk isn't enough for me, in my line of work.  Your mileage may vary.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 26, 2010)

ATC said:


> Well I look at it like this. If there was one end all art (so called best art) then everyone would be doing only that. Why do anything else. It would have prevailed long ago. Punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. And everything in between is just that too. Everyone gets beat sometime and if not then you just didn't fight enough, that's all.


 One would think everyone would be 'doing it' if it's the best.......but sometimes doing it right means enduring pain and actually fighting.  Most folks aren't really of the mindset to do that, which is why they don't, not because it doesn't work.  And the result is that those who won't do that, rationalize their reasons for not doing it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 26, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> couldnt agree more, I simply cannot understand the mindset that certain forms of sparring are 'useless'. Somebody who spars regularly is light years ahead of some guy on the street who does no training. At the very least they are learning distancing, reflexes, they gain strength and conditioning and in a lot of cases they work their asses off when compared to some 'average joe' who just throws a punch and hopes for the best.


 
There's assumption there on who the 'average joe' is.  The average joe won't try to assault you.  The guy who tries to assault you may be a geriatric drunk, but he also may be a guy who, though having no formal training, has actually been in a few fights.......and that quite often trumps formal light sparring training more than not.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 26, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> And if the sparring is the type I've seen at some places, the absolutely no touch ever sparring? is that still useful?


 
If that's the only thing being done, the real result is a false sense of security.

That's what Tyson meant when he said 'Everyone has a plan, until they get hit in the nose!'


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 26, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> No MA will have your prepared for EVERY situation.....but my goal is to prepare for as many as possible.  Training simply to be able to deal with a geriatric drunk isn't enough for me, in my line of work.  Your mileage may vary.


Thats pretty much exactly what I said. Nowhere did I say I train to just deal with a geriatric drunk. Ive actually stated several times that I train with law enforcement officers and they use what we are taught on a day to day basis.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 26, 2010)

I think to better clarify my point I look at it like this: Its like a university degree, not everyone who goes to university wants to do a masters degree. Similarly, not everyone who does martial arts wants to take it to the extreme level, I personally do but I recognise that is not for everybody. As I said in a previous post I did a very mild form of karate as a teenager that had very soft sparring and certainly didnt teach me to be a great fighter. It did, however, help me through a few schoolyard fights against some pretty average kids. By me doing it I was slightly better than average so I did alright but I accept that had I come up against the school boxing champ I would have been killed. Similarly, some people train in martial arts to improve their chances if they ever get attacked in an unavoidable situation, they arent training to be an unbeatable pro fighter, they just want to learn some basic self defence and may not have the time, money or commitment to take it any further. And in most cases these people accept that they are no super fighter, I have mates who do MA's that involve only light sparring and they accept that it is what it is, they dont believe they can take on anyone and they certainly dont go around 'talking up' their abilities. I know SOME people will go around talking up their abilities but that happens in all sports, occupations etc


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 26, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Thats pretty much exactly what I said. Nowhere did I say I train to just deal with a geriatric drunk. Ive actually stated several times that I train with law enforcement officers and they use what we are taught on a day to day basis.


 
I've been a cop for 14 years, and the fact is that much of what is passed for realistic training among most cops is deficient, and works best on geriatric drunks.

Moreover, much of what is being taught now that is effective in police training evolved directly from the sport world, i.e. MMA, BJJ, Judo, in particular, as well as the FMA's.

Finally, most police officers go their entire careers without ever engaging in a real, honest to god, one of us is going home/one of us is going to the hospital/morgue, knock down drag outs.  There are several reasons for this....

1) Effective less lethal weapons.....Tasers, OC Sprays, Batons.
2) Backup allows multiple officer responses
3) Most folks don't fight with the police, and when they do, the above two apply.

So trying to judge the effectiveness of a technique based solely on the anecdotal experience of a given police officer is deficient.......not without value, but at the same time, it's bound to be limited because of the above reasons.

That isn't to say that many officers don't know what they are doing, quite the contrary, but we learn to play the game smart.  So the better the officer the LESS often he actually gets real world experience testing his skills.  So those skills have to be tested somewhere.

My point about MMA is that it has great value, because it allows us to examine how certain methods and techniques work against someone violently resisting them.   Sure, it's a controlled setting, and sure, there are a few, limited rules........but that doesn't change it's merit as an effective test of techniques.

The same can be said for what the Dog Brothers are doing........it's a controlled laboratory of technique, and quite a bit is learned, and, what really hacks a lot of folks off, a lot of sacred cows end up getting slaughtered.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 26, 2010)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I think to better clarify my point I look at it like this: Its like a university degree, not everyone who goes to university wants to do a masters degree. Similarly, not everyone who does martial arts wants to take it to the extreme level, I personally do but I recognise that is not for everybody. As I said in a previous post I did a very mild form of karate as a teenager that had very soft sparring and certainly didnt teach me to be a great fighter. It did, however, help me through a few schoolyard fights against some pretty average kids. By me doing it I was slightly better than average so I did alright but I accept that had I come up against the school boxing champ I would have been killed. Similarly, some people train in martial arts to improve their chances if they ever get attacked in an unavoidable situation, they arent training to be an unbeatable pro fighter, they just want to learn some basic self defence and may not have the time, money or commitment to take it any further. And in most cases these people accept that they are no super fighter, I have mates who do MA's that involve only light sparring and they accept that it is what it is, they dont believe they can take on anyone and they certainly dont go around 'talking up' their abilities. I know SOME people will go around talking up their abilities but that happens in all sports, occupations etc


 
I think that's all fine, provided we are all honest with ourselves about what we are doing and what we are not doing.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jul 26, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I think that's all fine, provided we are all honest with ourselves about what we are doing and what we are not doing.


I agree. As long as people understand the limitations of what they are learning then best of luck to them. In my opinion any type of training is better than nothing at all.


----------



## Rion (Jul 26, 2010)

Comparing sport fighting to real life events just doesn`t work for me. Real MA is not pretty,its ugly and dirty and if i started rolling about the floor trying for this arm lock or tried to fly kick all over the place my sifu would give me a few slaps and tell me to sit down and that we are traing for the street.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 26, 2010)

No offense to anyone here, but I kind of notice an extreme point of view that runs through a lot of these threads: there seem to be only drunks and competitive/pro fighters. 

I'm sure that people don't actually believe that (maybe some do), but those are the two groups that seem to get mentioned the most. I think that there is a whole lot of possibilities between drunken thugs and the competitive/pro fighter. 

Most of your opponents on the street are almost as unlikely to be drunks as they are to be pro fighters. The most likely altercation with a drunk is one where a pro fighter will be at an equal disadvantage: a drunk driver.

Another issue is that on most forums, "the street" seems to be very poorly defined, and as near as I can tell, includes your living room, where drunken uncles have inexplicably parked thmselves and where terrorist attacks and gang hits are a constant threat. Apparenlty, "the cage" is the street in miniature. Seemingly the only place *not* the street is "the dojo," and if you're anywhere outside of the dojo, you'd better be trained like Batman and have all of the accompanying items that go with the suit and body armor capable of stopping a .50 caliber round. 

I agree with sgtmac_46: most opponents on the street are untrained and unmotivated. Absolutely true. Opponents outside of training will fall into two categories: non criminals with whom a disagreement has gotten out of control and become a physical altercation (alcohol is unlikely to be involved) or criminals perpetrating a criminal act.

In the case of the former, hard sparring is going to serve you very, very well, provided there are no weapons involved. Throw in guns and knives and unless you've trained to deal with them specifically, the pro fighter is at as much of a disadvantage as the untrained citizen. Regardless, it is usually non-martial skills that make the difference. Non-martial skills are what head these encounters off most of the time, even with drunks. If you want to train in the ____-fu that will effectively protect you in most curcumstances, train in verbal-fu. That and common sense about where one goes and when one travels. 

In the case of the latter, actual criminals, I will contend that being a competitive or pro fighter offers you zip and that hard sparring offers you as much advantage as no sparring. Yes, there are exceptions. I love Bill's posts in the self defense section about people with martial arts backgrounds effectively stopping actual criminals with their MA training. These are extraordinary people. And their circumstances are also extraordinary exceptions. 

Most (not all) criminals are untrained and unmotivated, so they succeed by taking advantage of circumstances. They avoid circumstances where they are likely to fail. That is why the little old lady with a purse is much more attractive as a target than you are to an unarmed mugger. A guy who wants to rob you will either hold you at gunpoint, pick your pocket and get away, or have buddies, thus avoiding any confrontation that would directly expose him to your ability as a fighter. 

Fact is that criminals are like predatory animals. They calculate their targets based on chance of success. Elderly and children are the most vulnerable. Of those in between, women are a more likely target than men. Smaller men or really out of shape men are a more likely target than a man in good condition or a larger man. Confedence plays a part too. They nervous, scared of his or her own shadow person, regardless of gender, is more of a target than the confident person. Thus the confidence building of the ATA and many commercial studios can serve a student very well by itself.

Then there are ambush predators. They lay in wait on jogging trails or watch the crowds for a good mark. 

If drunken thugs are what I am encountering most of the time, chances are, I'm hanging out in the wrong part of town or frequenting the bar too often. I train pretty hard. and can handle myself against a lot more than a drunken thug in a straight up fight. But verbal skills, alertness, and common sense are my street proven methods of staying alive. 

If I'm being jumped by a pro fighter, chances are I've stepped into the ring. competitive fighters generally don't go around jumping people.

I don't remember who said this, but it was in another thread: '99% of the time, verbal skills, alertness, and common sense will keep you out of trouble. We train for the 1% of the time that those skills are not suffiicient.' 

Daniel


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 26, 2010)

First, nice post Daniel... 

now for something completely different



Daniel Sullivan said:


> No offense to anyone here, but I kind of notice an extreme point of view that runs through a lot of these threads: there seem to be only drunks and competitive/pro fighters.


 
But you failed to take into consideration the drunken competitive/pro fighter... and what about pointed sticks 

Actually, truth be known I have run into that twice (drunken competitive/pro fighter... not pointed sticks ). Once via a report I had to read form a guy I worked with that got the living daylights beat out of him and another time directly when one charged straight at me. However since even though he was a competitive/pro fighter the drunken part seemed to be in control so a side step and a trip worked really well 

Of course case one the guy was a boxer&#8230; case two the guy was WWF when that was wrestling


----------



## ATC (Jul 26, 2010)

Rion said:


> Comparing sport fighting to real life events just doesn`t work for me. Real MA is not pretty,its ugly and dirty and if i started rolling about the floor trying for this arm lock or tried to fly kick all over the place my sifu would give me a few slaps and tell me to sit down and that we are traing for the street.


Many of the so called sport only guys can get you in an arm bar or neck choke of sorts from a standing position. Don't let what you see on TV fool you. Those are pros vs. pros. Not a pro vs. some unexpected thug. The only reason those guys go to the ground on tv is because they need time to work against another of the same caliber. Those dudes can fight and are in tip top shape. Plus they can punch you in the face real real hard.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> And that's my point.......there has to be a way to truly test the equipment without having to rely on 'My master said it would work' or 'my master's cousins uncles nephews next door neighbor once used this in the means streets of south Boston.'


 
Exactly!  Personally, I hate that.  I really dont care if it works/worked for my teacher, his teacher, and their teachers teacher....I want to know that it works for ME.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> No MA will have your prepared for EVERY situation.....but my goal is to prepare for as many as possible. Training simply to be able to deal with a geriatric drunk isn't enough for me, in my line of work. Your mileage may vary.


 
Right again.  I want to train for the worst case possible.  We may not face that evil twin of Royce Gracie, but, well, I'll refer to that old saying...."I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and wish I had it."  It'd be my luck some night, walking to my car, that some nutjob comes at me and he's actually got some skill under his belt.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 26, 2010)

MJS said:


> Right again. I want to train for the *worst case possible*.


While I agree, most of the training received in the dojo, gym, or whatever you call your studio, will really not prepare you for the worst case scenario.



MJS said:


> *We may not face that evil twin of Royce Gracie*, but, well, I'll refer to that old saying...."I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and wish I had it." It'd be my luck some night, walking to my car, that some nutjob comes at me and he's actually got some skill under his belt.


And Royce Gracie's evil twin is not remotely close to the worst case scenario.

The worst case scenario is actually more common (compared to professional fighters-turned-mugger). A worst case scenario is a gunman who's a good shot wth a steady hand more than three feet but less than ten from you. Pointing his gun an you (perhaps due to that elusive Linda Lou?)

There are no credible gun defenses that I have seen that involves the gunman being further than three feet from you.  None that I'd want to bet my life on at least.  And within ten, diving for cover or running is probably not likely to be successful.

Or, since we're talking extremes of unliklihood, an unassuming person taking a seat in a restaurant at the busy time suddenly exploding. This may be more common in some parts of the world than in others, but I'd wager that even in the US you'd face a greater chance of that happening than of Randy Couture suddenly going thug. And there is no trainable defense against this. Lots of ways for law enforcement and the military to try to head them off before the fact, but once they've taken a seat, it really doesn't matter if everyone in the restaurant is an MMA champ.

Daniel


----------



## Rion (Jul 26, 2010)

I just think that some things you cant train for,not unless your a solider you wont ever get that real sense of danger in your sparing. So like Dan said the best MA is just talking your way out of it.


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2010)

Rion said:


> I just think that some things you cant train for,not unless your a solider you wont ever get that real sense of danger in your sparing. So like Dan said the best MA is just talking your way out of it.


I have a black belt in conflict resolution and mediation.  If you sign a 2 year contract, I'll guarantee you a black belt in that time.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 28, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> No offense to anyone here, but I kind of notice an extreme point of view that runs through a lot of these threads: there seem to be only drunks and competitive/pro fighters.
> 
> I'm sure that people don't actually believe that (maybe some do), but those are the two groups that seem to get mentioned the most. I think that there is a whole lot of possibilities between drunken thugs and the competitive/pro fighter.
> 
> ...


 
You have some good points here, and some I disagree with.........but allow me to correct one very glaring point on which you are mistaken. If you look at the statistics on assaults, you'll find that the VAST majority of them involve alcohol and/or drug useage during the time of the assault.

You'll find that's consistent whether you're talking about the United States, Canada, Britain, Scotland, etc, etc, etc.........alcohol breeds violence. Where there is alcohol, there will be violence.

So, the odds are, if one finds themselves in a disagreement with someone, there is a strong likelihood that the person's judgement is impaired by alcohol and/or drug use......that's often what fuels these type of encounters.



> Based on published studies, Roizen (3) summarized the percentages of violent offenders who were drinking at the time of the offense as follows: up to 86 percent of homicide offenders, 37 percent of assault offenders, 60 percent of sexual offenders, up to 57 percent of men and 27 percent of women involved in marital violence, and 13 percent of child abusers. These figures are the upper limits of a wide range of estimates. In a community-based study, Pernanen (4) found that 42 percent of violent crimes reported to the police involved alcohol, although 51 percent of the victims interviewed believed that their assailants had been drinking.
> 
> http://www.athealth.com/consumer/disorders/angeralcohol.html
> 
> ...


 
Now, that strong correlation between alcohol and violence might be surprising to the lay person........those of us in the public safety field, though, consider it a simple fact of life.

The startling statistic may be that 60% of sexual assaults involve intoxicated assailants.

Now, how that correlates to our actual response to violence is a more complicated matter, other than to say that one of the best ways to avoid violence, is to avoid folks who are drinking.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 28, 2010)

ATC said:


> Many of the so called sport only guys can get you in an arm bar or neck choke of sorts from a standing position. Don't let what you see on TV fool you. Those are pros vs. pros. Not a pro vs. some unexpected thug. The only reason those guys go to the ground on tv is because they need time to work against another of the same caliber. Those dudes can fight and are in tip top shape. Plus they can punch you in the face real real hard.


 

That's exactly the point......one need look no further than Bas Rutten.......if anyone doubts his abilities in the ring our out, they need to think again.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 28, 2010)

MJS said:


> Right again. I want to train for the worst case possible. We may not face that evil twin of Royce Gracie, but, well, I'll refer to that old saying...."I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and wish I had it." It'd be my luck some night, walking to my car, that some nutjob comes at me and he's actually got some skill under his belt.


 
Yep......and that's why diversity of training is important.  I can't out grapple Royce.......but maybe I can out knife him, and i'm pretty sure I can out shoot him.  Never play your opponents game, but you have to be able to play enough games well to at least figure out what your opponents game is.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 28, 2010)

I look at the benefit of MMA to practical self defense, especially as it pertains to law enforcement and the military, the same way I look at how Formula 1 racing relates to police and military crisis vehicle handling.

Now, sure, there are no stop lights, or busy intersections in Formula 1 racing.........but the realties of handling a race car at 160 mph translate directly to operating other vehicles at high speed very clearly.

Moreover, since no one else on the planet spends that much time operating vehicles at those speeds as race car drivers, they become THE default experts on the PRACTICAL realities of maneuvering and handling at those speeds.

The reality is that one assumes that police officers are experts at high speed driving.........but the fact is a very SMALL amount of time is actually spent by officers operating cars at those high end speeds, just as a very small amount of time is spent wrestling with bad guys.

So, when we go to determine the practical physics of performing either function, we have to look at folks who do it ALOT! For driving, we look at the experiences and techniques of race car drivers, and apply those lessons to our modality. 

The same with MMA fighters. Both are 'just' sports.......but both have near limitless cross discipline application as long as we know how to apply it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 28, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> You have some good points here, and some I disagree with.........but allow me to correct one very glaring point on which you are mistaken. If you look at the statistics on assaults, you'll find that the VAST majority of them involve alcohol and/or drug useage during the time of the assault.
> 
> You'll find that's consistent whether you're talking about the United States, Canada, Britain, Scotland, etc, etc, etc.........alcohol breeds violence. Where there is alcohol, there will be violence.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I appreciate the stats.

I have never agreed with the argument that in self defense, one should go easy on a drunk or find creative ways to handle a drunk without doing serious and/or permanent injury. This reinforces my opinion.

Daniel


----------



## MJS (Jul 28, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> While I agree, most of the training received in the dojo, gym, or whatever you call your studio, will really not prepare you for the worst case scenario.


 
I'd say that it'd depend on the school.  




> And Royce Gracie's evil twin is not remotely close to the worst case scenario.
> 
> The worst case scenario is actually more common (compared to professional fighters-turned-mugger). A worst case scenario is a gunman who's a good shot wth a steady hand more than three feet but less than ten from you. Pointing his gun an you (perhaps due to that elusive Linda Lou?)


 
My point was simply this....many times, when dicussing who we're likely to face on the street, people always give the impression that you'll be facing ones that Sgtmac mentioned...the geriatric drunks.  My point was while we may not face a highly trained fighter every time, we wont always be facing the geriatrics either. 



> There are no credible gun defenses that I have seen that involves the gunman being further than three feet from you. None that I'd want to bet my life on at least. And within ten, diving for cover or running is probably not likely to be successful.


 
Agreed. So, you wait until the opportunity presents itself.  If it never does, then it never does.  I have never said anywhere on here, that training in the martial arts will make you a Superman.  



> Or, since we're talking extremes of unliklihood, an unassuming person taking a seat in a restaurant at the busy time suddenly exploding. This may be more common in some parts of the world than in others, but I'd wager that even in the US you'd face a greater chance of that happening than of Randy Couture suddenly going thug. And there is no trainable defense against this. Lots of ways for law enforcement and the military to try to head them off before the fact, but once they've taken a seat, it really doesn't matter if everyone in the restaurant is an MMA champ.
> 
> Daniel


 
Not sure where this is all coming from, or what point you're trying to make, but you seem to be mistaking me for someone who thinks that I'm in the Superman club.  Again, not the case at all.  As for the Randy comment...again, I'll say that due to the MMA craze, its very possible that the person you're facing, will have some grappling, MMA experience.  Wrestling is taught in many high schools nowadays.  Again, the possibility of facing a grappler is there, despite some people not wanting to see it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 28, 2010)

MJS said:


> I'd say that it'd depend on the school.


Depends on how you define worst case scenario.



MJS said:


> My point was simply this....many times, when dicussing who we're likely to face on the street, people always give the impression that you'll be facing ones that Sgtmac mentioned...the geriatric drunks. My point was while we may not face a highly trained fighter every time, we wont always be facing the geriatrics either.


I generally think that the majority fall somewhere in between.



MJS said:


> Agreed. So, you wait until the opportunity presents itself. If it never does, then it never does. I have never said anywhere on here, that training in the martial arts will make you a Superman.


Absolutely. but the martial arts=Superman wasn't what I was getting at.



MJS said:


> Not sure where this is all coming from, or what point you're trying to make, but you seem to be mistaking me for someone who thinks that I'm in the Superman club. Again, not the case at all.


Apologies; I guess that didn't come out well. 

No; I was talking about the extremes of the geriatric drunk and the Royce Gracie evil. Not you. When you said, 'worse case scenario,' Royce Gracie's evil twin is not what comes to mind.

What I was getting at with the gun comment and the bomber comment was that those are two scenarios where MA training, no matter how good, is of little to no use, thus 'worst case' in my book.



MJS said:


> As for the Randy comment...again, I'll say that due to the MMA craze, its very possible that the person you're facing, will have some grappling, MMA experience. Wrestling is taught in many high schools nowadays. Again, the possibility of facing a grappler is there, despite some people not wanting to see it.


Most definitely possible that it is there. It wasn't the liklihood of grappling that I was addressing (I agree with you 100% on that) but the liklihood of being mugged by a fighter of Randy's level of training. Any professional fighter's name could be used. I picked Randy because his name is recognized.

Daniel


----------



## MJS (Aug 8, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Depends on how you define worst case scenario.


 
Thats kinda open-ended, no?   Some will probably think there are situations we can't prepare for, as I believe was mentioned somewhere in this thread.  Interestingly enough, and I know some like him, some hate, him, but anyways, Jim Wagner talks alot about things such as terrorism, in his BB magazine articles.  Some people may not think its interesting when he talks about hand grenades, but some may.  




> I generally think that the majority fall somewhere in between.


 
This is why I want to train for the geriatric drunk as well as the 21yo who spent the past 5yrs at the MMA gym.  As well as the guy talking **** in a bar, the guy that tries to mug me, carjack me, etc.  




> Absolutely. but the martial arts=Superman wasn't what I was getting at.


 
Could you clarify then? 




> Apologies; I guess that didn't come out well.
> 
> No; I was talking about the extremes of the geriatric drunk and the Royce Gracie evil. Not you. When you said, 'worse case scenario,' Royce Gracie's evil twin is not what comes to mind.


 
No prob.   Things do get misundersottd on here all the time.   I suppose we could sub. Gracies twin with 'a person, not necessarily a pro mma fighter, but someone who spent time wrestling in highschool and college.'  For example...a good friend of mine, who I used to train with in Kenpo, wrestled in HS as well as college.  One night, after class, we did some grappling.  At the time, I didn't have much BJJ training under my belt, so it wasn't a good outcome for me.  Would it be any better today?  Dont know, but I think I could say that I'd feel a bit more comfortable. 



> What I was getting at with the gun comment and the bomber comment was that those are two scenarios where MA training, no matter how good, is of little to no use, thus 'worst case' in my book.


 
I'd say this is a bit moot and a bit of a strawman, due to the fact that as I've said before, no amount of training, turns us into untouchables.  It will give us the advantage, but nothing says that after 20yrs, I still wont get my *** kicked. 




> Most definitely possible that it is there. It wasn't the liklihood of grappling that I was addressing (I agree with you 100% on that) but the liklihood of being mugged by a fighter of Randy's level of training. Any professional fighter's name could be used. I picked Randy because his name is recognized.
> 
> Daniel


 
Again, I think the use of a name, was misunderstood.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2010)

How common is it to do wrestling in your schools? Is it a common sport? I'm curious after reading the previous post and was wondering if meeting someone who'd done wrestling at school was a common thing. Is it regarded as a martial art or a sport such as running, swimming etc?


----------



## MJS (Aug 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> How common is it to do wrestling in your schools? Is it a common sport? I'm curious after reading the previous post and was wondering if meeting someone who'd done wrestling at school was a common thing. Is it regarded as a martial art or a sport such as running, swimming etc?


 


http://www.wesleyan.edu/athletics/wrestling/

http://www.middletownsports.org/mhswrestling/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avon_High_School_(Connecticut)

http://www.ctsportswriters.org/10%20CT%20Wrest%20Records.pdf

http://www.wyomingseminary.org/page.cfm?p=613

http://www.iptv.org/wrestling/

The first 4 are all in CT, the last 2 out of state. When I was in high school, we did not have a Wrestling team, however, we did have other sports, ie: basketball, baseball.

*edit* Just to further explain, I would say the wrestling falls into the sports group, along with football, basktball, baseball, etc.


----------



## Hudson69 (Aug 8, 2010)

I think your comment on how you train sums it up.  There are so many gripes about Budo Taijutsu not allowing sparring/randori and I feel they are justified.  On the other hand there are numerous gripes about TKD being all sport and not usable on the street.

I think that sparring is a very useful tool but do it with a goal in mind.  If you are sport oriented admit it.  If you are street defense oriented then traing that way.  You can probably do both but I need to train one way so that sport "thought" doesn't interfere with self defense "thought."

My .02 only


----------



## ATC (Aug 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> How common is it to do wrestling in your schools? Is it a common sport? I'm curious after reading the previous post and was wondering if meeting someone who'd done wrestling at school was a common thing. Is it regarded as a martial art or a sport such as running, swimming etc?


Where I come from it is very common. It is not mandatory to join the team but just about every school had a team. Just like football, basketball, and baseball there are only so many slots available on the team so you have to try out and get picked. Usually only 3 slots per weight class and that is it. So if you look at the ratio of athletes to students it would be very small. If you had a school of 2000 students maybe 10-15 would be on the team. Not a lot if you look at it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> How common is it to do wrestling in your schools? Is it a common sport? I'm curious after reading the previous post and was wondering if meeting someone who'd done wrestling at school was a common thing. Is it regarded as a martial art or a sport such as running, swimming etc?


 
Wrestling is as common as football in some parts of the US. It's a growing school sport where I live, one my son will probably start next year at the local wrestling club when he turns 5.

As for what wrestling is regarded as, on the high school and college level it's viewed as a sport such as running and swimming, but obviously, it's unlike them in the fact that it's also clearly a martial art........one of the oldest and most enduring in existence.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 9, 2010)

My apologies if my response seems a bit off; I have been away for a week and a half and am revisiting.



MJS said:


> Thats kinda open-ended, no?  Some will probably think there are situations we can't prepare for, as I believe was mentioned somewhere in this thread. Interestingly enough, and I know some like him, some hate, him, but anyways, Jim Wagner talks alot about things such as terrorism, in his BB magazine articles. Some people may not think its interesting when he talks about hand grenades, but some may.
> 
> Could you clarify then?


More or less, I was getting at the idea that people think that they can reasonably prepare for any self defense scenario, even a worse case scenario.  But the idea is, in my opinion, false.  

Frequently in the sport vs. art discussions, the idea that sport will not prepare you for what you will face on the deadly street and that 'art' will is, to some extent, a false dichotomy.  Because really, neither will. Not to the extent that people think that one or the other will.

People tend to get very wrapped up in being prepared for or to make use of techniques that are illegal in a sport setting, when in  reality, there is every chance, depending upon where they are what settings they are in, that they may end up in a situation that neither sport nor art could prepare them for.

It is not that people think that MA makes them a superman.  More that people seem to focus almost entirely on either an unarmed attacker or an attacker with a hand held weapon.

Those schools that do teach weapon defenses often teach defenses that have little to no basis in reality, thus rendering the sport/art debate moot.

Daniel


----------

