# Should I pick up another art for SD?



## Decker (Feb 8, 2009)

I'm in a dilemma regarding what I should do since I quit taekwondo (Kukkiwon style) after I graduated from my high-school equivalent.

My primary objective for learning martial arts is self-defense.  

So far, my repertoire consists of very basic moves like the front, side and roundhouse from taekwondo, the basic jab, cross, hook, uppercut and elbow from military basic close combat training. I also have a smattering of other basic techniques from various sources. I practise these moves often, but my kicks are way better than my hand strikes. I know near zero grappling.

My question is, should I learn a dedicated SD art like krav maga, kapap or even (actually, preferably) wing chun, or would it suffice for me to polish what I have?

When I go to university, clubs available there that I'm interested in are aikido, ITF-style TKD and shito-ryu karate. Krav maga, kapap or wing chun would have to be learnt externally (and more expensively).

(I intend to eventually learn chen style taichi, and hopefully continue it indefinitely, for other reasons. I also learn kenjutsu.)

Thank you all for the advice.


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 8, 2009)

Personally, I would give them all a go. It's not the style, but the instructor you should really be seeking. Sometimes, the art advertised has it's strict syllabus for gradings etc, but it also has a self defence element. You can't go wrong with any system that teaches body mechanics. IMO, it's a crucial part of MA, being able to fully understand and appreciate how the body works overall so you can then begin to work the various techniques of manipulation that follow. 

Good luck with your path.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 8, 2009)

i definately wouldn't rely on polishing what i already have.  training without instructor supervision will most likely ingrain bad habits.  plus you have to train with live bodies to get a feel for how to apply the techniques.

jf


----------



## harold (Feb 8, 2009)

Decker said:


> I'm in a dilemma regarding what I should do since I quit taekwondo (Kukkiwon style) after I graduated from my high-school equivalent.
> 
> My primary objective for learning martial arts is self-defense.
> 
> ...


 
Try as many as you fell like. Take what is usefule to you and add the techniques to your arsenal. Above all, train with a competent instructor.


----------



## harold (Feb 8, 2009)

Sorry.I forgot to hit spell check!


----------



## searcher (Feb 8, 2009)

Since you don't have an instructor right now, you should go out and find one.   Style is somethat irrelevant, but I would look at the styles at your university andthen see what is near by.  Talk to the people around campus, you never  know who you are attending classes with.


----------



## Wishbone (Feb 8, 2009)

I disagree with what most posters have said in this thread, that style is irrelevant and the instructor is important.  A competent instructor is not just a luxury, but a requirement if you're going to pay money for training.  However, you have listed a specific objective in your search, and that is for self-defense.  That makes style just as relevant.  If you're taking sport TKD designed for tournament sparring, does anyone here honestly think that is going to be just as effective as taking reality based self defense instruction?  If you can't find anything that really fits the bill for a good self-defense program you will have to alter your goals, but style is very important for your stated objective.


----------



## Drac (Feb 8, 2009)

harold said:


> Try as many as you fell like. Take what is usefule to you and add the techniques to your arsenal. Above all, train with a competent instructor.


 
Didnt Bruce Lee say "Absorb what is usefull, disgard what is not"


----------



## Guardian (Feb 8, 2009)

Wishbone said:


> I disagree with what most posters have said in this thread, that style is irrelevant and the instructor is important. A competent instructor is not just a luxury, but a requirement if you're going to pay money for training. However, you have listed a specific objective in your search, and that is for self-defense. That makes style just as relevant. If you're taking sport TKD designed for tournament sparring, does anyone here honestly think that is going to be just as effective as taking reality based self defense instruction? If you can't find anything that really fits the bill for a good self-defense program you will have to alter your goals, but style is very important for your stated objective.


 
I must agree with Wishbone here, a system is just as relevant as the instructor depending on what you wish to learn.  I have done both, I have taken the Arts for 20+ years and Personal Protection, when I taught my womens self-defense classes, I used my short and sweet version for the MAs was not what they were looking for or needed.  So I agree the system is just as important as the instructor.


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 8, 2009)

Drac said:


> Didnt Bruce Lee say "Absorb what is usefull, disgard what is not"


 
Yes he did Drac and it still holds true in today world, we all must take and get as  much knowledge when it come to SD so we can be properly train when and if the time ever comes.


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 8, 2009)

Wishbone said:


> I disagree with what most posters have said in this thread, that style is irrelevant and the instructor is important. A competent instructor is not just a luxury, but a requirement if you're going to pay money for training. However, you have listed a specific objective in your search, and that is for self-defense. That makes style just as relevant. If you're taking sport TKD designed for tournament sparring, does anyone here honestly think that is going to be just as effective as taking reality based self defense instruction? If you can't find anything that really fits the bill for a good self-defense program you will have to alter your goals, but style is very important for your stated objective.


 

I would have to respectfully disagree. I believe that the instructor is the key to good learning, not the art. I would suggest that the OP take on the Krav Maga class, due to it's being designed specifically for SD. However, if the instructor is a self centred ****, or is not fully adept at explaining/guiding his classes/techniques, then that system is pretty much worthless. If, on the other hand, the OP decided to go for the Wing Chun, and the instructor had years of Nightclub security experience as well as street fight experience etc, and he/she used that knowledge in his/her class, and to cap it all off, could actually 'teach' effectively, then that would be a more suited instructor IMO.

Not wanting to start a war here, just offering my opinion


Regards
John


----------



## Guardian (Feb 8, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> I would have to respectfully disagree. I believe that the instructor is the key to good learning, not the art. I would suggest that the OP take on the Krav Maga class, due to it's being designed specifically for SD. However, if the instructor is a self centred ****, or is not fully adept at explaining/guiding his classes/techniques, then that system is pretty much worthless. If, on the other hand, the OP decided to go for the Wing Chun, and the instructor had years of Nightclub security experience as well as street fight experience etc, and he/she used that knowledge in his/her class, and to cap it all off, could actually 'teach' effectively, then that would be a more suited instructor IMO.
> 
> Not wanting to start a war here, just offering my opinion
> 
> ...


 
LOL LOL, no war my friend, were all basically saying the same thing, the point you bring up is valid and I grant you that, though, I would say it's the exception rather then the rule in that case most of the time.  I do see your point though.  I just tend to see it a little differently


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 8, 2009)

Guardian said:


> LOL LOL, no war my friend, were all basically saying the same thing, the point you bring up is valid and I grant you that, though, I would say it's the exception rather then the rule in that case most of the time. I do see your point though. I just tend to see it a little differently


 
Lol, that's cool. I always hope the context of my comments comes through as being my opinion and I am not intending of belittling/degrading etc etc anyone else's opinion

It's nice to be a part of these boards, and I'm a little disappointed I hadn't come across them sooner.

regards

John


----------



## exile (Feb 8, 2009)

I know I sound like a broken record on this point, so let me just link to another post in another thread that's relevant to Decker's question.

My point is that it's not style in particular that's crucial, because if you look at the range of TMA styles out there, many of them incorporate the same elements&#8212;and those elements are very similar to ones incorporated in purely SD-oriented styles such as Krav Maga or Combat Hapkido. The question is, how does your instructor structure the curriculum in terms of _training_ for SD (as vs. fitness, or sport, or 'moving meditation', or whatever)? What I was getting at is that SD training is a very specific kind of thing, well described by reality-based TMA practitioners such as Peyton Quinn, Geoff Thompson and Iain Abernethy. It requires a very different mindset than you usually encounter, one in which 'uke' is not another MAist doing the same thing that 'tori' is, but rather a violent thug, maybe untrained formally but a range of tried-and-true assault tactics that we now know something about, thanks to the careful study of the statistics of street violence initiated by Patrick McCarthy and extended by Bill Burgar, JW Titchen and others (the first subsection of Titchen's book, _Heian Flow System_, on US Dept of Justice and FBI data on violent street attacks, and comparable data from the British Home Offices' _UK Crime Survey_ and other reports, is well worth the price of the book just in itself). Training for SD is, in other words, requires a particular approach to instruction which is not going to be very common regardless of what style you select. But that doesn't mean that there aren't instructors in all of the TMA styles who focus on that kind of training. What it does mean is that you have to be very, very hardheaded when you visit a MA school and interview the owner/operator about just what the training protocol's goals are, and what that protocol consists of. If the instructor doesn't include some very 'hard-edged', scenario-based CQ combat prep&#8212;where _anything_ goes on the initiating assault&#8212;then you're probably going to find that the SD side is too scripted to be reliable in an all-out-violence street attack.

You also have to take into account the fact that a lot of people do not _want_ that kind of training. It's not only not very pleasant; it's actually quite scary, even if the instructor takes an incremental approach, building up the realism of the street attack _gradually_. Since it's definitely a minority preference, it's going to be hard for a TMA school to sell it on a very large scale&#8212;especially since people who want that sort of thing may give the TMAs a skip completely, on the mistaken assumption that only KM and specifically 'purpose built' eclectic systems dedicated to CQ SD can teach effective methods of empty-hand self-defense. Like it or not, the economics of the MAs are very different from what they were when these arts were taught _primarily_ to protect the practitioner in the even of a violent physical attack...


----------



## Wishbone (Feb 8, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> I would have to respectfully disagree. I believe that the instructor is the key to good learning, not the art. I would suggest that the OP take on the Krav Maga class, due to it's being designed specifically for SD. However, if the instructor is a self centred ****, or is not fully adept at explaining/guiding his classes/techniques, then that system is pretty much worthless. If, on the other hand, the OP decided to go for the Wing Chun, and the instructor had years of Nightclub security experience as well as street fight experience etc, and he/she used that knowledge in his/her class, and to cap it all off, could actually 'teach' effectively, then that would be a more suited instructor IMO.
> 
> Not wanting to start a war here, just offering my opinion
> 
> ...



In your own argument to disagree with me, you counter yourself and still agree with what I said.  You qualified the competent instructor teaching Wing Chun with years of security and street fight experience that is brought to the classroom.  So essentially, you agree that the system is important too.  I didn't say one was more important than the other, I said both were important.  Nothing in my original post implies that the instructor is NOT a key to good learning.  In fact I stated it was a requirement.  However, beyond that _requirement_, I also stated that system was just as important considering the original objective.

You also state that you would recommend Krav Maga as is it more suitable for self defense along with a good instructor, which is essentially in agreement with my post.

You don't disagree with me, you agree.


----------



## Guardian (Feb 8, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> Lol, that's cool. I always hope the context of my comments comes through as being my opinion and I am not intending of belittling/degrading etc etc anyone else's opinion
> 
> It's nice to be a part of these boards, and I'm a little disappointed I hadn't come across them sooner.
> 
> ...


 
Most here understand that John, that's why I'm glad I found this forum also. I'm the same, it's just my view also, not  right or wrong, just a view. Emotions do tend to run high sometimes though, so don't take it wrong if someone gets a little high strung, it's those emotions, nothing personal about it.  

Nice talking with you.


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 8, 2009)

Wishbone...
It was this line specifically that I disagreed with......



Wishbone said:


> I disagree with what most posters have said in this thread, that style is irrelevant and the instructor is important.


 
I stated that it is the instructor who is paramount over the style. The mention of the Krav Maga and the Wing Chun were examples which you could alter with any system. 

Perhaps I should  have said 'I _could _suggest that the OP take on the Krav Maga class, due to it's being designed specifically for SD.

The system itself isn't anywhere near as important as the instructor IMO. There is no half-way point when it comes to self defence. There are many many clubs that teach a 'form' of self defence, which IMO is dangerous beyond comprehention as it leaves the student with a false sense of security. If the instructor is good at conveying the practicalities and the techniques of SD, then it really doesn't matter if he is a Karate/Tae-Kwon-Do, Wing Chun, Aikido, (insert any art) teacher, it's the syllabus and structure of the teachings as well as the content and application that is important.



Bottom line, the instructor is the key, not the style. That is essentially what my comments and opinions are based on. 

Kind regards

John


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 8, 2009)

Guardian said:


> Most here understand that John, that's why I'm glad I found this forum also. I'm the same, it's just my view also, not right or wrong, just a view. Emotions do tend to run high sometimes though, so don't take it wrong if someone gets a little high strung, it's those emotions, nothing personal about it.
> 
> Nice talking with you.


 

Thank you for the encouraging comments. I fully understand the psychology of forums and the effects they can have on some. A bit like road rage in a car. The confinement can lead to aggitation etc etc

Nice to speak with you also

Kind regards

John


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 8, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> I would have to respectfully disagree. I believe that the instructor is the key to good learning, not the art. I would suggest that the OP take on the Krav Maga class, due to it's being designed specifically for SD. However, if the instructor is a self centred ****, or is not fully adept at explaining/guiding his classes/techniques, then that system is pretty much worthless. If, on the other hand, the OP decided to go for the Wing Chun, and the instructor had years of Nightclub security experience as well as street fight experience etc, and he/she used that knowledge in his/her class, and to cap it all off, could actually 'teach' effectively, then that would be a more suited instructor IMO.
> 
> Not wanting to start a war here, just offering my opinion
> 
> ...


 

You're right, the instructor is the key to good learning.

But the system is what is being learned, and if it fails to meet his stated goals, if it offers something other than what the student is looking for, or if it is simply bad, then the best instructor in the world is irrelevant.

I don't think it's a matter of one being more important than the other, I think they are both important. What you need is a good instructor, teaching a good system which addresses specifically the goals of the student.

If he wants real self defense, I would recommend krav maga, a CQC course, or maybe a good kenpo school, although those can be hit or miss.

Or a gun and some valuable safety and implemenation training.


-Rob


----------



## Wishbone (Feb 8, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> Wishbone...
> It was this line specifically that I disagreed with......
> 
> 
> ...


 

Your comments in this post as well as your other still hold the position that system is important.  In the beginning of this statement "If the instructor is good at conveying the practicalities and the techniques of SD, then it really doesn't matter if he is a Karate/Tae-Kwon-Do, Wing Chun, Aikido, (insert any art) teacher, it's the syllabus and structure of the teachings as well as the content and application that is important" you acknowledge that the system is important as well by saying if they are conveying the practicalities and techniques of SD.  Those skills are not available among "(insert any art)".  You are making the presumption that any art has self defense merit with a good instructor.  They do not.  In my first post I gave sport TKD as an example.  I specifically chose this example because sport TKD would obviously not have a self defense mindset, which is an important distinction when choosing an art for the objective of self-defense over socialization, fitness, competition or many of the others benefits martial arts offer in general. There are great instructor out there who offer students encouragement and are extremely knowledgeable in their area of expertise, but that does not mean that area automatically applies to self-defense.  

Imagine if a person came on this board asking how to become a seafood chef and you told them to find any great chef for instruction regardless of his focus.  After all it is the chef's abilities, and not his area of expertise, that is important.

Except that a talented pastry chef can't necessarily teach you how to make seafood.  It isn't that he isn't a master, it's that he isn't a master at the discipline the student wants to learn.  Some of his knowledge may even translate, but he still can't teach you how to make sea urchin ceviche, because he doesn't know himself.

Once again, for the original poster's stated goals.  The instructor and the system are both equally important.  Without a good instructor the student will not be able to learn and perform the system well.  Without a good system the student will only be really proficient at dancing.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 8, 2009)

Decker said:


> My question is, should I learn a dedicated SD art like krav maga, kapap or even (actually, preferably) wing chun, or would it suffice for me to polish what I have?


 
Decker,

I've been in TKD for well past 25 years now. 5th dan. And while I still train on Saturdays in TKD, I also play with the Krav Maga boys on other nights.

Let me tell you about the Krav Maga class. I really do like their classes.

Their technique is sort of crude but very physical. They don't put alot of study into a technique to bring out it's best power. The elbows are short stroked, the punches tend to not have any body weight shift behind them, and their kicking is very limited. But do they mix it up on the mat!

Did I say I really like their class?

I have found the traditional martial arts, being part art, tend to be stylized and rigid. But their emphasas on correct technique has it's value! And in our TKD class we break down techniques to basic parts, study and refine the movements, put them back together and end up with very powerful techniues. Same for combinations.

Krav Maga, on the other hand, emphasizes physical strength and psychological aggression. Alot of PT. The techniques are not fancy but they use a far more realistic format to train with (fancy words for attacks on you will be agressive and forceful.) Not at all like TKD self-defense and one-step-sparring!

But both can compliment each other well. And that's why I do both.

Deaf


----------



## Decker (Feb 13, 2009)

Thanks very much everyone for the helpful advice.

The more straightforward options like Krav Maga aren't available to me due to my financial situation. Probably I might take up Wing Chun when the opportunity arises...

My country (Singapore) is also very strict on guns, plus it's a pretty safe place, so that option there isn't required.

Either way, I personally believe that training for self defense is as much in the mindset as well as in physical technique.

Once again, thank y'all very much.


----------

