# Effectiveness VS. Safety



## Danjo (Jun 2, 2006)

Here's a question: How would you balance safety/defense with effectiveness/offense in training and fighting? We can see that in nearly every situation that the people trained to do dangerous jobs are given training that is designed to maximize their safety, but also allow them to be effective. Whether it's firemen, policemen, soldiers, Bouncers/doormen, concert security, rescue workers etc., one still has to get out there and do the job which will naturally entail a certain amount of risk to one's life and limbs.

How about the martial arts? How much should one be trained to defend oneself and how much should one be trained to have that fighting spirit? Clearly the safest thing a fireman could do is to not go into a burning building, but then no one would ever get rescued either. What if a fighting technique was effective for offense and finishing a fight quickly, but left one more open to getting hit oneself? There's an old saying that tells us that "The best defense is a good offense." and at times this is true. 

So what think you all? What balance should be struck between these two martial art goals?


----------



## IWishToLearn (Jun 2, 2006)

Good question. I think every technique has built in to them several levels of both defense and offense. We either redirect, block, or destroy an incoming weapon (natural or augmented), and then proceed to counterattack with a level of aggressiveness measured with our best judgement at the time to deal with the situation.

Thoughts?


----------



## ChrisWTK (Jun 2, 2006)

I tried to pose this arguement with my instructor. Basically I figured, you know how some of the extreme training involves beating/conditioning yourself so that you can take a hit better. With this thought in mind, why not design moves that might risk getting hit yourself but since you can take the hit you will be able to outlast your opponent. 

My instructor basically explained that getting hit isn't good. It could be some really big guy that you're up against, and even if you can take the hit you'll get thrown off balance, which isn't what you want. So not getting hit seems to be more important.

My instructors have been going over using attacks as blocks so it basically serves both purposes. Such as slightly doging a punch and punching to parry their attack and hit them. I'm not too proficient at doing it but if anything I've only gotten slightly clipped by their attack, yet my punch will hit straight on in the head.


----------



## Danjo (Jun 2, 2006)

It seems to me that in order to make an omlette, some eggs need to be broken. I completely agree that getting hit isn't good, but you might have to take the chance of getting hit until you develop the ability NOT to get hit. Prof. Chow was famous for not having to block punches due to his ability to slip and dodge them while inflicting damage to his opponents. But, I somehow doubt that he started off being able to do that. I'll bet he got tagged a few times while developing this ability of being agressive and avoiding damage to himself. It seems that it's like the difference of learning to swim in the shallow end of the pool versus being thrown into the deep end after being taught the basic moves.; Ultimately Prf. Chow got to where he could take out multiple attackers. I doubt he would have been able to do that if he had been taught a very defensive type of fighting instead.


----------



## Phadrus00 (Jun 2, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> It seems to me that in order to make an omlette, some eggs need to be broken. I completely agree that getting hit isn't good, but you might have to take the chance of getting hit until you develop the ability NOT to get hit. Prof. Chow was famous for not having to block punches due to his ability to slip and dodge them while inflicting damage to his opponents. But, I somehow doubt that he started off being able to do that. I'll bet he got tagged a few times while developing this ability of being agressive and avoiding damage to himself. It seems that it's like the difference of learning to swim in the shallow end of the pool versus being thrown into the deep end after being taught the basic moves.; Ultimately Prf. Chow got to where he could take out multiple attackers. I doubt he would have been able to do that if he had been taught a very defensive type of fighting instead.


 
Danjo,

An excellent question.  I think that the balance between safely and training intensity is related to what your goals are.  If you are training for a competition you must push that envelope further than someone who is training for personal interest.  Ultimately though you are training for the dire possibility that you will have to someday use the knowledge and as such you should be prepared to use that knowledge and understand what can happen.

Martial Arts training is a Contact sport and whether you are sparring with gear on or just practising kata things will happen.  As an FMA practicioner and instructor I work with weapons heavily and have had cuts from using live blades and had my knuckles rapped more times than I can count.  It comes with the territory.  On the other hand I have a day job that I need my hands for and do not compromise my safelty so much that I couldn't work the day after a class.

When a student gets dinged in our class we first make sure it is not a serious injury (head trauma, dislocated joint, broken/cut skin, etc.) and if it is not then shrug it iff and tell them to keep training.  Getting hurt (in a minor way) is part of the learning process.  It is a powerful teacher.  I had a student that used to be a marine and he really only took something seriously if it hurt. *grin*  During one drill I was workinhg with him to try and convey a particualr pattern of attacks and defences with the stick.  He was doing one particular movement wrong and as I would present my stick in the proper place for him to execute his movement he would ding my knuckles.  I explained that for this drill it was not an appropriate response because we were going for a better target.  Time after time he performed his move wrong and hit my knuckles.  As we tried again for the umpteenth time I could once again feel his stick moving to hit my knuckles.  I flipped my own stick cracking HIS knuckles showing the weakness he had been exposing himself to the whole time.  He howled in pain, cursed profusely, and then proceeded to execute the technique perfectly from then on.  Sometimes Pain proves a point.

Rob


----------



## Brother John (Jun 2, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Here's a question: How would you balance safety/defense with effectiveness/offense in training and fighting? We can see that in nearly every situation that the people trained to do dangerous jobs are given training that is designed to maximize their safety, but also allow them to be effective. Whether it's firemen, policemen, soldiers, Bouncers/doormen, concert security, rescue workers etc., one still has to get out there and do the job which will naturally entail a certain amount of risk to one's life and limbs.
> 
> How about the martial arts? How much should one be trained to defend oneself and how much should one be trained to have that fighting spirit? Clearly the safest thing a fireman could do is to not go into a burning building, but then no one would ever get rescued either. What if a fighting technique was effective for offense and finishing a fight quickly, but left one more open to getting hit oneself? There's an old saying that tells us that "The best defense is a good offense." and at times this is true.
> 
> So what think you all? What balance should be struck between these two martial art goals?


I'd think that one of the best forms of training would be for one person to suit up in one of those "RedMan" uniforms (no....not like a can of chew) where they are padded from head to toe at every angle....and then full on attack. It'd show weaknesses and it's NOT fully "SAFE"...but I think it's more realistic and "safer" than just going at it w/out such gear.
Hope to get some someday.

Your Brother
John


----------



## MJS (May 30, 2007)

A great topic!! Anymore thoughts on this?

Mike


----------



## Jdokan (May 30, 2007)

I think intentionally getting hit is not a great way to train, but getting a good smack that doesn't incapacitate you can be good to let you know what you can take.  It establishes where your boundaries are.  "How much hit can I take before I can't go on?"  I'm sure we've all been there where we took a hit that left us thinking: Wow had that been a little more...it would have stunned me....(to the point I'd be defenseless)....Kinda like how the Ice Man just felt.....As tough as you can be one shot can change everything.....
Like the comment about Prof. Chow....slipping the punch and crushing the opponent....takes awhile.....
I think with that in mind you have to take a few punches by accident...but by intent...I wouldn't practice getting hit...


----------



## Danjo (May 30, 2007)

Jdokan said:


> I think intentionally getting hit is not a great way to train, but getting a good smack that doesn't incapacitate you can be good to let you know what you can take. It establishes where your boundaries are. "How much hit can I take before I can't go on?" I'm sure we've all been there where we took a hit that left us thinking: Wow had that been a little more...it would have stunned me....(to the point I'd be defenseless)....Kinda like how the Ice Man just felt.....As tough as you can be one shot can change everything.....
> Like the comment about Prof. Chow....slipping the punch and crushing the opponent....takes awhile.....
> I think with that in mind you have to take a few punches by accident...but by intent...I wouldn't practice getting hit...


 
I think the point is more two things: 1) better to get hit in the school so that getting hit in a real fight doesn't shock you too badly due to never having encountered it. and 2) I agree that one should train to get hit per se, but you have to admit that if you aren't getting hit once in a while, you're not training very hard.


----------



## John Bishop (May 30, 2007)

I think there is a tremendous differance in the young men and boys entering dojo's now, then there was in the 50's - 70's.  
When I was growing up in the 50's -60's, after school fights were a weekly occurance.  Not really vicious.  But good old boxing matches to let off some steam and vent a little anger.  Maybe that's why anger didn't build up to the point of school shootings back then.  And most of the times the combatants were friends again the next day.
Boxing was actually a high school sport in the California of the 50's-60's. And just about every boy back then played tackle football every chance they got.  Even after the parents would complain to the school officials about all the torn clothes, we'd find a isolated part of the school ground to play tackle, and change to "touch" when some teacher would come by. 
Boys grew up knowing what it was like to hit and get hit.  I've never been hit in the martial arts, or in my 32 years as a cop, as hard as I was hit when I was a high school fullback.  So contact in the martial arts was never a issue with me and most of the guys I trained with. 
Now days many high schools struggle to recruit enough boys to field a good football team.  And boxing teams are a thing of the past.  And now days boys earn "academic" letters. 
* I can't believe the number of 20-30 year old male students I get who tell me that they have never been in a fight in their lives! *
And then there are the 10 year old students who can't do 10 good push ups because the heaviest thing they ever pick up is a gameboy. 
So yes, as a Kajukenbo instructor it's my obligation to prepare these students for the unlikely occassion when they may have to actually fight for real. 
They need to experience realistic fighting situations in a controlled setting. They don't have to break bones, rupture kidneys, or dislocate joints.  But they have to learn how to handle contact without it hindering their ability to effectively respond back. 
Martial arts is like insurance, the more you pay (in sweat and pain), the more insurance you get. Even though you hope you never have to use it.


----------



## KenpoDave (May 30, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Here's a question: How would you balance safety/defense with effectiveness/offense in training and fighting? We can see that in nearly every situation that the people trained to do dangerous jobs are given training that is designed to maximize their safety, but also allow them to be effective. Whether it's firemen, policemen, soldiers, Bouncers/doormen, concert security, rescue workers etc., one still has to get out there and do the job which will naturally entail a certain amount of risk to one's life and limbs.
> 
> How about the martial arts? How much should one be trained to defend oneself and how much should one be trained to have that fighting spirit? Clearly the safest thing a fireman could do is to not go into a burning building, but then no one would ever get rescued either. What if a fighting technique was effective for offense and finishing a fight quickly, but left one more open to getting hit oneself? There's an old saying that tells us that "The best defense is a good offense." and at times this is true.
> 
> So what think you all? What balance should be struck between these two martial art goals?


 
Are you speaking of safety within the school, like training injuries?  Or are you speaking of safety on the street/self defense?

I think that balancing safety vs. risk can be a largely mental/theoretical game.  For instance, using the fireman analogy...I can see the young recruits asked the question, "The building is on fire, do you go in?"

The answer from the young and immature, yet fearless and gung-ho is, "Absolutely!"

The seasoned, more mature firefighter asks, "Is there anyone inside the building?"

I have had coaches and been the coach, who, after baseball practice, sits the team down and runs scenarios..."Two outs, runners of first and third, grounder to short...Where do you throw the ball?"  Etc.

You train for the all out life endangering physical confrontation, and temper it with the knowledge that it occurs when all else has failed.

"The best defense is a good offense." - True
"Best defense, no be there." - Truer

It is a tough balance to strike.  Training your absolute tail end off for the encounter that will most likely never come.  All the while working your absolute tail end off to avoid it if it ever does.  Balance, of course, is found in the middle, where you prove to yourself that your training does actually work when needed.  Then, and only then, can you get busy choosing how to use it.  Otherwise, the situations choose you.


----------



## Callandor (May 30, 2007)

Nice topic! Gotta tune in.


----------



## Danjo (May 31, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> Are you speaking of safety within the school, like training injuries? Or are you speaking of safety on the street/self defense?
> 
> I think that balancing safety vs. risk can be a largely mental/theoretical game. For instance, using the fireman analogy...I can see the young recruits asked the question, "The building is on fire, do you go in?"
> 
> ...


 
I am more referring to in the school since one cannot control what goes on in a real fight as much.

Your post makes a lot of sense and I agree with the concept of balance.

What John Bishop is saying is very very true also. Now a days, it's more and more difficult to get it into people's heads that you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. You can't train to fight if you're afraid of getting hurt. I'm not saying that training should involve regular injuries, or that precautions should not be taken, but the normal bumps and bruises that accompany contact activities should be badges of honor, not the cause of emotional trauma.


----------



## morph4me (May 31, 2007)

What we do is allow hard contact with an open hand to the upper body, upper arms and chest, at 1/2 speed for new students. This way they can feel the contact without too much concern for getting hurt, as they advance and feel more comfortable we get faster and harder and when they become advanced students, sankyu and above,  pretty much anything goes, by then they understand the basics and the consequences.


----------



## MJS (May 31, 2007)

Danjo said:


> I think the point is more two things: 1) better to get hit in the school so that getting hit in a real fight doesn't shock you too badly due to never having encountered it. and 2) I agree that one should train to get hit per se, but you have to admit that if you aren't getting hit once in a while, you're not training very hard.


 
2 great points that I agree with!  Better to make the mistakes in the dojo where we can work on correcting them, than make them in a situation where it may be too late.


----------



## Danjo (May 31, 2007)

Danjo said:


> I think the point is more two things: 1) better to get hit in the school so that getting hit in a real fight doesn't shock you too badly due to never having encountered it. and 2) I agree that one should train to get hit per se, but you have to admit that if you aren't getting hit once in a while, you're not training very hard.


 
Under point 2 it should have read "shouldn't"


----------



## Jdokan (May 31, 2007)

Danjo said:


> I think the point is more two things: 1) better to get hit in the school so that getting hit in a real fight doesn't shock you too badly due to never having encountered it. and 2) I agree that one should train to get hit per se, but you have to admit that if you aren't getting hit once in a while, you're not training very hard.


Great Point!  Fully agree, Better to bleed in the dojo than weep in the streets....
I guess you have to define safety vs effectiveness...Do I really want to practice finger strikes to the eyes at full speed?  Doing non-lethal strikes that inflict incredible amounts of pain over and over again to sharpen the technique can do prolonged injury to your partner...A simple strike...inverted thrust punch to the opposite shoulder striking the tendons of the front deltoid is very painful.  A very effective strike that doesn't border the safety agenda but it definitely becomes painful after 1 or 2 taps...
I guess it boils down to good judgement..how much how hard how often...
Again,
   I fully agree... If your not getting hit...you're not training hard enough


----------



## kidswarrior (May 31, 2007)

John Bishop said:


> I think there is a tremendous differance in the young men and boys entering dojo's now, then there was in the 50's - 70's.
> When I was growing up in the 50's -60's, after school fights were a weekly occurance. Not really vicious. But good old boxing matches to let off some steam and vent a little anger. Maybe that's why anger didn't build up to the point of school shootings back then. And most of the times the combatants were friends again the next day.
> Boxing was actually a high school sport in the California of the 50's-60's. And just about every boy back then played tackle football every chance they got. Even after the parents would complain to the school officials about all the torn clothes, we'd find a isolated part of the school ground to play tackle, and change to "touch" when some teacher would come by.
> Boys grew up knowing what it was like to hit and get hit. I've never been hit in the martial arts, or in my 32 years as a cop, as hard as I was hit when I was a high school fullback. So contact in the martial arts was never a issue with me and most of the guys I trained with.


 
Yes, thank you Prof. Bishop. I grew up during that time, too. On top of that, add four years with Uncle Sam during the _last_ unpopular war. There was some serious body banging going on then, too. That's why when I hear/read from youngsters (under 40) now that I need to get hit in MA so I know what It feels like, I chuckle to myself. Have even heard this from a couple of 'masters'--who I suspected have also never been in a fight in their lives. The training at their dojo stressed safety to the point that a hard block would get you a tongue lashing. :uhyeah:




> *I can't believe the number of 20-30 year old male students I get who tell me that they have never been in a fight in their lives! *
> And then there are the 10 year old students who can't do 10 good push ups because the heaviest thing they ever pick up is a gameboy.
> So yes, as a Kajukenbo instructor it's my obligation to prepare these students for the unlikely occassion when they may have to actually fight for real.
> They need to experience realistic fighting situations in a controlled setting.


Yeah, I've seen this too, albeit from a distance. some of the kids I happen to work with in the MA have been in one _too many_ fights--and locked up for it (now adjudicated). So, my goals have to be a little different. Does give our classes a sense of realism, tho. On the other hand, I also have classes of a different SES that're exactly as you're describing. 



> Martial arts is like insurance, the more you pay (in sweat and pain), the more insurance you get. Even though you hope you never have to use it.


 Good point. But also as you said, the initial 'premium' payment for some of us old timers was several dozen street fights before we ever started MA. :wink2: And as you say, that makes relating to some in this generation very difficult.


----------



## MrE2Me2 (May 31, 2007)

Hello Danjo,

  You posed this, _Here's a question: How would you balance safety/defense with effectiveness/offense in training and fighting?_

  When I was first starting out in my training; Id go hard and expect the same. Hitting and minor injuries were just part of it for me. But I was also a strong, single guy who could afford to take the time necessary to recover from my exertions. 

  As I got older, I found it took it wasnt like it had been when I was younger. Rough training tended to drive away those people who often needed it the most. So I started teaching beginners and practicing (with them) using much less contact. I found that when I did this, it took much, much longer for my students to grasp what I was trying to impart. But they stayed around to get it too.

  So now I tend to start soft, slow and light with a beginner. And as their skill improves and their confidence rises, Ill increase the level of violence in both hitting and being hit. But I also have the luxury of the time necessary to do this. 

  If I was working with policemen (which I have done); it would be rougher by necessity. This is usually because time is a factor that must figure into our training regimen.

  Nowadays I, personally, need that increased level in hitting and being hit or my training feels less than effective. And sometimes in can be amusing to have someone blast me with what they consider to be their most devastating punch, only to have me shrug it off and smile.

  In talking with other teachers, I have found my experiences are not at all unique.

  Regards, MrE2Me2

  Without prejudice
  E&OE


----------



## Danjo (May 31, 2007)

MrE2Me2 said:


> Hello Danjo,
> 
> 
> So now I tend to start soft, slow and light with a beginner. And as their skill improves and their confidence rises, Ill increase the level of violence in both hitting and being hit. But I also have the luxury of the time necessary to do this.
> ...


 
Well, you're saying the same thing I am except you're adding the slow start aspect to it. It's hard to get around the idea that you need contact and a bit of rough and tumble to create an effective fighter.


----------



## MrE2Me2 (May 31, 2007)

Hello Danjo,

  You posted, _Well, you're saying the same thing I am except you're adding the slow start aspect to it._

  Yes, I am, Id even go so far to say that you said it better than I.

  You also posted, _It's hard to get around the idea that you need contact and a bit of rough and tumble to create an effective fighter_.

  UhI apologize for not being clearer.

  Needing a bit of contact is a _personal_ choice.
  Its just something Ive come to desire in my own development.

  But when I teach, its a different thing.
  I have found I can help others to become effective without resorting to rough and tumble until later in their development.

  You posted earlier, _I agree that one should train to get hit per se, but you have to admit that if you aren't getting hit once in a while, you're not training very hard. _

  I agree, although I have seen incidents where too much rough can have a negative effect.
  Its usually easier to start fresh than to have to go back and correct a traumatized viewpoint.
  For me, balance is the key (as it seems to be for you too).

  Regards, MrE2Me2

  Without prejudice
  E&OE


----------



## Danjo (May 31, 2007)

MrE2Me2 said:


> Hello Danjo,
> 
> You posted, _Well, you're saying the same thing I am except you're adding the slow start aspect to it._
> 
> ...


 
Actually, maybe I was unclear. I wasn't disagreeing with you on this.


----------



## MrE2Me2 (Jun 2, 2007)

Hello Danjo,

  You posted, _Actually, maybe I was unclear. I wasn't disagreeing with you on this._

  Wups! My badI misread you response.

  Regards, MrE2Me2


----------



## Hawke (Jun 4, 2007)

I've been to a few studios while learning MA.

Studio #1:
We never sparred.
We never did resistance training.
We never did any conditioning (push ups, sit ups, stretches).
We never hit a bag, focus mitts, or each other.
I never had a bruise.

I asked the head instructor why this was so.  He replied that the art was so devastating that we only play act the actions.  I left after three months.

Studio #2:
We spar.
We resist to see if the techniques work.
We do tons of conditioning where we are breathing hard and sweating buckets then are required to perform the technique against a bag and sometimes each other.
We hit the chest and arms pretty hard, but gentle soft hits for the face.
We ALL have bruises somewhere every now and then.

The instructor said better to cry in the studio so you can laugh in the streets (I paraphrased).

I'm still training in Studio #2.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 4, 2007)

Our training should teach both extremes so that the student is capable of striking the necessary balance demanded by any situation.


----------



## John Bishop (Jun 4, 2007)

Hawke said:


> I've been to a few studios while learning MA.
> 
> Studio #1:
> We never sparred.
> ...



Well, "studio 1" would be fine, if you were learning tai chi.

Sounds like a smart move going with "Studio 2".


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 14, 2007)

I don't think regular, hard head contact is advisable for a non-professional fighter. Too many boxing studies have shown that brain damage is what happens when you get hit in the head a whole bunch over time, even if you aren't suffering full-on concussions. 

If you take the associated risks, you'll be better than someone who hasn't. But for most people, the potential trade off isn't worth it.


----------

