# Shinkyokushin vs Shito ryu for self defence ?



## nirusls (Nov 5, 2015)

Hi I'm a guy 19yrs old. Recently my hobby is lifting weights and gaining some muscles(not for martial arts).

 Also I'm interested in both shinkyokushin (what's available instead of kyokushin) and Shito ryu.

But the trouble I have between them about their way of fighting. 

*Shinkyokushin goes with full contact but no face punches/and defence.

*Shito ryu does punches to the face but they are point fighting and stop fight after every attack.

Which one do you guys recommend for self defence purpose ? (I'm not planning for tournaments)


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 5, 2015)

Neither.

Why would you learn a sports martial art that isn't  designed to deal with civilian violence, in order to help you deal with civilian violence?

Sports aim their punches at general areas (head/body) as anywhere in these areas score points.  However, once you start looking at punching for self defence it's a whole different ball game.  Punch someone in the nose in the ring, you score a point, punch someone in the nose in the street and it may stop them, or if they are have a lot of drugs/alcohol/adrenalin in their system it may just piss them off make enrage them further.  Ok so you are not entering competitions, but you will just be told to aim your punches at these general 'scoring zones" in training, not at specific areas designed to incapacitate.






There are other issue too, sport martial arts will teach you to stand directly in front of the opponent, which for civilian violence is absolute the worst possible place you can be, as if you are stood directly in front of them,  they can hit you just as easily as you can hit them.  Training in an art which is not sports based, or training specifically to deal with civilian violence will teach you to get off line, keeping them in your line of attack, whilst getting off their line of attack.

There are just two points, there are others, but the point is it's apples/oranges.  If you want to train for sport then do a sport MA, if you want to train to deal with civilian violence, then train to deal with civilian violence.

Taking a sport martial art to deal with civilian violence is like taking table tennis lessons because you have decided to enter Wimbledon.  Yeah, looks the same to the laymen,  just hitting a ball over a net with a bat right?  But in reality it's not.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2015)

The kyokkushin clone should do fine. If you can get some face punching in elsewhere that would also be helpful.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> Neither.
> 
> Why would you learn a sports martial art that isn't  designed to deal with civilian violence, in order to help you deal with civilian violence?
> 
> ...



That was just epic by the way.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> That was just epic by the way.


Epic in a good way I hope, not epic as in epic-fail"


----------



## kuniggety (Nov 5, 2015)

Where do you live? We might be able to make some recommendations for you.

Me, I won't fully put down shito-Ryu or kyokushin as you would still learn a helluva lot from them but, as stated, if your focus is self-defense then you should be studying something that follows through with its attacks to the finish.

Any grappling art: BJJ, judo, sambo, catch wrestling, etc.; full contact striking arts such as Western boxing, Muay Thai, good Krav Maga, etc.; or even MMA will do you better.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 5, 2015)

nirusls said:


> Which one do you guys recommend for self defence purpose ? (I'm not planning for tournaments)



As others mentioned, self-defense is a different animal than tournament sparring.

However, in my experience, training is not generally one thing or another thing.  A style that is known for competing is not necessarily teaching only that.  A style known for full-contact is not necessarily teaching only that.  If it is, you need to speak to the instructors of the dojos you're looking at and explain what it is you hope to learn.

As well, there are many things applicable to self-defense that you might not think are applicable now.

Many times I have heard new students say that they don't care to learn X because X isn't applicable to doing Y.  As students, all I can tell them is that they have no clue what they are talking about.  Believe me, sparring helps my self-defense.  Kata helps my self-defense.   Basic exercises help my self-defense.  But no one would know that right out of the gate; how could they?

So here is my suggestion.

Spend some time in the places where you think you are interested in training.  Watch what they do; more than once; training often varies night by night.  Talk to the instructors and the students.  Tell them what you think you're looking for, but don't automatically turn your nose up at what you think won't give you what you seek.

Settle on the one that offers you the best fit.  Train hard.  You may be surprised to find that self-defense capability eventually comes your way.

Not everything is as it appears.  Use your head, ask questions, be prepared to devote serious time and effort into training in whatever style you choose.  Humble yourself, empty your cup, absorb what is offered.  You may find what you seek, and I hope you do.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2015)

nirusls said:


> Hi I'm a guy 19yrs old. Recently my hobby is lifting weights and gaining some muscles(not for martial arts).
> 
> Also I'm interested in both shinkyokushin (what's available instead of kyokushin) and Shito ryu.
> 
> ...



I'm just going to say that "self-defense" skills can be developed in a variety of ways, both contact and non-contact. 

I also should point out that _shinkyokushin_ *is* kyokushin-it's just what international Karate Organization 2 (IKO2) led by Kenji Midori, chose to call themselves in 2003 or so.....they still practice and teach the karate of Mas Oyama.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 5, 2015)

nirusls said:


> But the trouble I have between them about their way of fighting.
> 
> *Shinkyokushin goes with full contact but no face punches/and defence.
> 
> *Shito ryu does punches to the face but they are point fighting and stop fight after every attack.


Just wanted to note that what you are describing are the tournament rules for those arts, not their approach to actual fighting.  Hopefully the schools in question do more than just train for tournaments.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just wanted to note that what you are describing are the tournament rules for those arts, not their approach to actual fighting.  Hopefully the schools in question do more than just train for tournaments.



It's also pretty much how free-sparring is conducted in class-though, depending on the dojo, not all of the time....


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 19, 2015)

nirusls said:


> Hi I'm a guy 19yrs old. Recently my hobby is lifting weights and gaining some muscles(not for martial arts).
> 
> Also I'm interested in both shinkyokushin (what's available instead of kyokushin) and Shito ryu.
> 
> ...



Which would I recommend? The one with the better instructor that you will continue to attend. Honestly, as others have suggested, you're trying to apply the wrong yardstick to the schools in order to make an assessment… it's like you're asking what meal is the most nutritious at two restaurants known for their desserts.

Really, if both schools are equally available to you, attend both, and make your own mind up.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 19, 2015)

All things being equal in terms of instruction, I would recommend Shinkyokushin. Anything derived from Kyokushin should be solid self defense wise.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 20, 2015)

Why? What in Kyokushin makes it "solid self defence"? Specifically against a Shito-Ryu school? Bearing in mind that hard training, and being a "good fighter" is far from the same thing.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Why? What in Kyokushin makes it "solid self defence"? Specifically against a Shito-Ryu school? Bearing in mind that hard training, and being a "good fighter" is far from the same thing.



They more closley aproximate fighting by using resisted training.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> They more closley aproximate fighting by using resisted training.



Yep.

Not to mention that the Kyokushin school is full-contact even in its sport phase.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> They more closley aproximate fighting by using resisted training.





Hanzou said:


> Yep.
> 
> Not to mention that the Kyokushin school is full-contact even in its sport phase.



Sigh…

Guys, please read the actual question. Neither of you have addressed it, nor taken on board what it actually asks. Here it is again. Note the bolded:



Chris Parker said:


> Why? What in Kyokushin makes it "solid self defence"? *Specifically against a Shito-Ryu school?* Bearing in mind that *hard training, and being a "good fighter" is far from the same thing.*



Care to try again?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 20, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Care to try again?



Again, if someone is seeking to learn self-defense from a karate dojo, I would point them towards a karate dojo that practices full contact over a karate dojo that practices point sparring. Per the OP's post, the Kyokushin school practices full contact karate, while the Shito-Ryu school does not. 

IMO, the choice is clear.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Sigh…
> 
> Guys, please read the actual question. Neither of you have addressed it, nor taken on board what it actually asks. Here it is again. Note the bolded:
> 
> ...



The training is better.so not just hard training but more relevant.

So contact training is more relevant than non contact because if someone attacks you they will probably be using contact.

This way you will have a method that you have been able to test in training that you can use in self defence.

As an example. See all of these techniques that are actually stopping an attack?





The will be able to stop an assault as well.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 21, 2015)

Oh for gods sake...



Hanzou said:


> Again, if someone is seeking to learn self-defense from a karate dojo, I would point them towards a karate dojo that practices full contact over a karate dojo that practices point sparring. Per the OP's post, the Kyokushin school practices full contact karate, while the Shito-Ryu school does not.
> 
> IMO, the choice is clear.



Why? What on earth does that have to do with the concept of self defence? That's the question. Fighting does not equal self defence, boys.



drop bear said:


> The training is better.so not just hard training but more relevant.



"Better" how? I'm asking specific to the requirements and contexts of self defence… so back up your statements in that context.



drop bear said:


> So contact training is more relevant than non contact because if someone attacks you they will probably be using contact.



No, you're talking about a minor area, which isn't addressed in the proper context at all. Besides which, even when it does get physical, your tactical approach should be rather different to anything you're focusing on here.



drop bear said:


> This way you will have a method that you have been able to test in training that you can use in self defence.



But test it doing what? How are you testing it for self defence? How is it geared towards it?



drop bear said:


> As an example. See all of these techniques that are actually stopping an attack?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing in that entire clip was even close to being self defence, or addressing the needs of self defence. It was, in many ways, the exact opposite.

So, one last time, as neither of you seem to grasp what you're being asked here, what (in Kyokushin's approach over Shito Ryu's) makes it better suited to or applicable to self defence, bearing in mind that fighting is not self defence? Oh, and also bearing in mind that tournament style fighting, sparring etc is also very removed to the point that you're dealing with something almost completely alien to an actual self defence situation, so pointing to a series of tournament moments is of no use whatsoever.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 21, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh for gods sake...
> 
> Why? What on earth does that have to do with the concept of self defence? That's the question. Fighting does not equal self defence, boys.



If someone is attacking you and you throw weak punches and kicks, or you're unable to withstand blows to the body or head because you were learning point fighting instead of full contact, how are going to able to defend yourself?

The better your fighting prowess, the better you are at defending yourself if someone is attempting to do you harm.



> So, one last time, as neither of you seem to grasp what you're being asked here, what (in Kyokushin's approach over Shito Ryu's) makes it better suited to or applicable to self defense, bearing in mind that fighting is not self defense?



Recently there was an article about a girl who was attacked in Australia by an assailant trying to rape her. She used her karate skills to kick and punch the guy until help arrived. Are you seriously going to argue that her ability to fight off an attacker isn't self defense?


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 21, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Are you seriously going to argue that her ability to fight off an attacker isn't self defense?


Yes, fighting is essentially what happens when your self defence skills have failed.  Are you seriously going to argue that to only possible out come to a self defence situation is to fight?

As Chris rightly says, “Fighting is not self defence boys”.  I know I have been over this with you before, but I’m feeling generous, so I’m going to give it one more go at educating you before I fly the white flag.

The story you are talking about is this:-

Woman used karate to turn the tables on her violent attacker

Yes, she beat him up, but ask yourself WHY did she NEED to beat him up?  Because she lacked the necessary self defence skills to stop the situation BEFORE it got to the point where it became a fight.

Fighting, self defence, and martial arts are three _different_ things.  Yes, there will be some skills which cross over (a good punch is always a good punch) but the point which is repeatedly being explain to you is that fighting is not self defence, and that merely being a good fighter does not automatically translate into being good at self defence.  In fact, some of the skills you will learn to be successful at fighting are the _exact opposite_ of the skills needed for successful self defence.

Yes she got lucky this time, but what about next time?  Maybe not so lucky, no fighter however skilled can win every fight.  And then she ends up beaten, raped, dead or all three.  What about instead she learns self defence?  i.e. she learns The Rituals of Violence and therefore learns how rapists select their victims so she knows what they are looking for, and can therefore avoid those things and thus lessen her chances of being selected as a victim next time?  How about she learns Target Hardening, and knowing that they look for women wearing headphones, (as she was) so they can’t be heard when they come up behind her to attack, so that she learns no longer wears headphones?  Therefore lessen her chances of being selected as a victim next time. How about she learns the Threat Awareness & Evaluation, specifically Coopers Colour Codes, which would teach her to take more notice of who and what is going around her, meaning the next time she is being assessed as a possible victim the criminal notches she is “switched on” and then he takes the decides to let her go by and waiting for an easier victim.

THIS is self defence and THIS has nothing to do with fighting and THIS will not be taught in Kyokushn or Shito-Ryu or bjj or mma or (insert name of martial art here) class.

It is clear from your numerous posts in numerous threads on the subject that (like many male martial artist, particularly young male martial artist), you are only able to see self defence in terms of bar fights or street brawls.  You cannot see any other outcome to a self defence situation other than it descending into a street fight.  But 99% of self defence has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with “fighting” or physical techniques what so ever.  Just google Miquel Falcao & Kaue Mena for a prime example.  Why did their situation end up in a street brawl?  Because fighting did not teach them the 99% of self defence skills required to prevent the situation escalating to the point where the only outcome was a fight.

I am unsure how many times and how many people and how many different ways in how many different threads, we need to go over this before you begin to understand.  Surely at some point you must step back and think, with so many people telling me the same thing over and over that maybe, just maybe there might be something I’m are not grasping and I might, just might therefore be wrong?

As a one final throw of the dice I present to you this free audio book, a full and clear explanation of why martial arts, self defence, and fighting are not the same.

The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy

If, after listening to this, you still do not “get it”, then please stop talking about self defence, because you will never understand what is it, or is not.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 21, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> Yes, fighting is essentially what happens when your self defence skills have failed.  Are you seriously going to argue that to only possible out come to a self defence situation is to fight?
> 
> As Chris rightly says, “Fighting is not self defence boys”.  I know I have been over this with you before, but I’m feeling generous, so I’m going to give it one more go at educating you before I fly the white flag.
> 
> ...



Or maybe because she got tackled from behind in broad daylight, and was forced to fight for her life?

Why did she need to beat him up? Because there's predators out there (typically men) who seek to attack other people. Fortunately, this girl had the ability and will through training karate that allowed her to beat back her attacker (read: DEFEND herself) and survive.



> Fighting, self defense, and martial arts are three _different_ things.



Only if you're trying to split hairs, or sell a book.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 21, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> Fighting, self defense, and martial arts are three _different_ things.





Hanzou said:


> Only if you're trying to split hairs, or sell a book.



I wouldn't call it splitting hairs, more like looking at a landscape and discerning which part is sky, which is hills, and which is a lake. It's all a landscape, but if you think the lake is not different from the hills, you'll find it's difficult to walk on water. The same might be said for trying to walk through the air, swim across the hills or the sky, or fly your plane through the lake or hill.



Paul_D said:


> Surely at some point you must step back and think, with so many people telling me the same thing over and over that maybe, just maybe there might be something I’m are not grasping and I might, just might therefore be wrong?



As Shotonoob would undoubtedly say, "Good luck with that."


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 21, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> I wouldn't call it splitting hairs, more like looking at a landscape and discerning which part is sky, which is hills, and which is a lake. It's all a landscape, but if you think the lake is not different from the hills, you'll find it's difficult to walk on water. The same might be said for trying to walk through the air, swim across the hills or the sky, or fly your plane through the lake or hill.



I never said that the aspects Paul is talking about *isn't* part of self defense. Im saying that fighting ability is a part of that equation.

Women get attacked whether or not they're wearing headphones.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 21, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I never said that the aspects Paul is talking about *isn't* part of self defense. Im saying that fighting ability is a part of that equation.
> 
> Women get attacked whether or not they're wearing headphones.



Paul's not saying that fighting isn't a _part_ of self defense, he's saying it's different from self defense, like using mouthwash is different from overall hygiene. (forgive me Paul, if I'm mistaken!)

You can certainly use mouthwash. Using mouthwash is certainly part of oral hygiene. But it's not going to help you much if you don't also floss and brush and minimize the time that sugar and starch sit on your teeth, etc.

You can certainly fight. Fighting is part of self defense. But's not going to help you much if you aren't aware, and socially intelligent, and if you don't plan your daily life in such a way as to avoid dangerous situations.

To put it very simply, this is what everyone always tries to communicate, as I understand it.
1. Fighting is a *part *of self defense.
2. Fighting is not *all *of self defense.
3. Fighting is actually a tiny, last ditch part of self defense.
4. Fighting only occurs when 99% of your self defense has already failed.

And finally:
5. People practice martial arts in many ways, frequently to learn to fight, but often for other reason as well or instead.

If that's what you're also trying to say, then you agree with Paul.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 21, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Paul's not saying that fighting isn't a _part_ of self defense.....



Actually, that's exactly what he said;



Paul_D said:


> *Yes, fighting is essentially what happens when your self defence skills have failed. *Are you seriously going to argue that to only possible out come to a self defence situation is to fight?
> 
> *As Chris rightly says, “Fighting is not self defence boys”.  *I know I have been over this with you before, but I’m feeling generous, so I’m going to give it one more go at educating you before I fly the white flag.[/B]



And btw, I'm not saying that fighting is the ONLY aspect of self defense. I'm simply saying that fighting is an important aspect of it.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2015)

If 99% of self defense is other than fighting, why do you guys spend such a disproportionate amount of time learning to fight and criticizing others for learning to fight wrong?   Seems kind of silly to waste your time training in martial arts at all, when you could be learning that other 99%.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 21, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> So, one last time, as neither of you seem to grasp what you're being asked here, what (in Kyokushin's approach over Shito Ryu's) makes it better suited to or applicable to self defence, bearing in mind that fighting is not self defence? Oh, and also bearing in mind that tournament style fighting, sparring etc is also very removed to the point that you're dealing with something almost completely alien to an actual self defence situation, so pointing to a series of tournament moments is of no use whatsoever.



Bearing in mind fighting is self defence.  It is a defence against an assault.  Not how to walk down to the shops without getting attacked.  That is just being normal. 

If we consider that if someone is kicking and punching you.You should probably have a method of stopping them doing that. Then you want an effective method of dealing with that. Full contact sparring is more effective than play acting. 

Some methods are better than others at this.  They are more likley to be better schools for self defence. 

If you need to learn how to go out in public and interact with people.  That is called therapy. Not martial arts.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 21, 2015)

Steve said:


> If 99% of self defense is other than fighting, why do you guys spend such a disproportionate amount of time learning to fight and criticizing others for learning to fight wrong?   Seems kind of silly to waste your time training in martial arts at all, when you could be learning that other 99%.





Paul_D said:


> Yes, fighting is essentially what happens when your self defence skills have failed.  Are you seriously going to argue that to only possible out come to a self defence situation is to fight?
> 
> As Chris rightly says, “Fighting is not self defence boys”.  I know I have been over this with you before, but I’m feeling generous, so I’m going to give it one more go at educating you before I fly the white flag.
> 
> ...



Ok. What you dont understand about self defence is that it is this big undefinable mess. 

So i can say ian atherby is wrong.  And i am in fact an expert instead.  Fighting arts expose you to actual conflict.  Through this exposure you are better able to avoid conflict. You gain greater awareness of threat assesment.  And become better at deescalation.

This is because you are actually getting punched in the face. And because you actually expose people to the emotional factor that causes fights.

And because self defence is this undefinable thing.  Nobody can call me on it.

Steve.  Do many people get attacked on the street from your gym? 

Mabye your self defence method is working.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 21, 2015)

Steve said:


> If 99% of self defense is other than fighting, why do you guys spend such a disproportionate amount of time learning to fight and criticizing others for learning to fight wrong?   Seems kind of silly to waste your time training in martial arts at all, when you could be learning that other 99%.



Because we like to fight. Or at least to practice fighting...

It's undeniably a silly hobby/lifestyle.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 21, 2015)

Most of self-defense is not fighting.
Most fighting is not self-defense.
However there is an overlap in the two domains, fighting in self-defense. When someone asks about the value of a martial art for self-defense, it is reasonable to interpret as a question regarding that specific area of overlap, since that is the primary area where it can be a relevant tool.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 21, 2015)

Anyway, yeah, if you're worried about life-threatening attacks, either you're unlucky with regards to your location and lifestyle, or you're a little bit paranoid. Or so I think. I don't train because I'm worried about some serial killer hiding in my kitchen waiting for me to get home, I train 'cause I like it.

That being said, it seems like every time someone _is _interested in a martial art for self defense, the response is always, "martial arts are a crappy way to approach self defense! Learn to live safely instead!"

However, this _is _a martial arts and sport fighting forum, so I think we can justify talking about the martial arts or sport fighting contribute to self defense _occasionally_, no?

I mean, you wouldn't expect to go on a Mead-making forum and find everyone talking about how you're better off brewing beer, would you? Yeah, beer may be easier, beer may be cheaper, beer may be faster, but it's a _mead-making_ forum. So I think it's fair to expect threads about how various martial arts approach self defense to be about those martial arts, rather than how martial arts are not self defense.

I mean sure, put a disclaimer on your post, a reminder that it's better to learn to avoid the fight then to fight well, but I don't think it's unreasonable to actually talk about specifics of martial arts combat rather than avoidance at least part of the time...

But again, treating martial arts as your self-defense mechanism is like purchasing most other insurance, statistically a poor return on investment. Do it because you like it. Then, in the unlikely event you ever need it, you're set. But do it because you like it.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 21, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Most of self-defense is not fighting.
> Most fighting is not self-defense.
> However there is an overlap in the two domains, fighting in self-defense. When someone asks about the value of a martial art for self-defense, it is reasonable to interpret as a question regarding that specific area of overlap, since that is the primary area where it can be a relevant tool.



Heh. Durn, you beat me to it...


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Most of self-defense is not fighting.
> Most fighting is not self-defense.
> However there is an overlap in the two domains, fighting in self-defense. When someone asks about the value of a martial art for self-defense, it is reasonable to interpret as a question regarding that specific area of overlap, since that is the primary area where it can be a relevant tool.


Sure there is, but there is a disconnect in the rhetoric.  I agree that martial skill, regardless of whether it's sport fighting or any other kind of fighting, is a small part of self defense.  And I also agree that some fight training is more practical for self defense than others.  But I think we lose perspective around here, and grossly inflate the benefits of training in any martial art for actually making a person safer.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 21, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Anyway, yeah, if you're worried about life-threatening attacks, either you're unlucky with regards to your location and lifestyle, or you're a little bit paranoid. Or so I think. I don't train because I'm worried about some serial killer hiding in my kitchen waiting for me to get home, I train 'cause I like it.



Agreed for the most part, but I should add that circumstances can be very different for men and women.

For most guys, unless they live in a terrible neighborhood or are in a profession which requires dealing with violence, 95% of self-defense can be summed up as "don't be a jerk, don't be an idiot, don't hang out in places where people start fights, don't hang out with criminals, keep your ego and temper under control, and pay attention to the world around you." Statistically speaking, if you're a guy and you're not in a profession that deals with violence and you get into a fight, you probably screwed up somewhere along the way.

The situation for women is rather different. Roughly 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. Roughly 80% of the perpetrators are known to the victims. There are certainly things women can do to reduce their risks*, but staying out of bad neighborhoods and paying attention to her surroundings isn't going to help someone if her co-worker or cousin or minister or date or student or landlord or whoever decides to rape her. Statistically speaking, women are much more likely to be victims of violence that they didn't screw up and bring on themselves.

*(Avoiding intoxication being the biggest one. As a non-drinker, it's easy for me to say "just avoid alcohol". However as long as drinking is seen by the majority of the population as a normal human activity, it's a bit much to ask that an entire gender be teetotalers.)


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 21, 2015)

While we are on the topic even if it is slightly off topic folks:
*
On the predation level*: children, women and elderly will always be preyed upon.  Not that fighting age men are not but.... as Tony mentioned above we are in general less vulnerable unless we hang out in bad neighborhoods, bars later in the evening when everyone has paired up and all that is left is a bunch of drunk men, we are a jerk, have a lack of common sense, stupid, etc.   Or we work in a profession that is surrounded by violence or directly involved in it.  If you are a woman as Tony mentioned 1 in 4 are sexually assaulted and numbers upon numbers have been physically assaulted.  In my immediate family two women have been physically assaulted at one point in their life.  That is 2 out of 4!  Thank god both are safe and one utilized her training.   Martial training can help if it addresses both physical and mental aspects of personal protection!  God pities you if you come across a well trained female as they are so ferocious and capable. 

One thing for sure though is that everyone and I mean everyone that lives a full long life will go through being a child, adult and an elderly person.  *Which means at some point you will be in a group that is potentially preyed upon more*.  You may be an alpha male right now and if you mind your peas and q's and have a little common sense you should be okay.  However, if you live for awhile you won't always be that way.  Having some solid training, skill sets and knowledge of what to do and what not to do might be a good idea.  As I get older it is obvious that I do not have the cardio I once had as a young athletic man.  I still have the strength but not the cardio. So my training reflects this and other obvious things as I age.  While I am very good empty handed through time I have spent even more and more time on being multi-dimensional with tools/weapons of all kinds to improve my odds.  *If I become a cranky old man (and I am close) well watch out if you assault me*. 

*Think of training as an insurance policy*.  You may never need it but if you do........ then you will want it and badly!  *Really, really badly!*  How many people have come to me to train after an incident and wished they had come before they were attacked.  How many people have used what I have taught them successfully whether on the streets here in America or overseas in an area of conflict.  The ones who have used it have always been really, really grateful for these skill sets.   Someone recently thanked me for the skill sets we worked on that saved his life in a lethal encounter in Afghanistan.  Almost every good martial instructor I know has similar stories so this is not unique to me and what I do.  *There is a lot of value to what we martial practitioners do!*

-

Getting back on topic of which school you should go with.  Go and check them both out.  Figure out which instructor you would like to train with more and then get training.  I feel that both would be fine for what you are looking for.  *Find the one that you want to train in as that is very important!*


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> If someone is attacking you and you throw weak punches and kicks, or you're unable to withstand blows to the body or head because you were learning point fighting instead of full contact, how are going to able to defend yourself?



Not the point, nor really relevant to what was being said. But, to humour you, the question will be why you think that the Shito Ryu school would result in such deficiencies as "weak punches and kicks"? Do you think that a point fighting school would not spend any time working on impact, or power, even if it's not used in their sparring or tournament format? Really? 



Hanzou said:


> The better your fighting prowess, the better you are at defending yourself if someone is attempting to do you harm.



Ha! Nope.

Here's the problem… you're thinking that a fight situation, where you know the attacker is coming, where you're aware there's an attack, where you know you're defending yourself, is the likely reality you'd face. Nope. In the majority of assault cases (self defence cases), you simply don't get the luxury of getting to use your "fighting prowess"… you're already cowering under a barrage of attacks you didn't see coming. 

Are you starting to see why "fighting is not self defence" yet?



Hanzou said:


> Recently there was an article about a girl who was attacked in Australia by an assailant trying to rape her. She used her karate skills to kick and punch the guy until help arrived. Are you seriously going to argue that her ability to fight off an attacker isn't self defense?



I know the story… a lot better than you, it seems. The young lass is from the same suburb as one of my best friends (about 45 minutes from me), and her system is the one I used to train in (Shukokai Karate-do)… and, as I recall, when the story first broke you (and others) were saying she'd have been better off doing BJJ, as she was taken to the ground. For the record, the system she trains in is a semi-contact point-based competition style… in other words, exactly what you say won't work. In fact, the full name of the system is Tani-ha SHITO RYU Shukokai Karate-do… the very art you're saying is the worse option… but now you're using it as a positive example? How things change… 

As to exactly what happened, you might also be aware that little of what she did actually came from her karate training… in fact, it was dominantly her adrenaline taking over that helped… the biggest thing she got from her training wasn't "effective techniques"… or "hit hard, full contact!"… or even any real benefit of sparring… it was a personal belief in her unwillingness to be a victim.



Hanzou said:


> Or maybe because she got tackled from behind in broad daylight, and was forced to fight for her life?



Well, you really missed the point of that question… 



Hanzou said:


> Why did she need to beat him up?



She didn't "beat him up".



Hanzou said:


> Because there's predators out there (typically men) who seek to attack other people.



Er… what? This gross generalisation is not only missing the actual question you're thinking you're addressing, it's almost unfailingly naive in it's grasp of the topic.



Hanzou said:


> Fortunately, this girl had the ability and will through training karate that allowed her to beat back her attacker (read: DEFEND herself) and survive.



None of which was any trait of a "full contact" school at all… 



Hanzou said:


> Only if you're trying to split hairs, or sell a book.



Er… you did see that the book you cite was free, yeah? But, for the record, they are absolutely different things. The fact that you fail to understand that is not our failing.



Hanzou said:


> I never said that the aspects Paul is talking about *isn't* part of self defense. Im saying that fighting ability is a part of that equation.
> 
> Women get attacked whether or not they're wearing headphones.



Fighting ability isn't really that much of the equation, though. At all. It's a last line aspect, and a minor aspect at best… additionally, no real degree of sophistication, or much in the way of high skill level is required at all… so… no.



Steve said:


> If 99% of self defense is other than fighting, why do you guys spend such a disproportionate amount of time learning to fight and criticizing others for learning to fight wrong?   Seems kind of silly to waste your time training in martial arts at all, when you could be learning that other 99%.



Only if you think that training in a martial art is self defence, Steve… martial arts are about the fighting aspect (physically)… self defence isn't. And this is a martial arts forum. So… think about it.



drop bear said:


> Bearing in mind fighting is self defence.



Except, of course… it's not. It's, in a very real way, the exact opposite.



drop bear said:


> It is a defence against an assault.



Partially… but defence against an assault goes well beyond just physically responding to a physical assault… 



drop bear said:


> Not how to walk down to the shops without getting attacked.  That is just being normal.



No, it's not. You think people don't get assaulted just walking down to the shops? Is there some secret sign that they apply when heading down to the shops that prevents some attack from occurring? 

The point is that, even when just walking down to the shops, you should still be applying your concepts of awareness, observation, and so on… which is all very much self defence… otherwise you're just as likely to be attacked as the young girl in the above article… who was just out for a walk on a main street, in broad daylight near her home… 

The fact that not everyone gets attacked the second they walk out their door doesn't mean a thing when it comes to self defence… do you want to try again?



drop bear said:


> If we consider that if someone is kicking and punching you.You should probably have a method of stopping them doing that. Then you want an effective method of dealing with that. Full contact sparring is more effective than play acting.



Actually, no, full contact sparring is far less effective than "play acting" in this regard. Far, far less effective.



drop bear said:


> Some methods are better than others at this.  They are more likley to be better schools for self defence.



Sure. But it'd help if you could identify what is actually "better" in this regard.



drop bear said:


> If you need to learn how to go out in public and interact with people.  That is called therapy. Not martial arts.



Okay, for one thing, martial arts are, in a very real way, a form of therapy. Secondly, no, learning to go out and interact with people is not called therapy… and self defence principles are also not something that requires therapy to be considered… I hardly know where to start with your ideas here… 



drop bear said:


> Ok. What you dont understand about self defence is that it is this big undefinable mess.



And what you don't understand about self defence is, well, all of it.



drop bear said:


> So i can say ian atherby is wrong.



Big call… I can say that drop bear is wrong. Completely. And back that up a hell of a lot more than the empty rhetoric you're coming up with here. Oh, and for the record, it's Iain, not Ian… 



drop bear said:


> And i am in fact an expert instead.



HA! Expert at what?!?



drop bear said:


> Fighting arts expose you to actual conflict.



No, it exposes you to some aspects of conflict… those aspects being defined by the system itself… which can (and often are) completely removed from real world self defence factors and aspects.



drop bear said:


> Through this exposure you are better able to avoid conflict. You gain greater awareness of threat assesment.  And become better at deescalation.



How? Let's say you train in your Kyokushin school… you do full contact sparring and tournaments… where in that are you getting any understanding of threat assessment? You know there's a "threat" because you line up opposite someone and are told to fight… how are you better able to avoid conflict, if avoiding conflict is never part of the training/experience? You fight whoever is opposite you… no avoidance there. How do you become better at de-escalation? Do you win the tournament if you can talk the other guy into going home instead?

Seriously, I know you haven't been able to answer anything previously, can you answer this?



drop bear said:


> This is because you are actually getting punched in the face. And because you actually expose people to the emotional factor that causes fights.



No, you really don't. You get exposed to nothing of the kind.



drop bear said:


> And because self defence is this undefinable thing.  Nobody can call me on it.



I can. You have exactly 0 understanding of the topic. You have an uneducated grasp of a tiny area, focused on physical engagement, but little to nothing else, and think that you know it all.

You're a frog in a well. And I will very, very happily call you on it.



drop bear said:


> Steve.  Do many people get attacked on the street from your gym?
> 
> Mabye your self defence method is working.



Cute. But what do you say if Steve comes back with a story of one of his guys getting attacked?



Steve said:


> Sure there is, but there is a disconnect in the rhetoric.  I agree that martial skill, regardless of whether it's sport fighting or any other kind of fighting, is a small part of self defense.  And I also agree that some fight training is more practical for self defense than others.  But I think we lose perspective around here, and grossly inflate the benefits of training in any martial art for actually making a person safer.



Steve, we've covered this before… but… you have no experience in self-defence oriented training… you have no interest in self-defence oriented training… you have not sought out self-defence oriented training… and are basing your opinion on your lack on exposure to this entire area.

That said, I'm going to try once more to give some insight into exactly why we are saying things like "fighting is not self defence". And the big thing to get your head around is that self defence is not technical… it's tactical. Honestly, very little technical material (fighting techniques and the like) are needed, or even particularly warranted. It'd take me some 10-15 years to give you everything in my martial arts on a technical level, longer if you want to get good at it… our self defence approach, though, that I can give you in about 6 months… in the dojo, I do it over about 18. 

So how do we do it? Well, self defence is a tactical approach to conflict resolution and avoidance… not a technical approach to "winning a fight". "Techniques" mean almost nothing… contact or not is irrelevant… it's biggest benefit is that it can engender a greater confidence in some people… but not all. But the biggest part of self defence is understanding behaviour (yours and others), being aware of your surroundings, being aware of what your most likely forms of attack might be (understanding HAOV in your culture/environment), and so on. Then it's understanding the tactical methodology to limit your risk… engaging in a fight is often the riskier option (although not always)… but is best seen as a back up plan. But that's what fighting is… it's deliberately and willingly engaging in a physical engagement, with the aim of "beating" the other person/persons… "winning"… which has no place in self defence at all.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Recently there was an article about a girl who was attacked in Australia by an assailant trying to rape her. She used her karate skills to kick and punch the guy until help arrived. Are you seriously going to argue that her ability to fight off an attacker isn't self defense?


Weren't you the one earlier going on about how she had to be rescued because you felt her karate was somewhat ineffective, or something like that?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 22, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Not the point, nor really relevant to what was being said. But, to humour you, the question will be why you think that the Shito Ryu school would result in such deficiencies as "weak punches and kicks"? Do you think that a point fighting school would not spend any time working on impact, or power, even if it's not used in their sparring or tournament format? Really?



Not to the level or proficiency of the Kyokushin school. Kyokushin schools have a reputation of being hard contact karate institutions, thus the OP is more likely to learn how to hit, and how to be hit in that form of Karate than the Shito school. The OP's post even backs that up. 



> Ha! Nope.
> 
> Here's the problem… you're thinking that a fight situation, where you know the attacker is coming, where you're aware there's an attack, where you know you're defending yourself, is the likely reality you'd face. Nope. In the majority of assault cases (self defense cases), you simply don't get the luxury of getting to use your "fighting prowess"… you're already cowering under a barrage of attacks you didn't see coming.



Which is where your training in the martial arts should come into play. You should be experienced enough that you're not cowering under those barrage of punches, but making quick and effective decisions in order to get out of that situation. If the totality of your training goes out of the window when someone starts hitting you, then I'm afraid you've wasted your time and money practicing martial arts, and you should have taken up a different activity.



> Are you starting to see why "fighting is not self defense" yet?



Nope.



> I know the story… a lot better than you, it seems. The young lass is from the same suburb as one of my best friends (about 45 minutes from me), and her system is the one I used to train in (Shukokai Karate-do)… and, as I recall, when the story first broke you (and others) were saying she'd have been better off doing BJJ, as she was taken to the ground. For the record, the system she trains in is a semi-contact point-based competition style… in other words, exactly what you say won't work. In fact, the full name of the system is Tani-ha SHITO RYU Shukokai Karate-do… the very art you're saying is the worse option… but now you're using it as a positive example? How things change…


 
I'm using it as an example of someone using martial arts to defend themselves. My earlier argument was that if she had taken a more contact based style (like Bjj or Kyokushin), she probably wouldn't have eventually needed help to get out that situation, or taken the amount of damage that she took. That said, SOME martial arts training is better than NO martial arts training. Clearly her karate training did help her survive the encounter.



> As to exactly what happened, you might also be aware that little of what she did actually came from her karate training… in fact, it was dominantly her adrenaline taking over that helped… the biggest thing she got from her training wasn't "effective techniques"… or "hit hard, full contact!"… or even any real benefit of sparring… it was a personal belief in her unwillingness to be a victim.



No offense, but if the victim says that her karate training saved her life (which she did), I'm inclined to side with the victim over your armchair analysis.



> Fighting ability isn't really that much of the equation, though. At all. It's a last line aspect, and a minor aspect at best… additionally, no real degree of sophistication, or much in the way of high skill level is required at all… so… no.



http://www.bjjee.com/bjj-news/femal...rapist-to-sleep-with-triangle-choke-in-dubai/

Woman triangle chokes attacker unconscious, judge awards her £500

As a person who practices Triangle Chokes, I can attest to the fact that they require a certain level of sophistication to accomplish, especially in a situation where someone bigger and stronger is trying to violate or kill you. They both used fighting skill to *defend themselves* against an assailant.

Fortunately for these women, they took a martial art that didn't tell them to start "cowering under a barrage of attacks you didn't see coming".


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 22, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Weren't you the one earlier going on about how she had to be rescued because you felt her karate was somewhat ineffective, or something like that?



I said she would have been better served learning some form of ground fighting. However, that's a different argument entirely, and not the point of this discussion. The point in this discussion is that her karate background did get her out of a bad situation.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 23, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Which is where your training in the martial arts should come into play. You should be experienced enough that you're not cowering under those barrage of punches, but making quick and effective decisions in order to get out of that situation. If the totality of your training goes out of the window when someone starts hitting you, then I'm afraid you've wasted your time and money practicing martial arts, and you should have taken up a different activity.



I agree totally.



Hanzou said:


> My earlier argument was that if she had taken a more contact based style (like Bjj or Kyokushin), she probably wouldn't have eventually needed help to get out that situation, or taken the amount of damage that she took. .



The conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise There are a number of possible factors that could have affected her performance. For example, if she had more skill or experience in martial arts she could have taken less damage and gotten out of the situation without help.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 23, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> The conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise There are a number of possible factors that could have affected her performance. For example, if she had more skill or experience in martial arts she could have taken less damage and gotten out of the situation without help.



If she had known ground fighting, she more than likely wouldn't have sustained the damage that she did. The assailant would have played directly into her game. Unfortunately, Karate and similar arts lack this crucial range of fighting.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 23, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> If she had known ground fighting, she more than likely wouldn't have sustained the damage that she did. The assailant would have played directly into her game. Unfortunately, Karate and similar arts lack this crucial range of fighting.



*This is like the ultimate in armchair quarterbacking Hanzou.*  You were not there, you do not know how everything went down or how it went down.  We have no idea of the assailants attributes, etc.  She could have been surprised and knocked down and suffered all of the damage that she did immediately.  Then fought off the criminal and escaped.  What we do know is that she fought off the attacker and claims that her training was the reason.  *I am inclined to believe her as she was the one that was there in this situation.*


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 23, 2015)

Let's just give this young lady credit!


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 23, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> If she had known ground fighting, she more than likely wouldn't have sustained the damage that she did. The assailant would have played directly into her game. Unfortunately, Karate and similar arts lack this crucial range of fighting.



I could just as easily say: 

"Or if she had been better at stand up she would not have been on the ground in the first place Unfortunately, BJJ and similar arts lack this crucial range of fighting." 

But I won't.


----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Steve, we've covered this before… but… you have no experience in self-defence oriented training… you have no interest in self-defence oriented training… you have not sought out self-defence oriented training… and are basing your opinion on your lack on exposure to this entire area.


Sorry, son.  I'm very interested in the subject of self defense.  I don't train in any martial arts for self defense, but that's not the same thing.  Like you, I don't believe martial arts training in general makes one safer, regardless of the style.  Sure, some will make you a better fighter than others, but that's not the same thing.  Is it? 

I also believe that if the goal is truly to mitigate risk, reduce the chances of needing to fight and increase our odds of surviving a violent encounter, just about any worthwhile course of study would be more helpful than training in martial arts.  That would include whatever 18 year "system" you sell to your students.   I agree with you that self defense is tactical and not technical.  While it's difficult to know how you're comprehending what I've said in recent months, I'm pretty sure when I've commented on self defense, it's to say much the same thing as above.  There was a thread on the fundamental pillars of self defense a while ago.  Maybe that would be a good one to resurrect.  The guts of my opinions are there for anyone who cares to read them, and if you have sincere questions, I'd be happy to try and explain them further.

I didn't reread all 28 pages, but this post sums it up pretty well.  Fundamental pillars of self-defense? | Page 28 | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


> That said, I'm going to try once more to give some insight into exactly why we are saying things like "fighting is not self defence".


Yeah, thanks.  I'm giddy.  You'll try once more until you try once more again.





> And the big thing to get your head around is that self defence is not technical… it's tactical.


  This is just... so... wow.  Profound.  I wish you were consistent with this, because if you stopped here, we would be in complete agreement.  But you don't.  You slip right from this into selling your 18 year product.  





> Honestly,


Thank you for being honest.  





> very little technical material (fighting techniques and the like) are needed, or even particularly warranted. <snip>our self defence approach, though, that I can give you in about 6 months.


I moved a couple of your sentences around just a little to put the relevant parts together.  The statement above suggests that you believe self defense isn't technical, and that the tactical self defense approach can be learned in 6 months.  That's pretty much what you wrote, so I hope I'm not going too far out on a limb there.  It's this next part, where, after acknowledging the above, you start selling the techniques of self defense:  





> It'd take me some 10-15 years to give you everything in my martial arts on a technical level, longer if you want to get good at it… … in the dojo, I do it over about 18.


Intellectual gymnastics going on right there.  You sell your students 18 years of technique, even as you acknowledge that they really only benefit from the tactics learned in the first 6 months. 

As I've said many times, there are a lot of great reasons to really enjoy training in martial arts.  The benefits are undeniable.   But self defense just isn't going to be one of them.  You say it.  I say it.  Most everyone around here has said it when it suits the argument at the time.  There are far more practical ways to protect yourself than training in a martial art (any martial art), and what that means to you is going to be unique to you. 

I said in another thread: Self defense is an abstract that can be used to justify literally anything, the bar is nebulous.  My opinion is that the ideal way training for self defense would flip the entire model around. Truly, if self defense is the single, preeminent goal for a person who has 6 hours per week to train, the IDEAL would be to purchase a gun, a Taser, a retractable baton, pepper spray or some other portable tool and spend an hour per week. every week, learning how to use it. To be clear, for most people, this is to make you *feel* safer, and will likely never be used.

Spend the *other* five hours per week on things that will actually help you, like taking 'use of force' classes, going to the gym so you are healthy, working on your self esteem and confidence, improve your communications skills, work on getting a better job. For some people, self defense is going to AA or into rehab. For others, self defense is going to a therapist so that you can overcome the negative body image that leads you to putting yourself in risky situations where you drink too much and end up being victimized. For others still, it's about going back to school to learn a trade or to learn skills that will translate to a little more money in the bank, to let you get a security system for your home or better still, move to a better neighborhood.

Anyone who spends 6 or more hours in an MA for self defense is just wasting time that could otherwise be spent doing things that will make them safer.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 23, 2015)

Steve said:


> Sorry, son.  I'm very interested in the subject of self defense.  I don't train in any martial arts for self defense, but that's not the same thing.  Like you, I don't believe martial arts training in general makes one safer, regardless of the style.  Sure, some will make you a better fighter than others, but that's not the same thing.  Is it?
> 
> I also believe that if the goal is truly to mitigate risk, reduce the chances of needing to fight and increase our odds of surviving a violent encounter, just about any worthwhile course of study would be more helpful than training in martial arts.  That would include whatever 18 year "system" you sell to your students.   I agree with you that self defense is tactical and not technical.  While it's difficult to know how you're comprehending what I've said in recent months, I'm pretty sure when I've commented on self defense, it's to say much the same thing as above.  There was a thread on the fundamental pillars of self defense a while ago.  Maybe that would be a good one to resurrect.  The guts of my opinions are there for anyone who cares to read them, and if you have sincere questions, I'd be happy to try and explain them further.
> 
> ...


I think you may be misnterpreting Chris's point regarding the 6 month vs the 18 year curriculum. The 6 months was for his self-defense program, which is something completely different from his 18-year martial art program. His martial art curriculum, if I'm understanding him correctly, is not primarily intended for self-defense.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 23, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *This is like the ultimate in armchair quarterbacking Hanzou.*  You were not there, you do not know how everything went down or how it went down.  We have no idea of the assailants attributes, etc.  She could have been surprised and knocked down and suffered all of the damage that she did immediately.  Then fought off the criminal and escaped.  What we do know is that she fought off the attacker and claims that her training was the reason.  *I am inclined to believe her as she was the one that was there in this situation.*




Well again, a different argument for a different thread. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 23, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> I could just as easily say:
> 
> "Or if she had been better at stand up she would not have been on the ground in the first place Unfortunately, BJJ and similar arts lack this crucial range of fighting."
> 
> But I won't.



Except she didn't take Bjj, she took Karate. We have examples of women utilizing ground fighting to get out of similar situations, and they sustained far less damage than the karate girl did.

You would think a stand up striking art would do a better job of teaching their students to remain on their feet.

But again, different discussion for a different thread....


----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you may be misnterpreting Chris's point regarding the 6 month vs the 18 year curriculum. The 6 months was for his self-defense program, which is something completely different from his 18-year martial art program. His martial art curriculum, if I'm understanding him correctly, is not primarily intended for self-defense.


probably so, Tony.   

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 23, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> And the big thing to get your head around is that self defence is not technical… it's tactical. Honestly, very little technical material (fighting techniques and the like) are needed, or even particularly warranted. It'd take me some 10-15 years to give you everything in my martial arts on a technical level, longer if you want to get good at it… our self defence approach, though, that I can give you in about 6 months… in the dojo, I do it over about 18.





Steve said:


> I also believe that if the goal is truly to mitigate risk, reduce the chances of needing to fight and increase our odds of surviving a violent encounter, just about any worthwhile course of study would be more helpful than training in martial arts.  That would include whatever 18 year "system" you sell to your students.   I agree with you that self defense is tactical and not technical.  While it's difficult to know how you're comprehending what I've said in recent months, I'm pretty sure when I've commented on self defense, it's to say much the same thing as above.  There was a thread on the fundamental pillars of self defense a while ago.  Maybe that would be a good one to resurrect.  The guts of my opinions are there for anyone who cares to read them, and if you have sincere questions, I'd be happy to try and explain them further.





Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you may be misnterpreting Chris's point regarding the 6 month vs the 18 year curriculum. The 6 months was for his self-defense program, which is something completely different from his 18-year martial art program. His martial art curriculum, if I'm understanding him correctly, is not primarily intended for self-defense.



This section seems both an important point, and one which could stand some clarification. Chris's point was that, to learn his martial art in full, even without "getting good at it" would take upwards of 10-15 years. Again, to learn his martial art, which as we have established, is a separate circle from self-defense.

He then goes on to say that the entirety of his self-defense material, which is tactical, not technical, can be taught to _you_, an presumably diligent student, in about *6 months*, but that in the dojo it generally takes about *18 months. Not years!
*
I think that's probably fair. Studying a martial art in depth, we can all agree, is a life-time pursuit. I'm at 15 years right now, and I feel pretty durn junior in my system. Chris is saying that none of that matters for self-defense, and that the tactical skillset for self-defense can be learned in around a year and a half, not that he manages to upsell to an 18 year self defense course.


----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2015)

Thanks for the clarification.   18 months would be very reasonable, I think.  

In the past, I've suggested that Chris and I actually agree, but that usually prompts a lengthy essay from him to the contrary.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2015)

Hmm, been away for a bit… some things to catch up on, it seems.



Hanzou said:


> Not to the level or proficiency of the Kyokushin school. Kyokushin schools have a reputation of being hard contact karate institutions, thus the OP is more likely to learn how to hit, and how to be hit in that form of Karate than the Shito school. The OP's post even backs that up.



No, the OP's post doesn't back anything like that up… do you know the striking drills and methods of the Shito Ryu school? Additionally, I asked what would result in "weak punches and kicks"… not "weaker", but "weak"… so far, you have given nothing other than your preconceptions as support for your baseless comments.



Hanzou said:


> Which is where your training in the martial arts should come into play. You should be experienced enough that you're not cowering under those barrage of punches, but making quick and effective decisions in order to get out of that situation. If the totality of your training goes out of the window when someone starts hitting you, then I'm afraid you've wasted your time and money practicing martial arts, and you should have taken up a different activity.



Ha! You do realise that that's more fantasy than anything else, yeah? For one thing, you won't have the ability to "make quick and effective decisions"… but for another, you've completely missed the reality of my comments and the situation… you get blindsided, you get suddenly attacked by a barrage, and yeah, even you, you'll be cowering under it. Why? Because you'll automatically go into a primal defensive mode… it's hardwired into you. You might break past that sooner with training, but you're still going to cower first. And there's nothing to suggest that Kyokushin would get you there sooner than Shito Ryu, you know…  



Hanzou said:


> Nope.



I really have almost completely lost hope for you, then… it's been explained over and over again (in this and many other threads), so if you don't get it yet… I have to feel that it's at least partially wilful on your side.



Hanzou said:


> I'm using it as an example of someone using martial arts to defend themselves. My earlier argument was that if she had taken a more contact based style (like Bjj or Kyokushin), she probably wouldn't have eventually needed help to get out that situation, or taken the amount of damage that she took. That said, SOME martial arts training is better than NO martial arts training. Clearly her karate training did help her survive the encounter.



Er… huh? Dude, you honestly have no idea what you're talking about there… 



Hanzou said:


> No offense, but if the victim says that her karate training saved her life (which she did), I'm inclined to side with the victim over your armchair analysis.



You may want to read a little deeper, then… 




Hanzou said:


> http://www.bjjee.com/bjj-news/female-us-navy-sailor-puts-rapist-to-sleep-with-triangle-choke-in-dubai/





Hanzou said:


> Woman triangle chokes attacker unconscious, judge awards her £500
> 
> As a person who practices Triangle Chokes, I can attest to the fact that they require a certain level of sophistication to accomplish, especially in a situation where someone bigger and stronger is trying to violate or kill you. They both used fighting skill to *defend themselves* against an assailant.



You've done them when someone's trying to violate you, have you? Know the situation well, yeah?

Oh, and you do know that this is really little more than evidence that one thing has worked on occasion, not anything that contravenes the idea that other methods work as well, yeah?



Hanzou said:


> Fortunately for these women, they took a martial art that didn't tell them to start "cowering under a barrage of attacks you didn't see coming".



Name me one martial art that does tell people to cower under a barrage of attacks, mate. Do you think the young lass' karate classes told her to? 



Hanzou said:


> I said she would have been better served learning some form of ground fighting. However, that's a different argument entirely, and not the point of this discussion. The point in this discussion is that her karate background did get her out of a bad situation.



Actually, from a technical standpoint, no, it didn't. 



Hanzou said:


> If she had known ground fighting, she more than likely wouldn't have sustained the damage that she did. The assailant would have played directly into her game. Unfortunately, Karate and similar arts lack this crucial range of fighting.



Er… huh? No, having trained in BJJ wouldn't have mitigated the damage taken in being hit from behind and tackled to the ground, then hit when she was down there. You do realise that BJJ training doesn't mean hits don't damage you, yeah? Oh, and no, Karate etc don't actually "lack" this "crucial range"… they don't have anywhere near the specialisation that BJJ does, but then again, BJJ is lacking the "crucial" striking and kicking skills that they have… or the weapon usage of the FMA's… or, well, anything else we can come up with.



Steve said:


> Sorry, son.  I'm very interested in the subject of self defines.



No, Steve, you're not. You have your own ideas, and fight aggressively against any actual information you get given, especially as it contradicts your pre-conceptions. You may feel you're interested, but your behaviours contradict that pretty strongly.



Steve said:


> I don't train in any martial arts for self defense, but that's not the same thing.  Like you, I don't believe martial arts training in general makes one safer, regardless of the style.  Sure, some will make you a better fighter than others, but that's not the same thing.  Is it?



Yeah, you're not on the right track there, either. In fact, I've often said that training can certainly help, it can aid with a violent encounter, and more. What I have said is that no martial arts are specifically geared towards modern self defence… which is not the same thing at all.



Steve said:


> I also believe that if the goal is truly to mitigate risk, reduce the chances of needing to fight and increase our odds of surviving a violent encounter, just about any worthwhile course of study would be more helpful than training in martial arts.



Er… nope. If the goal is to truly mitigate risk, then the best course of study is to understand what that risk is in the first place, followed by looking at reductive strategies and methodologies. Which, you'll love this, includes martial arts. The issue is that martial arts deal dominantly with only one facet, and often in a restricted fashion… which is why they're good as a base, but must be expanded upon… not removed from the study entirely.



Steve said:


> That would include whatever 18 year "system" you sell to your students.



Please. I "sell" to my students? Dude. Get over yourself.

Tell you what, when you're happy to actually listen to what you've been told, I'll happily talk to you about what is contained in my methodologies, but if you're going to offer snide, ill-informed, and snarky pot-shots, there's little point. But, as you have been told, it's not 18 years… we'll come back to that (as the issue is on your side).



Steve said:


> I agree with you that self defense is tactical and not technical.  While it's difficult to know how you're comprehending what I've said in recent months, I'm pretty sure when I've commented on self defense, it's to say much the same thing as above.



No, it isn't. 

Over your time, you have started threads to say that people can't teach self defence, because you don't know how to define it. You have started threads telling people they can't actually be "experts" at self defence (therefore can't teach it) because, again, you refused to listen when people told you what that would actually entail. You have repeatedly said that self defence can't be defined or qualified, and refused to listen to anyone giving you better information. Some examples? Sure!

It's impossible to teach someone "Self Defense" | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Is it possible to "train" for something that you never actually do? | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

As well as the example you yourself provide a little later, of course…  



Steve said:


> There was a thread on the fundamental pillars of self defense a while ago.  Maybe that would be a good one to resurrect.  The guts of my opinions are there for anyone who cares to read them, and if you have sincere questions, I'd be happy to try and explain them further.



You've done that. The issue is you haven't listened to anyone else's answers.



Steve said:


> I didn't reread all 28 pages, but this post sums it up pretty well.  Fundamental pillars of self-defense? | Page 28 | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community



You do know that that entire post is you putting your fingers in your ears, denying the accounts and claims of anyone who actually has dealt with the situation (and applied their training in such an event), claiming that there might be good courses, there might, but who knows, so let's assume there aren't… yeah, nothing in that tells me you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. In fact, quite the opposite.



Steve said:


> Yeah, thanks.  I'm giddy.  You'll try once more until you try once more again.



Hey, I'm an optimist… 



Steve said:


> This is just... so... wow.  Profound.  I wish you were consistent with this, because if you stopped here, we would be in complete agreement.  But you don't.  You slip right from this into selling your 18 year product.



I'm selling nothing here, Steve. And I'll thank you to actually read what I write before you think you can retort. But, of course, you're completely off base again.



Steve said:


> Thank you for being honest.



Always am, Steve.



Steve said:


> I moved a couple of your sentences around just a little to put the relevant parts together.



Well, that was a mistake, wasn't it? There's a reason I keep whole posts intact, you realise… 



Steve said:


> The statement above suggests that you believe self defense isn't technical, and that the tactical self defense approach can be learned in 6 months.  That's pretty much what you wrote, so I hope I'm not going too far out on a limb there.



You're a little off. Self defence is a tactical area of study, yeah… but that doesn't preclude physical aspects (in fact, they are expressions of some of the tactical principles)… and what I said was that our self defence curriculum, which includes "technical" approaches, guided by the overall tactical concepts, can be covered fully (as a more intensive area of study, without adding anything else) in approximately 6 months, giving a reasonable (servicable/applicable) level of skill and understanding.

In other words, if all you want is self defence, I can get you up to speed in 6 months, which will be tactically based, while including technical methods in that 6 months.



Steve said:


> It's this next part, where, after acknowledging the above, you start selling the techniques of self defines:



At no point am I "selling" anything, nor am I saying much about the "techniques" there (they're included, but not the emphasis).



Steve said:


> Intellectual gymnastics going on right there.  You sell your students 18 years of technique, even as you acknowledge that they really only benefit from the tactics learned in the first 6 months.



Yeah… this is the issue with you splitting up my sentences, as that's not what I said at all.

What I said was that it would take about 10-15 years to teach all the technical aspects of my martial arts… whereas our self defence approach can be conceivably covered (devoid of other material) in about 6 months… and that, in the dojo, I cover our self defence approach in an approximately 18 month cycle, give or take.

Again, I'll thank you to actually read what I write before you decide you can retort.



Steve said:


> As I've said many times, there are a lot of great reasons to really enjoy training in martial arts.  The benefits are undeniable.   But self defense just isn't going to be one of them.  You say it.  I say it.  Most everyone around here has said it when it suits the argument at the time.  There are far more practical ways to protect yourself than training in a martial art (any martial art), and what that means to you is going to be unique to you.



No, Steve, I don't say it. In fact, I often say that many aspects of martial arts do transfer over to self defence… and that a good martial arts program is a good basis for a self defence approach. 



Steve said:


> I said in another thread: Self defense is an abstract that can be used to justify literally anything, the bar is nebulous.



No, it's not. You have your own personal belief that it is, for what reason I have no idea, but you have had explained to you many, many times now that that simply is not the case… it's a largely legal term, which makes it absolutely something with a specific definition. Your refusal to accept the definition does not in any way invalidate the definition, the same way that your refusal to accept the evidence and comments of others (in your "Experts" thread and others) means that you're correct… but we've been down that path a number of times.



Steve said:


> My opinion is that the ideal way training for self defense would flip the entire model around. Truly, if self defense is the single, preeminent goal for a person who has 6 hours per week to train, the IDEAL would be to purchase a gun, a Taser, a retractable baton, pepper spray or some other portable tool and spend an hour per week. every week, learning how to use it. To be clear, for most people, this is to make you *feel* safer, and will likely never be used.



What? No, that's really not the case at all. In fact, that's more avoiding the idea of self defence training… 



Steve said:


> Spend the *other* five hours per week on things that will actually help you, like taking 'use of force' classes, going to the gym so you are healthy, working on your self esteem and confidence, improve your communications skills, work on getting a better job.



A lot of that is periphery to the actual topic, though… in other words, if you want to train for self defence, train for self defence.



Steve said:


> For some people, self defense is going to AA or into rehab.



No, it's not.



Steve said:


> For others, self defense is going to a therapist so that you can overcome the negative body image that leads you to putting yourself in risky situations where you drink too much and end up being victimised.



No, it's not.



Steve said:


> For others still, it's about going back to school to learn a trade or to learn skills that will translate to a little more money in the bank, to let you get a security system for your home or better still, move to a better neighbourhood.



No, it's not.

Each of those are certainly ways to look after yourself and your life, but it's again not what is meant when discussing self defence. Your refusal to grasp the concept is why I say you don't actually show interest in the topic… if you did, you'd seek to improve your understanding.



Steve said:


> Anyone who spends 6 or more hours in an MA for self defense is just wasting time that could otherwise be spent doing things that will make them safer.



You're conflating different issues, though. Yes, self defence is about making you safer, but it's about making you safer in a particular sense and context, not in general… it's not about living a healthier life… it's not about having a better job, or anything of the kind… it's about having an understanding and behaviour pattern geared up around preventative and protective measures to deal with and handle violent encounters, not avoiding liver failure due to being an alcoholic.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you may be misnterpreting Chris's point regarding the 6 month vs the 18 year curriculum. The 6 months was for his self-defense program, which is something completely different from his 18-year martial art program. His martial art curriculum, if I'm understanding him correctly, is not primarily intended for self-defense.



Well, 10-15 year martial arts program… 18 month self defence rotation… but yeah.



Zack Cart said:


> This section seems both an important point, and one which could stand some clarification. Chris's point was that, to learn his martial art in full, even without "getting good at it" would take upwards of 10-15 years. Again, to learn his martial art, which as we have established, is a separate circle from self-defence.



Yep.



Zack Cart said:


> He then goes on to say that the entirety of his self-defense material, which is tactical, not technical, can be taught to _you_, an presumably diligent student, in about *6 months*, but that in the dojo it generally takes about *18 months. Not years!*



Yep.



Zack Cart said:


> I think that's probably fair. Studying a martial art in depth, we can all agree, is a life-time pursuit. I'm at 15 years right now, and I feel pretty durn junior in my system. Chris is saying that none of that matters for self-defense, and that the tactical skillset for self-defense can be learned in around a year and a half, not that he manages to upsell to an 18 year self defense course.



Not necessarily that none of it matters, but essentially, yeah.



Steve said:


> Thanks for the clarification.   18 months would be very reasonable, I think.



Glad you approve. You're still not aware of exactly what it entails, of course, so I'm not sure how you can assess how reasonable it is…   



Steve said:


> In the past, I've suggested that Chris and I actually agree, but that usually prompts a lengthy essay from him to the contrary.



No, not really. If you go through the linked threads above, you'll find that the most common response to my posts to you has been: "I've heard your opinion, and I don't agree"… thing is, it's never been opinion… which you've also managed to ignore.


----------



## Steve (Dec 25, 2015)

Merry Christmas, Chris.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 25, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> No, the OP's post doesn't back anything like that up… do you know the striking drills and methods of the Shito Ryu school? Additionally, I asked what would result in "weak punches and kicks"… not "weaker", but "weak"… so far, you have given nothing other than your preconceptions as support for your baseless comments.



The OP's post;



nirusls said:


> Hi I'm a guy 19yrs old. Recently my hobby is lifting weights and gaining some muscles(not for martial arts).
> 
> Also I'm interested in both shinkyokushin (what's available instead of kyokushin) and Shito ryu.
> 
> ...



Point fighting does not develop strong kicks and punches, nor the necessary defenses against solidly thrown kicks and punches.

Now that may be different in various Shito Ryu schools, but I'm mainly talking about the OP's options. If self defense is the goal, a school pushing full contact is better than a point fighting school.





> Ha! You do realise that that's more fantasy than anything else, yeah? For one thing, you won't have the ability to "make quick and effective decisions"… but for another, you've completely missed the reality of my comments and the situation… you get blindsided, you get suddenly attacked by a barrage, and yeah, even you, you'll be cowering under it. Why? Because you'll automatically go into a primal defensive mode… it's hardwired into you. You might break past that sooner with training, but you're still going to cower first. And there's nothing to suggest that Kyokushin would get you there sooner than Shito Ryu, you know…



The full contact training suggests exactly that. If you get socked in the face in training, you're far more capable of dealing with getting socked in the face for real.




> You've done them when someone's trying to violate you, have you? Know the situation well, yeah?



Violate me as in trying to bash my face and head in while on top of me? Yep.



> Oh, and you do know that this is really little more than evidence that one thing has worked on occasion, not anything that contravenes the idea that other methods work as well, yeah?



Except we have multiple examples of this technique working since the training necessary to learn this technique falls almost exactly in line with its self defense application. This is especially the case in traditional Bjj and MMA schools where striking is applied while performing the triangle set up, and where the technique favors the weaker/smaller practitioner who ends up on the bottom of a grappling contest.



> Actually, from a technical standpoint, no, it didn't.



Again, a different argument for a different time.




> Er… huh? No, having trained in BJJ wouldn't have mitigated the damage taken in being hit from behind and tackled to the ground, then hit when she was down there. You do realise that BJJ training doesn't mean hits don't damage you, yeah? Oh, and no, Karate etc don't actually "lack" this "crucial range"… they don't have anywhere near the specialization that BJJ does, but then again, BJJ is lacking the "crucial" striking and kicking skills that they have… or the weapon usage of the FMA's… or, well, anything else we can come up with.



She was on the ground for a fairly extended amount of time. Training in Bjj would have given her options to get out of that situation far more efficiently and effectively than simply punching and kicking her way out. Kicking and punching someone off of you isn't the most efficient way to get someone off of you, and it leads to the potential of receiving more damage since the person on top of you has positional dominance.

Additionally, the "crucial range" of striking meant little, since the perpetrator was capable of breaching that range and take her to the ground multiple times.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 26, 2015)

Okay, some approaches to this thread are pretty ridiculous.  She survived and was successful in her self-defense.  No one here knows whether she would have been successful or not having practiced another system.  We just don't know.  As I mentioned before I am inclined to believe her as she was the one in this situation that prevailed.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 26, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Okay, some approaches to this thread are pretty ridiculous.  She survived and was successful in her self-defense.  No one here knows whether she would have been successful or not having practiced another system.  We just don't know.  As I mentioned before I am inclined to believe her as she was the one in this situation that prevailed.



It's pretty easy to deduce that 15 years of dedicated training in Bjj or MMA would produce a martial artist more competent in fighting from the ground position than someone who was never trained from that range of fighting. There aren't too many Bij black belts who are going to get pounded by an untrained person while on the ground.

It's also fair to point out that it was a third party that scared the attacker off. It's also fair to point out that her karate blows from the ground were ineffective due to probable drug use or adrenaline. Too bad she didn't know any chokes from that position. That knowledge could have been most helpful.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> The OP's post;
> 
> Point fighting does not develop strong kicks and punches, nor the necessary defenses against solidly thrown kicks and punches.



The only training aspect mentioned in the OP's post is in regards to sparring methodologies, not anything else done to develop striking and kicking power… so, no, the OP's post only supports you if sparring is the only thing done at the school. It isn't. 



Hanzou said:


> Now that may be different in various Shito Ryu schools, but I'm mainly talking about the OP's options. If self defense is the goal, a school pushing full contact is better than a point fighting school.



Considering that sparring is almost diametrically opposed to the realities of self defence, then no, that's really got almost nothing to do with it.



Hanzou said:


> The full contact training suggests exactly that. If you get socked in the face in training, you're far more capable of dealing with getting socked in the face for real.



Ha!!! Love that you said that… you do know that the "full contact" training in Kyokushin involves NO PUNCHING TO THE HEAD, yeah?? So… getting socked in the face ain't exactly happening there either… meaning that no, you're not more capable of dealing with it…

Seriously dude… research.



Hanzou said:


> Violate me as in trying to bash my face and head in while on top of me? Yep.



You have some very odd definitions of words, you know…. 



Hanzou said:


> Except we have multiple examples of this technique working since the training necessary to learn this technique falls almost exactly in line with its self defense application. This is especially the case in traditional Bjj and MMA schools where striking is applied while performing the triangle set up, and where the technique favors the weaker/smaller practitioner who ends up on the bottom of a grappling contest.



(Leaving off the very poor logic at play there) You do realise that I wasn't saying that your couple of examples were unusual, or that they were not evidence of the BJJ methods working, or anything of the kind… it was that they were no evidence of other systems not working. Dude. Read before you answer.



Hanzou said:


> Again, a different argument for a different time.



Sure.



Hanzou said:


> She was on the ground for a fairly extended amount of time. Training in Bjj would have given her options to get out of that situation far more efficiently and effectively than simply punching and kicking her way out. Kicking and punching someone off of you isn't the most efficient way to get someone off of you, and it leads to the potential of receiving more damage since the person on top of you has positional dominance.



You really couldn't read what was said in the article, could you?



Hanzou said:


> Additionally, the "crucial range" of striking meant little, since the perpetrator was capable of breaching that range and take her to the ground multiple times.



The point was more that your idea of a "crucial range" being missing could be easily applied to BJJ for any other range that it is lacking in… not just this single example, but a way of reminding you that your system is not only just as lacking as others, it's definitively more lacking than many systems. That's what you get with specialist systems, of course… it's how they manage to specialise so well… but the reality is that, outside of the ground, BJJ is desperately lacking whatever you may classify as a "crucial range" from any other context.



Hanzou said:


> It's pretty easy to deduce that 15 years of dedicated training in Bjj or MMA would produce a martial artist more competent in fighting from the ground position than someone who was never trained from that range of fighting. There aren't too many Bij black belts who are going to get pounded by an untrained person while on the ground.



No, it's a supposition you're clinging to. 



Hanzou said:


> It's also fair to point out that it was a third party that scared the attacker off. It's also fair to point out that her karate blows from the ground were ineffective due to probable drug use or adrenaline. Too bad she didn't know any chokes from that position. That knowledge could have been most helpful.



Garbage. Read the article properly. And see exactly what happened.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 28, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> The only training aspect mentioned in the OP's post is in regards to sparring methodologies, not anything else done to develop striking and kicking power… so, no, the OP's post only supports you if sparring is the only thing done at the school. It isn't.



Sparring is a fairly large training aspect. If you're not applying your techniques in a full contact environment, how can you develop proper striking power, or learn how to handle a blow to the body?

The same applies to grappling arts. If you're not sparring in Judo, how are you learning how to grip? How are you learning how to throw or take a throw?



> Considering that sparring is almost diametrically opposed to the realities of self defense, then no, that's really got almost nothing to do with it.



So if I get knocked down in a self defense situation, and a guy gets on top of me and I apply guard, break his posture, and sweep him to gain dominant positioning to either deal punishment, or run away, how is that "diametrically opposed" to the sparring I've done in class numerous times?



> Ha!!! Love that you said that… you do know that the "full contact" training in Kyokushin involves NO PUNCHING TO THE HEAD, yeah?? So… getting socked in the face ain't exactly happening there either… meaning that no, you're not more capable of dealing with it…



I was talking about full contact sparring in general, not only Kyokushin. Nice dodge though.

But let's talk about Kyokushin; Taking full contact blows to the body can just be as helpful as taking full contact blows to the face. The same principle applies here. If you don't know how to take a hit, all that pretty striking goes out the window. Additionally, while they don't allow punches to the head, they do allow kicks to the head.

In the end the point remains; Full contact toughens up the body. You need a toughened body in order to deal with a bad situation.




> You have some very odd definitions of words, you know….



You don't consider someone invading your personal space and trying to do you bodily harm as a "violation" of your person? Interesting....




> You really couldn't read what was said in the article, could you?



Which part of my statement doesn't coincide with what occurred in the article?



> The point was more that your idea of a "crucial range" being missing could be easily applied to BJJ for any other range that it is lacking in… not just this single example, but a way of reminding you that your system is not only just as lacking as others, it's definitively more lacking than many systems. That's what you get with specialist systems, of course… it's how they manage to specialist so well… but the reality is that, outside of the ground, BJJ is desperately lacking whatever you may classify as a "crucial range" from any other context.



Except you would be wrong. There are strikes, takedowns, weapon defenses, and throws within Bjj. Granted the striking is typically a set up for a takedown or throw, but its in there nonetheless.

In order to be good on the ground, we have to get people to the ground in the first place.








> Garbage. Read the article properly. And see exactly what happened.



Um again, what part of my statement doesn't jive with the article being discussed?

No Cookies | Herald Sun

From the article;



> “I hit him in the ribs with my knee and punched him in the face as hard as I could.
> 
> “I think I broke his nose.”
> 
> ...






> At that point a *passer-by intervened*.
> 
> “A man came around the corner into the cutting and yelled, ‘What’s going on?’
> 
> “*That was the first time the man attacking me stopped*. He looked a bit panicked and then ran away.”



Not good. Not good at all.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 28, 2015)

*What doesn't jive Hanzou* is that you want to make this a BJJ thing when this incident already occurred and has nothing to do with BJJ.  Not only that, the young lady fought off her attacker utilizing her training in Karate which you seem to have a problem with.  I get it you love BJJ as do I but... this incident of self-defense doesn't involve BJJ.  It has nothing to do with BJJ and this young lady was successful in what she did!  We can assume that she might have been better off with BJJ but that is all it is an assumption.  What we do know is she was successful in fighting off this criminal and *we should be tipping our hats to her and the training that allowed her to fight him off!*


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 28, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *What doesn't jive Hanzou* is that you want to make this a BJJ thing when this incident already occurred and has nothing to do with BJJ.



I said ground fighting, not specifically Bjj. Which is why I mentioned both Bjj and MMA in my earlier response.



> Not only that, the young lady fought off her attacker utilizing her training in Karate which you seem to have a problem with.  I get it you love BJJ as do I but... this incident of self-defense doesn't involve BJJ.  It has nothing to do with BJJ and this young lady was successful in what she did!  We can assume that she might have been better off with BJJ but that is all it is an assumption.  What we do know is she was successful in fighting off this criminal and *we should be tipping our hats to her and the training that allowed her to fight him off!*



If a third party needed to intervene to get the criminal off of her, how can you honestly say that she fought him off?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I
> 
> If a third party needed to intervene to get the criminal off of her, how can you honestly say that she fought him off?



If she hadn't resisted with the skills that she had, she might not have been around for the third party to intervene-you'd be amazed how easy it is to snatch someone off the street.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 28, 2015)

elder999 said:


> If she hadn't resisted with the skills that she had, she might not have been around for the third party to intervene-you'd be amazed how easy it is to snatch someone off the street.



No argument there. 

As I've said before, having some skills is better than having no skills.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Sparring is a fairly large training aspect.



Depends on the school, you realise… I mean… in everything I do, there's, oh, let's see… none. So… not so much a "fairly large training aspect"… 



Hanzou said:


> If you're not applying your techniques in a full contact environment, how can you develop proper striking power, or learn how to handle a blow to the body?



You're kidding, right? Are you genuinely so woefully ignorant as to think that there is only one way of developing power or conditioning?!? Seriously?!?!? You do know that such things have been trained without sparring, especially without "full contact" sparring in many systems for centuries, yeah? And besides, power training is often better done outside of sparring, full contact or not… as there's no need to hold back then… and trust me, you go "full contact" with me, you're going to understand why power is trained separately… when you get up again.



Hanzou said:


> The same applies to grappling arts. If you're not sparring in Judo, how are you learning how to grip? How are you learning how to throw or take a throw?



Kata.

Seriously. That's what it's for (in part).



Hanzou said:


> So if I get knocked down in a self defense situation, and a guy gets on top of me and I apply guard, break his posture, and sweep him to gain dominant positioning to either deal punishment, or run away, how is that "diametrically opposed" to the sparring I've done in class numerous times?



Wow, that has got to be one of the most impressive examples of showing how much you don't have a clue about the argument I've seen in a long time… 

Here's the thing… you get that the actual difference is in the context and set-up, yeah? Not "what technique I use"? Cause, when all's said and done, the technique is irrelevant… contextual training is what's important. But if you really want to know what the difference is, it's in your attitude, and what you do next… 



Hanzou said:


> I was talking about full contact sparring in general, not only Kyokushin. Nice dodge though.



You're kidding, yeah?!? This entire thread is about (Shin)Kyokushin versus Shito Ryu!!!! You were directly referencing the OP's comments on the different sparring ideologies of the two systems… so yes, it absolutely was about Kyokushin style sparring specifically!

Dude… read.



Hanzou said:


> But let's talk about Kyokushin; Taking full contact blows to the body can just be as helpful as taking full contact blows to the face.



You don't get much into biomechanics much, do you?



Hanzou said:


> The same principle applies here. If you don't know how to take a hit, all that pretty striking goes out the window.



Again, how do you know that's not going on? How do you know that Shito Ryu's sparring is not "full contact"? There's no mention of it anywhere… just a "point" system… 



Hanzou said:


> Additionally, while they don't allow punches to the head, they do allow kicks to the head.



Yes, they do… most Kyokushin knockouts come from kicks, because the hands are held low (not needing to protect their face from punches)… that doesn't mean that they're regularly kicking each other in the head, though… 



Hanzou said:


> In the end the point remains; Full contact toughens up the body.



As does any number of other training methodologies, such as Hojo Undo conditioning… 



Hanzou said:


> You need a toughened body in order to deal with a bad situation.



Er… well… huh?

No. You don't. For one thing, it will depend on the situation. For another, you're basically saying that, unless you spend lots of time dealing with people hitting you, you can't possibly handle a "bad situation"… which is kinda disproved by everyone who's not a WWE wrestler getting through such events. You know those 7 year old girls that fight off abduction attempts? Had "toughened bodies" did they?

Wanna rethink that?



Hanzou said:


> You don't consider someone invading your personal space and trying to do you bodily harm as a "violation" of your person? Interesting….



No. It's a violation of personal space, but a violation of the person involves putting something inside the person… and, in the context you used it, the common implication is some form of sexual assault, such as rape. 

Again, you have a rather bizarre way of interpreting words… 



Hanzou said:


> Which part of my statement doesn't coincide with what occurred in the article?



Honestly, I don't think you'd recognise it if it was spelled out in flaming letters.



Hanzou said:


> Except you would be wrong. There are strikes, takedowns, weapon defenses, and throws within Bjj. Granted the striking is typically a set up for a takedown or throw, but its in there nonetheless.



BJJ striking is lesser than Karate's grappling… it's weapon defences are, well, far from optimal… it's throws are minimalist and often a little sub-optimal in execution, and it's takedowns are simply a means to an end. Frankly, I don't consider any of these to be really dealing with those ranges the same way you don't consider Karate to have a real grappling range.

But you missed the point again. You make blanket statements about what is missing in other systems (which is pretty much always the one thing you guys deal most in, regardless of how much your system is missing as well), stating that they are missing "crucial ranges", and I'm pointing out that the same thing can be done with BJJ just as easily (if not more so). The aim is to open your eyes, and maybe get you to realise that your system is not the be-all end-all you keep trying to position it as.



Hanzou said:


> In order to be good on the ground, we have to get people to the ground in the first place.



Yeah… look, to be frank, I'm not overtly impressed by anything shown in that video… from the mechanical issues, the possibility of back problems and strain, the poorly done hand goshi, to the limited usefulness of many of the methods shown, and it's a good thing you guys go to a double leg more often… 



Hanzou said:


> Um again, what part of my statement doesn't jive with the article being discussed?
> 
> No Cookies | Herald Sun
> 
> ...



For one thing, that's a different article… so…

For another, there is nothing that supports your ideas of what would or would not have "worked better"… but the main point is that you're missing how these events actually work in the real world… you know, not in sparring/rolling/tournaments…


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 29, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Depends on the school, you realise… I mean… in everything I do, there's, oh, let's see… none. So… not so much a "fairly large training aspect"…



Well we're not talking about your system are we? We're talking about Karate. Karate exponents who don't spar, or are trained via point fighting can't fight their way out of a paper bag.



> You're kidding, right? Are you genuinely so woefully ignorant as to think that there is only one way of developing power or conditioning?!? Seriously?!?!? You do know that such things have been trained without sparring, especially without "full contact" sparring in many systems for centuries, yeah? And besides, power training is often better done outside of sparring, full contact or not… as there's no need to hold back then…



Uh yeah. The *only* way you're going to learn how to properly punch and kick people is to actually punch and kick people. The only way to learn how to get kicked and punched by people is to get punched and kicked by people. Grappling is no different. The only way you can learn how to throw or choke someone, or to converse take throws and chokes _from_ someone is to actually experience it. Now you can experience that on the concrete and the hospital, or you can experience it in the relative safety of the gym.

I mean, do you seriously believe someone in Judo (for example) who has never participated in live sparring could beat someone who does live sparring at every practice? I've actually seen this happen, and its not pretty. The practitioner who wasn't sparring constantly got steamrolled.



> and trust me, you go "full contact" with me, you're going to understand why power is trained separately… when you get up again.



LoL! Okay bud.



> Kata.
> 
> Seriously. That's what it's for (in part).



Which is why almost none of the grappling arts practice kata right? Wrestling, Bjj, and Sombo don't practice kata. On the other hand, *every single grappling system* does a form of live sparring and they do that form of live sparring all the time.

That includes Judo.




> Wow, that has got to be one of the most impressive examples of showing how much you don't have a clue about the argument I've seen in a long time…
> 
> Here's the thing… you get that the actual difference is in the context and set-up, yeah? Not "what technique I use"? Cause, when all's said and done, the technique is irrelevant… contextual training is what's important. But if you really want to know what the difference is, it's in your attitude, and what you do next…



That was one heck of a dodge. Bravo!



> You're kidding, yeah?!? This entire thread is about (Shin)Kyokushin versus Shito Ryu!!!! You were directly referencing the OP's comments on the different sparring ideologies of the two systems… so yes, it absolutely was about Kyokushin style sparring specifically!
> 
> Dude… read.



Yeah, and the example I used can be applied to the thread about Kyokushin and Shito Ryu. In fact I pointed out exactly how my example applies to Kyokushin in my response.



> Again, how do you know that's not going on? How do you know that Shito Ryu's sparring is not "full contact"? There's no mention of it anywhere… just a "point" system…



Because if it was full contact the OP would have mentioned it in his post. 



> Yes, they do… most Kyokushin knockouts come from kicks, because the hands are held low (not needing to protect their face from punches)… that doesn't mean that they're regularly kicking each other in the head, though…



And again the *point* is that getting punched and kicked full blast is more beneficial in learning how to take and give blows than doing anything else.



> As does any number of other training methodologies, such as Hojo Undo conditioning…



Not as well as taking blows to the body.



> Er… well… huh?
> 
> No. You don't. For one thing, it will depend on the situation. For another, you're basically saying that, unless you spend lots of time dealing with people hitting you, you can't possibly handle a "bad situation"… which is kinda disproved by everyone who's not a WWE wrestler getting through such events. You know those 7 year old girls that fight off abduction attempts? Had "toughened bodies" did they?
> 
> Wanna rethink that?



Nope.



> No. It's a violation of personal space, but a violation of the person involves putting something inside the person… and, in the context you used it, the common implication is some form of sexual assault, such as rape.
> 
> Again, you have a rather bizarre way of interpreting words…



Yet it was still a violation. I never said it was on the same scale, simply that it was a violation and I had to deal with that violation or suffer the consequences. I certainly wasn't going to get raped, but I could have very easily been killed or put into a vegetative state considering that the assailant was armed with a hammer.




> Honestly, I don't think you'd recognize it if it was spelled out in flaming letters.



Yeah, that response doesn't coincide with what you quoted.



> BJJ striking is lesser than Karate's grappling… it's weapon defenses are, well, far from optimal… it's throws are minimalist and often a little sub-optimal in execution, and it's takedowns are simply a means to an end. Frankly, I don't consider any of these to be really dealing with those ranges the same way you don't consider Karate to have a real grappling range.



Well no one asked for your opinion. I was simply pointing out that they're there.



> But you missed the point again. You make blanket statements about what is missing in other systems (which is pretty much always the one thing you guys deal most in, regardless of how much your system is missing as well), stating that they are missing "crucial ranges", and I'm pointing out that the same thing can be done with BJJ just as easily (if not more so). The aim is to open your eyes, and maybe get you to realize that your system is not the be-all end-all you keep trying to position it as.



Saying that karate is lacking ground grappling isn't a blanket statement. Further, I have yet to encounter a a in school that doesn't encourage cross training. I've encountered plenty of karate schools that discouraged it.



> Yeah… look, to be frank, I'm not overtly impressed by anything shown in that video… from the mechanical issues, the possibility of back problems and strain, the poorly done hand gosh, to the limited usefulness of many of the methods shown, and it's a good thing you guys go to a double leg more often…



Well I'd love to see some examples of throws and takedowns from your system for comparison purposes.



> For one thing, that's a different article… so…
> 
> For another, there is nothing that supports your ideas of what would or would not have "worked better"… but the main point is that you're missing how these events actually work in the real world… you know, not in sparring/rolling/tournaments…



It's the first article that was posted about the incident. Subsequent articles had significant changes in an attempt to make the victim look like she held her own more. I have no idea why the account was changed, but it was changed nonetheless.

As for what works in the real world; We have already discussed examples of women using ground grappling to save themselves from assailants. If this young woman had spent 15 years in Bjj, she would have been a black belt in the system. It's highly doubtful that a black belt in Bjj wouldn't be able to handle herself on the ground. Why? Because she would have had 15 years of grappling against men of varying sizes under her belt.

And yeah, actual grappling, not pretend kata/larping grappling.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 29, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Well we're not talking about your system are we? We're talking about Karate. Karate exponents who don't spar, or are trained via point fighting can't fight their way out of a paper bag.



This is too broad a generality-for hundreds of years, karate exponents trained without sparring, or via point fighting, have defended themselves successfully, fighting out of life and death situations, and against other trained-and sometimes armed-martial artists. There are several documented incidents of this.Gichin Funakoshi, Gogen Yamaguchi (who is generally credited with _founding_ jiyu kumite in 1935-as in prior to that, there was *no* "free sparring" in karate), and Anko Itosu are just a few of the pioneers who fought and defended themselves successfully (and in some cases, repeatedly) without the kind of training you're advocating.After karate came to the U.S.,practitioners who trained with point sparring successfully used their skills to defend themselves for decades-in many cases they were law enforcement or corrections officers, and those incidents became public record.





Hanzou said:


> Uh yeah. The *only* way you're going to learn how to properly punch and kick people is to actually punch and kick people



Not true-see above..
.





Hanzou said:


> The only way to learn how to get kicked and punched by people is to get punched and kicked by people.



Not true. See above. (  )



Hanzou said:


> Grappling is no different.



Actually, most grappling* is *different! You can certainly learn the mechanics and skills without a resistant opponent, but eventually you need to-and can. Unlike karate, where much more significant damage can occur from contact, grappling can be practiced at nearly full power to just short of where damage will occur (though the only way to really learn this is without resistance at first.)




Hanzou said:


> Which is why almost none of the grappling arts practice kata right? Wrestling, Bjj, and Sombo don't practice kata. On the other hand, *every single grappling system* does a form of live sparring and they do that form of live sparring all the time.
> 
> That includes Judo.



Not really true at all-"kata" are drills, and if you think of the wrestling, BJJ and *Sambo* drills done in class, then you can see that they do practice a form of kata.

If it's prearranged, it's kata.

 In classical jujutsu there was almost nothing *but* kata: a two man exercise of pre-arranged movements is a kata. Also, while those styles have some form of sparring, they don't engage in it "all the time."

I can't even begin to tell you how many judo classes I had where there was no randori...but I'm pretty sure that until I turned 16, they were in the majority


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 29, 2015)

elder999 said:


> This is too broad a generality-for hundreds of years, karate exponents trained without sparring, or via point fighting, have defended themselves successfully, fighting out of life and death situations, and against other trained-and sometimes armed-martial artists. There are several documented incidents of this.Gichin Funakoshi, Gogen Yamaguchi (who is generally credited with _founding_ jiyu kumite in 1935-as in prior to that, there was *no* "free sparring" in karate), and Anko Itosu are just a few of the pioneers who fought and defended themselves successfully (and in some cases, repeatedly) without the kind of training you're advocating.After karate came to the U.S.,practitioners who trained with point sparring successfully used their skills to defend themselves for decades-in many cases they were law enforcement or corrections officers, and those incidents became public record.



Yeah, sure they did.

What you described above is nothing more than folklore, legends, and anecdotal evidence. When we look at documented history the exact opposite is the case. Numerous fighting exhibitions throughout the 20th century show us that exponents who spar constantly plaster those exponents who don't. In the modern age, we see this happen over and over and over again. I mean, would you honestly put someone who has only practiced kata against a boxer or MMA fighter and expect them to last more than 10 seconds before their face hits the canvas?

For that matter, are there any Karate styles left today that *don't* practice free sparring? 



> Actually, most grappling* is *different! You can certainly learn the mechanics and skills without a resistant opponent, but eventually you need to-and can. Unlike karate, where much more significant damage can occur from contact, grappling can be practiced at nearly full power to just short of where damage will occur (though the only way to really learn this is without resistance at first.)



Okay, so which grappling style doesn't practice free sparring on a consistent basis? Feel free to list them.



> Not really true at all-"kata" are drills, and if you think of the wrestling, BJJ and *Sambo* drills done in class, then you can see that they do practice a form of kata. In classical jujutsu there was almost nothing *but* kata: a two man exercise of pre-arranged movements is a kata. Also, while those styles have some form of sparring, they don't engage in it "all the time."



Semantics. When we say kata, we're talking kata. We're not talking about drills and Chris wasn't talking about drills.

Uchikomi for example is a drill, not a kata.


----------



## Buka (Dec 29, 2015)

I had to go read the OP. I had forgotten what the hell was originally being talked about.
I wonder what the poster thinks of our friendly martial arts community, if he's even still following along. Probably thinks of us as a bunch of primadonna pussies.

I think you guys fight here more than you do in your dojos. I dunno', must be some kind of respect thing.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 29, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I mean, would you honestly put someone who has only practiced kata against a boxer or MMA fighter and expect them to last more than 10 seconds before their face hits the canvas?


Your argument makes no sense..

Kata is a record of techniques designed specially (and only) to deal with civilian violence/self defence  They are not, and have never been, designed to be used in fighting/consensual violence/combat sports.  People who practised Karate (before it also became a combat sport) used the techniques within kata to defend themselves.  Self Defence has nothing to do with fighting.  Your argument to disprove the fact that Karate's techniques for dealing with civilian violence/self defence would work for self defence/criminal violence is that: if you were to take someone who does not train for consensual violence/fighting/combat sports and you were to test them in the arena of consensual violence/combat sport/fighting arena against someone who trains specially for consensual violence/combat sports/fighting then they would lose. 

Well yes, of course they will.  That's not what they are training for, and that's not what the techniques they are using are designed to do, so of course they will lose.  But fighting/consensual violence/combats sports and criminal violence/self defence are two different things.  Banana's and oranges are two different things, but you don't try to make orange juice with banana's, and they when you fail, deride banana's as having no value, that would be idiotic, and yet that s the basis of your argument.

Arguing that techniques designed for self defence won't work for self defence, based purely on the fact that they won't work in the totally different environment of combat sports, is as pointless as it is stupid.  Combat sports/fighting/consensual violence, are not the same thing as self defence/criminal violence.  It is common sense therefore that they requires different approaches techniques and training.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 29, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I mean, would you honestly put someone who has only practiced kata against a boxer or MMA fighter and expect them to last more than 10 seconds before their face hits the canvas?


Nobody else ever says "only" kata.  You are the only one saying that, as a way to build an argument for the sake of argument, an argument that nobody else is having and that doesn't actually exist.  

Anyone who understands kata knows that it is only one tool of many, in the training toolbox.  It is never "only" kata.  Only those who do not understand it or who choose deliberate ignorance in the face of repeated education, think otherwise.  This is you.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 30, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> Your argument makes no sense..
> 
> Kata is a record of techniques designed specially (and only) to deal with civilian violence/self defence  They are not, and have never been, designed to be used in fighting/consensual violence/combat sports.  People who practised Karate (before it also became a combat sport) used the techniques within kata to defend themselves.  Self Defence has nothing to do with fighting.  Your argument to disprove the fact that Karate's techniques for dealing with civilian violence/self defence would work for self defence/criminal violence is that: if you were to take someone who does not train for consensual violence/fighting/combat sports and you were to test them in the arena of consensual violence/combat sport/fighting arena against someone who trains specially for consensual violence/combat sports/fighting then they would lose.
> 
> ...



If you can't fight, how in the world are you going to be able to defend yourself?

The idea that you can defend yourself with zero or subpar fighting ability is complete nonsense.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 30, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> If you can't fight, how in the world are you going to be able to defend yourself?
> 
> The idea that you can defend yourself with zero or subpar fighting ability is complete nonsense.


well for starters sport fighting has nothing to do with self defense


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 30, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> well for starters sport fighting has nothing to do with self defense



Who said anything about sport fighting? I'm talking about fighting period.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 30, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Who said anything about sport fighting?


ummm you did with your nonsense about not lasting 10 seconds with a sport fighter





> I'm talking about fighting period.


yeah and plenty of people knew how to fight long before the UFC and still do without sparing or competing in a sport


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 30, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> ummm you did with your nonsense about not lasting 10 seconds with a sport fighteryeah and



Ah a quote taken out of context. Gotcha.



> plenty of people knew how to fight long before the UFC and still do *without sparing *or competing in a sport



Evidence?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 30, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Evidence?


evidence that people know how to fight?


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 30, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> evidence that people know how to fight?



Evidence that people know how to fight without sparring.

And nothing anecdotal please.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 30, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Evidence that people know how to fight without sparring.
> 
> And nothing anecdotal please.


ummm 1000s of years of history


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 30, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> ummm 1000s of years of history



Would that include Chinese martial arts?



> ""Those who have practiced these (edit-Chinese martial) arts twenty or thirty years have never defeated anyone who has practiced Western boxing or Judo. Why is this? It is because the practitioners of Shaolin and Wudang styles only pay attention to the beauty of their forms - they lack practical methods and spirit and have lost the true transmissions of their ancestors. Hence, our martial arts are viewed by outsiders merely as rigorous dancing."



-Liu Jinsheng author of Chin Na Fa 1936



> When the Chinese army was researching and developing their hand-to-hand combat, (which later evolved into the modern San Shou/San Da tournament fighting popular today) they researched all the popular forms of martial arts, including their own. The conclusion was that Western boxing hand techniques, when it came to developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time, were superior to all others, including their own



-Tim Cantrell, noted Chinese MA teacher and researcher

Interesting how 1000s of years of fighting history fell by the wayside as soon as western boxing was introduced to China.

Of course the same thing happened when Judo was introduced in Japan.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 31, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> If you can't fight, how in the world are you going to be able to defend yourself?
> 
> .


Because fighting isn't the same as self defence.  To quote Bubba Sparks "How else can I say it? I don't speak no other languages."


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 1, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Who said anything about sport fighting? I'm talking about fighting period.


It does not matter if you are talking sport fighting or street fighting..  Willingly engaging in consensual violence (fighting) is not the same as self defence.  Clearly here the boxer was the better fighter than the plasterer however it is the boxer who comes of worse.  Why?  Because the plaster does not attempt to fight him.

Boxer has to quit sport after Burnley street attack - Burnley Express

Although this is long at an hour, it is an excellent explanation of the similarities and differences between martial arts, fighting and self define, which are commonly mistaken as the same thing.

The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy
_"Many martial arts instructors see martial arts, fighting and self-protection as being one and the same with all distinctions between them being completely lost. Personally I think this lack of clarity to be highly problematic and it is arguably the biggest problem we face today."_


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 2, 2016)

Oh dear lord...



Hanzou said:


> Well we're not talking about your system are we? We're talking about Karate. Karate exponents who don't spar, or are trained via point fighting can't fight their way out of a paper bag.



My system is an example of you, yet again, not having the first clue about the larger picture. The fact that you can't follow a simple argumentative structure is honestly rather saddening for me.



Hanzou said:


> Uh yeah. The *only* way you're going to learn how to properly punch and kick people is to actually punch and kick people. The only way to learn how to get kicked and punched by people is to get punched and kicked by people. Grappling is no different. The only way you can learn how to throw or choke someone, or to converse take throws and chokes _from_ someone is to actually experience it. Now you can experience that on the concrete and the hospital, or you can experience it in the relative safety of the gym.



Well, that's a whole mess of wrong. You do know that there are many other ways of doing all that, yeah? Including far more reliable ones? Nah… 



Hanzou said:


> I mean, do you seriously believe someone in Judo (for example) who has never participated in live sparring could beat someone who does live sparring at every practice? I've actually seen this happen, and its not pretty. The practitioner who wasn't sparring constantly got steamrolled.



What makes you think that's got anything to do with the context of the thread itself?



Hanzou said:


> LoL! Okay bud.



You honestly have no idea what my "full contact" is like… which is fine. But the point is that your context is not the one the thread is about… and yours is quite removed from mine as well.



Hanzou said:


> Which is why almost none of the grappling arts practice kata right? Wrestling, Bjj, and Sombo don't practice kata. On the other hand, *every single grappling system* does a form of live sparring and they do that form of live sparring all the time.
> 
> That includes Judo.



Dude… seriously, stop with making comments like that. All you do is show just how little you really know. I mean… do you want me to list all the kata in Judo? There's quite a few, you know… the Nage no Kata… Katame no Kata… Ju no Kata… Itsutsu no Kata… Koshiki no Kata… Kime no Kata… Goshin no Kata… 

How about the 123 kata of Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu (Jujutsu)? The 180+ of Takagi Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu? All the methods of Takenouchi Ryu? All of the hundreds of other Jujutsu systems that have, and do exist? You know… the reasons you have your little game version at all?



Hanzou said:


> That was one heck of a dodge. Bravo!



Well, when you miss everything that's explained, and flatly refuse to listen when corrected, what's the point in giving you actual answers? It might be noted, though, that I did actually answer you… all it takes is for you to actually understand what you were told.



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, and the example I used can be applied to the thread about Kyokushin and Shito Ryu. In fact I pointed out exactly how my example applies to Kyokushin in my response.



Er… huh? Dude… read. You said that full contact was good because you get used to be ing "socked in the head"… I pointed out that Kyokushin's rules actually prohibit that… and you say you were addressing Kyokushin itself at the time?

No.



Hanzou said:


> Because if it was full contact the OP would have mentioned it in his post.



So… you're making an assumption based on a lack of words (which might be due to a lack of information on the OP's part, you know…)?



Hanzou said:


> And again the *point* is that getting punched and kicked full blast is more beneficial in learning how to take and give blows than doing anything else.



No, it's really not. Again, you have me do that, and all you learn is how long it takes you to get back up again.



Hanzou said:


> Not as well as taking blows to the body.



First demonstrate to me that you know these methods, then demonstrate to me that you have any clue as to how to quantifiably assess that statement.



Hanzou said:


> Nope.



See, now, this is the biggest issue with your posts. You make a statement, it is countered with multiple examples of how wrong your idea is, by contradicting your comment directly, and you are asked if you would reconsider your position. You then respond with this.

You have no interest in learning. You just want to argue, despite it coming from a deep well of ignorance.



Hanzou said:


> Yet it was still a violation. I never said it was on the same scale, simply that it was a violation and I had to deal with that violation or suffer the consequences. I certainly wasn't going to get raped, but I could have very easily been killed or put into a vegetative state considering that the assailant was armed with a hammer.



I heartily recommend you look into what words mean in context, then.



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that response doesn't coincide with what you quoted.



Your denial of anything you're presented with is why I answered as I did. For the record, though, it was largely centred around your attributing certain causes and effects, the effects of the strikes, and what "would have helped her".



Hanzou said:


> Well no one asked for your opinion. I was simply pointing out that they're there.



Ah… so only you are allowed to point out the issues with a systems flawed and limited approach? Cool… 



Hanzou said:


> Saying that karate is lacking ground grappling isn't a blanket statement.



Yeah… it really is. It's kinda the definition of it, actually.



Hanzou said:


> Further, I have yet to encounter a a in school that doesn't encourage cross training. I've encountered plenty of karate schools that discouraged it.



And do you understand the reasons, when that's the case?



Hanzou said:


> Well I'd love to see some examples of throws and takedowns from your system for comparison purposes.



What would that prove? Seeing my throws and takedowns wouldn't make the ones in that video any better, you know… 



Hanzou said:


> It's the first article that was posted about the incident. Subsequent articles had significant changes in an attempt to make the victim look like she held her own more. I have no idea why the account was changed, but it was changed nonetheless.
> 
> As for what works in the real world; We have already discussed examples of women using ground grappling to save themselves from assailants. If this young woman had spent 15 years in Bjj, she would have been a black belt in the system. It's highly doubtful that a black belt in Bjj wouldn't be able to handle herself on the ground. Why? Because she would have had 15 years of grappling against men of varying sizes under her belt.



Really, you need to take more time reading what's written… the comment was about HOW things work in the real world… not WHAT works in the real world… the rest of this is pure supposition, and completely besides the point.



Hanzou said:


> And yeah, actual grappling, not pretend kata/larping grappling.



Dude, you have no idea what kata is. Nor larping, I'd suggest.



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, sure they did.
> 
> What you described above is nothing more than folklore, legends, and anecdotal evidence. When we look at documented history the exact opposite is the case. Numerous fighting exhibitions throughout the 20th century show us that exponents who spar constantly plaster those exponents who don't. In the modern age, we see this happen over and over and over again. I mean, would you honestly put someone who has only practiced kata against a boxer or MMA fighter and expect them to last more than 10 seconds before their face hits the canvas?



And that evidence is highly contextually dependent. So… who cares? Of course, change the context and your sparring guy could be in more serious trouble than your hypothetical… 



Hanzou said:


> For that matter, are there any Karate styles left today that *don't* practice free sparring?



Well, we have K-man's school, who don't engage in what you'd class as "free sparring"… 



Hanzou said:


> Okay, so which grappling style doesn't practice free sparring on a consistent basis? Feel free to list them.



Takenouchi Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Sosuishi Ryu, Sekiguchi Ryu, Hontai Yoshin Ryu… honestly, I can go on like that for days… 



Hanzou said:


> Semantics. When we say kata, we're talking kata. We're not talking about drills and Chris wasn't talking about drills.
> 
> Uchikomi for example is a drill, not a kata.



And I listed kata earlier… thing is… do you know what a kata is?



Hanzou said:


> If you can't fight, how in the world are you going to be able to defend yourself?
> 
> The idea that you can defend yourself with zero or subpar fighting ability is complete nonsense.



Yet, people do it all the time… so, apparently, the world is doing it wrong.

Here's the thing. You've been told before, but I'm going to say it again… fighting is not self defence… additionally… actually, you know what? You're not going to get it. Just know that you're completely in the dark on this topic.



Hanzou said:


> Evidence that people know how to fight without sparring.
> 
> And nothing anecdotal please.



How could any evidence given not be anecdotal?!?! Dude… 



Hanzou said:


> Interesting how 1000s of years of fighting history fell by the wayside as soon as western boxing was introduced to China.
> 
> Of course the same thing happened when Judo was introduced in Japan.



HA!!!!!!

You have no idea at all. I mean… Judo wasn't "introduced in Japan"… it was developed there… and no "fighting history" has fallen by the wayside… so… just…. no.


----------

