# Does Your Martial Art Teach Self Defence?



## K-man (Dec 15, 2013)

In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2013)

Absolutely it does. I know this because I've used my training on the street, and I use it quite frequently in the ER.
Am I an unbeatable superman? Of course not; only Chuck Norris is. But I am well prepared.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 15, 2013)

K-man said:


> In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.


 
My martial arts training? No. My self defence training? Yes. Are they related? Yep. Are they the same? Nope.

And, honestly, I can't think of any martial art that is actually designed for modern self defence. Many can be used for a framework of such, but that's different to them being designed for it.


----------



## K-man (Dec 15, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> My martial arts training? No. My self defence training? Yes. Are they related? Yep. Are they the same? Nope.
> 
> And, honestly, I can't think of any martial art that is actually designed for modern self defence. Many can be used for a framework of such, but that's different to them being designed for it.


Well I haven't posted my vote yet either but I am interested in your comment, and a little surprised. 
So ignoring your self defence training, where on the scale would you rate your MA training in providing the ability to defend yourself?

As to your comment on 'modern' self defence. I would have thought a 'modern' martial art like Krav might cover that. Then when I look at Goju, there is nothing in Krav that isn't in Goju, with the exception of the ground moves which are influenced by BJJ. Which makes me wonder about Ninjutsu which I had always considered a comprehensive collection of systems.

But even then, the question was not phrased in the self defence context, despite the thread title. The question was, does your MA give you the skills to defend yourself? So is your answer still 'no' and if you still think that perhaps you could tell us why you think that way.
:asian:


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 15, 2013)

K-man said:


> Well I haven't posted my vote yet either but I am interested in your comment, and a little surprised.



Ha, thought you might be...



K-man said:


> So ignoring your self defence training, where on the scale would you rate your MA training in providing the ability to defend yourself?



Honestly? I wouldn't rate it at all. And that has nothing to do with mechanical/technical methods taught... because that's the last, and least important aspect of being able to defend yourself.



K-man said:


> As to your comment on 'modern' self defence. I would have thought a 'modern' martial art like Krav might cover that.



Nope, that's designed for a military context. Can it be used in a self defence context? Sure. But it isn't designed for it.



K-man said:


> Then when I look at Goju, there is nothing in Krav that isn't in Goju, with the exception of the ground moves which are influenced by BJJ.



The techniques mean nothing, though.... and I really, honestly mean that. There's almost nothing in Goju that's in Krav Maga, and vice versa, other than mechanical/technical methods.



K-man said:


> Which makes me wonder about Ninjutsu which I had always considered a comprehensive collection of systems.



Well, yeah... but what are the systems in that collection? Broadly speaking, there are six common systems (with quite a number more in the Genbukan, one more in the Jinenkan, and three more, albeit rarely/barely taught from, plus a few related and other  ones in the Bujinkan), which are Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu, Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu Jutaijutsu, Koto Ryu Koppojutsu, Gyokko Ryu Kosshijutsu, Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu (with another line, Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu/Jujutsu/Taijutsu being taught in a few of the organisations), and Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken, which is actually made up from a few different Kukishin Ryu lines.

Togakure Ryu is about espionage and infiltration. It's entire martial methodology is based on avoidance and escape from guards in a feudal Japanese castle/town. Many of it's methods are dealing with sword attacks.

Kukishinden Ryu, Koto Ryu, and Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu deal with combat in armour, and include a range of methods that are designed to immediately damage/maim/kill. SFR Jutaijutsu, to give an idea, is based more around the idea of using the weight of the armour (yours and the opponents), and deals with very few "attacks", instead, it teaches a range of actions/tactics stemming from a variety of possible grips/positions you might find yourself in. Kukishinden Ryu deals with more of handling an attack, but in a way very removed from anything modern, as well as having a large syllabus of weapons (sword, short sword, jutte, bo, hanbo, jo, naginata, spear, bisento), none of which have any real relation to any modern forms of assault. Koto Ryu teaches yet another method of handling opponents (many of these systems actually use the term "teki", meaning "enemy" rather than "uke", or "receiver", or opponent... to give an idea into the emphasis), including a large focus on attacking methods. A number of the kata specifically deal with two persons walking towards each other, and the "defender" simply strikes or attacks the "attacker"... 

Gyokko Ryu is, again, a different approach to a similar context, with the attacking forms very removed from modern assaults, and much of the system being centered around defending against a long or short sword. Takagi Yoshin Ryu (and, to a fair degree, Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu, although it's rather different in it's approach/focus) is very broad, and has a large number of very powerful techniques... but are based in primarily grabbing assaults rather than striking ones, and includes a range of techniques from a formal seated position, and, like all the others, moves from a very different distance than anything in modern violence, as well as having attacking methods that don't match, other than in a very vague, general fashion, modern assault.

The other systems, including Bokuden Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu etc also fit this structure/pattern.



K-man said:


> But even then, the question was not phrased in the self defence context, despite the thread title. The question was, does your MA give you the skills to defend yourself? So is your answer still 'no' and if you still think that perhaps you could tell us why you think that way. :asian:



Because physical techniques are not anything to do with having the skills to defend yourself, or, really, are the least important part of it all. If that's all you're relying on, you've missed the point.


----------



## K-man (Dec 15, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mmm, maybe. When it was first designed by Imi Lichtenfeld in the 1930s it was for civilians to defend themselves against the civilian mob violence directed against the Jewish communities in Europe. Only when he reached Israel did it become 'military' and now it has civilian, police and military applications. But regardless of which application you were to chose, to say it wasn't designed for self defence is not accurate.
:asian:


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 15, 2013)

Ah, that comes down to when was it really Krav Maga... Imi was starting to develop things that would become Krav Maga in the 30's, but I feel it only really came into it's own (and got really codified in any real way) when he was teaching for the IDF... which gives it a military focus. Eh, semantics at that point...


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 15, 2013)

K-man said:


> In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.



If the martial art in question doesn't teach self defense then either it is not a martial art or it has been taught incorrectly.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 15, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> If the martial art in question doesn't teach self defense then either it is not a martial art or it has been taught incorrectly.



Kyudo? Iaido? Bojutsu? Sojutsu? Kenjutsu? Far more "martial" art than these modern unarmed methods, I feel....


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> If the martial art in question doesn't teach self defense then either it is not a martial art or it has been taught incorrectly.



I don't think that's very accurate. Sword arts (eastern or western...), for one example, are not exactly usable for self defense in todays world.


----------



## Kframe (Dec 15, 2013)

Isnt self defense more of a mindset then anything else? You have to have the presence of mind to act, and not cower. To know when and were likely trouble spots are. 

Ya many if not most arts teach techniques useable against a variety of attacks, but in the end its up to you to defend your self.  All arts teach techniques, some with different contexts.. However, in the end it is on you and you alone to apply what you learned to defend your self.  Self defense starts with the mind.

I thought systems such as Tony Bluers S.P.E.E.R  system and the various things taught by Michael Janich, such as his martial blade concepts and the various unarmed combative schools, would be considered modern self defense systems. As that is the focus of much it.


----------



## SENC-33 (Dec 15, 2013)

My self defense regiment takes from Thai Boxing, Silat, Kyusho and Systema among other "martial arts". But it is tailored to my self defense liking based on what works for me and my strengths with the traditional junk stripped away.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 15, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Kyudo? Iaido? Bojutsu? Sojutsu? Kenjutsu? Far more "martial" art than these modern unarmed methods, I feel....





			
				Dirty Dog said:
			
		

> I don't think that's very accurate. Sword arts (eastern or western...), for one example, are not exactly usable for self defense in todays world.



I don't see where the OP mentioned 'modern' or 'todays world'.  However, let's examine this for a moment in the context of modern.  Who's modern are you thinking about?  Are you thinking western culture?  What about in the countryside of a third world country?  Although they aren't modern in the context of walking around with an Ipad and/or smart phone...they're still in the 21st century just like us.  So would/could a stick art, sword art, knife art etc be used for effective self defense?  Of course they could.  And to be clear, they could be used effectively for self defense in our 'modern' culture as well.  Sure, they're a bit dated.  And yes, walking down the street with a sword here in the U.S. would probably be frowned upon outside a festival.  But it can still be effectively used for self defense if the need arose.  And improved weapons abound in third world countries.  I know because I've been to and lived in them.

So in the context of the OP, if a martial art doesn't teach SD then it really isn't a martial art.  It could be a martial sport, which is fine if the student is aware of the fact and that is the goal and/or desire.  Otherwise the instructor isn't or doesn't know how to teach the martial art correctly.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 15, 2013)

Martial art training can be used within the actions of self-defense however martial art training is not self-defense training. In the everyday aspects of self-defense martial art training has very little to do with it as there is far more to self-defense than being able to fight or giving the appearance of being able to fight and being able to fight as we see in the full contact aspect of MMA or other ring sports is so far removed from self-defense it is as comparing being able to swim to climbing a tree.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 15, 2013)

All MA system teach you how to "land your fist on your opponent's face". That's "self-defense" by default.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Dec 15, 2013)

K-man said:


> In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.



I believe someone would have to know or understand the technique in their martial art and be able to use it with full resistant in order to know if it will work. Also depends if they took their training serious enough to know what will work and what won't work and if they train the things that work more often than the things that don't. 

So yes and no. On the street I know I can defend myself from empty hand fights. But if gun or knife is put into the equations, no.  Yes self defense is a mindset and martial arts can teach some of that but it is the instructor goal to teach self defense within the art or otherwise you will be doing nothing but martial art techniques with no purpose.


----------



## K-man (Dec 15, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, that comes down to when was it really Krav Maga... Imi was starting to develop things that would become Krav Maga in the 30's, but I feel it only really came into it's own (and got really codified in any real way) when he was teaching for the IDF... which gives it a military focus. Eh, semantics at that point...



Mmm! And Kano was teaching his style of judo for several years before he called it judo, Miyagi was teaching Goju for decades before it was called Goju. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> If the martial art in question doesn't teach self defense then either it is not a martial art or it has been taught incorrectly.



The very point I made elsewhere.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't see where the OP mentioned 'modern' or 'todays world'.  However, let's examine this for a moment in the context of modern.  Who's modern are you thinking about?  Are you thinking western culture?  What about in the countryside of a third world country?  Although they aren't modern in the context of walking around with an Ipad and/or smart phone...they're still in the 21st century just like us.  So would/could a stick art, sword art, knife art etc be used for effective self defense?  Of course they could.  And to be clear, they could be used effectively for self defense in our 'modern' culture as well.  Sure, they're a bit dated.  And yes, walking down the street with a sword here in the U.S. would probably be frowned upon outside a festival.  But it can still be effectively used for self defense if the need arose.  And improved weapons abound in third world countries.  I know because I've been to and lived in them.
> 
> So in the context of the OP, if a martial art doesn't teach SD then it really isn't a martial art.  It could be a martial sport, which is fine if the student is aware of the fact and that is the goal and/or desire.  Otherwise the instructor isn't or doesn't know how to teach the martial art correctly.



The question was deliberately left open. All someone training Iaido has to do is say 'no', if that's what they feel.



TKDTony2179 said:


> I believe someone would have to know or understand the technique in their martial art and be able to use it with full resistant in order to know if it will work. Also depends if they took their training serious enough to know what will work and what won't work and if they train the things that work more often than the things that don't.
> 
> So yes and no. On the street I know I can defend myself from empty hand fights. But if gun or knife is put into the equations, no.  Yes self defense is a mindset and martial arts can teach some of that but it is the instructor goal to teach self defense within the art or otherwise you will be doing nothing but martial art techniques with no purpose.


It is not the issue as to whether 'someone' might understand how to apply the technique. It is obvious that many people don't know. The question is personal. Do you know?


----------



## K-man (Dec 15, 2013)

Just a little background reading for anyone interested:



> The function of fighting techniques is to effectively cause injury or incapacitation to another person so as to end a fight. The purpose of a martial art however can be to improve the individual's capacity when necessary to efficiently and humanely defend themselves by fighting techniques and, when possible, potentially make use of such violent force superfluous. It's the Martial that provides the how, but it's the Art that decides the why. For techniques alone do not hold values, Arts do. It is here where meaning is found for practice to go beyond utility for potential self-defense situations.
> 
> 
> If the study of fighting techniques as a self-defense system does not include these factors nor speak to how the individual student of the craft is personally affectedmentally and emotionallyby their acquisition, how then is it a true Art of fighting?
> http://www.thearma.org/essays/Defining-A-Martial-Art.html


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Dec 15, 2013)

Why yes I do. But like stated I feel comfortable with empty hand fighting than against weapons.  I have limited training with that.


----------



## CNida (Dec 15, 2013)

K-man said:


> In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.



Do most martial arts not center around defending oneself?

Self defense is such a generic term I don't see how it can warrant such a deep and thorough explanation. Self defense is the defense of one's own self, generally understood to be referring to the act of thwarting a physical threat through similarly physical means.

I understand a martial art to be much more than protecting one's self in physical combat. Even though I don't practice an art, nor do I have much outside of military experience, but I truly believe that someone who devotes themselves to Martial arts becomes a living manifestation of that art. They embody it in every facet of their life.

Of course we could get into an argument over what's more effective in a self defense situation and we could end up making this thread look like the recently closed TMA vs MMA thread, but that's not what we are talking about.

My opinion? Anyone who trains a martial art and takes it at least a little bit seriously has the capability to defend themselves. Whether they can take that art and defend themselves "effectively" is a totally different thing altogether. 



Chris Parker said:


> Ah, that comes down to when was it really Krav Maga... Imi was starting to develop things that would become Krav Maga in the 30's, but I feel it only really came into it's own (and got really codified in any real way) when he was teaching for the IDF... which gives it a military focus. Eh, semantics at that point...



Okay but is there really a difference in military and non-military applications of self defense? 

As a soldier, when I go to war, I am trying to kill my enemy or at the very least neutralize him as a threat. Sure, it might be a bit more brutal than defending yourself against a mugger but the concept is the same. 

In self defense the focus is to make sure you walk away with your life. There is not much difference in military, law enforcement, or civilian self defense, other than what tools are more readily available to you.

The "focus" of defending yourself doesn't change just because you're in a firefight, apprehending a murderer, or protecting yourself from a serial rapist.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## donald1 (Dec 15, 2013)

My style is Okinawan goju ryu and yes,  various self defense from simple blocks and punches,  to ground fighting all the way to advanced flips and throws. 

Hard and loud forms like sanchin and like gekisai dai - San with variations in-between like another form seiunchin

That and other fighting techniques and combinations.  I've done it for some years now and teach it


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 16, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Isnt self defense more of a mindset then anything else? You have to have the presence of mind to act, and not cower. To know when and were likely trouble spots are.



A mindset? Not sure that I'd put it that way... I'd say a different mindset is required (for training self defence, as opposed to other foci in training), but no, self defence isn't a "mindset" itself. It's a distinct aim and defined purpose in approach, and contains a range of very definite aspects as necessary. The presence of mind you refer to isn't actually necessarily anything to do with self defence (actual self defence training will teach you that sometimes, cowering is the better approach, for example), and the last comment is more about awareness (a vital aspect, certainly, but more a trained skill and tactic, rather than a mindset).



Kframe said:


> Ya many if not most arts teach techniques useable against a variety of attacks, but in the end its up to you to defend your self.  All arts teach techniques, some with different contexts.. However, in the end it is on you and you alone to apply what you learned to defend your self.  Self defense starts with the mind.



No, self defence starts with awareness and recognition. The techniques, by and large, aren't important.



Kframe said:


> I thought systems such as Tony Bluers S.P.E.E.R  system and the various things taught by Michael Janich, such as his martial blade concepts and the various unarmed combative schools, would be considered modern self defense systems. As that is the focus of much it.



Tony's system is really an RBSD system, in that it features very little "techniques", but is designed as something that can be "added on" to any martial system (unarmed), with a few key concepts and principles. Michael's approach is quite reality based, and has it's core mechanics coming from FMA methods, and again, can be imported into other arts quite easily (as is it's design)... I've been incorporating a lot of it into my schools self defence curriculum for a number of years now. Again, these systems/approaches are far more RBSD than "martial arts"... and yeah, they're self defence systems. A big clue is the fact that they focus beyond the physical techniques, into the surrounding context and realities of modern violence and assault. And both teach that physical techniques are not the important, or first choice response.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't see where the OP mentioned 'modern' or 'todays world'.


 
By using the terms "self defence" and "the street", modern application was implied.



Kong Soo Do said:


> However, let's examine this for a moment in the context of modern.  Who's modern are you thinking about?  Are you thinking western culture?  What about in the countryside of a third world country?  Although they aren't modern in the context of walking around with an Ipad and/or smart phone...they're still in the 21st century just like us.


 
I deal, in these cases, in the context of my environment, so, for me, it's a modern, Western society, specifically Australia, most specifically Melbourne (the culture is a bit different to, say, Sydney, or Perth, or Brisbane). I have no reason (currently) to design my self defence training and teaching methods around the needs of an American culture, or an Indonesian one... or an English one... or a South African one... or anything else. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of the differences in requirements and environments, rather I do a fair bit of research into such things, but it's not immediately relevant to my teaching and training. If I was to visit somewhere like that, I'd certainly change the way I did things and presented them to suit that culture... which isn't something I've seen everyone do.

An example would be Richard Dmitri versus Deane Lawler. Richard is a Canadian who teaches his system/approach of Senshido out of the US, best known for his primary technical method, referred to as the "Shredder", which he uses against pretty much everything. Deane Lawler is an Australian RBSD instructor, who teaches a system/approach known as R-SULT, focused on surviving an initial assault primarily. There is one "technique" taught, which is a form of half-spear/half-cover used to immediately move from defence to offence. When Richard was out here, he was teaching verbal de-escalation... and his approach to the strategy was to be rather apologetic, backing away from the other guy, aiming to not aggravate the situation. The reason was that it was geared towards an American application... where the other guy might easily be carrying a gun. Deane saw it, and commented that such an approach to verbal de-escalation where he was from (Western suburbs of Sydney) would be seen as weakness, and be an invitation to a massive beating. Deane's verbal de-escalation is far more aggressive... and suits the environment his approach is born from and for. Use either in the wrong environment, and you're in some real trouble.



Kong Soo Do said:


> So would/could a stick art, sword art, knife art etc be used for effective self defense?  Of course they could.


 
Stick? Maybe. Knife? Again, maybe. Both come down to the environment and culture you're dealing with. The Filipino culture is quite heavily skewed towards blades... as is the South African one... so there, absolutely it'd make sense to have bladed methods a large part of your self defence approach.

A sword art? No. And that's from a sword guy.



Kong Soo Do said:


> And to be clear, they could be used effectively for self defense in our 'modern' culture as well.  Sure, they're a bit dated.  And yes, walking down the street with a sword here in the U.S. would probably be frowned upon outside a festival.  But it can still be effectively used for self defense if the need arose.


 
No, you'd get locked up. And, in that simple example, you've shown a lack of awareness of the first principle of self defence.



Kong Soo Do said:


> And improved weapons abound in third world countries.  I know because I've been to and lived in them.



Improvised weapons are also a key aspect of many self defence approaches... not sure what you're implying there, honestly. It really doesn't have to be a third world country to have them as a good included aspect.



Kong Soo Do said:


> So in the context of the OP, if a martial art doesn't teach SD then it really isn't a martial art.


 
Complete garbage, frankly. The most "martial" arts have nothing to do with self defence. My stuff isn't about self defence. It's about killing you (the enemy you, not you you). And, no, I'm not being dramatic... it's purely (on a tactical/technical level) about killing the other guy.

Again, Kyudo, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Kendo, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Kenjutsu, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Bojutsu, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Sojutsu, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Naginata, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Sumo, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Many classical forms of Jujutsu (and related), not in any way concerned with self defence.
Hojutsu, not in any way concerned with self defence.

And I'm only dealing with Japanese arts there. These are very martial arts, and have nothing to do with self defence. Perhaps your understanding of what a martial art is needs expanding?



Kong Soo Do said:


> It could be a martial sport, which is fine if the student is aware of the fact and that is the goal and/or desire.  Otherwise the instructor isn't or doesn't know how to teach the martial art correctly.



Maybe they know more about teaching their art, and what it is, than you do.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> All MA system teach you how to "land your fist on your opponent's face". That's "self-defense" by default.



No, it's not. It could be assault, for example. It could be a competition. It could be a challenge match. It could be an ego-boosting monkey dance taken too far.

Oh, and not all martial art systems teach you how to "land your fist on your opponent's face". None of the ones I listed above do, except for the Jujutsu and Sumo (with an asterix on them, of course).



K-man said:


> Mmm! And Kano was teaching his style of judo for several years before he called it judo, Miyagi was teaching Goju for decades before it was called Goju.



There's a reason I keep saying that Judo is really just another form of Jujutsu....



K-man said:


> The very point I made elsewhere.



It's not a correct one, though.... just sayin'....



K-man said:


> The question was deliberately left open. All someone training Iaido has to do is say 'no', if that's what they feel.



Contextually, Iai methods were designed for a form of self defence (well, response against sudden assault, at least... in some cases... in others, somewhat less "defensive" actions are preferred...), but in a modern context, for self defence today, nope.



CNida said:


> Do most martial arts not center around defending oneself?



No, they don't. Frankly. I've found that instructors do, though... not always knowing what it actually means...

I'll put it this way: It's rare to find practitioners/instructors of modern, primarily unarmed martial arts of all varieties who don't think they're either learning or teaching self defence on some level... but it's also rare to find one who thinks of anything beyond "these techniques work, so it's self defence, and it works". Commonly, the context in which the techniques "work" is ignored, or simply not recognised or understood...instead, what is seen as technical superiority is seen as being validation of the self defence methods. During my time in BJJ I saw that a lot, honestly. I would be told that what I was doing was all for self defence, then chastised for not having my knee in a certain place (which, to me, sacrificed my stability) as I would "lose points". Attending a seminar with Royce Gracie was more of the same... what was presented as self defence was technically quite a "good" technique... except that the context was rather removed from actual social or asocial violence, and the responses given were quite technical, requiring complex motor actions, and ending in a dangerous position. Not very good self defence, but very good BJJ (hell, it was Royce, of course it was very good BJJ!). This isn't to trash BJJ, as I've seen it in many other systems, but these are some pertinent examples from an art that touts itself as being "the answer" a lot of the time... the problem is that it's the answer to a different question.

For something to centre around defending oneself, the first thing that has to happen is that there needs to be an understanding of what you would need to defend against...and, honestly, that's what I see as the biggest lack in many systems approaches.



CNida said:


> Self defense is such a generic term I don't see how it can warrant such a deep and thorough explanation. Self defense is the defense of one's own self, generally understood to be referring to the act of thwarting a physical threat through similarly physical means.



Why physical as a response? That's the last part of actual self defence training. Physical techniques are just that, physical techniques. They happen after you've missed most of your self defence options, and you're reduced to "fighting". By that point, you've failed a number of times already.



CNida said:


> I understand a martial art to be much more than protecting one's self in physical combat. Even though I don't practice an art, nor do I have much outside of military experience, but I truly believe that someone who devotes themselves to Martial arts becomes a living manifestation of that art. They embody it in every facet of their life.



Er... no.



CNida said:


> Of course we could get into an argument over what's more effective in a self defense situation and we could end up making this thread look like the recently closed TMA vs MMA thread, but that's not what we are talking about.



Nope, besides the point, really.



CNida said:


> My opinion? Anyone who trains a martial art and takes it at least a little bit seriously has the capability to defend themselves. Whether they can take that art and defend themselves "effectively" is a totally different thing altogether.



I train in Kyudo (Japanese archery). It looks like this:






Is that giving me the capability to "defend myself"?

I also train in a form of Iaido. It looks like this:






How about that? 

I also train in forms of Kenjutsu. Kenjutsu looks like this:






Any "defending myself" coming from that?

I take all this incredibly seriously. And none of it has anything to do with any capability to "defend myself"... I have other stuff that deals with that.



CNida said:


> Okay but is there really a difference in military and non-military applications of self defense?



Abso-goddsdamn-lutely there is!!!



CNida said:


> As a soldier, when I go to war, I am trying to kill my enemy or at the very least neutralize him as a threat. Sure, it might be a bit more brutal than defending yourself against a mugger but the concept is the same.



No, it's really not the same at all. When you go to war, you are employed by the army to follow orders and achieve the aims and directives as laid out to you. Those aims might be to suppress/kill the enemy, they might be to infiltrate and stage an extraction, they might be to take a particular important territory, they might be to perform recon and avoid detection, so on and so forth. The point is that it's really not all going to be the same as anything like self defence... and even if we just look at the combative execution of action between the two, the aims, outcomes, circumstances, and more are vastly separated. Military service requires you to attempt to achieve the aims of the mission, self defence doesn't. Self defence gives you the choices, military engagement doesn't. And if you kill an enemy combatant in the execution of your duty, that's one thing... someone throws a punch at you, and you knife them (military response), you go to jail. 

They are completely removed from each other.



CNida said:


> In self defense the focus is to make sure you walk away with your life.



Which is not necessarily the aim in military engagement. It might be part of it, and is almost certainly an ideal, but the completion of the mission takes precedence. Oh, and self defence really is more concerned with avoidance of danger, military engagement can actually necessitate the opposite.



CNida said:


> There is not much difference in military, law enforcement, or civilian self defense, other than what tools are more readily available to you.



There are huge differences, as detailed above.



CNida said:


> The "focus" of defending yourself doesn't change just because you're in a firefight, apprehending a murderer, or protecting yourself from a serial rapist.



Yes, they do.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 16, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> By using the terms "self defence" and "the street", modern application was implied.



They didn't have _self defense_ and _streets_ a thousand years ago?  It doesn't imply any era.  And according to the OP himself it was open ended without implying anything.  So you made an assumption and it was incorrect.



> deal, in these cases, in the context of my environment...



That was your second mistake.  You can't have tunnel vision in terms of self defense.  And focusing only on _your_ environment is an unsound tactic because your attacker may not necessarily *be* from your environment.



> Stick? Maybe. Knife? Again, maybe.



Absolutely no maybe about it.  Both continue to be effective weapons, be it offensive or defensive.  And they always will be effective weapons for either.  L.E. and military still uses _stick_ to this day...we call it a baton or ASP.  Not just for blunt force trauma but for locks and transporters.

Sword, again as stated, within the context of self defense it has always and will always be an effective tool and can be considered with full justification a martial art.  Is it practical in the _modern_ world?  No.  Is it still effective in the right circumstance?  Yes.  And again, this discussion was never limited to the _modern_ world.  



> Improvised weapons are also a key aspect of many self defence approaches... not sure what you're implying there, honestly.



This explains quite a bit.



> No, you'd get locked up. And, in that simple example, you've shown a lack of awareness of the first principle of self defence.



You're just being snarky.  And you're allowing your faulty assumption to cloud your perspective.  



> Complete garbage, frankly. The most "martial" arts have nothing to do  with self defence. My stuff isn't about self defence. It's about killing  you (the enemy you, not you you). And, no, I'm not being dramatic...  it's purely (on a tactical/technical level) about killing the other guy.



Self defense is an encompassing term.  I would have expected you to be aware of that.  Self defense, despite the use of the word 'defense' being used, is defensive as well as offensive at its very core.  Regardless of whether or not we are talking a pre-emptive strike or a counter-strike it is all under the umbrella of self defense.  Perhaps you'll understand more clearly if we use a term that is more readily adhered to in the SD community....personal protection.  As a result, *ALL* _martial arts_ are designed for self defense (personal protection) without exception.  Whether they are taught that way or not is another matter.


----------



## Instructor (Dec 16, 2013)

What I've learned protected me in a very real encounter.  My answer is yes unequivocally.  I have little doubt that I would be dead now without my training.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 16, 2013)

This is a somewhat complicated question and it helps to break it down a bit.

95+% of self-defense has nothing to do with physical techniques.  It has to do with lifestyle, awareness, attitude, social skills,  and all the related factors that help avoid a situation where someone is physically trying to harm you.  Martial arts training does not typically address these directly.  It _can _have a positive influence in this realm. For example, being able to control one's temper and one's ego can be a valuable self-defense skill.  Being able to project physical confidence without seeming arrogant or combative is another.  My martial arts training has helped me with both of those, but it's more of an indirect effect than something explicitly taught in class.

The remaining 5% - how to protect yourself if all else has failed, someone is physically attacking you and you can't de-escalate or get away - is what people tend to think of when they mention self-defense in a martial arts context.  I would break down the potential benefits of martial arts training for this situation into attributes (physical and mental), physical skills, tactical instincts, and techniques appropriate to the situation at hand.  

With regard to specific techniques, that last qualifier - _appropriate to the situation at hand_ - is important.  It also applies to determining whether your tactical instincts are likely to be helpful. The circumstances of a teenage girl defending herself from a date rapist are not the same as those of a bouncer fending off an unruly patron. There is no universal template that you can apply to say "this is what a real fight looks like" or "this is what a real self-defense situation is like".  There are commonalities that can apply across different situations, but there are also very important differences.

With regard to my own training:

Attributes: My training has absolutely helped me build attributes that are important for surviving a real fight or self-defense situation.  My BJJ and Muay Thai training have been primary in this front.

Skills: Ditto, although I've picked up useful skills from a variety of arts over the years.

Tactical Instincts: I actually picked up some important things here from my time in the Bujinkan.  I've also done a lot of independent study of RBSD methods and how real fights tend to unfold and have worked on applying that knowledge to how do my training.

Techniques: I am comfortable with a number of techniques that I am confident can serve well in a self-defense situation.  I am very aware that both BJJ and Muay Thai contain many techniques (and tactics) which are appropriate for a competition or a challenge match rather than a self-defense situation.  I keep the distinction of which is which very clear in my mind.

When I teach, I make a real effort to make sure my students understand the techniques and tactics appropriate for self-defense first and foremost.  There's always time for them to learn the sportive aspects of the art later, should they choose to pursue that.


----------



## K-man (Dec 16, 2013)

There is tendency for some to drift off into the more esoteric arts as an example of arts that are not for self defence. Although this thread is not strictly about that I would like to point out that certain weapon arts can translate into empty hand as well. Aikido for example contains a lot of elements from sword or jo. Filipino stick and knife arts also translate into empty hand and in the kendo clip that Chris posted as an example of something he trained that would not be used for self defence, I recognised multiple examples of potential unarmed 'self defence'.

But this thread is not about other arts or other people or what is or isn't 'self defence'. None of those things matter. What I am trying to find with this poll is whether *you* as an individual feel that *your* form of martial art is providing you with the means of defending yourself in the situation where you are attacked on the street, in the pub or in your home for that matter.

The poll gives you the option to choose between the extremes of yes and no.
:asian:


----------



## CNida (Dec 16, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Er... no.



Er... yes? And I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way. 

Being snarky serves no purpose in an intelligent conversation. If you're opinion is different, that's fine. I would love to hear it. But there is no call for such a rigid dismissal of someone else's ideals.



Chris Parker said:


> I train in Kyudo (Japanese archery). It looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Abso-goddsdamn-lutely there is!!! I am sure I could think of several situations where it would be handy to know how to handle a katana or a bow to defend yourself. I know absolutely nothing about any of those art forms, so I can't just say you're -wrong-, but from the outside looking in? If you're going to tell me that if your life depended on it and you had those tools available to yourself for use, but the art doesn't show you how to effectively use those against an assailant, then I would wonder why train in them if it isn't purely a hobby?



Chris Parker said:


> Abso-goddsdamn-lutely there is!!!



 I beg to differ.



Chris Parker said:


> No, it's really not the same at all. When you go to war, you are employed by the army to follow orders and achieve the aims and directives as laid out to you. Those aims might be to suppress/kill the enemy, they might be to infiltrate and stage an extraction, they might be to take a particular important territory, they might be to perform recon and avoid detection, so on and so forth. The point is that it's really not all going to be the same as anything like self defence... and even if we just look at the combative execution of action between the two, the aims, outcomes, circumstances, and more are vastly separated. Military service requires you to attempt to achieve the aims of the mission, self defence doesn't. Self defence gives you the choices, military engagement doesn't. And if you kill an enemy combatant in the execution of your duty, that's one thing... someone throws a punch at you, and you knife them (military response), you go to jail.
> 
> They are completely removed from each other.



When I said 'go to war' it was an all encompassing term. As a soldier you might be ordered to perform reconnaissance. You might be ordered to set up a TCP (Traffic Control Point). You might be ordered to even detain a HVT (High Value Target). That's all semantics when it comes to the point I am trying to make here. In any of those situations, you might encounter an enemy, and in any of those situations, the interaction with the enemy is pretty similar. It's you or him. Kill or be killed... unless he is the HVT you are trying to capture, but that's outside the scope of what I am saying here. It is very much the defense of oneself in killing an enemy at war, though it could be labeled a bunch of other things too. At the end of the day, he will kill you or worse, capture you, unless you neutralize him as a threat first. How is that not self defense? 

Like I said - the difference is the tools and tactics available to use. In war I have no compunctions or legal restraints (or at least not as many) about killing my enemy. Even if it weren't inherently clear that he meant to hurt or harm me, if it even looked like he was about to, I am completely justified in the taking of his life. In the civilian world? You have a bunch of other things to worry about, so a self defense situation isn't going to be as lethal 90% of the time. You're absolutely right here: if I kill someone for simply throwing a punch at me, chances are I am going to spend some time in jail. It's still self defense though, not matter what way you look at it.  



Chris Parker said:


> Which is not necessarily the aim in military engagement. It might be part of it, and is almost certainly an ideal, but the completion of the mission takes precedence. Oh, and self defence really is more concerned with avoidance of danger, military engagement can actually necessitate the opposite.



 Very true here, to an extent. Just because you are ordered into a dangerous situation doesn't take away the aspect of self defense. Civilian self defense? Absolutely. You have no reason to walk down that really dark alley towards that crazy dude holding a machete. In the military, you have every reason to walk through an insurgent-laden town, if it is ordered. But at the very basic sense, if you encounter conflict, no matter the environment - you have to defend yourself.



Chris Parker said:


> There are huge differences, as detailed above.



I don't believe the differences are that gigantic. The tactics, techniques, and equipment is vastly different, but that's it. At the end of the day, it is still defending yourself, you're just doing it in a different way.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 16, 2013)

K-man said:


> What I am trying to find with this poll is whether *you* as an individual feel that *your* form of martial art is providing you with the means of defending yourself in the situation where you are attacked on the street, in the pub or in your home for that matter.
> 
> The poll gives you the option to choose between the extremes of yes and no.
> :asian:



The answer is a definite yes.  It is designed solely for self-defense.


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2013)

For what it's worth, I think most martial arts will teach some skills that will help people defend themselves.  Some teach more practical skills than others, and some students are going to be better able to use the skills than others.  

But, as I said in the other thread, defending oneself is a pretty narrow view of what i would consider "self defense."


----------



## K-man (Dec 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> For what it's worth, I think most martial arts will teach some skills that will help people defend themselves.  Some teach more practical skills than others, and some students are going to be better able to use the skills than others.
> 
> But, as I said in the other thread, defending oneself is a pretty narrow view of what i would consider "self defense."


So where would you put yourself in the poll?
:asian:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 16, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> not all martial art systems teach you how to "land your fist on your opponent's face". None of the ones I listed above do, except for the Jujutsu and Sumo (with an asterix on them, of course).


I don't share the same experience as you do. I have cross trained more than 10 different CMA systems:

- Shuai Chiao
- long fist
- praying mantis
- Baji
- Zimen
- WC
- white ape
- Taiji
- XingYi
- Bagua

 Every system has "fist meets face" technique. 

If I can land my fist on my opponent's face first, I can avoid my opponent's fist to have any chance to land on my face. That's my way of "self-defense".


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2013)

K-man said:


> So where would you put yourself in the poll?
> :asian:



Option five.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Dec 17, 2013)

I know K-Man is looking for an individual opinion about their art. But I ran up on this page which I thought had some interersting points that go along with some of the comments on this thread. Especially what Chris Parker was saying. 

http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/martial-arts-dont-work


----------



## K-man (Dec 17, 2013)

TKDTony2179 said:


> I know K-Man is looking for an individual opinion about their art. But I ran up on this page which I thought had some interersting points that go along with some of the comments on this thread. Especially what Chris Parker was saying.
> 
> http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/martial-arts-dont-work


I read it with great interest, and went down most of the rabbit holes he had going. 
I agree with most of what he says although I sense he is pushing a MMA line a little, especially with regard to sparring. But most of what he says is common sense. Unfortunately, as we all know, common sense is not all that common. I have subscribed to SD newsletters, I've spent thousands of dollars on SD DVDs and I've attended heaps of seminars. A lot of what I have learned I have incorporated into my teaching, but the most valuable thing I have learned is how to separate the things that will work under pressure from the things that might work with a bit of help but really have no place in a real fight. What I have done is incorporated just about all David Erath talks about into my Goju training and I believe I have been able to do that without corrupting the traditional training. 

I firmly believe that most martial arts were provided for self defence. Some people in other threads have been bagging the different MAs as ineffective or not as good as a certain well known brand so I thought I would start a poll to determine just who thinks their chosen style would serve them well in an altercation. Am I surprised at the results? Not really. Most of the guys responding are those that have been on this forum for a long time and have demonstrated an understanding of their MA that would make me believe that they most certainly could use their training effectively should the need arise. I am surprised that more people haven't responded but seeing that I made it an open poll it is understandable that those not confident that their training would be adequate, might be reluctant to post.

So I suppose I now have to tip my hand and cast my vote. My vote is for number 2. I am confident what I have trained will be effective because I know what I train has worked for others, it had worked for me in some minor circumstances and I have seen what others claim to be effective. It incorporates most of the things the SD gurus promote as 'best' self defence practice and I stand by my claim that I won't teach anything that you couldn't use in a bar brawl. I haven't had to use my training in a life or death situation so I don't know with 100% surety that it will be adequate. Let's say I'm 95% sure.  Hence number 2.
:asian:


----------



## CNida (Dec 17, 2013)

I went with the last option.

I don't really know if the training I've had will help in a self defense situation. I am thinking: probably not.

I haven't been in many, if any, situations where my life was really in danger. 

What training I do have in Army combatives is not very practical. There are some throws and restraints that might give cause to delay an attacker, and then there is the whole ground grappling portion which lower level combatives is structured around.

I can say this much: it has been of no use to me in my profession which says a lot in my opinion.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Kframe (Dec 17, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> No, self defence starts with awareness and recognition. The techniques, by and large, aren't important.



Ok, how is that any different then what I posted... I just said that self defense starts with the mind, and awareness of your surroundings and not being to distracted to notice whats going on around you..  I must be stupid because I don't see, how I posted anything incorrect with regards to self defense...  I don't recall saying anything of substance,about techniques and why you would mention them with regards to my post...   

I never said that techniques were important, I mentioned them in passing. I mentioned everything you did as important and yet you found some way to disagree. Some how im wrong, educate me, because I was not that far removed from you on this issue.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 18, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> They didn't have _self defense_ and _streets_ a thousand years ago?  It doesn't imply any era.  And according to the OP himself it was open ended without implying anything.  So you made an assumption and it was incorrect.



You're kidding, yeah? Seriously? The question is whether or not you feel your martial art training gives you the skills and ability to defend yourself, which is an automatic implication of the here and now (present day and environment), and you ask about a thousand years ago?!? Really? Mate, I made no assumption, I read the context of the post, and was correct. You, on the other hand, are completely off base in a range of things. The "open ended" part of the post was in not defining exactly what the skills were themselves, not in saying "hey, if you come across a rogue samurai, are you going to be able to meet him in an honourable duel with katana?"... if you think it was, and you think that's actually anything to do with self defence preparation or training, you really need to rethink your understanding of such matters.



Kong Soo Do said:


> That was your second mistake.  You can't have tunnel vision in terms of self defense.  And focusing only on _your_ environment is an unsound tactic because your attacker may not necessarily *be* from your environment.



Garbage. The only thing you can do, if you're going to actually focus on self defence, is to focus on your environment and it's particular needs. There's no point me teaching as if my students are in the US, or the Middle East, or Africa, or East London... I need to prepare them for what they're most likely to encounter... which means it has to, by definition, be concerned with the local environment. The environment is one of the most defining aspects as to the forms of violence that could be encountered, as well as the options and responses you have available to yourself, regardless of the origin of the attacker. Again, if this is indicative of your take on self defence, you really need to rethink your understanding of such matters.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Absolutely no maybe about it.  Both continue to be effective weapons, be it offensive or defensive.  And they always will be effective weapons for either.  L.E. and military still uses _stick_ to this day...we call it a baton or ASP.  Not just for blunt force trauma but for locks and transporters.



You really missed the point there. I wasn't saying that the knife or stick/baton wouldn't be effective weapons, I was saying that the applicability of them can be heavily dependant on the environment/culture you're in, as well as other factors. I mean, what's the good of a knife if it's illegal for you to carry one? You also asked, not about the weapons themselves, but the arts for their use... and, again, that is a definite maybe. I mean, I could teach you a traditional Japanese approach to knife work, and that is really not such a good thing for a self defence practice at all. Same with some stick arts I know.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Sword, again as stated, within the context of self defense it has always and will always be an effective tool and can be considered with full justification a martial art.  Is it practical in the _modern_ world?  No.  Is it still effective in the right circumstance?  Yes.  And again, this discussion was never limited to the _modern_ world.



If we're talking about defending yourself (and, without a time machine, that means the modern world), then it's really quite impractical. And almost no sword arts have any real concern with anything even close to "self defence", even when looked at historically. There are instances of swordsmen finding themselves in sudden fights stemming from ambushes, but that still relies on it occurring in a culture that allows the carrying and usage of such weapons in regular life. But really, the sword has never been a self defence weapon. To think it was/is is to have no idea whatsoever of the weapon or it's usage.



Kong Soo Do said:


> This explains quite a bit.



Mate, I said that improvised weapons exist in all cultures, and are something I'd consider essential to a self defence approach... they're hardly exclusive to third world countries, and they have no relevance to the arts I brought up (tactically). Your insistence that you have been to third world countries and seen improvised weapons didn't seem relevant in the slightest, and appeared to be a way to imply some experience that, bluntly, doesn't say anything at all. Hence my saying that I didn't quite see what you were implying.... so, care to actually clarify, or....?



Kong Soo Do said:


> You're just being snarky.  And you're allowing your faulty assumption to cloud your perspective.



That's not me being "snarky", son, it's me pointing out that you really don't seem to know what you're talking about. And my perspective is based in training and teaching both sword arts and self defence... I know exactly where each of them begin and end. You, on the other hand, how much sword have you done? How much do you know about the actual usage of the weapon?



Kong Soo Do said:


> Self defense is an encompassing term.  I would have expected you to be aware of that.


 
Please... weren't you just accusing me of being "snarky"? And, again, I know exactly what self defence is... and where the limits lie.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Self defense, despite the use of the word 'defense' being used, is defensive as well as offensive at its very core.  Regardless of whether or not we are talking a pre-emptive strike or a counter-strike it is all under the umbrella of self defense.  Perhaps you'll understand more clearly if we use a term that is more readily adhered to in the SD community....personal protection.


 
Son, you really don't need to talk to me about various tactics within self defence. My point is that I do know exactly what they are, I also know exactly what is found in the arts listed, and when I tell you it's completely removed from self defence, that's because it is.



Kong Soo Do said:


> As a result, *ALL* _martial arts_ are designed for self defense (personal protection) without exception.


 
There are thousands of exceptions. Tell me, how is Jigen Ryu designed for self defence, or personal protection? How about Heki Ryu? Morishige Ryu? Owari-Kan Ryu? If you don't know these arts, pick any Ryu (traditional school) of Kyujutsu (archery), Hojutsu (gunnery) or Sojutsu (spearmanship)... 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Whether they are taught that way or not is another matter.



Mate, that is simply, bluntly, and demonstrably wrong. I have already listed a number of martial arts that are incredibly "martial", and have nothing to do with self defence at all. If they are taught as self defence, then the instructor has no clue about the art he's teaching.



K-man said:


> There is tendency for some to drift off into the more esoteric arts as an example of arts that are not for self defence.



Hmm, I wasn't getting esoteric at all, really... I was more looking at arts that are primarily martial, that are also not designed for, or related to self defence at all.



K-man said:


> Although this thread is not strictly about that I would like to point out that certain weapon arts can translate into empty hand as well.



Sure.



K-man said:


> Aikido for example contains a lot of elements from sword or jo.



Er.... kinda. Not really the same thing, though. 



K-man said:


> Filipino stick and knife arts also translate into empty hand



And there's a definite connection between the empty hand and weapon usage there, for the record.



K-man said:


> and in the kendo clip that Chris posted as an example of something he trained that would not be used for self defence, I recognised multiple examples of potential unarmed 'self defence'.



Er.... "kendo"? Where was that?

If you're talking about the Kenjutsu clip, yeah, there can be some things that can be extrapolated, at a pinch, but that's really completely beside the point of that art. There's quite a lot that you'd need to get past first, if you were to make it into anything like a self defence system, you'd need to completely throw out everything that makes it the art that it is... which makes the entire activity pointless.



K-man said:


> But this thread is not about other arts or other people or what is or isn't 'self defence'. None of those things matter.



Fair enough.



K-man said:


> What I am trying to find with this poll is whether *you* as an individual feel that *your* form of martial art is providing you with the means of defending yourself in the situation where you are attacked on the street, in the pub or in your home for that matter.
> 
> The poll gives you the option to choose between the extremes of yes and no. :asian:



My answer would be "I don't see the connection between martial arts and self defence...."

Or, to quote Barney Stinson:  I'm sorry I don't follow you.That's like saying 'how can an ant lift fifty times its body weight, but root beer floats are still delicious?'. Are the two even related?



CNida said:


> Er... yes? And I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way.



You missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying you couldn't think it, I was saying that your belief has no basis in reality. It's fantasy.



CNida said:


> Being snarky serves no purpose in an intelligent conversation. If you're opinion is different, that's fine. I would love to hear it. But there is no call for such a rigid dismissal of someone else's ideals.



No, not opinion. And, again, I wasn't being snarky. I was giving you insight into the fact that your belief is a fantasy. It's akin to saying that you believe the moon is made of cheese, because you heard it when you were little. I wasn't dismissive of your ideals, I was telling you that you are not correct, when looked at in the light of reality. And really, you have no real martial art background, having done a little military combatives (so have I), but studied no art, and you're trying to tell me what the results of martial training is...? For everyone that trains?? Really? You don't even rate your military combatives training highly... what makes you think that you'd know better than someone with three decades involvement in martial arts?



CNida said:


> Abso-goddsdamn-lutely there is!!! I am sure I could think of several situations where it would be handy to know how to handle a katana or a bow to defend yourself.



This ain't the Hunger Games, you know. And, again, I do train with both of those, as well as training and teaching self defence, and believe me, the ability to think of some random hypothetical situation where some imagined attack is thwarted by the archaic, largely impractical weapon you just happen to be carrying at the time has absolutely nothing to do with self defence at all. It's, again, pointless fantasy.



CNida said:


> I know absolutely nothing about any of those art forms, so I can't just say you're -wrong-, but from the outside looking in? If you're going to tell me that if your life depended on it and you had those tools available to yourself for use, but the art doesn't show you how to effectively use those against an assailant, then I would wonder why train in them if it isn't purely a hobby?



You should really just stop with stating that you "know absolutely nothing about these art forms". Because, frankly, I do know them. I know their context, I know their methods, I know their applicability, I know what they're designed to deal with, and I know the types of opponents they're geared up to work against. And, one more time, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything related to self defence.

And there are many reasons to train in them. Self defence is not the only reason to train in martial arts, you know.



CNida said:


> I beg to differ.



Then you're wrong. Sorry, but that's again not an opinion, it's the reality.



CNida said:


> When I said 'go to war' it was an all encompassing term. As a soldier you might be ordered to perform reconnaissance. You might be ordered to set up a TCP (Traffic Control Point). You might be ordered to even detain a HVT (High Value Target). That's all semantics when it comes to the point I am trying to make here. In any of those situations, you might encounter an enemy, and in any of those situations, the interaction with the enemy is pretty similar. It's you or him. Kill or be killed... unless he is the HVT you are trying to capture, but that's outside the scope of what I am saying here. It is very much the defense of oneself in killing an enemy at war, though it could be labeled a bunch of other things too. At the end of the day, he will kill you or worse, capture you, unless you neutralize him as a threat first. How is that not self defense?



Because none of that is self defence. Self defence is not, and I really want to make this clear here, it is not about physical combat prowess or simply facing someone who wants to hurt you. There are many, many contexts in which you can face against an opponent and have absolutely nothing to do with self defence. And really, if you don't understand that, or can't see it, you don't know what self defence is.



CNida said:


> Like I said - the difference is the tools and tactics available to use.



That's not the difference. The difference is the context.



CNida said:


> In war I have no compunctions or legal restraints (or at least not as many) about killing my enemy. Even if it weren't inherently clear that he meant to hurt or harm me, if it even looked like he was about to, I am completely justified in the taking of his life. In the civilian world? You have a bunch of other things to worry about, so a self defense situation isn't going to be as lethal 90% of the time. You're absolutely right here: if I kill someone for simply throwing a punch at me, chances are I am going to spend some time in jail. It's still self defense though, not matter what way you look at it.



No, it's murder or manslaughter. It's not self defence. To think it is is to have no real grasp of what self defence is.



CNida said:


> Very true here, to an extent. Just because you are ordered into a dangerous situation doesn't take away the aspect of self defense. Civilian self defense? Absolutely. You have no reason to walk down that really dark alley towards that crazy dude holding a machete. In the military, you have every reason to walk through an insurgent-laden town, if it is ordered. But at the very basic sense, if you encounter conflict, no matter the environment - you have to defend yourself.



See, you're fixating on the idea of "physical methods of engagement including protecting yourself" being self defence... it's not. Here's an odd paradox for you... even if you have to defend yourself, that doesn't make it self defence. In the military scenario you describe above, you've put yourself (or been put) in a situation where you are required to engage. And sure, in the course of that, you might have to employ defensive actions. But it's not self defence anymore than it is in an MMA match, frankly. The scale and potential for real danger and risk are different, and I'm not saying that military engagement is the same as an MMA match at all, but I am saying that, simply due to the complete removal of the context, neither of them are self defence.



CNida said:


> I don't believe the differences are that gigantic. The tactics, techniques, and equipment is vastly different, but that's it. At the end of the day, it is still defending yourself, you're just doing it in a different way.



Honestly, you're wrong. Again, sorry, but that's the reality.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't share the same experience as you do. I have cross trained more than 10 different CMA systems:
> 
> - Shuai Chiao
> - long fist
> ...



You know what, you're right. You don't have the experience I have. And that's not self defence, that's fighting. Big difference.



TKDTony2179 said:


> I know K-Man is looking for an individual opinion about their art. But I ran up on this page which I thought had some interersting points that go along with some of the comments on this thread. Especially what Chris Parker was saying.
> 
> http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/martial-arts-dont-work



Interesting... personally, I think the article(s) are a little hit-and-miss... there's some good material and concepts presented, but some are outright incorrect, and show a fair lack of understanding of some subjects. Additionally, he's (like many others, including those who think that they're dealing with self defence) only looking at one type of violence/attack, and missing quite a range of other forms that need to be dealt with. Some of his advice will help in some forms, but be quite a problem/escalation in others... in other words, depending on the context, his ideas can help or be quite hurtful to the person applying them.



CNida said:


> I went with the last option.
> 
> I don't really know if the training I've had will help in a self defense situation. I am thinking: probably not.
> 
> ...



So you haven't really trained in any martial arts, only some army combatives, which you didn't think really helped much, and you don't think was very practical, but you're questioning my responses based on your vast experience? Hmm.



Kframe said:


> Ok, how is that any different then what I posted... I just said that self defense starts with the mind, and awareness of your surroundings and not being to distracted to notice whats going on around you..  I must be stupid because I don't see, how I posted anything incorrect with regards to self defense...  I don't recall saying anything of substance,about techniques and why you would mention them with regards to my post...
> 
> I never said that techniques were important, I mentioned them in passing. I mentioned everything you did as important and yet you found some way to disagree. Some how im wrong, educate me, because I was not that far removed from you on this issue.



I mention techniques as a focus because, well, in the four sentences of the paragraph I quoted, they were the central topic of the first two, and provided the context of the next two. That, to me, certainly implies some attribution of importance. As far as how it's different, you were talking about a mental attitude (to "fight back and not cower") when you spoke of "self defence starts with the mind". I was saying that that's not where it starts... it starts with education of what self defence is, which leads to awareness (not just of what's going on around you) and recognition (of the realities). The "mental attitude" comes later.


----------



## K-man (Dec 18, 2013)

I feel we need to define our terms as there is a difference between what 90% of people consider self defence and what 10% consider self defence and we are getting bogged down. So I suggest we take the legal definition of self defence and move on.  


> *Self Defense Law & Legal Definition*
> 
> 
> Self-defense is the right to use reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm, or to a lesser extent, one's property, from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a defense to a criminal charge or to tort liability. To establish the defense, the person must be free from fault or provocation, must have no means of escape or retreat, and there must be an impending peril.
> ...


So perhaps we could look at self defence in this context. "Self Defence is the use of reasonable force to defend oneself where there is impending danger and no means of escape or retreat."
:asian:


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 18, 2013)

I'd argue that there's a difference between a legal definition to differentiate from assault and self defence as a practiced application. The legal one only begins at the end of the practiced form.


----------



## Kframe (Dec 18, 2013)

Chris, In your long post, you have criticized just about everyone here's view of self defense as fantasy and wrong, yet you have not actually given your view of what self defense is.   Since you seam to think that technique is not important, then what is self defense for us in the great unwashed?   You have yet to define self defense, only lecture about your view of it.  Your reality is not everyone elses, your answere is not everyone elses, nor does it make everyone else wrong..  Your being disrespectfull.

I have no idea what far out concept you have of self defense, but im pretty sure most people here, with regards to self defense are mainly talking about dealing with physical assults. In that regard, Most any martial art will due.  Weather  you like it or not, sometimes you have no warning of a impending assult, or that your going to be attacked. Guess what chief, I have first hand experience with it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 18, 2013)

So do I. You're hardly alone there.

I'll put together a list of self defence traits and attributes tomorrow... currently answering another thread... and that's a post that'll make these ones look like haiku. But I agree, I haven't really defined it yet, and that's been because I've been watching how others are taking the comments. I'll give it another day, then get back to you.


----------



## SENC-33 (Dec 18, 2013)

The only "self defense" technique that works in harmony with what you train is a pre-emptive strike because it's the only technique you will ever have full control over. If somebody is stupid enough to grab you then yes you will have some control over what you do but when chaos hits and punches come from everywhere those pretty "technique" blocks and traps become of little use.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 18, 2013)

TKDTony2179 said:


> But I ran up on this page which I thought had some interersting points that go along with some of the comments on this thread.
> 
> http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/martial-arts-dont-work



I had a bit of a read, the guy sounds like he spent 5 minutes in a crappy martial arts school and then decided to paint all martial arts with the same brush. Someone like him pops up every now and then, they claim that traditional martial arts are useless and think they have come up with something better. Here's a simple concept - 90% of people who think that 90% of what martial arts teach is useless are 90% full of crap 90% of the time. "One simple technique to stop all punching attacks" jumps out as a bit overly simplistic. I don't know what he thinks goes on in an average martial arts class but he is way off on many things. His video on the fundamental 5 did not look any more effective than what you would find in your standard martial arts class. He also goes out of his way to state how martial arts like Karate have unrealistic attacks and then shows in his video of his fundamental 5 an attacker that does one attack and then stands there, sometimes completely still, and lets him do his defence with no resistance (the very thing he was complaining about). He has some good ideas but little understanding of actual martial arts training.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 18, 2013)

Hi Chris.  I started to read your exceedingly long post.  You know, the one where your the only one that's right and we're all wrong.  Then I thought to myself _'why bother'?_  So anyway, you have yourself a really nice day.  

Btw, you can save yourself the time of the obligatory snarky response as I won't be reading that one either.

Second Btw, I'm right and your wrong :lol2:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> your the only one that's right and we're all wrong. Then I thought to myself _'why bother'?_


I feel the same way too. No matter what we may say, we are not going to change Chris's mind. Just let him to state his view and let us to state our views.

 To me, "fist meets face" is all I care about. I don't intend to wrap it around with some fancy words.

http://imageshack.us/a/img198/6285/rjrl.jpg


----------



## donald1 (Dec 18, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think that's very accurate. Sword arts (eastern or western...), for one example, are not exactly usable for self defense in todays world.



Would martial arts that is sports used go in this category


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 18, 2013)

donald1 said:


> Would martial arts that is sports used go in this category



That would depend, in part, on whether it was a martial SPORT or a martial ART that uses some subset of the art in a sporting setting.


----------



## K-man (Dec 18, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> I'd argue that there's a difference between a legal definition to differentiate from assault and self defence as a practiced application. The legal one only begins at the end of the practiced form.


Great, now we have that out of the way. Perhaps we could argue that further in a different thread.   Here I am only interested in how effective people feel their training is to defend themselves if that was ever required. I don't care what the method of protecting yourself is called. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Dec 18, 2013)

SENC-33 said:


> The only "self defense" technique that works in harmony with what you train is a pre-emptive strike because it's the only technique you will ever have full control over. If somebody is stupid enough to grab you then yes you will have some control over what you do but when chaos hits and punches come from everywhere those pretty "technique" blocks and traps become of little use.


A preemptive strike implies you have that option. Then, to make it work with maximum effect means you need to get a clean shot and if there are witnesses it may appear that you were the aggressor.

So then let's talk about the 'chaos'. Blocking is instinctive. The most effective 'block' I have seen is the Krav 'helmet' which is based on instinct. I don't train any other blocks at all so not having 'pretty technique blocks' doesn't apply just as they don't exist if you are fighting under pressure as in MMA. Traps are another thing because again, clinching is instinctive. Again referring to Krav, the Krav 360 defence is based on instinct. It consists of an attack (which some might call a 'block' if not performed properly) on the incoming arm and the neck followed by a lock on that arm and a clinch than allows the continuing attack with the knee. All of this is gross motor skill stuff. 

The training we do in other MAs depends on the MA and the purpose of training. But in reality we train to make the techniques automatic. The more complex the system the harder it is to learn and apply in real life. If you look at boxing you have about five punches and a couple of protective techniques including the clinch. If you want to learn something quickly, that is the way to go and at full speed looks like the chaos you refer to. Again it is gross motor.

You look at some other MAs and they contain so much material you might wonder if they could ever be used effectively which brings us back to the OP.  Does the complexity of the MA reflect in how effective people feel their training is when it comes to defending themselves?
:asian:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2013)

K-man said:


> You look at some other MAs and they contain so much material you might wonder if they could ever be used effectively which brings us back to the OP.  Does the complexity of the MA reflect in how effective people feel their training is when it comes to defending themselves?
> :asian:



Sometime you train some skill just to reduce the amount of risk that you may have to take. For example, you can walk toward your opponent and land your fist on his face. That training will be so simple. The problem is since you have to pass the kicking range, your opponent's kick and knee may give you problem. In order to reduce your risk, you have to use your leading leg to "jam" your opponent's leading leg when you move in. This way you can eliminate your opponent's leg mobility. This will make your simple "fist meets face" more complicate. What if your opponent blocks your punch? You have to deal with his blocking arm, and throw your 2nd punch. Now a simple "fist meets face" get even more complicate.

IMO, a complicate system usually has already considered all those issues. A fight can be as simple as "fist meets face". It can be complicate if your opponent is about your level.


----------



## K-man (Dec 18, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> > Originally Posted by *K-man*
> > and in the kendo clip that Chris posted as an example of something he trained that would not be used for self defence, I recognised multiple examples of potential unarmed 'self defence'.
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe the fact that it had Kendo-World plastered all over it caused my confusion!


----------



## MJS (Dec 19, 2013)

K-man said:


> In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.



Yes.  Of course, IMO, one shouldn't assume that the techs that are learned, are a sure shot solution to things.  What I mean is...we hear all the time, "Well, I learned this tech from my teacher, and he used the tech, and it worked, so it'll work for me too!" Umm...no, not exactly.  Just because someone has success, doesn't mean the next guy will.  And personally, I don't care about the other guy making it work, I care if *I* can make it work! LOL!  So, that said, we need to take what we're learning, and test it in the dojo, under various circumstances.


----------



## K-man (Dec 19, 2013)

MJS said:


> Yes.  Of course, IMO, one shouldn't assume that the techs that are learned, are a sure shot solution to things.  What I mean is...we hear all the time, "Well, I learned this tech from my teacher, and he used the tech, and it worked, so it'll work for me too!" Umm...no, not exactly.  Just because someone has success, doesn't mean the next guy will.  And personally, I don't care about the other guy making it work, I care if *I* can make it work! LOL!  So, that said, we need to take what we're learning, and test it in the dojo, under various circumstances.


As was pointed out in another post, under stress the fine motor skills go and a fight can be just a lot of swinging arms and legs. So it's not about making any one technique work, or a pre-drilled combination for that matter. What I'm looking for is whether people feel their training is giving them the skills required to defend themselves should the need arise.
:asian:


----------



## MJS (Dec 19, 2013)

K-man said:


> As was pointed out in another post, under stress the fine motor skills go and a fight can be just a lot of swinging arms and legs. So it's not about making any one technique work, or a pre-drilled combination for that matter.



Agreed.  I was simply using that as an example.  Some think that when they learn something called a "SD tech" that it's a sure shot thing.  It's not, as we agree on the reasons you gave. 




> What I'm looking for is whether people feel their training is giving them the skills required to defend themselves should the need arise.
> :asian:



Yes, I feel that the training that I have gives me the skills to defend myself.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2013)

K-man said:


> As was pointed out in another post, under stress the fine motor skills go and a fight can be just a lot of swinging arms and legs. So it's not about making any one technique work, or a pre-drilled combination for that matter. What I'm looking for is whether people feel their training is giving them the skills required to defend themselves should the need arise.
> :asian:



If you changed this to "under stress the fine motor skills *may* go", I'd be in complete agreement. It certainly happens. But it also doesn't happen all the time, nor does it happen to every person.

And as I said before, since I use my training on a regular basis (Colorado has had a *lot* of people smoking spice this fall...) I am confident that it does.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 19, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> If you changed this to "under stress the fine motor skills *may* go", I'd be in complete agreement. It certainly happens. But it also doesn't happen all the time, nor does it happen to every person.



This is a valid point.  I honestly don't know how many times I've been required to use force.  The most recent was yesterday afternoon.  There have been times I've felt and adrenaline dump, most times I have not.  Early on in my career I'd occasionally get tunnel vision.  Anymore I don't seem to get that at all.  Training has much to do with this of course, as does experience.  But other factors will play into it, some of which are beyond our control.  As an example, physical stress (such as an illness) or emotional distress (your girlfriend just broke up with you) or your physical condition can play a role on how you may be effected in a crisis situation.  Outside stimuli may also play a part i.e. incliment weather, dim light, loud noises, bright lights or flashes, fatigue etc can play a role.


----------



## Kframe (Dec 19, 2013)

K-man said:


> As was pointed out in another post, under stress the fine motor skills go and a fight can be just a lot of swinging arms and legs. So it's not about making any one technique work, or a pre-drilled combination for that matter. What I'm looking for is whether people feel their training is giving them the skills required to defend themselves should the need arise.
> :asian:



My question is, and this applies to my new art, and to  arts like Parker Kenpo that use set sequences. Why do they use so many preset drills and sequences if your unlikely to pull them off as scripted in a real adrenalin fueled situation? Such as self defense.  Way back when I was very interested in learning kenpo(thanks to Perfect Weapon) but there was none available in my state.    I remember question the need for literally hundreds of preset sequences, with some flavors of kenpo such as Tracy's having like 600+ preset sequences.  

I cant really see the point of all those set sequences is to be able to pull them off in a fight. Do they exist to teach principals that can be applied in a fight?  I had been watching lots of Kenpo sparring and it looks nothing like how they train.  No five swords, no dance of death, no triggered Salute, etc.

If they exist to teach principals, then why do you need 600+ sequences for that?


----------



## K-man (Dec 19, 2013)

Kframe said:


> My question is, and this applies to my new art, and to  arts like Parker Kenpo that use set sequences. Why do they use so many preset drills and sequences if your unlikely to pull them off as scripted in a real adrenalin fueled situation? Such as self defense.  Way back when I was very interested in learning kenpo(thanks to Perfect Weapon) but there was none available in my state.    I remember question the need for literally hundreds of preset sequences, with some flavors of kenpo such as Tracy's having like 600+ preset sequences.
> 
> I cant really see the point of all those set sequences is to be able to pull them off in a fight. Do they exist to teach principals that can be applied in a fight?  I had been watching lots of Kenpo sparring and it looks nothing like how they train.  No five swords, no dance of death, no triggered Salute, etc.
> 
> If they exist to teach principals, then why do you need 600+ sequences for that?


To me it is an important question. I wrote earlier that some styles, particular the ones with a sporting flavour, include a lot of 'filler' in their training. I am 'anti' anything that says if this happens, do a) and if this happens, do b) and if his other hand is up do c). I would much rather teach principles that work against a wide spectrum of attacks. I have said many timed, train the technique, drill the technique and forget the technique. That becomes an almost impossible mission when you get to that many preset sequences. Many people think of Aikido as complex. It has 12 techniques. Of course there are variations of those techniques but at the base level, just 12. The next principle is 'enter with irimi, hit with kokyu'. How simple is that? 
:asian:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2013)

Kframe said:


> If they exist to teach principals, then why do you need 600+ sequences for that?



Our life will be too short to be able to master all 600+ sequences. If we try to be good on everything, we will end with nothing. 

IMO, the best way to train is just concentrate on 4 moves per month. Next month, we can concentrate another 4 different moves. This way we will always have 4 moves sharp enough to use if needed. Since we may change our moves every month, we won't get too boring this way.

I'll always try to pick up 2 moves for uniform stance (both have same side forward), and 2 moves for mirror stance (both have different sides forward). This way, I can conver myself in both situations.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2013)

K-man said:


> Many people think of Aikido as complex. It has 12 techniques. Of course there are variations of those techniques but at the base level, just 12. The next principle is 'enter with irimi, hit with kokyu'. How simple is that?
> :asian:


The Chinese wrestling can be categoried into 4 sides and 2 doors. If one needs to cover all categories, he only need 6 techniques. Since many techniques may use exactly the same set up, if you can set up for your leg lift (Uchi Mata), you can use it for your inner hook (Ouchi Gari) or your leg spring (...). This way, 6 techniques can easily be expanded into 20 techniques.

Trying to learn 600 techniques (or combo sequences) is not only impossible but also waste training time.


----------



## judoespecialist (Dec 20, 2013)

Yes it gives me lots of confidence as well as self defense power too. I am happy with it.


----------



## CNida (Dec 21, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> You're kidding, yeah? Seriously? The question is whether or not you feel your martial art training gives you the skills and ability to defend yourself, which is an automatic implication of the here and now (present day and environment), and you ask about a thousand years ago?!? Really? Mate, I made no assumption, I read the context of the post, and was correct. You, on the other hand, are completely off base in a range of things. The "open ended" part of the post was in not defining exactly what the skills were themselves, not in saying "hey, if you come across a rogue samurai, are you going to be able to meet him in an honourable duel with katana?"... if you think it was, and you think that's actually anything to do with self defence preparation or training, you really need to rethink your understanding of such matters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey guy. Let me first start out by apologizing if my response came out at all disrespectful. It wasn't intended to sound that way.

I never claimed to be an expert. Nor do I live in some illusion where I think I know all there is to know about this sort of thing. Its the exact opposite. Promise.

I do have an opinion, albeit a layman's opinion and one that is more geared to the technicalities of things. I judge everything I see here based off what minuscule amount of experience in Martial Arts that I do have.

But at the end of the day I was just expressing my opinion. Far be it from me to say who is right or who is wrong.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Hi Chris.  I started to read your exceedingly long post.  You know, the one where your the only one that's right and we're all wrong.  Then I thought to myself _'why bother'?_  So anyway, you have yourself a really nice day.
> 
> Btw, you can save yourself the time of the obligatory snarky response as I won't be reading that one either.
> 
> Second Btw, I'm right and your wrong :lol2:



Pity, as, honestly, you could have learnt something. And, as before, that's not me being snarky, that's just me being blunt.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I feel the same way too. No matter what we may say, we are not going to change Chris's mind. Just let him to state his view and let us to state our views.
> 
> To me, "fist meets face" is all I care about. I don't intend to wrap it around with some fancy words.
> 
> http://imageshack.us/a/img198/6285/rjrl.jpg



"Fist meets face" is incredibly limited, and the smallest part of defending yourself... and the use of a sporting image to demonstrate it really just makes me laugh.



K-man said:


> Great, now we have that out of the way. Perhaps we could argue that further in a different thread.   Here I am only interested in how effective people feel their training is to defend themselves if that was ever required. I don't care what the method of protecting yourself is called. :asian:



Oh, I got that. The thing is that, as is demonstrated by my and others answers here, what constitutes the necessary skills varies wildly. And, honestly, I'm not sure of the benefit of knowing that everyone thinks their training is suited to the same context, when that's patently not the case, simply due to there being very little understanding of the context itself.



K-man said:


> Maybe the fact that it had Kendo-World plastered all over it caused my confusion!



Ha, yeah... they have a good channel, but not everything they show is Kendo, obviously!



Kframe said:


> My question is, and this applies to my new art, and to  arts like Parker Kenpo that use set sequences. Why do they use so many preset drills and sequences if your unlikely to pull them off as scripted in a real adrenalin fueled situation? Such as self defense.  Way back when I was very interested in learning kenpo(thanks to Perfect Weapon) but there was none available in my state.    I remember question the need for literally hundreds of preset sequences, with some flavors of kenpo such as Tracy's having like 600+ preset sequences.


 
Firstly, your new art isn't really like Parker Kempo in a number of key ways, when it comes down to it. So I'll deal with your new system.

The reasons for using pre-arranged training methods is to ensure consistency in the acquisition of specific skills. In other words, it's a method designed to remove outside influence/belief/personal preference from what you're doing, which can alter the actual skill itself. Why so many? There can be a number of reasons. Within our systems, Kukishinden Ryu has the most... with around 200-260+ kata, depending on how you want to count them, and what you include or don't. And, in that Ryu-ha, that covers unarmed combat, long and short swords (plus Jutte), staffs of various lengths, and pole arms. Even just looking to unarmed combative methods, the Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu has some 130+ kata (again, depending on how you want to look at it), some of which are very similar to others at different levels in the school. So why so many? Well, they're in a sequence... early methods teach base skills that then get applied in a more sophisticated way later on (with changes to intent, timing etc). In other systems, each section might deal with a different context, or focus. Why so many? Depends on the system itself. 



Kframe said:


> I cant really see the point of all those set sequences is to be able to pull them off in a fight. Do they exist to teach principals that can be applied in a fight?  I had been watching lots of Kenpo sparring and it looks nothing like how they train.  No five swords, no dance of death, no triggered Salute, etc.



Those are two completely different environments, though.... what is designed for usage against an aggressor is quite different to what's applicable against a sparring partner. I'd be very surprised to see such things in a sparring match... 



Kframe said:


> If they exist to teach principals, then why do you need 600+ sequences for that?



How many principles? How are they being taught? Are they being prioritised, or are they all seen as of equal importance? How many contexts are they expected to be applicable to? How does the change in the context affect the application of the principle itself? There can be many answers to this.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> The Chinese wrestling can be categoried into 4 sides and 2 doors. If one needs to cover all categories, he only need 6 techniques. Since many techniques may use exactly the same set up, if you can set up for your leg lift (Uchi Mata), you can use it for your inner hook (Ouchi Gari) or your leg spring (...). This way, 6 techniques can easily be expanded into 20 techniques.
> 
> Trying to learn 600 techniques (or combo sequences) is not only impossible but also waste training time.



Uh... it's not only possible, it's the only way to go in some arts. Far, far from a waste of time.



CNida said:


> Hey guy. Let me first start out by apologizing if my response came out at all disrespectful. It wasn't intended to sound that way.
> 
> I never claimed to be an expert. Nor do I live in some illusion where I think I know all there is to know about this sort of thing. Its the exact opposite. Promise.
> 
> ...



Okay... but to take such offence when told that your opinion is not an informed one, and goes against the reality of the world doesn't mean that your opinion is suddenly valid as a statement of the way things are.



Chris Parker said:


> I'll put together a list of self defence traits and attributes tomorrow... currently answering another thread... and that's a post that'll make these ones look like haiku. But I agree, I haven't really defined it yet, and that's been because I've been watching how others are taking the comments. I'll give it another day, then get back to you.



Okay, I've had some internet issues, but I have an opportunity to add to this, and answer what, to my mind, is required if you're going to start talking about self defence. First thing, though, is to look at what it isn't.

Self defence is not fighting.

While there can (and should) certainly be some addressing of physical methods of handling sudden, unexpected violence, that's the last, and least aspect. The first step is getting to grips with the context of modern assault and attack. So what does that mean?

Well, self defence is, by definition, applicable to a current need. And exactly what that current need is will vary in large and small ways based on where you are (someone in the US has a different set of needs to someone in Australia, for instance). From there, you begin to look to the specifics. The specifics include an understanding of the types of threats that can be faced, understanding the social structures that surround such events, focusing on awareness and avoidance, knowing the difference between social and asocial violence, and what the respective expected threats might be, and so on. Skills required include the aforementioned awareness and avoidance, verbal and non-verbal de-escalation (passive and aggressive), knowledge of body language (yours and others), primal threat displays, and how to interpret them. Then, you start to get into physical skills... but, if the physical skills aren't designed for/suited to the forms of violence you might be likely to encounter, then that's really not a self defence aspect either. And when I talk about whether or not their suited, I'm not actually talking necessarily about things like punching and kicking. Physical skills also need to take into account applications of knowledge of the psychology of both aggressor and defender (which, again, takes us back to the ideas of social and asocial violence, and the differences between them), legal considerations, and so on.


----------



## Kframe (Dec 25, 2013)

Chris, if you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it against a aggressive badguy on the street.  The question then becomes, what is the purpose of the set techniques.  You said they are taught in a specific order to ensure that skills get taught in a specific manner..  If the student only learns to defend him self from the preset techniqes, were does spontaneity come in? Real life self defense are not like preset drills.  Some how spontaneity needs to be ingrained, the ability to apply those lessons from the preset techniques.    I hear it all the time on mma forums, with regards to arts that use preset techs like Paker kenpo and Taijutsu, why learn "dance of death" if you cant actually perform it under resistance and duress?  

Basically how do arts that utilize them, actually make sure that its students can use the preset techs in a aggressive encounter setting?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 25, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Chris, if you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it against a aggressive badguy on the street.  The question then becomes, what is the purpose of the set techniques.  You said they are taught in a specific order to ensure that skills get taught in a specific manner..  If the student only learns to defend him self from the preset techniqes, were does spontaneity come in? Real life self defense are not like preset drills.  Some how spontaneity needs to be ingrained, the ability to apply those lessons from the preset techniques.    I hear it all the time on mma forums, with regards to arts that use preset techs like Paker kenpo and Taijutsu, why learn "dance of death" if you cant actually perform it under resistance and duress?
> 
> Basically how do arts that utilize them, actually make sure that its students can use the preset techs in a aggressive encounter setting?


As far as Dance of Death goes, its more of an attack than a defense; so, practice it as something that he is either open for, or not.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 26, 2013)

Kframe said:


> If the student only learns to defend him self from the preset techniqes, were does spontaneity come in? Real life self defense are not like preset drills.  Some how spontaneity needs to be ingrained, the ability to apply those lessons from the preset techniques.



In any good martial art preset techniques are not the *only *training method.



Kframe said:


> I hear it all the time on mma forums, with regards to arts that use preset techs like Paker kenpo and Taijutsu, why learn "dance of death" if you cant actually perform it under resistance and duress?
> 
> Basically how do arts that utilize them, actually make sure that its students can use the preset techs in a aggressive encounter setting?



Another question would be, if you can't do something in a controlled environment in a preset technique drill how do you expect to be able to do it in a real life aggressive encounter setting under duress and resistance?


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 26, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Chris, if you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it against a aggressive badguy on the street.


 
I'd ask what makes you think that sparring is really anything like dealing with an aggressive bad guy "on the street".... and I'd follow that by asking what makes you think these things can't be done in sparring (in terms of personal ability). There's a big difference between not doing something because it's not suited and not being able to do it in a particular context.



Kframe said:


> The question then becomes, what is the purpose of the set techniques.  You said they are taught in a specific order to ensure that skills get taught in a specific manner..  If the student only learns to defend him self from the preset techniqes, were does spontaneity come in?



Yeah... you missed the point there... which is fine, of course, but it means you're looking at things in a way that doesn't help your understanding. You really need to get a grip on what the particular skills are, the reasons for the order given, and so on. I'll use Gyokko Ryu as an example, as it's likely to be one of the first you do anything semi-major with.

The beginning of the Ryu teaches basic mechanics (footwork, basic fundamental strikes, blocks etc, basic joint locks and throws, basic movement drills... in fact, you've already encountered a fair bit of that, as it's Sanshin no Kata, the Kihon Happo, and the three sword evasions, referred to as Muto Taihenjutsu). From there, you start with Koku, which teaches evasive movements against a continuous attack, with a focus on counter-striking the incoming attacking limbs, and is a build on the lessons of the Kihon Happo (most specifically Ichimonji no Kata and Jumonji no Kata). Next is Renyo, where your technique needs to alter due to the attack continuing and changing from striking to grappling, as well as starting to bring in natural resistance and response on the attackers part. Then, in Gyaku Nagare/Saka Nagare, you learn to handle an opponent's attempt at counter-striking while you're applying your technique. Many of the rest of the techniques build on previous ones, or are complete introductions to new concepts, which are then built upon. The other Ryu-ha have different, but similar ideas to their structure as well. 

I'd also caution against the idea of you (or any student), when training or learning the kata, to think you are learning to "defend against the attack"... because you're not. You're learning a tactical response and a set of skills that are learnt against a symbolic representation of violence for the context of the system itself. I'll say that again... the attacks found in the kata are largely not realistic... they are symbolic representations of violence. The idea is that, as you train the kata (properly, which means that the attacks are with intent, power, and accuracy, ensuring that your response is effective), you're not learning rote actions, but a tactical response. That allows you to express the tactic in virtually limitless ways and situations, rather than being the limiting approach that many who don't train in such methods think it is.

As far as spontaneity, it should be remembered that the aim is not to develop general skills, it's to develop specific ones. Heading into spontaneous response too soon can short-circuit that ideal. That said, there are a range of methods that are used, including henka and randori...



Kframe said:


> Real life self defense are not like preset drills.


 
Nor are kata anything to do with real life self defence.



Kframe said:


> Some how spontaneity needs to be ingrained, the ability to apply those lessons from the preset techniques.    I hear it all the time on mma forums, with regards to arts that use preset techs like Paker kenpo and Taijutsu, why learn "dance of death" if you cant actually perform it under resistance and duress?



Who says that kata performance doesn't include resistance and duress? Sparring is far from the only, or the most effective way, to test such things...



Kframe said:


> Basically how do arts that utilize them, actually make sure that its students can use the preset techs in a aggressive encounter setting?



This isn't going to make much sense until you get some experience at it, but by training it properly.



RTKDCMB said:


> In any good martial art preset techniques are not the *only *training method.



I can think of quite a number who would challenge such a statement... 



RTKDCMB said:


> Another question would be, if you can't do something in a controlled environment in a preset technique drill how do you expect to be able to do it in a real life aggressive encounter setting under duress and resistance?



Sure... but I'd ask why there is the assumption that techniques aren't being done effectively outside of sparring.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 26, 2013)

Kframe said:


> My question is, and this applies to my new art, and to  arts like Parker Kenpo that use set sequences. Why do they use so many preset drills and sequences if your unlikely to pull them off as scripted in a real adrenalin fueled situation? Such as self defense.  Way back when I was very interested in learning kenpo(thanks to Perfect Weapon) but there was none available in my state.    I remember question the need for literally hundreds of preset sequences, with some flavors of kenpo such as Tracy's having like 600+ preset sequences.
> 
> I cant really see the point of all those set sequences is to be able to pull them off in a fight. Do they exist to teach principals that can be applied in a fight?  I had been watching lots of Kenpo sparring and it looks nothing like how they train.  No five swords, no dance of death, no triggered Salute, etc.
> 
> If they exist to teach principals, then why do you need 600+ sequences for that?



As a former Tracy Kenpo shodan, I ultimately realized that this approach to a training curriculum just was not a good match for me.  I no longer train any form of kenpo.  Apparently it works well for some people.  Not for me.


----------



## chodancandidate (Dec 27, 2013)

If you want self defense, join a self defense class.  If you want a comprehensive understanding of martial arts, including ke chos, hyung, bunhae kiso, dae run, etc, then you join a family of martial arts.  They are completely different things, and although some schools teach self defense as a part of their curriculum, it is not comprehensive and does not give you the tools to defend yourself in any situation you might find yourself in.

Some people think that sparring is self defense... well, it isn't.


----------



## K-man (Dec 27, 2013)

chodancandidate said:


> If you want self defense, join a self defense class.  If you want a comprehensive understanding of martial arts, including ke chos, hyung, bunhae kiso, dae run, etc, then you join a family of martial arts.  They are completely different things, and although some schools teach self defense as a part of their curriculum, it is not comprehensive and does not give you the tools to defend yourself in any situation you might find yourself in.
> 
> Some people think that sparring is self defense... well, it isn't.


'Self Defence' is whatever it means to you. We all realise that self defence is far more that the physical fighting bit, but if you ask the 'man-in-the-street', he will give you the legal definition 99% of the time. As I have pointed out, that is the basis on which I have structured the question.

Whether other schools teach 'self defence' is academic. It is whether *you* feel *your *training gives *you* the skills *you* need to defend yourself. 

Perhaps you might register your vote so that at a future time we may get an accurate picture of where people see themselves on this issue.
:asian:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 27, 2013)

chodancandidate said:


> If you want self defense, join a self defense class.  If you want a comprehensive understanding of martial arts, including ke chos, hyung, bunhae kiso, dae run, etc, then you join a family of martial arts.


Why should I care about "comprehensive understanding of martial arts" if self-defense is not included in the training?


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Dec 27, 2013)

chodancandidate said:


> If you want self defense, join a self defense class.  If you want a comprehensive understanding of martial arts, including ke chos, hyung, bunhae kiso, dae run, etc, then you join a family of martial arts.  They are completely different things, and although some schools teach self defense as a part of their curriculum, it is not comprehensive and does not give you the tools to defend yourself in any situation you might find yourself in.
> 
> Some people think that sparring is self defense... well, it isn't.



Curious to what is sparring to you?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 27, 2013)

*First off I consider what we do in IRT a Martial System or Science of training and not an art form*.  In the area of "self defense" I think Instinctive Response Training really prepares a practitioner.  Particularly having an understanding of the awareness, avoidance, legal issues of self defense, violence in many forms including social and asocial violence.  These same skills have been taken overseas by military personnel and they have appreciated having them.  They have also been used in mma cage matches with lots of success.  There is some cross over!

I think when you look at "martial arts" in a broad term we tend to try and *pigeon hole *them into very specific areas.  This is totally understandable but we also need to understand that there is a lot of cross over between the areas of sport, self defense, military usage, etc.  I have known Tae Kwon Do practitioners that have utilized their skills sets for sporting competitions and also self defense.  I have also known more than a few whose primary training while in Korea was Tae Kwon Do. (a few even used the techniques in conflict)  So while they studied a form of Tae Kwon Do that was considered an art and geared towards sporting methods they used it in several areas.  

Pekiti Tirsia Kali is a Filipino Martial System that is utilized by several Filipino military units.  It is taught in a format that is really effective at transferring the skills needed to military personnel.  It is also a world class martial system that is very, very effective for self defense.  Many of the practitioners here in the states have a law enforcement background and make sure that their students know about awareness, avoidance, self defense law, etc.  It has also been used in some sporting competitions and they spar.  

Lets look at Kenjutsu. (generically of course as there are many different systems)  Initially it was for martial or military conflict primarily as a back up weapon.  Over time as swords became less used in military conflict the skill sets are used less and less in a military setting and instead practiced to retain a system or used for physical, spiritual, mental enlightenment.  Now, would you really use kenjutsu in a violent self defense situation.  Probably not and certainly not as your first choice!   However, if you have a shinken by your bed stand like some people I know and someone broke into your house and was entering your bedroom you might grab it and use it for self defense.  Is it a self defense system.... probably not but is there some potential to use it in self defense?  Absolutely!   Since bladed weapons are still used the skills, knowledge you would have in that department might be very valuable.  Particularly the movement and getting off line that is taught!

Let's look at Judo.  Judo derives from jujutsu and has become a modern Olympic sport.  As such it is now a sporting martial system.  Yet, Judo is and would be a great system for self defense.  Throwing people to the ground is simply devastating!  So once again we have cross over!

The current Reality Based Self Defense systems that are all over the place on many levels resemble a martial art or as I would prefer a martial system.  They have curriculums from striking, to grappling, with weapons, etc.  What they have added in effectively is awareness, avoidance, understanding of violence from social to asocial, etc.  They are typically geared to function in the hear and now and also designed to function as Chris mentions some times in a certain geographical area. (the laws, rules of self defense do differ from nation to nation, or state to state)  They are filling a need with a segment of society that does not want geographical trappings from a martial art or people who are not interested in wearing a martial uniform. (ie. karate uniform, etc.)  Most RBSD still require you to come to class regularly and participate in physical skill sets that you have to regularly practice or they diminish in effectiveness.  There are of course RBSD curriculums that are weekend seminars, etc. and while that fills a need it simply is not the most practical way to learn and maintain physical skill sets.

Bottom line there is simply cross over between sporting, civilian and military usage with martial systems.  What changes quite often is the rules of engagement.  However, some things never change like being aware of your surroundings, avoiding unnecessary conflict when applicable (think military here or civilian), understanding the rules of engagement whether from a military perspective or a civilian self defense perspective.  I would add also from a sporting angle here as well as you need to understand the rules of whatever martial sport you train in.  *Lots of cross over! 

*I think we as martial practitioner's need to make sure that no matter what system we train in as a citizen of our country we should understand our state/country self defense laws.  How to be aware and avoid violence.  What kinds of violence are out there and what are the precursors both voluntary and involuntary to violence!  

*This is really just common sense kind of stuff.  Not rocket science!*


----------



## yakuzanobi (Dec 27, 2013)

_Aye Yai Yai!! _I study Ninjutsu and yes, it teaches me self defense and I've used it in real-time applications.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 28, 2013)

chodancandidate said:


> If you want self defense, join a self defense class.  If you want a comprehensive understanding of martial arts, including ke chos, hyung, bunhae kiso, dae run, etc, then you join a family of martial arts.  They are completely different things, and although some schools teach self defense as a part of their curriculum, it is not comprehensive and does not give you the tools to defend yourself in any situation you might find yourself in.



Interesting opinion.  And may I ask what your source data is to make such a sweeping statement?  Last I checked, our school specializes in self-defense.  Actually it is our sole purpose.  And we include kata, bunkai, history as well as flinch response, OODA loop, gross motor skills, realistic applications that have been documented to work in real world altercations, escape and evasion, de-esculation, verbal judo, applicable SD laws, first aid/self aid, weapons and improvised weapons, psychological and physiological reactions to stress and adrenaline dump (such as fight or flight, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of dexterity in extremities etc) and the list goes on.  

Although many schools do teach self-defense, or teach it incorrectly, we cannot lump everything under one blanket.  There are still martial arts schools that teach self defense as a comprehensive subject.


----------



## MJS (Dec 29, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Chris, if you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it against a aggressive badguy on the street. The question then becomes, what is the purpose of the set techniques. You said they are taught in a specific order to ensure that skills get taught in a specific manner.. If the student only learns to defend him self from the preset techniqes, were does spontaneity come in? Real life self defense are not like preset drills. Some how spontaneity needs to be ingrained, the ability to apply those lessons from the preset techniques. I hear it all the time on mma forums, with regards to arts that use preset techs like Paker kenpo and Taijutsu, why learn "dance of death" if you cant actually perform it under resistance and duress?
> 
> Basically how do arts that utilize them, actually make sure that its students can use the preset techs in a aggressive encounter setting?





Flying Crane said:


> As a former Tracy Kenpo shodan, I ultimately realized that this approach to a training curriculum just was not a good match for me. I no longer train any form of kenpo. Apparently it works well for some people. Not for me.



Kframe, check out this clip:

[yt]V7Tp7ma0vFs[/yt]

Watch from 12:40-1315.  Prof. Harper, one of the top guys in Kajukenbo, said it best.  It's on the same line as what you said here.  As someone who trained in Parker and Tracy Kenpo, I agree with FC (Mike) and his thoughts.  I no longer train in Kenpo, but I've said for the longest time, that first and foremost, there's way too many techs in the system.  Take a simple grab.  You've got a tech that'll address the guy pushing you and another, for the same attack, but this time he's pulling you.  Why?  Why do we need that?  This is why my theory is this:  The techs are a guide.  They're 1 example of something to do.  But we, as martial artists, should be looking at those techs, and using the principles, ideas, concepts, etc, that they're teaching, and be able to formulate a response accordingly, without having to rely on a preset tech.  

And FWIW, I've never pulled off a full tech during sparring.  Even when I trained spontaneous attacks, it was rare that you'd see a full tech.  Parts?  Sure.  But no, I wasn't looking to pull off a full one.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 29, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> If the martial art in question doesn't teach self defense then either it is not a martial art or it has been taught incorrectly.



Martial sport is all the rage.


----------



## Tames D (Dec 29, 2013)

rumy73 said:


> martial sport is all the rage.



lol


----------



## Instructor (Dec 29, 2013)

> Take a simple grab. You've got a tech that'll address the guy pushing you and another, for the same attack, but this time he's pulling you. Why? Why do we need that?



Those situations crop up during abductions and sometimes during rape attacks.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 29, 2013)

1. Self defense can be learned outside of "martial arts." I put it in quotes to mean the white pajama/colored belt world. 

2. Some "martial arts" schools teach students how to effectively apply what they learned to defend themselves, other schools to a much lesser extent, if at all.

3. Good self defense is not necessarily about staying in a fight; however, it should help a person avoid or get out of one.

4. The best techniques are simple.

5. Complex, multipart grabs/throws tend to be very difficult, if not impossible to pull off against a determined adversary.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2013)

In the 1st day of my beginner class, I'll teach how to deal with

1. any punches,
2. front/side kick, 
3. roundhouse kick,
4. single leg and double legs shooting.

I believe those 4 attacks are the most common attacks that everybody will have to face in their lifetime no matter what style that they may train later. After that 1st day, I would like to concentrate on offense instead of defense.


----------



## Tames D (Dec 29, 2013)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the 1st day of my beginner class, I'll teach how to deal with
> 
> 1. any punches,
> 2. front/side kick,
> ...



You should skip the defensive and concentrate on offense.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2013)

Tames D said:


> You should skip the defensive and concentrate on offense.


I don't like to train defense at all. If I'm good at countering leg lift throw (Uchi mata) but nobody ever uses it on me, that will be a big waste on my training time. I just want to let my new guys to understand what kind of problem that they may have to face such as:

- boxer's punch,
- TKD guy's front/side kick,
- MT guy's roundhouse kick,
- wrestler's leg shooting.

After they have a basic understanding that they will have to deal with people from other styles and not just from their own styles, they will have open mind about the word "style" even if they may not be able to learn how to deal with those problems on day one.


----------



## Kframe (Dec 30, 2013)

Chris Parker.  

I think I vaguely understand what you are talking about in regards to the Kata.  That the attacks are not realistic but merely generic representations of violence to train on. My sensei said something similar when I asked.   My question is, typically, when in the training(rank level to make it easy to reference) do arts such as ours, actually start training against modern attacks such as quick retracting jabs, and cross's and other such attacks? I think it is referred to as *Jissen Goshinjutsu/Shinken Gata.  

*I understand that as a beginner, that wont likely happen for a long time, im guessing some time in the Dan level. Which kinda makes me feel awkward as I have had those kinds of attacks(ok some, not weapons and such)  thrown with force at me and have experience dealing with them. I feel for the lack of a better word, "itchy" to get to that part of the syllabus.   You don't have to answer this If you don't want to, if its to private, I understand, but ill ask any ways.  If you didn't know me, and I showed up at your dojo and signed up as a rank beginner. About when do you introduce modern combat defenses and applications?(such as a typical mma/kickboxer striking style, or maybe karate stuff, or any other modern thing)  

I guess, my gut tells me, that at some point. Arts that use Visual representations of violence in there paired kata, and drills, need at some point introduce and work off of more realistic attacks.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 31, 2013)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why should I care about "comprehensive understanding of martial arts" if self-defense is not included in the training?



Well, what do you want to learn? Martial arts or self defence? Why should you care about self defence if you're learning a martial art?

The point is, you can actually get a good basis in self defence in a weekend. That's all. And most of it isn't anything to do with fighting techniques (I've noticed that your posts seem to indicate that you're really only focused on fighting, nothing else... which is cool, really, but it's just not the same as either self defence or martial arts, really). To take two examples, I taught a Women's Self Defence course about a year ago... it ran over two three-hour sessions, held a month apart. The last hour or so of the second day was the only time we dealt with physical techniques and attacks. My Chief Instructor was in Melbourne to present a workshop on self defence late last year... it ran for 3 hours as well, and only the last 20 minutes or so had any physical techniques. If you want to learn self defence, fine... and you don't need any "comprehensive understanding of martial arts"... but, if you want to learn a martial art, you need to actually look to the martial art.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *First off I consider what we do in IRT a Martial System or Science of training and not an art form*.  In the area of "self defense" I think Instinctive Response Training really prepares a practitioner.  Particularly having an understanding of the awareness, avoidance, legal issues of self defense, violence in many forms including social and asocial violence.  These same skills have been taken overseas by military personnel and they have appreciated having them.  They have also been used in mma cage matches with lots of success.  There is some cross over!


I'd argue that a martial system, or martial science is the same (at heart) as a martial art, when the origin of the term is looked at... but that said, it sounds good. There's the question of what is the system, and what is auxiliary knowledge, but I'll cover that in a bit. I would say that the usage in non-self defence environments doesn't mean anything in terms of self defence, but I think that's been mentioned already.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think when you look at "martial arts" in a broad term we tend to try and *pigeon hole *them into very specific areas.  This is totally understandable but we also need to understand that there is a lot of cross over between the areas of sport, self defense, military usage, etc.  I have known Tae Kwon Do practitioners that have utilized their skills sets for sporting competitions and also self defense.  I have also known more than a few whose primary training while in Korea was Tae Kwon Do. (a few even used the techniques in conflict)  So while they studied a form of Tae Kwon Do that was considered an art and geared towards sporting methods they used it in several areas.


 
I don't think there's been any question about there being any cross-over (real or potential). The question was about whether or not you (the practitioner of x-system) felt that it gave you the skills needed for self defence (from K-man), and whether or not martial arts, designed for a different context and application should be seen as being the same as self defence (from myself). 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Pekiti Tirsia Kali is a Filipino Martial System that is utilized by several Filipino military units.  It is taught in a format that is really effective at transferring the skills needed to military personnel.  It is also a world class martial system that is very, very effective for self defense.  Many of the practitioners here in the states have a law enforcement background and make sure that their students know about awareness, avoidance, self defense law, etc.  It has also been used in some sporting competitions and they spar.


 
Again, the question is whether that is part of the system, or part of the schools... 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Lets look at Kenjutsu. (generically of course as there are many different systems)  Initially it was for martial or military conflict primarily as a back up weapon.  Over time as swords became less used in military conflict the skill sets are used less and less in a military setting and instead practiced to retain a system or used for physical, spiritual, mental enlightenment.  Now, would you really use kenjutsu in a violent self defense situation.  Probably not and certainly not as your first choice!   However, if you have a shinken by your bed stand like some people I know and someone broke into your house and was entering your bedroom you might grab it and use it for self defense.  Is it a self defense system.... probably not but is there some potential to use it in self defense?  Absolutely!   Since bladed weapons are still used the skills, knowledge you would have in that department might be very valuable.  Particularly the movement and getting off line that is taught!



Not sure I'd agree with your history on kenjutsu there, Brian... and if you had a shinken by your bed here, well, you'd be arrested as well. Not exactly legal, you see. Additionally, you'd need to be able to justify using such a lethal response... and simply saying "they broke in" doesn't cut it in all areas... (ha, "cut it"... I see what I did there...). Oh, and Kenjutsu is fairly removed from smaller blade usage that would far more likely be encountered, so the applicability is lowered again.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Let's look at Judo.  Judo derives from jujutsu and has become a modern Olympic sport.  As such it is now a sporting martial system.  Yet, Judo is and would be a great system for self defense.  Throwing people to the ground is simply devastating!  So once again we have cross over!



And, again, there hasn't been any question of cross over being there or not (and again, not sure I'd really agree with that take on Judo's history either...).



Brian R. VanCise said:


> The current Reality Based Self Defense systems that are all over the place on many levels resemble a martial art or as I would prefer a martial system.  They have curriculums from striking, to grappling, with weapons, etc.  What they have added in effectively is awareness, avoidance, understanding of violence from social to asocial, etc.  They are typically geared to function in the hear and now and also designed to function as Chris mentions some times in a certain geographical area. (the laws, rules of self defense do differ from nation to nation, or state to state)  They are filling a need with a segment of society that does not want geographical trappings from a martial art or people who are not interested in wearing a martial uniform. (ie. karate uniform, etc.)  Most RBSD still require you to come to class regularly and participate in physical skill sets that you have to regularly practice or they diminish in effectiveness.  There are of course RBSD curriculums that are weekend seminars, etc. and while that fills a need it simply is not the most practical way to learn and maintain physical skill sets.



It's not just the laws changing from one location to another that needs to be understood, it's the changing culture as well. That's probably more important than the differing laws, when it comes down to it. And the reason they can work over a weekend course is that they're not about maintaining physical skills... they're about introducing a different approach to the martial art training you may already have, or be doing. Very few RBSD systems are designed as stand-alone approaches.


Brian R. VanCise said:


> Bottom line there is simply cross over between sporting, civilian and military usage with martial systems.  What changes quite often is the rules of engagement.  However, some things never change like being aware of your surroundings, avoiding unnecessary conflict when applicable (think military here or civilian), understanding the rules of engagement whether from a military perspective or a civilian self defense perspective.  I would add also from a sporting angle here as well as you need to understand the rules of whatever martial sport you train in.  *Lots of cross over!*



Sure, there's cross over... but that's far from saying that one equals the other. There's cross-over between baseball and golf, between soccer and basketball, but they aren't the same at all.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think we as martial practitioner's need to make sure that no matter what system we train in as a citizen of our country we should understand our state/country self defense laws.  How to be aware and avoid violence.  What kinds of violence are out there and what are the precursors both voluntary and involuntary to violence!
> 
> *This is really just common sense kind of stuff.  Not rocket science!*



Nah... in my Kenjutsu, Kyudo, Iai etc the only laws I need to worry about are those that dictate what I can carry where... and what licences I need to have (as well as how to get them). My classical Jujutsu isn't even concerned with that at all. Look at things like some of the Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu waza... or the Kukishinden ones... where you basically get grabbed, so you break the other guys neck or back.... not really concerned with any form of legality in my state there. My self defence training, on the other hand... there, it's essential.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Interesting opinion.  And may I ask what your source data is to make such a sweeping statement?  Last I checked, our school specializes in self-defense.  Actually it is our sole purpose.  And we include kata, bunkai, history as well as flinch response, OODA loop, gross motor skills, realistic applications that have been documented to work in real world altercations, escape and evasion, de-esculation, verbal judo, applicable SD laws, first aid/self aid, weapons and improvised weapons, psychological and physiological reactions to stress and adrenaline dump (such as fight or flight, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of dexterity in extremities etc) and the list goes on.
> 
> Although many schools do teach self-defense, or teach it incorrectly, we cannot lump everything under one blanket.  There are still martial arts schools that teach self defense as a comprehensive subject.



There's quite a distinction between a school that specializes in self defence (in a way, so does mine... at least in our modern approach) and a martial art that deals with it. From all accounts of Kong Soo Do, it's an amalgam of Okinawan, Japanese and Korean approaches to karate-based systems... none of which were designed for Western social violence. So, while I don't doubt that your school provides such things, as does mine, a separation needs to be recognized between the teachings of the art and the teachings of the school.



Kframe said:


> Chris Parker.
> 
> I think I vaguely understand what you are talking about in regards to the Kata.  That the attacks are not realistic but merely generic representations of violence to train on. My sensei said something similar when I asked.


 
Well.... yes and no, actually. The attacks need to be realistic, but they aren't realistic attacks... they are, however, representations of realistic attacks... or, representations of forms of violence... or situations... or none of the above, instead being tactical structures in a far more symbolic form, designed to teach lessons rather than even be practical or combatively effective methods. It depends on the kata, the system, the section of the system, and so on.



Kframe said:


> My question is, typically, when in the training(rank level to make it easy to reference) do arts such as ours, actually start training against modern attacks such as quick retracting jabs, and cross's and other such attacks? I think it is referred to as *Jissen Goshinjutsu/Shinken Gata.*



Jissen means "real fight", Goshinjutsu means "self defence art", Shinken means "true sword"... these terms are used by different organisations, but don't necessarily mean modern usage/application (aside from Goshinjutsu... although that is also not always the case. Judo's Goshin no Kata, for example, is quite dated by todays standards with regards to what it's designed against). Shinken Gata is a common enough term in the Bujinkan, with other organizations using other preferred terminology.

But, to the point... when do you start training against modern attacks? You don't. They're not part of it. Look, you're training a traditional system where the methods come from a different country from hundreds of years ago. Expecting them to therefore deal with modern forms of violence is nonsensical. It'd be like, when learning Latin, to ask when you're going to learn modern Italian. You're not. 

That said, especially in the Bujinkan, there's no telling when your instructor might decide to change things, or apply them in any other form. But there's nothing in the methods of any of the Ryu that deal with modern Western violence... why would they?



Kframe said:


> I understand that as a beginner, that wont likely happen for a long time, im guessing some time in the Dan level. Which kinda makes me feel awkward as I have had those kinds of attacks(ok some, not weapons and such)  thrown with force at me and have experience dealing with them. I feel for the lack of a better word, "itchy" to get to that part of the syllabus.


 
There's no such part. You're making a common mistake, which is to assume that all martial arts deal with the same problems... they don't.



Kframe said:


> You don't have to answer this If you don't want to, if its to private, I understand, but ill ask any ways.  If you didn't know me, and I showed up at your dojo and signed up as a rank beginner. About when do you introduce modern combat defenses and applications?(such as a typical mma/kickboxer striking style, or maybe karate stuff, or any other modern thing)



At my school? Day one. Each class is split into three main sections (with a couple of additional ones, such as the warm-up/ukemi, intro, and study period), which are Traditional Taijutsu (from the Ryu-ha), Buki (Weaponry, commonly traditional, with a few modern ones thrown in), and Modern Self Defence. As you can see, it's distinctly separated from the traditional martial art side of things... because, although the martial art side informs a fair portion of the self defence, they are really quite different.



Kframe said:


> I guess, my gut tells me, that at some point. Arts that use Visual representations of violence in there paired kata, and drills, need at some point introduce and work off of more realistic attacks.



Why?


----------



## Kframe (Dec 31, 2013)

Chris I don't have time for a detailed response right now. I ask because many in the Bujikan advertise that they teach something that can be used in self defense. I also drew my conclusions from something I have been hearing. That the system in the bujinkan is Alive and addresses new things  using existing techniques, instead of adding new ones. 

ILL post more later, off to work now lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 31, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, what do you want to learn? *Martial arts* or *self defence*? Why should you care about self defence if you're learning a martial art?
> 
> The point is, you can actually get a good basis in self defence in a weekend. That's all. And most of it isn't anything to do with fighting techniques (I've noticed that your posts seem to indicate that you're really only focused on *fighting*, nothing else... which is cool, really, but it's just not the same as either self defence or martial arts, really). To take two examples, I taught a Women's Self Defence course about a year ago... it ran over two three-hour sessions, held a month apart. The last hour or so of the second day was the only time we dealt with physical techniques and attacks. My Chief Instructor was in Melbourne to present a workshop on self defence late last year... it ran for 3 hours as well, and only the last 20 minutes or so had any physical techniques. If you want to learn self defence, fine... and you don't need any "comprehensive understanding of martial arts"... but, if you want to learn a martial art, you need to actually look to the martial art.


You have used the following 3 terms. 

- MA,
- self defense,
- fighting.

Here are clips from my class. 














Will you be able to tell whether those guys are doing MA, self defense, or fighting? Maybe I can understand your definitions better this way.


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

The first thing Sensei told me was "In here, what you will learn is a brutal street level style of defense.  You will only be successful if you train hard and keep an open mind.  I cannot teach you if you come into class with a closed mind."  Coming from training in a style that primarily taught sparring sport, I am very pleased with the improvement in my hand to hand skills.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 1, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Chris I don't have time for a detailed response right now. I ask because many in the Bujikan advertise that they teach something that can be used in self defense. I also drew my conclusions from something I have been hearing. That the system in the bujinkan is Alive and addresses new things  using existing techniques, instead of adding new ones.
> 
> ILL post more later, off to work now lol



Honestly mate, that's marketing rhetoric. Many, many martial arts claim to be teaching self defence, but barely do anything related other than some lip service. There can be a belief that "these techniques work in this context, therefore they'll work in a completely different one that it doesn't actually deal with or address"... When it comes to the Bujinkan itself, the idea of it being "alive" (which is actually a bit different to the "aliveness" concept of Matt Thornton, for the record) is taken from Hatsumi's focus on constant henka (variation), and his preference for never performing the same technique twice (or, at least, never the same way twice), as well as an early comment attributed to Hatsumi in Hayes' first book, where he criticised Koryu arts as being "stuffy, museum pieces", whereas what he was teaching was a "living art" (small point, Hatsumi might be right on a small number of cases, but is rather incorrect for a larger range of the arts he's criticising).

The Bujinkan is constantly adding "new" techniques... or at least, it's fairly common to come up with many new techniques based off the original. Hatsumi, for instance, will often take a single technique, then go off on an exploration of one or another aspect of it... and then go off on an exploration from there... and so on. That leads to a whole mess of entirely "new" techniques, often completely unrelated to or recognisable as being from the original. Other times, he'll simply start with some concept or idea, not necessarily anything from any of the actual material at all, and then go from there (I've seen this far more with his weaponry methods).



Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have used the following 3 terms.
> 
> - MA,
> - self defense,
> ...



Well, it doesn't look anything like self defence (there's no real attack, no real sense of distancing for a real attack, no understanding of set-up, no awareness, and so on), it looks like simply learning a basic technique... which could lead into martial arts, or could (potentially, although it's not that well suited) be applied in self defence... but here, it's just a fighting technique. And, if I'm to be blunt, rather poorly done in most cases. Very bad control, no balance, poor positioning of the hips, overly muscled, and brutish. Of course, I don't know how long these guys have been training, but if they're relatively new, they're doing things way too fast, which is leading them to miss all the subtleties that makes it effective, and if they're more experienced, they need to slow down until they can do it properly.



wimwag said:


> The first thing Sensei told me was "In here, what you will learn is a brutal street level style of defense.  You will only be successful if you train hard and keep an open mind.  I cannot teach you if you come into class with a closed mind."  Coming from training in a style that primarily taught sparring sport, I am very pleased with the improvement in my hand to hand skills.



Ha, yeah... to be honest, he's wrong. For the record, I'm a big fan of Shorin Ryu... it's a fantastic system, powerful, direct, effective, strong, and more. "Brutal"? Eh... what I do is more brutal. "Street level style of defence"? Not any modern, Western streets, no. I'm not saying he's lying... I'm sure he believes what he said.... but it's again more of a marketing speech. And, honestly, it's a good thing that it's not really a "brutal street level style of defence"... because brutal tends to be overkill, which takes you from "defence" to "assault". So it's a great system... it has many, many benefits... and is certainly full of very applicable principles and mechanics (once again, I think Shorin Ryu, along with many of the Okinawan systems, is fantastic, very down-to-earth in it's approach, no mess, no fuss... kinda love it)... but an objective viewpoint can be beneficial. I certainly agree with your instructor about going in with an open mind, of course... I'd say that applies to all arts.


----------



## Kframe (Jan 1, 2014)

Chris, im trying to reconcile the notion of training on unrealistic attacks. Its apparent that it works, based on all the stories I have heard from other BBT members and my sensei regarding people who have used it to defend them selves in real situations.. Im just still trying to figure out how?  Case in point catching a punch and into a wrist lock takedown. Aikido gets picked on for this, and BBT has this to some extent that i have seen from the higher ups. (please reference my PM)   

I get my issue is,  I am still thinking of a fight with a trained mma fighter. Your not going to catch a jab, its never going to happen. However, i don't really think people jab on the street. Not in the videos of street fights i have seen. Maybe a cross as its got a different energy and is more committed.

It apparently works, and i need to figure out how. The only way to do that is more training. 

K man Can you chime in on the Aikido punch catching wrist lock stuff? I would love to know the hows and why of your styles reasoning on that. 

I have a hunch about what it is possibly about, but I cant verify it till later in my training.


----------



## Spinedoc (Jan 1, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Chris, im trying to reconcile the notion of training on unrealistic attacks. Its apparent that it works, based on all the stories I have heard from other BBT members and my sensei regarding people who have used it to defend them selves in real situations.. Im just still trying to figure out how?  Case in point catching a punch and into a wrist lock takedown. Aikido gets picked on for this, and BBT has this to some extent that i have seen from the higher ups. (please reference my PM)
> 
> I get my issue is,  I am still thinking of a fight with a trained mma fighter. Your not going to catch a jab, its never going to happen. However, i don't really think people jab on the street. Not in the videos of street fights i have seen. Maybe a cross as its got a different energy and is more committed.
> 
> ...



Well, not K-Man, but I can chime in a little on Aikido. You can't catch a fast moving, trained punch, that's not possible. No credible Aikidoka I know of, will make that claim. However, you can still deflect that energy, redirect it and set up your wrist technique at the end of the motion, when they are off balance and committed. 

Not every Aikido technique even involves grabbing a wrist, in fact, a lot of it doesn't. It's blending and re-direction of their energy and using the third leg concept, not grabbing. 

Better yet, as my sensei says, you just get out of the way. He describes someone trying to punch you as trying to get to the other side of you...his advice? "Oh, so you want to go over there? Okay, let me help you"


----------



## Kframe (Jan 1, 2014)

Spinedoc, The thing is, every aikido training video has the wrist lock as a finisher in many sequences. Heck I even saw a OLD video of Ueshiba teaching a class, and the famous wrist lock take down was prevalent there as well.   You to set up the wrist technique at the end of the motion. I just don't see how. You had me up to that point. Move  and deflect work on just about everything, I know that from past experience.  The jab is so incrediably fast that I don't really think it is possible to catch it as its coming back.  You have to be really good for that I guess.  

There is a aikido place over a hour away. Maybe ill drop by someday and pick his brain.


----------



## Spinedoc (Jan 1, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Spinedoc, The thing is, every aikido training video has the wrist lock as a finisher in many sequences. Heck I even saw a OLD video of Ueshiba teaching a class, and the famous wrist lock take down was prevalent there as well.   You to set up the wrist technique at the end of the motion. I just don't see how. You had me up to that point. Move  and deflect work on just about everything, I know that from past experience.  The jab is so incrediably fast that I don't really think it is possible to catch it as its coming back.  You have to be really good for that I guess.
> 
> There is a aikido place over a hour away. Maybe ill drop by someday and pick his brain.



Here's an example using kaitenage. This is just deflection and re-direction. When I was younger and in the Navy, I saw this work on someone. Had no idea what art it was at that time, or what it was called, but now, I realize that it was an aikido practitioner using this kaitenage. Guy punched hard at his head (drunk, navy party, young guys, girl involved...nothing more need be said) and this guy used this technique so fast it was a blur (or it was my own alcohol laden eyes making it look like a blur) and he sent the guy into a wall so hard that it knocked him out....ended the fight in about 1.5 seconds. 

There's no wrist grab here.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 1, 2014)

Spinedoc said:


>



I have been working on something similar against a DLT , a slightly different set up but containing the same movement between 0:14-0:16 in the video, interesting how something can be used against two different types of attacks with just a little modification.


----------



## Kframe (Jan 1, 2014)

That was a good clip.  I loved that deflection he used. I wonder if it exists in BBT? What is it called?


----------



## Rumy73 (Jan 1, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I have been working on something similar against a DLT , a slightly different set up but containing the same movement between 0:14-0:16 in the video, interesting how something can be used against two different types of attacks with just a little modification.



The bogus thing about this stuff is that a person is not always going nicely roll forward.


----------



## Spinedoc (Jan 1, 2014)

Rumy73 said:


> The bogus thing about this stuff is that a person is not always going nicely roll forward.



The guy I saw in real life didn't roll forward...he went flying into a wall and landed on his head....hence he was out of the fight.

Those "nice" rolls are to protect you as uke. It allows nage to actually perform the technique without hurting uke. In a real life application, it won't look as pretty and will probably hurt the person.


----------



## Rumy73 (Jan 1, 2014)

Spinedoc said:


> The guy I saw in real life didn't roll forward...he went flying into a wall and landed on his head....hence he was out of the fight.
> 
> Those "nice" rolls are to protect you as uke. It allows nage to actually perform the technique without hurting uke. In a real life application, it won't look as pretty and will probably hurt the person.



Understood. However, there is good chance they slam into you, both going to the ground. Also, you may not get them to fall forward, either. My point is that it is a good technique but there are other likely outcomes that should be considered. After doing hapkido for a long time, I realized that I lived in a bubble where footwork, failing, grabbing can be expected, because my classmates shared a common way of moving.


----------



## Spinedoc (Jan 1, 2014)

Rumy73 said:


> Understood. However, there is good chance they slam into you, both going to the ground. Also, you may not get them to fall forward, either. My point is that it is a good technique but there are other likely outcomes that should be considered. After doing hapkido for a long time, I realized that I lived in a bubble where footwork, failing, grabbing can be expected, because my classmates shared a common way of moving.




Of course, and we practice some of that too....Kaeshi Waza techniques. We just worked on one where nage would attempt to apply shihonage and uke would spin out of the shihonage....so now what....?? Well, we practiced taking them immediately into yonkyo......One technique doesn't work? Okay, move into the next one, and it should flow seamlessly.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 1, 2014)

Rumy73 said:


> there is good chance they slam into you, ...


In the throwing art, there is a very important principle and that is, "you need to give your opponent plenty of space to fall." In other words, you need to move your body to be out of your opponent's moving path. Most of the time, you will use "wheeling footwork" by 

- move your back foot forward,
- move your leading foot backward, and 
- spin your body.

In Chinese MA, this move is called "neck mopping". When you use this move, if your opponent

- yields, you borrow his forward momentum and throw him forward. 
- resists, you borrow his backward momentum and throw him backward. 

This clip is an example that your opponent refuses to be pulled forward so you throw him backward instead.






This clip show how the general "neck mopping" is trained.

http://www.56.com/u43/v_NjU5NTg2NzI.html

This move also work well with a knee strike to the face/chest, foot sweep the leg, ... It's interesting to see that all throwing arts may share the same principle even the name used may be different.


----------



## wimwag (Jan 1, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, yeah... to be honest, he's wrong. For the record, I'm a big fan of Shorin Ryu... it's a fantastic system, powerful, direct, effective, strong, and more. "Brutal"? Eh... what I do is more brutal. "Street level style of defence"? Not any modern, Western streets, no. I'm not saying he's lying... I'm sure he believes what he said.... but it's again more of a marketing speech. And, honestly, it's a good thing that it's not really a "brutal street level style of defence"... because brutal tends to be overkill, which takes you from "defence" to "assault". So it's a great system... it has many, many benefits... and is certainly full of very applicable principles and mechanics (once again, I think Shorin Ryu, along with many of the Okinawan systems, is fantastic, very down-to-earth in it's approach, no mess, no fuss... kinda love it)... but an objective viewpoint can be beneficial. I certainly agree with your instructor about going in with an open mind, of course... I'd say that applies to all arts.



Well, that's your opinion, I guess.  I'm sure you think the world of your art, but applying the knowledge gained honestly depends on each individual, and certainly even more so on the instructor's skill level.  Considering that my sensei is one of Sensei Neil Stolsmark's senior students, I have no need to consider your opinion and can be assured that I am in the right place.  Thank you for your concern.


----------



## K-man (Jan 1, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Chris, im trying to reconcile the notion of training on unrealistic attacks. Its apparent that it works, based on all the stories I have heard from other BBT members and my sensei regarding people who have used it to defend them selves in real situations.. Im just still trying to figure out how?  Case in point catching a punch and into a wrist lock takedown. Aikido gets picked on for this, and BBT has this to some extent that i have seen from the higher ups. (please reference my PM)
> 
> I get my issue is,  I am still thinking of a fight with a trained mma fighter. Your not going to catch a jab, its never going to happen. However, i don't really think people jab on the street. Not in the videos of street fights i have seen. Maybe a cross as its got a different energy and is more committed.
> 
> ...


The 'unrealistic' attacks are either an attack that has been deliberately slowed to practise the technique or one that is not being done properly. Unfortunately in the videos you see and probably in many dojos it is the latter. All techniques rely on a 'realistic' attack. That means hitting with intent. Again it has to be done carefully because even a committed attack slowed can cause damage.

There are many factors in play. First, like in bullfighting, there is deception. You move off the line at the last moment when the attacker is committed to the attack. (There are means of extending the time you have but that's more advanced.) Secondly, you don't actually try to 'catch' a punch. There are ways you can do that and we train for that but if you are trying to watch a fist coming at you, you are already so far behind your opponent you will be reacting and that is way to slow. To catch a punch you are proactive and working off body language, not the fist itself. Thirdly, when you deflect a committed attack it changes your opponent's centre of balance. Even if this is a tiny loss of centre it affects the brain for a fraction of a second as 'survival' mode kicks in, like when you are falling. In that tiny moment the intent to withdraw the fist is forgotten and you can capture it. And finally, if you can blend with the arm as it is coming at you it is relatively easy against a committed attack to catch the wrist. The important thing to remember is, you don't start with the mindset that you are going to catch the punch. You start with an empty mind relying on your training. If you end up with a wrist in your hand, great, use it. If you don't, just keep doing what comes naturally. But, the more experienced you are it is surprising just how often you end up with the wrist.
:asian:


----------



## Kframe (Jan 1, 2014)

But why do so many Videos feature wrist catching then? Here is another example of unrealistic attacks.. 



  Notice how each time he just hangs his arm there to be captured?  THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN IN A REAL ATTACK OR FIGHT.  NO one, not even untrained do that. So why then, does BBT and Aikido train off of that kind of attack?


----------



## K-man (Jan 1, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Spinedoc, The thing is, every aikido training video has the wrist lock as a finisher in many sequences. Heck I even saw a OLD video of Ueshiba teaching a class, and the famous wrist lock take down was prevalent there as well.   You to set up the wrist technique at the end of the motion. I just don't see how. You had me up to that point. Move  and deflect work on just about everything, I know that from past experience.  The jab is so incrediably fast that I don't really think it is possible to catch it as its coming back.  You have to be really good for that I guess.
> 
> There is a aikido place over a hour away. Maybe ill drop by someday and pick his brain.


Not every technique finishes with a wrist lock and Ueshiba was a cagey old devil. The techniques that we normally take to the floor, he just whacked on a nikyo hold while standing up. Saves a lot of bouncing up and down. 

Trying to catch a jab is pretty much a waste of time but even so you can end up with a hold if you move to the side and in as the jab is thrown. Two things. Firstly a jab is often followed by a punch with the other hand. Moving in on the jab negates the punch and being in close often can give you the jabbing wrist. Only problem with that is the arm is in the attacker's position of strength so to take advantage of it you have to use a turning technique to utilise your body mass. Secondly, as you say the jab is incredibly fast. When it is launched you really don't know that it is going to be a jab so your action is to just look at it as an ordinary punch. If you are in close and pressing on that arm, the very act of retracting the punch can upset the attacker's balance. Still, as I said before, if you end up capturing the wrist it is a bonus, not the primary aim.
:asian:


----------



## Kframe (Jan 1, 2014)

I did not intend to use all caps.. I was very frustrated.  Now to anticipate Chris Parker and the admonishment I am sure I deserve  ill say this.  I know these concepts work, but my mind is having a hard time letting go of the how. I'm getting the feeling that no amount of forum questioning will help me understand it.  Only training and experience and time will help me understand it.  I am just going to have to accept that ill be doing things I just don't understand, until one day I do.  The words how and understanding are not the same.  Only experience and a good instructor can unite the two. 

I'm so used to training that was simple and direct, with few simple movements.(not including BJJ/no-gi)  I have to find a way to stop asking questions, to turn my brain off and just accept the training and one day it will come.  Are there any suggestions you guys have that can help me to put my mind at ease and stop with the incessant need to research and analyze everything I see and do(with regards to my new art)  through the lenses of MMA?   


I just wanna flow like water. Crash hard and destroy or flow around the obstruction. Simplicity, efficiency and directness are important to me.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 1, 2014)

Kframe said:


> I did not intend to use all caps.. I was very frustrated.  Now to anticipate Chris Parker and the admonishment I am sure I deserve  ill say this. _* I know these concepts work, but my mind is having a hard time letting go of the how. I'm getting the feeling that no amount of forum questioning will help me understand it.  Only training and experience and time will help me understand it.  *_I am just going to have to accept that ill be doing things I just don't understand, until one day I do.  The words how and understanding are not the same.  Only experience and a good instructor can unite the two.
> 
> I'm so used to training that was simple and direct, with few simple movements.(not including BJJ/no-gi)  I have to find a way to stop asking questions, to turn my brain off and just accept the training and one day it will come.  Are there any suggestions you guys have that can help me to put my mind at ease and stop with the incessant need to research and analyze everything I see and do(with regards to my new art)  through the lenses of MMA?
> 
> ...



There is really only one answer possible...


Well DUH!


----------



## K-man (Jan 2, 2014)

Spinedoc said:


> Here's an example using kaitenage. This is just deflection and re-direction. When I was younger and in the Navy, I saw this work on someone. Had no idea what art it was at that time, or what it was called, but now, I realize that it was an aikido practitioner using this kaitenage. Guy punched hard at his head (drunk, navy party, young guys, girl involved...nothing more need be said) and this guy used this technique so fast it was a blur (or it was my own alcohol laden eyes making it look like a blur) and he sent the guy into a wall so hard that it knocked him out....ended the fight in about 1.5 seconds.
> 
> There's no wrist grab here.



Kaitenage is great technique in the right situation. The secret of making it work is leading your attacker forward. It doesn't work if your attacker still has his balance. That is why IMHO the part in the video showing the attach to the eyes is wrong in the context of Kaitenage as it sends your attacker in the opposite direction to that required. As to the wrist grab, you can if you like take a grip on the wrist. The only time I would do that if it was my intention to dislocate the shoulder. Otherwise the arm is controlled by your arm without gripping and enables the take down. As is pointed out by *Spinedoc*, the roll only happens in training. In real life it is more like a nose dive. 



Rumy73 said:


> The bogus thing about this stuff is that a person is not always going nicely roll forward.


 The person doesn't have the choice. He has overbalanced forward, with a little assistance. 



Spinedoc said:


> The guy I saw in real life didn't roll forward...he went flying into a wall and landed on his head....hence he was out of the fight.
> 
> Those "nice" rolls are to protect you as uke. It allows nage to actually perform the technique without hurting uke. In a real life application, it won't look as pretty and will probably hurt the person.


Exactly!


Rumy73 said:


> Understood. However, there is good chance they slam into you, both going to the ground. Also, you may not get them to fall forward, either. My point is that it is a good technique but there are other likely outcomes that should be considered. After doing hapkido for a long time, I realized that I lived in a bubble where footwork, failing, grabbing can be expected, because my classmates shared a common way of moving.



In the circumstances you would perform Kaitenage there is no way they can slam into you as it is performed at arms length and takes no strength whatsoever. It works best from a downward strike as with a knife or stick but can be from a punch.



Kframe said:


> But why do so many Videos feature wrist catching then? Here is another example of unrealistic attacks..
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how each time he just hangs his arm there to be captured?  THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN IN A REAL ATTACK OR FIGHT.  NO one, not even untrained do that. So why then, does BBT and Aikido train off of that kind of attack?



To be honest, this is not a move I have ever used and there are a number of reasons why I wouldn't bother with it. I will try it when we get back to training in a couple of weeks. It isn't an unrealistic attack if the technique is valid. If the attack is only slowed to demonstrate to technique, I have no problem with it. If it requires an attack like the one shown to get it to work, I agree that it is unrealistic. Watch this space. 



Kframe said:


> I did not intend to use all caps.. I was very frustrated.  Now to anticipate Chris Parker and the admonishment I am sure I deserve  ill say this.  I know these concepts work, but my mind is having a hard time letting go of the how. I'm getting the feeling that no amount of forum questioning will help me understand it.  Only training and experience and time will help me understand it.  I am just going to have to accept that ill be doing things I just don't understand, until one day I do.  The words how and understanding are not the same.  Only experience and a good instructor can unite the two.
> 
> Can I suggest you never stop questioning. The biggest problem is created by those who don't question and people end up teaching BS. Sure you need a good instructor, but there are lots of good guys here.
> 
> ...


:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 2, 2014)

Rumy73 said:


> The bogus thing about this stuff is that a person is not always going nicely roll forward.



Who said anything about nicely? The thing about that kind of move is that if they don't roll they unwillingly end up on their back and with out nice soft mats to land on it hurts them.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 2, 2014)

Karate and Ju Jitsu certainly provides a path for mental physical and technical improvement which benefits my ablilty to defend myself. 

Or said less eloquently I can handle a good bashin` and see one comin`


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 2, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Chris, im trying to reconcile the notion of training on unrealistic attacks. Its apparent that it works, based on all the stories I have heard from other BBT members and my sensei regarding people who have used it to defend them selves in real situations.. Im just still trying to figure out how?  Case in point catching a punch and into a wrist lock takedown. Aikido gets picked on for this, and BBT has this to some extent that i have seen from the higher ups. (please reference my PM)


 
Hmm. First things first, there is no "catching a punch" in any kata in any of the Ryu-ha that inform the methods of the Bujinkan. At all. None. Anyone who teaches/shows such a thing has not drawn it from the Ryu. A particular teacher might show something like it as an expression of an idealised response/principle, but it's not actually in any of the kata. Next, we might be talking about different things when we talk about "unrealistic attacks"... I'll cover that in a bit. As far as the stories... that can get incredibly subjective, honestly. To some people "I pulled off a Shuto Ken" is the art "working".... to others, it's just a lucky hit. Personally, I look deeper, beyond what the technique that "worked" is, and look to why things "worked"... which could minimise those stories quite a bit (not just in Bujinkan, but in all martial arts, honestly). I've had students have what I teach them "work" in real encounters... as have I... and each time I've broken down with them afterwards what actually happened, and what was from what they've been taught, as well as what was from other influences.

Oh, and got your PM... I'll hopefully get a reply together soon. 



Kframe said:


> I get my issue is,  I am still thinking of a fight with a trained mma fighter. Your not going to catch a jab, its never going to happen. However, i don't really think people jab on the street. Not in the videos of street fights i have seen. Maybe a cross as its got a different energy and is more committed.



Depends on the fight, really... I've had people use jabs against me in real fights. But the thing they aren't is a cage fight with an MMA guy... on a large number of levels, completely removed from the physical reality.



Kframe said:


> It apparently works, and i need to figure out how. The only way to do that is more training.



Does it? Hmm...

I'll clarify. The techniques are nothing. Any mechanically sound technique can work. And lots and lots of arts have plenty of mechanically sound techniques, the Bujinkan being absolutely no exception to that. What makes it actually, genuinely "work", though, is the training methodology. A sword cuts... but just getting a sword to cut doesn't make you a swordsman, or mean you can fight with a sword. Training methodology, though, can. 



Kframe said:


> K man Can you chime in on the Aikido punch catching wrist lock stuff? I would love to know the hows and why of your styles reasoning on that.
> 
> I have a hunch about what it is possibly about, but I cant verify it till later in my training.



Couple of things... is the attack actually a punch? Is it really being "caught"? And is it really a "lock"? You might find the answer is no to each of those... 



Kframe said:


> That was a good clip.  I loved that deflection he used. I wonder if it exists in BBT? What is it called?



Not the way it's done there, no. Of course, I'm just talking about the formal material... as with the "catch a punch" thing, if a particular instructor saw it, liked it, and decided to add it to his expression and teaching, that's one thing... but it's not formally part of anything in our arts. There are some similar things in Koto and Gyokko Ryu, in Koto as a variation on Kyogi, and in Gyokko in an expression of Un Jaku, but it's quite different. The similarities are that the Tori's hand trails after the attacking arm, but that's about it. It'd be referred to as Harai Uke (sweeping receive).



Rumy73 said:


> The bogus thing about this stuff is that a person is not always going nicely roll forward.



Ha, yeah.... Love it when they don't "nicely roll forward".... it usually means they end up crumpled, in our approach, typically after landing on their head... with broken wrists/elbows on the way down. Rolling is to safely take the technique. I don't want someone rolling out of the way nicely when I do it for real.... 



wimwag said:


> Well, that's your opinion, I guess.  I'm sure you think the world of your art, but applying the knowledge gained honestly depends on each individual, and certainly even more so on the instructor's skill level.  Considering that my sensei is one of Sensei Neil Stolsmark's senior students, I have no need to consider your opinion and can be assured that I am in the right place.  Thank you for your concern.



Maybe I was misunderstood.

I was saying that Shorin Ryu is a great system. It is strong, powerful, direct, no-nonsense, and a personal favourite of mine (along with Goju Ryu and Wado Ryu... who are probably my favourite due to their Jujutsu connection). However I was cautioning against swallowing rhetoric as fact, especially when it's overdone, ill-advised, and doesn't match the actual reality of what's being presented. There's nothing wrong with Shorin Ryu... quite the opposite... it's a fantastic Traditional Karate system!... and I'm thrilled that you've found a good school for it. But "brutal"? Nope. Solid? Yes. Strong? You bet. Brutal? No more than many other arts, and less than quite a few I could mention. It's also got very little in common with anything "street style", once you learn to look at it properly and objectively.

There was no concern over your school. I have no doubt that it's a great one, and you're certainly in the right place. Just remember to be objective and realistic about what it is... that's all.



K-man said:


> The 'unrealistic' attacks are either an attack that has been deliberately slowed to practise the technique or one that is not being done properly. Unfortunately in the videos you see and probably in many dojos it is the latter. All techniques rely on a 'realistic' attack. That means hitting with intent. Again it has to be done carefully because even a committed attack slowed can cause damage.



Not quite what I was meaning when I said "unrealistic attacks". I meant that the actual structure of the attacks was not similar to a "real" attack... they are stylised representations of forms of violence and attack. A technique like Renyo, for instance, has an attack which is a right punch, followed by a right kick, then a right grab to the lapel. That's an unrealistic sequence, really. But that's fine... it's meant to be. It's teaching distancing concepts (changing and flowing between ranges) by moving from a striking range to a kicking distance, then closing in to a grappling one. There are, of course, other lessons involved (such as handling an opponent responding by trying to escape a joint lock and so on), but it's just not meant to be a realistic sequence. Many Kukishinden Ryu kata involve a long string of attacks (right punch, left punch, right kick, left kick, right punch... or right punch, left punch, right kick, right punch.... or right punch, left punch, right punch, left kick... and so on), which teach a method of moving evasively, handling a constant attack, disrupting rhythms, picking your timing, staying in control of your distance etc, but again, it just ain't what would ever be actually encountered. It's not a realistic attack.

That said, it doesn't mean that the attacks aren't done "realistically" (in terms of targeting, power, intent etc). They absolutely are. In fact, I don't think the techniques work properly unless it's a proper attack in that sense. Attacks are done tight, precise, guarded, balanced, and so forth (at least... they're meant to be...). It's only in demonstrations that show each "part" of the action, and in the very, very early stage of learning any particular kata that there should ever be an arm "just left out there", or the attacking side should be just waiting for the defender's movements. There is, of course, some variation, as well as some alternate reasons for some of what is seen (the punches aren't actually punches....), but that's taking us further away, and will only complicate things.



Kframe said:


> But why do so many Videos feature wrist catching then? Here is another example of unrealistic attacks..
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how each time he just hangs his arm there to be captured?  THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN IN A REAL ATTACK OR FIGHT.  NO one, not even untrained do that. So why then, does BBT and Aikido train off of that kind of attack?



Gonna send that to you in your PM... to be frank, I'm not sure how many actually know what it's done the way it is... but, for now, I'm going to make a suggestion. What the AKBAN guys do isn't really what is done in Budo Taijutsu, nor is it what is seen in the Ryu-ha (when it comes to things like their "how to apply x in sparring" clips). That particular one has more of an Aikido influence in the footwork (there's no Aikido in what we do), as well as some boxing (in the attack), and really isn't that related to anything found in our systems. It's an attempt at what they feel is a modernisation... and shouldn't be taken as indicative of anything other than Yossi Sherrif's take on things. But why does it have the attacker leaving his arm out? Because it's a demonstration. Mind you, I feel (as you do) that this is a largely intellectual "technique"... the timing simply isn't there, due to the defender (Yossi) needing to take a number of extra steps in order to change direction from the second evasion to do a 180 and "catch" the second punch.



Kframe said:


> I did not intend to use all caps.. I was very frustrated.


 
Ha, not a problem.



Kframe said:


> Now to anticipate Chris Parker and the admonishment I am sure I deserve  ill say this.  I know these concepts work, but my mind is having a hard time letting go of the how. I'm getting the feeling that no amount of forum questioning will help me understand it.  Only training and experience and time will help me understand it.  I am just going to have to accept that ill be doing things I just don't understand, until one day I do.  The words how and understanding are not the same.  Only experience and a good instructor can unite the two.



I seem to remember telling you that a little while back... 



Kframe said:


> I'm so used to training that was simple and direct, with few simple movements.(not including BJJ/no-gi)  I have to find a way to stop asking questions, to turn my brain off and just accept the training and one day it will come.  Are there any suggestions you guys have that can help me to put my mind at ease and stop with the incessant need to research and analyze everything I see and do(with regards to my new art)  through the lenses of MMA?



While I agree with K-Man that you shouldn't ever stop asking questions, I would suggest that you exercise a bit more patience and introspection before voicing them. There is a concept in traditional Japanese martial arts that, although I've had a number of Bujinkan members dismiss it as being "cultish" (hmm...), is actually quite vital if you want to learn properly. The concept is known as Nyunanshin (or Junanshin), and refers to "a mind with the flexibility to accept new ideas" (pretty literally, actually... "Nyu/Ju",&#26580; , means "flexible, or pliant", same as "Ju"jutsu, or "nyumon" [beginner]; "nan",&#36575; , means "accepting, open to"; and "shin",&#24515; , means "mind"). It's often called the "beginners mind", and is related to concepts such as Nyumon (the initial stage).

At this point, it's the students responsibility to listen to the instructor, trust that they know the best method and correct procedure and structure for your development, that they know the art, knowing how what you're doing now fits into what you'll be doing in 5 years time. It's important that you simply follow their direction... even if you don't understand it, or it doesn't fit with what you've previously done. You're not doing what you've previously done... so don't expect it to be the same, or to necessarily fit in the same way. You've made a decision to learn a new approach... so learn it. And the way to do that is to learn from someone who already knows it... and to benefit from their experience and advice. All you need to do is take on board what is said... be able to accept it... and be flexible enough to realize that what you're doing is different... so expect different answers.



Kframe said:


> I just wanna flow like water. Crash hard and destroy or flow around the obstruction. Simplicity, efficiency and directness are important to me.



Oh, there's plenty of that in what we do... trust me.... 

Crash hard? Koto Ryu, or Kukishinden Ryu, as well as a fair bit of Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu. Flow around? Togakure Ryu, Gyokko Ryu (pretty much a perfect description there, actually!), a lot of Takagi Yoshin Ryu and Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu. Simple, direct? Koto Ryu, Takagi Yoshin, Shinden Fudo.... with a fair smattering found in each of the other Ryu... it's just that that's pretty much the primary "flavour" of Koto etc.... but we don't stick with just one "elemental" approach.... (not Hayes' stuff here, but more an observation on an overall take....).


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2014)

Instructor said:


> Those situations crop up during abductions and sometimes during rape attacks.



Agreed.  My point was that under pressure, it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to recall the exact tech for that situation.  Instead, the natural instincts are going to kick in, and you're just going to react.  Like I've said, the techs are there as a base, but in the end, it's a compilation of the basics, that'll be the tools you use.  

A woman who's being attacked, would be a fool to sit there and sift thru hundreds of techs to find the exact one to fit that situation.  People get way to wrapped up in the preset techs, think that is their only option...it isn't.


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, what do you want to learn? Martial arts or self defence? Why should you care about self defence if you're learning a martial art?
> 
> The point is, you can actually get a good basis in self defence in a weekend. That's all. And most of it isn't anything to do with fighting techniques (I've noticed that your posts seem to indicate that you're really only focused on fighting, nothing else... which is cool, really, but it's just not the same as either self defence or martial arts, really). To take two examples, I taught a Women's Self Defence course about a year ago... it ran over two three-hour sessions, held a month apart. The last hour or so of the second day was the only time we dealt with physical techniques and attacks. My Chief Instructor was in Melbourne to present a workshop on self defence late last year... it ran for 3 hours as well, and only the last 20 minutes or so had any physical techniques. If you want to learn self defence, fine... and you don't need any "comprehensive understanding of martial arts"... but, if you want to learn a martial art, you need to actually look to the martial art.



Out of curiosity, what are you learning in your training...a martial art, SD, both, neither?  IMHO, I would say that while everyone's personal reasons will differ, the vast majority of arts, will teach both...the art/history, as well as SD.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 2, 2014)

Kframe said:


> I'm so used to training that was simple and direct, with few simple movements.(not including BJJ/no-gi)  I have to find a way to stop asking questions, to turn my brain off and just accept the training and one day it will come.*  Are there any suggestions you guys have that can help me to put my mind at ease and stop with the incessant need to research and analyze everything I see and do*(with regards to my new art)  through the lenses of MMA?



Firstly, there's nothing wrong with continually researching, analyzing, and asking questions.  The thing that may help is to realize that the answers to those questions may take a while in coming and that's okay.  Martial arts is a marathon, not a sprint.  Much of the understanding you are seeking is going to come incrementally, one small insight at a time.  Perhaps you can start a private martial arts diary where you record your questions and the answers you are finding.  When you look back on what you've written a year or two or three later, you may be surprised to see how your perspective gradually changes.

For what it's worth, I spent almost a decade training in the Bujinkan before I moved on to other arts, and from my current perspective I have a lot of problems with their training methodology.  Chris can do a good job of explaining the theory behind that methodology.  Based on my own experiences (over 30 years in the martial arts, about 10 years in the Bujinkan) I disagree with that theory.  You don't have to take my word or his - spend some time seriously training in your new art and draw your own conclusions.

That said, I don't think my time in the Bujinkan was a waste.  I learned a lot of useful lessons that I have been able to apply to my life and to the other arts that I have studied since. Hopefully you will also get some useful benefits.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 2, 2014)

Kframe said:


> But why do so many Videos feature wrist catching then? Here is another example of unrealistic attacks..
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how each time he just hangs his arm there to be captured?  THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN IN A REAL ATTACK OR FIGHT.  NO one, not even untrained do that. So why then, does BBT and Aikido train off of that kind of attack?


I feel the same way too. Onetime I saw a Karate demo. The guy throws a punch. His opponent did 6 moves on him while his arm was still frozen in the air. An realistic attack will be your opponent makes one move, you respod with one move. Your opponent changes. you then respond with another move. 

IMO, Aikido depends too much on wrist control. It's like the Judo sleeve hold, it gives too much distance between you and your opponent. experienced Judo guy will know that holding under the elbow will reduce the distance between him and his opponent. That will give his opponent less freedom to react and move around. When wrestlers wrestle, they usually keep distance very close between each other.

In the following 2 clips, you can see that the "elbow control" will reduce the distance between you and your opponent than the "wrist control" will.


----------



## K-man (Jan 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I feel the same way too. Onetime I saw a Karate demo. The guy throws a punch. His opponent did 6 moves on him while his arm was still frozen in the air. An realistic attack will be your opponent makes one move, you respod with one move. Your opponent changes. you then respond with another move.
> 
> We have all seen crap demonstrations. That doesn't mean that the style looses effectiveness. It just means the person demonstrating crap loses credibility.
> 
> ...


:asian:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 2, 2014)

_*This arm locking technique is central to ...*_* but it has no real place in Aikido.
*
This is what I will call "style boundary". Why should we put restriction on ourselves such as "My style doesn't do this"? We are the masters. Style is just our slaves.

In the following clip, it's easy to see that "elbow distance clinch" can be established quickly. You may not like to use it, but you can't prevent your opponent from using it on you.

[video=youtube;Ng8_2N7yuEo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng8_2N7yuEo[/video]


----------



## K-man (Jan 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> _*This arm locking technique is central to ...*_* but it has no real place in Aikido.
> *
> This is what I will call "style boundary". Why should we put restriction on ourselves such as "My style doesn't do this"? We are the masters. Style is just our slaves.
> 
> ...


I don't think you read my post. I teach that arm lock that Bas Rutten performed in the clip you posted both in karate and Krav. It is central to a lot of the training I teach against weapons. So two of my styles use that type of clinch by intention. It both of those the intention is to restrain and restrict my opponent while I belt the crap out of him. I love to use it. 

Aikido is different. It's not that "my style doesn't do this or that". Aikido is not primarily a striking art. The strikes we train are strategic, not finishes by them selves. Aikido is not about clinching unless the clinch is involved as a takedown. Of course opponents will try to clinch at times. This is where Aikido thrives as a clinch is a lot easier to avoid or reverse that a strike and for that matter Systema is similar to Aikido in the way it teaches avoidance of the clinch being applied to you. The difference here though is that Systema does utilise the same clinches and the arm lock we are discussing. 

As as to your last clip, I'm not sure how you think that it applied to Aikido. Even so, there wasn't one clinch that I would call effective in it at all. 
:asian:


----------



## Kframe (Jan 2, 2014)

MJS said:


> Out of curiosity, what are you learning in your training...a martial art, SD, both, neither?  IMHO, I would say that while everyone's personal reasons will differ, the vast majority of arts, will teach both...the art/history, as well as SD.



 I don't wanna speak out of line, considering im a newbie, but I think I kinda get what CP is saying, at least with regard to what im doing in Taijutsu.  It was said, earlier in this thread that, a sword can be a good tool for self defense in the right context.  I didn't say anything but I disagree. Now sure, a few months ago I believed the same.  Then I was allowed to sit in on the head instructor and the assistant instructor training during the advanced class.  It was sword techniques that day.  I didn't see any self defense there. What I saw, was how to kill someone very very violently if they try to attack  you with a weapon.  In one case, the bad guy would have had his hand amputated at the wrist,(or at least very badly cut) and his throat slashed and his kidneys carved in two. All in just a few movements.  That was not self defense, that was how to counter murder your enemy.   Sure were I am, if he breaks in, it is by law considered a forcible felony and the law says I can use lethal force then that would work. How ever that wont work every were, and honestly is only rarely appropriate. 


Chris parker  Thank you for your insights.  There is a lot to digest there, im going to have to give it time.  So some attacks are not just representative of unarmed attacks? That adds a interesting twist on everything.  Your advice on being patient and introspective are well taken. I do have a issue with patience.  

About the Akban, i was watching there videos because it was the most complete area on youtube to see many of the ryu kata. Did they really add in bits of aikido and boxing?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 3, 2014)

I personal don't like to train "If you do ..., I'll do ...". If my opponent never uses a certain move on me then I'll never have chance to use my counter move on him. It's a bit too conservative approach for my taste. I like to train "I'll do this on you no matter you like it or not." I like to put my opponent in "self-defense" mode. I don't like my opponent to put me in "self-defense" mode.

I assume I'm not training "self-defense" by some of your guy's definition.


----------



## MJS (Jan 3, 2014)

Kframe said:


> I don't wanna speak out of line, considering im a newbie, but I think I kinda get what CP is saying, at least with regard to what im doing in Taijutsu.  It was said, earlier in this thread that, a sword can be a good tool for self defense in the right context.  I didn't say anything but I disagree. Now sure, a few months ago I believed the same.  Then I was allowed to sit in on the head instructor and the assistant instructor training during the advanced class.  It was sword techniques that day.  I didn't see any self defense there. What I saw, was how to kill someone very very violently if they try to attack  you with a weapon.  In one case, the bad guy would have had his hand amputated at the wrist,(or at least very badly cut) and his throat slashed and his kidneys carved in two. All in just a few movements.  That was not self defense, that was how to counter murder your enemy.   Sure were I am, if he breaks in, it is by law considered a forcible felony and the law says I can use lethal force then that would work. How ever that wont work every were, and honestly is only rarely appropriate.
> 
> 
> Chris parker  Thank you for your insights.  There is a lot to digest there, im going to have to give it time.  So some attacks are not just representative of unarmed attacks? That adds a interesting twist on everything.  Your advice on being patient and introspective are well taken. I do have a issue with patience.
> ...



Thanks for your post.   So, in your opinion, do you feel that both SD and a martial art, can be learned at the same time?  I may be wrong, but I got the impression from Chris' post, that you can only do one or the other.  Again, maybe I'm just not understanding correctly.  As for the sword techs...yeah, that's probably not SD. LOL!  Of course, when I was doing Kenpo, there were quite a few techs, that were 'overkill' for lack of a better word.  IMHO, I don't think that doing neck breaks, striking the back with knees, and jumping on a downed opponent, constitutes SD.


----------



## KydeX (Jan 3, 2014)

MJS said:


> IMHO, I don't think that doing neck breaks, striking the back with knees, and jumping on a downed opponent, constitutes SD.


I think it depends. If they carry a weapon my opinion is that anything goes. Also if there are multiple attackers you need to use extra force to make sure they don't get back in the fight. It 's hard to lock down more than one person at a time. 


Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 3, 2014)

*Self Defense depends on the context of what is happening at the time*.  Depending on where you live and the laws of that area.  Remember that "Self Defense" is a legal term and defense.  In some areas if someone breaks into your house depending on the context ie. they are committing a felony, have a weapon (ie. knife, gun, etc.), threatening your families life you may be allowed to use lethal force.  This of course depends on the area and the laws in your particular area.  That is why it is so important to understand the laws in your area.  In many places in the United States a home intruder has a high likelihood of meeting someone with a firearm. (definitely at all my families homes)  This of course would be the preferred tool to use in self defense to protect your family. (it probably will be the easiest to justify in the United States depending of course on the area and you would have the power of the NRA coming to your side)  Secondary tools would be knife, baseball bat, shinken, (legal where I live Chris it is to bad that it is not legal where you live) a whole assortment of other tools, with probably the least positive thing to utilize would be empty hand self defense.  In a home invasion in the middle of the night there is a good chance that the bad guy's will have weapons/tools almost immediately turning it into a lethal force encounter. (though you cannot count on this and have to be certain in the moment)  Your going to have to take care of business within the context of the law of your area, state, country.  It may be that you have to respond with lethal force or less and that could include utilizing a tool/weapon or even utilizing lethal force empty handed.  Or it may be that all you can or should do is restrain the individual.  Or yet again just report it to the police if they run off after realizing you are there. All of this would of course depend on what is happening in the context of that home invasion and what you need to do appropriately in self defense.  There are simply a lot of variables in any self defense situation and *you cannot pigeon hole your response into a very narrow set of circumstances*.  I am very fortunate in IRT to have several lawyers training as well as in Nevada a Prosecuting Attorney to turn to for advise.  It is essential to have legal advise in your martial training and have a good understanding of that legal advice and the laws in your area.  *Know the laws where you live!!!*

*I think it is also naïve to only think that RBSD systems practice, teach self defense and the legal implications and laws of their area*.  I guess this is because I have experienced multiple systems having a legal, law component to their teaching and several were systems that had a very large sporting aspect to them.  Some certainly do it better than other ones though.  I will however go and say that their are a number of systems out there that do not take into account the law of the land and their students suffer greatly for this.  We as martial practitioner's owe it to try and educate not only the public but also other martial practitioner's!


----------



## MJS (Jan 3, 2014)

KydeX said:


> I think it depends. If they carry a weapon my opinion is that anything goes. Also if there are multiple attackers you need to use extra force to make sure they don't get back in the fight. It 's hard to lock down more than one person at a time.
> 
> 
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk



Sure.  Perhaps I should've used better wording, as reading this, it seems a bit misleading.  Whatever we do, we should (IMO anyways) assess the situation and act accordingly.  The things that I described, were things that were done, after the attacker throws a punch.  I'm sorry, but while I could justify the use of deadly force in certain situations, breaking a neck, if the guy is simply punching us, would be a bit hard to prove justifiable, in court.


----------



## wimwag (Jan 3, 2014)

KydeX said:


> I think it depends. If they carry a weapon my opinion is that anything goes. Also if there are multiple attackers you need to use extra force to make sure they don't get back in the fight. It 's hard to lock down more than one person at a time.
> 
> 
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


Kydex, look up the legal definition of "disparity of force."


----------



## K-man (Jan 3, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> .
> Not quite what I was meaning when I said "unrealistic attacks". I meant that the actual structure of the attacks was not similar to a "real" attack... they are stylised representations of forms of violence and attack. A technique like Renyo, for instance, has an attack which is a right punch, followed by a right kick, then a right grab to the lapel. That's an unrealistic sequence, really. But that's fine... it's meant to be. It's teaching distancing concepts (changing and flowing between ranges) by moving from a striking range to a kicking distance, then closing in to a grappling one. There are, of course, other lessons involved (such as handling an opponent responding by trying to escape a joint lock and so on), but it's just not meant to be a realistic sequence. Many Kukishinden Ryu kata involve a long string of attacks (right punch, left punch, right kick, left kick, right punch... or right punch, left punch, right kick, right punch.... or right punch, left punch, right punch, left kick... and so on), which teach a method of moving evasively, handling a constant attack, disrupting rhythms, picking your timing, staying in control of your distance etc, but again, it just ain't what would ever be actually encountered. It's not a realistic attack.
> 
> That said, it doesn't mean that the attacks aren't done "realistically" (in terms of targeting, power, intent etc). They absolutely are. In fact, I don't think the techniques work properly unless it's a proper attack in that sense. Attacks are done tight, precise, guarded, balanced, and so forth (at least... they're meant to be...). It's only in demonstrations that show each "part" of the action, and in the very, very early stage of learning any particular kata that there should ever be an arm "just left out there", or the attacking side should be just waiting for the defender's movements. There is, of course, some variation, as well as some alternate reasons for some of what is seen (the punches aren't actually punches....), but that's taking us further away, and will only complicate things.


You are right. I thought the reference was to the typical attacks you see in Aikido or karate, running in with a hand in the air like a flag flying or a fist held out as a sacrificial offering. I had forgotten about the stupid combinations we had to perform to fit in with someone's understanding of how a technique might be applied.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Jan 3, 2014)

MJS said:


> IMHO, I don't think that doing neck breaks, striking the back with knees, and jumping on a downed opponent, constitutes SD.


As I often say, _it all depends_. 



wimwag said:


> Kydex, look up the legal definition of "disparity of force."


Good suggestion and interesting reading. 

One that was worth a look ...
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/legal-news/disparity-of-force/
:asian:


----------



## Kframe (Jan 3, 2014)

MJS said:


> Thanks for your post.   So, in your opinion, do you feel that both SD and a martial art, can be learned at the same time?  I may be wrong, but I got the impression from Chris' post, that you can only do one or the other.  Again, maybe I'm just not understanding correctly.  As for the sword techs...yeah, that's probably not SD. LOL!  Of course, when I was doing Kenpo, there were quite a few techs, that were 'overkill' for lack of a better word.  IMHO, I don't think that doing neck breaks, striking the back with knees, and jumping on a downed opponent, constitutes SD.



I don't know about Chris parkers, feelings but here is mine. Some arts, were designed for war. Combat on the field of battle. Some were designed for Dueling.  Each art has its own context that it was designed for.  Most were not designed solely for self defense. That how ever does not mean that you can not use what is taught for self defense.  Just that the context of the art is one thing, but you can use it for another.  Its like WTF TKD or Boxing or MMA each one was built for a sporting context yet can and is used quite nicely for some self defense situations.   Some combat arts have things that fit quite well for defending your self in certain situations.  Its all about the context of the art and what it was really designed for. 

I hope that makes sense..


----------



## Kframe (Jan 3, 2014)

Self defense for martial artists can be a tad more complicated. You see in some areas, or if you have a not so clean self defense situation unfold, they can use your experience against you. To the lay man and the prosecutor you are considered to be a weapon, having such skill that you should not need to break a neck.   Its not universally true, but something to consider.


----------



## K-man (Jan 3, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Self defense for martial artists can be a tad more complicated. You see in some areas, or if you have a not so clean self defense situation unfold, they can use your experience against you. To the lay man and the prosecutor you are considered to be a weapon, having such skill that you should not need to break a neck.   Its not universally true, but something to consider.


I think it probably depends on whether you are the aggressor or the victim. 

This is is where a trained person has misused his MA ability.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-arts-fighters-hands-feet-deadly-weapons.html

And from another forum ...


> First, in the United States at least, the question of whether hands (or other body parts) of a boxer, martial artist or any other person even qualifies as a "deadly" or "lethal" weapon depends largely upon how "deadly weapon," "lethal weapon," or "deadly force" is defined (usually by statute, which is then interpreted by the courts). _See,_ _e.g.,_ Vitauts M. Gulbis, "Parts of the Human Body, Other Than Feet, as Deadly or Dangerous Weapons for Purposes of Statutes Aggravating Offenses Such as Assault and Robbery," 8 A.L.R.4th 1268 (1981 and supplements); Christpher Vaeth, "Kicking as Aggravated Assault, or Assault With Dangerous or Deadly Weapon," 19 A.L.R.5th 823 (1995 and supplements). Most statutes have been interpreted to require an object external to the human body before a "deadly weapon" element can be met. For example, in _Minnesota v. Bastin_, 572 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1997), the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the trial court's conclusion that the left fist of the defendant, a former licensed professional prize fighter, was a "deadly weapon."
> 
> 
> Some courts in the United States have concluded, however, that a criminal defendant's experience in boxing or martial arts should be considered when deciding whether s/he possessed a required intent to cause harm. For instance, in _Trujillo v. State_, 750 P.2d 1334 (Wyo. 1988), the Wyoming Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault after he punched someone in the head. His history as a trained boxer was one bit of evidence supporting the jury's findings on his mental state. Likewise, in _In the Matter of the Welfare of D.S.F._, 416 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. App. 1988), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the actions of the defendant, who had "substantial experience in karate," were sufficient to demonstrate his knowledge that he was hitting the victim with sufficient force to break the victim's jaw.


:asian:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 3, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Most were not designed solely for self defense.


Agree with you 100% there. In my art of Chinese wrestling, to develop tiger spirit is very important. You act like a tiger and trying to eat your opponent alive. I assume when a tiger tries to eat a deer, it's not self-defense at all.

If your opponent 

- attacks, you move back. 
- attacks again, you move back again. 
- attack the 3rd time, you move back the 3rd time, but you immediate jump back in and "eat him alive".


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 4, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Self defense for martial artists can be a tad more complicated. You see in some areas, or if you have a not so clean self defense situation unfold, they can use your experience against you. To the lay man and the prosecutor you are considered to be a weapon, having such skill that you should not need to break a neck.   Its not universally true, but something to consider.



That is always good incentive to try to stay out of trouble.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 4, 2014)

MJS said:


> Out of curiosity, what are you learning in your training...a martial art, SD, both, neither?  IMHO, I would say that while everyone's personal reasons will differ, the vast majority of arts, will teach both...the art/history, as well as SD.



Ah, this might not be short....

The first question would be, which part of my training? My martial arts, well, there I'm training a martial art... my self defence training, well, that's self defence. Each topic is separate, each skill set is separate... although it can get a little confusing as both are taught in the same class. Of course, that takes us into the question of what each of them are... and why I'm so adamant in my separation of them.

What I will say here (I'll cover more of the rest as we go) is that the students personal reasons are completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. It really doesn't matter what the student is looking for... they might well be looking for self defence in a martial arts class, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're actually getting. I mean, I want a nice, healthy meal at the end of the day... but ordering from Pizza Hut doesn't make it so just because that's what I want.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Firstly, there's nothing wrong with continually researching, analyzing, and asking questions.  The thing that may help is to realize that the answers to those questions may take a while in coming and that's okay.  Martial arts is a marathon, not a sprint.  Much of the understanding you are seeking is going to come incrementally, one small insight at a time.  Perhaps you can start a private martial arts diary where you record your questions and the answers you are finding.  When you look back on what you've written a year or two or three later, you may be surprised to see how your perspective gradually changes.



Much wisdom here.... 



Tony Dismukes said:


> For what it's worth, I spent almost a decade training in the Bujinkan before I moved on to other arts, and from my current perspective I have a lot of problems with their training methodology.  Chris can do a good job of explaining the theory behind that methodology.  Based on my own experiences (over 30 years in the martial arts, about 10 years in the Bujinkan) I disagree with that theory.  You don't have to take my word or his - spend some time seriously training in your new art and draw your own conclusions.



The theory is one thing, whether or not it's applied correctly (or properly) is another... but that's getting off topic.



Tony Dismukes said:


> That said, I don't think my time in the Bujinkan was a waste.  I learned a lot of useful lessons that I have been able to apply to my life and to the other arts that I have studied since. Hopefully you will also get some useful benefits.



Seconded.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I feel the same way too. Onetime I saw a Karate demo. The guy throws a punch. His opponent did 6 moves on him while his arm was still frozen in the air. An realistic attack will be your opponent makes one move, you respod with one move. Your opponent changes. you then respond with another move.
> 
> IMO, Aikido depends too much on wrist control. It's like the Judo sleeve hold, it gives too much distance between you and your opponent. experienced Judo guy will know that holding under the elbow will reduce the distance between him and his opponent. That will give his opponent less freedom to react and move around. When wrestlers wrestle, they usually keep distance very close between each other.
> 
> In the following 2 clips, you can see that the "elbow control" will reduce the distance between you and your opponent than the "wrist control" will.



Yeah.... like K-Man, I'm not sure you're quite getting what you're seeing when you look at Aikido there... nor about the real distinction between different arts, and the way they work.... or why.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> _*This arm locking technique is central to ...*_* but it has no real place in Aikido.
> *
> This is what I will call "style boundary". Why should we put restriction on ourselves such as "My style doesn't do this"? We are the masters. Style is just our slaves.
> 
> ...



"Style boundaries" are not only a good thing, they're essential. Without them, you don't have a system, you have a mess... you have disparate "techniques", and no focus or definition. It's less than just fighting, then... it's nothing. Every single system has to have some stylistic boundary... the kickboxing clip you use is a good enough example. Only one opponent, no knives... on either side. Unless you're going to suggest that someone could pull a blade, there's a boundary.

The reasons boundaries exist is that they give definition. Without them, there's nothing.



Kframe said:


> I don't wanna speak out of line, considering im a newbie, but I think I kinda get what CP is saying, at least with regard to what im doing in Taijutsu.  It was said, earlier in this thread that, a sword can be a good tool for self defense in the right context.  I didn't say anything but I disagree. Now sure, a few months ago I believed the same.  Then I was allowed to sit in on the head instructor and the assistant instructor training during the advanced class.  It was sword techniques that day.  I didn't see any self defense there. What I saw, was how to kill someone very very violently if they try to attack  you with a weapon.  In one case, the bad guy would have had his hand amputated at the wrist,(or at least very badly cut) and his throat slashed and his kidneys carved in two. All in just a few movements.  That was not self defense, that was how to counter murder your enemy.   Sure were I am, if he breaks in, it is by law considered a forcible felony and the law says I can use lethal force then that would work. How ever that wont work every were, and honestly is only rarely appropriate.



For your information, Kukishinden Ryu sword is largely geared around a duelling context... sure, there's the killing... it's not always a "counter", though.... 



Kframe said:


> Chris parker  Thank you for your insights.  There is a lot to digest there, im going to have to give it time.  So some attacks are not just representative of unarmed attacks? That adds a interesting twist on everything.  Your advice on being patient and introspective are well taken. I do have a issue with patience.



Wait for the PM.... 



Kframe said:


> About the Akban, i was watching there videos because it was the most complete area on youtube to see many of the ryu kata. Did they really add in bits of aikido and boxing?



There's certainly influence from there... as well as other areas... Doron Navon incorporated a fair bit of his Judo experience as well... then their "sparring" approach influences things as well.... 

As far as the complete look at the kata, the way the AKBAN guys do them isn't necessarily the way they are done elsewhere.... don't look at them as definitive, but can be an interesting reference.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I personal don't like to train "If you do ..., I'll do ...". If my opponent never uses a certain move on me then I'll never have chance to use my counter move on him. It's a bit too conservative approach for my taste. I like to train "I'll do this on you no matter you like it or not." I like to put my opponent in "self-defense" mode. I don't like my opponent to put me in "self-defense" mode.
> 
> I assume I'm not training "self-defense" by some of your guy's definition.



Hmm... no, not self defence to my mind. And as far as the idea of not liking to train "if you do this, I'll do...", well, that's the way the learning of tactical responses work. Hmm.



MJS said:


> Thanks for your post.   So, in your opinion, do you feel that both SD and a martial art, can be learned at the same time?  I may be wrong, but I got the impression from Chris' post, that you can only do one or the other.  Again, maybe I'm just not understanding correctly.  As for the sword techs...yeah, that's probably not SD. LOL!  Of course, when I was doing Kenpo, there were quite a few techs, that were 'overkill' for lack of a better word.  IMHO, I don't think that doing neck breaks, striking the back with knees, and jumping on a downed opponent, constitutes SD.



No, I don't think they can realistically be taught together (well, as the same thing). It'd be like playing tennis and badminton at the same time, on the same court. There are certain similarities, and some definite cross-over... but martial arts are martial arts, and self defence is self defence.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Self Defense depends on the context of what is happening at the time*.  Depending on where you live and the laws of that area.  Remember that "Self Defense" is a legal term and defense.  In some areas if someone breaks into your house depending on the context ie. they are committing a felony, have a weapon (ie. knife, gun, etc.), threatening your families life you may be allowed to use lethal force.  This of course depends on the area and the laws in your particular area.  That is why it is so important to understand the laws in your area.  In many places in the United States a home intruder has a high likelihood of meeting someone with a firearm. (definitely at all my families homes)  This of course would be the preferred tool to use in self defense to protect your family. (it probably will be the easiest to justify in the United States depending of course on the area and you would have the power of the NRA coming to your side)  Secondary tools would be knife, baseball bat, shinken, (legal where I live Chris it is to bad that it is not legal where you live) a whole assortment of other tools, with probably the least positive thing to utilize would be empty hand self defense.  In a home invasion in the middle of the night there is a good chance that the bad guy's will have weapons/tools almost immediately turning it into a lethal force encounter. (though you cannot count on this and have to be certain in the moment)  Your going to have to take care of business within the context of the law of your area, state, country.  It may be that you have to respond with lethal force or less and that could include utilizing a tool/weapon or even utilizing lethal force empty handed.  Or it may be that all you can or should do is restrain the individual.  Or yet again just report it to the police if they run off after realizing you are there. All of this would of course depend on what is happening in the context of that home invasion and what you need to do appropriately in self defense.  There are simply a lot of variables in any self defense situation and *you cannot pigeon hole your response into a very narrow set of circumstances*.  I am very fortunate in IRT to have several lawyers training as well as in Nevada a Prosecuting Attorney to turn to for advise.  It is essential to have legal advise in your martial training and have a good understanding of that legal advice and the laws in your area.  *Know the laws where you live!!!*



Agreed with the overall advice, Brian (and honestly, I'm fine with the idea of live swords not being legal for people to just have lying around...). However, this is where one of my big distinctions between martial arts and self defence lies... while some martial art classes (yours and mine, Brian) include covering such essential aspects of self defence as part of what they offer, such topics are not part of the martial art itself. If there is any consideration of legal aspects, it's to do with the legal systems of the arts context (this comes up occasionally in Koryu)... but a martial art from a different culture especially simply can't be designed to cover such aspects as the legal system where you are... or the social structure, forms of violence, and more. Other non-martial art topics that are part of a self defence syllabus include de-escalation, pre-fight indicators, and so on.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I think it is also naïve to only think that RBSD systems practice, teach self defense and the legal implications and laws of their area*.  I guess this is because I have experienced multiple systems having a legal, law component to their teaching and several were systems that had a very large sporting aspect to them.  Some certainly do it better than other ones though.  I will however go and say that their are a number of systems out there that do not take into account the law of the land and their students suffer greatly for this.  We as martial practitioner's owe it to try and educate not only the public but also other martial practitioner's!



I'd ask which systems actually covered the legal aspects, though. I know of a lot of classes that cover it (more or less), but no martial art that does. Getting past that distinction can help understand where I'm coming from, I feel.



K-man said:


> You are right. I thought the reference was to the typical attacks you see in Aikido or karate, running in with a hand in the air like a flag flying or a fist held out as a sacrificial offering. I had forgotten about the stupid combinations we had to perform to fit in with someone's understanding of how a technique might be applied.
> :asian:



Hmm... not sure that I'd refer to it as anything like a "stupid combination"... at least, not once the reasons were understood. And it's not anything to do with someone's understanding of how a technique "might" be applied... there isn't any "might" about it. If there is, then the structure needs to be looked at more closely.



Kframe said:


> I don't know about Chris parkers, feelings but here is mine. Some arts, were designed for war. Combat on the field of battle. Some were designed for Dueling.  Each art has its own context that it was designed for.  Most were not designed solely for self defense. That how ever does not mean that you can not use what is taught for self defense.  Just that the context of the art is one thing, but you can use it for another.  Its like WTF TKD or Boxing or MMA each one was built for a sporting context yet can and is used quite nicely for some self defense situations.   Some combat arts have things that fit quite well for defending your self in certain situations.  Its all about the context of the art and what it was really designed for.
> 
> I hope that makes sense..



Yep, I'd agree with that quite nicely. There are subtleties that can be explored (such as what "for the battlefield" actually means), but all in all, yep.



Kframe said:


> Self defense for martial artists can be a tad more complicated. You see in some areas, or if you have a not so clean self defense situation unfold, they can use your experience against you. To the lay man and the prosecutor you are considered to be a weapon, having such skill that you should not need to break a neck.   Its not universally true, but something to consider.



Yep. To add to K-Man's examples, there was a case local to here about 15 years back... a young kid (late teens) got involved in a fight with another kid in a parking lot outside of a bar. The first kid had done a year or so of kickboxing, and during the fight, kicked the other in the head, knocking him to the ground, where he hit his skull. He died in hospital a number of days later. This was an exaggerated monkey dance, very much social violence, with a crowd around egging the kids on... but, as one of them died, the young, relatively inexperienced kick boxer, was brought up on manslaughter charges. The judge in the case gave him the maximum sentence (from memory, it was the better part of a decade), saying that, "as a trained martial artist, you should be able to control yourself to the point that you can defend without causing any injury to your opponent". He essentially thought that, because the kid did kickboxing, he was a "martial arts expert"... and should be able to magically stop any attack effortlessly and without violence. The judge was thoroughly clueless, but that doesn't matter... the kids training was considered far more than "effective"... and worked against him when it went to court.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you 100% there. In my art of Chinese wrestling, to develop tiger spirit is very important. You act like a tiger and trying to eat your opponent alive. I assume when a tiger tries to eat a deer, it's not self-defense at all.



Ha, no, it's not.... again, context is key.



RTKDCMB said:


> That is always good incentive to try to stay out of trouble.



As if more were needed, yes, it is.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 4, 2014)

Chris just one example regarding having legal aspects in a martial system would be my Tae Kwon Do instructors curriculum and manual.  He basically wrote in a shorthand example of legal issues and how to get by that is pretty simple but effective.  Less in depth than what you or I are probably teaching but effective none the less.  He was a 9th Degree in one Tae Kwon Do system an 8th in another with a 9th probably coming posthumously.  His system integrated both of he major Tae Kwon Do systems WTF and ITF.  Legal aspects were integral and every practitioner would get that while training in his system. (we are talking thousands of people over time)  I might add that he was way ahead of his time on many, many levels!


----------



## MJS (Jan 4, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, this might not be short....
> 
> The first question would be, which part of my training? My martial arts, well, there I'm training a martial art... my self defence training, well, that's self defence. Each topic is separate, each skill set is separate... although it can get a little confusing as both are taught in the same class. Of course, that takes us into the question of what each of them are... and why I'm so adamant in my separation of them.



In my experience from the schools that I've seen/been a part of, that's the way it's taught...all in the same setting.  IMO though, it seems that in many cases, except in a very traditional school, you really don't see much of the art/history side.



> What I will say here (I'll cover more of the rest as we go) is that the students personal reasons are completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. It really doesn't matter what the student is looking for... they might well be looking for self defence in a martial arts class, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're actually getting. I mean, I want a nice, healthy meal at the end of the day... but ordering from Pizza Hut doesn't make it so just because that's what I want.



Ok.  OTOH, this is why I say to research.  If you're looking for something specific, well....






> No, I don't think they can realistically be taught together (well, as the same thing). It'd be like playing tennis and badminton at the same time, on the same court. There are certain similarities, and some definite cross-over... but martial arts are martial arts, and self defence is self defence.



See above.


----------



## K-man (Jan 4, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm... not sure that I'd refer to it as anything like a "stupid combination"... at least, not once the reasons were understood. And it's not anything to do with someone's understanding of how a technique "might" be applied... there isn't any "might" about it. If there is, then the structure needs to be looked at more closely.


Believe me, we had stupid combinations. For example, to demonstrate the application of hasami uke 
( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MugjBJwQiug&desktop_uri=/watch?v=MugjBJwQiug ) Uke would front kick with the right foot while simultaneously punching to the face with the right hand. These techniques were called yakusuku kumite or 'pre-arranged sparring'. ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tpHzGz1ZU0k&desktop_uri=/watch?v=tpHzGz1ZU0k ) They were really examples of kihon kumite or the simple explanation of different techniques. Most were fine, even if the attack wasn't 'realistic' but some were just plain stupid.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 5, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Chris just one example regarding having legal aspects in a martial system would be my Tae Kwon Do instructors curriculum and manual.  He basically wrote in a shorthand example of legal issues and how to get by that is pretty simple but effective.  Less in depth than what you or I are probably teaching but effective none the less.  He was a 9th Degree in one Tae Kwon Do system an 8th in another with a 9th probably coming posthumously.  His system integrated both of he major Tae Kwon Do systems WTF and ITF.  Legal aspects were integral and every practitioner would get that while training in his system. (we are talking thousands of people over time)  I might add that he was way ahead of his time on many, many levels!



Cool. That, to me, sounds more like his school curriculum, though, rather than the martial arts syllabus itself... I know is sounds kinda nit-picking, but the distinction is rather important.

I'll see if I can put it this way.... Tae Kwon Do is a Korean system, developed in the 50's from Japanese forms of karate. It was introduced to the Korean army (for a range of reasons and applications), and was given a role as a focal point for a new Korean identity. What part of TKD teaches the legal system of a mid-Western American state? If such a legal system is applied to the way TKD is taught, is it part of TKD itself, or is it part of the approach of a particular teachers school? Personally, I've only seen the latter. And, in that sense, it is separate from the martial art itself.



MJS said:


> In my experience from the schools that I've seen/been a part of, that's the way it's taught...all in the same setting.  IMO though, it seems that in many cases, except in a very traditional school, you really don't see much of the art/history side.



Yeah, I've seen the same thing... and I get the confusion. I get why many people think the martial art itself is geared up for self defence... where is might just be the instructors approach. After all, my comments have never been that a martial arts school doesn't teach self defence... it's been that the martial art itself doesn't, and isn't geared towards it.



MJS said:


> Ok.  OTOH, this is why I say to research.  If you're looking for something specific, well....



Sure. And that goes into the student's choice of system... but it really doesn't effect what the system itself is in the first place.



K-man said:


> Believe me, we had stupid combinations. For example, to demonstrate the application of hasami uke
> ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MugjBJwQiug&desktop_uri=/watch?v=MugjBJwQiug ) Uke would front kick with the right foot while simultaneously punching to the face with the right hand. These techniques were called yakusuku kumite or 'pre-arranged sparring'. ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tpHzGz1ZU0k&desktop_uri=/watch?v=tpHzGz1ZU0k ) They were really examples of kihon kumite or the simple explanation of different techniques. Most were fine, even if the attack wasn't 'realistic' but some were just plain stupid.



Yeah... that explanation of hasami uke fits what I was talking about with it not being about someone's understanding of how it "might" fit... this is a case of not knowing, and trying to make something up. The actual reasons for hasami uke, I would posit, are rather different... but I'm sure you already got that!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 5, 2014)

I can see certainly how you could say that but...... he ran an organization that had literally thousands of people in it and multiple schools. (he is now deceased)  This was his version and his organization's version (which still survives) of Tae Kwon Do and it was integral to the training. (literally a part of it)  It was part of his vision of Tae Kwon Do and he was a Grandmaster.  So......... you could say it was not separate from his system of Tae Kwon Do.  This is just one example.


----------



## alexis101 (Jan 16, 2014)

Definitely yes it does! :sp34:

Self-defence and discipline :s143:


----------

