# FMA and the teaching of deadly technique...



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2005)

This thread really got me thinking about FMA training and about how on the first day, both of my instructors put a knife in my hand and started teaching me things that I could take out of the class and do very nasty things with.  

This has always made me a little uncomfortable (moreso after reading the above thread).  How much do you know the person you are teaching?  Can you trust that person to "do the right thing" with the training you give them?  What does FMA in general do in order to prepare a student for the power they recieve through their training?

I have had two very different experiences regarding the above questions with FMA.  

My Arnis De Mano instructor was also my Tang Soo Do instructor.  So we already had the principles of Mudo (Budo) drilled into our heads.  His class was by invite only and he knew the character of everyone who he was training.

My Kali instructor, on the other hand, took my money, put a trainer in my hand and went through "the five terrors" with me on the first day.  There was no attempt made to discern whether or not I could "handle" that knowledge.

This thread is not intended to bash FMA in anyway.  I would just like to discuss what, if any, standards FMA instructors use to discern among students and how FMA prepares students for the knowledge the learn.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## KyleShort (Mar 1, 2005)

As far as I am concerned, knife techniques are not the most socially responsible thing to teach begining students, ESPECIALLY young ones. There is vast material to cover with just a piece of rattan.  By working through the basic mechanics with the stick, the instructor can spend months evaluating the character of the student and determine what they can handle, all the while teaching them very important skills.

I do think that it is important to train realistic knife defenses, but this conditions the student's congitive framework such that he/she is able to defend a knife attack...not specifically wield one themselves.  Of course the basic mechanics translate and the student could still use a knife, but by not directly training the student to use a blade, the student will not develop a propensity to use such a weapon.  On a similar note, I do not personally advocate carrying a knife for self defense and I do not think instructors should either, if for nothing other than covering themselves in the case of litigation.  If a student chooses to that is one thing, if they are encouraged to that is something else entirely.

About a month ago in class we were working on some knife defenses in front of some new students.  I asked my instructor about targeting knife strikes to vital points, and though we had discussed this in some detail in the past, he very deftly skirted the question and moved onto another topic.  I suspect that this was done because he did not want to present that particular material to brand new students...though it may have been something else entirely, I don't know =)

Last thought...I don't believe in teaching children and teenagers to use a knife.  Study after study has shown that the centers of the brain responsible for impulse control and reasoning are still developing through child hood and the teen age years...mix in hormones and you have a volatile combination that makes it so that even good kids will do stupid things on a whim.  And we all know how easy it is for a kid to get their hands on a knife.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 1, 2005)

I have a screening process for my instructors Gild that is designed to weed out people with ill intentions.

However, that is because of how in depth my program is, and because it covers shooting.

For most FMA courses that use blade, I don't feel a screening process is nessicary. First off, most programs won't teach you, within one or two classes, anything you couldn't learn from a book or videotape. If you are a psychopath, your probably not going to go through the trouble of taking a martial arts class to learn how to hurt someone. If by rare circumstance you are a psycho and trying to take a class, even if the instructor were to have found out and kicked you out, you would still find another instructor, or a video, or a book, or some other source to facilitate your learning if you are determined. That is just the reality.

However, I hope that by me being personable with everyone who comes in my door, I can feel out who might have ill intentions.

What I think is more of an issue then a screening process is how the material is taught, rather then what is taught and who it is taught to. Most martial arts schools that cover knife teach you a bunch of ways to cut up the other guy, and then you go home. There is no attempt to seperate what is most likely to occur in self-defense, or to seperate what is prudent for self-defense. There is no attempt to discuss, or even point you to a source for legal information so you know what your limitations are with the blade. So, people could leave their martial arts class with their tactical folder by their side, and a false sense of security and reality with it. This facilitates situations like that bouncer stabbing in NYC. I am more worried about a good person with good intentions ending up in jail over something I have taught them, then a psychopath who I can't change whether they take my class or not.

I hope that makes sense...

Paul


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2005)

Yeah, that made sense.  Very good posts so far.  

Paul, could you detail what you do to weed out certain people?

Other FMA instructors, I'm curious as to what you do, please chime in.


----------



## arnisandyz (Mar 1, 2005)

Why is teaching the knife considered that much more deadly than hitting the temple with a stick or a spear-finger to the throat, or running someone over with a car?  As Paul said, its not always who or what is taught but also how its taught.  We should stress the value of life and the consequences of our actions. Buy understanding the ability to take life, we appriciate the need to preserve life. 

Its a double standard. Its OK to teach deadly techniques emptyhanded, but when they use a tool its worse?  Does that TKD instructor teaching kids a ridgehand strike to the bridge of the nose talk about the consequnces? Average people (non-martial artists) go to the shooting range and practice putting holes in human sillouettes. Does the rangemaster explain the trama that would happen if that target were a live person?

As far as who to teach...our club has a probationary period when somebody signs up. During that time if any member has a problem with the new students conduct or mental stability it is brought to the other members attention and we then decided if the new student stays or goes. As I mentioned above, I don't have a time period of when I teach how to kill with a stick, then how to kill with a knife. Last time I checked the person would be dead either way.


----------



## treksinthesiddhis (Mar 1, 2005)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> Why is teaching the knife considered that much more deadly than hitting the temple with a stick or a spear-finger to the throat, or running someone over with a car? As Paul said, its not always who or what is taught but also how its taught. We should stress the value of life and the consequences of our actions. Buy understanding the ability to take life, we appriciate the need to preserve life.
> 
> Its a double standard. Its OK to teach deadly techniques emptyhanded, but when they use a tool its worse? Does that TKD instructor teaching kids a ridgehand strike to the bridge of the nose talk about the consequnces? Average people (non-martial artists) go to the shooting range and practice putting holes in human sillouettes. Does the rangemaster explain the trama that would happen if that target were a live person?
> 
> As far as who to teach...our club has a probationary period when somebody signs up. During that time if any member has a problem with the new students conduct or mental stability it is brought to the other members attention and we then decided if the new student stays or goes. As I mentioned above, I don't have a time period of when I teach how to kill with a stick, then how to kill with a knife. Last time I checked the person would be dead either way.


Couldn't have said it better myself...

Do i condone teaching psychos to kill? No. Do i accept that i am not omniscient and i cannot tell exactly what a person will do with skills they learn? Yes. As above stated, HOW you teach is much more important than what you teach. Yes, certain dangerous people may become more efficient at doing what they will do anyway, but what if we could help them to change through our teachings instead?

 In the martial arts community we sometimes begin to believe that we "know" what an individual should or should not learn. In reality however, there are few and far between that can read a person so accurately that they may know exactly what said person is capable of in any given situation. People are not static, they are dynamic and ever changing.

In my humble opinion, it is dangerous ignorance to presume to be able to assign values and capabilities to a human mind. The best i can do is show someone a path, a path that is the "right path" to me, and hope that they take from it what they need to function properly in our society concurrent with the tenants of Bushido. 

I am not a teacher of martial arts, but if i ever decide to teach martial arts in the future, i believe it is important to teach the entire spectrum of martial technique... From the compassionate to the lethal. In this way, an individual can KNOW what is right for the given situation and choose an appropriate course of action. If there is no knowledge of the lethal then there can be no choice. The student may or may not use a deadly technique, unbeknown to him/her. If on the other hand, the student knows the full spectrum of appropriate responses, he will only use lethal force when absolutely necessary, instead of flailing out in potentially lethal attacks at all times.

Of course, if it is obvious that an individual is stark raving mad, i will let it rest on someone else's conscience what they will or will not teach them


Namaste
-Rob


----------



## KyleShort (Mar 1, 2005)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> Why is teaching the knife considered that much more deadly than hitting the temple with a stick or a spear-finger to the throat, or running someone over with a car?



In my mind this goes back to human psychology...generally speaking, most people are unwilling to deliver enough trauma to another human being to kill them (especially blunt force). With a knife it is very easy to use a lot more force than you intend to, blunt objects have a force continium that is easier to manage.  As such I think that most people will stop short of beating someone to death with a blunt object, but if they employ a knife they may easily hit an organ or sever a major artery like the brachial or femoral and cause death which was not intended...perhaps in a split second when emotions are running high and thought has not had time to catch up.  A gun has a similarly difficult to manage force continium, but they still are much more difficult to obttain than a knife.

So in short it is not a matter of the knife being more deadly than a ridge hand etc. etc...but rather that the use of a knife will result in greater injury when it was not intended, thus making the knife more dangerous.

Note also that when I say most people I am refering to a responsible martial artist, not the criminal attacker (or school bully for that matter).



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> For most FMA courses that use blade, I don't feel a screening process is nessicary. First off, most programs won't teach you, within one or two classes, anything you couldn't learn from a book or videotape. If you are a psychopath, your probably not going to go through the trouble of taking a martial arts class to learn how to hurt someone.



I totally agree with that and I would argue that a psychopath does not need training anyway...they will find a way to kill you with a knife...they do it all the time.

BUT...I too am not concerned about them.  For me it is more a matter of teaching teenagers and young adults (who biologically have poor self control) how to use a highly available and very deadly weapon.  Beyond teaching them the skills, knife training of the nature we are discussing will desensitize the student to not only the threat of a knife, but also the use of one.  This is dangerous ground because if a student loses sight of the grim reality of a blade, they are more likely to use it and be suprised/devistated at the results.

To further compound the issue I would take it a step further and argue that there exist FMA training centers/schools/clubs etc. that glamorize and glorify the use of the blade.  They train killing techniques in depth including depth, power and angle of cuts in order to derive maximum blood loss.  They memorize deadly targets on the body, speed drawing the blade and drill specific cutting & thrusting techniques over and over again.  And of course they advocate carrying one or more blades on a daily basis.

Through desensitization, glamorization and opportunity (daily carry), this type of training can result in disaster.  Think Pavlov's Dog...though they may train to respond to deadly force with deadly force, similar stimuli could result in the same reaction...only unwarranted and unjustified.

For the most part, this type of training should be religated to the military.  But I do believe that the knife can be tought to resposible, mature adults when all of the proper measures are taken for the student to understand the consequences of their actions and to keep them from being desensitized.


----------



## argyll (Mar 1, 2005)

KyleShort said:
			
		

> In my mind this goes back to human psychology...generally speaking, most people are unwilling to deliver enough trauma to another human being to kill them (especially blunt force). With a knife it is very easy to use a lot more force than you intend to, blunt objects have a force continium that is easier to manage.  As such I think that most people will stop short of beating someone to death with a blunt object, but if they employ a knife they may easily hit an organ or sever a major artery like the brachial or femoral and cause death which was not intended...perhaps in a split second when emotions are running high and thought has not had time to catch up.  A gun has a similarly difficult to manage force continium, but they still are much more difficult to obttain than a knife.



I suspect studies would prove you wrong.  Most people have a natural adversion to taking someones life at personal contact distance, be it with a knife or their bare hands.  Its much less intimate to hit some one on the head with a three-foot stick.  

Personally, I think your thesis is messed up anyway.  Any real life violent encounter can lead to unintended death.  Just look at the number of people who have died from a punch after hitting their head on the curb.  Its not the technique that matters as much as knowing when it is legally acceptable to use it and avoiding all unnecessary confrontations.

Best regards,

Argyll


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 1, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yeah, that made sense.  Very good posts so far.
> 
> Paul, could you detail what you do to weed out certain people?
> 
> Other FMA instructors, I'm curious as to what you do, please chime in.



For my Instructors Gild, not everyone can just sign up and play. They have to Fill out an application and be interviewed by me first. The application includes information on their background, and reasons why they want to be a member of the Gild. If that goes well, then they are accepted on the conditions of a probationary membership. The probationary membership lasts 1-3 months. During this time period they have to get me a copy of their criminal record or a current CPL (Concealed Pistols License), they have to obtain their equiptment, and they have to complete Module #1 which covers basic self-defense and weapon handling. During this period, I and the other Gild members are studying the way the probationary member behaves and interacts.

Provided that the probationary process goes well, within that 1-3 month period they are reviewed by me and voted in by the other Gild members.

That said, the TULISAN Instructors Gild is not a commercial program, so I can get away with setting a high standard of acceptance and performance for my members.

Now, for my Journeyman's programs (which are my 8-10 hour private programs that focus on one thing), certian programs (like Combat Knife) require me to see a copy of their criminal record beforehand. Other programs that are geared more towards civilian self-defense or historical fighting arts, like my "every day carry" (EDC) knife programs, are not geared towards someone who would be gearing themselves up to go out and perform acts of violence on society anyways; so no background check is required.

For my seminars: So far, anything that I have taught that would require a background check in seminar format has been for military only. I have attended shooting seminars for LEO only. The rest have been historical fighting arts or civilian self-defense, where no background check is required.

For any program I do, though, They do sign a liability waiver that specifically states that they are responsable for their own actions, among other things. THey also are required to fill out a registration form that has their contact info on it, so if I am ever approached by the police over actions taken by someone who attended an event or took one of my programs, I will have record of that persons training with me.

Paul


----------



## Blindside (Mar 1, 2005)

One of my instructor that I studied with mentioned that if he were going to go on a killing rampage his weapon of choice would be a old Ford F-150.  At the beginning of our training he noted that if we had driven to the location "then society has already licensed you with a weapon much more deadly than a knife."  

Lamont


----------



## KyleShort (Mar 1, 2005)

argyll said:
			
		

> I think your thesis is messed up anyway.  Any real life violent encounter can lead to unintended death.



Either you missed my point or I failed to communicate my thoughts clearly :ultracool   

Of course all things can lead to unintended death.  I have a buddy in prison for killing a man at a drunken college party from one punch to the jaw.  Just recently a college kid died of drinking too much water....

...the point that I was making is that the percentile chance of death occuring when deploying a knife is higher than a stick...I am not talking possibility, I am talking probability.  Just consider 5lbs. of force distributed across the curved surface of a cylindrical blunt weapon, vrs. 5lbs. of force focused on the sharpened tip of a blade with friction reducing sharpened edges.

*Tulisan*, once again I have to say that I like the way you run your program man.  Sounds like great stuff.


----------



## KyleShort (Mar 1, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> ...old Ford F-150.  At the beginning of our training he noted that if we had driven to the location "then society has already licensed you with a weapon much more deadly than a knife."


To make your analogy more firm, I would love to see a combat school school taking their students through drills on how to squish people with your car   

You could drill smashing dummies over and over again until it becomes instinct.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 1, 2005)

> Tulisan, once again I have to say that I like the way you run your program man. Sounds like great stuff.



Thanks Kyle... :supcool:


----------



## thekuntawman (Mar 2, 2005)

sometimes how you teach your students will determine how they think, especially when it comes to streetfighting. when you teach your students only the most dangerous techniqes, they learn to hide behind their knives, rather than face another fighter, man to man. not every fighting situation needs a deadly attack, but for many martial artist, who do not have the physical ability to deal with a man force to force, especially the idea of proving your ideas and skills work to someone else, find that it is easier to say, my technique is too deadly for sparring, your doing sport, how can you argue with the knife? yeah, you can use wood knives, and chalk, but they always hide behind the word "sport" and "not realistic enough". so the "real fighting" martial artist, practice with sharp blades, practice "simulations" and put down sparring. what you end up with is, students who can't wait to kill. because its all they talk about, killing, not fighting.

in my town, there is a kung fu school that is like that. all there techniques are "killing", so how to you judge this training? "we only fight to the death". that's there motto. they dont do tournaments, only "real life simulated drills". sounds like lite sparring with heavy bullsh!t talk...

it sounds real impressive to say, i am a life and death kind of martial artist. but the real fighters, are willing to fight at ANY level. 

knife fighting is best for the intermediate at least. i do teach some basic things at the beginning, just to quench his thirst. but i have to know a student well before i teach him the knife, not just because of the danger, but because i believe most learning in the martial arts school should be earned, not bought.


----------



## thekuntawman (Mar 2, 2005)

i just remembered a funny story about that kung fu school.

i wont mention the school out of respect for my students who use to go there (i have one of their black belters in my place).

i couple years ago, i went to invite them to my tournament, and the teacher was very rude to me, i wanted to kick his *** right there in front of his boys. but he said, he doesnt let his boys do light contact tournaments. so i told him about our full contact division. then he said, its sport, not realistic enough, they fight to kill. so i told him that we have a "killing division" for death matches.

he kicked me out of his school.... :uhyeah:


----------



## Guro Harold (Mar 2, 2005)

thekuntawmanso i told him that we have a "killing division" for death matches.

he kicked me out of his school.... :uhyeah:[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> :rofl:


----------



## arnisandyz (Mar 2, 2005)

KyleShort said:
			
		

> A gun has a similarly difficult to manage force continium, but they still are much more difficult to obttain than a knife.



If your talking about students with limited training that learned gross motor movements and lethal targets, then yes, something bad has a possibility to happen.  However, in the hands of a skilled person that is trained to seek limb destructions as self defense and using lethal targeting as a last resort and has an understanding of the law, then the knife becomes a precision instrument that could actually save the attackers life.  With a knife you can change the angle of cut or amount of pressure or penetration. You cant do that with a gun.  Once the bullet goes to the target its on its own. 

A good side-topic to this might be when do you suggest your students start carrying a knife?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 2, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This thread really got me thinking about FMA training and about how on the first day, both of my instructors put a knife in my hand and started teaching me things that I could take out of the class and do very nasty things with.
> 
> This has always made me a little uncomfortable (moreso after reading the above thread). How much do you know the person you are teaching? Can you trust that person to "do the right thing" with the training you give them? What does FMA in general do in order to prepare a student for the power they recieve through their training?
> 
> ...


My curriculum is developed for self defense purposes and things like class conduct, a student 'code of conduct' and a basic introduction to Use of Force/Deadly force that is based on NYS Art. 35 (but generalized enough that it would only take minor tweeking to fit any other state Penal code) are clearly outlined from the get go.

The techniques and context of applications are clearly outlined, the legal/social parameters are clearly outlined. That done, it is up to the student to make the choice as to what they will and won't do. If, as an observer/instructor of the class, I see that any student is not demonstrating cooperation and is not respecting the code of conduct....they are warned and re-educated on the code, then dropped if they don't change.

Because my program is self defense focused, knife techniques, 'deadly techniques' are taught specifically for the purpose of understanding the attack so that you can defend it well NOT so that you can become a knife wielding killer.  That purpose is clearly communicated to students as well.  If they go out and apply that knowledge illegally or immorally, that is not my responsibility because I am limited in my evaluation of their 'character' by the limited time we have together per week/day/year.... AND I have communicated my purpose as an instructor.

I am not trained enough to judge the character of any individual based on the limited info I can get from a simple conversation or from what that person will tell me. I can't/won't do a screening with a polygraph or call references because no one is going to put a bad reference on a document.... all I can do is give people a reasonable chance. If they demonstrate an observable inability to work well and respectfully and demonstrate a hazard to their classmates...their gone. Instructor candidates are generally going to come from the student pool so I will know who has the skill/rank/personallity to be a good instructor - becuase they have demonstrated it every class.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 2, 2005)

While we allow everyone to learn knife techniques at my school, we monitor their attitude and reactions to determine if they should be learning this. To date I have met only two people that I wouldn't teach, and they left of their own accord very early in training. I seem to find that people with bad intent are twitchy and impatient, and they often choose to leave when they realize this is going to be work.


----------



## Sifu Barry Cuda (Mar 8, 2005)

Hey guys, for the people that work with "the Job" or have been on "the job" like Paul and myself ,most psycho degenerates dont take martial arts classe.These are people that dont function in the social family atmosphere that most schools are.People like that are generaly loners and dont join in with other people.I have had people come to me with a wish list of what they want to do privatley and I always turn them away." could you teach me to use a knife really good in a couple of privates" or "if I work with you one on one how long would it take me to be really good with a knife" Fuggetaboutit! Barry  www.combatartsusa.com


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 9, 2005)

Sifu Barry Cuda said:
			
		

> Hey guys, for the people that work with "the Job" or have been on "the job" like Paul and myself ,most psycho degenerates dont take martial arts classe.These are people that dont function in the social family atmosphere that most schools are.People like that are generaly loners and dont join in with other people.I have had people come to me with a wish list of what they want to do privatley and I always turn them away." could you teach me to use a knife really good in a couple of privates" or "if I work with you one on one how long would it take me to be really good with a knife" Fuggetaboutit! Barry www.combatartsusa.com


Well said, btw which 'Paul' are you referring to as 'on the job' and which 'job' are you referring to as well?


----------

