# Ethics in presenting self-defence advice



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

Dear forum members, 

Do you believe that there is a moral obligation on those teaching/presenting self-defence advice to take reasonable steps to ensure that what they are teaching works within the relevant context?

If you agree that they should take reasonable steps, what do you deem reasonable? (for example pressure testing, real life experience, statistical studies or just gut feeling, etc).


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 9, 2006)

I tend to regard most "Self-defence" in the same way I would regard Fortune telling.  There really is no way to tell if any of it works as advertised, so I give it about as much credibility.

It might work, might not.  But as soon as it comes out of a sport-like (note the sport-LIKE there, lots more can be done then what exist in established competitive sports) it falls off the map in terms of testibility.

Yet, there are countless people reading horoscopes every day, getting there palms read, using tarrot cards, etc.  That's fine, whatever floats there boat.  But I don't think a fortune teller can be held accountable for a reading.  Even if they could they could just claim missinterpreting.  Same in self-defence.  What works for one person might not work for another, so accountability for effectiveness is impossible to judge, best just leave it be.


----------



## HKphooey (Mar 9, 2006)

Great topic!

My greatest fear is that one of my students gets attacked and cannot defend themselves adequately.  I think most of us question all that we learn and adapt it for different people.  I think the first step is giving someone the self-confidence they need to stay safe.  I always have a difficult time teaching shortened self-defense clinics or seminars.  It is almost impossible to train someone in a few hours.  You can give them common sense advice, but too many scenarios out there.  I personally try insure that my students feel confident about what they have learned, and we must be open to their questioning of why we teach something a certain way.   For us to say, Because that is how so and so told us to do it that way is not a valid answer.  I think sparring, reality training (redman suits), self-defense drills, endurance, etc. give the student one more level of comfort.  Every level helps get them closer to avoiding danger.

Once again, great question/topic for all instructors to ponder.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 9, 2006)

Depends.  Should everyone who wishes to write about something first test it in battle? 

If say, I were to write a book on effective sword techniques, must I first find someplace where I can risk my life in combat, or can I take the word of my instructors and my own research that the technique is in fact effective, as prescribed, based on solid historical evidence?

Should I have a degree in cellular biology, chemistry, medicine and physics before attempting to describe the health benefits and risks of say, nutrasweet, or can I refer to an existing body of research from those who do know to write my paper/book?

Reasonable steps? Sure.  Get your information from reliable sources, triple check your answers and proof like mad.

But, I don't expect that every person talking about a technique will have actually pulled it off in a "real world" situation. 

It's the moral responsibility of the instructor to teach what they believe are solid techniques. The question is, who decides what is solid?  I saw a tape once of a guy doing techniques with credit cards and a wallet. It looked incredibly dangerous, and in fact, lame. Yet the instructor has combat experience and is well respected. So, who's right?


----------



## HKphooey (Mar 9, 2006)

Amen!


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

If a person is say a martial artist, and they readily have an environment in which they can do some level of pressure testing to validate that the technoques are likely to be effective, then is it reasonable to expect them to take advantage of that before they go giving seminars on "how do" etc?


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 9, 2006)

I would tend to put that on the practitioners more so.

Anyone can teach / publish whatever they want.  It is up to the people that recieve that information to decide what to do with it.

Your information is only as reliable as your source, and in any field there are good sources and bad ones.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If say, I were to write a book on effective sword techniques, must I first find someplace where I can risk my life in combat, or can I take the word of my instructors and my own research that the technique is in fact effective, as prescribed, based on solid historical evidence?


Solid historical evidence would be a good base IMO, provided you presented it as such and reproduced the techniques sensibly - but unless you have actually DONE the moves in "battle" or as a second best some sort of training which reasonably accurately recreates battle conditions, then you are a theorist. 

Martial Arts is an unusual area, in that you can go to a dojo and learn a few kata, then present yourself as an "expert" on swordfighting, despite never having been in a sword fight. It's the age old dry-land swimming analogy. My version of that joke: 








			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Should I have a degree in cellular biology, chemistry, medicine and physics before attempting to describe the health benefits and risks of say, nutrasweet, or can I refer to an existing body of research from those who do know to write my paper/book?


Any suppositions or conclusion you drew would be questionable. You would not be taken seriously by Cellular Biologists. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Reasonable steps? Sure. Get your information from reliable sources, triple check your answers and proof like mad.
> 
> But, I don't expect that every person talking about a technique will have actually pulled it off in a "real world" situation.


But are not certain reasonable steps, such as closeer-to-real pressure testing, not available to nearly all martial artists?


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I would tend to put that on the practitioners more so.
> 
> Anyone can teach / publish whatever they want.  It is up to the people that recieve that information to decide what to do with it.
> 
> Your information is only as reliable as your source, and in any field there are good sources and bad ones.


"let the buyer beware!". Is that not irrisponsible given that the majority of people taking up martial arts lack the relevant experience to judge fully the worth of what is being presented?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 9, 2006)

But, by this argument, the only people qualified to teach real life defense tactics are those who have survived a previous encounter.  I wonder though, how many drill sergeant in the military had previously killed someone. Shooting a person is much different than shooting a paper target.  Same as rolling on a padded mat, or within the safe and rule laden tournament environment different than a street fight, or barroom brawl.

I don't need to have a degree in cellular biology to say "Dr. X in his research determined that Y". If we required expert status before allowing publication, we would destroy the entire concept of a masters thesis I think.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

The original question was more along the lines of what are reasonable steps. Some may believe that anyone can publish self-defence advice, regardless of how flawed that advice is without moral conscience. At the extreme other end, as you have hinted, some might say that only people who have survived 200 real life attacks are qualified, etc. 

I know didly squat about space travel. Say I write a book about how to make homemade space rockets, someone buys it and tries to make one, resulting in a huge explosion killing six people. Am I morally responsible (legal is a seperate issue)?


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 9, 2006)

In a sense, which is where public sources can come in.  We can provide people with the tools to test what they are learning.  There are countless fight videos available as well.

Personally I prefer to focus on the positive things, let's not talk about what is wrong.  That gets no one anywhere, just makes everything stink.  Instead let's talk about how to go about testing these things, how to recognize things that do work instead of throwing poo at things that don't.

Because IMO if someone where looking for info, in a honest way, and they walk into a place that is nothing but poo slinging they are going to walk right back out.  If they come in and say "This is what I have been taught and what I believe" and are met with a full assault of feces throwing they'll leave before they heard what everyone else is doing and how to test things for themselves.

If I pick up a legitimate newspaper I expect to find news, real news,with a reasonible degree of accuracy.  If I pick up the enquirer I expect to find a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense.

Yet real papers do not concern themselves with knocking down everything the enquirer publishes, they concern themselves with publishing real stories.  If they where to start launching full out attacks on the Enquirer they would quickly loose there reputation as a reliable news source and it would become harder to seperate the facts from the fiction.

Now, suppose I had never seen a newspaper, or a news cast, or really anything related to the world.  I was a brand new, recently landed, alien.  I go to the store and look at the papers, how will I know what is what?  

Well, consistancy among the reliable sources would be one.  Presentation of evidence another and all those other things a source needs to be considered reliable.

If it was just a bunch of papers slinging poo at each other they would all loose credibilty and I'd probably read the one with the prettiest pictures...


----------



## Martial Tucker (Mar 9, 2006)

To me, the concern is not whether or not a technique will actually work. While the techniques we focus on have been used successfully countless times, no two situations are exactly alike, and there are never any guarantees. This is something that should be discussed in class.

However, to me the bigger concern is the student that can perform the technique competently on the mat amongst friends, but in a real situation, you just know they could never pull it off. They just don't have the personality trait required to be aggressive and fight back. The worst thing would be for them to have a false sense of security, thinking that because they've trained for awhile, and can execute a technique in class, that they could "take care of themselves" in a real situation. As a teacher, I think it is
ethically incumbent upon you to gently but firmly let this student know that they are at risk, regardless of what they feel they can do in class. 

Because of this, I'm a big fan of reality training and adrenal stress training,
with the "attacker" being someone that is unfamiliar to the students.
Even this is no guarantee, but it will at least give an indication of  how any student is likely to react when really stressed, and hopefully "send a message" to those students whose confidence is higher than their ability.

Also, I think a good teacher will often address the "mental side" of fighting on a regular basis. Unless you've got some real world experience in street fighting, this is really important, IMO....


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 9, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> However, to me the bigger concern is the student that can perform the technique competently on the mat amongst friends, but in a real situation, you just know they could never pull it off.



Absolutely, even in training this comes up.  How many people can honestly say that the first time they sparred with hard contact and hits to the face that they where "ok" with it right off the bat?  Not turning away, being able to counter punch, push into an attack, hit back with intent?

It's not easy, not even in a sport environement with friends.  Actively trying to hurt someone is something a lot of people are not mentally capable of, even when the other person is doing the same and they are wearning safety equipment.

So in sport training there is always the question of how far do you want to take it?  Light training, limited contact, heavy on padding?  Moderate contact, gloves and open face gear?  Heavy contact and heavy gear?  Heavy contact and minimal gear (think dog brothers)?  Full MMA competitive fighting?

The farther you are willing to go the better you'll get, too far of course can be too dangerous.  Every time you step it up you don't _know_ how you will react, you could start taking hits and freeze, you could be unable to hit with enough intent to do the damage needed to succeed.

But to write sport fighting off because you don't know at each step and just assume that when the time comes you'll be able to do it seems the wrong way.  Training realistically is a progression, you shouldn't go full contact with 4 oz gloves your first sparring session, and no gloves / mouthpiece in a non-controlled environment is quite a big step above that.


----------



## beau_safken (Mar 9, 2006)

The real thing you have an obligation for if you teach someone something, is the person's mental ability to decern when its approapriate.  

Its kinda a karma thing for me.  I want to know that anyone that I teach or have a interaction with, will not use what I know to do harm unnecessarily to others.  Its very important to me that someone knows how to defend themselves...but its also important to know that person is a responsible user of the skill.  

Thats my little take on it.

Beau


----------



## Brother John (Mar 9, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If say, I were to write a book on effective sword techniques, must I first find someplace where I can risk my life in combat, or can I take the word of my instructors and my own research that the technique is in fact effective, as prescribed, based on solid historical evidence?
> 
> But, I don't expect that every person talking about a technique will have actually pulled it off in a "real world" situation.
> 
> It's the moral responsibility of the instructor to teach what they believe are solid techniques. The question is, who decides what is solid?


Very good points.
Logic, practical training....lots of effort and atttention to detail.
I think these are KEY

Your Brother
John


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 9, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Any suppositions or conclusion you drew would be questionable. You would not be taken seriously by Cellular Biologists.


 
I dunno about this... its like saying Because I never died falling from an airplane, Pilots wouldn't take me seriously if I said you would die if you fall from a plane...

Presenting evidence that was tested by a reputable source, (like the medical examiners who determined, yes, the people who fell are dead) should be enough evidence that I dont need to do it to prove my point.

Although I know a couple people Id like to try and convince to test the theory...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I dunno about this... its like saying Because I never died falling from an airplane, Pilots wouldn't take me seriously if I said you would die if you fall from a plane...
> 
> Presenting evidence that was tested by a reputable source, (like the medical examiners who determined, yes, the people who fell are dead) should be enough evidence that I dont need to do it to prove my point.


I think it depends entirely on the subject field. That falling from great heights causes death is common knowldege and beyond refute.

Whether technique "x", performed in manor "y" and trained in manner "z" is effective or not in self-defence isn't common knowledge. The scope for being wrong whilst still being taken seriously by joe public is far greater.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 9, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Whether technique "x", performed in manor "y" and trained in manner "z" is effective or not in self-defence isn't common knowledge. The scope for being wrong whilst still being taken seriously by joe public is far greater.


 
Ok, so let me ask you this... in the grand scheme of things... what does it matter?

Suppose for a moment that you are a pretty good fighter. (I dont know you so Ill take that on supposition) and some clown named, I dunno, ashida Kim, is teaching idiots his deadly ninja arts. 

Does it matter to _you_ if he teaches them total crap?  That's just that many people who will never be better than you, that you don't have to worry about when the crap hits the fan, right?  I would think the only time it would matter to you is if you got suckered in by kim and subsequently got your *** kicked trying his moves...


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 9, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> The real thing you have an obligation for if you teach someone something, is the person's mental ability to decern when its approapriate.
> 
> Its kinda a karma thing for me.  I want to know that anyone that I teach or have a interaction with, will not use what I know to do harm unnecessarily to others.  Its very important to me that someone knows how to defend themselves...but its also important to know that person is a responsible user of the skill.
> 
> ...


Thank you. Nicely said. 

Take in consideration also the mental state of the user at the time of the attack. Some people freak out (and that varies with person to person) when suddenly surprised. Some freeze and are incapable of doing nothing until it's too late. Some may get into the mind set of defense and then lose it when things are quite going the way they expect it to be going. A few will actually use the techniques taught to them to effect. 

Some people will even with advance warning will do one of the above. There was an important thread elsewhere here on this forum that spoke about self-esteem/confidence issues which in my experience are critical in the use of any SD/MA technqiues in the real life situations of a mugging/rape/assault. 

Ethically? A person has a skill which they can impart to others. Others which come to them requesting to learn that skill. They decide to do so because others with the skill(s) taught them. Is it a good or bad thing? Depends upon the user doesn't it?


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 9, 2006)

Personally, I think a teacher has a moral responsibility to teach material that he has reasonable belief is effective and sound.  His reasonable belief could be established in many different ways, so I don't think it is worth arguing about what does or does not create "reasonable belief".  What does it for one does not necessarily do it for another.

However, not everything works equally well for everyone, or rather, not everyone is equally capable of using the same material equally well.  What is effective self defense material for one person might be useless for another.  This is not necessarily the fault of the teacher.  The student needs to take some responsibility to decide if they feel confident in what they are learning, and go elsewhere if that confidence is lacking.  Likewise, the student needs to accept responsibility to train in a manner, under the teachers guidance, that will develop the knowledge into useable skills.  But ultimately what one does with knowledge is up to them and them alone.

If a student is attacked on the street and is unable to defend himself, I don't think you can hold the instructor liable.  That would be like holding your college or university liable if you are unable to find a job after earning your degree.  there are far too many factors at play in the real world to be able to place blame on the university, or the martial arts instructor and claim that they failed the student.

If a teacher is teaching material that he himself has no confidence in, that is a problem.  Hopefully a student can see thru the charlatan and will go elsewhere.  Unfortunately, there is a certain level of _caveat emptor_.  Nothing can be done about that.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 9, 2006)

The MA's and SD should be studied as a science. If an instructer or someone *SELLING BOOKS* or DVD's makes a claim of a technique being effective, then they should present their evidence for reaching such a conclusion. Hearsay and analogy prove nothing in court or in the scientific world.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Ok, so let me ask you this... in the grand scheme of things... what does it matter?
> 
> Suppose for a moment that you are a pretty good fighter. (I dont know you so Ill take that on supposition) and some clown named, I dunno, ashida Kim, is teaching idiots his deadly ninja arts.
> 
> Does it matter to _you_ if he teaches them total crap? That's just that many people who will never be better than you, that you don't have to worry about when the crap hits the fan, right? I would think the only time it would matter to you is if you got suckered in by kim and subsequently got your *** kicked trying his moves...


I'm not so self-centred as to be pleased that others are learning rubbish. I don't need to think I'm better than someone for my own validation. Maybe others in the martial arts are not like me; maybe you are one of those in it for ego reasons and need to find a small pond so that you can be the biggest fish in your pond. I have a moral conscience, do you?


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 9, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> The MA's and SD should be studied as a science. If an instructer or someone *SELLING BOOKS* or DVD's makes a claim of a technique being effective, then they should present their evidence for reaching such a conclusion. Hearsay and analogy prove nothing in court or in the scientific world.


I don't know if I necessarily agree that they need to present their evidence for reaching their conclusion.  I would expect that someone's credibility in terms of what they teach, irrespective of the medium, will be a product of their reputation.  

In some circumstances reputation and credibility are a function of lineage, in other circumstances endorsements or reviews from other respected members of the community are sufficient to lend credibility.

The point is, should the onus be on the teacher or the student?  I'd say the student.  Listen, by and large, books, videos, seminars, whatever - the imparting or sharing of knowledge is done for profit, pure and simple.  So, with a profit motive at work, the consumer needs to take the responsibility to do their own due diligence and choose to spend their money wisely.

Look at it this way, when asking whether or not a taught technique should be validated before it is taught, is it appropriate to suggest that your testing of it should be sufficient to satisfy _*my*_ requirements?  Hell no, and for two reasons.  

1) Everyone has individual strengths, weaknesses, aptitudes, and capabilities.  What works for you may not work for me.  What doesn't work for you may work for me.

2) At some point in the chain, we're again taking someone else's word for things without taking responsibility for ourselves.

So, not only should the teacher test it, _but so too should the student_.  The teacher should have tested it long before they taught it - they should have tested it when they learned it - _as a student_.

What's the moral here?  Everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves.  Suggesting that the onus is on the teacher is trying to shift responsibility, and I don't buy it.


----------



## still learning (Mar 9, 2006)

Hello, Is it possible to training daily for real life attacks? Adrenaline flowing and our minds going ????. The other person yelling foul langauges at us $%)&%^%$*X in there most anger voices!!!! Calling us all kinds of things.

Then be ready for an all out attack? Knowing it is anything goes and life and death fight is about to begin? 

How many of us train in this sitution? When we are got off guard by the confrontation that quickly esclates upward!

Training in class is one thing (safe place). Outside in many times ,a place you will not be familar? Who knows who may jump in on there side?

ARE you ready? to fight back? and have the mindset to go all out?

Can you fight against a street attacker? and defends against his attacks...not one two steps style of fighting! His fist flying at you fast and furious.....Got insurance on you life? 

UFC is very close to real street fights, only NO biting,groin strikes,eye gouging,thoat strikes and breaking bones...also no weapons can be use of anykind. ON the streets they can grab anything. (and NO referees)

Does your art prepare you for this? .................Aloha


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 9, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> maybe you are one of those in it for ego reasons and need to find a small pond so that you can be the biggest fish in your pond. I have a moral conscience, do you?



No, my point was that rather I am unconcerned with the actions of others at large, when they dont really affect me.


----------



## Cujo (Mar 9, 2006)

I think that anytime you train someone you must take some responsibility for what you train. I teach in-service police defensive tactics to leo's. I won't teach at the basic academy because I think that some of what they teach is crap. This isn't all their fault tho. By the time new techniques are "field tested " and found to be effective it just takes to long to get them written into the training. When we train, we train hard, but I always tell the officers, that if today is the last time you practice what we have worked on here, then, just forget what you have learned because when it comes time to use the techniques you will just resort to what you already know. As you train, so will you fight. When I was getting my certification for police defensive tactics instructor, my instructor told me that if you train cops long enough, one or more will be killed in the line of duty. Make sure that you can look in the mirror and tell yourself that you taught them well, cause you WILL ask yourself that question.    
Pax
Cujo:asian:


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 9, 2006)

Cujo

Do you think personal fitness for anyone in self defense is important?  How do you think an overweight cop would do "on the street"?  I know that being out of shape in the military (real combat) would get you or the guy that has to push you killed quickly.  IMHO any person who really wanted to be good at self defense should be at the gym.

ron


----------



## Cujo (Mar 9, 2006)

Ron
I agree completly. Alot of cops are out of shape and that puts you at a big disadvatage in a street confrontation, or any confrontation for that matter.
Pax
Cujo


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Dear forum members,
> 
> Do you believe that there is a moral obligation on those teaching/presenting self-defence advice to take reasonable steps to ensure that what they are teaching works within the relevant context?



Yes



> If you agree that they should take reasonable steps, what do you deem &#8220;reasonable&#8221;? &#8211;(for example pressure testing, real life experience, statistical studies&#8230; or just gut feeling, etc).



They should have learned from a reliable source or sources firstly.
They should understand the situations where it will and will not work.
If possible, it should be tested in real use. They themselves do not need to do the test.

A boxing coach can train a championship fighter. The coach does not have to be a fighter themselves however. In the same way, a martial arts instructor can pass on a valid technique without themselves having ever had to use it to save their own **** in a tumble.


----------



## MartialIntent (Mar 10, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> A boxing coach can train a championship fighter. The coach does not have to be a fighter themselves however. In the same way, a martial arts instructor can pass on a valid technique without themselves having ever had to use it to save their own **** in a tumble.


This arguement is transparently without merit. Any previous boxing coaches I've trained under have been boxers themselves in their younger years. A no-brainer if you've *any* desire not to get beaten to a pulp in the ring. Relevant practical [read, first-hand] experience being the question to be asked of _anyone_ occupying an instructor's role, surely?

Same for soccer - never has a team's manager been appointed on the basis of their soccer-manual writing prowess [of course you and I can refer to that as "football" - seeing as you're from the UK too, right? I'm sure you're a big fan, eh _mate_? Hmmmm....]

I'd give you a rep point for effort but well... I see you got that well in hand already. _Cor blimey mate_, what's the weather like in the ole UK? Seen the queen lately?


----------



## bydand (Mar 10, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> A boxing coach can train a championship fighter. The coach does not have to be a fighter themselves however. In the same way, a martial arts instructor can pass on a valid technique without themselves having ever had to use it to save their own **** in a tumble.



Mind if I use this quote?  Very valid point!


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 10, 2006)

The boxing coach analogy is a 50:50 with me. I can't think of any coaches I've ever met who _weren't_ previously in the ring though. 

But boxing also has a key difference to self-defence. In boxing YOU CAN TRAIN BY DOING YOUR TARGET ACTIVITY (boxing) - whereas in self-defence you cannot. A boxer spars, their instructor will push them in sparring to get as close to the real thing (boxing) as possible. Then they go in the ring for the first time, in a sense this is still training. They get better over time as they gain in EXPERIENCE OF THE TARGET ACTIVITY. 

In the sense that people who have been in lots of SD situations tend to know more about the subject than those who haven't, regardless of having martial arts experience. Obviously that experience and knowldege has to be contextualized - a bouncer generally deals with drunk people causing trouble - a traffic warden with sober people being abusive, etc. But the basic truth remains that people who have real experience are generally better qualified.


----------



## bydand (Mar 10, 2006)

Real experence IS a nice bonus in an instructor, but, not the be-all-end-all in judging if the technique  being presented is valid or not.  I wouldn't train with someone who has personally had to use every technique in real life SD encounters.  I used to go to school in Detroit, MI; not really in the top 10,000 on anybodys list of vacation destinations, for one simple reason; you can get yourself killed there.  Granted, that can happen anywhere, and not all of the Motor City is an armpit, but my point is, even somebody living there dosen't get into SD situations all the time.  So if an Instructor, Sensei, Master, Whatever has had to use every technique he/she teaches they are either an Idiot who has zero situational awareness and can't see something brewing that would be better to cross the street and avoid;  They are a Bully who has to prove what does really work and goes out looking for trouble, OR they are lying.  None of which I would care to train under.

Somebody that has "faced the Dragon" in a couple of SD situations will have an awareness of what could/should work and if they pass that to a student, who then becomes an instructor themself and had not had to use it in a SD situation, does that mean the technique will not work anymore?  Hardly, it just means that instructor hasn't had to validify the technique by their own expereance.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 10, 2006)

I think discerning self-defencers should differentiate between what _*could*_ work and what is _*likely*_ to work. Tiggling an attacker _could_ work, but that doesn't make it a credible SD technique. 

If we agree that some methods/training is better than others, then we recognise that it is possible for training to be bad/ineffective. 

The question becomes should those peddling the bad/ineffective training be responsible for what they teach - or like some have suggested, should it be the student's fault that Sifu "X" is talking out of his posterior and calling is "self-defence"?


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 10, 2006)

I think it would be safe to say that almost all boxing coaches boxed at some point.  They might not neccessarily have a competitive record, and if they do it doesn't have to be a good one.

Some guys got the brains for fighting, some guys got the bodys, some got both.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> The question becomes should those peddling the bad/ineffective training be responsible for what they teach - or like some have suggested, should it be the student's fault that Sifu "X" is talking out of his posterior and calling is "self-defence"?



I think most people that are talking out of there posterior are fairly easy to spot.  Anyone that was at all serious about there training would be able to pick this up.  However there are a good number of people that don't actually want to train, just do a little fantasy work and think they are warriors for hire, ready to drop a dozen evil doers with a piece of chewing gum and a pencil sharpener.  They get what they are looking for.

People that are serious about anything tend to not just look at one source and assume it is true.  Only people that have a image in there heads that they want to fit into, but don't want to do the work will.  They'll find others trying to live that image and group up with them, following the biggest talker.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 10, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I think most people that are talking out of there posterior are fairly easy to spot. Anyone that was at all serious about there training would be able to pick this up. However there are a good number of people that don't actually want to train, just do a little fantasy work and think they are warriors for hire, ready to drop a dozen evil doers with a piece of chewing gum and a pencil sharpener. They get what they are looking for.
> 
> People that are serious about anything tend to not just look at one source and assume it is true. Only people that have a image in there heads that they want to fit into, but don't want to do the work will. They'll find others trying to live that image and group up with them, following the biggest talker.


To be fair, I dont think thats actually the case. My take on things is more that quite a lot of so-called self-defence training we see in martial arts, even the mainstream norm,  is dubious, but that these teachers have lots of students, many of whom believe in whats being taught simply because the instructor is a blackbelt or whatever. Yes there is an element of _wanting to believe_, but I think many martial artists lack the necessary frame of reference to discern what is good advice and what isnt. 

I know that for me, in my early training I often came home with a new wrist lock move and thought something along the lines of _good, now if someone grabs my wrist like that Ill be able to do move X on them_. I took the effectiveness and relevance of the method as a given because a martial arts instructor had shown it. I shared the public perception is that black belts (etc) know what they are talking about and are good at SD. Obviously over time my real world experience brought up glaring inconsistencies in what Id been taught and I slowly began to question with a more informed frame of reference.  

Looking around me in mainstream clubs I see lots of people, even high grades, still believing in the dubious stuff. Yes peoples inherent laziness and desire for comfort are factors in the proliferation of easy route (dubious) self-defence, but I think it is wholly unfair to lay the blame for attending poor training on the average student  they are attending somewhere which claims, either explicitly or by implication, to teach self-defence. Most students seem to find it very hard to spot all of the posterior talkers.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 10, 2006)

I tend to think it goes both ways, people that preech self-defence, and the "we're to deadly to spar" are talking out there rear ends, but they aren't the only ones that do it.

Most "self-defence" is nonsense in terms of fighting, but most people aren't there for the self-defence.  Olympic TKD fighters are not likely to delude themselves into thinking that form of fighting is the way to fight even when those rules don't apply.  Same for point fighting.

At least not at the upper levels.

Wrist locks and things of that nature can be effective, I have used them outside of a class to control, but it was definately not a "fight", just times when physical force was needed to diffuse things, but no one needed to get hurt.  Very effective.

Had it gone to a full out fight the wrist locks would have gone out the window...

Which again goes back to how far you want to take things.  Learning some releases and wrist locks is better then nothing.  Learning to hit hard and fast, even if your sparring is point fighting is better then nothing.

Most people aren't there to learn to fight, most of them never will.  They are there to excercise, have fun and socialize.  Some are there to compete in there respective sport.

But if we where to suddenly, magically convince everyone that the only way to be truly effective is to train everything live and with hard contact, and to make all existing schools start doing that, I'd guess that most would be closing there doors soon after.

I realise that it is somewhat deceptive in that they are claiming to teach effective self-defence and there are better methods.  But in what industry is that not the case?  

Have you ever walked into a car dealership and been told that the cars they make are not all that reliable? Yet they sell cars, even when reliability ratings get published.

Or a toothpaste that claims to be a decent, but not great way to keep your teeth clean?

All marketing is BS, in any industry.  Yet no one tries to hold Budweiser up and say they should be held accountable for making a inferior beer and marketing it as the best.


----------



## Adept (Mar 10, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yet no one tries to hold Budweiser up and say they should be held accountable for making a inferior beer and marketing it as the best.



Well, they _should!_


----------



## TigerWoman (Mar 10, 2006)

Both the instructor and the student have responsibility in what they teach and what the student does with the knowledge.  The instructor is a source of knowledge but not the end-all source.  The student could reject his teachings, go to another school and learn another approach. He/she could watch videos, demonstrations of other martial artists, and read from the internet and books. The student after practicing the technique long and hard can figure out for himself whether it will work for him or her.  

The instructor does have a responsibility, just like a doctor, to try to do no harm, (bruises withstanding though) and to instruct the student so that the self-defense he/she is learning _can_ actually save his life.  Since all students and all situations are not the same, it is up to the student to learn correctly, to practice diligently, to discern the right situation to use it, to apply the right amount of force ie. is it a neighbor pulling your arm, or a life-threat?  

This is why a student should not get to black belt, advanced technique-more force, if he does not demonstrate self-control.  By then he should have knowledge of technique,  trained sufficiently, and be proficient in self-defense.  But more important know, when to use it.  When he gets attacked, it is his/her responsibility as it he is one with the attacker and the teacher is not there to save him or prevent assault charges.  In our system, black belts teach self-defense to others under the auspices of a master who has twenty-five years of experience and some personal self-defense experience as well. He makes self-defense as simple as possible for the novices so that when the adrenal dump happens, they can hopefully, rely on the repetition of simple practice.  All it is, is a few tools not the whole toolbox, but at least it is something for defense.  For more, they need to put in the time.

Just this week, after a couple of days of self-defense, one woman comes back to me and said she used it on her husband.  Gives me pause... so then I say, I hope you were gentle, with a smile.  She says yes, but now he wants to join. And sure enough, he showed up at the end of class with questions. So what I am saying is that we can only give them the tools but it is theirs to do with it as they will.  At least, we give them something for defense and at most we save their lives.  TW


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 10, 2006)

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> This arguement is transparently without merit. Any previous boxing coaches I've trained under have been boxers themselves in their younger years. A no-brainer if you've *any* desire not to get beaten to a pulp in the ring. Relevant practical [read, first-hand] experience being the question to be asked of _anyone_ occupying an instructor's role, surely?
> 
> Same for soccer - never has a team's manager been appointed on the basis of their soccer-manual writing prowess [of course you and I can refer to that as "football" - seeing as you're from the UK too, right? I'm sure you're a big fan, eh _mate_? Hmmmm....]
> 
> I'd give you a rep point for effort but well... I see you got that well in hand already. _Cor blimey mate_, what's the weather like in the ole UK? Seen the queen lately?



I've met a few boxing coaches who lacked the physical attributes to cut it in the ring, but who had sound training practices and nutritional ideas that did allow them to train solid fighters. 

As to the UK weather, I don't know. Last time I saw the Queen was on a stamp. My sincerest apologies for the deception on my public location, but some of the people on these boards "jes ain't right". I intended no offence.


----------



## still learning (Mar 10, 2006)

Hello, Think about it?  Most attackers are really bad people,(cons,criminals,gang members) who do not care about you! 

Are you ready to fight back against this type of attackers?  Who only wants to hurt or kill you?  

Are you training for the adrenline response and the fear factor?  Are you aware about the "mindset"- getting into the killer instincts?

If you think about being hurt/injury....you will bcome a victim (that's why many people do not fight back,but get injury anyway because the criminal has his way with you!

Real attacks are chaos and anything goes.........have a nice day....Aloha


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Yes peoples inherent laziness and desire for comfort are factors in the proliferation of easy route (dubious) self-defence, but I think it is wholly unfair to lay the blame for attending poor training on the average student  they are attending somewhere which claims, either explicitly or by implication, to teach self-defence. Most students seem to find it very hard to spot all of the posterior talkers.


I still see this as being an attempt to shift responsibility.  

The problem isn't the martial arts community, the problem is people.  Some people are cheats - they peddle an inferior product so that they can get paid.  Is it good business practice?  No, it isn't sustainable - its the quick pay for today way of doing business.  So, though it's morally corrupt, it doesn't absolve the student of their responsibility to do their own due diligence.

If I offer you a car for sale, and in the process of trying to make the sale I claim that the car is mechanically sound, do you take my word for it, or do you take the car to a mechanic for a check over?

If you're buying a house, do you take the seller's word for the condition of the house, or do you bring in a home inspector to provide you with an objective and professional opinion?

Usually, the consumer's responsibility is to do their own due diligence.  Why would you suggest that this principle should not apply to martial arts?

Personally, I am wholly unconcerned with who is getting duped into believing what.  If people ask for my opinion, I'll provide them with it.  But I see no value in crusading for the truth in martial arts, for two reasons:

1) I am not attempting to build a business and steal a student base from somewhere else with proclamations of honesty and righteousness.  I train for myself.

2) I have no sympathy for people unable to take responsibility for how they spend their own money.  The resources are out there for people to make informed decisions.  None greater than simple logic - will this really work?  I don't know... how about we test it?  Seems simple to me..... If people want to spend their money foolishly, that's really no concern of mine.

Beyond that, there are far too many people out there with 5 years of training under their belt trapsing around proclaiming that they understand the truth, and that their truth must be my truth.  Knowing that, I've learned to value my own experience, and take the claims of others' with a grain of salt.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 10, 2006)

Youre basically saying that martial arts (/self-defence) instructors arent responsible for the quality of their teaching. Thats shocking.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Youre basically saying that martial arts (/self-defence) instructors arent responsible for the quality of their teaching. Thats shocking.


No, I'm suggesting that the student is responsible for what they learn.  It's really quite simple.  See, they're the one that paid for a product, and that product comes without warranty.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 10, 2006)

No, we are saying it is the students responsibility to decide if the quality of instruction meets there needs.

Morally it is wrong to dupe people, that is obvious.  Legally you'd never be able to sort it out, how can anything be proven?  It can't.

So what we are left with is the same as every other industry, there are honest people and less then honest people, good quality product and bad quality product.

But the value of a martial arts class is purely subjective.  It's like saying Budweiser is responsible if they say they have the best beer and don't.  Different people train for different reasons and have different tastes.  For some it is nothing more then a closer to real life version of Dungeons and Dragons, and if that is what they want to do, who am I to say it is wrong?


----------

