# Realistic Self Defense Training



## Lisa (Jan 2, 2007)

This is a quote I took from another thread by a member here on MartialTalk (KenpoTex).  I think Matt makes a really good point.  The bold is mine.



> It is very common to find people on both sides of the aisle who think that they don't need different types of training. You've got the "gun guys" who think that because they shoot, train, and compete they don't need any empty-hand or contact weapon skills. This is an attitude that I encounter often on the gun and CCW forums.
> 
> Then you've got the "martial-artists" who feel that because they train in empty-hand techniques they don't need any weapon skills. This is an attitude I encounter frequently on the martial-arts forums, including this one.
> 
> * Either way, they're wrong. A student of realistic self-defense should seek to become proficient in all aspects of combat...not just the areas that they have a personal liking for.*



For those of you who train for self defense purposes, do you believe the statement above.  If so, do you train in a multitude of scenarios and diverse applictions?  If you do not, then why not?


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 2, 2007)

Well, I started out training with a self defense approach and that naturally evolved into firearms as being part of my defense.

I've had people tell me that I am going 'overboard' with my training, that life is not as dangerous as intended by my training.  The thing is, I don't go around looking for trouble.  I don't go around planning for trouble.  However, I would like to make sure I have the "tools" available if trouble does happen.  There is no such thing as a predictor that trouble will never happen in my corner of the world.

Besides, learning about "different tools" (with defense) is something I truly enjoy.  How the human body works (with or without external weapons) is a very facinating field to study!

- Ceicei


----------



## Infinite (Jan 2, 2007)

I take gun courses as well as martial arts courses. I take them for the same reason for self defense.

I do ambush scenario's and close quarter and action scenarios. Flight scenario's and various other ones.

Even if you ditest guns you should know how they are used and how they are used effectivly. I can tell you that taking some gun classes has changed some of the ways I would deal with a gun attacker if I was unarmed.

As for the overboard concept which I too get a lot my response is this,

"We think we are safe because we are out of the wild. The problem is we have a wild we just call them criminals. So when the preditors are looking for prey I plan to be a better preditor."


----------



## exile (Jan 2, 2007)

In H2H, I train for realistic applications of TKD, meaning: close quarters, full use of all available striking surfaces (elbow strikes in particular), close-distance techs like locks as set-ups for strikes to weak points (eyes, temple, crown or base of skull, carotid sinus, larynx) using muchimi transitions from striking hand to holding hand,  and limb damage via low kicks to joints. 

When I reached brown belt, my TKD instructor started training me on arnis sticks, though I'm still mostly learning a few forms, no disarms or other apps.

I also train with shuriken and am pretty accurate with them from reasonably close range. I'm not dead keen on running into someone armed with a baseball bat or tire ironor a knife, for that matterin a confined space and having to rely on H2H alone to wind up as the one standing. I carry a tactical folder for such situations, but that's reserved for the end of the encounter, if necessary; two or three well-placed throwing stars in an assailant's face from fairly close up are going to distract them, no matter what they're carrying, and a four-inch tactical that opens with a wrist flick showing up at the very end of that enconter is likely to change their ideas about things fairly quickly. I don't feel comfortable carrying a firearm, but carrying bladed weapons (or heavy chains, once upon a time) don't trouble me one bit.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 2, 2007)

Lisa said:


> For those of you who train for self defense purposes, do you believe the statement above.  If so, do you train in a multitude of scenarios and diverse applictions?  If you do not, then why not?




I don't train for self defense specifically, although it is lumped into the mix.  However, I will attempt to convey my opinion.

I believe there shouldn't be favorites.  The essence of what Kempotex said is to not have favorite things to do.  I have seen people here say many times... "I would do this technique then follow it with that technique"  Life is not that predictable and neither are self defense situations.  I believe one has to deal with the situation as it unfolds, never expecting anything more than surviving the encounter.  It is when we focus on step 1 followed by Step 2, ignoring the situation that we get ourselves into trouble.

Likewise, scenario play is fun and has some benefits, but I do not believe they need to be drilled very often, rather people should drill on the principles that make up the whole, because they are reusable and can be applied and or identified no matter the situation.  Yes, one should know techniques and so forth, but I believe that on a deeper level, human conflict can be distilled down to 3 basic principles.
Balance
Timing
Distance/Space
I believe understanding how these principles apply to human conflict can allows one to undermine their adversary's attempt to harm them, regardless of weapon used.


----------



## searcher (Jan 2, 2007)

I train both empty hand and with varying weapons.   I cannot see how I could train one and not the other.   It is kinda like eating soup with one being the bowl and the other the spoon.   You could still eat the soup without the other, but it sure makes things easier if you have both.


----------



## Haze (Jan 2, 2007)

Did not start training for self defense but it comes with the training. Karate, some jujutsu and weapons. More traditional as far as weapons go (sai, tonfa, bo, bokken) but most elements of this can be applied using sticks, tire iron, cane, car antenae (sp?) and so on.

Some long gun classes as a youth at an American Legion Post and some handgun target practice at a range (friends land) but nothing serious in that department.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jan 2, 2007)

Learning aspects of unarmed combat is very important.  It not only gives you various skills, but also, if done with a certain mindset, do a couple of different thing.  One would be to develop the "killer instinct" which is one of the most important things in defending yourself.  Another would be to condition your body in ways that directly apply to combative situations.  Plus, you can't ignore the techniques.

Saying that, unarmed combat is, in my opinion, stupid.  A weapon is always better.  It multiplies force, greatly if it a firearm, and lets you stay farther away from the threat.  That being said, the unarmed skills could very easily come into play in the deployment of your weapon.

Someone who studies combative systems primarily for defensive purposes should not ignore the study of weapons in general and firearms specifically IMO.

Jeff


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 3, 2007)

Thanks for the kind words Lisa 



			
				Bigshadow said:
			
		

> I believe there shouldn't be favorites. The essence of what Kenpotex said is to not have favorite things to do. I have seen people here say many times... "I would do this technique then follow it with that technique" Life is not that predictable and neither are self defense situations. I believe one has to deal with the situation as it unfolds, never expecting anything more than surviving the encounter.


 I definately agree with the point you're making. As you said, the "real deal" is going to be a dynamic situation that cannot be predicted. Specific techniques are fine for giving you ideas and illustrating conceps but, as you mentioned later in your post, the real focus needs to be on mastering the principles contained within those techniques (timing, distance, angles, etc.). 
A mastery of those principles combined with the proper combative mindset will enable you to deal with a variety of situations. There's nothing wrong with having "favorite" methods or techniques, we all have certain things that work better for us than others due to our strength, size, etc. As long as you train strikes/techniques that can be applied in a variety of situations while keeping the aforementioned principles in mind, you're GTG.



			
				JeffJ said:
			
		

> Learning aspects of unarmed combat is very important. It not only gives you various skills, but also, if done with a certain mindset, do a couple of different thing. *One would be to develop the "killer instinct" which is one of the most important things in defending yourself*. Another would be to condition your body in ways that directly apply to combative situations. Plus, you can't ignore the techniques.
> 
> Saying that, unarmed combat is, in my opinion, stupid. *A weapon is always better. It multiplies force*, greatly if it a firearm, and lets you stay farther away from the threat. *That being said, the unarmed skills could very easily come into play in the deployment of your weapon.*
> 
> *Someone who studies combative systems primarily for defensive purposes should not ignore the study of weapons in general and firearms specifically IMO*


 great post Jeff, I especially agree with the portions I "bolded."

To quote Col. W.E. Fairbairn, a man who was far more accomplished and deadly than I will probably ever be: "Empty-hand techniques are _only_ for those times when you have been _foolish_ enough to find yourself without a weapon" (emphasis added).

BTW, love the sig-line...Heinlein rocks!


----------



## Adept (Jan 3, 2007)

Unfortunately for some of us, our government doesn't trust us with weapons of any kind. Simply carrying a pocket knife could land us a fine or jail time. Actually using one in a violent confrontation doesn't bear thinking about.

Firearms? Forget it. They've even listed Pepper Spray and Airhorns as prohibited weapons here in Australia.

As a result, I'm forced to rely on unarmed principles, and improvised weapons.  If you can call a 6 D-cell battery maglite an improvised weapon...


----------



## Drac (Jan 3, 2007)

Lisa said:


> For those of you who train for self defense purposes, do you believe the statement above. If so, do you train in a multitude of scenarios and diverse applictions? If you do not, then why not?


 
Life LOVES to throw unpleasant surprizes at you..It it BEST to be prepaired to defend yourself in ALL situations..Seated on a plane or bus, standing in an elevator..You are limited ONLY by your imagination...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 3, 2007)

I really have to agree with KenpoTex, Bigshadow, JeffJ and Drac.  My experience in the real world has always been that we as humans will generally seek to use a *tool* to our advantage in a violent situation.  Good empty hand skills that compliment using tools are invaluable in a violent encounter.  With that in mind the practitioner needs to work hard to not only understand the principles, concepts and angles but also to make them an ingrained part of their unique persona.  Once that happens then *in the moment* they have a chance to succeed. (but only a weighted chance as no one is superman)


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 3, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> There's nothing wrong with having "favorite" methods or techniques, *we all have certain things that work better for us than others due to our strength, size, etc.* As long as you train strikes/techniques that can be applied in a variety of situations while keeping the aforementioned principles in mind, you're GTG.



I do agree!  
_
(bolded text above for emphasis to go along with the following)_

I understand what you mean, but to me that is just knowing your own limitations (the first step in trying to push beyond them), however, I never really think of them as favorites.  Regarding favorites I was thinking along the lines as I have seen posted in the forums here, where someone just likes technique A or weapon B over the others.  This can be trap for that person, since some will often try to force their favored technique or weapon out of context.  In this way, favorites are a recipe for disaster.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 3, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> I was thinking along the lines as I have seen posted in the forums here, where someone just likes technique A or weapon B over the others. This can be trap for that person, since some will often try to force their favored technique or weapon out of context. In this way, favorites are a recipe for disaster.


 agreed.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 3, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> I do agree!
> 
> Regarding favorites I was thinking along the lines as I have seen posted in the forums here, where someone just likes technique A or weapon B over the others. This can be trap for that person, since some will often try to force their favored technique or weapon out of context. In this way, favorites are a recipe for disaster.


 
I have to agree with this as well.  Forcing something can be a recipe for disaster in a violent encounter.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 3, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I have to agree with this as well.  Forcing something can be a recipe for disaster in a violent encounter.



I like that "can be", that says it better.


----------



## Drac (Jan 3, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I have to agree with this as well. Forcing something can be a recipe for disaster in a violent encounter.


 
Yes, I too agree..Adaptability is the key to survival..


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jan 3, 2007)

Requirements for those who train for self defense:
1. Skills in strikeing with your upper and lower body
2. Skills in grappling, both on the ground and standing up
3. A strong stance and guard
4. Effective foot work
5. Skills in defending against weapons one is likely to find in a fight
6. Skills in weilding agianst the abouve weapons
7. Skills in fighting multiple opponents
8. Be able to talk or run your way out of a bad place
9. Knowing when to talk, run, hold, hit, hurt, maime, use a weapon, and kill
10. Some form of freestyle that allows the student to practice the abouve skills.

To elberate:
1. Some people just wont listen to reason, sometimes phyically strikeing someone is the only way to get them to understand. It's also a good idea be able to use both upper and lower body. Kicks start it, punches finish it.

2. It is better to subdue someone then it is to risk injurying that person. Sweeping that person to the ground and putting them in a kota gaeishe could be a better idea then, say, smashing there ribs with a side kick.

3. By strong stance and guard I mean one that works for the student. To find this stance and guard one should do some resaerch. After all, if you cann't stand, you cann't fight.

4. If you cann't walk, you cann't fight. In some situations you could "walk" someone into a corner, giving you an oppertuinty to run. Discrestion is the better part of valor after all.

5. A sad fact is that people like weapons. You'll likely encounter one in a fight. This includes knowing when to use one (just give 'em your bloody wallet). Also, if you feel it is nessicary to carry weapon with you for protection, you might as well carry a gun. 

6. Now what? Just gonna stand there and look pretty? No! You're gonna cut his guts out if he makes a move you don't like!

7. If there is no weapon, expect to be out-numbered. Or maybe be ready to deal with both.

8. Discretion is the better part of valor.

9. If someone just wants your wallet, give it to 'em. It isn't worth killing someone for. But, if they want your life, kill 'em. You now have no real choice.

10. Techniques gets better with live expereince.

Also remember that when you fight, you're not using your martial arts. Why? Martial arts aren't practicle in a fight. Simple as that. that includes MMA, reality fighting, self defense classes, and so on. If you can think of it, it wont work in a fight. Why? Because when you fight it's you in a fight not the sytle. So it isn't how many techniques you know, it isn't how well you know them. It's how well you can apply them. You could train in Jeet Kune Do for a year, be in a fight and win. And some else could train in Jeet Kune Do for a year with the same guy, in the same ways, and never be able to win in fight. It's all about how one applys the material they have been taught.

Also keep the folowing in mind: it is a good idea to have a few techniques that you have thourghly mastered and can apply to 95% of the possible situations there. And train for specific situations, but don't dwell on them too much. If you focus all your efforts into various situations, and are through into on you haven't trained for, you might freak, and know you're dead.


----------



## exile (Jan 3, 2007)

CNI'm not getting something here...



CuongNhuka said:


> So it isn't how many techniques you know, it isn't how well you know them. It's how well you can apply them. You could train in Jeet Kune Do for a year, be in a fight and win. And some else could train in Jeet Kune Do for a year with the same guy, in the same ways, and never be able to win in fight. It's all about how one applys the material they have been taught.



No quarrel there at all. But `the material they have been taught' is just what combat principles and application techs they've learned in studying the particular marital art they study. So then it looks to me like a contradiction when you say, just before the passage I quoted,



CuongNhuka said:


> Also remember that when you fight, you're not using your martial arts. Why? Martial arts aren't practicle in a fight. Simple as that. that includes MMA, reality fighting, self defense classes, and so on. If you can think of it, it wont work in a fight. Why? Because when you fight it's you in a fight not the sytle.



It sounds like you're saying, how good you are in a fight depends on how well you use the skill sets of the MA you've studied (`the material they have been taught') but remember that you don't use those skill sets (`when you fight, you're not using your martial arts.') I don't get it...


----------



## MJS (Jan 3, 2007)

Lisa said:


> This is a quote I took from another thread by a member here on MartialTalk (KenpoTex). I think Matt makes a really good point. The bold is mine.
> 
> *Either way, they're wrong. A student of realistic self-defense should seek to become proficient in all aspects of combat...not just the areas that they have a personal liking for.*
> 
> ...


 
Yes, I'm in agreement with the above statement.  IMO, if SD is your goal, then yes, you should train to be as well rounded as you can.  Sure, there are things that we may never face, and I hear people all the time say, "There are no Ninjas in the parking lot, so why train for (insert attack)? "  Well, we may never be grabbed in a bearhug, we may never face a knife, we may never face alot of things, but we still train for them right?  

I'd rather be over prepared and not have to use a certain thing, than be under prepared, and need something.

Mike


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 3, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> 2. It is better to subdue someone then it is to risk injurying that person. Sweeping that person to the ground and putting them in a kota gaeishe could be a better idea then, say, smashing there ribs with a side kick.


 I'm gonna call BS on this one. Unless you are a LEO, SO, or in some other job where you are required to control/restrain people, it's NOT a good idea. One reason for this is that controlling someone who is being combative is not easy...In my experience, striking is much easier and more intuitive than manipulation. Another reason is that you're "tying yourself down." Say you get the guy on the ground and are holding him there, what then? What happens when his buddy decides to jump in? Now you're fighting two people when you could have just dropped the first guy and left the area. Yes, I will concede that there might occassionally be a situation where controlling force is warranted (i.e. drunk uncle bob at the family reunion), but we're talking about serious self-defense, not dealing with someone who's just being beligerant.



			
				CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> 6. Now what? Just gonna stand there and look pretty? No! You're gonna cut his guts out if he makes a move you don't like!


 Okay...how do you reconcile this statement with the one I quoted above?



			
				CuongNhuka said:
			
		

> 9. If someone just wants your wallet, give it to 'em. It isn't worth killing someone for. But, if they want your life, kill 'em. You now have no real choice.


How do you know the guy's intent? He may be saying "just give me your wallet," but if he's got a knife or is pointing a gun at me while he says it he's threatening me with deadly force. In this situation, I'm justified in responding in kind. I'm not going to wait to see if he really just wanted my wallet. (before I get a slew of people throwing a hissy fit about this comment, I'm not saying that this is a "hard and fast" rule. There are always variables...this is just a _general_ principle.)


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jan 3, 2007)

exile said:


> No quarrel there at all. But `the material they have been taught' is just what combat principles and application techs they've learned in studying the particular marital art they study. So then it looks to me like a contradiction when you say, just before the passage I quoted,
> 
> It sounds like you're saying, how good you are in a fight depends on how well you use the skill sets of the MA you've studied (`the material they have been taught') but remember that you don't use those skill sets (`when you fight, you're not using your martial arts.') I don't get it...


 
Allow me to explain alittle further. But first of all congrats. I make contradictions in my posts all the time. People just don't seem to realise it. So for truelly reading my post, I thank you and congrats.

First, I notice that about 95% of martial arts teach concepts, philosophys, and doctrines. The physical material is meant to further ingrian set concpets. The ulitmate goal of martial arts is to master the concepts. It is the application of the doctirnes in a fight that matters. The physical material is what you wont use. Does that help?

How well you are in  fight depends on how well you can apply the concepts, but the physical skills aren't likely to truelly be used. 

Perhaps an examplke will help? Some one who does (say...) Aikido is walking down the street and see's some guys (note the use of the plural 'guys'). The Aikido guy decides to try to break it up before the guy on the ground dies. He decides it would be a good idea to call the cops first (every one these days seems to have a cell phone). Next he tells the guys to skram cause the cops on there way (not a good idea most of the time). The guys decide instead to attack the Aikido guy. One of them swings.
The Aikido guy responds with a arm block to the inside of the guys arm, and cracks him one in the face. Then sweeps him and backs away. Far from being an Aikido technique, but it does follow many of the concepts behind Aikido. Use minum energy to do a technique. Don't start it, but do finish it. It doesn't follow all of the philosphys behind Aikido (don't hit for starters), but it does work. The next swings a knive. Mr. Aikido replies with a kota gaeshi. An aikido technique. Alot of the time you'll pull off what is either a technique you've been taught, or somehting similar. But more often then not it will be similar, but not the acctule technique.

Does that help? I'll give reputation if you can find any contradictions! (lol)


----------



## exile (Jan 3, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> Allow me to explain alittle further. But first of all congrats. I make contradictions in my posts all the time. People just don't seem to realise it. So for truelly reading my post, I thank you and congrats.
> 
> First, I notice that about 95% of martial arts teach concepts, philosophys, and doctrines. The physical material is meant to further ingrian set concpets. The ulitmate goal of martial arts is to master the concepts. It is the application of the doctirnes in a fight that matters. The physical material is what you wont use. Does that help?



I think so. It sounds to me as though you're saying what a lot of people in what I think of as the `progressive kata-based combat movement', in particular Iain Abernethy, are saying: train the kata to exact standards, understand the bunkai and train the oyo in the most realistic way possible (and the training method he and his crowd use are frighteningly realistic), but get used to the idea that in an actual fight, it won't look much like you train in the dojo/dojangreal fights are too chaotic. If you understand the fighting principles and tactical applications latent in the kata, though, and train that understanding in real time,  you will instinctively and effectively apply that knowledge in combat... something along those lines?



CuongNhuka said:


> How well you are in  fight depends on how well you can apply the concepts, but the physical skills aren't likely to truelly be used.
> 
> Perhaps an examplke will help? Some one who does (say...) Aikido is walking down the street and see's some guys (note the use of the plural 'guys'). The Aikido guy decides to try to break it up before the guy on the ground dies. He decides it would be a good idea to call the cops first (every one these days seems to have a cell phone). Next he tells the guys to skram cause the cops on there way (not a good idea most of the time). The guys decide instead to attack the Aikido guy. One of them swings.
> The Aikido guy responds with a arm block to the inside of the guys arm, and cracks him one in the face. Then sweeps him and backs away. Far from being an Aikido technique, but it does follow many of the concepts behind Aikido. Use minum energy to do a technique. Don't start it, but do finish it. It doesn't follow all of the philosphys behind Aikido (don't hit for starters), but it does work. The next swings a knive. Mr. Aikido replies with a kota gaeshi. An aikido technique. Alot of the time you'll pull off what is either a technique you've been taught, or somehting similar. But more often then not it will be similar, but not the acctule technique.
> ...



Yep, I gotcha. You're talking about training which ingrains the principles in a very structured way, on the one hand, and the spontaneous application of the principle in a real fightyour reward for hard training in the dojo, but something which doesn't look very much like what you do in the structured school training environment, it sounds like. Am I close?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jan 3, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> I'm gonna call BS on this one. Unless you are a LEO, SO, or in some other job where you are required to control/restrain people, it's NOT a good idea. One reason for this is that controlling someone who is being combative is not easy...In my experience, striking is much easier and more intuitive than manipulation. Another reason is that you're "tying yourself down." Say you get the guy on the ground and are holding him there, what then? What happens when his buddy decides to jump in? Now you're fighting two people when you could have just dropped the first guy and left the area. Yes, I will concede that there might occassionally be a situation where controlling force is warranted (i.e. drunk uncle bob at the family reunion), but we're talking about serious self-defense, not dealing with someone who's just being beligerant.
> 
> Okay...how do you reconcile this statement with the one I quoted above?
> 
> How do you know the guy's intent? He may be saying "just give me your wallet," but if he's got a knife or is pointing a gun at me while he says it he's threatening me with deadly force. In this situation, I'm justified in responding in kind. I'm not going to wait to see if he really just wanted my wallet. (before I get a slew of people throwing a hissy fit about this comment, I'm not saying that this is a "hard and fast" rule. There are always variables...this is just a _general_ principle.)


 
B.S? Ohh, thats not nice!

Allow me to explain. I said "sometimes" it is better to restrain someone. Your drunk uncle Bob (or my drunk uncle Mike) would be a situation. When you can do a "come along" is anouther. And when his buddy decides to jump in, you snap the arm of the guy you have. Or you break his wrist, or what ever else you have. Also, if I'm fighting (say...) three people, I don't intend on boxing all of them. I intend on getting one in a "come along", then tell his buddys I'll break his neck. If they want to play anywho, I'll break his neck. Then, they know i'm being serious, and will kill them if they give me no choice. But like I said, "sometimes". If it is just some crapp hole being an idiot, it is the time to restrain. Grappling is also those nice come alongs (which are great if you're in security or a police officer), and breaking/dislocating joints. Making sense?

Simple. If I just took a knive from Mr. Strung out knuckle head, and he goes for something from the back of pants, then I'm giong to slice his guts out. He could be going for a cell phone, more pot, his wallet, or a gun. That last one is the one I want to avoid.

Lastly. If someone has a gun and is saying "your wallet or your life'' I'm going to give him my wallet. Yes (legally) I could fight back and kill him. But that gun is a could insentive for me to NOT to. Allow me to explain why. Expired Bellevue Library Card I've been meaning to renew, Omaha library card I hardly ever use, a card that has a list of abuse/neglect phone numbers (for what ever reason), a family picture, an army recruiter's card, a game shop buisness card, a list of few numbers to call if I'm found dead somewere (house, moms work, family freind/neighbor), a school I.D, a learners permit, and $12. What do these things have in common? They're what is in my wallet. If someone were to demand my wallet, that is what I'm risking my life for. $12 and some cards I can replace in a minute. 
It is legal, but not smart to fight agianst a gun. It takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger. It takes anouther fraction of second that bullet to hit you. And then you're either dead, deing, or *EXTREMLY *luckly. It isn't worth it. Now, if someone were to walk up to me, shot the guy next to me and say "your money or your next", then I'm going to throw my wallet past him, and go for his gun. He'll probably shot me next, so I might as well. If it doesn't seem like he's going to kill me, I'll throw my wallet past him, and run in the opposite direction. Discretion is the better of valor.

Any thing else?


----------



## Iron Leopard (Jan 3, 2007)

There is always a situation where you need to restrain or implement a non violent technique on someone. I do agree that striking should be the first choice.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jan 3, 2007)

exile said:


> I think so. It sounds to me as though you're saying what a lot of people in what I think of as the `progressive kata-based combat movement', in particular Iain Abernethy, are saying: train the kata to exact standards, understand the bunkai and train the oyo in the most realistic way possible (and the training method he and his crowd use are frighteningly realistic), but get used to the idea that in an actual fight, it won't look much like you train in the dojo/dojangreal fights are too chaotic. If you understand the fighting principles and tactical applications latent in the kata, though, and train that understanding in real time, you will instinctively and effectively apply that knowledge in combat... something along those lines?
> 
> Yep, I gotcha. You're talking about training which ingrains the principles in a very structured way, on the one hand, and the spontaneous application of the principle in a real fightyour reward for hard training in the dojo, but something which doesn't look very much like what you do in the structured school training environment, it sounds like. Am I close?


 
Bingo. Though, personnaly I don't like bunkai. They tend to create a sense of "This is what it is meant for. There is no other application." I think the applications should be based on what you can do your self. Because there is also a problem with body type, personnal prefrences, and way of thinking. Though getting an outside oppion is also a good idea. But I'm rabbling and getting off topic.
But yah, you got me.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jan 3, 2007)

Iron Leopard said:


> There is always a situation where you need to restrain or implement a non violent technique on someone. I do agree that striking should be the first choice.


 
So do I. If you have to fight, strike. But I notice that a grappling technique is the best way to finish it. One way or anouther.


----------



## pstarr (Jan 4, 2007)

Our martial arts forefathers made it a point to train extensively with the weapons of their time.  It would be unwise for us to deviate from that method.


----------

