I have studied shotokan(3yrs), tkd(30yrs), hapkido(4yrs), judo(2 painful yrs) and bjj(8yrs). Tkd is my primary art and the others have been done, with different instructors, to compliment my training. The problem I am having lately is which sd to teach at my school? I was always taught by my instructors to use what works best. The self defense I learned from my tkd instructors was ok but did not work against a resisting partner. They would always say "of course, an attacker would not be expecting it" or "if they resist then strike them here first". My hapkido gm was amazing but many of the moves required complicated grabs and combinations that again did not always work against a resisting partner. Judo was great but very painful (falling again and again). I learned to off balance my partners when they resisted. Bjj filled many, many gaps. If you have never done it you should. Every technique works resisted or not. Timing, strategy and lots of mat time are the key. The down side is no striking and manyschools only focus on competitive bjj and forget the sd part. Took me 2 years to figure that out and find a good school.Back to my dilemma: Which sd to teach? Do I blend? Stay with pure tkd sd knowing it is inadequate?Hold special clinics on ground fighting/throwing(falling)/etc...?I know there are purists out there and I respect you/your opinion. I am not slamming tkd; I love it! But the truth is striking is a very small part of self defense. Attitude, awareness and adaptability are crucial when defending yourself.
conflicted about self defense
- Thread starter msmitht
- Start date
Blend. But...
If you're teaching SD, and not a Static Style, limiting yourself to one method isnt a great plan. Having said that, where i am, we always practice SD against a resisting partner, and as such, unfortunately i cant relate to any issues presented, as nowere ive trained has had them;
If you're teaching a Static Style, as in, say, TKD, and SD is just one aspect of it that you're teaching. Tweak what you were taught, practice against a resisting opponent, and alter it until it works in a way you find satisfactory. But remember that in this instance, you are not an MMA Gym;
Hope that helps.
If you're teaching SD, and not a Static Style, limiting yourself to one method isnt a great plan. Having said that, where i am, we always practice SD against a resisting partner, and as such, unfortunately i cant relate to any issues presented, as nowere ive trained has had them;
If you're teaching a Static Style, as in, say, TKD, and SD is just one aspect of it that you're teaching. Tweak what you were taught, practice against a resisting opponent, and alter it until it works in a way you find satisfactory. But remember that in this instance, you are not an MMA Gym;
Hope that helps.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
- Reaction score
- 817
Are you belted in all those arts? I find it difficult to believe you have not found anything that works. Of course, I haven't had all those arts to study. I studied TKD about 40 years ago. The idea was to put down an opponent with one kick or punch in SD and move on. We did realize multiple attackers would present problems, but I think we expected skills learned as we progressed would help. We also had no illusions that we could whip our whole neighborhood any given evening.
The only art I am belted in is Hapkido. In the Hapkido I was taught, there is a progression of learning. The grabbing techniques therefore don't seen complicated to me. In fact they are not when the basics are learned first. What level did you reach with 4 years study? As to BJJ, I have never studied it, but it seems practitioners spend a lot of time on the ground. Somehow, that doesn't seem like a good place to want to go with multiple attackers. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that, since it is a popular MA.
As to your question, I would think you should teach one art well, and bring in things you have learned from other arts that would be useful to students for SD. You just need to let you students know what you are doing so they know what is the art you teach, and what is borrowed from another art. I understand many schools do this already.
That said, if you think you can successfully create a style of your own and want to, go for it. That is how many styles have started; a student thinks different things should be taught than what his/her GM thought.
The only art I am belted in is Hapkido. In the Hapkido I was taught, there is a progression of learning. The grabbing techniques therefore don't seen complicated to me. In fact they are not when the basics are learned first. What level did you reach with 4 years study? As to BJJ, I have never studied it, but it seems practitioners spend a lot of time on the ground. Somehow, that doesn't seem like a good place to want to go with multiple attackers. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that, since it is a popular MA.
As to your question, I would think you should teach one art well, and bring in things you have learned from other arts that would be useful to students for SD. You just need to let you students know what you are doing so they know what is the art you teach, and what is borrowed from another art. I understand many schools do this already.
That said, if you think you can successfully create a style of your own and want to, go for it. That is how many styles have started; a student thinks different things should be taught than what his/her GM thought.
ralphmcpherson
Senior Master
I am nowhere near as experienced as you are but I'll throw in my 2 bobs. I have done tkd, shotokan and a little hapkido but my main art and focus is tkd. I have learnt some really good self defence techs from all three and also some not so good techs in all three. Our tkd club doesnt have a set curriculum for SD and relies on all the years experience of all the many high ranking students and our GM and we pretty much leave it up to the students to learn a heap of SD techs and practice the ones the individual student likes and works for them and discard the ones that dont work for you. Now, after 5 or 6 years of tkd I have worked out about 50 techs that I like, Im profficient at, and they work for my body type, strength etc. If I had my own school and had to come up with my own SD curriculum I would take the best Ive learned from all 3 and blend them into my own style. I wouldnt just teach hapkido techs, or just tkd ones etc. I have 2 or 3 techs that work well against a resisting oponent for a wrist grab, a punch to the head, a shoulder grab, a bear hug, a kick, a head lock etc etc. I got rid of the ones I didnt like and just practice the ones I like over and over and over again.
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,631
- Reaction score
- 966
I think whichever art or technique you use would be situationaly dependant. Facing a serious threat of Bodily harm? Facing a less serious threat? Are you Joe average citizen or an LEO? Have you been grabbed or held. Is attacker atempting or setting up for a strike? IS there a weapon involved?
Facing a serious threat and no limits on response. Use techniques tha hurt the person as fast and as severely as possible = Strikes.
Less serious threat or you need to use restraint. (Drunk, acquaintance, or relative) you may need a control hold.
Facing a weapon? You may also need to use a control / manipultion hold..
Being held or mounted? Grapling defenses or escapes may need to be used.
My Ho Sin Sul curriculum which we define as the grappling part of the curriculum sets up defenses / counters, A,B,C, which typicaly has A being the easiest to perform, B next and so on. You must have a good grasp of A before learning B etc. You need a backup plan since plan A doesn't always work.
I think your best bet is to lay out a curriculum of various common attacks in order of most common to least common. Use that as your curriculum from low to high rank, decide what to teach at each rank and what defenses / counters A,B,C, to teach at each rank.
Facing a serious threat and no limits on response. Use techniques tha hurt the person as fast and as severely as possible = Strikes.
Less serious threat or you need to use restraint. (Drunk, acquaintance, or relative) you may need a control hold.
Facing a weapon? You may also need to use a control / manipultion hold..
Being held or mounted? Grapling defenses or escapes may need to be used.
My Ho Sin Sul curriculum which we define as the grappling part of the curriculum sets up defenses / counters, A,B,C, which typicaly has A being the easiest to perform, B next and so on. You must have a good grasp of A before learning B etc. You need a backup plan since plan A doesn't always work.
I think your best bet is to lay out a curriculum of various common attacks in order of most common to least common. Use that as your curriculum from low to high rank, decide what to teach at each rank and what defenses / counters A,B,C, to teach at each rank.
igillman
Purple Belt
As everybody is different why not teach a bit of everything? Some students will do well with complicated grabs, others will do better with judo type stuff and others will realise that their best bet is to stay on their feet and strike. So show the students 3 or more ways to defend against a grab and let them pick which one works best for themselves. Some will choose the origami approach (complicated holds), some will choose the rolling around on the floor approach and some will choose the smack them in the ribs approach.
sfs982000
Master Black Belt
With all your experience I would suggest blending together what you know, especially if you don't have a set in stone SD curriculum.
hungryninja
Orange Belt
I would keep TKD as the primary art and curriculum, and then teach a blend of what you studied, focusing on what is easy to learn and tactically efficient. Have you looked into Krav Maga yet? I would also recommend KM (either from KMWW and/or KMA).
I love TKD and always will (26yrs), and have studied/studying other arts...bjj (1yr), kendo (1yr), krav maga (4yrs). When I used to teach (before KM), I taught a blend of what I knew when it came to self defense. However, I would primarily focus on KM now for self defense (and KM curriculum also has kicks/blocks/strikes, very similar to TKD).
I love TKD and always will (26yrs), and have studied/studying other arts...bjj (1yr), kendo (1yr), krav maga (4yrs). When I used to teach (before KM), I taught a blend of what I knew when it came to self defense. However, I would primarily focus on KM now for self defense (and KM curriculum also has kicks/blocks/strikes, very similar to TKD).
JohnEdward
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 740
- Reaction score
- 24
My personal view: I believe there is a distinction when offering classes between SD (self defense) and MA (martial arts); words often used interchangeably, and they should not be. When teaching a SD there is no stamp. Meaning, SD is without limitations. SD is free-form, and depends on a creative process seeking to problem solve with a select array of tools. A core requirement then is variations, flexibility and adaption. A SD class encompasses and embraces any and all resources at hand to achieve the end goal quickly, over a short period of time. As a SD class is specifically and narrowly designed to target the ability to inflict seriously injury in order to disable an attack with as little engagement, engery and time as possible. Whereas, MA class is dependent on fixed and established forms and process that don't vary in structure or teaching approach. MA has prescribed techniques that are structured to be taught in a formal manner. By doing so MA is purposely confining itself to its own established protocols, tenets etc. Most MA, are defensive in nature with engagement caveats, and competition rules of engagement. The goal in a MA class unlike SD isn't anything goes, it is primarily to learn and practice the established art. That is like learning any other artisan's approach to their art. Learning MA is also to keep the art alive, to continue to exist as established. MA, hence the word "art" can be utilized as self defense, but primary experience is to function as an art. Lastly, a MA can take many years of learning and practice before reaching a level of being able to use it in a self defense. MA is an art, a specific art form. SD isn't. That is my view.
The first step is to determine your goal? What is your mission? With in that process you determine the reason and purpose for teaching others. Once that all that is established your next step is to look at yourself, what are your qualifications to teach others, as not every, despite the grandiose martial arts myth, not everyone should or can teach; regardless of how easy is seems. Once that is achieved, it is determined if you do have the personality and gift for teaching This is achieved through honest introspective and evaluation, researching the subject of teaching and what it take to be a good teacher of any sort, and by the recommendation and opinions of others. Next step is to determine what approach to teaching you will take and develop a philosophy and methodology around that? Then you decided what best suits your profile to teach, a MA or SD? Anyone can throw on a black belt and say they are a teacher. Do to the efforts of McDojo's to proliferate their profits getting a black belt means you are qualified to go out open up a school and teach. Teaching is in itself has many requirements and qualifications. Just because you have experience in an art, doesn't mean you are automatically can teach. Teaching in itself is an art, and it takes time to learn, and experience to be good at it. No one wants a incompetent instructor, or poor instruction. Being mindful and understanding what it takes to master the art of teaching doesn't fit in a gym bag with your belt. My POV is many martial artists under don't realize that teaching has requirements and qualifications, if you want to be a good teacher.
The options than become MA, SD or other. Yes, other. You can make up your own system combining techniques from various arts. You will often catch hell in the MA world for doing so. Unless, it is done in a specific manner with a specific approach and attitude. Where as SD that doesn't matter, because the more you know, the more expertise and experience in real fighting you have, the better the SD class will be. No one cares if you combined various MA techniques into one system of SD. All anyone cares in the SD world is that what you and your teaching is effective, that it is sound, and effective. In turn, it will make them effective in protecting themselves when needed. The last, is MA. Choosing to teach one specific art is a matter of the art's protocol, your skill and preference.
IMHO, teaching an art takes a tremendous commitment from a person, in time, effort, responsibility, etc. it is no walk in the park. Neither should be deciding what to teach. It is hard to be a good teacher, it is easy to be a bad one. And we aren't talking about teaching a class on organizing your closet space. Good luck, I hope my advise was helpful.
The first step is to determine your goal? What is your mission? With in that process you determine the reason and purpose for teaching others. Once that all that is established your next step is to look at yourself, what are your qualifications to teach others, as not every, despite the grandiose martial arts myth, not everyone should or can teach; regardless of how easy is seems. Once that is achieved, it is determined if you do have the personality and gift for teaching This is achieved through honest introspective and evaluation, researching the subject of teaching and what it take to be a good teacher of any sort, and by the recommendation and opinions of others. Next step is to determine what approach to teaching you will take and develop a philosophy and methodology around that? Then you decided what best suits your profile to teach, a MA or SD? Anyone can throw on a black belt and say they are a teacher. Do to the efforts of McDojo's to proliferate their profits getting a black belt means you are qualified to go out open up a school and teach. Teaching is in itself has many requirements and qualifications. Just because you have experience in an art, doesn't mean you are automatically can teach. Teaching in itself is an art, and it takes time to learn, and experience to be good at it. No one wants a incompetent instructor, or poor instruction. Being mindful and understanding what it takes to master the art of teaching doesn't fit in a gym bag with your belt. My POV is many martial artists under don't realize that teaching has requirements and qualifications, if you want to be a good teacher.
The options than become MA, SD or other. Yes, other. You can make up your own system combining techniques from various arts. You will often catch hell in the MA world for doing so. Unless, it is done in a specific manner with a specific approach and attitude. Where as SD that doesn't matter, because the more you know, the more expertise and experience in real fighting you have, the better the SD class will be. No one cares if you combined various MA techniques into one system of SD. All anyone cares in the SD world is that what you and your teaching is effective, that it is sound, and effective. In turn, it will make them effective in protecting themselves when needed. The last, is MA. Choosing to teach one specific art is a matter of the art's protocol, your skill and preference.
IMHO, teaching an art takes a tremendous commitment from a person, in time, effort, responsibility, etc. it is no walk in the park. Neither should be deciding what to teach. It is hard to be a good teacher, it is easy to be a bad one. And we aren't talking about teaching a class on organizing your closet space. Good luck, I hope my advise was helpful.
Manny
Senior Master
I would sugets, keep your tkd self defense program and enhance it but some bjj trows, restrains and sumitions and always teach more than one method to defend from a treat.
My case, for example how to take of a lapel grab well I always teach more than two methods to do it so my student can pick the one that suits him/her better, how to break a bear hug is the same I will teach more than one way to scape from this, and so on.
Keep in mind that if you adhere to the KISS principle you students will get the thing easily, evade difiult things to do or too much complicate moves because some times is confusing.
Manny
My case, for example how to take of a lapel grab well I always teach more than two methods to do it so my student can pick the one that suits him/her better, how to break a bear hug is the same I will teach more than one way to scape from this, and so on.
Keep in mind that if you adhere to the KISS principle you students will get the thing easily, evade difiult things to do or too much complicate moves because some times is confusing.
Manny
With your extensive experience, blending should be fairly easy. Use what works. Every SD situation is different, and will require different skills. In my opinion, no single art can encompass the skills needed for every situation. Blend styles in each single technique.
In my experience, I use Kenpo (as I was taught it) mostly for my SD teachings, but I also use TKD, Hapkido, and Judo. Depending on situation and environment I will alter a technique to add something from different MA styles that are appropriate.
In my experience, I use Kenpo (as I was taught it) mostly for my SD teachings, but I also use TKD, Hapkido, and Judo. Depending on situation and environment I will alter a technique to add something from different MA styles that are appropriate.
- Thread Starter
- #13
I tried krav maga. Was the same techniques, with some variations, that I learned as an infantry Marine. Good weapon sd.
What is the make up of your student base? Mostly kids? If so, then I would think that their approach to "self defense" would be different if it were adults, or LEOs, or military personnel.
Certainly the approach would be different.
Teaching kids to beware of strangers and avoiding dangerous situations as well as teaching them to defend themselves on the school yard, is a lot different than teaching a women's or a generalized SD class.
I think you have to figure out where you want to go before starting on your journey.
Also - how far you want to go in situational / environmental training? Most schools I've visited don't consider uneven terrain or uncertain footing.. or obstacles such as chairs or other people. Also, are you training for multiple attackers? weapons? All these have to come into consideration before you decide on the direction and techniques you are going to teach.
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,419
- Reaction score
- 329
If your goal is SD then you blend for the benefit of your students. For your consideration:
http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148268/1781914
http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148250/1801375
http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148250
http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148268
Pure and effective SD is not flashy or complicated. It is simple, quick and based upon gross motor skills. Take your base art of TKD and seriously consider each principle or technique. If it doesn't work against a real, determined attacker then ditch it in favor of something that does work. Also, is the technique or principle dependent on size and/or strength? Consider smaller males and females in the equation. Have you actually used the technique in question against a determined attacker? Has the technique been used at all against a determined attacker? If so, by who and what was the result? Does it conform to;
KISS (keep it super simple)
CWCT (closest weapon closest target)
Once you have blended the best of what you know, given those criteria, you'll find a streamlined system that is devote of flashy, complicated techniques. Which is what SD is all about i.e. quick and ugly at lethal levels, quick and effective at less-than-lethal levels. Locks, throws etc have a place but remember that it isn't the nice, neat choreographed and flowing martial arts spectacular that is often shown in the videos or from hollywood. It is quick, dynamic and above all realistic.
Hope this helps.
I think assailants don't read the book nor fight by rules.
So what works in one situation might be useless in another.
I think the biggest SD tool to have is to think on your feet and make use of what you have.
(that means that what works for a 6 foot guy of 200 pounds is likely not going to cut it for the 140 pound woman barely making 5'5")
So what works in one situation might be useless in another.
I think the biggest SD tool to have is to think on your feet and make use of what you have.
(that means that what works for a 6 foot guy of 200 pounds is likely not going to cut it for the 140 pound woman barely making 5'5")
It sounds as if you might be missing some range training. You have the in tight stuff; the long range stuff; but, do you feel comfortable at boxing range or in closer without trying to grapple?
Sean
Sean
If you're going to train someone in self defense, and you're going to market what you do as self defense, than the most important thing is whether or not what you are teaching works. It's one thing to teach ineffective techniques under the auspices of "martial arts." Teaching martial arts may include teaching traditional methodologies that may not directly apply, or not apply at all, to modern self defense. But if you are going to claim to teach "self defense" then your techniques had better work. If you have any doubt about whether or not they do, in that specific context, then you can't teach them in that context with any kind of moral legitimacy.
Teach whatever you want as "martial arts." Teach only what works as "self defense." The lives of your students may depend on it.
-Rob
Teach whatever you want as "martial arts." Teach only what works as "self defense." The lives of your students may depend on it.
-Rob
