Does Your Martial Art Teach Self Defence?

[judoespecialist]

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

 

[CNida]

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Sure.



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



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



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

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



Fair enough.



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

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



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



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



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



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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


____________________________

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self defence is not fighting.

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

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

 

[Kframe]

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

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

 

[Touch Of Death]

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

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

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

 

[RTKDCMB]

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

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

I hear it all the time on mma forums, with regards to arts that use preset techs like Paker kenpo and Taijutsu, why learn "dance of death" if you cant actually perform it under resistance and duress?

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

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real life self defense are not like preset drills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Flying Crane]

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

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

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

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

 

[chodancandidate]

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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

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

 

[TKDTony2179]

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

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

Curious to what is sparring to you?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[yakuzanobi]

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

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

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

 

[MJS]

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

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

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

Kframe, check out this clip:

[yt]V7Tp7ma0vFs[/yt]

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

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

 

[Rumy73]

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

Martial sport is all the rage.

 

[Tames D]

martial sport is all the rage.

lol

 

[Instructor]

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

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

 

[Rumy73]

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

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

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

4. The best techniques are simple.

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