Why should I care about "comprehensive understanding of martial arts" if self-defense is not included in the training?
Well, what do you want to learn? Martial arts or self defence? Why should you care about self defence if you're learning a martial art?
The point is, you can actually get a good basis in self defence in a weekend. That's all. And most of it isn't anything to do with fighting techniques (I've noticed that your posts seem to indicate that you're really only focused on fighting, nothing else... which is cool, really, but it's just not the same as either self defence or martial arts, really). To take two examples, I taught a Women's Self Defence course about a year ago... it ran over two three-hour sessions, held a month apart. The last hour or so of the second day was the only time we dealt with physical techniques and attacks. My Chief Instructor was in Melbourne to present a workshop on self defence late last year... it ran for 3 hours as well, and only the last 20 minutes or so had any physical techniques. If you want to learn self defence, fine... and you don't need any "comprehensive understanding of martial arts"... but, if you want to learn a martial art, you need to actually look to the martial art.
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'd argue that a martial system, or martial science is the same (at heart) as a martial art, when the origin of the term is looked at... but that said, it sounds good. There's the question of what is the system, and what is auxiliary knowledge, but I'll cover that in a bit. I would say that the usage in non-self defence environments doesn't mean anything in terms of self defence, but I think that's been mentioned already.
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.
I don't think there's been any question about there being any cross-over (real or potential). The question was about whether or not you (the practitioner of x-system) felt that it gave you the skills needed for self defence (from K-man), and whether or not martial arts, designed for a different context and application should be seen as being the same as self defence (from myself).
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.
Again, the question is whether that is part of the system, or part of the schools...
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!
Not sure I'd agree with your history on kenjutsu there, Brian... and if you had a shinken by your bed here, well, you'd be arrested as well. Not exactly legal, you see. Additionally, you'd need to be able to justify using such a lethal response... and simply saying "they broke in" doesn't cut it in all areas... (ha, "cut it"... I see what I did there...). Oh, and Kenjutsu is fairly removed from smaller blade usage that would far more likely be encountered, so the applicability is lowered again.
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!
And, again, there hasn't been any question of cross over being there or not (and again, not sure I'd really agree with that take on Judo's history either...).
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.
It's not just the laws changing from one location to another that needs to be understood, it's the changing culture as well. That's probably more important than the differing laws, when it comes down to it. And the reason they can work over a weekend course is that they're not about maintaining physical skills... they're about introducing a different approach to the martial art training you may already have, or be doing. Very few RBSD systems are designed as stand-alone approaches.
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!
Sure, there's cross over... but that's far from saying that one equals the other. There's cross-over between baseball and golf, between soccer and basketball, but they aren't the same at all.
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!
Nah... in my Kenjutsu, Kyudo, Iai etc the only laws I need to worry about are those that dictate what I can carry where... and what licences I need to have (as well as how to get them). My classical Jujutsu isn't even concerned with that at all. Look at things like some of the Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu waza... or the Kukishinden ones... where you basically get grabbed, so you break the other guys neck or back.... not really concerned with any form of legality in my state there. My self defence training, on the other hand... there, it's essential.
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.
There's quite a distinction between a school that specializes in self defence (in a way, so does mine... at least in our modern approach) and a martial art that deals with it. From all accounts of Kong Soo Do, it's an amalgam of Okinawan, Japanese and Korean approaches to karate-based systems... none of which were designed for Western social violence. So, while I don't doubt that your school provides such things, as does mine, a separation needs to be recognized between the teachings of the art and the teachings of the school.
Chris Parker.
I think I vaguely understand what you are talking about in regards to the Kata. That the attacks are not realistic but merely generic representations of violence to train on. My sensei said something similar when I asked.
Well.... yes and no, actually. The attacks need to be realistic, but they aren't realistic attacks... they are, however, representations of realistic attacks... or, representations of forms of violence... or situations... or none of the above, instead being tactical structures in a far more symbolic form, designed to teach lessons rather than even be practical or combatively effective methods. It depends on the kata, the system, the section of the system, and so on.
My question is, typically, when in the training(rank level to make it easy to reference) do arts such as ours, actually start training against modern attacks such as quick retracting jabs, and cross's and other such attacks? I think it is referred to as Jissen Goshinjutsu/Shinken Gata.
Jissen means "real fight", Goshinjutsu means "self defence art", Shinken means "true sword"... these terms are used by different organisations, but don't necessarily mean modern usage/application (aside from Goshinjutsu... although that is also not always the case. Judo's Goshin no Kata, for example, is quite dated by todays standards with regards to what it's designed against). Shinken Gata is a common enough term in the Bujinkan, with other organizations using other preferred terminology.
But, to the point... when do you start training against modern attacks? You don't. They're not part of it. Look, you're training a traditional system where the methods come from a different country from hundreds of years ago. Expecting them to therefore deal with modern forms of violence is nonsensical. It'd be like, when learning Latin, to ask when you're going to learn modern Italian. You're not.
That said, especially in the Bujinkan, there's no telling when your instructor might decide to change things, or apply them in any other form. But there's nothing in the methods of any of the Ryu that deal with modern Western violence... why would they?
I understand that as a beginner, that wont likely happen for a long time, im guessing some time in the Dan level. Which kinda makes me feel awkward as I have had those kinds of attacks(ok some, not weapons and such) thrown with force at me and have experience dealing with them. I feel for the lack of a better word, "itchy" to get to that part of the syllabus.
There's no such part. You're making a common mistake, which is to assume that all martial arts deal with the same problems... they don't.
You don't have to answer this If you don't want to, if its to private, I understand, but ill ask any ways. If you didn't know me, and I showed up at your dojo and signed up as a rank beginner. About when do you introduce modern combat defenses and applications?(such as a typical mma/kickboxer striking style, or maybe karate stuff, or any other modern thing)
At my school? Day one. Each class is split into three main sections (with a couple of additional ones, such as the warm-up/ukemi, intro, and study period), which are Traditional Taijutsu (from the Ryu-ha), Buki (Weaponry, commonly traditional, with a few modern ones thrown in), and Modern Self Defence. As you can see, it's distinctly separated from the traditional martial art side of things... because, although the martial art side informs a fair portion of the self defence, they are really quite different.
I guess, my gut tells me, that at some point. Arts that use Visual representations of violence in there paired kata, and drills, need at some point introduce and work off of more realistic attacks.
Why?
