Does your school teach self defense or fighting?

[chinto]

As martial artists, we all train for our own unique reasons. Some of us train for trophies, some for social acceptance, some for tradition and ritual, and some for self defense. Those are all valid reasons, and I'm not trying to put forth that any one is more appropriate than any other.

I train for self defense. That has always been my perspective on martial arts. It's why I started training in the first place. I spend a lot of time reading about and discussing self defense. It's what I'm in to.

Because that's my personal interest in martial arts, I get irritated when someone tries to dress up what they are doing as self defense for marketing purposes. I don't mind if a martial arts school is teaching positive self image and affirmations, that's fine, but when they pretend they're teaching self defense, it bothers me. I don't mind when a school teaches acrobatics, but when they pretend it's self defense, it bothers me.

And I don't mind when a school teaches fighting, but when they pretend it's self defense, it bothers me. Just like I would expect them to be bothered if I taught self defense and pretended it was for competition, or positive self affirmation, or acrobatics.

So I got to thinking tonight. I think self defense instruction needs to incoporate more than just combatives. Punching and kicking and grappling are all an important part of self defense, but they aren't all there is.

I think a real self defense program should include de-escalation techniques. It should include teaching people how to walk away from a fight, and teaching them when they can avoid one. It should include information about the legal ramifications of self defense. What local laws apply to violent self defense? It should include real world information about predators and predatory behavior. It should include information about the bio-physical reactions the body will have to violent stimulus. The student should understand that [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]in a stressful situation, the hypothalamus releases aldosterone, epinephrine and norepinephrine, thyroxine, and cortisol. Sugar is released into the blood, as well as endorphins. The student should be taught something of how and why these chemical reactions occur and what the effects of them will be. It should include crime statistics, as well as information on identifying and protecting one's self from dangerous situations. It should include education in risk assessment and avoidance. [/FONT]It should also include plenty of punching and kicking and grappling too.

Now, I know that a lot of you guys are teaching all this and more, but I wonder sometimes how many schools are teaching all the punching and kicking and grappling, and none of the other stuff.

Again, that's fine, but to me, that's not self defense. That's fighting. Fighting can be fun, and fighting can be effective, but fighting isn't self defense. And it bothers me when people say it is.

So my question is, is your school teaching self defense? Or is it teaching fighting. Again, I'm not saying one is better or more important than the other. One is my interest and approach to martial arts, one isn't, but I don't demand that everyone agree with my perspective. I'm just curious.

What else do you guys think are important aspects of a self defense curriculum?


-Rob

Our Dojo and style teaches self defense. Okinawan Karate is designed to keep you alive and get you out of trouble and away alive and uninjured as possible. ( most older styles of martial arts are designed and developed with just that in mind actually. )

 

[sgtmac_46]

I try to teach both, because effective fighting skills will provide self defense skills, with the qualification that you must understand the difference between "fighting" and "defending yourself." That means not getting locked into the idea that the duel of sparring or competition is the same as dealing with a real violent attack.

The line between teaching fighting and teaching self-defense is a lot smaller than many folks like to make out........it's mostly a matter of mindset.

There are other reasons for learning martial arts that are a lot less compatible than these two reasons........in fact, i'm willing to say that with the right mindset, fighting/self defense are complimentary!

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I was actually thinking about this over the weekend. I think it explains alot about why so many martial arts studios are considered McDojos, or weak, or ineffective. Because people do not understand offensive fighting at all, so the answer they give in the form of defensive fighting is so unrealistic that it cancels out most of the benefits of learning it in the first place.
I think that you have to understand offensive fighting before you can truely understand defensive fighting, or self defense for those stuck on the semantics. If you do not understand how an attack is supposed to work, and you do not practice your technique against realistic attacks, how the hell are you ever going to handle one when it happens?
I see so many different martial artists working on answers versus a takedown for example, and they work their answer against the weakest, most non threatening takedown "attempts" possible. This is not efficient, only dangerous to the people practicing this way.

So i guess I have to state that there are alot of people who actually do not teach fighting.....either offensive or defensive... they just think they do.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I was actually thinking about this over the weekend. I think it explains alot about why so many martial arts studios are considered McDojos, or weak, or ineffective. Because people do not understand offensive fighting at all, so the answer they give in the form of defensive fighting is so unrealistic that it cancels out most of the benefits of learning it in the first place.
I think that you have to understand offensive fighting before you can truely understand defensive fighting, or self defense for those stuck on the semantics. If you do not understand how an attack is supposed to work, and you do not practice your technique against realistic attacks, how the hell are you ever going to handle one when it happens?
I see so many different martial artists working on answers versus a takedown for example, and they work their answer against the weakest, most non threatening takedown "attempts" possible. This is not efficient, only dangerous to the people practicing this way.

So i guess I have to state that there are alot of people who actually do not teach fighting.....either offensive or defensive... they just think they do.

Pretty accurate, sadly.

Daniel

 

[Aiki Lee]

I was actually thinking about this over the weekend. I think it explains alot about why so many martial arts studios are considered McDojos, or weak, or ineffective. Because people do not understand offensive fighting at all, so the answer they give in the form of defensive fighting is so unrealistic that it cancels out most of the benefits of learning it in the first place.
I think that you have to understand offensive fighting before you can truely understand defensive fighting, or self defense for those stuck on the semantics. If you do not understand how an attack is supposed to work, and you do not practice your technique against realistic attacks, how the hell are you ever going to handle one when it happens?
I see so many different martial artists working on answers versus a takedown for example, and they work their answer against the weakest, most non threatening takedown "attempts" possible. This is not efficient, only dangerous to the people practicing this way.

So i guess I have to state that there are alot of people who actually do not teach fighting.....either offensive or defensive... they just think they do.

Not to mention that sometimes the best defense in a good offense. In our dojo when two training partners square off one is practicing how to attack and the other is practicing how to defend against attack. The mindset is this for the attacker "If you had to punch this guy for whatever reason, what is the best way?" Plus in order to defeat an opponent you have to attack them at one point anyway or else you are only blocking, evading, dodging or whatever. All that matters is that you were justified in doing so.

 

[blindsage]

Our Dojo and style teaches self defense. Okinawan Karate is designed to keep you alive and get you out of trouble and away alive and uninjured as possible. ( most older styles of martial arts are designed and developed with just that in mind actually. )

I can't comment on Okinawan Karate specifically, but I don't think the last part of your statement is correct. Most older style of martial arts are war or personal combat arts. Non-Okinawan, Japanese MA's are mostly descended from Samurai arts, i.e. for combat/war. Most kung-fu styles are for personal combat, some for war, most with a looot of offensive strategy and techniques. Silat- for war. Muy Thai, a combat sport derivative of Krabi Krabong, a war art. Fillipino martial arts- war and personal combat. European sword fighting- war and personal combat. Boxing sport combat. TKD sport/combat. Martial arts are generally styles of fighting- for combat.

The self-defense ideology/philosophy and in my book mythology, is a 1980's American politically correct farce invented by martial artist's when the generality of the public started to take notice and they knew that a) Americans wouldn't approve of the traditional harsh training methods and brutal reality of their arts in general and b) it became possible to have a successful business as a martial arts instructor if you toned things down and made it easier for the less-tolerant-of-harsh-methods American perspective.

There are defensive arts, but the vast majority of "older martial arts" are not.

 

[Langenschwert]

At the AES, we teach fighting that can be applied to self-defence. The difference in teaching sword arts is that they're not primarily applicable in a SD situation since people don't carry swords around in the Western world anymore. Now, the techniques are very applicable should you find yourself in a bad barfight where the poolcues are flying, and they work OK with a piece of rebar too, and a cane in a pinch. The unarmed components of these arts are pretty brutal, and are intended to kill, not de-escalate or defend you until you can escape. They are arts intended for war and for duels but there are certainly SD elements, such as unarmed defences against a dagger, which was probably one of the most desperate SD situations imaginable in the 1400's, and still is today. Unfortunately, many "knife defences" taught in modern arts are sheer fantasy. Even the very good ones are not proof against a canny knife fighter, who will take you to pieces no matter what. Anyone who's studied weapons in depth will realize that a lot of disarms are completely bogus.

Even so, many SD situations are ambushes, leaving the defender blindsided. If someone smashes a glass in your face at point blank range, what are you going to do? You've got a face full of glass, are probably (and maybe permanently) blinded, and are bleeding profusely. There's not a lot SD training can do at that point. Hopefully your training will instill some kind of mindfulness to save yourself at that point... you've already made serious mistakes letting someone get the drop on you... but that's the way it can be. Most knife attacks are ambushes as well... you'll be stabbed two or three times before you know there's a knife.

The prevailing principle in many sword arts is "strike FIRST, strike fast, strike hard". The idea is never to let it get to the point where you have to "defend" yourself. Now, I suppose they are SD arts within their historical contexts... You were dumb enough to let someone have the first strike, or were forced to by the terms of a duel, so here's what you do... techniques XYZ... or... you've managed to position yourself to get the first strike... here's how you counter his defence, etc.

I would say that the medieval knife defences are very vaild for SD, moreso than many modern uh... inventions. In fact, most of them look just like modern military combatives anyway, just slightly different executions. The grappling components are great too, provided you're in a position to use lethal force, or have no choice but to potentially maim the guy for life. The reason for this is these arts come from a time when winning a street fight might mean the defeated party might come back with his six brothers and four cousins and kill you. Dead men tell no tales and bring no avenging relatives.

Does that count as SD? I don't know. All I know is that I'm trying to be the best swordsman I can be. If it ends up saving me, well and good. I count is as time well-spent no matter what.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Wishbone]

It teaches both. And I am increasingly of the opinion that a person should learn fighting first, and then develop how to apply these skills to self defence after that. One of the advantages of training someone in a competitive fashion first is that it is a good way to develop the skill-sets fully and functionally.
Teach them to strike, to grapple, how to fight on the ground, and how to run like hell of course. Once they've got the basic abilities, then start making the training more specific.
Make victory to be about escape rather than just beating your opponent, introduce the possibilities of more opponents, weapons etc.
I figure from what Ive seen it would take roughly 1.5 - 2 years till a person can use basic fighting skills in a functional comfortable way.
So perhaps that much time focusing on those alone would be wise.

Let the folks learn their maths before we try to teach them accountancy

I'm going to respectfully disagree. Although fighting is a necessary component of the self-defense hierarchy, I don't think it needs to be taught before self-defense. As the OP stated, self-defense includes deesclation tactics and discussions on how to be more aware of your environment and manage unknown contacts. These concepts are often easier to pick up after a lecture and they are really the skills the self-defense practitioner is going to use on a regular basis. Spending all the time teaching a student to hone their fighting skills before giving them these other lessons may be have the end result be the same, but I do not think it is an efficient, nor effective, way to give them the skills they need to defend themselves in a timely manner.

 

[chinto]

ok, self defense is a version of fighting, has offensive and defensive techniques in it. The main difference is targeting and there are no rules. you may brake things, and in fact its a good thing if you do. you may maim and even if Necessary kill. Once again if it means you walk away alive and hole where other wise you would be crippled or killed is not a bad thing.

sport fighting has a lot of rules, and even the 'full contact ufc ' "no holes barred cage match" stuff has a lot of rules for fighter safety! the targeting and object is compleatly different.

This does not mean that timing and distance are not important in both, but some things that work great in a ring or cage, DO NOT work well in a real life Self Defense situation.

One is predicated on survival in a life and death possible situation, the other is about points or a prize fight for money or what have you with fighter safety and things in mind.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I find it interesting how, apparantly many, people think of fighting solely in terms of sports venues. I love sports fighting, but whenever someone says fighting I think of something totally different. I have always associated the word fighting with no rules physical engagements between two or more people, and define it down to things like sports fighting.
I wonder how much of the differences in opinions are coming from semantics, and how many are coming from true differences.

 

[Wishbone]

I find it interesting how, apparantly many, people think of fighting solely in terms of sports venues. I love sports fighting, but whenever someone says fighting I think of something totally different. I have always associated the word fighting with no rules physical engagements between two or more people, and define it down to things like sports fighting.
I wonder how much of the differences in opinions are coming from semantics, and how many are coming from true differences.

I was thinking the same way. When I hear fighting my initial reaction is people I know who live lifestyles involving drugs and fight a lot. It's not really self-defense the way I see interpret it, it's just fighting. But there are still no rules and it's not for sport etc. I think you're on to something with the semantics comment.

 

[blindsage]

I agree, I think there is an element of semantics going on here, but if your definition of fighting is what people do in the ring, and 'self-defense' is anything goes on the street, where and in what context did you grow up? Because long before I got into MA I knew a scrap or attack on the street as fighting, and a fight in the ring was a match, or a competition, and yes also referred to as a fight, but there was a clear difference. And if your pops wanted to teach you to fight so you could defend yourself on the street, he was teaching you to fight, not 'self-defense'. Self-defense is a buzzword of the modern martial arts community, not a historic one. So if were talking the same thing and getting confused by terminology, that's cool, but most folks do not refer to fighting as strictly a ring skills thing, and if you say you're going to self-defense classes, most folks (especially MA people) are going to think you're going to the YMCA to learn knees to the groin, eye pokes, to carry your keys in your hand when walking to the car, and how to yell "No, no, no, no, no!"