Family-friendly vs. ruthless: responsible teaching

[jks9199]

How do you determine whether someone has good vs. bad character?

Personal assessment. Keeping the class small enough that I know my students fairly well. Bearing and conduct.

Yeah, it's subjective. And I might be fooled. I'm not looking for a saint and I don't require a criminal history check (I know of one or two clubs that do) -- but if they set me on edge, have poor self control, or just plain give me a hinky feeling... they generally aren't welcome and don't stick around long.

Do you teach people you suspect of being of questionable character?

 

[dancingalone]

If that were the case then commercial dojang filled with kids would not be the norm. Of the schools that give questionaires to new or potential new students, the majority check "discipline" or "respect" or "weight loss" instead of "self defense" as their reason for interest in enrolling.

I agree, yet I think self-defense skills are somewhere in the top 3, even if it is in the back of the mind. If I were trying to lose weight, I would do something that has me always moving. In martial arts classes, there's quite a bit of time where we listen or observe instead of do. Likewise with character or life skills, I'm not saying martial arts couldn't be an avenue through which to teach them, but I could think of other more focused alternatives.

Viable SD needs to be part of the offering. That doesn't mean we have to teach how to break joints or poke out eyes however.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I'm curious what you do and don't teach at different ages.

Just to add to the mix, here's a list of the MMA technique fouls from the Nevada State Commission. You're not supposed to do these in an MMA match:

Below is the list from the banned techniques you mentioned and my comments about whether or not I was taught them/taught them myself. I learned all of them by the time I was a 6th gup, IIRC. Likewise, I taught them all to my students when I had my own club.
Butting with the head (both with the forehead and the back of the head though these techniques were presented as last resorts due to the possibility of being injured yourself)

Eye gouging of any kind (using flat finger tip thrusts, cross cuts, fore- and double finger strikes, thumb strikes)

Biting (no)

Hair pulling (yes, to escape from being grabbed)

Fish hooking (no)

Groin attacks of any kind (uh, yeah, tons of these, literally too many to list)

Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. (no)

Small joint manipulation (yes)

Striking to the spine or the back of the head (yes, with both kicks and hand techniques)

Striking downward using the point of the elbow (yes)

Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea (yes, many such techniques)

Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh (yes, especially helpful when being grabbed)

Grabbing the clavicle (no, but we learned early on to just break the clavicle with the base-of-knife-hand)

Kicking the head of a grounded opponent (yes)

Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent (actually no)

Stomping a grounded opponent (yes, the stomping kick with the back sole is a pretty common technique)

Kicking to the kidney with the heel (yep)

Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck (no)

Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent (not holding their shorts or gloves, but being taught to grab the opponent and hit him several times definitely)

Spitting at an opponent (no)

What do you reserve for adults or select groups? Are there some things you just won't teach at all?

Carl

Most of those techniques are taught to students teenage and up but some come into play younger. All the ones indicated are taught to adults. Frankly, I'm surprised people would omit some of the techniques listed. Others (such as biting and spitting) I'm not surprised at.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.

Actually, techniques such as finger tip thrusts, cross cuts (raking the eyes), breaking the clavicle, attacking the groin, etc. are all quite common attacks in Taekwon-Do. To be fair, the list offered was more a combined list of vital spots to attack and techniques, not just techniques.

When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.

Can't say I agree with you since I believe in a well armed citizenry.

Pax,

Chris

 

[msmitht]

Actually, techniques such as finger tip thrusts, cross cuts (raking the eyes), breaking the clavicle, attacking the groin, etc. are all quite common attacks in Taekwon-Do. To be fair, the list offered was more a combined list of vital spots to attack and techniques, not just techniques.



Can't say I agree with you since I believe in a well armed citizenry.

Pax,

Chris

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Of course some of the techniques appear in forms and some schools actually still teach one steps as a viable form of self defense. Yes I do believe vital spots should be taught. But we do not practice them full speed and power. It would be impossible and dangerous. Like I said, we play the way we practice.

 

[granfire]

Below is the list from the banned techniques you mentioned and my comments about whether or not I was taught them/taught them myself. I learned all of them by the time I was a 6th gup, IIRC. Likewise, I taught them all to my students when I had my own club.
Butting with the head (both with the forehead and the back of the head though these techniques were presented as last resorts due to the possibility of being injured yourself)

Eye gouging of any kind (using flat finger tip thrusts, cross cuts, fore- and double finger strikes, thumb strikes)

Biting (no)

Hair pulling (yes, to escape from being grabbed)

Fish hooking (no)

Groin attacks of any kind (uh, yeah, tons of these, literally too many to list)

Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. (no)

Small joint manipulation (yes)

Striking to the spine or the back of the head (yes, with both kicks and hand techniques)

Striking downward using the point of the elbow (yes)

Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea (yes, many such techniques)

Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh (yes, especially helpful when being grabbed)

Grabbing the clavicle (no, but we learned early on to just break the clavicle with the base-of-knife-hand)

Kicking the head of a grounded opponent (yes)

Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent (actually no)

Stomping a grounded opponent (yes, the stomping kick with the back sole is a pretty common technique)

Kicking to the kidney with the heel (yep)

Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck (no)

Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent (not holding their shorts or gloves, but being taught to grab the opponent and hit him several times definitely)

Spitting at an opponent (no)



Most of those techniques are taught to students teenage and up but some come into play younger. All the ones indicated are taught to adults. Frankly, I'm surprised people would omit some of the techniques listed. Others (such as biting and spitting) I'm not surprised at.

Pax,

Chris

well, all those techniques are imbedded in the average TKD form.
But most people do not make the connect between the move performed into thin air, or playfully executed with a friend and a lethal move.

 

[puunui]

Do you teach people you suspect of being of questionable character?

Sometimes.

 

[puunui]

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every citizen to have access to a gun

Actually, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individual states to have a well regulated militia, which today we call the National Guard. But I am sure no one here is interested in that subject.

 

[StudentCarl]

Actually, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individual states to have a well regulated militia, which today we call the National Guard. But I am sure no one here is interested in that subject.

Different topic to be sure, but I believe there is now case law supporting the position that the right is individual and not governmental.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

 

[Earl Weiss]

Here's a school that sounds as if they mean business. Coincidently, it is in Reno.

http://renokravmaga.com/classes.html


:asian:

I like the "Krav Maga is not a Martial Art" line. An Israeli guy told me that 25 years ago. At that time it had not yet been mass marketed.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Actually, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individual states to have a well regulated militia, which today we call the National Guard. But I am sure no one here is interested in that subject.

I do. Read a recent article on the Supreme court decisons and the wording, and must say I don't agre with your post. But that is a discourse for another forum / day. Dang, if I knew this would have come up I would have saved the article. It was an interesting dissection of the wording I had not really seen before.

 

[Earl Weiss]

The biting thing brought back memories of a technique I learned in the 1970's as a colored belt and one I still teach. (Credit to Instructor Gregg Youstra) Call it the "Count Dracula"

Big guy grabs you in a bear hug arms enclosed from the front with their chin on your shoulder.
Turn your face toward their neck and start biting out chunks of flesh. See if they let go.

 

[msmitht]

The biting thing brought back memories of a technique I learned in the 1970's as a colored belt and one I still teach. (Credit to Instructor Gregg Youstra) Call it the "Count Dracula"

Big guy grabs you in a bear hug arms enclosed from the front with their chin on your shoulder.
Turn your face toward their neck and start biting out chunks of flesh. See if they let go.

Wow. Thought that would be instinctual. They were not worried about hiv...or turning into a blood sucker that needed to be staked through the heart. Hey there's a lethal technique to add to the curriculum...rotflol!

 

[jks9199]

Actually, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individual states to have a well regulated militia, which today we call the National Guard. But I am sure no one here is interested in that subject.

You may wish to review District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

 

[chrispillertkd]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Anywho.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Of course some of the techniques appear in forms and some schools actually still teach one steps as a viable form of self defense.

:lol:

Yes I do believe vital spots should be taught. But we do not practice them full speed and power. It would be impossible and dangerous. Like I said, we play the way we practice.

If you don't train with them full speed but you believe that "[you] play the way [you] practice" then why bother to teach them?

Pax,

Chris

 

[K-man]

Always the same "well if my son/daughter/wife was being attacked..."
Get over it already. Teaching someone how to rip out another persons throat does not make your style "combat effective". Almost every striking system teaches a finger jab, groin kick, knee stomp...etc, so no, you are not special or unique.
And YES, weapon (gun) combatives should only be allowed for the armed services/police. Why would a teenager need to learn...wait a minute...I'm gonna stop. Some idiot will try to rationalize everything.
K man, your school can teach whatever it wants. Yay for you if someone sticks a gun in one of my kids faces they will probably crap themselves(a normal response. Saw it many times in iraqq) I too took a 4 hour KM seminar in vegas and got a cert saying I could teach it.

I find what you say hypocritical.

And YES, weapon (gun) combatives should only be allowed for the armed services/police.

You did not say that you should not be allowed to own firearms, just that you shouldn't be trained how to use them.

In the US you can legally own military assault weapons. These have one purpose, to kill human beings. Yet you say, yep you can have one but You shouldn't be taught how to use it. Training not only includes how to aim and fire the weapon but how to maintain it, how to store it securely, how to look beyond your target before you fire etc etc.

Exactly the same principles apply when teaching RBSD.

If I own a firearm for self defence (which I don't) and some one invades my home, I can shoot them (at least in the US). It doesn't matter if the shot goes through the eye, the groin or the neck. If I am a martial artist (which I am) and someone invades my home you say I can't use my bare hands to gouge his eyes, crush his testicles or break his neck. I'm sorry, I can't follow your logic.



You are what you train, as you said:

We play the way we practice. If you learn a knee stomp, eye gouge and throat strike combination and practice it enough then that will be your automatic response.

I would guestimate that over 90% of MA schools train for sport and/or fitness. The remaining 10% would include KM, Systema and the very few schools like mine that do not train for sport. I don't have any problem with that with one proviso. I don't allow contact to the head. There is more than enough medical evidence to demonstrate that even light hits to the head cause accumulating damage that is likely to predispose a person to mental health problems in later life. So if you like MMA, fine. Just be aware of the danger in years to come. Same for boxing, kickboxing and Muai Thai. As for TKD. You can kick to the head as hard as you like, ko fine ... but you can't punch to the face? http://www.tkd.net/tkdnetwork/sport.html

Now if you are into MAs for sport, fine. If you are into MAs for SD, fine. But don't be confused. Sport based MAs may give you an edge in a bar fight but against a seasoned street fighter, I'll put my hard earned on the thug any time. If you want to train for survival in a life or death situation then you are what you train.

I am selective in whom I train, the school is not-for-profit so there are no financial pressures to accept children or unsuitable adults and none of my students are interested in tournaments. I prefer students who have obtained a BB in one of the traditional MAs. These people have demonstrated a commitment to their training. So, I have no problem teaching the real meaning of the kata. That has been my area of interest for many years. I have no problem with teaching them the lethal techniques contained within. Every traditional kata is a system to kill.

Because most people are not capable of being responsible, especially when it comes to a technique that could kill or maim.

I would love you to produce any form of evidence to support your hypothesis.
Driving a car can kill or maim. Most people ARE responsible.
With a firearm you can kill or maim. Most people ARE responsible.
If you have a knife you can kill or maim. Most people ARE responsible.
If you have a bow and arrows you can kill or maim. Most peo... , hang on, I think I said that before!
Now we look at Martial Arts and all of a sudden most people ARE NOT responsible. Why are martial artists different?

As JKS said:

There are teachers who teach nothing but sport or only the "fun family stuff" and they're legitimate places to train, with skilled practitioners. But that's a far cry from saying "only military & LE should learn" certain techniques. If a person is of good character (I won't teach those of bad character) and mature enough and willing to take on the responsibility, they have every right to learn any technique.

and ...

In the end -- I trust my students with the knowledge I share with them. If I don't -- they aren't my students.

I couldn't have said it better. :asian:

 

[msmitht]

K man,
My reference to gun combatives was specifically about self defense against them(what I have seen is almost laughable). There is always going to be some idiot who says....oh wait, I already said that.
So you teach lethal striking but no head shots? You gripe about tkds lack of head punching but don't teach it yourself?Interesting. You believe that most people are responsible? My mom has been a police dispatcher for 40 years.
Car: how many dui related deaths per year? Speedind tickets? Road rage incidents?driving while on phone/make up/eating/smoking?
Gun: how many teens/adults used a gun in a violent crime last year? How many parents came home to find their child dead because they left their own gun in an unsecure place? How many suicides by gun?
Knife:same as gun but in uk. Why else would they give a year in jail for public posession of a blade over 3 inches.
Bow and arrow: I was once shot in the foot with one. True story:my brother CT shot one straight up in the air and said RUN! Landed in my foot. He is an idiot...lol
So yes, I do think the avarage person can be irresponsible regularly. Just not all of the time....hopefully.

 

[msmitht]

:lol:



If you don't train with them full speed but you believe that "[you] play the way [you] practice" then why bother to teach them?

Pax,

Chris

When I said "we" I was generalizing. I.e., not being specific to me and/or my school. Atemi waza is important but can not be taught at full power. I will concede that they, vital point striking(not that dillman garbage or neck stomping/fish hooking crap) can be taught at full speed to advanced practitioners.

 

[chrispillertkd]

When I said "we" I was generalizing. I.e., not being specific to me and/or my school. Atemi waza is important but can not be taught at full power. I will concede that they, vital point striking(not that dillman garbage or neck stomping/fish hooking crap) can be taught at full speed to advanced practitioners.

Interesting.

I'd still be interested in your thoughts on not teaching such techniques at full power if you really believe "the way we play is the way we fight." If you don't train them full power it seems you would think they would not be used at full power in a self-defense situation.

Pax,

Chris