I may not be exactly in the demographic that was solicited but this is an interesting recurring theme.
Hi Dennis,
Ha, you might not be... but then again, it wasn't really aimed at anyone other than the OP. All other takes on my comments are bonuses, really!
Tend to agree. But, this reminds me of the thread that discussed what qualified as successfull self defense instruction. We had trouble agreeing on terms and may not have resolved much in the long run. It is probably generally accepted that martial arts schools are marketed as teaching self "defense" and I believe a lot of students have expectations that their training actually provides this. So I think it is fair to ask if the training actually delivers on the promise.
Yeah, there were a couple of those threads... and I agree that, if a martial art school is saying it offers self defence training, it should deliver on that... which means the teacher making the claim should understand exactly what it means... but, sadly, most seem to equate martial arts with dealing with violence (without realising that no martial art deals with anything other than it's own form/context for violence), and "dealing with violence" with self defence/protection, and neither of those are actually true.
I don't have extensive street fighting experience, but in discussions with a relative few who do, controlling the fight seemed to be of primary importance. The general theme seemed to be the use of "sucker punches" and overwhelming force at the outset. Don't give the opponent a chance to defend. Does that resonate as true among those with street experience?
Well, yes and no. Acting first and decisively is the way I'd put it... often meaning pre-emptive striking, set-ups that limit the likelihood of you being a victim of such a tactic yourself, and so on. But it's also going to depend on the aims you go into it with... self defence will be predicated on the idea of getting out as safely as you can... security work/bouncers don't have that as their primary focus, as their focus is to control undesirable elements until they are removed from the environment that the security is being paid to look after... police might have a focus of safely engaging and restraining/arresting, rather than getting away... and a social predator might just want to hurt someone, so won't leave unless they are hurt themselves, or feel in danger of being hurt. Each of those emphasises will dictate a large or small change to the tactical approach being applied.
And what constitutes defense. Is the goal successful disarms? Or survival? It seems to me that the philosophy of defense here would significantly affect what was taught.
In the context of gun defence? I'd say avoiding being shot... which will begin with understanding the likelihood of someone being armed (either open or concealed carry), awareness of where the weapon might be, recognition of tactical positioning, body language, and de-escalation to reduce the likelihood of the gun being brought into the situation in the first place, all before we're even dealing with the need for a disarm. But, when the gun is in play, the aim is to be in a safe position where you're not going to be shot... disarms are important as it takes away the opponent's ability to continue to threaten or use the weapon, so it's one way of achieving a secondary aim.
Completely agree. While I can see where a certain practitioner's techniques would appear to be highly effective in the dojo. How do I know that any of that translates to effective technique in the street? My primary self defense training was a mixture of Kajukempo and Tang Soo Do, taught by a man who had extensive combat experience in Vietnam (including hand to hand). Does that mean it would translate to effective technique by me on the street? How do we establish criteria for something that occurs so rarely in most modern societies. I don't think I know more than one or two practitioners who have actually had to use their training for self defense. All I can comfortably say for myself is I probably can fight better than before my training. That doesn't mean I'll be successful if I take on an experienced street fighter with no formal martial arts training.
Yep, agreed with all of this. In terms of knowing if it'll "work", well, you can't. All you can do is test it as realistically as you can, research and come to understand how real violence differs from the dojo, and stay as honest in your training as you can.
Until there is some general consensus as to what constitutes self defense and what techniques are appropriate; how can you determine what the correct training mixture is?
It all comes down to context. What is most likely to be required here is, as mentioned, different to what is most likely to be required in the US... or in Japan. Question what you're doing, as well as how and why, and ensure it fits with your requirements. I'd honestly be doing my students a disservice if I spent a lot of time on gun defence... it'd be taking time away from what they actually need... but having a large focus on knife defence (here) is a very good plan... it's the most likely weapon they'll deal with, followed by improvised blunt impact weapons. So my mixture teaching here is different to what it would be elsewhere... there isn't one single "correct" mixture. Even going to a different city in Australia, I'd completely re-assess what I'm showing and why, as I might need to do more of one thing, and less of something else, depending on the most likely assaults there.
Yes, this has been discussed numerous times. I think that the SP part is something that is, more often than not, left out of training. The majority of what's taught today is what I call the "During Phase". The dealing with the grab, punch, kick, etc. The "Before" and "After" parts...not so much. Before meaning what could've we done to avoid the situation altogether or verbally defuse is, and the after, meaning, dealing with the aftermath of the situation. ie: the legal aspect, etc.
It's not really "left out", so much as not there in the first place. It's not what martial arts deal with.
Ha, yeah, I was a little... vague. I'll see if I can clarify.
Will one martial art do? No. You need a lot of education that comes from outside of martial arts study itself, so you'll need to supplement the martial art (physical skills) with self defence/protection training (de-escalation, awareness, knowledge of adrenalized response, predator tactics, pre-fight indicators, dealing with post-event trauma, dealing with post-event fallout such as legal repercussions, knowledge of different forms of assault [they're not all physical], knowledge of laws in your area, and more).
Or do you need many? Nope. As a physical base, many martial arts are fairly equal when it's all said and done. Some will specialize in one or another aspect or range, but that's about it. Additionally, a single art might deal with more than a limited methodology/aspect, or it might get you so skilled in a single area that other arts aren't needed. Alternatively, you might want to get a wider appreciation of methodologies and approaches, in which case, go for cross- or multi-art training... it's not needed, but it might be desired.
I can agree and disagree with this.
Okay.
Yep, that was the point.
I'll disagree. See my other reply.
Sure, and I know the reasons... but the statement from the OP was a definite (ground defence is a must), I was pointing out that, well, it's not. It's a very good idea in todays MMA-aware world, but it's not a "must".
Just for the sake of curiosity, do you think Hapkido or Aikido primarily teach fighting or self protection?
As you seem to have quoted myself there, I assume the question was for me?
I think they both teach via the medium of combative or fighting techniques... which isn't the same as saying they teach fighting, and certainly isn't saying they teach self protection... nor do I think they teach the same thing as each other.
An interesting thought that occurs to me: When I studied TKD, it was understood, and often pointed out, that we should always try to avoid a fight. If we could not, then we were free to defend ourselves with what TKD we had learned. The Hapkido that I studied frowned on fighting as well, but there was no restriction on defense. In fact, what we were taught was mostly defensive in nature. Much of it could be used offensively, but that wasn't the thrust of our training.
And honestly, that's not teaching anything. It's just lip service.
I will agree we weren't given instruction on methods of avoiding fights. I think doing that was just part of life's lessons people were expected to learn.
Which is what I'm talking about... you go to a martial arts school, ostensibly for "self defence", and they basically say "you should do this, but you should go and figure out how for yourself"? Do they suggest you defend yourself with kicks, but hey, go and see if you can figure out how to kick by yourself?
Hmm...
I look at aikido as a I do ad Tai Chi Chuan. Internal arts for self protection and self improvement. Something to be used by the quite guy that don't fight but if pushed would put a hurting on you. Hapkido is the same to me but it also has some external for attacking. Yes, it would depend on yhe instructor because I am sure combat Hapkido isn't taught the same as Hapkido in Korea.
So you're defining things based on what you think the physical techniques are (offensive or defensive)... might not be the best way to go about it. I'm rather fond of telling my guys that some of the most brutal, nasty, offensive stuff I've ever come across is in Taiji... and it really should be remembered that Ueshiba was essentially a hard-man leg-breaker for ultra right wing groups prior to WWII... hardly "the quiet guy that doesn't fight"...
My point is that you're perhaps looking far too superficially at these arts... which might go further in the way you see all of them.
Well I do think that most arts teach all range of attacks but at the same time most have a certain range they perfer. Yet some are weaker in the grappling and some are weaker in the weapons field. I have notice on some web sites of martial artist that they may be well rounded or maybe have 5 to 10 disciplines. Maybe they wasn't happy with what they first learned or just love the arts so much they wanted more knowledge.
Martial arts tend to specialize in one range, not deal with "all ranges" at all. When it comes down to it, martial arts are specialist fields. I don't know what you're talking about with the websites and "5 to 10 disciples" (my guys are students, not disciples, for one thing... but more importantly, without anything specific [what arts? What do they teach? What does student number have to do with anything?], it really doesn't say anything to me)...
I myself plan on continuing my training in the arts. While I have training in kickboxing and bjj with no gi, I am going to be training in fma.
As you can tell one is stand up with limited grappling, one ground fighting, and one with weapon and grappling. To me this is the classic training of a ma. Strikes, grappling, and weapons.
Okay. Remember, of course, that that's your take on things, and isn't necessarily reflected in reality... it all comes down to context. What a martial artist is is very dependant on the time and culture that you're dealing with... what might be called "the classic training" approach might not be something you'd recognise...
Do you need to be heavily advance to protect yourself? Nope. But having experience in them would help.
Sure.
You can argue that fighting and self protection is are two different things. But I am not trying to turn this into a debate of self-defense and having awareness. We have seen too many altercations when someone is tricked into going somewhere and then being jumped. I am talking about only the physical side here.
Well, this seemed to be in reference to my comments, so I'll look at this as well.
Fighting and self protection are two different things. But, if you're only dealing with the physical sides of things, the first aspect (for self defence on a purely combative physical plane) is to come to an understanding of what the most likely assaults in your area are, and then gear your training towards that. And, in that case, you only need one approach, provided it actually deals with what you're needing it to. And that certainly doesn't reduce the list to only one.
I will agree that if you can control range then you can hit or not get hit when wanted too.
Well, you have a better chance to, sure.
No, but every fighting system that man have created is limited and usually you will have to fill in the gaps. Besides these are three arts I wanted to to learn anyway.
If you want to learn them, great. But you do realize that the reason there are limitations is because such things are required... they're necessary, and without them, there's no way anything could be of any value. All arts deal with their particular context... which gives their "limits"... it's not a bad thing, in fact, it's a very good one. There are only ever "gaps" when you try to apply something that has one context in a very different one.
So, you believing someone with the system of just boxing or caporeia can handle a situation like a knife threat?
Well, due to it's context and methodology, capoeira wouldn't be my first choice against a knife... boxing, though, certainly has tactical methodologies that can be quite effective... it's still not the best for it, as that's not it's context either, but sure, it can be used in such a situation if necessary.
I can agree with the first part. As I said in my previous post, those things that you list are just as important as the physical side of the arts. As for the 2nd part...yup, I can agree with that as well. I'd say a lot of it (and this is just my opinion) has to do with the way the art is taught, which ultimately leads to the teacher knowing what he/she is doing. I suppose it really comes down to what each person wants. I enjoy cross training because it does give me a more in depth understanding of things. 
