How much time for a beginner to practically use your system?

[Tony Dismukes]

There really is a huge difference in the starting level for different students.

Some people come to their first class and they can already fight - they have good natural instincts, coordination, fighting spirit and possibly some real world experience with scrapping. If a student like this has an open mind for learning they could plausibly learn a basic technique in their first class and actually apply it if they got into a fight the next day.

Other people come to their first class and are completely uncoordinated, have no awareness of their own bodies, and are prone to freezing up under pressure. These students may take weeks or months just to start getting a handle on basic movements and learning how not to shut down when confronted with an attack.

I would guess that in BJJ the average student who trains 2-3 classes per week after 6 months has internalized the fundamentals enough to have a significant advantage over an untrained opponent if a fight goes to the ground. It's harder to say how long it takes for an average student to have reliable skills in the standup portion of a fight, because there is such variance in the degree to which different BJJ instructors actually spend time on standup fighting. Some have it as a regular part of the curriculum, others hardly address it at all. If you are looking at a school where standup fighting and dealing with strikes is part of the core curriculum, then I would say a year of training should get the average student to the level of having some reliable usable skills in all aspects of a fight, with a strong advantage if the fight goes to the ground.

 

[PhotonGuy]

When you train your "door guarding" technique, you should train "everyday". Usually these kind of techniques will require a lot of training time. The more time that you can put in daily, the better result that you can get out of it.

So for how long everyday should you train in the "door guarding" techniques? There are some people who do have that level of devotion where they train every day and then there are those who just do it as a hobby or for fun and might only train a few times a week or less.

 

[Buka]

The gist of the OP applies to fighting. So.....how are we to really know? Do a lot of our students get into fights, especially right after they start training? God, let's hope not.

Some people that walk in the door already know how to defend themselves. But I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the average Joe/Jane. I like to think that students DO learn things right from the get go. Especially if they've never studied the Arts before. Some of those things might even be about fighting and defending themselves, but it's usually through something you say or do. For them to actually do it takes a little longer, especially to do it well, especially against resistance, especially under stress. Fighting, defending yourself, is not a simple thing. Ain't no instant coffee in fighting. Ain't no instant coffee in Martial Arts, either.

 

[Jaeimseu]

With my own students (TKD), I expect that on average it will take between 6 months to a year to have any kind of comfort sparring with fellow Taekwondoin. For real fighting, I'd say over a year in most cases.

The genesis of this thread stemmed from reflecting about my own experiences as a student in Taekwondo and in BJJ. I was just curious what others' expectations are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I hope this won't (but fear it will) degrade into a style versus style contest, but how much time, on average, does it take in your system for a beginner to develop practical skills (reliably doable in a "fight") in your system/style/school? If your school is different from others in your style in this regard, please explain how.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After the first class. That isn't meant as a boast but rather the goal of our training methodology. And it doesn't mean a student can take out a gang of ninjas after one class. But I stress to new students that I want them to walk away from the very first class with information and some level of skill that they could use if attacked in the parking lot on the way to the car. Whether it's information about situational awareness to prevent an altercation or some useable skill to employ if forced to use force.

What we teach begins with stupid-simple. Then we build upon that and tailor it to the specific students strengths. Nothing fancy, nothing fluffy. Many gross-motor skill combative systems take very little time in which to become proficient.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

For real fighting, I'd say over a year in most cases.

I'm going to be very careful how I word this because I don't want it to come off as a challenge to what you are teaching in a negative or unfriendly way. And I preface my remarks from the perspective of a 'fight' being an attack from a violent aggressor in an uncontrolled environment in which there are no rules.

In LEO circles we teach that a fight averages 7 seconds in duration with injury occurring in the first 3 seconds. A fight is a chaotic, fluid and violent situation. Refined motor skills are generally impaired due to adrenaline dump which affects manual dexterity and can cause tunnel vision and auditory exclusion. Generally speaking, gross motor skills are going to be predominately used in response to the attack and a person will have a small number of go-to movements to employ.

Systems such as WWII combatives were taught in terms of hours over the course of days. In other words the training was very short in duration. Yet it was extremely effective. Well over 2000 successful cases have been documented, over a fourth of them were deadly force. Boatman edged weapons, for normal line officers was 8 hours (or less) in total training yet is widely regarded as one of the most successful edged weapon defense systems available with actual LEO documented statistics. As I've spoken of before, prior to implementation of the system, LEO were injured 86% of the time in edged weapon encounters. Within two years of the systems being implemented the injury rate fell to 17%. This was in G.B. and forgive me if the stats are slightly off as I'm going off memory. But I know I'm within a % or two.

Now to be clear, I'm not talking about turning someone into Chuck Norris in a day. I'm not talking about the ability to take on hordes of savages without breaking a sweat. And personal intestinal fortitude goes a long way. But these (and other systems) have allowed ordinary people to successfully defend themselves in typical (and sometimes atypical) violent situations with a minimal of training. And I personally know of two cases in which, with no additional training, the person successfully defended themselves decades after the initial training because the training was useable from long term memory. In other words, it was so stupid-simple that decades later they were able to recall and physically use the training. One of these cases was in the news maybe 15 years ago where a WWII vet trained in WWII combatives used it against a young robber in a convenience store. The CIA actually got involved from a research perspective to find out why the vet was able to use it so effectively. The funny part is that responding L.E. didn't believe the 'old guy' took out the young guy (armed with an edged weapon) so brutally until they reviewed the security camera footage.

So my question would be; why is it taking over a year for a student to be comfortable in their ability to handle an attacker in a real fight? What skills are being taught that take over a year to develop to the point that the student has a reasonable chance of personal defense?

 

[Phobius]

You compare with trained soldiers? They are trained a lot longer than a few hours on discipline, fear, exhaustion, pain, morality and have probably faced death already. Any additional training they achieve will of course be usable.

Same goes for a martial artist, having trained in other arts you can learn important stuff in just an hour or two from another system that may save your life one day.

An average Joe is slightly out of shape, bad coordination and whatnot. First that person must learn to focus, once focus is on what is being taught they will become ready for fight a lot quicker.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The gist of the OP applies to fighting. So.....how are we to really know? Do a lot of our students get into fights, especially right after they start training? God, let's hope not.

You don't have to get into fight to test your skill. I like to teach my guys to use "toe push kick" to deal with their opponent's punches. One guy holds a kicking shield, run toward you with full force and full speed. You try to use your kick to stop his incoming force. If your opponent's forward momentum cannot push you back, you win that round. Otherwise, you lose that round. Test this for 15 rounds daily and record the result. Keep this result for at least 6 months and understand where your successful/failure ratio is.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The gist of the OP applies to fighting. So.....how are we to really know? Do a lot of our students get into fights, especially right after they start training? God, let's hope not.

Some people that walk in the door already know how to defend themselves. But I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the average Joe/Jane. I like to think that students DO learn things right from the get go. Especially if they've never studied the Arts before. Some of those things might even be about fighting and defending themselves, but it's usually through something you say or do. For them to actually do it takes a little longer, especially to do it well, especially against resistance, especially under stress. Fighting, defending yourself, is not a simple thing. Ain't no instant coffee in fighting. Ain't no instant coffee in Martial Arts, either.

He also mentions doable which has no baring on the skill level of an opponent. Doable to me is something where a person feels comfortable enough to do the technique in a real fight. I'm not factoring in skill or any of those other things that matter in a fight. A lot of the comments seem to be factoring a desired skilled level that is probably based on a specific technique which most likely isn't basic.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

You compare with trained soldiers?

Yes, I did in part of my post. I've been in the military. Soldiers, while in good condition generally, are not the killing machines seen in the movies. The average soldier receives a small portion of training in basic training and maybe periodically afterwards. WWII combatives were no different. After basic training, those taking WWII combatives received something like 16 hours of training. I honestly don't remember the exact number of hours as it's been many years since I've looked at the stats. Suffice it to say that it was not a lot of training. But then, it didn't have to be a lot of training.

LE is in the same vein and I've been an instructor for nearly 20 years for our agency. IIRC, in the academy the defensive tactic portion is 106 hours. Afterwards you get maybe 2-4 hours per year. In general, this is sufficient because a good portion of the training is gross motor skilled based. Not Bruce Lee, not a Hollywood wrecking machine, not a bad azz but enough to be proficient for what is reasonably expected in the job. More of course is always better, but you get what you get and make do.

In our own school we keep a data base of incidents students have found themselves in over the years. Just one example is a woman who after just a handful of classes successfully defended herself against a date rape. She was maybe 5'3 and the male attacker much larger (around 6' and much heavier). She wasn't Wonder Woman, but did have sufficient skills after a short training time to defend herself in this situation. We've had Corrections Officers prevent inmates from escaping using what we've taught as another example.

Nothing magic, just time tested in various situations i.e. battle field to the street.

 

[Phobius]

Yes, I did in part of my post. I've been in the military. Soldiers, while in good condition generally, are not the killing machines seen in the movies. The average soldier receives a small portion of training in basic training and maybe periodically afterwards. WWII combatives were no different. After basic training, those taking WWII combatives received something like 16 hours of training. I honestly don't remember the exact number of hours as it's been many years since I've looked at the stats. Suffice it to say that it was not a lot of training. But then, it didn't have to be a lot of training.

LE is in the same vein and I've been an instructor for nearly 20 years for our agency. IIRC, in the academy the defensive tactic portion is 106 hours. Afterwards you get maybe 2-4 hours per year. In general, this is sufficient because a good portion of the training is gross motor skilled based. Not Bruce Lee, not a Hollywood wrecking machine, not a bad azz but enough to be proficient for what is reasonably expected in the job. More of course is always better, but you get what you get and make do.

In our own school we keep a data base of incidents students have found themselves in over the years. Just one example is a woman who after just a handful of classes successfully defended herself against a date rape. She was maybe 5'3 and the male attacker much larger (around 6' and much heavier). She wasn't Wonder Woman, but did have sufficient skills after a short training time to defend herself in this situation. We've had Corrections Officers prevent inmates from escaping using what we've taught as another example.

Nothing magic, just time tested in various situations i.e. battle field to the street.

Do you track those unfortunate to not come out on top? Not asked as negative remark, I am curious.

Where I live most people have trained martial arts to some extent that are interested in assault. Then again that is not including rape attempts.

Live in an area where martial arts was huge a few years back.

 

[WaterGal]

You compare with trained soldiers? They are trained a lot longer than a few hours on discipline, fear, exhaustion, pain, morality and have probably faced death already. Any additional training they achieve will of course be usable.

Same goes for a martial artist, having trained in other arts you can learn important stuff in just an hour or two from another system that may save your life one day.

An average Joe is slightly out of shape, bad coordination and whatnot. First that person must learn to focus, once focus is on what is being taught they will become ready for fight a lot quicker.

Yeah, I don't think it's "fair" to compare the training needs of an in-shape 20-year old man who just finished basic training and is prepared to go off to war to fight for his country, with the kind of people that come in to start taking classes at your neighborhood martial arts school, i.e. a shy 9-year old with asthma and her overweight 40-year office-worker dad. The baseline is different.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Do you track those unfortunate to not come out on top? Not asked as negative remark, I am curious.

I track every incident that I know of personally or have been reported back to me. I've never know of a student losing or having one report back that 'hey this stuff didn't work'. That isn't meant as a boast and keep in mind that I teach discretion is the better part of valor. In other words I teach military (off duty), L.E. (both on and off duty) and private citizens. Military and L.E. usually have the advantage of numbers and/or tools at their disposal i.e. baton, taser, firearm, O.C. spray, communications. To the best of my knowledge, no one that I've personally trained has been seriously hurt (beyond bumps, bruises or scraps). As far as private citizens, my self defense starts first and foremost with situational awareness, verbal deesculation and not putting yourself unnecessarily in harms way. So my students who are Joe and Jane private citizen don't go out looking for a fight. Over the years, of the ones that have been attacked, they've 'won' i.e. escaped serious injury and prevented the bad guy from doing bad stuff.

I want to be very clear that I'm NOT saying all my students are Billy bad-azz or give that impression. The LEO guys get into a lot of scraps if they stay on the job and part of what I teach involves all the 'toys' on the Batman utility belt. For private citizens, they just don't get into a lot of scraps but of those that have (over the many years I've taught) they've dealt with the situation. I'd like to think that because of the way I train that they've avoided many times over what they've actually had to deal with physically. There is an old saying that in a fight nobody wins and everyone loses. That is true more often than not for a variety of reasons.

There is also a saying that I use frequently with students, fighting isn't a plan, fighting is what you do when the plan fails.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Yeah, I don't think it's "fair" to compare the training needs of an in-shape 20-year old man who just finished basic training and is prepared to go off to war to fight for his country, with the kind of people that come in to start taking classes at your neighborhood martial arts school, i.e. a shy 9-year old with asthma and her overweight 40-year office-worker dad. The baseline is different.

But I also explained in a previous thread that because of a specific type of training, it doesn't matter as much as you'd think. In one of the examples I provided the elderly vet was in his 70's and definitely not in 20-something shape. In another, the man was the town drunk and 50lbs over weight and out of shape. And in another example, one of my personal students was a 20-something, over weight female of about 5'3.

Simple SD isn't about being a superstar or in elite shape. It is about having a fundamentally sound system comprised of simple gross motor skills that have been shown to work in a variety of situations. It is also more about having the will to survive than the skill to survive. A simple, proven system just adds to that equation.

 

[Jaeimseu]

I'm going to be very careful how I word this because I don't want it to come off as a challenge to what you are teaching in a negative or unfriendly way. And I preface my remarks from the perspective of a 'fight' being an attack from a violent aggressor in an uncontrolled environment in which there are no rules.

In LEO circles we teach that a fight averages 7 seconds in duration with injury occurring in the first 3 seconds. A fight is a chaotic, fluid and violent situation. Refined motor skills are generally impaired due to adrenaline dump which affects manual dexterity and can cause tunnel vision and auditory exclusion. Generally speaking, gross motor skills are going to be predominately used in response to the attack and a person will have a small number of go-to movements to employ.

Systems such as WWII combatives were taught in terms of hours over the course of days. In other words the training was very short in duration. Yet it was extremely effective. Well over 2000 successful cases have been documented, over a fourth of them were deadly force. Boatman edged weapons, for normal line officers was 8 hours (or less) in total training yet is widely regarded as one of the most successful edged weapon defense systems available with actual LEO documented statistics. As I've spoken of before, prior to implementation of the system, LEO were injured 86% of the time in edged weapon encounters. Within two years of the systems being implemented the injury rate fell to 17%. This was in G.B. and forgive me if the stats are slightly off as I'm going off memory. But I know I'm within a % or two.

Now to be clear, I'm not talking about turning someone into Chuck Norris in a day. I'm not talking about the ability to take on hordes of savages without breaking a sweat. And personal intestinal fortitude goes a long way. But these (and other systems) have allowed ordinary people to successfully defend themselves in typical (and sometimes atypical) violent situations with a minimal of training. And I personally know of two cases in which, with no additional training, the person successfully defended themselves decades after the initial training because the training was useable from long term memory. In other words, it was so stupid-simple that decades later they were able to recall and physically use the training. One of these cases was in the news maybe 15 years ago where a WWII vet trained in WWII combatives used it against a young robber in a convenience store. The CIA actually got involved from a research perspective to find out why the vet was able to use it so effectively. The funny part is that responding L.E. didn't believe the 'old guy' took out the young guy (armed with an edged weapon) so brutally until they reviewed the security camera footage.

So my question would be; why is it taking over a year for a student to be comfortable in their ability to handle an attacker in a real fight? What skills are being taught that take over a year to develop to the point that the student has a reasonable chance of personal defense?

I'm using the words "real fight" broadly here, essentially to mean an altercation against a person attacking with negative intent (not sparring). In addition, "self defense" is neither our primary focus, nor is it marketed that way. Like others have said, we teach things from the first class that could be used in defense, but the average student in our school won't be "comfortable" using things in an uncontrolled environment until much later (and to be honest, in some cases never will). Our average student isn't out to learn WWII combatives or edged weapon defense.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Our average student isn't out to learn WWII combatives or edged weapon defense.

I understand that folks take martial arts for a variety of reason. Some to get in shape, some as a social activity and some to compete.

Like others have said, we teach things from the first class that could be used in defense, but the average student in our school won't be "comfortable" using things in an uncontrolled environment until much later (and to be honest, in some cases never will).

If some of the things that are useful for self-defense are taught on day one, why do you think it takes so long for your students? Why do you think some of your students will never be able to use what they have been taught? I would suspect that some just never develop the mentality to not be a victim. Others have a difficult time differentiating sport from defense and when to appropriately apply either in a given situation. And others, and there are a few that I've seen over the years, unfortunately can't walk and chew gum at the same time. In my experience it is usually number one or two. Some just never develop the mindset that they need to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves (or loved ones) and fall into a 'this can't be happening to me' frame of mind. As to the second, I've talked about a TKD student I once had about 15 years ago or so. She was a 2nd Dan and was wonderfully skilled. One of those people that could jump up, spin around and kick a quarter off the top of a door and leave ten cents change. Had more trophies than Carter had little liver pills. But all of her training was sport oriented. Nothing wrong with that as that was her focus. Her dad brought her to me for defense training. I was teaching a yellow belt class at the time and demonstrating a technique we called the 'Linda Blair'. It was a simple takedown using the head. Her eyes got as big as plates and she was terrified at actually having to go hands on with someone. She was use to competition where she stands here, you stand there and someone says 'go' and it was mostly kicking and such with no prolonged physical touching. That was an eye-opener to me. It baffled me at the time that anyone could be a 2nd Dan and have no idea what actual self defense entailed. Unfortunately she didn't stay very long. She was more interested in twirling a lighted staff for some upcoming demonstration than getting into the thick of things.

And again, that is simply my perspective based on the experiences I've had throughout the years. Why would you suppose it takes so long for your students? Or why do you feel some will never get there at all?

 

[marques]

It can range from weeks to never... But, let's say:
a) a few years for self-defence.
b) a few months for stand-up sparring.
PS: What is "practically use" or "fight"?

 

[Jaeimseu]

I understand that folks take martial arts for a variety of reason. Some to get in shape, some as a social activity and some to compete.



If some of the things that are useful for self-defense are taught on day one, why do you think it takes so long for your students? Why do you think some of your students will never be able to use what they have been taught? I would suspect that some just never develop the mentality to not be a victim. Others have a difficult time differentiating sport from defense and when to appropriately apply either in a given situation. And others, and there are a few that I've seen over the years, unfortunately can't walk and chew gum at the same time. In my experience it is usually number one or two. Some just never develop the mindset that they need to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves (or loved ones) and fall into a 'this can't be happening to me' frame of mind. As to the second, I've talked about a TKD student I once had about 15 years ago or so. She was a 2nd Dan and was wonderfully skilled. One of those people that could jump up, spin around and kick a quarter off the top of a door and leave ten cents change. Had more trophies than Carter had little liver pills. But all of her training was sport oriented. Nothing wrong with that as that was her focus. Her dad brought her to me for defense training. I was teaching a yellow belt class at the time and demonstrating a technique we called the 'Linda Blair'. It was a simple takedown using the head. Her eyes got as big as plates and she was terrified at actually having to go hands on with someone. She was use to competition where she stands here, you stand there and someone says 'go' and it was mostly kicking and such with no prolonged physical touching. That was an eye-opener to me. It baffled me at the time that anyone could be a 2nd Dan and have no idea what actual self defense entailed. Unfortunately she didn't stay very long. She was more interested in twirling a lighted staff for some upcoming demonstration than getting into the thick of things.

And again, that is simply my perspective based on the experiences I've had throughout the years. Why would you suppose it takes so long for your students? Or why do you feel some will never get there at all?

Essentially, it's many of the things you bring up here. The students who are motivated by the idea of learning real fighting skills obtain them quicker than others. Some students just aren't that worried about that kind of thing.

 

[Buka]

This is a really cool, interesting thread. Love it.

 

[WaterGal]

Simple SD isn't about being a superstar or in elite shape. It is about having a fundamentally sound system comprised of simple gross motor skills that have been shown to work in a variety of situations. It is also more about having the will to survive than the skill to survive. A simple, proven system just adds to that equation.

A lot of it is about psychological factors like "will to survive", self-confidence that you can defend yourself, being mentally ready and willing to use violence against another person, overcoming the instinctive tendency to freeze or flee, having "fighting spirit", etc.

And a lot of people sign their kids (or themselves) up for martial arts classes at the neighborhood dojo because their kids (or themselves).... just don't have that. They're meek and lack confidence, or anxious and fearful, or undisciplined, and they hope that martial arts can help them grow as people and overcome that stuff.

And it can, but that doesn't happen instantly. Regardless of how effective the techniques in your style are, I think it's totally reasonable to say "an average student probably won't be able to successfully fight a 'bad guy' for quite a while" when your average beginner is a shy 9-year old that's scared of hurting people.