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

[Kong Soo Do]

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.

100% agreement. All that is really needed is the correct mind set, a plan and a few proven go-to movements for the vast majority of altercations.

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.

Sure, that can help to an extent. But in modern society martial arts are not what they use to be in the 'ole' days. Allow me to clarify that statement. Martial arts, in large part, were originally designed to inflict the most damage possible in the shortest amount of time possible to either effect a successful escape from an altercation or overcome an enemy during battle. Pretty simple. And so was the training for all intents and purposes. Nowadays the martial arts have morphed into competition, exercise and social interaction. That's all fine (although I am strictly against children being in competitions because it is, imo, very hypocritical but that's anther thread for another time). But for getting off the couch and away from the damn video games the martial arts a big win.

But this means that the neighborhood dojo/dojang is almost certainly going to be sport or social interaction. Again, that's all fine and well. If someone is looking for that they are all over the place. And if they advertise it as such then that's fine as well. But it is not the same as martial arts meant for pure self defense. Two entirely different animals. They can have the same window dressing but they are two entirely different methodologies.

For example, to become proficient in a typical martial art may take quite a while, perhaps years. There are drills and perhaps forms to learn and perfect. Again, that's all fine and well. Self defense on the other hand, if it is true SD should take a very short amount of time. And if it isn't then it isn't true SD. Let's use Charles Nelson as an example (since I'm rereading his material again at the moment). Mr. Nelson taught SD for five decades. He had positive reviews and endorsements from military, police, security and private citizens alike who used his system in real world encounters in NYC. Many of which were truly violent altercations involving weapons. He started off with 15 lessons. Now, again to be clear and in line with what I've said in my posts above, that doesn't mean that the person is now bullet proof or that they can compete in a cage match against a gorilla. But what he offered was gross motor skills that were stupid-simple and worked. And people, after a very short duration of training were able to successfully defend themselves in a variety of encounters. By the way, one of the things he instilled on day one was the will to live/survive and do what it took to go home. Some people walked away after 15 lessons with some life long useable skills. Some folks trained with him for years or decades to hone those skills or because they were also instructors (many martial arts instructors trained with him). But that training was based on the same few go-to skills within the 15 lessons.

And I would encourage any instructor that doesn't specialize in self defense, but wants to offer it to his/her students, to seek out a competent SD instructor and learn the methodology. Now if the student base doesn't want it, don't waste your time unless you personally want it. But if some students would like more substance than what is normally taught then learn and then teach it. Just make sure the SD instructor is actually a SD instructor. Anyone can say they teach SD just like anyone can say they teach effective skills for a tournament. Make sure they have the proper credentials/experience in either case.

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.

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.

I suppose that depends on whether or not a 9 year old girl is the average student for your school. But it also depends upon what is taught and how it's taught. A properly taught 9 year old girl with the proper mind set can accomplish quite a bit. Plus they have the element of surprise on their side. There have been news stores of young girls that have held off home invasions with the family rifle because someone taught them properly. As with fighting, doesn't mean you're ready to join special forces and go fight the barbarian hordes, but as Mr. Nelson was fond of saying, in a fight the technique only has to work once.

 

[drop bear]

100% agreement. All that is really needed is the correct mind set, a plan and a few proven go-to movements for the vast majority of altercations

This is because the standard isn't set very high. And most people get away with knowing a little bit.

Very similar to the success of first aid. For the same reason. You can save lives with a limited amount of knowledge.

On the other hand if I was to put someone in the ring he would need a larger skill set or at least a more refined skill set.

Now the advantage people have is that they are complimentary skills if done correctly rather than conflicting skills. So you can learn the tactics of self defence and use the techniques of martial arts.

 

[PhotonGuy]

So in this thread there has been talk about how long it takes to reach a certain level of proficiency and its been mostly discussed in months and years, six months, a year, three years, et. Well how about this? Lets say you start training in a martial art and you train three times a week for an hour each time. You take three classes a week and each class is an hour long. So after three years of training you've reached a certain level of proficiency. Now, when you do the math, three classes a week, each being an hour long, that comes to approximately 150 hours a year. So after three years you've put in 450 hours of training.

Now, lets say you train six hours a week. Maybe you attend longer classes or maybe you take classes more often or maybe you train on your own to supplement the training you do in class. Whatever the case if you train six hours a week you will have trained for 450 hours in just a year and a half. Now whether it takes you three years to train for 450 hours or a year and a half to train 450 hours the fact remains that 450 hours is 450 hours any way you look at it. It doesn't matter whether its spread over three years or over a year and a half its the same length of time that you've spent training. Its been said here before that you can't rush your progress in martial arts and that there are no shortcuts. Well this isn't rushing nor is it a shortcut. If you were to rush it or try to take a shortcut that would mean if you were to try to get the same results of training for 450 hours after training for just, say, 300 hours. But the fact remains that if you train for 450 hours if you spread it out over three years or one and a half years the time you spent training remains the same.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

So in this thread there has been talk about how long it takes to reach a certain level of proficiency and its been mostly discussed in months and years, six months, a year, three years, et. Well how about this? Lets say you start training in a martial art and you train three times a week for an hour each time. You take three classes a week and each class is an hour long. So after three years of training you've reached a certain level of proficiency. Now, when you do the math, three classes a week, each being an hour long, that comes to approximately 150 hours a year. So after three years you've put in 450 hours of training.

Now, lets say you train six hours a week. Maybe you attend longer classes or maybe you take classes more often or maybe you train on your own to supplement the training you do in class. Whatever the case if you train six hours a week you will have trained for 450 hours in just a year and a half. Now whether it takes you three years to train for 450 hours or a year and a half to train 450 hours the fact remains that 450 hours is 450 hours any way you look at it. It doesn't matter whether its spread over three years or over a year and a half its the same length of time that you've spent training. Its been said here before that you can't rush your progress in martial arts and that there are no shortcuts. Well this isn't rushing nor is it a shortcut. If you were to rush it or try to take a shortcut that would mean if you were to try to get the same results of training for 450 hours after training for just, say, 300 hours. But the fact remains that if you train for 450 hours if you spread it out over three years or one and a half years the time you spent training remains the same.

Hours can be a viable scale to judge the effectiveness of a system when used against actual results. We need to confine this to self-defense since that was the focus of the OP. As I've discussed in other posts in the thread, you simply need to look at what is already out there and how has it performed. Boatman edged weapon defense is less than 16 hours in duration, yet it is widely regarded as one of the (if not statistically) the best. A wide range of L.E. agencies in several countries use it. It has document real world uses-of-force to show it's level of effectiveness. So one could say that if it takes more than 8-12 hours to become effective in an edged weapon encounter that the wrong material is being taught. Caveat, we're not talking Hollywood fantasy knife fights but rather real world common attacks. So it really shouldn't take 6 months or a year or multiple years to gain proficiency against an edged weapon attack. At least to the extent that you are successful in defending your life or the life of another. Doesn't necessarily mean you are unscathed, but you have disabled your attacker and lived another day. If someone isn't proficient in a short amount of time then either they just don't have the heart/mentality to survive an attack OR they are not being taught the best possible way to defend themselves.

Same with other forms of attack. As mentioned, WWII combatives have been effective in on and off duty altercations. The training time is incredibly short. Charles Nelson SD has had documented successes on/off duty for decades with 15 or less lessons taken (figure that's about 15 hours or less). So if it's taking months or years then I'll simply say the wrong material is being taught or the methodology is wrong. And again, it is possible that the person themselves are to blame in isolated cases. But I'll say, and try not to offend by saying it, that most instructors in modern martial arts think they know what SD training is, but actually don't. SD can be continually trained for as long as you like, but to have some general proficiency takes...or should take, a very short amount of time. If it isn't, the wrong material/methodology is being taught to the student and by default the student should not be blamed.

 

[drop bear]

So in this thread there has been talk about how long it takes to reach a certain level of proficiency and its been mostly discussed in months and years, six months, a year, three years, et. Well how about this? Lets say you start training in a martial art and you train three times a week for an hour each time. You take three classes a week and each class is an hour long. So after three years of training you've reached a certain level of proficiency. Now, when you do the math, three classes a week, each being an hour long, that comes to approximately 150 hours a year. So after three years you've put in 450 hours of training.

Now, lets say you train six hours a week. Maybe you attend longer classes or maybe you take classes more often or maybe you train on your own to supplement the training you do in class. Whatever the case if you train six hours a week you will have trained for 450 hours in just a year and a half. Now whether it takes you three years to train for 450 hours or a year and a half to train 450 hours the fact remains that 450 hours is 450 hours any way you look at it. It doesn't matter whether its spread over three years or over a year and a half its the same length of time that you've spent training. Its been said here before that you can't rush your progress in martial arts and that there are no shortcuts. Well this isn't rushing nor is it a shortcut. If you were to rush it or try to take a shortcut that would mean if you were to try to get the same results of training for 450 hours after training for just, say, 300 hours. But the fact remains that if you train for 450 hours if you spread it out over three years or one and a half years the time you spent training remains the same.

Yeah. Pretty much. And that seems to accurately refect in ability in my experience.

The guys who train full time get these massive jumps in skill level.