I am a Self-Taught MA Expert

[First Action]

I dont think a 'trained' fighter will always beat a self taught on, it would depend on the level of the training, who trains harder, the style, experience etc. However, i think the self taught martial artist would definately benefit from formal lessons (as long as they were taught the right things)

 

[Tez3]

It's like in Terminator where John Conner's wife is the doctor for the human settlement, even though she's really a veterinarian. Close enough right. Or when old peopel refer to me as a "computer whiz" (gotta love that word, only old people use it). Sure I know my way around a computer, but I'm in no way a "whiz," I just know more than you.

Actually vets know more than most doctors as they can diagnose, treat as well as operate withrecourse to specialists and in this country are allowed to treat humans whereas doctors aren't allowed to treat animals!

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?

We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.

Therefore aside from all the youtube MA wannabes that operate in their own video vacuums, do you think there are circumstances in which it is possible to train oneself to become expert in a martial endeavour?

Depends on the endeavor. If the endeavor is to straight punch through boards, develop fitness, or to develop a system of fighting based on backyard fighting with your friends, sure. Straight punching through boards is not all that complex, developing fitness in a martial arts based vehicle is not an MA, though I'd allow for it to be a martial endeavor. If you develop your own system based on backyard fighting with your friends, then yes, you are expert in that system, as you will be the only one who knows it. The effectiveness of said system is another thing entirely.

Is it possible perhaps by employing empirical "research" training methods over a suitable period of time? Or are empirical methods never any substitute for formal handed-down training?

Empirical study does not always receive its fair due, but there are some techniques that simply cannot be taught without being taught. If the person is going to claim to be "expert" in an existing system with no formal training in said system, I'd say absolutely no, though depending upon the system, the nature of their research, and the methods used to test their knowledge, one may be able to learn to be proficient in it.

If the person is developing their own system, I'd say that if they limit the system to strikes that are of a gross motor skill nature and through trial and error in sparring with people who can fight, yes, a system could be developed and the one developing it would be "expert" by virtue of practice and having developed said system.

Becoming expert (as opposed to simply learning) in more technically difficult arts without formal training is virtually impossible.

For example, I would never learn kendo from or consider expert in any person who had not received formal training. Kendo is, comparatively simple, when looked at along side other martial arts. Until one has trained in it for a long period of time, they will never realize the depth of the art or the myriad of things that go into it. Simply teaching the correct way to perform a straight down strike with the shinai is time consuming because it involves a lot of factors that people simply will not think of on their own. Because the things that go into shinai strikes were developed in cutting with a real sword (rather than a baseball bat or an axe), which were themselves developed over centuries of sword development, one simply cannot become expert in kendo through empirical research or watching Youtube.

Sad thing is, when those guys come into a kendo class, they're unteachable because they cannot let go of being 'expert' in their self taught style. I have dealt with more than one over they years. They always get frustrated and quit.

Is it possible to generate fighting techniques from scratch by recursively defending oneself against attack in a training situation? Or would this in itself require sufficient martial grounding beforehand?

Yes, it is possible. That is how martial systems began in prehistory: trial and error and likely study of others' trials and errors, recording in some way (be it written, drawn, or memorized) the methods that were developed.

With sufficient refining on these techniques would it be possible to defend oneself against and/or defeat an opponent formally trained in a similar style martial art to your "new" style in which you have become a self-taught expert? Or will a trained fighter always beat a self-taught expert?

Hard to say on that. Too many factors to consider, including the art in question.

In kendo or BJJ, hands down no: the trained person will come out on top. Too many subtleties that give the trained person the advantage, especially in kendo where size is not as much of a factor.

If you're talking just plain striking arts, its anybody's guess: things like age, gender, weight, size, general athleticism, speed, agility, strength, creativity and natural punching ability are all factors that are not at all related or not directly related to formal training, all of which can have a major effect on the outcome of a fight.

For example, a 6'4" 245 pound defensive tackle with no MA training will most likely beat in a fight a third dan female taekwondoist who weight 130 pounds or a third dan male taekwondoist who weighs 185 pounds. Tackle can hit and can take a hit and probably is pretty nimble for a guy his size.

In fact, the football player could, in theory, develop an SD/fighting system based on football, which he will be highly trained in already, and have it work well pretty well for him and guys like him. He could even add in punting style kicks. It may not work so well for a guy 5'8" tall and 150 pounds, however. But it would work for him and he'd be "expert" in it.

Daniel

 

[sgtmac_46]

Depends on the endeavor. If the endeavor is to straight punch through boards, develop fitness, or to develop a system of fighting based on backyard fighting with your friends, sure. Straight punching through boards is not all that complex, developing fitness in a martial arts based vehicle is not an MA, though I'd allow for it to be a martial endeavor. If you develop your own system based on backyard fighting with your friends, then yes, you are expert in that system, as you will be the only one who knows it. The effectiveness of said system is another thing entirely.


Empirical study does not always receive its fair due, but there are some techniques that simply cannot be taught without being taught. If the person is going to claim to be "expert" in an existing system with no formal training in said system, I'd say absolutely no, though depending upon the system, the nature of their research, and the methods used to test their knowledge, one may be able to learn to be proficient in it.

If the person is developing their own system, I'd say that if they limit the system to strikes that are of a gross motor skill nature and through trial and error in sparring with people who can fight, yes, a system could be developed and the one developing it would be "expert" by virtue of practice and having developed said system.

Becoming expert (as opposed to simply learning) in more technically difficult arts without formal training is virtually impossible.

For example, I would never learn kendo from or consider expert in any person who had not received formal training. Kendo is, comparatively simple, when looked at along side other martial arts. Until one has trained in it for a long period of time, they will never realize the depth of the art or the myriad of things that go into it. Simply teaching the correct way to perform a straight down strike with the shinai is time consuming because it involves a lot of factors that people simply will not think of on their own. Because the things that go into shinai strikes were developed in cutting with a real sword (rather than a baseball bat or an axe), which were themselves developed over centuries of sword development, one simply cannot become expert in kendo through empirical research or watching Youtube.

Sad thing is, when those guys come into a kendo class, they're unteachable because they cannot let go of being 'expert' in their self taught style. I have dealt with more than one over they years. They always get frustrated and quit.


Yes, it is possible. That is how martial systems began in prehistory: trial and error and likely study of others' trials and errors, recording in some way (be it written, drawn, or memorized) the methods that were developed.


Hard to say on that. Too many factors to consider, including the art in question.

In kendo or BJJ, hands down no: the trained person will come out on top. Too many subtleties that give the trained person the advantage, especially in kendo where size is not as much of a factor.

If you're talking just plain striking arts, its anybody's guess: things like age, gender, weight, size, general athleticism, speed, agility, strength, creativity and natural punching ability are all factors that are not at all related or not directly related to formal training, all of which can have a major effect on the outcome of a fight.

For example, a 6'4" 245 pound defensive tackle with no MA training will most likely beat in a fight a third dan female taekwondoist who weight 130 pounds or a third dan male taekwondoist who weighs 185 pounds. Tackle can hit and can take a hit and probably is pretty nimble for a guy his size.

In fact, the football player could, in theory, develop an SD/fighting system based on football, which he will be highly trained in already, and have it work well pretty well for him and guys like him. He could even add in punting style kicks. It may not work so well for a guy 5'8" tall and 150 pounds, however. But it would work for him and he'd be "expert" in it.

Daniel

And as I heard Guro Dan Inosanto say, you have to respect the physical animal. Some physical animals require an extraordinary amount of physical skill in order to overcome.

A 6'4" 245 pound defensive tackle who can bench press 500 pounds certainly qualifies as a lot of physical animal to overcome.

 

[Nomad]

I have a couple of thoughts on this one.

First, traditionally, many of the progenitors of martial arts learned other formal arts that they then modified based on their personal experience or insight into new arts (see Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, even Funakoshi). They also frequently sought out other good fighters/martial artists both to pressure test their art via challenges and to learn new techniques from one another. So I don't really think any of the arts started in a vacuum. (First, rock kata... pick up rock, throw at enemy! Tomorrow, we try stick).

I also think a requirement for a martial art is to be able to pass on your knowledge and experience to others who don't have the hands on experience. In my opinion, it's not enough to be a good fighter, you also have to codify your strategies/system of fighting enough to be able to accurately pass it on to others.

One problem we see with this quite often arises from the relative lack of pressure testing on many systems in these peaceful times... in other words, inexperienced people have a hard time telling the valuable techniques and principles from the BS that is out there (sometimes all wrapped up in the same system because of poor understanding or interpretation of the techniques, or by deliberate spread of misinformation).

 

[ap Oweyn]

Closest I can come to answer this question is floating another question: "What's the motivation for self-teaching?"

I do believe that someone should make their training their own, and that this takes a lot of introspection, critical thinking, etc. But, in my observation, people who set out to create their own styles are usually motivated by a desire to avoid accountability. Can't be doing it wrong if you're the only person who can define "right."

Further, I think that people who want to self-train are often motivated by wanting to avoid some hardship of group training rather than truly believing that they've got a better way. They don't want to deal with the hierarchical relationships (which don't exist in all settings anyway), the conditioning, the sparring, the inter-student conflict, etc.

Personally, I believe that accountability to something bigger than you is part and parcel of the learning experience. And self-teaching tosses that straight out the window. Unless you're substituting it with some other form of accountability (e.g., a rigorous competitive format).

In short, I don't get it. Why would you want to forego those training relationships?


Stuart

 

[WC_lun]

I welcome and respect your comments thank you WC_lun! I understand entirely the reference to an inferior Wing Chun. I think a standard by which to compare a superior and inferior Wing Chun would be necessary then no? If it is inferior by virtue of having no history or by virtue of having no style or integrity then that is superficial inferiority maybe? If it is inferior because it does not work against opponents then that is the only true measure of inferiority no? I do not know if I am properly making the point I am trying to. If you were through you own relentless trial-and-error to divine a technique that could defend against a certain type of WC strike then is that still inferior because there is no history attached to it? Or is it equal because it works? At one point WC techniques were less than the perfectly refined movements they are now no? Apologies if I am not being clear! thank you

While I enjoy history, it is definitley not what makes one Wing Chun better than another, or any art better. Its not even the training methodoligies. In my opinion, it is if the student uses the concepts and principles of Wing Chun to place an attacker/opponent into recovery mode, controlling the altercation to a satisfactory end. If a person can do that, I respect thier skill and will call them a brother Wing Chunner, no matter what thier lineage or teacher. Of course, the time a person has trained will also matter. I'm not going to judge someone who has trained a week the same as some self-proclaimed grand master who has studied 20 years or more.

I have always had an inate understanding of the mechanics of fighting. That's not saying I was ever a great fighter or could kick everybody's backside. I just could always see and grasp things about fighting that some others seemed to find difficult. That was refined a bit through many years of studying martial arts and some unfortunate encounters. However, even with that natural ability and many years of study, it took a special teacher to show me the real deal and what I had been missing. Maybe it is hubris on my part, but I just cannot see how a person studying alone, no matter how talented they might be, could discover and refine the art of fighting to such a degree as to be an "expert."

 

[MJS]

Wow, I'm a bit late to this thread, but I'll throw in my .02 for ya.

I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?

We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.

Therefore aside from all the youtube MA wannabes that operate in their own video vacuums, do you think there are circumstances in which it is possible to train oneself to become expertin a martial endeavour? Is it possible perhaps by employing empirical "research" training methods over a suitable period of time? Or are empirical methods never any substitute for formal handed-down training?

Is it possible to generate fighting techniques from scratch by recursively defending oneself against attack in a training situation? Or would this in itself require sufficient martial grounding beforehand?

With sufficient refining on these techniques would it be possible to defend oneself against and/or defeat an opponent formally trained in a similar style martial art to your "new" style in which you have become a self-taught expert? Or will a trained fighter always beat a self-taught expert?

Thank you so much for your time and thought

Jenna xo

I think that the potential is there for someone to defend themselves. I mean, anyone can punch, kick, etc, but, the quality of that defense may not be anywhere near as good, as if you had training under a live teacher.

Could someone watch youtube or a tape or dvd or read a book, and pick up things, and attempt to do them? Sure, but IMO, the quality will not be there. Could I watch a Larry Tatum (Kenpo) dvd and pick up something? Sure, but the difference is that I already have a Kenpo background, as well as a teacher. Joe Smith, who thinks Kenpo is cool, but doesnt wanna invest in a school, could watch the same dvd, and attempt to pick up things, but his understanding and ability to perform those things will probably not be too good.

As a ref. tool, sure, but as a sole learning tool..nope.

IMO, anytime someone has good, quality training, that should always give them the edge, but nothing says they still wont get their *** kicked. LOL.

 

[bribrius]

Closest I can come to answer this question is floating another question: "What's the motivation for self-teaching?"

I do believe that someone should make their training their own, and that this takes a lot of introspection, critical thinking, etc. But, in my observation, people who set out to create their own styles are usually motivated by a desire to avoid accountability. Can't be doing it wrong if you're the only person who can define "right."

Further, I think that people who want to self-train are often motivated by wanting to avoid some hardship of group training rather than truly believing that they've got a better way. They don't want to deal with the hierarchical relationships (which don't exist in all settings anyway), the conditioning, the sparring, the inter-student conflict, etc.

Personally, I believe that accountability to something bigger than you is part and parcel of the learning experience. And self-teaching tosses that straight out the window. Unless you're substituting it with some other form of accountability (e.g., a rigorous competitive format).

In short, I don't get it. Why would you want to forego those training relationships?


Stuart

less formality
quicker
you can pick and choose what you wish to learn and your own speed of progress

more discipline. you have to motivate yourself

quality control, instead of learning the seven hundred movements of a art learn the hundred that you like the most and are the most effective.
Anything questionable you wont waste your time learning. Toss it out. without mentioning names a certain one comes to mind where they tossed out a hundred of the ones above blackbelt, revamped the program, added some different ones. If you think about that for a minute that was a hundred things someone before that was learning that someone else suddenly thought was a unnecessary waste of time. How would you like to be the one wasting five years learning a hundred things that were decided were not needed? self decided quality control. If everyone else can screw with a art then why cant you cater it to yourself?

You won't have to learn something then make it your own. You can make your own curriculum and just keep it your own.

More options. Yes, that is right . MORE OPTIONS. You can blend whatever you want with what. No repeating katas you dont like. Make your own sequence. No repeating moves you dont believe are effective anyway. No learning techniques and spending hours on them, days on them, which prove pointless. But you can add WHATEVER YOU LIKE without being concerned about failing your next belt test or not performing it correctly, just as so.

I agree with you on avoiding accountability in some cases. However in others it may make one more accountable. They have no one to blame but themselves, no one to motivate them but them, and no one to ensure they are disciplined enough to continue it, but them.

Perhaps why most people fail at self training. It is actually HARDER. But if someone really loves the arts it might be a option. They would have control over their own path, to choose and make as they go, instead of being pushed along anothers. I can see how learning a art from someone could restrict a persons full potential as much as help them. It restricts what they learn, how they learn it, how they apply it in most cases, and what can be added to it or taken away as it is often discouraged by the formal testing and necessitys required for achieving rank.

Also if you make your own path, you may be able to like it more. Anything you like, that you feel comfortable with, especially that you choose your way as you go, you will be more likley to excel in. So as many drop out of different arts because they basically dont like it, one could choose the other method and excel without facing the misery of repeating things they dont like, dont want to know, and dont think they can apply which isn't them.

Being forced through a art is not for all people. It may actually discourage them, make them learn things they do not want to, make them learn things they cannot apply, make them learn things that just isn't who they are. Basically a discouraging kill joy. They end up beating their head off a wall instead of progressing. Or progressing so pain stakingly slow they would have been better off on other endeavors. Perhaps why so many dont achieve the upper ranks. Not because they can't, but because they dont want to.

The spiritual side and history. yes, you can avoid this as well. As well as all those historic neat little things you might learn or follow that you can't apply to much of anything. I remember having to read and memorize shaolin kenpo history when i was a kid. The little story about the mountain and the monks blah blah blah.......Understand the spirtual side etc. And escrima. (another art that was sliced and diced depending on the purpose and students) Looking back i dont regret it. But it isn't for everyone. I didn't like it at the time it bored me silly. You can avoid much of that with self teaching and leave the spiritual, history, and take what you wish to know.

disclaimer: before i get flamed for this post please realize i would always recommend learning from a qualified instructor first. And even in self training at least take a minimum of classes from a qualified instructor even if it means only paying for a occasional private class. This post is a reflection of my understanding that not all people are intended to learn through formal classes and that occasionally a person may exist that would be capable of better progression through self training if they have natural ability and insight.

 

[ap Oweyn]

I'll have to respond to this in more detail later, but it seems to me that you're confusing "self-trained" with "self-taught." Many of the benefits you cite are only going to be benefits to someone who already knows what they're looking at. What you describe requires someone to make informed decisions about their training. Someone who's literally self-taught, on what are they going to be basing those training decisions?

 

[ap Oweyn]

less formality

Less formality than what? I've been training for about 26 years. Ten of them were spent in formal schools with uniforms, etc. But I've trained in groups where people wore baggy jeans and Doc Martens to practice, classes where people called the teacher "dude" rather than "sir," etc. But there was still a teacher.

quicker

How? If we're talking about someone who is literally self-teaching (i.e., teaching themselves from the ground up), then odds are decent that they're either taking longer to work out correct technique or speedily developing incorrect technique. The OP stressed empirical research. Doing that on your own, versus availing yourself of an experienced teacher, is not going to be quicker. Not if you're doing it right.

you can pick and choose what you wish to learn and your own speed of progress

Again, it seems to me that this hinges on one's ability to make informed training decisions. And where does that sense come from, if not from experience?

more discipline. you have to motivate yourself

One doesn't necessarily follow from the other. It's easy to tell yourself that you've had a good workout. That you've done enough reps. That your form is good enough. Convincing an experienced coach of same is often harder. And he's offering a different perspective on your performance. People are notoriously bad at evaluating their own performance objectively (in either direction).

quality control, instead of learning the seven hundred movements of a art learn the hundred that you like the most and are the most effective.

"Like the most" is a conclusion that you can reach on your own. But "most effective"? How do you determine that if you're self-teaching?

Anything questionable you wont waste your time learning. Toss it out.

Sure. It'll be like when we were in school, saying "when am I ever going to need math?!"

Good thing nobody let me toss math out.

without mentioning names a certain one comes to mind where they tossed out a hundred of the ones above blackbelt, revamped the program, added some different ones. If you think about that for a minute that was a hundred things someone before that was learning that someone else suddenly thought was a unnecessary waste of time. How would you like to be the one wasting five years learning a hundred things that were decided were not needed? self decided quality control. If everyone else can screw with a art then why cant you cater it to yourself?

One's ability to do what you describe is directly correlated with their experience level. People with little experience tend to confuse "worthless" and "I can't do this well." I wouldn't want a self-taught auto mechanic deciding what I did and didn't need in my car either.

You won't have to learn something then make it your own. You can make your own curriculum and just keep it your own.

What does that actually mean though?

More options. Yes, that is right . MORE OPTIONS. You can blend whatever you want with what. No repeating katas you dont like. Make your own sequence. No repeating moves you dont believe are effective anyway. No learning techniques and spending hours on them, days on them, which prove pointless. But you can add WHATEVER YOU LIKE without being concerned about failing your next belt test or not performing it correctly, just as so.

Again, you're describing the benefits to someone with a background already. If an experienced practitioner decides to customize his training, then sure. I've ditched kata from my own practice. But I believe you need to understand a tool, know what it does, before you pitch it.

Besides, as before, there's a whole range of established training methods that embrace a whole range of training philosophies. Stripped-down self-defense. Competitive training. Philosophy in motion. In my view, your efforts are better spent identifying something that provides what you want.

I agree with you on avoiding accountability in some cases. However in others it may make one more accountable. They have no one to blame but themselves, no one to motivate them but them, and no one to ensure they are disciplined enough to continue it, but them.

That assumes that most people who go this route will train up to some inner-held ideal. Rather than modifying the ideal to closer match up with their performance. I don't have data, but I'm wagering that the latter happens a lot more than we'd like to admit.

Perhaps why most people fail at self training. It is actually HARDER. But if someone really loves the arts it might be a option. They would have control over their own path, to choose and make as they go, instead of being pushed along anothers. I can see how learning a art from someone could restrict a persons full potential as much as help them. It restricts what they learn, how they learn it, how they apply it in most cases, and what can be added to it or taken away as it is often discouraged by the formal testing and necessitys required for achieving rank.

You're describing the most formal learning environments and talking as though they represented the full range of supervised training. There comes a point in most experienced martial artists' lives when they start to take this more independent approach.

Also if you make your own path, you may be able to like it more. Anything you like, that you feel comfortable with, especially that you choose your way as you go, you will be more likley to excel in. So as many drop out of different arts because they basically dont like it, one could choose the other method and excel without facing the misery of repeating things they dont like, dont want to know, and dont think they can apply which isn't them.

Nobody can apply something until it's properly trained. If someone doesn't like a style, that's fair enough. But the web is full of people who wanted to be founders of this, sokes of that, and grandmasters of the other. Most of them go on and on about freedom of expression, their "own paths," and what is and isn't for them.

Being forced through a art is not for all people. It may actually discourage them, make them learn things they do not want to, make them learn things they cannot apply, make them learn things that just isn't who they are. Basically a discouraging kill joy. They end up beating their head off a wall instead of progressing. Or progressing so pain stakingly slow they would have been better off on other endeavors. Perhaps why so many dont achieve the upper ranks. Not because they can't, but because they dont want to.

Yeah, why do that when you can just self-teach and say that you're whatever rank you like.

The spiritual side and history. yes, you can avoid this as well. As well as all those historic neat little things you might learn or follow that you can't apply to much of anything. I remember having to read and memorize shaolin kenpo history when i was a kid. The little story about the mountain and the monks blah blah blah.......Understand the spirtual side etc. And escrima. (another art that was sliced and diced depending on the purpose and students) Looking back i dont regret it. But it isn't for everyone. I didn't like it at the time it bored me silly. You can avoid much of that with self teaching and leave the spiritual, history, and take what you wish to know.

I studied taekwondo for five years without learning a jot of history. Those schools exist. And you can still benefit from the technical instruction.

As for eskrima, that's a topic near and dear to my heart. Fascinating history. But, again, I've practiced it for 20 years and haven't faced a whole lot of formalized spiritual instruction.

disclaimer: before i get flamed for this post please realize i would always recommend learning from a qualified instructor first. And even in self training at least take a minimum of classes from a qualified instructor even if it means only paying for a occasional private class. This post is a reflection of my understanding that not all people are intended to learn through formal classes and that occasionally a person may exist that would be capable of better progression through self training if they have natural ability and insight.

Again, self-training is different from self-teaching. Maybe there are people out there who will actually perform better on their own. But I'd say that, for the majority of people, it's a recipe for mediocrity.

That's just my view. Subject to change if I start seeing self-taught people who actually look like they know what they're doing.


Stuart

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I have to agree with Oweyn. I do my own workouts, I choose what I feel is most important to work on and I make my own training schedule. That being said I have over 10 years experience in MA, mostly karate. I'm not a shodan, either. I occasionally go to "pay as you show up" clubs and try to broaden my experience with other philosophies and techniques as part of my self training. I don't trust my bias and being too hard on yourself isn't constructive. Even if you're doing great you can't really trust your own opinion so you have to air on the side of caution. In order to develop good habits you need unbiased feedback. Even with a qualified instructor, their feedback may have a vested interest in building themselves as a good teacher. Judging my own character, for me at least, is far harder than trying to judge another's.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Good questions

I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?

Yes and no. As in all things it depends. But possibility would be something I would have to say yes too. Highly Probably, most likely not. That being said, those that teach themselves improvement from some form of basics is more common.

We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.

There are some who can listen to music and reproduce. There are people who can watch a technique and do it in a controlled setting. Some might even say they have gained a level of expertise.

Therefore aside from all the youtube MA wannabes that operate in their own video vacuums, do you think there are circumstances in which it is possible to train oneself to become expertin a martial endeavour?

Yes. But I think actual play and or some testing would be required. I also think that if one were to have some basics and then started asking questions and they had enough of an understanding to see something positive and also to see something negative and all the grey area inbetween where sometimes it might work, or might only work at a certain skill set.

If someone has been trained in one thing those skill sets could carry over and help someone in learning something else.

Is it possible perhaps by employing empirical "research" training methods over a suitable period of time? Or are empirical methods never any substitute for formal handed-down training?

I believe that a truly open minded scientific and empirical approach would work. The problem is that someone would have to be trained as a Scientist first. (* See comment above *) I think this would help them. But doing it slow is not the end of the learning process. Or just proving that someone could do it. They should sit back and realize that it needs to be tested in a controlled format first and if possible for real or as real as possible.

Is it possible to generate fighting techniques from scratch by recursively defending oneself against attack in a training situation? Or would this in itself require sufficient martial grounding beforehand?

Yes and Yes. If one has the grounding then it makes it much easier. It also explains why people can move from one art to another as they have a base to work from. But, if they have nothing then it depends upon the analytical mind and are they open minded enough to test it and if it fails, say thank you to the person who resisted and or countered.

With sufficient refining on these techniques would it be possible to defend oneself against and/or defeat an opponent formally trained in a similar style martial art to your "new" style in which you have become a self-taught expert? Or will a trained fighter always beat a self-taught expert?

I knew some street fighters that were self trained or trained by watching some others. They learned by going out and doing and see what worked. One guy know only the sucker punch and the trap the hand down and punch. After that he knew nothing. But most people were afraid of him as he had knocked out just about everyone he had ever swung at.

Thank you so much for your time and thought

Jenna xo

No thanks needed when there is a well thought out question that interests me.


Thanks

 

[MartialStudy]

I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?

I believe this has already been said, but I would reiterate that there does come a point in your Martial Arts study where you have to step away from whatever instruction you are receiving and become very critical of the techniques you've learnt and how they apply to you. Due to the fact that martial techniques are incredibly personal (ie. your body shape, strengths and weaknesses affect what is useful), solo study becomes an essential way of discovering how best to utilise the tools you have. If this means employing empirical research to achieve it, then so be it!

That said, I don't believe it's possible to do this from scratch! Certainly I would say that there is no way of achieving expertise in an internal art (Ba Gua, Xing Yi or T'ai Chi for example) without actually "feeling" the the effects by an instructor. I say this because some internal martial arts techniques are unachievable without a great deal of practice, so much that it can seem a ridiculous pursuit unless you have felt someone perform the technique on you!

We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.

In this case I would suggest that someone who is self-taught would most likely be exposed when fighting or training with someone who has been "school-taught". Perhaps the self-taught individual would have surprising ways of achieving their results (unconventional, for example) but I pose this theoretical situation to you:

Two identical twins of equal ability in every sense set out to learn the same martial art, one with hands-on guidance from an experienced practitioner, the other relying on self teaching.
For me this is a no-brainer; while the self-taught individual will need to spend time identifying where the problem in their technique lies and then figure out how to correct it, the other will have expert eyes immeditately inform them where the problem lies and exactly how they need to adjust it.

Having said this, your final question does pose an interesting twist to the theoretical situation:

With sufficient refining [..of self taught..] techniques would it be possible to defend oneself against and/or defeat an opponent formally trained in a similar style martial art to your "new" style in which you have become a self-taught expert? Or will a trained fighter always beat a self-taught expert?

I would suggest that facing a similarly skilled opponent with a refined and well-taught art gives the self-taught individual a number of disadvantages. For me, the most important one to consider is that founders of great martial arts will inevitably have already been taught another art beforehand, that's to say Bruce Lee was already skilled in the ancient art of Wing Chun, with centuries of refinements. Without these years on your side, it's highly unlikely that your techniques developed would be superior - possible, but unlikely.

 

[Jenna]

Thank you all again for these wonderful and well-thought through responses. There is very little for me to disagree with [even if I wanted to, which I do not!] I am seeking no argument with nobody only discourse for its own sake. Thank you all

As ap_Oweyn has asked: what would be the motivation for self-teaching?

I appreciate that this hypothetical can easily be regarded as quixotic or just a plain waste of time. Still, for the individual with - as WC_lun puts it: "inate understanding of the mechanics of fighting" - the pursuit of self-teaching a MA of one's own design in itself is quite a feat of purity I think.

Methodically and rigorously working through a variety of applicable scenarios, this empirical research student knows what works for her or him from what does not. As Nomad has suggested, in "peaceful" times one may not be able to discern useful technique from the extraneous and carried-over baggage of any pre-existing art through its history.

Of course this is an extreme beyond most of us. Nonetheless were it possible to iterate sufficiently then the student and their research partner(s) would gain a set of personalised and tailored techniques that were pressure tested and proven fightworthy. Is the same level of tailoring possible out of a class endeavour? Of course. But it would still take an amount of time to achieve a level of personalisation where any technique was OPTIMAL for the student performing it. What the instructor teaches worked for the instructor. If you are lucky the instructor will have used that technique and proven to themselves that it works. Sometimes though they will have relied on second- or third-hand information etc. Notwithstanding that, a good instructor may take the time to work through a technique that it may be free to adapt [and I know many instructors that hold no such liberty in teaching technique]. Even so receiving instruction is not as tailored as figuring out for oneself. For one to take what the instructor has given and interpret that to an optimal for oneself takes time.

As an example, I might take an old Toyota and strip to chassis then put in a new engine, tune her up and bolt on some spangly turbo and skirts. It is still a Toyota from Japan. Yet it is my version of that Toyota that suits me. However, had I an "inate understanding of the mechanics of..." auotomotive design and sufficient time, I might do better to mould up, tunnel test and eventually have my own vehicle that has no trunk space because I do not require it, has only one seat because I take no passengers, is fuel efficient because I am a cheapskate and looks pretty because I am a poseur. It is a better representation of what is MY vehicle than any other representation.

Can this apply to martial arts pedagogy?

Jenna xo

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

less formality
quicker
you can pick and choose what you wish to learn and your own speed of progress

more discipline. you have to motivate yourself

quality control, instead of learning the seven hundred movements of a art learn the hundred that you like the most and are the most effective.
Anything questionable you wont waste your time learning. Toss it out. without mentioning names a certain one comes to mind where they tossed out a hundred of the ones above blackbelt, revamped the program, added some different ones. If you think about that for a minute that was a hundred things someone before that was learning that someone else suddenly thought was a unnecessary waste of time. How would you like to be the one wasting five years learning a hundred things that were decided were not needed? self decided quality control. If everyone else can screw with a art then why cant you cater it to yourself?

You won't have to learn something then make it your own. You can make your own curriculum and just keep it your own.

More options. Yes, that is right . MORE OPTIONS. You can blend whatever you want with what. No repeating katas you dont like. Make your own sequence. No repeating moves you dont believe are effective anyway. No learning techniques and spending hours on them, days on them, which prove pointless. But you can add WHATEVER YOU LIKE without being concerned about failing your next belt test or not performing it correctly, just as so.

I agree with you on avoiding accountability in some cases. However in others it may make one more accountable. They have no one to blame but themselves, no one to motivate them but them, and no one to ensure they are disciplined enough to continue it, but them.

Perhaps why most people fail at self training. It is actually HARDER. But if someone really loves the arts it might be a option. They would have control over their own path, to choose and make as they go, instead of being pushed along anothers. I can see how learning a art from someone could restrict a persons full potential as much as help them. It restricts what they learn, how they learn it, how they apply it in most cases, and what can be added to it or taken away as it is often discouraged by the formal testing and necessitys required for achieving rank.

Also if you make your own path, you may be able to like it more. Anything you like, that you feel comfortable with, especially that you choose your way as you go, you will be more likley to excel in. So as many drop out of different arts because they basically dont like it, one could choose the other method and excel without facing the misery of repeating things they dont like, dont want to know, and dont think they can apply which isn't them.

Ap Oweyn's response pretty much covers my own thoughts, but I would like to add that what you describe above is a person learning on their own to perform techniques they have personally selected, as opposed to being expert, which is another matter.

Being forced through a art is not for all people. It may actually discourage them, make them learn things they do not want to, make them learn things they cannot apply, make them learn things that just isn't who they are. Basically a discouraging kill joy. They end up beating their head off a wall instead of progressing. Or progressing so pain stakingly slow they would have been better off on other endeavors. Perhaps why so many dont achieve the upper ranks. Not because they can't, but because they dont want to.

Forced? Unlike algebra, there is no requirement in western school systems to have minimum credit hours in a martial art. If mom and dad 'force' their kid to take a karate class, the issue is with mom and dad, not the method of instruction.

Parental coersion not withstanding, people sign up of their own free will. If your instructor is 'forcing' you to do something, there is probably a good reason.

I have a student who 'self taught' himself kenjutsu. He went through the same kumdo school that I did about a year after I started there and spend most of his time there arguing with the instructors because he wanted to "modify things" to work for him rather than practice them as they were taught. He was unintentionally disrespectful to the instructors there and ultimately quit at the end of his contract, only to go back home and diligently continue his backyard practice.

He came to me asking me if I could help him with regards to his arms being strained and his inability to make more than two or three good strikes with a shinai. I looked at what he was doing and told him it was all wrong. I showed him how to do the strikes correctly.

Rather than practice what I told him, came back the following week and said, "I tried it but it didn't work." When I informed him that a few days of practice was not going to fix the problem, but that he would need to be training regularly and really should come to class so that I could evaluate him and really see what he was doing, he did not like the answer. To his credit, he came to class. I corrected more problems in his technique than there are techniques to teach to a brand new studedent who's never picked up a sword. And this is just in working on a single basic strike.

And yes, he believed that he was expert before he ever set foot in a class.

Yes, this young man learned how to swing a sword by watching movies. He could lift it up and make it come down where he wanted it to. He could manipulate the sword quite well in terms of doing showy spins and twirls.

But he was no expert, and the moment he was faced with a resisting opponent, he was unable to deliver an effective strike. His footwork was horrible, his stroke was sloppy and shortened in such a way as to compensate for his inablilty to do it correctly, and his posture was horrible, causing him to twist in such a way that his chudan guard was shortened by almost a foot! All because of too much Youtube and Star Wars and not enough actual instructors.

Whether or not he comes back in anybody's guess. It takes much more discipline to place yourself under the direction of another than it does to do what you think is effective.

As far as the spiritual/historical aspects of various arts, most arts can be found in schools that are highly spiritual/philosophical and in schools that are all physical training, so avoiding the history lessons should not be difficult. Of note: I have yet to train in a school that did anything more than cursory study of history or spirituality.

Daniel

 

[bribrius]

Ap Oweyn's response pretty much covers my own thoughts, but I would like to add that what you describe above is a person learning on their own to perform techniques they have personally selected, as opposed to being expert, which is another matter.


Forced? Unlike algebra, there is no requirement in western school systems to have minimum credit hours in a martial art. If mom and dad 'force' their kid to take a karate class, the issue is with mom and dad, not the method of instruction.

Parental coersion not withstanding, people sign up of their own free will. If your instructor is 'forcing' you to do something, there is probably a good reason.

I have a student who 'self taught' himself kenjutsu. He went through the same kumdo school that I did about a year after I started there and spend most of his time there arguing with the instructors because he wanted to "modify things" to work for him rather than practice them as they were taught. He was unintentionally disrespectful to the instructors there and ultimately quit at the end of his contract, only to go back home and diligently continue his backyard practice.

He came to me asking me if I could help him with regards to his arms being strained and his inability to make more than two or three good strikes with a shinai. I looked at what he was doing and told him it was all wrong. I showed him how to do the strikes correctly.

Rather than practice what I told him, came back the following week and said, "I tried it but it didn't work." When I informed him that a few days of practice was not going to fix the problem, but that he would need to be training regularly and really should come to class so that I could evaluate him and really see what he was doing, he did not like the answer. To his credit, he came to class. I corrected more problems in his technique than there are techniques to teach to a brand new studedent who's never picked up a sword. And this is just in working on a single basic strike.

And yes, he believed that he was expert before he ever set foot in a class.

Yes, this young man learned how to swing a sword by watching movies. He could lift it up and make it come down where he wanted it to. He could manipulate the sword quite well in terms of doing showy spins and twirls.

But he was no expert, and the moment he was faced with a resisting opponent, he was unable to deliver an effective strike. His footwork was horrible, his stroke was sloppy and shortened in such a way as to compensate for his inablilty to do it correctly, and his posture was horrible, causing him to twist in such a way that his chudan guard was shortened by almost a foot! All because of too much Youtube and Star Wars and not enough actual instructors.

Whether or not he comes back in anybody's guess. It takes much more discipline to place yourself under the direction of another than it does to do what you think is effective.

As far as the spiritual/historical aspects of various arts, most arts can be found in schools that are highly spiritual/philosophical and in schools that are all physical training, so avoiding the history lessons should not be difficult. Of note: I have yet to train in a school that did anything more than cursory study of history or spirituality.

Daniel

i am having enough trouble making the case for self instruction. As it is difficult on its own but also unlikely to blossom from a novice starting from scratch. Where as i know people that have done and do so none of them have so with NO instruction by another. More they have a higher percentage self taught but still a grounding from schooling and instruction. How can i defend a individual idiot you bring up? But in answer i could say that while individual techniques may not be performed correctly it is made up by the larger scope of knowledge it can provide quicker, from various arts. As a self taught person could go through much more material faster. Even if some is incorrect, the sheer number learned may adjust for it and even a incorrect technique will usually work to some extent. What is correct debatable in itself. Has no one training and learning in a school learned incorrectly? How many training and instructed in a school have learned incorrectly? could you find a more accurate and detailed explanation of something from a book than a crappy instructor? I would venture to say yes. Good personal instruction by a qualified person is invaluable. But some of the instruction offered may be less than desirable. As those are so quick to pick on youtube videos of idiots on here, they fail to mention many of these idiots have schools and are labeled "instructors".

And as is correct technique. Correct does not necessarily mean it will work. It is in timing and application. Not everyone will you find useful. Perhaps when considering correct technique one would look for what can be used in 90 percent of engagements. It is here the self taught martial artist may excel. As they perhaps are looking more for results rather than knowing the correct way of doing something just for the sake of doing it.

The question, as was already rebutted and which i cannot respond as i do not know, is at what experience level and knowledge is a person capable of making the necessary decisions on what to learn and practice. I have never seen someone do it, nor have i, completely from scratch. And each things merits or lack of have different levels of experience and skill required just to understand the benefits of learning it.

As to effective or not. That is demonstrated everytime someone with no formal martial arts training or very little of it beats up someone who has spent years studying a art. while they may just be a fighter (but what is that really but a combination of arts) the effectivness is proven everytime it happens. If one would judge just by results i would be tempted to say the proof either way is "in the pudding". But then one would question where a fighter in such a case learned, if it wasn't in a dojo. It could still be from instruction of many others along with self instruction. who after all can be solely self taught? Just having a interest in arts compels you to learn from another which you may do even if not taking classes. Many street fighting techniques similiar to those instructed by professionals.

The person you speak of, if i may ask a question of them. Could they win a sparring match against someone with more instruction who isn't self taught? In my opinion many could. course there are a number of factors to take into consideration beyond skill level.

Thankyou for your comments sir. I do not disagree or agree.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

i am having enough trouble making the case for self instruction. As it is difficult on its own but also unlikely to blossom from a novice starting from scratch. Where as i know people that have done and do so none of them have so with NO instruction by another. More they have a higher percentage self taught but still a grounding from schooling and instruction. How can i defend a individual idiot you bring up? But in answer i could say that while individual techniques may not be performed correctly it is made up by the larger scope of knowledge it can provide quicker, from various arts. As a self taught person could go through much more material faster. Even if some is incorrect, the sheer number learned may adjust for it and even a incorrect technique will usually work to some extent. What is correct debatable in itself. Has no one training and learning in a school learned incorrectly? How many training and instructed in a school have learned incorrectly? could you find a more accurate and detailed explanation of something from a book than a crappy instructor? I would venture to say yes. Good personal instruction by a qualified person is invaluable. But some of the instruction offered may be less than desirable. As those are so quick to pick on youtube videos of idiots on here, they fail to mention many of these idiots have schools and are labeled "instructors".

And as is correct technique. Correct does not necessarily mean it will work. It is in timing and application. Not everyone will you find useful. Perhaps when considering correct technique one would look for what can be used in 90 percent of engagements. It is here the self taught martial artist may excel. As they perhaps are looking more for results rather than knowing the correct way of doing something just for the sake of doing it.

The question, as was already rebutted and which i cannot respond as i do not know, is at what experience level and knowledge is a person capable of making the necessary decisions on what to learn and practice. I have never seen someone do it, nor have i, completely from scratch. And each things merits or lack of have different levels of experience and skill required just to understand the benefits of learning it.

As to effective or not. That is demonstrated everytime someone with no formal martial arts training or very little of it beats up someone who has spent years studying a art. while they may just be a fighter (but what is that really but a combination of arts) the effectivness is proven everytime it happens.

Thankyou for your comments sir. I do not disagree or agree.

The last point that I bolded ties into my defensive tackle post on page 2. Training is only part of the picture, as there are factors that lay outside of training that have strong and measurable influence on the outcome of a fight.

It can be as simple as mental attitude: one is committed and the other is not.

Or it can be physical: Lou Ferrigno in his prime may have had zero MA training, but I suspect that even highly trained individuals would have had some difficulty against a man 6'6" and 285, every pound of it being muscle, sinew and bone. Or the big ol' farm hand or construction worker who drinks and fights every Saturday night and always comes out on top with no formal training.

It can also be a physical advantage of natural speed and agility. Some people are just hard to pin down and hit and are quick enough to strike back, all with no training whatsoever.

Then there are those people that just don't feel it no matter how hard you hit them, but you feel every blow they deliver.

There are generally quite a few effective ways to deliver strikes, so outside of some universal principles, correct is within the context of a style rather than in an all or nothing context. Also, a lot of what is effective can vary depending upon your opponent. This is a lot of the reason that there are age and weight classes and gender divisions in competitive fighting.

Self teaching from a novice or beginner level is generally successful in proportion to the degree to which it focuses on strikes and gross motor skills. The more complexity is involved, the more challenging it becomes. Grappling, for example, is a lot more difficult to 'self teach' because you need a partner to practice it, so the risks of injuries from mistakes is greater and the subtleties and nuances are more difficult to pick up.

With weapon arts, "correct" is most definitely important, much more so than with fist fighting, and there is generally a much greater correlation between correct and effective. But in most of these discussions, it is generally unarmed fighting that people have in mind.

Daniel

 

[bribrius]

The last point that I bolded ties into my defensive tackle post on page 2. Training is only part of the picture, as there are factors that lay outside of training that have strong and measurable influence on the outcome of a fight.

It can be as simple as mental attitude: one is committed and the other is not.

Or it can be physical: Lou Ferrigno in his prime may have had zero MA training, but I suspect that even highly trained individuals would have had some difficulty against a man 6'6" and 285, every pound of it being muscle, sinew and bone. Or the big ol' farm hand or construction worker who drinks and fights every Saturday night and always comes out on top with no formal training.

It can also be a physical advantage of natural speed and agility. Some people are just hard to pin down and hit and are quick enough to strike back, all with no training whatsoever.

Then there are those people that just don't feel it no matter how hard you hit them, but you feel every blow they deliver.

There are generally quite a few effective ways to deliver strikes, so outside of some universal principles, correct is within the context of a style rather than in an all or nothing context. Also, a lot of what is effective can vary depending upon your opponent. This is a lot of the reason that there are age and weight classes and gender divisions in competitive fighting.

Self teaching from a novice or beginner level is generally successful in proportion to the degree to which it focuses on strikes and gross motor skills. The more complexity is involved, the more challenging it becomes. Grappling, for example, is a lot more difficult to 'self teach' because you need a partner to practice it, so the risks of injuries from mistakes is greater and the subtleties and nuances are more difficult to pick up.

With weapon arts, "correct" is most definitely important, much more so than with fist fighting, and there is generally a much greater correlation between correct and effective. But in most of these discussions, it is generally unarmed fighting that people have in mind.

Daniel

There is alot to be said for physical advantage but many don't want to hear it. MA does help a less advantaged opponent in this but it never goes away.

Good example. i stand and let my kid hit and kick me. sometimes i hold my coffee cup. It gives her practice but i practice my balance as well. The objective for me is to not spill the coffee while she is kicking and hitting me. Usually strikes to the legs, gut and chest. yep, size matters. I am a decent sized man but there are some out there with arms twice my size and real thick bones. Couldnt imagine facing off with someone that weighed four hundred lbs. Hard to get around that.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Ultimately, one can learn to fight effectively without formal training, though it is a lot harder these days, as the fisticuffs that kids engaged in in school when I was a kid are bannished under threat of suspension.

I think that it is possible to become a proficient fighter in a general sense with no formal training. And physical advantage, be it inherent or trained in (An athlete of average size has a physcial advantage by virtue of regular physical exercise and strengthening) is a great aid in this.

But being an expert requires a lot more than just being an effective fighter. Expert implies a certain level of technique beyond that of mere proficiency.

Another factor is what you're trying to be expert in. If you are planning to fight in WTF tournament rules, you'd be better off in a school that teaches sport TKD and runs the drills necessary to be competitive in that environment. Those skills, however, do not fully cross over to self defense.

Daniel