oldyangtaijiquan said:
I made a little analysis of last generation (or almost) self defense systems
And your "analysis" consisted of what, precisely? Attending classes? "Field research" of some kind, inquiring of current, active students of all three systems what their experiences have been? Side by side comparisons of attack/defense examples from each method to determine efficiency and practicality?
Probably not... I suspect you read magazine articles, most of which are nothing more than infomercials in print.
and I found that the more interesting
"Most
interesting?" So it isn't an issue of applicability or legitimacy, just their interest factor that swayed your decision?
- SPEAR (Spontaneous Protection Enabling Accelerated Response) by Tony Blauer
A method constantly under suspicion and criticism interenet-wide... I have yet to hear anything favorable from non-SPEAR sources about this program, meaning I have no objective review of their methods upon which to base an opinion...
- Ki Chuan Do by John Perkins
A method that, like SPEAR above, lacks independent and objective favorable review.
- Systema by Mikhail Ryabko (and Vladimir Vasiliev)
Another art that, unfortunately, has yet to earn a satisfactory amount of respect, though it
is on its way... I've studied Systema (and plan to continue doing so upon my return to the US), and in viewing Systema in comparison with the other two "arts" listed above, I find it is like them in no way beyond extremely superficial similarities (e.g. Western creation, no costume uniform, no belts, no forms).
This are (instinctive and natural) movement based self defense systems and not (fixed and prearranged) technique based martial arts.
It strikes me that you've been a victim of the same catchphrase marketing that many, many others have fallen victim to... You don't understand the terms you're throwing around, but parrot them to sound intelligent. Let me explain:
1) "Instinctive and natural" - This implies methods that are already ingrained in the human neural net, movements (like walking) that occur without conscious effort. This does not, however, imply that such movements are
already perfect, which seems to be the implication made by the kinds of training you are "interested" in. Competitive speed walkers still work on the
technique of walking, competitive runners work on their
technique as well to develop their running
form to its most efficient state. It cannot be argued that walking and running are not "instinctive and natural" movements, however it is demonstrated daily that they can be developed far beyond their "instinctive and natural" condition. That is what regular ol' martial arts training does...
A punch is a punch is a punch, right? Wrong. Like walking and running, punching is "instinctive and natural." It is a gross movement created by the contraction of the pectoral muscles to thrust the arm in a forward motion. This movement can be trained to be more efficient and more powerful, to reduce lost power by punching at a correct angle, etc. Just punching however you like because it is "natural and instinctive" is settling for far less refined technique, less power, and less damaging potential.
Your argument for the benefit of "natural and instinctive" needs some work...
2) "Fixed and prearranged" - This implies methods that are "if he throws a punch to your head, do X; if he throws a punch to the body, do Y." This belief that traditional martial arts training (or even non-traditional arts) actually trains this way is absurd, and is a perversion of the popular theories presented by Bruce Lee in JKD. Bruce's concern was that if
all people did was one-step fighting (where the attacker strikes/kicks and the defender responds with a particular set of techniques to practice their application), their reactions would be confined and limited, lacking "emotional content" (whatever that meant). This is far from the case in anything beyond mini-mall McDojos.
Individual techniques, much like riding a bike, must be practiced to develop them to be "instinctive and natural," to be as efficient as possible, and to become deeply ingrained into the student's physical repertoire. Practicing sets of techniques against particular attacks allows the student to see the application value and to become comfortable with their use. It is absolutely no different than what boxers and wrestlers have done for several centuries - practicing given combinations of movements to examine, understand, and incorporate their application in a specific instance. Saying that this kind of training, when done correctly, is somehow less effective than the "natural and instinctive" training done in pseudo-modern arts is, again, absurd. It has withstood the test of time and has been shown to be effective and efficient.
Unfortunately what people drawn to "natural and instinctive" training with no "fixed patterns or techniques" really appear to be saying is that they want a "just add water" style that they can become instantly proficient in. They don't want to invest years of training to develop themselves fully; they want to "just add water" and
poof they're a walking juggernaught in close combat... It just isn't going to happen. In fact, when such a belief is taken to its logical extreme, it invalidates training in martial arts of any kind! It still takes quite some time and not an unimpressive amount of training to become skilled in any of the above mentioned arts or in any traditional style... That's the nature of training - it takes time and effort. Anything else is just fooling oneself into a false sense of security.
They affirm to be easy to learn and effective to use. Are any of them the self defense system of tomorrow (future)?
They affirm that, but there is little in the way of direct evidence to suppor their claims (or the claims of other styles) beyond competition performance. I've already addressed their "easy to learn" hook previously.
Easy to learn doesn't mean
instantly learned; just like traditional arts (which are also easy to learn) it's still going to take time and effort.
As far as being the "self defense system of tomorrow," how could any art, unless it held some amazing revelation previously undiscovered in over 5000 years of martial history, become such a thing? I suspect your desires are unrealistic in the extreme, and you might want to reconsider what it is, exactly, that you expect to get out of martial training.
Lastly, whoever said that "martial arts is not about fighting/defense but avoiding and awareness, to be a good person and to help others grow to be a better person," was sadly mistaken... Martial training has always been primarily about developing fighting skill; it was with the pacification of Japan that the bu
do approach instead of the bu
jutsu approach was first publicized, but that was because Japan was a conquered nation and martial arts practice had been outlawed by the Occupation Forces. It sounds nice to say, but if you deny that martial arts is primarily, first and foremost, concerned with the development of combative ability, you are just as much a symptom of the problem with modern martial arts as the "super Soke," the 22 year old 9th degree Grandmasters, and the belt mill international hall of fame organizations... The "good person," "self-confidence," and other benefits of martial training are not the
focus - they are
side effects of strong, realistic training.
Now I'm done. I return you to your regularly scheduled programming...
:asian:
artyon:
