martial art vs self defense

[Carol]

Whats the difference between a bow hunter and an Olympic archer?

*deadpan*

Moose Knuckle?

(ducks for cover)


:redcaptur

 

[cloud dancing]

t-grace/As a Viet Vet/thank You for THE POETRY.
so many have given their lives.I feel sad that the
what 1 million died for is disregarded for profiteering.
I've waited 16 months for reply from VA but it may be
one woman's ahtred for me from inside the DAV
Refusing to give sent papaers to the VA
Soldiers go to fight immediately ,but when disabled,
wait sometimes years for care/funds from injuries received in combat.

Soyu Terada Sensei {1745-1825} faced multiple opponents
but with each one /said If you use that attack I will cut you here.
If you use the attack you are thinking of I will cut here
Each time,with each person he could sense/predict his opponents attack
without fighting he defeated all who had challenged him.
the value of kata training w/o contact. read each perons attack,before moves were made.
Light shines/darkness leaves.Lighthouse in mtns, daily relit.DAily effort to shine.
Carol-huge congratulations on your first rescue.Saving life means so much more than taking a life.

 

[Balrog]

I just read one blog article that put self defense as the opposite polar of the martial art.
He quoted the mind set in here as the point of argument.
a self defense, is an art to free from things that harmful to oneself.
while a martial art, is the art of war...

here the quote from Rory Miller's Meditation on Violence:
“Self defense is about recovery from stupidity or bad luck, from finding yourself in a position you would have given almost anything to prevent.
It is better to avoid than to run; better to run than to de-escalate; better to de-escalate than to fight; better to fight than to die. The very essence of self-defense is a thin list of things that might get you out alive when you are already screwed.”

I like Mr. Miller's stuff overall, but I'll disagree with him on this point. The foundation of all martial arts training is self-defense. It's one and the same.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm… can you explain how the foundation of Hozoin Ryu is self defence? Or Owari Kan Ryu? How about Morishige Ryu? Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu?

My point is that, no, the foundation of all martial arts is not self defence… not even the majority… they really are quite removed...

 

[Balrog]

Hmm… can you explain how the foundation of Hozoin Ryu is self defence? Or Owari Kan Ryu? How about Morishige Ryu? Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu?

My point is that, no, the foundation of all martial arts is not self defence… not even the majority… they really are quite removed...

I am not familiar with any of the styles that you mentioned, so all I have to go by is Googling them. And I see that they are all martial arts of some type, and are therefore based on self-defense.

What is the underlying foundation of any martial art? I think it is this: prevent someone else from harming you. Most of the time, that is oriented toward block and counter, or evade and counter, but every once in a while, we'll encounter a situation where the best defense is a good offense. And if that means learning how to stick someone with a spear before they can stick you, or something similar, then so be it.

 

[drop bear]

I am not familiar with any of the styles that you mentioned, so all I have to go by is Googling them. And I see that they are all martial arts of some type, and are therefore based on self-defense.

What is the underlying foundation of any martial art? I think it is this: prevent someone else from harming you. Most of the time, that is oriented toward block and counter, or evade and counter, but every once in a while, we'll encounter a situation where the best defense is a good offense. And if that means learning how to stick someone with a spear before they can stick you, or something similar, then so be it.

It is a really fine line between a martial art for self defence and a martial art to see who is the biggest dog in the room. Quite often a martial art is meant to handle both.

And one originates from another and then originates from that.

Jousting is learning how to stick someone with a spear. But is it battlefield or sport?

 

[Chris Parker]

I am not familiar with any of the styles that you mentioned, so all I have to go by is Googling them. And I see that they are all martial arts of some type, and are therefore based on self-defence.

See, that's the issue… none of the systems I named are based on self defence… and they are hardly unique in that either.

What is the underlying foundation of any martial art?

There is none… at least, there is no single underlying foundation that is equally applicable across the vast range of approaches that are classed as "martial arts".

I think it is this: prevent someone else from harming you.

Nope, not always. In fact, not even commonly. It's a commonly held belief, but when looked at objectively, it falls rather short in the light of reality.

Most of the time, that is oriented toward block and counter, or evade and counter, but every once in a while, we'll encounter a situation where the best defense is a good offense. And if that means learning how to stick someone with a spear before they can stick you, or something similar, then so be it.

That's a particular tactical application, and really isn't much to do with "the foundation of martial arts", when it comes down to it. But, for the record, no, that's not anything to do with self defence (in the sojutsu hypothetical you're giving).

It is a really fine line between a martial art for self defence and a martial art to see who is the biggest dog in the room. Quite often a martial art is meant to handle both.

Hmm. No, it isn't, and no, they aren't.

And one originates from another and then originates from that.

No. They're kinda pretty opposite to each other.

Jousting is learning how to stick someone with a spear. But is it battlefield or sport?

Well, no, jousting isn't just "learning how to stick someone with a spear" to begin with… but, realistically, it's sport. It's not battlefield kinda by definition. It originated as a training form for some aspects or skills on the battlefield, but jousting itself is very removed, and is a completely different context.

 

[Cirdan]

And before we get too semantic about the meanings of words. They change to fit current circumstances.

Or ego.

 

[Balrog]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I don't know if the story of Bodidharma teaching the Shaolin monks is factually true or not, but let's assume that it is. What was he teaching them? Martial arts so that they could defend themselves from robbers as they roamed the countryside.

Perhaps I am misreading your interpretation, Mr. Parker, but it seems to me that you are saying that if there is an offensive element of some sort, then it is not self-defense. If that is the case, then by your definition, there is no such thing as self-defense if you ever strike your opponent in any manner. Am I totally off base here?

 

[Badger1777]

To me, it is quite simple.

Self defence is the art of not getting your head kicked in, and martial arts will help to facilitate that.

Does it need to be more complex than that?

I saw some posts about the military practicing such things, and it seemed to the theme that this is secondary. Maybe, but I happen to know that certain sections of British military take hand to hand combat extremely seriously. Perhaps google search 'para milling', to see the Parachute regiment just hitting each other to train in the art of taking a punch. The combatants are not allow to block or counter, they just have to hit and be hit. Or theres our Royal Marines with their combat. Tell me this isn't martial arts.

Royal Marine Commandos- HAND TO HAND COMBAT - YouTube

 

[drop bear]

See, that's the issue… none of the systems I named are based on self defence… and they are hardly unique in that either.



There is none… at least, there is no single underlying foundation that is equally applicable across the vast range of approaches that are classed as "martial arts".



Nope, not always. In fact, not even commonly. It's a commonly held belief, but when looked at objectively, it falls rather short in the light of reality.



That's a particular tactical application, and really isn't much to do with "the foundation of martial arts", when it comes down to it. But, for the record, no, that's not anything to do with self defence (in the sojutsu hypothetical you're giving).



Hmm. No, it isn't, and no, they aren't.



No. They're kinda pretty opposite to each other.



Well, no, jousting isn't just "learning how to stick someone with a spear" to begin with… but, realistically, it's sport. It's not battlefield kinda by definition. It originated as a training form for some aspects or skills on the battlefield, but jousting itself is very removed, and is a completely different context.

No sport is battlefield battlefield is sport on many occasions.

Soldiers doing sport on the battlefield.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hXTNUHh9vmU

And for the battle field.
MMA in the US Military: Soldier Survival Training | POW! Mixed Martial Arts & Fitness

And in battle.
Diggers defend killer Commando Sergeant Paul Cale

MMA In the Military |  FIGHT! Magazine ? Archives
But otherwise a huge difference?

 

[Tgace]

No sport is battlefield battlefield is sport on many occasions.

Soldiers doing sport on the battlefield.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hXTNUHh9vmU

And for the battle field.
MMA in the US Military: Soldier Survival Training | POW! Mixed Martial Arts & Fitness

And in battle.
Diggers defend killer Commando Sergeant Paul Cale

MMA In the Military | *FIGHT! Magazine ? Archives
But otherwise a huge difference?

Makes me think about the Ancient Greeks and their "games". Many of them were combat sports that tested skills they took right from the battlefield.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_sport

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[drop bear]

Makes me think about the Ancient Greeks and their "games". Many of them were combat sports that tested skills they took right from the battlefield.

Combat sport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Not uncommon In a lot of cultures.
Suri stick fighting.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_bT47aoruw

Jujitsu. Sport self defence martial art. Frankly who knows where one starts and the other stops.
Edith Margaret Garrud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bartitsu a mixed martial art.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t7aKdU96JuA

Muay Thai as a battlefield/self defence/sport.
http://muaythai.com.au/history

 

[jks9199]

Sure, the military will train in empty hand fighting. The simplest explanation for why that I've heard was simple: "Are you going to carry your rifle or pistol in the shower?" Or, as the lead presenter in the video about the Royal Marine Commandos above put it -- there are times when a soldier/sailor/airmen/Marine may find themselves toe-to-toe with the enemy, but the use of a weapon is impractical or unwise. That said -- generally, outside special units or situations, generally, if that soldier finds themselves relying on hand to hand -- something has not gone according to plan. The majority of their training time is spent on weapons and unit tactics, not individual brawling. Law enforcement defensive tactics training includes unarmed fighting -- but much of that training time is spent developing skill with the tools of the trade, learning how to handle situations and how to restrain people... not simply brawling.

Self defense is a separate issue. Training to defend yourself from violence needs to encompass a lot of things, beginning with enough about the dynamics of violent encounters to recognize them coming and to know the difference between social and asocial encounters, moving on to things like legal concerns, and finally including some fairly direct physical skills to deal with likely attacks. Sure, you could spend time learning to spot snipers hundreds of yards away, and position yourself so that they can't shoot you -- but the last real "sniper" case I'm aware of was in 2002. Maybe your time would be spent better dealing with simple assaults and robbery confrontations? Even so -- the reality is that most of us aren't all that likely to be in even a simple assault, unless we're in a profession that changes it or are spending our time in unwise places.

Can a martial art give you the physical skills for real violence? Absolutely -- if it's trained that way. I'm going to pick on tai chi for a moment; please realize that I do know that there are folks out there with real combative skill in it. But most folks doing tai chi? They're doing an Oriental dance for exercise. Some will actually get upset if you point out the combative elements -- it's not what they're there for! But, if you ever get a chance to see what some of the folks who have done the combative side can do -- it's pretty impressive. But they don't get there merely by "dancing..."

But if you're after pure self defense skills -- yep, that's what you have to practice. A simple set of easily learned and engrained responses that'll handle MOST of the things that are likely to happen.

 

[carloscrane]

In self defense,we think of doing "to" our opponent just as they are trying to do something "to" us. The goal for us is to gain control of our opponent. In traditional martial arts and sport fighting the mentality is usually that of sparring "with" or fighting "with" someone else.

 

[jks9199]

In self defense,we think of doing "to" our opponent just as they are trying to do something "to" us. The goal for us is to gain control of our opponent. In traditional martial arts and sport fighting the mentality is usually that of sparring "with" or fighting "with" someone else.

If your goal in self defense is "to gain control of" your opponent -- what are you going to do with them once you've controlled them?

As a LEO, my goal is absolutely to restrain and control the subject in order to arrest them. But for a private citizen? Nope, their goal should be to deal with the initial attack, do sufficient damage to deter pursuit, and escape. I once saw a beautiful "self defense" technique. It was really great, though rather complicated. Oh, and it ended in an arm bar. Which is nice... if you want to stand there indefinitely holding someone who tried to hurt you. And is probably now more than slightly enraged...

 

[K-man]

If your goal in self defense is "to gain control of" your opponent -- what are you going to do with them once you've controlled them?

As a LEO, my goal is absolutely to restrain and control the subject in order to arrest them. But for a private citizen? Nope, their goal should be to deal with the initial attack, do sufficient damage to deter pursuit, and escape. I once saw a beautiful "self defense" technique. It was really great, though rather complicated. Oh, and it ended in an arm bar. Which is nice... if you want to stand there indefinitely holding someone who tried to hurt you. And is probably now more than slightly enraged...

Unless we are talking about a social setting where some friend or relative had had to much alcohol. Then restraint until they see reason may be indicated. On the street, no way. And a stomp on the ankle as you leave them on the ground is a nice finishing touch.

 

[drop bear]

I dropped a guy over the weekend. Arm barred him until he cried and then let his friends take him away. Which they did. You don't have to murder death kill everybody you get into contact with.

My pitch being I will let him go this time but if he goes for round two I will drop him on his head.

 

[Chris Parker]

This might not be short…

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I don't know if the story of Bodidharma teaching the Shaolin monks is factually true or not, but let's assume that it is. What was he teaching them? Martial arts so that they could defend themselves from robbers as they roamed the countryside.

Perhaps I am misreading your interpretation, Mr. Parker, but it seems to me that you are saying that if there is an offensive element of some sort, then it is not self-defense. If that is the case, then by your definition, there is no such thing as self-defense if you ever strike your opponent in any manner. Am I totally off base here?

Yeah, you're off base… most of our (physical) tactics are based around pre-emptive striking… so no, I'm not suggesting that if there's an offensive element it's not self defence… in fact, I can't see anything in my post that suggests that.

As far as what Bodhidarma supposedly taught, it was largely a series of exercises to improve the monks health so they could physically endure the meditation sessions. The idea of "to defend against bandits" was a much later addition to the story…

To me, it is quite simple.

Self defence is the art of not getting your head kicked in, and martial arts will help to facilitate that.

Does it need to be more complex than that?

Well, yeah, it needs to be a lot more complex than that… and while martial arts can certainly help in many ways, that isn't the same thing as saying that they're designed for, or even optimised for such usage or application.

I saw some posts about the military practicing such things, and it seemed to the theme that this is secondary. Maybe, but I happen to know that certain sections of British military take hand to hand combat extremely seriously. Perhaps google search 'para milling', to see the Parachute regiment just hitting each other to train in the art of taking a punch. The combatants are not allow to block or counter, they just have to hit and be hit. Or theres our Royal Marines with their combat. Tell me this isn't martial arts.

Royal Marine Commandos- HAND TO HAND COMBAT - YouTube

That was really entertaining. And that last word is your clue as to what you actually posted, for the record.

As to telling you that isn't martial arts, well, it was an exhibition… it was largely done for show rather than anything that practical… could you tell which were the practical aspects that might have some place, and which were more "crowd pleasers"? In terms of pure percentage, the majority was the latter… so sure, it could easily be classed as martial arts… but that in itself doesn't really mean anything… for one thing, none of it was self defence either… it was more theatrical combatives than anything else…

No sport is battlefield battlefield is sport on many occasions.

No, it's not.

Soldiers doing sport on the battlefield.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hXTNUHh9vmU

First, they're not soldiers… they're a Canadian MMA group doing a demo for the soldiers. Next, that's not on the battlefield, it's in a military camp. Third, this in no way has anything to do with applications of sport (or martial arts) on the battlefield, so has no real relevance to anything you're saying.

And for the battle field.
MMA in the US Military: Soldier Survival Training | POW! Mixed Martial Arts & Fitness

That article specifically states that MMA is not really like actual combative usage, you realise… kinda going against your argument.

And in battle.
Diggers defend killer Commando Sergeant Paul Cale

He used a choke. What's your point? There's no mention of anything other than Cale having been scooped by the US Military to help teach a combatives system… nothing about sports or anything else related. A choke does not equal sports, or MMA, or anything else.

MMA In the Military | *FIGHT! Magazine ? Archives

Yeah… that article was rather flawed in a number of senses… it seems to have made the same assumption that MMA=particular techniques (such as arm bars and chokes), therefore when someone utilises such techniques, they're using MMA… uh, nope. It talks about changing and adapting away from a sporting context, which stops it being MMA really, for military usage, and mentions that some soldiers are taking part in sporting contests within the military… that's pretty standard fare, really, and has existed within military groups as long as there's been military groups. It doesn't mean that those sporting systems and approaches are then used in actual battle… although there can be some crossover, it's really not the same thing at all… and isn't part of their training for such usage, in any case. Most commonly, it's to promote aggressive behaviour, competitive ideals, promote fitness, and more. Not because the soldiers are then expected to actually use it… even though there is a chance they might.

But otherwise a huge difference?

Absolutely. Especially as most of what you posted either counters your position or has no connection or relevance.

Makes me think about the Ancient Greeks and their "games". Many of them were combat sports that tested skills they took right from the battlefield.

Combat sport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, sporting events from combative drills and training have existed as long as military units have… in fact, it could be said that all sports are really a derivation of military training in one way or another… promoting certain aspects that would be useful for a warrior or group of warriors. This isn't anything new, nor does it mean that sports are the same thing as found/used in actual combat.

Not uncommon In a lot of cultures.
Suri stick fighting.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_bT47aoruw

Well, that's more a ceremony than a sport… and isn't really a "battlefield" method either… so, uh… and?

Jujitsu. Sport self defence martial art. Frankly who knows where one starts and the other stops.
Edith Margaret Garrud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First things first. This might be hard for you to hear, but… Jujutsu is not a sport martial art. Some modern forms are, including BJJ, but to say that Jujutsu is a sport martial art is to show no understanding of Jujutsu. As far as "who knows where one starts and the other stops", well, anyone who actually knows what the particular systems parameters are.

I have no clue what the wiki page on Edith Garrud is about… as it doesn't really address anything that's being discussed.

Bartitsu a mixed martial art.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t7aKdU96JuA

Wow, that video was funny… no, Bartitsu isn't a "mixed martial art", anymore than countless other systems before it were. It certainly isn't/wasn't "MMA", and nor was what Bruce Lee was doing, for a large number of reasons.

But, I gotta ask, what does that have to do with anything in this thread? It's not really covering the idea of martial arts versus the concept of self defence… it has nothing to do with the "military arts/martial arts" idea… what are you trying to say?

Muay Thai as a battlefield/self defence/sport.
muay thai History | muay thai

No, it's not. It's a modern (early 20th Century) sport. The "battlefield" claims are frankly unsupportable myths, which run contrary to the demonstrable aspects of the art/system.

In self defense,we think of doing "to" our opponent just as they are trying to do something "to" us. The goal for us is to gain control of our opponent. In traditional martial arts and sport fighting the mentality is usually that of sparring "with" or fighting "with" someone else.

I almost don't know where to start with this one… but, really, no. Just… no. Self defence is about getting home safely… not about doing anything "to" anyone… although that could be part of it, it's not actually what it's about… it's not about gaining control either… although I could say that those definitions fit quite perfectly a number of martial arts themselves… and your definition of "traditional martial arts" can be seen as inaccurate as well… none of my systems (very traditional) even consider "sparring", for example…

I dropped a guy over the weekend. Arm barred him until he cried and then let his friends take him away. Which they did. You don't have to murder death kill everybody you get into contact with.

My pitch being I will let him go this time but if he goes for round two I will drop him on his head.

And? I'm really struggling to see the relevance…

And how is dropping someone on their head (presumably on concrete outside) not a "murder death kill" approach?

 

[tifire]

"Martial Arts" on dictionary.com:
noun
1. any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.

So it's clear enough?