Properly identify what you teach and learn.

Great question! The biggest reason is as instructors, we want to provide our students with solutions to threats. I think most instructors have good intentions. But if we try to have a solution for everything, we will come up with answers based on our training and experience to do it. In many cases lacking the experience, and knowledge to give those answers. Why? Because we are often drawing from the same well.

In other words, to put it in a martial arts example, if you practice kickboxing and what to learn grappling, you don't get their by studying kickboxing at a deeper level. No you go to an expert to learn what you don't know about grappling. If you want to teach self-defense at a higher level, you don't get their by becoming the best combatives guy in town. You have to discover nuances you are previously unaware of.

By being aware of the nuances, we can begin to broaden our understanding of many topics and skill sets we were previously unaware even existed.

This thread is NOT intended to be a "stay in your lane" speech. The fact is the student or client is going to reach out to you as a martial arts instructor in many cases, regardless if it's the right context. But if we are self-aware, we can better begin to understand what type of skill set they best need. We can grow in ways we didn't know existed, to help them. We can teach better classes. On the other hand sometimes, this may simply mean saying, "You don't need martial arts instruction, you need...."
I’m still not sure how that requires defining the borders of those terms.
 
I feel like I missed something in this. Was this a reply to the post you quoted?

Sort of to your post. I think there is a much wider range of ideas that you can test than people give credit for.

So we have this dilemma that that we shouldn't really be teaching things that someone said to someone and so on.

But I think we can quite often take those things and play with them. So that we don't have as big a gap between theory and practice.
 
I’m just missing the connection.
Because as often instructors feel a need to have an answers to all things related to personal survival, because they are aware of an teach on aspect of it. So they end up creating solution or training programs that are outside of their scope of understanding. This happens a lot. And they are not even aware of where to go to seek answers to their question. Because first they haven't humbled themselves to identify that they don't know, second they don't know where to look, because they haven't identify the skills needed.
 
Can you expound on that? I’ve been through a lot of sales training.

It is ultimately trying to make someone do what they don't want to do and make them think they thought of doing it.

Same with fighting.

It was very effective in bouncing rather than explaining the rules I would sell them the alternatives.
 
Sort of to your post. I think there is a much wider range of ideas that you can test than people give credit for.

So we have this dilemma that that we shouldn't really be teaching things that someone said to someone and so on.

But I think we can quite often take those things and play with them. So that we don't have as big a gap between theory and practice.
I’m missing the connection to my post, but in any case I agree with what I think you’re saying.

I’m pretty tired, so the confusion could be all on my side.
 
Because as often instructors feel a need to have an answers to all things related to personal survival, because they are aware of an teach on aspect of it. So they end up creating solution or training programs that are outside of their scope of understanding. This happens a lot. And they are not even aware of where to go to seek answers to their question. Because first they haven't humbled themselves to identify that they don't know, second they don't know where to look, because they haven't identify the skills needed.
This is where I think we have the disconnect. I don’t see that as being an issue of definition of terms. I teach some parts of several of those categories, depending how you define them. But that’s not what really matters. What does matter is whether I understand the things I teach -do I know which techniques tend to work against folks who aren’t cooperating, for instance, or do I have any experience using deescalation to be able to teach it. Whether we put the pieces in one terminology box or another doesn’t change those questions or the answers.
 
Because as often instructors feel a need to have an answers to all things related to personal survival, because they are aware of an teach on aspect of it. So they end up creating solution or training programs that are outside of their scope of understanding. This happens a lot. And they are not even aware of where to go to seek answers to their question. Because first they haven't humbled themselves to identify that they don't know, second they don't know where to look, because they haven't identify the skills needed.

Does breaking down skillsets in to specifics fix that problem?

Here is a specific skill set.

 
It is ultimately trying to make someone do what they don't want to do and make them think they thought of doing it.

Same with fighting.

It was very effective in bouncing rather than explaining the rules I would sell them the alternatives.
You should start a thread on that someday. It’d make for interesting discussion.
 
Does breaking down skillsets in to specifics fix that problem?
Yes. Certainly, assuming you did into the subject matter to understand other categories of skills that you were previously unaware of, that you can then develop and make your skills.
 
Does breaking down skillsets in to specifics fix that problem?

Here is a specific skill set.



And I think this is the issue you are trying to solve.

Where I think it is the cause of the issue.
 
Yes. Certainly, assuming you did into the subject matter to understand other categories of skills that you were previously unaware of, that you can then develop and make your skills.

The thing is it kind of goes two ways. So say I wanted to do ground self defence.

Now I could say that was a BJJ specialty and do BJJ.

But the counter argument is BJJ is a sport and self defence is the specialty of I don't know. Let's say Krav.

Or even do a stand up and say the specialty is not going to the ground.

Using the specialist method I have no good way of telling what will work and what won't.

The argument works both ways. And is definitely used by both parties.
 
The thing is it kind of goes two ways. So say I wanted to do ground self defence.

Now I could say that was a BJJ specialty and do BJJ.

But the counter argument is BJJ is a sport and self defence is the specialty of I don't know. Let's say Krav.

Or even do a stand up and say the specialty is not going to the ground.

Using the specialist method I have no good way of telling what will work and what won't.

The argument works both ways. And is definitely used by both parties.
Well let's assume a woman comes to a martial artist with no previous experience and says she needs to protect herself because someone is sending her threatening messages. Do you give her a one day seminar on self defense? Send her to a gun store, and try to teach her firearms? Or do you help her develope a safety plan?

And if the threat is legit, and she really needs help, how knowledgeable are you as a martial arts instructor to help her with that safety plan? Do you wing it? Fake it until you make it? Or do you send her to the police to learn how to protect herself?

Or have you previously recognize that even though you are a martial arts instructor, maybe you should cross train in another discipline such as personal security consulting? So you start doing research and learn how to properly do threat assessments, program assessments, sight assessments, vulnerability assessments, avoidance strategies, mitigation strategies, communication strategies, contingency planning, surveillance detection, so on an so forth and so forth?

The same way you are not going to invent how to do BJJ in the moment, you will not develop these other skills without a focused study.

I literally can't explain it any better than that.
 
Well let's assume a woman comes to a martial artist with no previous experience and says she needs to protect herself because someone is sending her threatening messages. Do you give her a one day seminar on self defense? Send her to a gun store, and try to teach her firearms? Or do you help her develope a safety plan?

And if the threat is legit, and she really needs help, how knowledgeable are you as a martial arts instructor to help her with that safety plan? Do you wing it? Fake it until you make it? Or do you send her to the police to learn how to protect herself?

Or have you previously recognize that even though you are a martial arts instructor, maybe you should cross train in another discipline such as personal security consulting? So you start doing research and learn how to properly do threat assessments, program assessments, sight assessments, vulnerability assessments, avoidance strategies, mitigation strategies, communication strategies, contingency planning, surveillance detection, so on an so forth and so forth?

The same way you are not going to invent how to do BJJ in the moment, you will not develop these other skills without a focused study.

I literally can't explain it any better than that.
Also, it’s a not a very good argument that there’s a problem choosing between BJJ and self-defense.

BJJ is literally what’s taught for law enforcement to restrain suspects, and SOF for restraining captured targets.

The difference is they don’t focus on technique that assumes you’re on the mat in competition settings—which goes for applying all MMA accordingly.
 
Well let's assume a woman comes to a martial artist with no previous experience and says she needs to protect herself because someone is sending her threatening messages. Do you give her a one day seminar on self defense?
I don't like the word of SD. Your goal is to force your opponent to defense himself.

Many years ago, a girl asked me if MA can be used for self-defense. She then showed me bruises on her legs that her husband beat her up everyday. She joined in my class for 6 months. 6 months later she quited my class. Her husband started to join in my class. People told me that she started to beat her husband up everyday.

In my class, students used sparring as warm up. Each student could accumulate a lot of sparring experience within 6 months of training (3 times a week, 3 hours each class).

If you want to learn how to fight, you have to fight.
 
Last edited:
The same way you are not going to invent how to do BJJ in the moment, you will not develop these other skills without a focused study.

I literally can't explain it any better than that.

You know there are self defence guys literally do that. Under the guise of specific expertise.

 
Last edited:
Well let's assume a woman comes to a martial artist with no previous experience and says she needs to protect herself because someone is sending her threatening messages. Do you give her a one day seminar on self defense? Send her to a gun store, and try to teach her firearms? Or do you help her develope a safety plan?
You send her to someone who knows what they are on about.
 
Back
Top