Hmm, been away for a bitā¦ some things to catch up on, it seems.
Not to the level or proficiency of the Kyokushin school. Kyokushin schools have a reputation of being hard contact karate institutions, thus the OP is more likely to learn how to hit, and how to be hit in that form of Karate than the Shito school. The OP's post even backs that up.
No, the OP's post doesn't back anything like that upā¦ do you know the striking drills and methods of the Shito Ryu school? Additionally, I asked what would result in "weak punches and kicks"ā¦ not "weaker", but "weak"ā¦ so far, you have given nothing other than your preconceptions as support for your baseless comments.
Which is where your training in the martial arts should come into play. You should be experienced enough that you're not cowering under those barrage of punches, but making quick and effective decisions in order to get out of that situation. If the totality of your training goes out of the window when someone starts hitting you, then I'm afraid you've wasted your time and money practicing martial arts, and you should have taken up a different activity.
Ha! You do realise that that's more fantasy than anything else, yeah? For one thing, you won't have the ability to "make quick and effective decisions"ā¦ but for another, you've completely missed the reality of my comments and the situationā¦ you get blindsided, you get suddenly attacked by a barrage, and yeah, even you, you'll be cowering under it. Why? Because you'll automatically go into a primal defensive modeā¦ it's hardwired into you. You might break past that sooner with training, but you're still going to cower first. And there's nothing to suggest that Kyokushin would get you there sooner than Shito Ryu, you knowā¦
I really have almost completely lost hope for you, thenā¦ it's been explained over and over again (in this and many other threads), so if you don't get it yetā¦ I have to feel that it's at least partially wilful on your side.
I'm using it as an example of someone using martial arts to defend themselves. My earlier argument was that if she had taken a more contact based style (like Bjj or Kyokushin), she probably wouldn't have eventually needed help to get out that situation, or taken the amount of damage that she took. That said, SOME martial arts training is better than NO martial arts training. Clearly her karate training did help her survive the encounter.
Erā¦ huh? Dude, you honestly have no idea what you're talking about thereā¦
No offense, but if the victim says that her karate training saved her life (which she did), I'm inclined to side with the victim over your armchair analysis.
You may want to read a little deeper, thenā¦
http://www.bjjee.com/bjj-news/female-us-navy-sailor-puts-rapist-to-sleep-with-triangle-choke-in-dubai/
Woman triangle chokes attacker unconscious, judge awards her Ā£500
As a person who practices Triangle Chokes, I can attest to the fact that they require a certain level of sophistication to accomplish, especially in a situation where someone bigger and stronger is trying to violate or kill you. They both used fighting skill to
defend themselves against an assailant.
You've done them when someone's trying to violate you, have you? Know the situation well, yeah?
Oh, and you do know that this is really little more than evidence that one thing has worked on occasion, not anything that contravenes the idea that other methods work as well, yeah?
Fortunately for these women, they took a martial art that didn't tell them to start "cowering under a barrage of attacks you didn't see coming".
Name me one martial art that does tell people to cower under a barrage of attacks, mate. Do you think the young lass' karate classes told her to?
I said she would have been better served learning some form of ground fighting. However, that's a different argument entirely, and not the point of this discussion. The point in this discussion is that her karate background did get her out of a bad situation.
Actually, from a technical standpoint, no, it didn't.
If she had known ground fighting, she more than likely wouldn't have sustained the damage that she did. The assailant would have played directly into her game. Unfortunately, Karate and similar arts lack this crucial range of fighting.
Erā¦ huh? No, having trained in BJJ wouldn't have mitigated the damage taken in being hit from behind and tackled to the ground, then hit when she was down there. You do realise that BJJ training doesn't mean hits don't damage you, yeah? Oh, and no, Karate etc don't actually "lack" this "crucial range"ā¦ they don't have anywhere near the specialisation that BJJ does, but then again, BJJ is lacking the "crucial" striking and kicking skills that they haveā¦ or the weapon usage of the FMA'sā¦ or, well, anything else we can come up with.
Sorry, son. I'm very interested in the subject of self defines.
No, Steve, you're not. You have your own ideas, and fight aggressively against any actual information you get given, especially as it contradicts your pre-conceptions. You may feel you're interested, but your behaviours contradict that pretty strongly.
I don't train in any martial arts for self defense, but that's not the same thing. Like you, I don't believe martial arts training in general makes one safer, regardless of the style. Sure, some will make you a better fighter than others, but that's not the same thing. Is it?
Yeah, you're not on the right track there, either. In fact, I've often said that training can certainly help, it can aid with a violent encounter, and more. What I have said is that no martial arts are specifically geared towards modern self defenceā¦ which is not the same thing at all.
I also believe that if the goal is truly to mitigate risk, reduce the chances of needing to fight and increase our odds of surviving a violent encounter, just about any worthwhile course of study would be more helpful than training in martial arts.
Erā¦ nope. If the goal is to truly mitigate risk, then the best course of study is to understand what that risk is in the first place, followed by looking at reductive strategies and methodologies. Which, you'll love this, includes martial arts. The issue is that martial arts deal dominantly with only one facet, and often in a restricted fashionā¦ which is why they're good as a base, but must be expanded uponā¦ not removed from the study entirely.
That would include whatever 18 year "system" you sell to your students.
Please. I "sell" to my students? Dude. Get over yourself.
Tell you what, when you're happy to actually listen to what you've been told, I'll happily talk to you about what is contained in my methodologies, but if you're going to offer snide, ill-informed, and snarky pot-shots, there's little point. But, as you have been told, it's not 18 yearsā¦ we'll come back to that (as the issue is on your side).
I agree with you that self defense is tactical and not technical. While it's difficult to know how you're comprehending what I've said in recent months, I'm pretty sure when I've commented on self defense, it's to say much the same thing as above.
No, it isn't.
Over your time, you have started threads to say that people can't teach self defence, because you don't know how to define it. You have started threads telling people they can't actually be "experts" at self defence (therefore can't teach it) because, again, you refused to listen when people told you what that would actually entail. You have repeatedly said that self defence can't be defined or qualified, and refused to listen to anyone giving you better information. Some examples? Sure!
It's impossible to teach someone "Self Defense" | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community
Is it possible to "train" for something that you never actually do? | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community
As well as the example you yourself provide a little later, of courseā¦
There was a thread on the fundamental pillars of self defense a while ago. Maybe that would be a good one to resurrect. The guts of my opinions are there for anyone who cares to read them, and if you have sincere questions, I'd be happy to try and explain them further.
You've done that. The issue is you haven't listened to anyone else's answers.
You do know that that entire post is you putting your fingers in your ears, denying the accounts and claims of anyone who actually has dealt with the situation (and applied their training in such an event), claiming that there might be good courses, there might, but who knows, so let's assume there aren'tā¦ yeah, nothing in that tells me you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. In fact, quite the opposite.
Yeah, thanks. I'm giddy. You'll try once more until you try once more again.
Hey, I'm an optimistā¦
This is just... so... wow. Profound. I wish you were consistent with this, because if you stopped here, we would be in complete agreement. But you don't. You slip right from this into selling your 18 year product.
I'm selling nothing here, Steve. And I'll thank you to actually read what I write before you think you can retort. But, of course, you're completely off base again.
Thank you for being honest.
Always am, Steve.
I moved a couple of your sentences around just a little to put the relevant parts together.
Well, that was a mistake, wasn't it? There's a reason I keep whole posts intact, you realiseā¦
The statement above suggests that you believe self defense isn't technical, and that the tactical self defense approach can be learned in 6 months. That's pretty much what you wrote, so I hope I'm not going too far out on a limb there.
You're a little off. Self defence is a tactical area of study, yeahā¦ but that doesn't preclude physical aspects (in fact, they are expressions of some of the tactical principles)ā¦ and what I said was that our self defence curriculum, which includes "technical" approaches, guided by the overall tactical concepts, can be covered fully (as a more intensive area of study, without adding anything else) in approximately 6 months, giving a reasonable (servicable/applicable) level of skill and understanding.
In other words, if all you want is self defence, I can get you up to speed in 6 months, which will be tactically based, while including technical methods in that 6 months.
It's this next part, where, after acknowledging the above, you start selling the techniques of self defines:
At no point am I "selling" anything, nor am I saying much about the "techniques" there (they're included, but not the emphasis).
Intellectual gymnastics going on right there. You sell your students 18 years of technique, even as you acknowledge that they really only benefit from the tactics learned in the first 6 months.
Yeahā¦ this is the issue with you splitting up my sentences, as that's not what I said at all.
What I said was that it would take about 10-15 years to teach all the technical aspects of my martial artsā¦ whereas our self defence approach can be conceivably covered (devoid of other material) in about 6 monthsā¦ and that, in the dojo, I cover our self defence approach in an approximately 18 month cycle, give or take.
Again, I'll thank you to actually read what I write before you decide you can retort.
As I've said many times, there are a lot of great reasons to really enjoy training in martial arts. The benefits are undeniable. But self defense just isn't going to be one of them. You say it. I say it. Most everyone around here has said it when it suits the argument at the time. There are far more practical ways to protect yourself than training in a martial art (any martial art), and what that means to you is going to be unique to you.
No, Steve, I don't say it. In fact, I often say that many aspects of martial arts do transfer over to self defenceā¦ and that a good martial arts program is a good basis for a self defence approach.
I said in another thread: Self defense is an abstract that can be used to justify literally anything, the bar is nebulous.
No, it's not. You have your own personal belief that it is, for what reason I have no idea, but you have had explained to you many, many times now that that simply is not the caseā¦ it's a largely legal term, which makes it absolutely something with a specific definition. Your refusal to accept the definition does not in any way invalidate the definition, the same way that your refusal to accept the evidence and comments of others (in your "Experts" thread and others) means that you're correctā¦ but we've been down that path a number of times.
My opinion is that the ideal way training for self defense would flip the entire model around. Truly, if self defense is the single, preeminent goal for a person who has 6 hours per week to train, the IDEAL would be to purchase a gun, a Taser, a retractable baton, pepper spray or some other portable tool and spend an hour per week. every week, learning how to use it. To be clear, for most people, this is to make you feel safer, and will likely never be used.
What? No, that's really not the case at all. In fact, that's more avoiding the idea of self defence trainingā¦
Spend the other five hours per week on things that will actually help you, like taking 'use of force' classes, going to the gym so you are healthy, working on your self esteem and confidence, improve your communications skills, work on getting a better job.
A lot of that is periphery to the actual topic, thoughā¦ in other words, if you want to train for self defence, train for self defence.
For some people, self defense is going to AA or into rehab.
No, it's not.
For others, self defense is going to a therapist so that you can overcome the negative body image that leads you to putting yourself in risky situations where you drink too much and end up being victimised.
No, it's not.
For others still, it's about going back to school to learn a trade or to learn skills that will translate to a little more money in the bank, to let you get a security system for your home or better still, move to a better neighbourhood.
No, it's not.
Each of those are certainly ways to look after yourself and your life, but it's again not what is meant when discussing self defence. Your refusal to grasp the concept is why I say you don't actually show interest in the topicā¦ if you did, you'd seek to improve your understanding.
Anyone who spends 6 or more hours in an MA for self defense is just wasting time that could otherwise be spent doing things that will make them safer.
You're conflating different issues, though. Yes, self defence is about making you safer, but it's about making you safer in a particular sense and context, not in generalā¦ it's not about living a healthier lifeā¦ it's not about having a better job, or anything of the kindā¦ it's about having an understanding and behaviour pattern geared up around preventative and protective measures to deal with and handle violent encounters, not avoiding liver failure due to being an alcoholic.
I think you may be misnterpreting Chris's point regarding the 6 month vs the 18 year curriculum. The 6 months was for his self-defense program, which is something completely different from his 18-year martial art program. His martial art curriculum, if I'm understanding him correctly, is not primarily intended for self-defense.
Well, 10-15 year martial arts programā¦ 18 month self defence rotationā¦ but yeah.
This section seems both an important point, and one which could stand some clarification. Chris's point was that, to learn his martial art in full, even without "getting good at it" would take upwards of 10-15 years. Again, to learn his martial art, which as we have established, is a separate circle from self-defence.
Yep.
He then goes on to say that the entirety of his self-defense material, which is tactical, not technical, can be taught to you, an presumably diligent student, in about 6 months, but that in the dojo it generally takes about 18 months. Not years!
Yep.
I think that's probably fair. Studying a martial art in depth, we can all agree, is a life-time pursuit. I'm at 15 years right now, and I feel pretty durn junior in my system. Chris is saying that none of that matters for self-defense, and that the tactical skillset for self-defense can be learned in around a year and a half, not that he manages to upsell to an 18 year self defense course.
Not necessarily that none of it matters, but essentially, yeah.
Thanks for the clarification. 18 months would be very reasonable, I think.
Glad you approve. You're still not aware of exactly what it entails, of course, so I'm not sure how you can assess how reasonable it isā¦
In the past, I've suggested that Chris and I actually agree, but that usually prompts a lengthy essay from him to the contrary.
No, not really. If you go through the linked threads above, you'll find that the most common response to my posts to you has been: "I've heard your opinion, and I don't agree"ā¦ thing is, it's never been opinionā¦ which you've also managed to ignore.
