Should a martial art require skills from outside of the school in order to progress?

[Gerry Seymour]

What's the purpose that you know everything about gun safety, but you don't know how to shoot, or can't shoot well?

If someone wants to learn sword skill, I will ask that person to go into the woods and chop down 1,000 tree branches. IMO, to develop gun skill, you have to shoot at least 1,000 bullets (or even more).

You don't have to be able to use a gun for effective shooting to be able to be safe with it. The opposite is not true, IMO.

Similarly, I can teach someone how to effectively prevent a hip throw without teaching them how to use one effectively (they only need a rudimentary understanding of what makes them "throwable").

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You won't accidentally shoot someone.

Yeah, that'll certainly help them learn to use a rapier, Mr. Miyagi.

Not all swords are chopping weapons.

Even some that look like chopping weapons aren't.

 

[brian k]

One of the BJJ youtubers I've been watching lately has the theory that there are three main skills for self-defense: grappling, striking, and firearms. His requirement to get to purple belt is that you have some basic striking competency*, and his requirement to get to brown belt is that you have some basic firearms competency*. He doesn't expect you to go out and win a boxing match or a 3-gun, but at the very least be able to hit a heavy bag with power (for purple) and know basic gun safety and be able to hit a reasonable target (for brown).

Comments on his videos are mixed. Some really appreciate that he is not just focused on pure BJJ and that he's encouraging his students to have a well-rounded skillset. Others have the attitude that unless it's classes he offers, it shouldn't be a requirement. That he should promote based purely on BJJ skill, and let the students decide if they want to pick up other skills along the way.

Personally, I tend to side with the second group. I do have experience in striking and with firearms, and I do believe they are worthwhile skills. And if I were a 4-stripe blue/purple belt at his gym, this particular requirement would not hold me back. I could see it being a requirement if they had a striking class on Fridays and a firearms safety class once a month (similar to how Taekwondo often includes grappling techniques in belt testing, if those techniques are taught in class). I don't see it as a requirement if the skills are not offered by the instructor.

*This is in addition to his BJJ requirements.

Is this BJJ instructor teaching striking and firearms? If not, how can the instructor expect the students to have any skill level in it? How can the instructor grade someone on firearms if he/she is not a qualified instructor? If a math teacher is teaching algebra, how can he basse a students grade on the students knowledge of biology?

And...if the instructor is teaching BJJ, perhaps that iswhat he should stick.

 

[jks9199]

Who said anything about disarming someone? I'm thinking more along the lines of when I hear someone breaking in and I grab the handgun near my bed. If I just assume it's loaded, and it's not, that's a big problem for me.

If it's next to your bed -- you should know its status. There are pros and cons for either loaded or unloaded, and that's a personal choice.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Is this BJJ instructor teaching striking and firearms? If not, how can the instructor expect the students to have any skill level in it? How can the instructor grade someone on firearms if he/she is not a qualified instructor? If a math teacher is teaching algebra, how can he basse a students grade on the students knowledge of biology?

And...if the instructor is teaching BJJ, perhaps that iswhat he should stick.

I don’t think the post suggested they were evaluating on that knowledge- just requiring the training from elsewhere. Thinking of another current thread, how different is requiring a specific firearms training certification (NRA, for example), compared to requiring first aid and CPR certification that isn’t offered in the school?

 

[jks9199]

Hence why I listed a few options. Maybe it's a limitation on the forum, but I would hope there would be some way of adding it in.

One example that I see on Reddit is they have mods that can upgrade specific posts to "mod" posts. For example, when you post about martial arts, your post has the same rights as any other post. But when you post a warning/announcement/update, you would add a "mod" tag/flag to it, where it cannot be ignored with the ignore feature.

Another is what I've seen used in every IT job, is a separate mod account. When I'm doing email, tickets, HR paperwork, etc., I'm using a user account. When I'm doing actual tech stuff like patching computers, I use an admin account. It wouldn't change posts that have already been made, but it could be used on posts going forward.

A third possibility is to do some sort of review and update the moderator list. I'm obviously biased in even suggesting this. And I know there are some users that aren't going to get along with any moderator, or are going to go after specific ones. However, I have noticed that most moderators get along with most people. There's just one or two that don't seem to mix well. In my biased opinion, of course. I've seen others have similar problems as I have had, is why I don't think it's limited to just me.

There are probably other ways to do this as well, which aren't coming to me at the moment. I can't tell you how much my experience on this forum would improve if I didn't have to actively ignore him. And, if he was afforded the same option against me (such as if he could ignore me on his conversation account and only had to see my posts on his mod account), I'm sure he might enjoy it more, too. I can't imagine that he actually enjoys talking to me. Unless he's just trolling me, in which case all the more reason for me to ignore him.

I'm going to put my official hat on for a moment here...

As a note... MT has been around for quite a while. The Rules and policies have been working pretty well, with some tweaks over time here and there.

Our policy, and it's adhered to pretty well, is that Staff doesn't moderate threads they are involved in. If they put the official hat on to take actions, they stop participating (I'm granting myself a waiver here, because I'm informing, not taking action.) So if a mod is participating, you won't likely miss a warning.

Warnings take a couple forms. Remember that our goal is to use the least moderation necessary. Some warnings are gentle nudges and reminders; they look like regular posts, and we don't usually call for a nudge to be an "Official Action." Think about seeing a cop, and slowing down. That's all a nudge is... A reminder to pull back on topic, or stay friendly. Other warnings are more direct -- they're usually pretty obvious by format and things like "ATTENTION ALL USERS" and a more formal signature. We used to be able to change the background so it was QUITE obvious, but over the years, and across software, we've lost that trick. The other sort of warning is unmistakable -- because it's not public. It's a direct message to you from a mod.

We don't discuss actions with other users; if you get direct warning, we don't tell everyone else. We don't even tell the person who reported you.

And we do police ourselves... We have a "backroom" and we will periodically suggest that a mod is letting someone get to them a little too much or is becoming part of the problem. The board founder and creater, Bob Hubbard, actually got suspended once... and we still hold each other accountable.

 

[GojuTommy]

As someone who considers themself a 2A activist, that’s super stupid to require people to get ‘competency’ (whatever that means to him) with a gun to advance in rank. There are people who should not have a gun or possess a gun even temporarily. Does this mean he won’t advance a felon? Or someone who has been adjudicated with mental issues?

If the coach also provides striking classes that requirement is less stupid, but if he’s telling people to go find another gym or school and pay more money, then it’s really stupid.

It’s a good thing to have some experience in other areas, especially if you’re training for self defense, but to make that a requirement that you enforce on your students is absolutely asinine.

 

[GojuTommy]

I don’t think the post suggested they were evaluating on that knowledge- just requiring the training from elsewhere. Thinking of another current thread, how different is requiring a specific firearms training certification (NRA, for example), compared to requiring first aid and CPR certification that isn’t offered in the school?

I’ve never heard of a martial arts school that required CPR training for advancement either so…

 

[jks9199]

I’ve never heard of a martial arts school that required CPR training for advancement either so…

I know of several. It's required for our black belts in my system, for example.

 

[skribs]

If it's next to your bed -- you should know its status. There are pros and cons for either loaded or unloaded, and that's a personal choice.

If it's unloaded, should you know that it's unloaded? That goes against rule #1.

Sometimes you have a gun that you normally keep loaded, but it gets unloaded during cleaning or transport. Yes, ideally you would load it before putting it back, but sometimes you get interrupted or there's other things going on and "I'll load it after I eat" becomes "time to go back in the safe". It probably won't happen, but that's the same mindset as "it's probably not loaded" if you think it's empty.

 

[SensoBjj]

yeah, you can learn new things. if you saw someone good at something and if you are comfortable with their technique go and try the new technique. if you improvise yourself with new techniques your game will improve.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Life is too short. If you try to learn everything, you may end with nothing. You will be lucky if you can develop some dependable MA skills when you were still young. To maintain those MA skills may also take the rest of your life time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I’ve never heard of a martial arts school that required CPR training for advancement either so…

I know of associations and schools that require some kind of first aid and/or CPR for advancement to instructor rank. In some, they teach very outdated first aid (though at least one of those also required CPR certification). They'd be better served (both practically and legally) sending students off for Red Cross first aid and/or CPR certification.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I’ve never heard of a martial arts school that required CPR training for advancement either so…

Then you haven't been paying attention, since @Gerry Seymour stated earlier in this thread that the organization he trained under has such a requirement and that he continues that same standard in his own school.

 

[jks9199]

If it's unloaded, should you know that it's unloaded? That goes against rule #1.

Sometimes you have a gun that you normally keep loaded, but it gets unloaded during cleaning or transport. Yes, ideally you would load it before putting it back, but sometimes you get interrupted or there's other things going on and "I'll load it after I eat" becomes "time to go back in the safe". It probably won't happen, but that's the same mindset as "it's probably not loaded" if you think it's empty.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The first fundamental rule of firearm is indeed "Treat all firearms as if they are loaded at all times." That is not at all inconsistent with the responsibility to know the condition of your firearm at all times. The first is about preventing a surprise negligent discharge -- you act and assume that a gun is live and loaded, and treat it that way. Meanwhile, you should know whether the gun by your bed is loaded or not when you put it there. You create zero danger acting as if it's loaded even if you believe it to be empty. And you should know how to rapidly corrrect it if through some monumental cock-up you put there in the wrong condition. (Note, I am not discussing whether it should be loaded or unloaded. I've said elsewhere -- there are pros and cons, and factors like the presence of children or a tendency towards sleepwalking may argue for one or the other.)

Seriously... are you being deliberately obtuse on this? Because this dogged adherance to dumb trite saying without any experience to back it up is making you look pretty damn obtuse.

 

[jks9199]

I know of associations and schools that require some kind of first aid and/or CPR for advancement to instructor rank. In some, they teach very outdated first aid (though at least one of those also required CPR certification). They'd be better served (both practically and legally) sending students off for Red Cross first aid and/or CPR certification.

I absolutely agree with this -- send them to get taught properly. A requirement for a current CPR card or completion of an approved first aid course makes sense -- but doing it in house, unless you've got those skill sets doesn't.

 

[skribs]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The first fundamental rule of firearm is indeed "Treat all firearms as if they are loaded at all times." That is not at all inconsistent with the responsibility to know the condition of your firearm at all times. The first is about preventing a surprise negligent discharge -- you act and assume that a gun is live and loaded, and treat it that way. Meanwhile, you should know whether the gun by your bed is loaded or not when you put it there. You create zero danger acting as if it's loaded even if you believe it to be empty. And you should know how to rapidly corrrect it if through some monumental cock-up you put there in the wrong condition. (Note, I am not discussing whether it should be loaded or unloaded. I've said elsewhere -- there are pros and cons, and factors like the presence of children or a tendency towards sleepwalking may argue for one or the other.)

Seriously... are you being deliberately obtuse on this? Because this dogged adherance to dumb trite saying without any experience to back it up is making you look pretty damn obtuse.

Thank you for insulting me instead of making a coherent argument. You've handed me the win in this debate.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Requiring knowledge in one art in order to get promoted in another art? I go along with others who say "no" but would encourage it. I say this not because I think a particular art may be lacking, but because doing so may help you better understand your main art.

If I want to be an expert in French cooking, would studying Thai cuisine help? Afterall French cooking is lacking - in hot chili seasoning, for example. But if I add this spicy dimension, do I still have French cuisine, or just a hybrid fusion that doesn't do justice to either and just confuses one's tastebuds?

I think it is beneficial to study another art to supplement your primary art, but if it has opposing principles, it can be confusing to use in a crisis situation. It has to be an art that is commentary to your main one and must be able to be easily and seamlessly integrated into it.

But perhaps more than this, the value of studying a second art is to help understand and appreciate the first one. It allows a contrast that highlights the wonderfulness of your main art. Yellow may seem to be a weak color but put it on a dark purple background - it really pops out. Its unique character comes to light.

Getting a familiarity with another art can lead you to ask questions: How is my art's technique different from this other one? This other art's technique can accomplish this or that. Is there something in my main art that can do the same thing? Maybe there is and I'm just missing something, or maybe I'm just not doing it right, or the way it was originally intended. Oftentimes we may find our primary art is more complete that we thought.

Sometimes by observing others we can learn something about ourselves. Likewise with arts.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Thank you for insulting me instead of making a coherent argument. You've handed me the win in this debate.

That is not how I read it.
You have come across a lot like JKS has mentioned as if there is a 100% Black and White move that will save your life all the time.
Or that one always uses Block X against Strike Y.

 

[skribs]

That is not how I read it.
You have come across a lot like JKS has mentioned as if there is a 100% Black and White move that will save your life all the time.
Or that one always uses Block X against Strike Y.

I've said that a gun that isn't loaded won't work. How is that a 100% black and white move that will save your life? I'm literally saying it's not 100% that it's loaded just because you think it is and that you should double check. I never made any claims at all at the effectiveness of a loaded gun in this thread. You are putting words in my mouth and/or making wild assumptions by saying that's what I claimed.