Sports relation to Self Defence.

[Chris Parker]

Okay, I'll address this.

Chris,

You keep bandying statements that I don't understand Martial Arts, or I dont understand self-defence, and you also keep refering to my comments as being my point of view as though that is something negative.

Well, honestly I'm simply basing that on your posts, in which you continue to demonstrate gaps in the overall concept of martial arts (even in this post, by the way, but we'll get to that). Oh, and I don't count the fact that this is your point of view as a negative, just your way of expressing it as if it is the only approach every martial artist should have (and I'll deal with that as well).

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that you don't understand your own martial arts. I would hope that after 33 years you would! Just that your experience (again based on your posts and descriptions of your background, as well as things hidden in your posts) is in only a small aspect of the martial arts, and as such you are not able to make a broad sweeping comment about all martial arts the way you seem to be.

Nowhere have I said that my POV is correct and all others are wrong. However, as this is a discussion board, I'm sure that my POV and perspective are as valid as your own. Yes?

Absolutely. But the thing to understand is that if you are offering your opinion up for public consumption and debate, don't get too upset if someone calls you on it, or disagrees.

Oh, and as for you not stating that your POV is correct, and all others are wrong....

As self defence/protection is about surviving a potential violent conflict, I stand by my opening sentence in this thread, that, in my opinion, the primary reason for studing martial arts should be with Self Defence/Protection at the forefront of reasons for training in the first place.

It is also my opinion that if SD is not the primary reason for studying Martial Arts, then when needed, ones training becomes as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

...now, you did put a lot of "in my opinion's" in there, but frankly that comes across as lip service to give yourself a way out here. I have given a number of examples of martial arts systems where SD doesn't even factor, let along constitute the primary reason. And to say that if it isn't your primary reason for studying martial arts (general, all-encompassing terminology there... this is why I'm saying you don't really understand martial arts, in the complete sense of the term. You simply seem unaware of the majority of what the term refers to).

Oh, and while I'm here, self defence/protection isn't about surviving a viscious assault, that's only a small part of it. It's about getting home safe, living your life free from fear (being constantly worried about surviving a viscious assault, to me, indicates a life of fear, so that goes against my concept of self defence training.... not saying that that is the case with you, just an example).

First of all; I understand Martial Arts very well. After 33 years of study, and research, I think it's safe to say I know my subject matter rather well.

As said, I'm not disputing that you know your arts very well. But that is not the same as understanding martial arts (in their entirety), that is frankly a rather difficult concept, and most people have no real need or desire to know more than their own art, which is cool.

But I'm more than happy for you to demonstrate that you do have a broader understanding on what martial arts actually are. Can you give your definition?

Second. I understand the field of self defence/protection very, very well, as this is my primary concern in the study of martial arts, and one which I pass onto my students.

Well, your background handling doors probably helped there... but having a vested interest isn't the same understanding. Over on martialartsplanet there is a 50 page thread on a guy who is publishing books on the history of the Ninja. He has no understanding, yet he has a vested interest, and book deals (if you want to wade through the mess over there, check out the thread on Shinobi Soldiers....)

I know all about physical and verbal indicators, prevention, etc, etc..but at the end of the proverbial day, the physical aspect of what we as martial artists do, is train to fight, and whilst we hope that we never have to use that training, the fact is that whenever we practice a drill, or a Kata, or spar, that activity is geared towards a physical endgame.

Really? Iaido is practiced with the aim of getting into a swordfight? Again, martial arts cover a much wider range of concepts and approaches than this simple one here.

In fact, I don't train to fight at all. I train for a huge number of reasons, and believe it or not, fighting is not one of them. And my background includes karate, tae kwon do, ninjutsu, kenjutsu, jodo, RBSD systems (Senshido, Deane Lawlers R-SULT, and a few others), some time served in BJJ, Aikido, classes in Wing Chun, Taiji, Capoeira, and boxing. Just so you know my background.

Which brings me to the next point. The point of this threas was to discuss my opinion, that those who train in full-contact sporting formats are more likely to be able to defend themselves in a violent altercation than someone who may study self-defence/protection in what I call a theory based art.

Really? That was the point of the OP? You know what, I've got this thread open in another window right now, and I can't see any reference to your "theory based arts" other than here. Kinda missed your mark on that one.

The way to OP reads, at least to me, is that:

a) All martial art training should be focused on self defence, no exceptions.

b) If you have other reasons, you should take them back to self defence, because that should be your focus.... so do your reasons help you focus your training on self defence, or hurt it?

c) Sport training isn't self defence training, but the closest to real self defence training that isn't self defence training is sport training.... what?

d) Blah blah blah (in other words, if you disagree, I'm not going to listen... well, that turned out pretty correct).

e) I really like sport martial arts, but some are not good for self defence, and that should be the focus of all martial arts training.

f) I shall denigrate methods I don't agree with and refuse to see anything of value, as it doesn't aid my perception of what martial arts should be about (self defence above all else).

g) If you hit people really hard then that'll help your self defence, because that's all about hitting people hard, and being able to take a hit.

h) My question! If all martial arts are primarily focused on self defence, and there are many sport martial arts, are some sport martial arts worse for self defence?

I don't see any reference to your "theory based arts" here, really. What I see is a narrow point of view, which is rather flawed in it's basic concept to begin with. And that means that the basic premise of your question (at the end there) requires us to accept your concept, which leads to the question of whether or not the concept is accurate in the first place. I say no, it isn't. And that leads us to here!

Let's, as an example, take the opposite ends of the martial spectrum.

You have Mr Smith who has decided that he wants to learn Martial Arts for Self-Defence and joins a GKR Karate class.

You have Mr Jones who has decided that he would like to train to fight under a full-contact sporting system such as MMA.

This is your idea of the opposite ends of the martial arts spectrum? Really? Two modern striking based sport systems? That's a broad spectrum?

Now, I've presented a much wider range in this very thread, you don't even have to go to some of my other posts in other threads to get an idea of how limited your view is here. It's things like this (as well as your basic concept of this entire thread) that lead me to say that your understanding of martial arts is lacking. You may well know your systems, but that is a far cry from understanding martial arts. Okay?

Now let's say that Mr Jones and Mr Smith are the same age, and, provisionaly the same fitness level. They both put the same hours into their training.

If both Mr Smith and Mr Jones were attacked, I would bet 12 to the dozen that Mr Jones would be more likely to survive a violent confrontation than Mr Smith, despite the fact that Mr Jones was only training for a sport.

I am never impressed with these kind of arguments, there is just too much missing information for a realistic appraisal. In fact, depending on a variety of circumstances, including the methods of training and the form the assault comes in, where either or both could easily come out fine.... or get demolished. There's no argument here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's BS...(on his part, not yours)....I train to shoot people, too, but that doesn't mean I shoot everyone who resists arrest.

When he was in Vietnam, he shot anyone who appeared to pose a threat, and he did it without thinking much about it - that kept him alive. If he fought hand-to-hand, he did it with his life on the line and no consideration for the enemy's life; after all, it was his job to take that life. These were the rules under which he and many wartime servicemen not only trained, but operated. It is hard to leave that all behind when transitioning back to civilian life, and many have found it nearly impossible, to their detriment.

A law enforcement officer must put their life on the line to not only make an arrest, but to use the minimum force necessary to to effect that arrest. This requires less instinctive reaction and more level-headed thinking. That may mean a moment's hesitation; officers are put in grave danger simply because they cannot respond without conscious thought, as a serviceman might in wartime; but that is the nature of the job.

I trained to shoot people in the military also; and I trained to shoot as a civilian LEO well. I was quite able to avoid reacting to an attack by using lethal methods when the situation did not call for it. But I was not in combat, fighting hand-to-hand for my life. That reaction was not ingrained in me. Had it been, I might well have also found it difficult to transition back to a world where the first reaction is not necessarily the most lethal one possesses.

I know from personal experience that reactions can be trained; and that once trained, they are hard to restrain.

An example; if someone walks up behind you and drops a book loudly, you will jump. Nearly everyone will. Through training, you can turn that normal and instant reaction into a defensive move instead of merely jumping out of your skin. Once that training is ingrained, there is a danger that even someone innocently playing a prank by dropping a book behind you is going to get a reaction you would not otherwise give them. That's the nature of the training I am speaking of.

When one has time to process threats and respond appropriately, one can of course override their training and respond as the situation calls for. However, trained reactions are very hard to overcome, as they happen before conscious thought does. That's their advantage; sometimes it is their disadvantage.

 

[Shifu Steve]

Cause Steve asked so nicely....

Er, settle in, it's a long one...... sorry.

Ask and you shall receive. Chris when it comes to adding content to a discussion you have effectively cornered the market. Well done sir.

 

[MJS]

Cause Steve asked so nicely....

Er, settle in, it's a long one...... sorry.

I'm afraid I really don't agree with that at all. In fact, I can personally think of absolutely no martial arts geared towards self defence, so to train them with that frame of mind (only) is to actually miss the point of them. Now, that's not to say that aspects of martial arts cannot be used, helpful, or highly advantageous in a self defence situation/scenario, however to think that that is what they are designed for is, I feel, to fundamentally misunderstand the teachings, training methods, ideologies, and actual precepts of the arts. But, being me, I'll give some examples to demonstrate my point:

While I have said many times that people train for various reasons, and there're many different benefits to the arts, I'm going to have to disagree that there were no arts developed with sd as the main purpose. I think the thread that I started a while ago, regarding the "Martial" in the martial arts, is relevant. For myself, I feel that was the main goal originally, however over time, that goal changed. Personally, I dont use the martial arts to lose weight, make friends, have something to do after work, to get stronger, etc. I do them for SD. The things that I listed, are IMO, the side benefits of training. If I want to lose weight, I'll go on my own diet and lift weights. Has that actually happened to me though? Sure, but again, thats not why I train. I'll join a gym for my strength building.

 

[MJS]

If we do what we train why then do the soldiers that do MMA manage to fight successfully in MMA, fight in combat succesfully and fight I mean 'defend' themselves so successfully in street/club situations? All three things train differently. Why are peple so sure that we stay in one frame of mind in situatons, I can succesfully change tack when at work or when in the club and then again between street situations and I'm not a very good martial artist.

Question for you: Would you say that happens to you, because of the way you train? I believe you've stated that your gym trains both MMA and self defense, therefore, I think it'd be an easier transition for you, compared to a gym thats purely sport.

 

[MJS]

It's been my real world experience that the benefits gained for those skills practiced under realistic stress, i.e. heavy sparring, give far more advantages than practicing skills many deem 'too dangerous' for hard sparring.

In other words, in the real world, folks get knocked out by those who have 'merely trained sport boxing' for example, more times than not.

It goes back to the old Mike Tyson quote about 'everyone having a plan until they get punched in the nose'........well, if you're not getting punched in the nose while trying that eye gauge, there's no realistic expectation you'll pull it off when someone is punching you in the nose.

Again, my personal experience supports this........lots of folks I know with theoretical 'lethal skills' have been rendering unconscious by a mere 'sport fighter'.

I'll preface my comment by saying that I have nothing against the sport arts. I've said many times that I feel that the TMAs can benefit from MMA, and vise versa. Anyways...maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying that only the sport arts are training with realism and heavy contact. If thats so, I'll have to disagree, as there are some TMAs that do engage in heavy contact.

 

[MJS]

When he was in Vietnam, he shot anyone who appeared to pose a threat, and he did it without thinking much about it - that kept him alive. If he fought hand-to-hand, he did it with his life on the line and no consideration for the enemy's life; after all, it was his job to take that life. These were the rules under which he and many wartime servicemen not only trained, but operated. It is hard to leave that all behind when transitioning back to civilian life, and many have found it nearly impossible, to their detriment.

A law enforcement officer must put their life on the line to not only make an arrest, but to use the minimum force necessary to to effect that arrest. This requires less instinctive reaction and more level-headed thinking. That may mean a moment's hesitation; officers are put in grave danger simply because they cannot respond without conscious thought, as a serviceman might in wartime; but that is the nature of the job.

I trained to shoot people in the military also; and I trained to shoot as a civilian LEO well. I was quite able to avoid reacting to an attack by using lethal methods when the situation did not call for it. But I was not in combat, fighting hand-to-hand for my life. That reaction was not ingrained in me. Had it been, I might well have also found it difficult to transition back to a world where the first reaction is not necessarily the most lethal one possesses.

I know from personal experience that reactions can be trained; and that once trained, they are hard to restrain.

An example; if someone walks up behind you and drops a book loudly, you will jump. Nearly everyone will. Through training, you can turn that normal and instant reaction into a defensive move instead of merely jumping out of your skin. Once that training is ingrained, there is a danger that even someone innocently playing a prank by dropping a book behind you is going to get a reaction you would not otherwise give them. That's the nature of the training I am speaking of.

When one has time to process threats and respond appropriately, one can of course override their training and respond as the situation calls for. However, trained reactions are very hard to overcome, as they happen before conscious thought does. That's their advantage; sometimes it is their disadvantage.

Am I safe to assume that this could apply to a sport fighter who also, much like the people you mention here, operate under a specific rule/mindset?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'll preface my comment by saying that I have nothing against the sport arts. I've said many times that I feel that the TMAs can benefit from MMA, and vise versa. Anyways...maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying that only the sport arts are training with realism and heavy contact. If thats so, I'll have to disagree, as there are some TMAs that do engage in heavy contact.

That's not actually what i'm saying.........what I am saying is that heavy contract sport training will 99 times out of 100 beat so-called 'self-defense' training that isn't supplemented with heavy contact.

Fighting is fighting, really............and you learn to fight by fighting. Anyone who says 'Well, getting punched in the face by a boxer in the ring.......well, that's not anything close to getting punched in a street fight' has never stepped in the ring to really test that theory. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between combat sports and self-defense, but many folks VASTLY overstate that difference.

 

[sgtmac_46]

When he was in Vietnam, he shot anyone who appeared to pose a threat, and he did it without thinking much about it - that kept him alive. If he fought hand-to-hand, he did it with his life on the line and no consideration for the enemy's life; after all, it was his job to take that life. These were the rules under which he and many wartime servicemen not only trained, but operated. It is hard to leave that all behind when transitioning back to civilian life, and many have found it nearly impossible, to their detriment.

A law enforcement officer must put their life on the line to not only make an arrest, but to use the minimum force necessary to to effect that arrest. This requires less instinctive reaction and more level-headed thinking. That may mean a moment's hesitation; officers are put in grave danger simply because they cannot respond without conscious thought, as a serviceman might in wartime; but that is the nature of the job.

I trained to shoot people in the military also; and I trained to shoot as a civilian LEO well. I was quite able to avoid reacting to an attack by using lethal methods when the situation did not call for it. But I was not in combat, fighting hand-to-hand for my life. That reaction was not ingrained in me. Had it been, I might well have also found it difficult to transition back to a world where the first reaction is not necessarily the most lethal one possesses.

I know from personal experience that reactions can be trained; and that once trained, they are hard to restrain.

An example; if someone walks up behind you and drops a book loudly, you will jump. Nearly everyone will. Through training, you can turn that normal and instant reaction into a defensive move instead of merely jumping out of your skin. Once that training is ingrained, there is a danger that even someone innocently playing a prank by dropping a book behind you is going to get a reaction you would not otherwise give them. That's the nature of the training I am speaking of.

When one has time to process threats and respond appropriately, one can of course override their training and respond as the situation calls for. However, trained reactions are very hard to overcome, as they happen before conscious thought does. That's their advantage; sometimes it is their disadvantage.

I don't buy the ole' 'I'm a trained killer, so I responded out of instinct' thing on his part.........the reality is that such training ingrains MORE control on the part of the recipient, not LESS!

IF he gouged out the assailants eye, it's because he decided to.....and blamed it on his training and experience after the fact.

Now if you want to argue that his training and experience engrained a certain mindset toward violence, on that part i'll agree. Such training and experience DOES alter ones tolerance for violence, causing a very low-threshold for extreme violence, but actions are still conscious actions, even if the responses are instinctive in the sense of how fast they react......they still intended to do exactly what they did.

 

[alcatraz]

That's not actually what i'm saying.........what I am saying is that heavy contract sport training will 99 times out of 100 beat so-called 'self-defense' training that isn't supplemented with heavy contact.

Fighting is fighting, really............and you learn to fight by fighting. Anyone who says 'Well, getting punched in the face by a boxer in the ring.......well, that's not anything close to getting punched in a street fight' has never stepped in the ring to really test that theory. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between combat sports and self-defense, but many folks VASTLY overstate that difference.

Exactly!!

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm afraid I really don't agree with that at all. In fact, I can personally think of absolutely no martial arts geared towards self defence, so to train them with that frame of mind (only) is to actually miss the point of them. Now, that's not to say that aspects of martial arts cannot be used, helpful, or highly advantageous in a self defence situation/scenario, however to think that that is what they are designed for is, I feel, to fundamentally misunderstand the teachings, training methods, ideologies, and actual precepts of the arts. But, being me, I'll give some examples to demonstrate my point:

While I have said many times that people train for various reasons, and there're many different benefits to the arts, I'm going to have to disagree that there were no arts developed with sd as the main purpose. I think the thread that I started a while ago, regarding the "Martial" in the martial arts, is relevant. For myself, I feel that was the main goal originally, however over time, that goal changed. Personally, I dont use the martial arts to lose weight, make friends, have something to do after work, to get stronger, etc. I do them for SD. The things that I listed, are IMO, the side benefits of training. If I want to lose weight, I'll go on my own diet and lift weights. Has that actually happened to me though? Sure, but again, thats not why I train. I'll join a gym for my strength building.

Hey Mike,

As I said, I can think of exactly zero martial arts designed for self defence, developed for it, or even really suited to it. Many were developed for combative means, but that is very different to being developed for, or even suited for self defence. There are many aspects that can help enormously, but that is not what they are designed for. They are realistically too complex, too involved, and too often designed for methods of combat not seen in a modern context. This even extends to more modern systems such as Kajukenbo and Krav Maga. Krav Maga, for instance, was designed with military uses in mind, which is highly combative, but not self defence.

As the methodology of both are so different, if a martial art was designed with self defence in mind, I don't think it would be very good at such an aim. Something designed with self defence in mind would be a DefTac program, or RBSD course, but neither of these fit the description of "martial art", as they are lacking the depth and range, as well as the "art" aspect.

 

[MJS]

That's not actually what i'm saying.........what I am saying is that heavy contract sport training will 99 times out of 100 beat so-called 'self-defense' training that isn't supplemented with heavy contact.

Fighting is fighting, really............and you learn to fight by fighting. Anyone who says 'Well, getting punched in the face by a boxer in the ring.......well, that's not anything close to getting punched in a street fight' has never stepped in the ring to really test that theory. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between combat sports and self-defense, but many folks VASTLY overstate that difference.

I agree, however, I simply said that that there are many SD related arts, that do engage in heavy, hard contact. I think you'd be hard pressed to find, say a Kajukenbo school, that didn't do heavy, hard contact.

Additionally, I could point you to a thread that I started in the Kenpo section, in which I said that I think that many Kenpoists could benefit from some boxing training.

Again, please dont mistake what I'm saying. I'm not against sport arts at all. I've been a big fan of the UFC since day 1.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now if you want to argue that his training and experience engrained a certain mindset toward violence, on that part i'll agree. Such training and experience DOES alter ones tolerance for violence, causing a very low-threshold for extreme violence, but actions are still conscious actions, even if the responses are instinctive in the sense of how fast they react......they still intended to do exactly what they did.

Very simply; if someone sneaks up behind you and drops a book very loudly, do you jump? If so, tell me how that's voluntary. In my experience, the only ways for me to prevent myself jumping was a) know that it was coming and brace myself for it, or b) train myself to replace the 'jump' instinct with something else. And if b, then that is the new 'jump' and it's just as involuntary as jumping was.

Studies have shown that when a person burns themselves on say a hot surface, they jerk back their hand faster than the amount of time it takes for the information from the nerves to travel to the brain, be processed, and travel to the muscles telling them to contract. That means it happens on a level that not only doesn't require thinking, it is faster than thinking could happen. It's a failsafe, an override. Yes, it can be overridden, especially if the person knows the burn sensation is coming and prepares for it, but when caught unawares, this response is autonomic.

As to my friend who gouged out the eyeballs; all I can say is he was not a complete individual. I believe today the term would be 'PTSD' but back then we didn't know what to call him. I didn't know him before he went to Vietnam, but those who did said he had changed in many ways. I believe his response was one that was outside of his ability to control at that time, and based upon the training he had received. I have no doubt I could refrain from such a response, but I'm not sure it was in his power to do so.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hey Mike,

As I said, I can think of exactly zero martial arts designed for self defence, developed for it, or even really suited to it. Many were developed for combative means, but that is very different to being developed for, or even suited for self defence. There are many aspects that can help enormously, but that is not what they are designed for. They are realistically too complex, too involved, and too often designed for methods of combat not seen in a modern context. This even extends to more modern systems such as Kajukenbo and Krav Maga. Krav Maga, for instance, was designed with military uses in mind, which is highly combative, but not self defence.

As the methodology of both are so different, if a martial art was designed with self defence in mind, I don't think it would be very good at such an aim. Something designed with self defence in mind would be a DefTac program, or RBSD course, but neither of these fit the description of "martial art", as they are lacking the depth and range, as well as the "art" aspect.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Self-defense is the primary purpose of most martial arts that I'm aware of. Unarmed combat is a different animal, and it often requires a lack of defense of self, since combat has a primary requirement of destroying the enemy, as opposed to preserving one's own life.

Unless you think of the two words 'self' and 'defense' in a completely different way than I understand them, I'm not at all sure what you mean.

As an example, a self-defense scenario for being pinned down under enemy fire would be to find a covered position and then find a means for escape, or a means to stop the enemy fire without exposing oneself to the risk of being shot. Armed combat clearly has a component of self-defense in it; one seeks cover from enemy fire. But leaving is not generally the appropriate response in combat - one must take risks, because the primary purpose is to close with, engage, and destroy the enemy; person survival, though important, comes second to the mission.

In basic terms, self-defense means running away from the sound of gunshots in the distance. Combat means running towards that sound. The fact that each involves similar skills doesn't change that basic premise.

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,

As I said, I can think of exactly zero martial arts designed for self defence, developed for it, or even really suited to it. Many were developed for combative means, but that is very different to being developed for, or even suited for self defence. There are many aspects that can help enormously, but that is not what they are designed for. They are realistically too complex, too involved, and too often designed for methods of combat not seen in a modern context. This even extends to more modern systems such as Kajukenbo and Krav Maga. Krav Maga, for instance, was designed with military uses in mind, which is highly combative, but not self defence.

As the methodology of both are so different, if a martial art was designed with self defence in mind, I don't think it would be very good at such an aim. Something designed with self defence in mind would be a DefTac program, or RBSD course, but neither of these fit the description of "martial art", as they are lacking the depth and range, as well as the "art" aspect.

I dont know Chris, after reading Bills reply, I think I'm leaning more in his direction. Take a look at this: From John Bishops Kajukenbo page...

[FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana]What is Kajukenbo?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]Brutal, deadly, overkill, street effective. These and many other such terms have been used to describe the martial art system known as kajukenbo.

Kajukenbo gained it's reputation for being brutally effective decades ago in the U.S. Territory of Hawaii. In the Hawaii of the 1940s the enemy was not the ancient battlefield soldier, it was the common street criminal. Instead of swords and spears he armed himself with knives, clubs, and guns. Even when unarmed he did not fight by any rules. He punched, kicked, gouged, bit, and stomped. If you encountered one of these brutal street fighters you were in for a life or death battle. Kajukenbo was designed to win such a battle.

Since then it's eclectic use of five martial arts and it's no-nonsense approach to self defense has contributed to it's rapid growth and strong reputation as an highly effective self defense system.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]The Development of Kajukenbo

Kajukenbo is a prime example of American ingenuity. It is also America's first martial art system, having been founded in 1949 in the U.S. Territory of Hawaii. One of today's foremost instructors in kajukenbo is Gary Forbach from San Clemente, California. According to him, kajukenbo's inception came about in 1947 when five Hawaiian martial arts masters calling themselves the "Black Belt Society" started on a project to develop a comprehensive self defense system. These five men of vision were Peter Choo, the Hawaii welterweight boxing champion, and a Tang Soo Do black belt. Frank Ordonez, a Sekeino Jujitsu black belt. Joe Holck, a Kodokan Judo black belt. Clarence Chang, a master of Sil-lum Pai kung fu. And Adriano D. Emperado, a Kara-Ho Kenpo black belt and Escrima master.



[/FONT]
That says to me anyways, that its a SD system. Much like Bill said, when I hear the word "combat" the first thing that comes to my mind is a battlefield. A soldier fighting an enemy. The main goal is taking out the enemy. When I hear "self defense" the first thing that comes to my mind is avoiding a bad situation, be it by just walking away, verbally defusing the situation and if need be, physically fighting. IMO, the goal of SD is to use enough force to end the confrontation. I'm not intending, unless I too am faced with deadly force, of actually killing someone, and even then, we still need to be careful, even if we may be justified.

 

[MJS]

I don't buy the ole' 'I'm a trained killer, so I responded out of instinct' thing on his part.........the reality is that such training ingrains MORE control on the part of the recipient, not LESS!

IF he gouged out the assailants eye, it's because he decided to.....and blamed it on his training and experience after the fact.

Now if you want to argue that his training and experience engrained a certain mindset toward violence, on that part i'll agree. Such training and experience DOES alter ones tolerance for violence, causing a very low-threshold for extreme violence, but actions are still conscious actions, even if the responses are instinctive in the sense of how fast they react......they still intended to do exactly what they did.

I'll refer back to the Krav Maga and Kajukenbo Fight Quest episodes. In both cases, we have Jimmy and Doug, resort back to their training...grappling, in many instances, which, IMO, was not the best thing to do. They each said it...that it was hard to break those habits. Youtube has those clips for viewing, if you care to check them out.

Again, I have to agree with Bill.

 

[Chris Parker]

Fighting is fighting, really............and you learn to fight by fighting. Anyone who says 'Well, getting punched in the face by a boxer in the ring.......well, that's not anything close to getting punched in a street fight' has never stepped in the ring to really test that theory. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between combat sports and self-defense, but many folks VASTLY overstate that difference.

Well, my argument is simply that self defence isn't fighting. There is obviously and necessarily a physical component to it, but that is actually the minority. Oh, and for the record, I have spent some time in a boxing facility, we do hit hard ourselves (in various training drills and methods), and I have been hit hard in assaults, and yes, I can see some differences due to the reasons for hitting. Of course, I firmly believe such impact is required if you want to realistically prepare yourself for the possibility, and hard sparring/sport systems are one method of that. I also believe, though, that sport systems are moving away from the self defence aspect, so it's a matter of which form "speaks" to you, really.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Self-defense is the primary purpose of most martial arts that I'm aware of. Unarmed combat is a different animal, and it often requires a lack of defense of self, since combat has a primary requirement of destroying the enemy, as opposed to preserving one's own life.

Unless you think of the two words 'self' and 'defense' in a completely different way than I understand them, I'm not at all sure what you mean.

As an example, a self-defense scenario for being pinned down under enemy fire would be to find a covered position and then find a means for escape, or a means to stop the enemy fire without exposing oneself to the risk of being shot. Armed combat clearly has a component of self-defense in it; one seeks cover from enemy fire. But leaving is not generally the appropriate response in combat - one must take risks, because the primary purpose is to close with, engage, and destroy the enemy; person survival, though important, comes second to the mission.

In basic terms, self-defense means running away from the sound of gunshots in the distance. Combat means running towards that sound. The fact that each involves similar skills doesn't change that basic premise.

Yeah, I think we have rather different ideas there. I'll attempt to clarify:

Self defence is the protection and defence of yourself. The entire aim is, as I tell my students, "get home safe". It deals purely with concepts focused on this idea, including a hierachy of protective principles, starting with awareness of danger, awareness of environment, recognising indicators of danger, avoidance of danger, evasion of danger (slightly different), defusing dangerous situations, an understanding of the effects of adrenaline (on both your and their part, including the psychology that goes along with it), and then we start to get to the physical aspects.

The physical aspects that we cover include (and have included) pre-emptive striking, group defence, knife defence, baseball bat defence, pistol defence, shotgun defence, use of knife, use of baton, ground escapes, ground defences, ground offence, close-quarter brawling, and more particular to us, such as what we refer to as Ninjutsu Fight Science, Street Throwing, Street Kicking, and more. This, the physical side of self defence, gets it's mechanics from the martial art, however it is not martial arts itself. And this is the last-resort aspect of self defence, really.

Conceptual aspects that we cover include (and have included) partner protection, body-guarding principles (designed for friends and families, protecting children and so on), anti-surveilance tactics, anti-road rage protective driving skills, drills to handle adrenaline and the effects of a sudden assault, and far more. These all come under the heading of self defence to me, but are not physical (although there are physical drills to get these ideas across).

I would ask, in your example Bill, what martial arts you can name that actually fit your own description of self defence, though. You class the difference as, if I am reading you correctly, "self defence is running away if you can, combative is going towards the conflict and danger". Now, to me, your description of "combative" is a good description of a number of martial arts, whereas your "self defence" description doesn't really suit at all. In fact, Ninjutsu is the only martial art I have come across that teaches escape and avoidance, as well as retreat as part of their syllabus, and that is only the Togakure Ryu syllabus.

I dont know Chris, after reading Bills reply, I think I'm leaning more in his direction. Take a look at this: From John Bishops Kajukenbo page...

[FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana]What is Kajukenbo?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]Brutal, deadly, overkill, street effective. These and many other such terms have been used to describe the martial art system known as kajukenbo. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]

[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]Kajukenbo gained it's reputation for being brutally effective decades ago in the U.S. Territory of Hawaii. In the Hawaii of the 1940s the enemy was not the ancient battlefield soldier, it was the common street criminal. Instead of swords and spears he armed himself with knives, clubs, and guns. Even when unarmed he did not fight by any rules. He punched, kicked, gouged, bit, and stomped. If you encountered one of these brutal street fighters you were in for a life or death battle. Kajukenbo was designed to win such a battle. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]

[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]Since then it's eclectic use of five martial arts and it's no-nonsense approach to self defense has contributed to it's rapid growth and strong reputation as an highly effective self defense system.[/FONT]


[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]The Development of Kajukenbo[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]

[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana]Kajukenbo is a prime example of American ingenuity. It is also America's first martial art system, having been founded in 1949 in the U.S. Territory of Hawaii. One of today's foremost instructors in kajukenbo is Gary Forbach from San Clemente, California. According to him, kajukenbo's inception came about in 1947 when five Hawaiian martial arts masters calling themselves the "Black Belt Society" started on a project to develop a comprehensive self defense system. These five men of vision were Peter Choo, the Hawaii welterweight boxing champion, and a Tang Soo Do black belt. Frank Ordonez, a Sekeino Jujitsu black belt. Joe Holck, a Kodokan Judo black belt. Clarence Chang, a master of Sil-lum Pai kung fu. And Adriano D. Emperado, a Kara-Ho Kenpo black belt and Escrima master. [/FONT]




That says to me anyways, that its a SD system. Much like Bill said, when I hear the word "combat" the first thing that comes to my mind is a battlefield. A soldier fighting an enemy. The main goal is taking out the enemy. When I hear "self defense" the first thing that comes to my mind is avoiding a bad situation, be it by just walking away, verbally defusing the situation and if need be, physically fighting. IMO, the goal of SD is to use enough force to end the confrontation. I'm not intending, unless I too am faced with deadly force, of actually killing someone, and even then, we still need to be careful, even if we may be justified.

And it says to me that it's a martial art, based on other martial arts, taught in a martial art way. And, bluntly, from everything I've seen from Kajukenbo, I wouldn't rank it as a self defence system (not saying it isn't effective or practical, just saying that it misses the mark for self defence, as revealed in the first quoted section). It is overkill, relying on fine-motor targeting and complex sequences, all of which are not what is desired of a self defence system (which should be gross motor, simple sequences, just enough to get away, and so on). They do, of course, use the term "self defence" in their description, but I'd disagree with them.

Once again, I'm a little confused. Both yourself and Bill have described self defence as escape if possible, if required use enough physical methods to get away, and so on, whereas combat is more "fighting an enemy", which really is the provision of martial arts. So we both appear to be saying the same thing here....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, my argument is simply that self defence isn't fighting. There is obviously and necessarily a physical component to it, but that is actually the minority.

Yes, I agree.

Yeah, I think we have rather different ideas there. I'll attempt to clarify:

Self defence is the protection and defence of yourself. The entire aim is, as I tell my students, "get home safe". It deals purely with concepts focused on this idea, including a hierachy of protective principles, starting with awareness of danger, awareness of environment, recognising indicators of danger, avoidance of danger, evasion of danger (slightly different), defusing dangerous situations, an understanding of the effects of adrenaline (on both your and their part, including the psychology that goes along with it), and then we start to get to the physical aspects.

I agree with that as well.

The physical aspects that we cover include (and have included) pre-emptive striking, group defence, knife defence, baseball bat defence, pistol defence, shotgun defence, use of knife, use of baton, ground escapes, ground defences, ground offence, close-quarter brawling, and more particular to us, such as what we refer to as Ninjutsu Fight Science, Street Throwing, Street Kicking, and more. This, the physical side of self defence, gets it's mechanics from the martial art, however it is not martial arts itself. And this is the last-resort aspect of self defence, really.

I also agree with that.

Conceptual aspects that we cover include (and have included) partner protection, body-guarding principles (designed for friends and families, protecting children and so on), anti-surveilance tactics, anti-road rage protective driving skills, drills to handle adrenaline and the effects of a sudden assault, and far more. These all come under the heading of self defence to me, but are not physical (although there are physical drills to get these ideas across).

I also agree.

I would ask, in your example Bill, what martial arts you can name that actually fit your own description of self defence, though. You class the difference as, if I am reading you correctly, "self defence is running away if you can, combative is going towards the conflict and danger".

You quote me correctly, but I don't think I explained myself well enough.

I can shoot a man in self-defense, or I can shoot a man because he is my country's enemy and I have been ordered to shoot him. One is self-defense and the other is not. One is a last resort and the other is my primary mission. However, learning to shoot in the context of the former is indeed self-defense training. When one learns to shoot in the context of self-defense, one generally also learns about shoot-don't shoot scenarios and the requirement (if a state has one) of the Duty to Retreat versus any Stand Your Ground statutes, civil versus criminal liability and so on.

One cannot say, therefore, that learning to shoot is NOT self-defense training. It clearly is, if it is presented in the context of self-defense. When I learned to shoot in the military, it was not to defend myself as much as it was to destroy the enemy. The rules we learned were the rules of engagement, not the rules of self-defense. Same mechanical skills, though.

Now, to me, your description of "combative" is a good description of a number of martial arts, whereas your "self defence" description doesn't really suit at all. In fact, Ninjutsu is the only martial art I have come across that teaches escape and avoidance, as well as retreat as part of their syllabus, and that is only the Togakure Ryu syllabus.

All I can speak for is Isshin-Ryu, but I can believe that most martial arts are not significantly different in that they are taught in the context of self-defense. The first duty is to the self, self-preservation. If that can be safely done by retreat, then than is the lowest-risk solution to the problem and therefore the one that should be chosen in that circumstance. If it cannot be done safely by retreat (as judged by the individual) then other factors come into play. These follow (as you noted) an escalating set of responses up to and including the application of violence in defense of self, from martial arts training to firearms and other destructive weapons and finally, deadly force.

All of these, employed in the context of self-preservation, are indeed self-defense. How could they not be - they 'defend' the 'self', and hence the description.

Can one train in martial arts not for self-defense, but for other purposes? Sure, and in that context it would not be correct to call such training self-defense training. However, it does not change the primary and stated purpose of those arts, which to the best of my knowledge, is to train individuals to defend themselves against attack.

And it says to me that it's a martial art, based on other martial arts, taught in a martial art way. And, bluntly, from everything I've seen from Kajukenbo, I wouldn't rank it as a self defence system (not saying it isn't effective or practical, just saying that it misses the mark for self defence, as revealed in the first quoted section). It is overkill, relying on fine-motor targeting and complex sequences, all of which are not what is desired of a self defence system (which should be gross motor, simple sequences, just enough to get away, and so on). They do, of course, use the term "self defence" in their description, but I'd disagree with them.

I suspect they exist along a continuum, from tai chi, akido and judo to more direct and perhaps deadly empty-hand martial skills. What one person finds to their personal liking and which suits their body type, reaction speed, strength, flexibility, age, and mental acuity are not mine to judge (call that 'to each their own'). They are all 'self-defense' if that is the context in which they are taught (and hopefully used).

Once again, I'm a little confused. Both yourself and Bill have described self defence as escape if possible, if required use enough physical methods to get away, and so on, whereas combat is more "fighting an enemy", which really is the provision of martial arts. So we both appear to be saying the same thing here....

A gun is a self-defense weapon; when used in that context. It is a murderer's tool when used in that context. It is a weapon of war when used in that context. Hell, it's a hammer for tent stakes when used in that context. Still, it remains the same gun. It is the context in which it is used that matters.

 

[Tez3]

Discussions like this make me regret we are all so far apart, how good would it be if we could discuss this face to face and show each other what we mean, what great training! Then a few beers after!

 

[Xue Sheng]

Man that's a long thread on an old worn out topic.
IMO it gets a :deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse on the beat a dead horse scale

Not wanting to jump into the melee I will just say what I have to say about this and they get out of the way

In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.

agreed

That's not to say that other reasons for participating in Martial Arts are not legitimate, but we should be asking the question, 'Do these other reasons bond with, or detract from that Self-Defence element?"

Yes and no depending on how and what is trained

Perhaps the nearest non self-defence aspect of training which is closest in relation to SD is the sport element.

Again yes and no, modern Wushu is the sports element and it has little application…but more on this later.

I know, I know...Sport is NOT self defense, etc, blah, blah, blah...But surely some form of contact training is preferential to none, and the various sport formats do allow, rule sets notwithstanding, a degree of pressure testing your art in a controlled enviroment.

And some traditional MA is not really defense anymore either…but again more on that later

But on the controlled environment bit now. Just about all MAist, sport or traditional train in a controlled environment and I feel that once you pull either outside in the rain, heat or snow on uneven ground for the first time they will be in for a surprise.

This got me to thinking however.

As you can tell, I'm a huge advocate of Sport Martial arts, and that comes from my background and experiences, but, do some methods and systems delude their students into believing that their particular sport format will transfer well into a live self-protection scenario?

For example, some Sport Karate formats teach students to pull techniques prior to impact, and as for WTF Taekwondo..I'm sorry to say that in my 33 years studying Martial Arts (24 of which have been as an adult) I can see no practical transfer from mat to street from that particular format.

No argument from me. I knew a Kenpo person that was good at kenpo but fought a lot of tournament matches which appeared to have left her with a problem when it came to actually making a fist without a clove on. If she hit anyone without a glove she was going to break a finger or two. Also a TKD school that I once saw was focused strictly on hitting areas of the body that would give you points for a points sparing match and this ruled out several areas you would really want to hit in a real fight and that could cause some serious issues if faced with reality outside the ring. And as for modern Wushu (sports Wushu) it is form only and some of those exaggerated beyond the safety of the practitioner and I do not really see a lot of cross over there at all.

On the other hand Sporting formats such as MMA, Kyokushinkai, Lei Tai, Muay Thai, and other Kickboxing methods, are more suited as a base for crossover intoSelf-Defence/Protection.

Real Muay Thai trains rather hard as does real MMA and that can give one an advantage in striking and being hit by a strike. Where some (not all TMA) do not always train in this manor and there is a world of difference (enough to get you to hesitate when you shouldn’t) between really being hit or really hitting something and pulling a strike or using half power to strike.

My usual example comes from Sanshou (Cung Le – sports Sanshou and MMA) I have no doubt if I were dumb enough to try and challenge him to a fight outside (or inside the ring) I would lose… badly. But with that said I am not so sure my Sanshou sifu would and they are 2 different versions of Sanshou, Cung Le’s being sport and my Sanshou sifu’s being military. However I do not think either would be guaranteed a quick, easy and pain free victory. There are some MMA guys I would never want to go up against but I have seen a few TCMA guys (one Taiji) that I think could handle them fairly well but again there is no guarantee. There is one thing all these people share however and that is they all train or trained very hard in their chosen style and that is what matters more, IMO, than much of the sport vs. non-sport debate.

If the tech is right it all comes down to the training

I know it's not what you train, but rather how you train, but are certain methods of sport martial arts more detrimental to self-defence than others?

Yes, modern Wushu is very detrimental IMO as are some forms of training for sports TKD and Karate matches. However if things like Muay Thai, Sanshou and even MMA are trained properly I do not see them as detrimental, I just see them as another martial art.