Sports relation to Self Defence.

[Chris Parker]

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.

Well, as I started to read this, the first thing that came to mind is that this is more a description of what would be legally classified as self defence, rather than shooting = self defence, but then you essentially actually said the same things that I was about to!

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.

I would say that learning to shoot is learning to shoot, it is a mechanical skill that is learnt. Self defence is the application of concepts, rather than the mechanical aspects. When learning to shoot for self defence, as you say you are introduced to the requirements and restrictions associated, but this doesn't change the mechanics of shooting.

When it comes to learning to shoot in a self defence context, by your own claim here it is different from learning to shoot in a military context (which one may even refer to as martial?). Honestly I really think we're saying the same thing in different ways, just defining things with different words.

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.

Ah, but are those concepts (retreat, then the lowest-risk option, and then escalating to physical confrontation) actually taught within the system, or are they implied (not drilled and trained, but refered to or idealised). I say that because I haven't seen these aspects taught in any karate system or school other than occasionally mentioned, and even then it actually goes against the physical teachings of the system in question.

Add to that the physical combative methods being for a very different place and time removes it further from being focused on self defence in a modern Western sense.

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.

Well, as I've said more than once, a martial art is not defined by it's techniques (rather, the art defines the techniques), as it is realistically a method of imparting the philosophy of the art through the medium of physical combative techniques. And the physical techniques of most martial arts go against the idea of it being about self defence, however many people, including up to such luminary individuals as Gichin Funakoshi talk about the arts being purely for defence. Now, I'm not convinced of that from looking at the systems in question in depth. I really think it's more of a marketing term applied to the arts than anything else.

But the most telling part of your comment here is the phrase "employed in the context of self preservation". That is not the way they are transmitted or designed, however the skills can be used in such a context. But to say that because the skills can be used in a self defence context doesn't actually make them necessarily actually self defence training. That would be like saying that learning a musical scale, which can be used to write a rock song, is learning to play rock music. It can be just as easily jazz, classical, or anything else.

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.

Marketed as such, yes. But that honestly is not the primary purpose of martial arts in general or specific. The primary purpose is, as I stated, to instill the teachings, beliefs, values, and philosophy of the art via the medium of it's physical techniques, which are often combative-themed. Here's an interesting thing. Most people look at a martial art technique, and they see the attacker launch their attack (most typically not a modern-style common assault attack, but a more stylised attack based on the art itself), and see the defender apply their technique. They then make the assumption that the defender (the martial artist) is demonstrating a "defensive" technique from the system, and that must mean the art is defensive, and if it is defensive, that makes it about self defence. Actually, no.

There are a few things missed here. For one thing, the "attacker" is also a martial artist in this sense, and they are training not only recieving a technique, allowing them to learn to handle what it is like to be on the recieving end, but also train the attacking techniques and rhythms of their art. There is also usually a basics aspect of most arts, which includes attacking techniques as well as defensive, or protective methods (in karate, essential kicks, strikes etc make up the kihon methods along with blocking actions). In fact, it is assumed that by training the basics the student is learning how to attack someone, and is training for that attack to be successful. The supposed "defence" techniques are possibilities of what you can do if you don't get your attack off in time, or it is defeated and countered. The basic idea is attack, though.

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).

They are often described as such, and certainly marketed as such, but that denies the actual teachings when you get down to it.

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.

A gun is a weapon. The use can be self defence, murder, or other. I agree that context rules here, but there is a difference between contextual application of knowledge/skill and the methods of acquiring said skills and knowledge. And despite it's marketing, I have yet to see any martial art that is actually a real self defence system (in a pure sense... again, I believe many can be used as such, there are many applicable benefits that can be taken from the teachings and training, but that doesn't make them necessarily self defence systems. They are martial arts, not self defence systems. It's the difference between learning to be short-order cook, and a gourmet chef.

And Tez, absolutely agreed! I'm sitting here thinking how easy it would be to demonstrate what I'm talking about, and how hard it is to find the right words.... still don't think I've really gotten it across the way it is in my head yet... but it's close!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And Tez, absolutely agreed! I'm sitting here thinking how easy it would be to demonstrate what I'm talking about, and how hard it is to find the right words.... still don't think I've really gotten it across the way it is in my head yet... but it's close!

It's very difficult to quote your response, since you put it inside of another quote, but I only have a couple things to say, so I'll forgo direct quotes and responses.

I understand what you're saying. But although I do not see you as having a malicious intent, the word game you're playing can be used that way very easily and often is.

One man is pro-life. Another is pro-choice. But the first calls the second 'pro-murder' and the second calls the first 'anti-choice'. There is no functional difference in the words themselves, they're descriptive enough. But they convey powerful emotional values that give the believe in question a completely different connotation. I sincerely doubt that a person who is pro-choice is in favor of actual murder. I likewise doubt that a person who is pro-life is against people having choices.

And so it is with martial arts as self-defense training. Marketing term? Sure, I get that. Nobody is likely to open a studio to encourage parents to send their kids to learn to maim and kill others. But I am also sure that there are others who will classify martial arts training centers as 'murder classes'. I don't know what the hell the difference is, except for the intent of the instructors and the students. So I choose to go by that. The stated purpose *is* the purpose, unless someone can demonstrate to me that it is an actual lie.

That said, what is your point in insisting that self-defense is not actually self-defense? Yes, a punch is not the same as running away, and running away is not normally part of typical martial arts training (the exception you gave noted). Yet a punch can be and is often employed in a purely self-defensive mode, that is certainly the manner in which it is taught in my dojo and I would presume most others, and that's what I choose to call it.

Strictly speaking (as you seem to be insisting upon), a punch is offensive, so how can it be defensive? Well, I would argue that not only do many punches have defensive applications as blocks as well, but that offense *is* or can be defense. If someone draws back to punch me and I cannot, for whatever reason, block that punch, but I can punch him first and harder and prevent his punch from landing, I have served the self-defense modus quite well.

Words mean things. Marketing is certainly a factor, I get that. But it's not the only factor, and I believe that calling martial arts training 'self defense' training is not only acceptable, but more accurate than anything else you could call it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Strictly speaking (as you seem to be insisting upon), a punch is offensive, so how can it be defensive? Well, I would argue that not only do many punches have defensive applications as blocks as well, but that offense *is* or can be defense. If someone draws back to punch me and I cannot, for whatever reason, block that punch, but I can punch him first and harder and prevent his punch from landing, I have served the self-defense modus quite well.

Words mean things. Marketing is certainly a factor, I get that. But it's not the only factor, and I believe that calling martial arts training 'self defense' training is not only acceptable, but more accurate than anything else you could call it.

Just as a note: In Xingyiquan attack is defense and defense is attack and to stay within CMA (not Xingyiquan) Pan Qingfu is very big on efficiency and teaches many punches that are also blocks. But then this is not uncommon in CMA, it is rather common actually, same goes for kicks too.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just as a note: In Xingyiquan attack is defense and defense is attack and to stay within CMA (not Xingyiquan) Pan Qingfu is very big on efficiency and teaches many punches that are also blocks. But then this is not uncommon in CMA, it is rather common actually, same goes for kicks too.

Well, strictly speaking, let's say that a man is standing in front of me with a very large knife in his hand, and he is advancing towards me and he says he is going to gut me like a fish with it. I know I am not a very fast runner, and I have my doubts that I can outrun him.

From a strictly defensive point of view, I can wait for his attack and hope that I can block or parry it, defending myself from the actual as opposed to the anticipated attack.

However, let's say I see a piece of wood and I pick it up and wind up Babe Ruth style and let him have it right in the laughing gear. He drops the knife, I then run away.

The hunk of wood was a hunk of wood. It never stopped being one. How I used it made all the difference. And I used it defensively, can anyone argue with that? Yet it was a preemptive attack, I did not wait for him to actually attempt to stick me with his big ugly knife. Still self-defense? Yes, still self-defense.

Fair to call training in 'how to pick up a great hunk of wood and brain an attacker with it' 'self-defense in the ancient art of wood-fu?' I would say yes.

Learning to swing a stick around can be classified as many things, from batting practice to pugil stick fighting to self-defense. If my intent is to learn self-defense and the instruction is called self-defense, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that it is self-defense training. Calling it anything else is perhaps a bridge too far.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well, strictly speaking, let's say that a man is standing in front of me with a very large knife in his hand, and he is advancing towards me and he says he is going to gut me like a fish with it. I know I am not a very fast runner, and I have my doubts that I can outrun him.

From a strictly defensive point of view, I can wait for his attack and hope that I can block or parry it, defending myself from the actual as opposed to the anticipated attack.

However, let's say I see a piece of wood and I pick it up and wind up Babe Ruth style and let him have it right in the laughing gear. He drops the knife, I then run away.

The hunk of wood was a hunk of wood. It never stopped being one. How I used it made all the difference. And I used it defensively, can anyone argue with that? Yet it was a preemptive attack, I did not wait for him to actually attempt to stick me with his big ugly knife. Still self-defense? Yes, still self-defense.

Fair to call training in 'how to pick up a great hunk of wood and brain an attacker with it' 'self-defense in the ancient art of wood-fu?' I would say yes.

Learning to swing a stick around can be classified as many things, from batting practice to pugil stick fighting to self-defense. If my intent is to learn self-defense and the instruction is called self-defense, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that it is self-defense training. Calling it anything else is perhaps a bridge too far.

I'm not exactly sure but I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. You just typed more and used a hunk of wood... I used Xingyiquan

 

[MJS]

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 know you addressed this to someone else, but I'll toss in my .02 anyways. I do agree with you that Sd and fighting are different. IMO, a fight is a pre-determined thing. Two willing people, agree to meet at a certain place, at a certain time, and agree to fight. SD would be when someone is standing at the ATM and someone comes up and tries to mug them.

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.

According to what I feel SD is, which I listed above, it does in fact meet those needs. The overkill and other comments..lol...Kenpo is said to be the same thing. If you saw some of the Kenpo/Kajukenbo SD techs., yeah, it would look like over kill, due to how long the techs can be. However, if you read further, what GM Forbach states, its simply a continuation of the tech., in the event the badguy is not stopped within the first few moves. IMO, its foolish to think that someone will be stopped after 2 or 3 hits. Therefore, you may need to continue on with more. I may be missing it, but where are you reading that its fine motor targeting and complex sequences? I think you may be misunderstanding the art itself, and coming to that conclusion.

Are you saying that you should not stop the attacker from coming at you further? So if I'm understanding you right, your theory is if someone is choking you, you should simply knock their arms off, and run away, vs. not only knocking the arms off, but doing counter strikes as well.

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 soldier gets dropped in an area with a mission...take out the bad guys at all costs. If I'm at the ATM, someone comes up behind me, and pulls a knife, yes, I'm going to be defending myself against him, and most likely will be doing more than just enough to get away. I want to incapacitate him enough to not be able to come after me. That, IMO, is SD.

 

[MJS]

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!

That would be great! I do agree, that many times, its hard to read what someone is trying to say, and form that mental picture of it.

 

[myusername]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread and everyone's contributions and in a way I agree with everybody on some level.

I'll try not to go over old ground with my contribution.

On the subject of whether martial arts are self defence or not I have to say I'm leaning with Bill on this. The fact that you are learning how best to perform combative techniques means that martial arts can be more readily applied to self defence than most other activities. When people originally sign up to learn self defence they are on the whole expecting to learn how to defend themselves physically when there is no other choice. Obviously with greater awareness we learn that self defence is about much more than this ranging from threat avoidance to first aid and how to talk to the police following a situation where you have had to use physical force.

However, I would argue that on the whole self defence is about knowing how to fight if it all goes wrong. The benefits of knowing how to fight influence most other aspects of self defence. Knowing how to fight can give somebody an air of confidence that results in them much less likely to be targeted as a victim. Speaking from my own experience knowing that I have the tools to back up my words enabled me to scare away potential attackers when confronted and unable to leave the scene.

Furthermore, when students are being taught the philosophy, ideals and tenets of a martial art surely this also provides self defence principles. Most arts teach respect, discipline, humility, indomitable spirit, courtesy. I would argue that a student who embraces those principles are much less likely to put themselves in a conflict situation. This humility should prevent the student becoming drawn into an ego driven match fight and enable them to walk away if able without fear for their own pride.

For example I remember reading in one of Gichin Funakoshi's books that he was quite cross with himself for getting embroiled in an arm wrestling match that resulted in an altercation. He did not consider this the way of karate and as such was against the principles of self defence. We can see that threat avoidance was important to what he considered martial arts to be.

Therefore, I personally believe it is perfectly ok for a martial arts school to market themselves as self defence.

On the wider topic of this thread I attended a seminar recently by the creator of the jujutsu syllabus I am studying (Kevin O'Hagan.) He suggested that it is perfectly ok for a martial artist to have an encyclopedia of techniques that they know and practice in the dojo as long as they carry a "mental notebook" with them that contains the no nonense high percentage finishers that they use for self defence. I figure that this is very close to Chris's comments on the need to compartmentalise techniques in to what is for fun and what is for self defence, I do this myself when training.

However, I think that one should not dismiss any technique as useless. For example I remember reading in one of Geoff Thompson's books an example of him using an axe kick as a gesture to his opponent's mates who were perhaps thinking of stepping in. The axe kick was used on an opponent he had beaten and was lying prone on the floor! Regardless of the ethics of this behaviour Geoff obviously felt that he needed to do this to secure his own safety. As Andy stated earlier in the thread it is about the application rather than the technique. Many RBSD minded people may consider the axe kick an unnecessary technique but applied in Geoff Thompsons situation it served a self defence purpose.

With this in mind I would say that it is up to the individual what is appropriate to move from the "encyclopedia" to the "mental notebook". I have met black belts who can throw a reverse turning kick faster than I can throw a right cross! I wouldn't dream of telling that person that they should never use a reverse turning kick in a self defence situation and that this move is just for sport TKD. I would however state that I personally would be safer using the right cross!

I might of digressed a little here so to summarise, the point I am making here is that in my view martial arts can be classed as self defence but I agree that it is down to how it is applied and also that I wouldn't dismiss any technique sporting or not as universally useless for self defence, as again it all comes down to the appropriateness of it application.

Just my thoughts on this enjoyable thread

 

[Chris Parker]

Sorry to take so long to answer, my internet died yesterday.... er, right. Now, I always try to answer any questions or counter-arguments posed to me (I just love a good, informed, intelligent debate!), so here goes.

To preface this, I am not expecting to suddenly turn anyone to my way of thinking. Frankly, if you'd posed my own concept and current understanding to me probably two years ago, I would have disagreed completely myself! However, this is representative of my current understanding, based on the last 23 years+ training and studying, including a wide variety of systems, and a lot of research into other arts, as well as my study, research, and understanding in now teaching my own students (and gaining even more understanding of what my own instructors have done before me).

Oh, this will be quite a long one, by the way. Ready? Cool.

It's very difficult to quote your response, since you put it inside of another quote, but I only have a couple things to say, so I'll forgo direct quotes and responses.

Yeah, sorry about that. Hopefully this is better?

I understand what you're saying. But although I do not see you as having a malicious intent, the word game you're playing can be used that way very easily and often is.

To be honest, Bill, I'm not playing a word game here at all. They really are two different things, so it's more about accurate terminology and descriptions. Of course, I recognise that I am working against a lot of established doctrine here, but hey, I've done that before!

One man is pro-life. Another is pro-choice. But the first calls the second 'pro-murder' and the second calls the first 'anti-choice'. There is no functional difference in the words themselves, they're descriptive enough. But they convey powerful emotional values that give the believe in question a completely different connotation. I sincerely doubt that a person who is pro-choice is in favor of actual murder. I likewise doubt that a person who is pro-life is against people having choices.

That would be more the word games. However, I disagree that that is similar to what I am saying. Hopefully I'll be able to get across what I mean a little clearer here.

And so it is with martial arts as self-defense training. Marketing term? Sure, I get that. Nobody is likely to open a studio to encourage parents to send their kids to learn to maim and kill others. But I am also sure that there are others who will classify martial arts training centers as 'murder classes'. I don't know what the hell the difference is, except for the intent of the instructors and the students. So I choose to go by that. The stated purpose *is* the purpose, unless someone can demonstrate to me that it is an actual lie.

Not a lie so much as a mis-terminology. And the stated purpose only gives the percieved intention, not the actual makeup of the thing in question. Otherwise you could state that your purpose in eating chocolate cake is to lose weight, so does that make it a diet? Maybe, honestly. Not a good one, but a diet none the less (if we're playing word games...). But does that mean that the chocolate cake is designed to help you lose weight?

That said, what is your point in insisting that self-defense is not actually self-defense? Yes, a punch is not the same as running away, and running away is not normally part of typical martial arts training (the exception you gave noted). Yet a punch can be and is often employed in a purely self-defensive mode, that is certainly the manner in which it is taught in my dojo and I would presume most others, and that's what I choose to call it.

Now this is the type of thing I am hoping to clear up. My contention has been, from the outset, not that martial arts cannot be used for self defence, or that that is not one of their benefits, but that self defence is not what they are designed for. I have never once claimed, said, or thought that self defence isn't actually self defence (honestly, I'm not really sure where you got that idea from).

Arguing the mechanics of self defence-applicable actions is actually kind of beside the point, to be honest. Once again, I'm not arguing that martial arts cannot be used for such purposes, I am looking to the structure, teachings, methods, basis', philosophy, histories, and applications of martial arts, and putting those against the needs and requirements of self defence in a modern setting (in other words, what do you need in your training if you are concerned only about self defence, and how much of that is present or not present in martial arts training [speaking of the arts in a pure form, not adapted or altered], as well as how much other content, how many other concepts, and so on exist in the martial arts).

Strictly speaking (as you seem to be insisting upon), a punch is offensive, so how can it be defensive? Well, I would argue that not only do many punches have defensive applications as blocks as well, but that offense *is* or can be defense. If someone draws back to punch me and I cannot, for whatever reason, block that punch, but I can punch him first and harder and prevent his punch from landing, I have served the self-defense modus quite well.

Again, the mechanics of a technique used in self defence is really beside the point of my argument here.

Words mean things. Marketing is certainly a factor, I get that. But it's not the only factor, and I believe that calling martial arts training 'self defense' training is not only acceptable, but more accurate than anything else you could call it.

Okay, I'll expand here.

As I said, I am looking at this by looking at the needs of self defence versus the methods, teachings and so on of martial arts. To begin with, let's look at what is required for self defence training.

Well, let's see. Honestly, we all seem to agree on what self defence training should include and involve. They include an understanding of the law, an understanding of the effects of adreanline, awareness, a range of tactics from avoidance to verbal defusion, a focus on handling the pre-fight, and so on. As a last resort, it includes physical methods of responding to violence or aggression, including striking, grappling, weapon defence, group defence, and more. The physical technology is by necessity gross motor, simple sequences, and easily repeatable under adrenaline and stress (which should be tested).

This is different from a martial art in that the martial art:

- Has no concept of the law of the society it is involved in, instead being expressed through techniques from another place and time, and being influenced by those circumstances.

- Does not have tactics such as avoidance or verbal defusion, and has no dealing with the pre-fight in a modern setting.

- Is often geared towards only specific ranges of technical application (karate geared towards striking and kicking primarily, BJJ geared towards grappling, particularly groundwork, kenjutsu focused on the use of sword).

- The technical aspects are typically a mix of gross motor and fine motor methods (including fine-target striking), involving complex sequences of actions, and in order to teach their skill sets often require a compliant partner (so we understand, that is not a criticism, simply an observation of the realities of how these systems work. To train the techniques you require a training partner trained in similar methods, which is compliance in a form. It can be hard training, with resistance within the systems requirements, but that still keeps it compliant, and takes it away from self defence by sheer virtue of being performed against attacks and methods from another time and place).

So, what is a martial art?

A martial art is a collection of philosophies and teachings expressed through the medium of combative or combative themed physical methods. This philosophy can be political, social, spiritual, or even physical. The focus in on teaching the concepts, philosophies, strategies, and tactics of the system in question, and is shaped by the cultural aspects of it's source/origin. The combination of the philosophy and the cultural gives a martial art it's "flavour", or particular approach, as these factors give the technical aspects.

These technical aspects are driven by the origins of the system itself. Japanese systems will focus on grappling skills (particularly stand-up), Chinese and Okinawan systems will look to striking and kicking, and so on. The particular methods of striking will be peculiar to the art itself as well. And that method is only very rarely close to resembling actual violence. Even in those more modern systems that have more modern attacking methods (Krav Maga, for example), the source/origin (in this case military usage) remove it from being designed for self defence as an ideal.

The only things that actually do deal primarily with self defence (to the point that they don't feature any of the other benefits that martial arts offer) are RBSD systems and DefTac programs.

Once more, I am not saying that martial arts cannot be studied for their self defence usage, that they have no self defence use, that their techniques cannot be used for self defence, or anything of the kind. All I am saying is that if you are studying the martial art itself, despite the reasons you may be studying it, the art is not designed for modern self defence in a modern setting in its technical approach, its philosophy, its teachings, or its methodologies.

Well, strictly speaking, let's say that a man is standing in front of me with a very large knife in his hand, and he is advancing towards me and he says he is going to gut me like a fish with it. I know I am not a very fast runner, and I have my doubts that I can outrun him.

From a strictly defensive point of view, I can wait for his attack and hope that I can block or parry it, defending myself from the actual as opposed to the anticipated attack.

However, let's say I see a piece of wood and I pick it up and wind up Babe Ruth style and let him have it right in the laughing gear. He drops the knife, I then run away.

The hunk of wood was a hunk of wood. It never stopped being one. How I used it made all the difference. And I used it defensively, can anyone argue with that? Yet it was a preemptive attack, I did not wait for him to actually attempt to stick me with his big ugly knife. Still self-defense? Yes, still self-defense.

Fair to call training in 'how to pick up a great hunk of wood and brain an attacker with it' 'self-defense in the ancient art of wood-fu?' I would say yes.

Learning to swing a stick around can be classified as many things, from batting practice to pugil stick fighting to self-defense. If my intent is to learn self-defense and the instruction is called self-defense, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that it is self-defense training. Calling it anything else is perhaps a bridge too far.

Now, you must forgive me here Bill, but I'm going to be a little blunt. What you are describing here is an application of self defence, in this case using a hunk of wood to defend against a knife-wielding assailant. This is simply not an argument in this regard, and is frankly a rather simplistic and innaccurate understanding. By this reasoning, and using this example, playing baseball is your self defence training, and really no self defence training is needed, so refer to it as "self defence in the ancient art of wood-fu" doesn't really work. And once more, martial arts are not their techniques (mind you, neither is self defence training).

And while it can certainly be said that the name defines the thing, that is not the reality in this case. See the above chocolate cake analogy.

Now onto Mike....

Hey Mike,

I know you addressed this to someone else, but I'll toss in my .02 anyways. I do agree with you that Sd and fighting are different. IMO, a fight is a pre-determined thing. Two willing people, agree to meet at a certain place, at a certain time, and agree to fight. SD would be when someone is standing at the ATM and someone comes up and tries to mug them.

Well, yes, that is an application of self defence, but I am not talking here about the application of the act of defending yourself, I am talking about the focus and suitability of various training methods (martial arts in particular) as self defence training specifically (and primarily). I only answered the way I did to clarify a point in responce to another post, really.

According to what I feel SD is, which I listed above, it does in fact meet those needs. The overkill and other comments..lol...Kenpo is said to be the same thing. If you saw some of the Kenpo/Kajukenbo SD techs., yeah, it would look like over kill, due to how long the techs can be. However, if you read further, what GM Forbach states, its simply a continuation of the tech., in the event the badguy is not stopped within the first few moves. IMO, its foolish to think that someone will be stopped after 2 or 3 hits. Therefore, you may need to continue on with more. I may be missing it, but where are you reading that its fine motor targeting and complex sequences? I think you may be misunderstanding the art itself, and coming to that conclusion.

That's a fair comment... however I am looking at the training methods and what they are teaching. And if the primary concern is really and genuinely self defence, then the overkill aspect shouldn't be there. I agree that you should certainly train with the idea that what you do may not be as effective as you may hope, and you may need to continue (again, we train that way ourselves, often building in technique "fails" for students to deal with), but to deliberately train the techniques in such a way is to ingrain certain habits that are not ideal. Of course, these systems are far from alone in this. Oh, and I'm also looking at the way those strikes are applied, by the way.

Are you saying that you should not stop the attacker from coming at you further? So if I'm understanding you right, your theory is if someone is choking you, you should simply knock their arms off, and run away, vs. not only knocking the arms off, but doing counter strikes as well.

Absolutely not. For one thing, that would deny the "awareness" aspect of self defence... if you are not aware enough to recognise that the assailant can and will continue their assault, frankly you've missed a big part of your self defence!

Let's see if I can get across how I see self defence. In the most basic form, self defence (the way I approach it, and teach it in my school) is best summed up in three words: Get Home Safe. Don't stop until it's safe to do so, but by the same token, once you've done enough to get home safe (or get away safely), that's it. Case in point from tonights class.... I'm currently focusing on baseball bat defence. In basic terms, bad guy threatens, then attacks, defender gets distance, then says a verbalisation to get attention of witnesses (and cause a slight distraction), leaps out from the initial attack (as would be natural), then intercepts, controls, and strikes to finish with two strikes to the same target. This is because the first "softens" the opponent, and the second does the damage. At this point the attacker should be pretty well out of things enough for you to get away, so that is drilled, however if the attacker is still "with it", then the defender will need to continue. Control isn't released until the attacker is taken care of.

I then demonstrated overkill, which involved the defender continuing to hit, kick etc, eventually taking the bat, and turning that on the attacker. This, I explained, is bad. It's assault. And if police turn up then, all they see is you hoding a baseball bat over the top of a fallen person... what do you think they'll think?

A soldier gets dropped in an area with a mission...take out the bad guys at all costs. If I'm at the ATM, someone comes up behind me, and pulls a knife, yes, I'm going to be defending myself against him, and most likely will be doing more than just enough to get away. I want to incapacitate him enough to not be able to come after me. That, IMO, is SD.

Can be, absolutely. And such skills can be found in martial arts... however that is not the same as saying that martial arts are designed for self defence, particularly if the skills are taken from a different form of attack (from another time and place, and another culture). And again, I'd caution against overkill in training or in action. The aim is to get home safe. If you believe that the attacker will get up and come after you, by all means do what you have to to "dissuade" him from such a decision... but leave the overkill. It's not doing you any favours in the long run. And you know I say that with respect.

I've really enjoyed reading this thread and everyone's contributions and in a way I agree with everybody on some level.

I'll try not to go over old ground with my contribution.

On the subject of whether martial arts are self defence or not I have to say I'm leaning with Bill on this. The fact that you are learning how best to perform combative techniques means that martial arts can be more readily applied to self defence than most other activities. When people originally sign up to learn self defence they are on the whole expecting to learn how to defend themselves physically when there is no other choice. Obviously with greater awareness we learn that self defence is about much more than this ranging from threat avoidance to first aid and how to talk to the police following a situation where you have had to use physical force.

Combative techniques are not the same as self defence. They can be applied as such, but combative does not equate to self defence in any way, really. In terms of people signing up to learn self defence in their local martial art school, well, over here the big thing right now is Zumba, a latin dance-based aerobics class marketing itself as the latest and greatest weight loss exercise program... sadly, it's little more than the latest Tae-bo fad. But it's marketed as a weight loss exercise program, and people buy it as that. That, however, doesn't make it so. It's really little more than new fancy dressing for a basic aerobics program (and honestly a rather weak one at that, judging from the class in the hall I teach in on Tuesdays that's there before me).

I do like the mention of talking to the police afterwards, and preparing people for that. Again, that is something we have dealt with, and will continue to, but it's not part of the martial art side of things. I don't know of any martial art that does teach it. Mainly because it's not part of martial arts, although it is a part of a complete self defence concept.

However, I would argue that on the whole self defence is about knowing how to fight if it all goes wrong. The benefits of knowing how to fight influence most other aspects of self defence. Knowing how to fight can give somebody an air of confidence that results in them much less likely to be targeted as a victim. Speaking from my own experience knowing that I have the tools to back up my words enabled me to scare away potential attackers when confronted and unable to leave the scene.

I would argue that martial arts can teach the "how to fight" aspect, and self defence is related far more to when and why to fight. Again, martial arts can deal with the mechanics, self defence deals with the concepts such as the when and why.

Furthermore, when students are being taught the philosophy, ideals and tenets of a martial art surely this also provides self defence principles. Most arts teach respect, discipline, humility, indomitable spirit, courtesy. I would argue that a student who embraces those principles are much less likely to put themselves in a conflict situation. This humility should prevent the student becoming drawn into an ego driven match fight and enable them to walk away if able without fear for their own pride.

Frankly, self defence has little to do with such ideals. Martial arts, on the other hand, often do. Now, these ideals if properly embraced can help a student have the confidence to walk away before a situation turns physical, but it can also lead a student into a situation they don't need to be in, depending on the personal interpretation and individuals in question.

For example I remember reading in one of Gichin Funakoshi's books that he was quite cross with himself for getting embroiled in an arm wrestling match that resulted in an altercation. He did not consider this the way of karate and as such was against the principles of self defence. We can see that threat avoidance was important to what he considered martial arts to be.

Therefore, I personally believe it is perfectly ok for a martial arts school to market themselves as self defence.

With Funakoshi's story there (and many others like it that I know), that is more a moral idealism rather than the actual system itself. I personally quite like that such an ideal has been integrated into the teachings of the arts, but if you take an unbiased look at the arts, what they teach, and how they express such teachings, idealism like that is rather artificially tacked on top of the system itself.

On the wider topic of this thread I attended a seminar recently by the creator of the jujutsu syllabus I am studying (Kevin O'Hagan.) He suggested that it is perfectly ok for a martial artist to have an encyclopedia of techniques that they know and practice in the dojo as long as they carry a "mental notebook" with them that contains the no nonense high percentage finishers that they use for self defence. I figure that this is very close to Chris's comments on the need to compartmentalise techniques in to what is for fun and what is for self defence, I do this myself when training.

... Close. I wasn't talking about a need, rather a natural phenomenon of learning, and how it needs to occur for applicable skills to be imprinted where and how you need them. But if those "no nonsense" techniques are drilled often under realistic pressures and adrenaline, then yes, I'd agree with the basic concept there. And that is again distinguishing between what is martial arts training and what is self defence training.

However, I think that one should not dismiss any technique as useless. For example I remember reading in one of Geoff Thompson's books an example of him using an axe kick as a gesture to his opponent's mates who were perhaps thinking of stepping in. The axe kick was used on an opponent he had beaten and was lying prone on the floor! Regardless of the ethics of this behaviour Geoff obviously felt that he needed to do this to secure his own safety. As Andy stated earlier in the thread it is about the application rather than the technique. Many RBSD minded people may consider the axe kick an unnecessary technique but applied in Geoff Thompsons situation it served a self defence purpose.

Yep! I'm familiar with both the story and the psychology behind it's use. And I would absolutely say that that is an example of the mechanics of martial arts coming into play in self defence (although from memory that was him acting as a bouncer at the time...). Geoff also has a great distinction between what martial art training is and self defence training. The two are rather different.

With this in mind I would say that it is up to the individual what is appropriate to move from the "encyclopedia" to the "mental notebook". I have met black belts who can throw a reverse turning kick faster than I can throw a right cross! I wouldn't dream of telling that person that they should never use a reverse turning kick in a self defence situation and that this move is just for sport TKD. I would however state that I personally would be safer using the right cross!

Ha, yeah. I may point out to them that the room required is not often available in most modern assaults... but if they can get the distance, go for it! Frankly, I have no problem with anyone using any martial arts technique from any art for self defence, provided it can work, has a legal result (not lethal or overkill unless truly called for... and in true life and death defence, all bets are off!) as self defence training can take it's mechanics from pretty much anywhere, including martial arts (you just need to make sure you can perform it under pressure, which typically requires gross motor actions and simple sequences).

I might of digressed a little here so to summarise, the point I am making here is that in my view martial arts can be classed as self defence but I agree that it is down to how it is applied and also that I wouldn't dismiss any technique sporting or not as universally useless for self defence, as again it all comes down to the appropriateness of it application.

Just my thoughts on this enjoyable thread

The difference is not technical for the most part. Martial arts can be used for self defence. My point has simply been that that is not what they are designed for, not that they cannot be used for such purposes. I hope that at least is clear now.

 

[MJS]

Now onto Mike....

Hey Mike,

Welcome back.

Well, yes, that is an application of self defence, but I am not talking here about the application of the act of defending yourself, I am talking about the focus and suitability of various training methods (martial arts in particular) as self defence training specifically (and primarily). I only answered the way I did to clarify a point in responce to another post, really.

Earlier, I believe you mentioned RBSD. Now, personally, I enjoy what some of the RBSD guys, ie: Franco, Quinn, Thompson, Ryan, etc., have to offer. However, IMO, they're not really teaching anything that is already found in Kenpo, TKD, Shotokan, etc. I mean, we see punches, we see kicks, but the main differences that I see, is in the application. Its their delivery method that is different. That being said, I think its safe to say that it comes down to how you train.

That's a fair comment... however I am looking at the training methods and what they are teaching. And if the primary concern is really and genuinely self defence, then the overkill aspect shouldn't be there. I agree that you should certainly train with the idea that what you do may not be as effective as you may hope, and you may need to continue (again, we train that way ourselves, often building in technique "fails" for students to deal with), but to deliberately train the techniques in such a way is to ingrain certain habits that are not ideal. Of course, these systems are far from alone in this. Oh, and I'm also looking at the way those strikes are applied, by the way.

Again, dont mistake the 'overkill' for something that its not. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that our interpretations are different. For example...someone goes to punch me. I block the punch, counter punch, and take the guy down. Now, just because he's down, we both know that doesnt mean the fight is over. So, I take him down, and punch a few more times. The badguy stops fighting, thus I stop as well....and get the hell out of there, call the cops, etc. I think you're taking the 'overkill' as me suggesting that once he stops fighting, that I continue on, with more punches, and use his ribs for a football. No, thats not what I'm talking about.

Absolutely not. For one thing, that would deny the "awareness" aspect of self defence... if you are not aware enough to recognise that the assailant can and will continue their assault, frankly you've missed a big part of your self defence!

Agreed, and I've spoken highly about being aware many, many times.

Let's see if I can get across how I see self defence. In the most basic form, self defence (the way I approach it, and teach it in my school) is best summed up in three words: Get Home Safe. Don't stop until it's safe to do so, but by the same token, once you've done enough to get home safe (or get away safely), that's it. Case in point from tonights class.... I'm currently focusing on baseball bat defence. In basic terms, bad guy threatens, then attacks, defender gets distance, then says a verbalisation to get attention of witnesses (and cause a slight distraction), leaps out from the initial attack (as would be natural), then intercepts, controls, and strikes to finish with two strikes to the same target. This is because the first "softens" the opponent, and the second does the damage. At this point the attacker should be pretty well out of things enough for you to get away, so that is drilled, however if the attacker is still "with it", then the defender will need to continue. Control isn't released until the attacker is taken care of.

I then demonstrated overkill, which involved the defender continuing to hit, kick etc, eventually taking the bat, and turning that on the attacker. This, I explained, is bad. It's assault. And if police turn up then, all they see is you hoding a baseball bat over the top of a fallen person... what do you think they'll think?

See what I said about. That should answer this part. You and I have had many good discussions, both online and via PM, so I think its safe to say that more often than not, you and I are on the same page. I think thats the case here, despite the misunderstanding of the word overkill.

The same word as been used to describe Kenpo as well. I get the impression that because our techs. have the tendancy to be so long, that people look at that as overkill. IMO, if the fight is still active, then if I it the guy once, twice or 10 times, as long as he's still fighting, then IMO, its not overkill. I think that some people think that it should be over in 1 or 2 shots. Yeah, in the perfect world maybe, so they look at Kenpo/Kaju, see us whack the guy 10 or more times, and assume that we're doing overkill. Again, it comes down to the situation. As I said, if I take the guy out and keep beating him, stomping him, so he becomes part of the pavement, yeah, doesnt take a rocket scientist to know thats too much.

Can be, absolutely. And such skills can be found in martial arts... however that is not the same as saying that martial arts are designed for self defence, particularly if the skills are taken from a different form of attack (from another time and place, and another culture). And again, I'd caution against overkill in training or in action. The aim is to get home safe. If you believe that the attacker will get up and come after you, by all means do what you have to to "dissuade" him from such a decision... but leave the overkill. It's not doing you any favours in the long run. And you know I say that with respect.

See the above for the overkill comments. No sense in rehashing that again. I still stand by my views of Sd and combat.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Mike,

Welcome back.

Thanks! It was a hairy day and a half, I tell you what...

Earlier, I believe you mentioned RBSD. Now, personally, I enjoy what some of the RBSD guys, ie: Franco, Quinn, Thompson, Ryan, etc., have to offer. However, IMO, they're not really teaching anything that is already found in Kenpo, TKD, Shotokan, etc. I mean, we see punches, we see kicks, but the main differences that I see, is in the application. Its their delivery method that is different. That being said, I think its safe to say that it comes down to how you train.

Actually, they are. But what they're teaching that's different is not the mechanics, as that is not where self defence training is focused, it's in the preparation for realistic application of the mechanics learnt in martial arts (such as Geoff Thompson's and Iain Abernathy's karate backgrounds). So if you are looking for differences in striking methods, you are simply looking at the wrong thing. And really, that has been my entire point throughout this thread, the mechanics are not what define either martial arts or self defence training.

Again, dont mistake the 'overkill' for something that its not. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that our interpretations are different. For example...someone goes to punch me. I block the punch, counter punch, and take the guy down. Now, just because he's down, we both know that doesnt mean the fight is over. So, I take him down, and punch a few more times. The badguy stops fighting, thus I stop as well....and get the hell out of there, call the cops, etc. I think you're taking the 'overkill' as me suggesting that once he stops fighting, that I continue on, with more punches, and use his ribs for a football. No, thats not what I'm talking about.

Well, this to me just goes back to earlier in the thread, where we were discussing "you respond/act/fight the way you've trained". If your training consists of long, involved, complex sequences involving a large number of strikes and other responces to a single attacking action, well, there is every likelihood that at least aspects of that will come out. What will also come out is the sense of targeting trained, which may or may not be considered an escalation of the situation (martial arts really don't have such a concern, but self defence training needs it).

Oh, and my example was a (only slightly) over the top representation, not meant to be indicative of Kajukenbo or Kenpo training at all. More along the lines of the type of thing I have seen in various articles, seminars, and so on over the years (for example, in Australia we have a martial arts magazine called Blitz, and one of the most popular features of this particular publication is their "Technique Workshop". This features a variety of martial artists giving examples of their systems answer to similar attacks, such as a jab, cross combination. All too often there are techniques against something like a simple grab in which the "defence" includes multiple strikes, all the way to stomping the downed attackers head. That is overkill, and that was more the template I was using).

See what I said about. That should answer this part. You and I have had many good discussions, both online and via PM, so I think its safe to say that more often than not, you and I are on the same page. I think thats the case here, despite the misunderstanding of the word overkill.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page about 98% of the time, really, and even when we're not, it's a healthy respect for each others opinions. At least, I hope so....?

The same word as been used to describe Kenpo as well. I get the impression that because our techs. have the tendancy to be so long, that people look at that as overkill. IMO, if the fight is still active, then if I it the guy once, twice or 10 times, as long as he's still fighting, then IMO, its not overkill. I think that some people think that it should be over in 1 or 2 shots. Yeah, in the perfect world maybe, so they look at Kenpo/Kaju, see us whack the guy 10 or more times, and assume that we're doing overkill. Again, it comes down to the situation. As I said, if I take the guy out and keep beating him, stomping him, so he becomes part of the pavement, yeah, doesnt take a rocket scientist to know thats too much.

Personally, I would be more inclined to believe that the longer strings of techniques in a single defence are a teaching tool for a range of different reasons, none of which feature the word "thug". That again would take away from martial arts training, as well as self defence training.

Personally, I believe that the actual reasons for the training method involving long strings of movements are more about learning flow, targeting, speed, consistency, adaptation, and a way of teaching various possibilities for a single attack and it's defence. In this sense, the actual practicality of the technique itself is secondary to the skill development it achieves. This makes a lot more sense (to me, at least, from my understanding of the training methods and reasons of quite a number of different systems) than "if he isn't down, this is giving me ways of continuing". That approach would be an additional to the initial defences, not make up the actual techniques in the main.

See the above for the overkill comments. No sense in rehashing that again. I still stand by my views of Sd and combat.

And I stand by mine. Really, I think we're just classifying things differently. But I'm right, for the record (ha!)...

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,



Thanks! It was a hairy day and a half, I tell you what...

Yeah, I definately cherish the 'net, especially when I'm working double shifts at work, such as today.

Actually, they are. But what they're teaching that's different is not the mechanics, as that is not where self defence training is focused, it's in the preparation for realistic application of the mechanics learnt in martial arts (such as Geoff Thompson's and Iain Abernathy's karate backgrounds). So if you are looking for differences in striking methods, you are simply looking at the wrong thing. And really, that has been my entire point throughout this thread, the mechanics are not what define either martial arts or self defence training.



Well, this to me just goes back to earlier in the thread, where we were discussing "you respond/act/fight the way you've trained". If your training consists of long, involved, complex sequences involving a large number of strikes and other responces to a single attacking action, well, there is every likelihood that at least aspects of that will come out. What will also come out is the sense of targeting trained, which may or may not be considered an escalation of the situation (martial arts really don't have such a concern, but self defence training needs it).

Oh, and my example was a (only slightly) over the top representation, not meant to be indicative of Kajukenbo or Kenpo training at all. More along the lines of the type of thing I have seen in various articles, seminars, and so on over the years (for example, in Australia we have a martial arts magazine called Blitz, and one of the most popular features of this particular publication is their "Technique Workshop". This features a variety of martial artists giving examples of their systems answer to similar attacks, such as a jab, cross combination. All too often there are techniques against something like a simple grab in which the "defence" includes multiple strikes, all the way to stomping the downed attackers head. That is overkill, and that was more the template I was using).

I'm gonna lump this all together because its relavant to what I'm about to say. My Kenpo inst. and I had an interesting chat yesterday about the number of techs in the system as well as the complexity of them. Him and I are both on the same page when it comes to stuff like that. Personally, he had said that he'd much rather take the most common street attacks, and come up with a handful of techs. to address each. Drill the **** out of them, do them alive, keep them simple, etc. because that is what people will remember.

I've said many times, to other Kenpoists, that when it comes time for the spontaneous drills, its VERY rare, that I'll ever do a Kenpo tech. Instead, what I do, is parts. I take the tech and use it as a base/foundation to build from. I'm always telling the people that I teach, to not be bound by a tech.

I've also commented on how brutal some of the techs. are. A simple lapel grab results in a hyper-extended, possibly broken arm? Now, situation depending, that may be warranted, but IMO, if we can't come up with other, less violent options, then we need to sit down and re-evaluate our training. I know that I can. Like I always say...assess the situation, and adjust your response accordingly.

I'm sure my opinions are not popular with some in the Kenpo world, and thats fine with me. Frankly, I really dont care. I'm not trying to Police the Kenpo world, nor am I concerned with teaching the pure gospel of Parker. The art needs to be tailored to the person, not the other way around.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page about 98% of the time, really, and even when we're not, it's a healthy respect for each others opinions. At least, I hope so....?

Thats correct.

Personally, I would be more inclined to believe that the longer strings of techniques in a single defence are a teaching tool for a range of different reasons, none of which feature the word "thug". That again would take away from martial arts training, as well as self defence training.

Personally, I believe that the actual reasons for the training method involving long strings of movements are more about learning flow, targeting, speed, consistency, adaptation, and a way of teaching various possibilities for a single attack and it's defence. In this sense, the actual practicality of the technique itself is secondary to the skill development it achieves. This makes a lot more sense (to me, at least, from my understanding of the training methods and reasons of quite a number of different systems) than "if he isn't down, this is giving me ways of continuing". That approach would be an additional to the initial defences, not make up the actual techniques in the main.

Well, the same could be applied to a joint lock flow series. Nobody is going to expect the person to actually flow thru X number of locks, but its teaching something, much like the long techs. Of course this is also something that my teacher and I talked about....the ideas that some teach, that the techs. will definately save your ***. Sure, they might, however, IMO, we need to look at other things as well.

And I stand by mine. Really, I think we're just classifying things differently. But I'm right, for the record (ha!)...

No, I'm right...:moon: :lol:

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Self defense is such a loaded term, I really only use it because it's a fairly common word and most people understand when i tell them our school is devoted to self defense over everything else, they get it.

But I really hate the word, #1 it suggest a defenseive mindset, unless you have lots of cover, have weapons and are in a good defensive position, thinking defensivly is a good way to get dead.

I think in terms of counter assult (That's what I call it when I do private SD training, I want the very name to spell out what we are about.

Now barring morality, being a good person yadda yadda it's not about running around hitting everyone that makes you nervious but it is about meeting their attack or threat of attack in an explossivly violent manner, to go on the offensive from step one. (This goes into a huge missconception of Jujutsu, it's not a defensive art it's an attacking art it just tend sto deal off of the enemies attacks, useing the openings created to do what must be done.)

You want to take control of the tempo of the engagement, become proactive and not just reactive.

It's been proven in war and personal combat again and again. WHen in the open, you must become aggressive, does not mean you always take the first shot, but when you go you go and you go to win at all cost.

Just like a gun, martial arts are a tool. Use them for sport, fun, personal defense or to be a complete bully, it's how they are used that defines whether it was self defense or it was naked aggression.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm gonna lump this all together because its relavant to what I'm about to say. My Kenpo inst. and I had an interesting chat yesterday about the number of techs in the system as well as the complexity of them. Him and I are both on the same page when it comes to stuff like that. Personally, he had said that he'd much rather take the most common street attacks, and come up with a handful of techs. to address each. Drill the **** out of them, do them alive, keep them simple, etc. because that is what people will remember.

Okay... but I'm going to break them up, because it's more fun! This, by the way, is the exact same approach we take when we look at what is required for our self defence curriculum. But my point, as ably demonstrated by your example here, is that this is different to the martial arts aspect. If this was the way the martial art was taught, the way it was structured, and the way it was developed, then you (and your instructor) wouldn't need to make such sweeping alterations and adaptations to it. Martial arts as a basis for self defence training, absolutely. But the martial art itself is not self defence training unless it is altered in such a way, leaving behind the martial art side of itself.

I've said many times, to other Kenpoists, that when it comes time for the spontaneous drills, its VERY rare, that I'll ever do a Kenpo tech. Instead, what I do, is parts. I take the tech and use it as a base/foundation to build from. I'm always telling the people that I teach, to not be bound by a tech.

Which would mean that my interpretation of the reasons and benefits of the training method (long, involved techniques) is pretty close to the truth, as that is represented by your experiences. You are taking from the range of trained options presented in the martial art-trained techniques ones that work for yourself in a drill closer to self defence. Very cool.

I've also commented on how brutal some of the techs. are. A simple lapel grab results in a hyper-extended, possibly broken arm? Now, situation depending, that may be warranted, but IMO, if we can't come up with other, less violent options, then we need to sit down and re-evaluate our training. I know that I can. Like I always say...assess the situation, and adjust your response accordingly.

Oh, we've got some stuff that is just as, or more brutal than that.... I can think of a few Koto Ryu techniques in which the "attacker" simply walks towards you, so you hit them, grab with, uh, intent, and apply a kicking throw to damage/break their knee as you throw them forward onto their head... some may call that brutal, I suppose. And again, this is a removal of martial art training from self defence.

I'm sure my opinions are not popular with some in the Kenpo world, and thats fine with me. Frankly, I really dont care. I'm not trying to Police the Kenpo world, nor am I concerned with teaching the pure gospel of Parker. The art needs to be tailored to the person, not the other way around.

Oh, I don't know that I have any Gospel that needs spreading.... oh, the other Parker. Right. Okay....

Well, the same could be applied to a joint lock flow series. Nobody is going to expect the person to actually flow thru X number of locks, but its teaching something, much like the long techs. Of course this is also something that my teacher and I talked about....the ideas that some teach, that the techs. will definately save your ***. Sure, they might, however, IMO, we need to look at other things as well.

Exactly. And once again, this is a removal of martial arts training from self defence training. Again, though, martial arts can form a great basis for self defence training, but in and of themselves, they are not self defence.

No, I'm right...:moon: :lol:

Yes, you are right... but I'm more right! Ha!

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Gaius,

Self defense is such a loaded term, I really only use it because it's a fairly common word and most people understand when i tell them our school is devoted to self defense over everything else, they get it.

But I really hate the word, #1 it suggest a defenseive mindset, unless you have lots of cover, have weapons and are in a good defensive position, thinking defensivly is a good way to get dead.

I think in terms of counter assult (That's what I call it when I do private SD training, I want the very name to spell out what we are about.

Now barring morality, being a good person yadda yadda it's not about running around hitting everyone that makes you nervious but it is about meeting their attack or threat of attack in an explossivly violent manner, to go on the offensive from step one. (This goes into a huge missconception of Jujutsu, it's not a defensive art it's an attacking art it just tend sto deal off of the enemies attacks, useing the openings created to do what must be done.)

You want to take control of the tempo of the engagement, become proactive and not just reactive.

It's been proven in war and personal combat again and again. WHen in the open, you must become aggressive, does not mean you always take the first shot, but when you go you go and you go to win at all cost.

Just like a gun, martial arts are a tool. Use them for sport, fun, personal defense or to be a complete bully, it's how they are used that defines whether it was self defense or it was naked aggression.

I completely agree about the term self defence there. To me it implies a need for there to be an attacker, which is just too close to a victim mentality, as well as being too passive in many cases.

However, to go so far as to think in terms of counter assault, then I think you may be going to far the other way. My personal term is self protection, which is defensive, evasive, and offensive, simply taking the best approach as the situation dictates. There's just a bit too much "naked aggression", "explosive violence", and so on here for this to come across as maturely balanced. Certainly offensive tactics form a part (against a group, or an escalating threat they are ideal), but to have it as your main approach is just as limited as having defensive actions only as your main approach.

 

[Tez3]

Again, dont mistake the 'overkill' for something that its not. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that our interpretations are different. For example...someone goes to punch me. I block the punch, counter punch, and take the guy down. Now, just because he's down, we both know that doesnt mean the fight is over. So, I take him down, and punch a few more times. The badguy stops fighting, thus I stop as well....and get the hell out of there, call the cops, etc. I think you're taking the 'overkill' as me suggesting that once he stops fighting, that I continue on, with more punches, and use his ribs for a football. No, thats not what I'm talking about.





quote]


I certainly wouldn't stop and I'd do more than use his ribs for football! that's not overkill in my case, it's called 'don't ever try to piss off a little middle aged lady again coz she really gets really annoyed and you won't like her when she's annoyed' :2xbird:

 

[Shifu Steve]

So, what is a martial art?

A martial art is a collection of philosophies and teachings expressed through the medium of combative or combative themed physical methods. This philosophy can be political, social, spiritual, or even physical. The focus in on teaching the concepts, philosophies, strategies, and tactics of the system in question, and is shaped by the cultural aspects of it's source/origin. The combination of the philosophy and the cultural gives a martial art it's "flavour", or particular approach, as these factors give the technical aspects.

This has been my understanding as well however with one departure. The underlying concepts learned from training, while initially derived from the particular martial art, can be absorbed, reapplied to a different medium, and extrapolated outside of the original context they were learned in. I'll get to the reason I make this point...

Once more, I am not saying that martial arts cannot be studied for their self defence usage, that they have no self defence use, that their techniques cannot be used for self defence, or anything of the kind. All I am saying is that if you are studying the martial art itself, despite the reasons you may be studying it, the art is not designed for modern self defence in a modern setting in its technical approach, its philosophy, its teachings, or its methodologies.

Good point. I quoted this because it illustrates part of what I was getting at above. A "traditional" martial art (in general terms) inandof itself was not intended for much beyond whatever it's underlying philosophy was. So in that respect while the application of the philosophy or the combative medium through which it is expressed may have numerous applications, the point is those applications have to be derived from it (i.e. they are an extension of what it is).

Combative techniques are not the same as self defence. They can be applied as such, but combative does not equate to self defence in any way, really. In terms of people signing up to learn self defence in their local martial art school, well, over here the big thing right now is Zumba, a latin dance-based aerobics class marketing itself as the latest and greatest weight loss exercise program... sadly, it's little more than the latest Tae-bo fad. But it's marketed as a weight loss exercise program, and people buy it as that. That, however, doesn't make it so. It's really little more than new fancy dressing for a basic aerobics program (and honestly a rather weak one at that, judging from the class in the hall I teach in on Tuesdays that's there before me).

Chris are you teaching Zumba to Ninjas? Just kidding. Again here I see what you're saying and don't fundamentally disagree but I use your point here as my soap box. While I think the term "self defense" is probably best applied to a mindset of avoiding danger and "getting home safe" just like martial arts use combative techniques as a means to an end I would imagine SD uses a variety of mediums to achieve safety. The examples thrown out there are adequate but my take is that combative techniques are one of those mediums. Now the context in which they are trained in a TMA may diverge from how they need to be applied in an SD situation but like I said earlier I think a lot of those combative concepts taught in TMAs don't have to stay within the confines of the dojo. The caveat being that they are trained correctly.

The difference is not technical for the most part. Martial arts can be used for self defense. My point has simply been that that is not what they are designed for, not that they cannot be used for such purposes. I hope that at least is clear now.

Very clear. Even though I've seen this topic rehashed a few times I think it's important to beat to death in some ways. Because of the marketing you and Bill were discussing I feel that students don't always understand the inherent differences between the martial art they study, combat, sport, and self defense. There are always very careless and general statements when it comes to these subjects. Qualifying what the martial arts are in relation to how they can be applied is a worthwhile pursuit in my opinion.

 

[teekin]

Again, dont mistake the 'overkill' for something that its not. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that our interpretations are different. For example...someone goes to punch me. I block the punch, counter punch, and take the guy down. Now, just because he's down, we both know that doesnt mean the fight is over. So, I take him down, and punch a few more times. The badguy stops fighting, thus I stop as well....and get the hell out of there, call the cops, etc. I think you're taking the 'overkill' as me suggesting that once he stops fighting, that I continue on, with more punches, and use his ribs for a football. No, thats not what I'm talking about.





quote]


I certainly wouldn't stop and I'd do more than use his ribs for football! that's not overkill in my case, it's called 'don't ever try to piss off a little middle aged lady again coz she really gets really annoyed and you won't like her when she's annoyed' :2xbird:

You tell em Woman! Best reason ever for women to learn MMA " TEZ". Anyone stupid enough to Try to get you mad deserves what they get. "Go ahead, try to take my purse . . . . . . . .make my day.":mst:

Lori

Lori

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Steve,

This has been my understanding as well however with one departure. The underlying concepts learned from training, while initially derived from the particular martial art, can be absorbed, reapplied to a different medium, and extrapolated outside of the original context they were learned in. I'll get to the reason I make this point...

The defining issue, I believe, is what is defined as martial arts training. I am defining it as the training in the art itself, as exemplified through it's techniques and training methods. The more you move away from that, the less you are training in the art. It's reasons such as this that people can't just make their own new Ninjutsu system, for example.

Good point. I quoted this because it illustrates part of what I was getting at above. A "traditional" martial art (in general terms) inandof itself was not intended for much beyond whatever it's underlying philosophy was. So in that respect while the application of the philosophy or the combative medium through which it is expressed may have numerous applications, the point is those applications have to be derived from it (i.e. they are an extension of what it is).

Ah, but that underlying philosophy can be quite expansive, including many aspects and adaptations, and still remain the same martial art. But by altering the methods and approach that is where it moves away from being the same art, and becomes something else. That is where self defence training (although based on the technical curriculum of a martial art in many, or in fact, most situations) is different and seperate from martial art training.

Chris are you teaching Zumba to Ninjas? Just kidding. Again here I see what you're saying and don't fundamentally disagree but I use your point here as my soap box. While I think the term "self defense" is probably best applied to a mindset of avoiding danger and "getting home safe" just like martial arts use combative techniques as a means to an end I would imagine SD uses a variety of mediums to achieve safety. The examples thrown out there are adequate but my take is that combative techniques are one of those mediums. Now the context in which they are trained in a TMA may diverge from how they need to be applied in an SD situation but like I said earlier I think a lot of those combative concepts taught in TMAs don't have to stay within the confines of the dojo. The caveat being that they are trained correctly.

Absolutely self defence requires physical techniques as well as the other aspects (awareness, avoidance etc), and those physical techniques are best taken from established methods such as martial arts, however they cannot simply be transported across from one to the other. Martial arts can be used as a basis, but the difference needs to be addressed. Martial arts are not self defence training in and of themselves. And self defence training is unrealistic and incredibly lacking if it does not address the physical side of things.

Very clear. Even though I've seen this topic rehashed a few times I think it's important to beat to death in some ways. Because of the marketing you and Bill were discussing I feel that students don't always understand the inherent differences between the martial art they study, combat, sport, and self defense. There are always very careless and general statements when it comes to these subjects. Qualifying what the martial arts are in relation to how they can be applied is a worthwhile pursuit in my opinion.

Words are important, as Bill said earlier. But the words have a meaning, whether the user of them realises them or not, and describing martial arts as self defence is to misapply both terms. This is why I say I teach martial arts and self defence. But I do tend to get a little, uh, pedantic from time to time, or so I'm told...

 

[Tez3]

Karate was formed for the purpose of self defence, nothing else. It wasn't for sport, it wasn't to get you fit, it wasn't for gaining any spiritual enlightenment, It was to fight against 'ruffians and scoundrels'. It had, in fact still does have what you need in the katas. However these days people have taken karate and 'modified' it, beautified it, changed it and gelded it but it's still there the old stuff and it still works if anyone chooses to actually train in karate as it should be done. We have people who are saying that side side products of karate is self defence, the purpose is to get fit or to become more spiritual ( I wonder if they have read Motobu's comments "It is necessary to drink alcohol and pursue other fun human activities. The art of someone who is too serious has no “flavour" )
It's been turned into a sport and a childcare activity, now everyone arguing about whether a martial art can be self defence or whether it's something different. Karate done as the founders intended is self defence, nothing else, pure self defence. Modern thoughts make things difficult and clouded, western reverence of estern 'mysticism' has turned martial arts into something it was never meant to be. Oh how people complicate things. The philosophy behind karate was simple,' you attack me, I'll walk away and you won't'. There was no 'respect' thing going on, no tenets of behaviour no spirituality, just self defence, everything else came form outside, peoples, personal beliefs, religions etc and was inserted into karate to make it this 'art' thing we have now. Rather sad in my opinion but than goodness there's enough around who can see the purpose of karate, what it's for and can use it as a very good self defence system.


The beaurty of MMA is that it is what it says it is on the tin, martial arts, a great deal of techniuws are also in the katas, if people stop useing them as dances and actually looked at whats in there they'd not need anything else.