Sports vs Traditional in terms of Self Defense

[Steve]

Oh, boy. I get into this discussion often.
Martial arts has almost always been developed for combat use. They are fighting systems at their core, pure and simple. If you want to defend yourself, you need to train yourself to do just that. That means fighting "dirty" is on the table. You learn to use whatever gives you the advantage over your attacker.

If you train for sport only, you are teaching your mind and body to fight according to the rules of that sport. You are also training yourself to engage only one attacker.

Now, let's say you train for self defense only; targeting the knees, eyes, etc. These tactics are of little use if you do not know how to engage your attacker(s) (knowing how to fight). This is where a sparring partner(s) comes in. This is where you engage in "sport" martial arts in order to learn how to get past your attacker's guard, get your attacker off balance, or how to spot various targets, and how to position yourself if you have two attackers, i.e. not being in between them.

Having said all of that, martial sport can be a useful tool. You just have to throw the rule book out. After all, if you train only for competition, you'll defend yourself like you're trying not to get disqualified and win a match. If you train to save you life or a loved one's life, you'll fight like it.

That's my opinion.

the real problem with this is that many martial artists never fight. More concerning, many martial arts instructors never fight (and some have never even been in a fight). As a result, they aren't learning to fight at all, much less fight dirty. They're having fun, though. Maybe getting a little exercise.

 

[Yokozuna514]

I think it is safe to say that everyone on this board has a passion for martial arts regardless of the art/style/program we choose to follow. Although some of us have an opinion as to which 'art' will prepare you 'better' for a SD situation, I suspect there are very few people that have actually been put to the test. In all honestly, why would you want to be ? In my mind, the intent of having to use SD techniques is because someone wishes to do bodily harm to us. They may or may not have any control or concern for the consequences to either one of us. I am not necessarily that concerned to see if my training will make me successful in that type of situation because I do not want to risk being permanently maimed or even killed just to 'test' my training.

Hopefully my training will give me enough knowledge and practice for me to survive an encounter but I would rather use other methods to keep me out of that type of situation. If I have no choice, I will react however I will react but I wonder how much of my training will actually assist me at that point. So why do I practice martial arts at all ? It's like insurance, I pay for the coverage hoping I never have to use it. That being said, if I need it I want it to be the best I can afford to cover my needs. In my case, I picked a style of MA that has as much real contact as I can afford to take but still get up in the morning to do my job. Does it cover me in all cases ? No probably not but it does cover me for the majority of situations that I may find myself in and it gives me pretty cool knuckles too boot.

 

[Ji Yuu]

It's a valid opinion, sure, but it's also not as cut and dried as you make it sound. Because it presumes that not targeting the eyes/groin/whatever in sparring means you cannot/willnot do so in a self-defense scenario.
I don't have to break students knees to be capable of it. Nor do I have to gouge out their eyes. Or fracture their larynx.
I can spar by targeting targets that won't do severe, long term damage. And when it's not sparring, I can target other parts. Because, you know, I'm thinking while I fight in both cases. Certainly SOME people may react in the limited manner your describe. But it's equally certain that it is far, far, from universally true.

I see what your saying. And I was not in any way intending to imply that I suggest people engage in full contact sparring in order to learn to defend themselves. I should, however, elaborate on what I posted.

One thing I address with people is that, when in a hostile situation, there is a threshold beyond which a victim may reach a state of panic. When this happens, people often do not think straight and their body may resort to auto-pilot, whether it is freezing up, fainting, or deploying a series of pre-programmed punches without thinking about it.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about (unfortunately, it really happened):
Police officers were training in disarming tactics. The training against an armed aggressor was basically as follows: 1- Take control of the aggressors firearm, 2- Employ the practiced disarming technique (which does work, btw), and then 3- Hand the prop weapon back to the practice partner. Later, one of the officers encountered an armed felon. He quickly disarmed him and, as his body was trained to do so, handed the weapon back to the criminal and was killed after doing so. This is an example of a poor training technique.

So, my point in comparing sport with combat type training is that training does affect what your body does in a high stressed situation. That's the reason our military trains a certain way. It's why firefighters train the way they do; so they will most likely do what is needed in a high stressed scenario.

This doesn't mean that some people aren't better natural fighters than others. It simply means that how we train ourselves to respond to different kinds of aggression affects how we will respond to those stimuli. This is why our soldiers participate in sport combat with one another but train in self defense combat; they do not train for sport, they train for combat. They use sport to practice engaging a real opponent.

 

[Ji Yuu]

the real problem with this is that many martial artists never fight. More concerning, many martial arts instructors never fight (and some have never even been in a fight). As a result, they aren't learning to fight at all, much less fight dirty. They're having fun, though. Maybe getting a little exercise.

You are correct. That's one of the first things I tell students. You can learn any martial art technique you want, but if you don't know how to actually use it (know how to fight with it), your not getting much.

 

[Steve]

Here is an example of what I'm talking about (unfortunately, it really happened):
Police officers were training in disarming tactics. The training against an armed aggressor was basically as follows: 1- Take control of the aggressors firearm, 2- Employ the practiced disarming technique (which does work, btw), and then 3- Hand the prop weapon back to the practice partner. Later, one of the officers encountered an armed felon. He quickly disarmed him and, as his body was trained to do so, handed the weapon back to the criminal and was killed after doing so. This is an example of a poor training technique.

I would be very interested to read more about this incident. You say it really happened... were you there when it did? I hear stories like this and it makes me very curious.

 

[Steve]

You are correct. That's one of the first things I tell students. You can learn any martial art technique you want, but if you don't know how to actually use it (know how to fight with it), your not getting much.

That's not quite the same thing, though. Is it? I didn't say "know how to fight with it". I know how to distill liquor, but I've never done it.

 

[Ji Yuu]

I would be very interested to read more about this incident. You say it really happened... were you there when it did? I hear stories like this and it makes me very curious.

I heard of this (I think it was back in 2018) when I attended a siminar on dealing with an active shooter situation. The SWAT instructor who was doing the presentation used this as an object lesson. If I'm not mistaken, it happened in LA, CA with the Sheriff's Dept.

 

[Ji Yuu]

That's not quite the same thing, though. Is it? I didn't say "know how to fight with it". I know how to distill liquor, but I've never done it.

I was trying to make the point that if one is going to learn self defense, one needs to learn how to fight. It's like having a side arm for defense. You can "know" how to operate it. But simply "knowing" and actually being able to use it proficiently are two different things.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I was trying to make the point that if one is going to learn self defense, one needs to learn how to fight. It's like having a side arm for defense. You can "know" how to operate it. But simply "knowing" and actually being able to use it proficiently are two different things.

This is a big debate that never seems to end, some people say self defense is everything leading up to a fight and if you fight you've already failed at SD, others claim all that stuff is fine and dandy theory that doesn't mean much if you can't handle yourself in a scuffle.

But I agree, there's a lot of talk talk talk done in SD circles by people without a clue in the world about what it's like to be physically assaulted, let alone be able to defend yourself from that.

Unfortunately we live in an era of many relatively weak, unhealthy, and physically unfit people who don't even have the willpower to fight back against anything, especially their love of greasy fried food and soda pop.

One thing combat sports always has over many traditional programs is that to do well, you can't gorge all day on junk food and sit on your butt. But anybody like that will be perfectly comfy (in the bad sense) in many if not most "self defense" classes.

Personally to me, SD is 99% mental, because that's the part you need to master before you'll ever become physically adept at fighting art.

 

[Steve]

I heard of this (I think it was back in 2018) when I attended a siminar on dealing with an active shooter situation. The SWAT instructor who was doing the presentation used this as an object lesson. If I'm not mistaken, it happened in LA, CA with the Sheriff's Dept.

I've heard that story from many people over the years, including several times on this forum from different folks. I would put that story into the same category as stories about the kung fu guy who could knock people out with his chi.

 

[Ji Yuu]

This is a big debate that never seems to end, some people say self defense is everything leading up to a fight and if you fight you've already failed at SD, others claim all that stuff is fine and dandy theory that doesn't mean much if you can't handle yourself in a scuffle.

But I agree, there's a lot of talk talk talk done in SD circles by people without a clue in the world about what it's like to be physically assaulted, let alone be able to defend yourself from that.

Unfortunately we live in an era of many relatively weak, unhealthy, and physically unfit people who don't even have the willpower to fight back against anything, especially their love of greasy fried food and soda pop.

One thing combat sports always has over many traditional programs is that to do well, you can't gorge all day on junk food and sit on your butt. But anybody like that will be perfectly comfy (in the bad sense) in many if not most "self defense" classes.

Personally to me, SD is 99% mental, because that's the part you need to master before you'll ever become physically adept at fighting art.

Your post reminds me of one of the requirements I have of my students: they must engage in fitness training at least once a week, unless they want to join me in what I do. I also encourage a healthy diet.

 

[Ji Yuu]

I've heard that story from many people over the years, including several times on this forum from different folks. I would put that story into the same category as stories about the kung fu guy who could knock people out with his chi.

Interesting. I've only heard it once. Even if it isn't true, it does illustrate the effects of specific repetative traing.

 

[drop bear]

Interesting. I've only heard it once. Even if it isn't true, it does illustrate the effects of specific repetative traing.

If it isn't true. It doesn't illustrate that at all.

 

[Ji Yuu]

If it isn't true. It doesn't illustrate that at all.

If it is a ficticious account (which I can't say it is or isn't), it most certainly can illustrate a point and teach a valuable lesson. In this case, it would be the importance of proper repetitive training. Police Depts, Fire Depts, and our military understand this.

 

[Steve]

Interesting. I've only heard it once. Even if it isn't true, it does illustrate the effects of specific repetative traing.

I don't agree with this. If it's not true, it's what is referred to as apocryphal, and is basically useless to illustrate anything. In fact, it's a good idea to be skeptical of apocryphal stories, as they are often shared to manipulate people.

There was another recent thread in which we chatted a little about conventional wisdom, which can be complete garbage.

I'm just suggesting that you apply some critical thought to things, and be open to the idea that just because it feels right (i.e., it reinforces what you already believe to be true) doesn't mean it is right.

 

[Steve]

If it is a ficticious account (which I can't say it is or isn't), it most certainly can illustrate a point and teach a valuable lesson. In this case, it would be the importance of proper repetitive training. Police Depts, Fire Depts, and our military understand this.

I once heard a story from a guy about a dude who ate an entire stick of butter every night before bed. He was super healthy, with great cholesterol and blood sugar. Helped him sleep, and kept his metabolism working at night, which basically allowed his body to burn fat while he slept. Goes to show you that you can never have enough butter in your diet.

Of course, that's all complete BS. But if you were inclined to believe it anyway... say you were looking for an easy way to lose weight, or a good reason to eat more butter (because why not?), you might buy it hook, line, and sinker, and then share it with your friends as fact.

This is how folks get sucked into all kinds of silly stuff and no one is immune from it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Here is an example of what I'm talking about (unfortunately, it really happened):
Police officers were training in disarming tactics. The training against an armed aggressor was basically as follows: 1- Take control of the aggressors firearm, 2- Employ the practiced disarming technique (which does work, btw), and then 3- Hand the prop weapon back to the practice partner. Later, one of the officers encountered an armed felon. He quickly disarmed him and, as his body was trained to do so, handed the weapon back to the criminal and was killed after doing so. This is an example of a poor training technique.

I've heard this story a lot of times. I've never seen any news report or anything to back up that it really happened though. Even if it was stated in a seminar, that doesn't always mean it's factual. Kind of like the X% of fights always end up on the ground that people claim is true, but the number ranges from 70-95%, and IIRC is based on a pretty limited 'study'.

Edit: for this story I've also heard a lot of variations. Some say it was after a throw, some after a regular disarm. Sometimes it's a knife instead of a gun. Sometimes he gets shot, and other times a buddy comes around and saves him before the criminal realizes what happened. That's not to say that there wasn't a true story that got distorted at some point, but it does give more questions.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If it is a ficticious account (which I can't say it is or isn't), it most certainly can illustrate a point and teach a valuable lesson. In this case, it would be the importance of proper repetitive training. Police Depts, Fire Depts, and our military understand this.

Only if that is a true issue (that cops are handing back weapons from bad training). If not, then it's teaching a lesson to a problem that doesn't exist, and might result in the wrong kind of overcompensation. In this instance-the overcompensation could be a delay in technique practice to ensure you don't get into the habit of handing the gun over, resulting in less reps being practiced, or more time being spent on that one portion of training then needed, both which could be problematic.

Also, if you can't say if it is or isn't true, I'd avoid starting a story with the statement that it is true. Just as an fyi for the future.

 

[Nobufusa]

According to him.

he just so happens to be a world-renowned expert.

 

[drop bear]

If it is a ficticious account (which I can't say it is or isn't), it most certainly can illustrate a point and teach a valuable lesson. In this case, it would be the importance of proper repetitive training. Police Depts, Fire Depts, and our military understand this.

Not really.

It is a fictitious account. Because nobody can prove it. It is not" I can't say it is or isn't." No evidence of it ever having happened in layman's terms equals fictitious.

Think fairies. I can't prove they exist. But you can't prove they don't.

And what this fictitious account illustrates is the large gaping hole in training that relies on fictitious accounts to support a claim.

Theoretical martial arts.

The whole point of sport is that you can do what is claimed. Under pressure you can incapacitate an attacker (or you can't) in exactly the circumstances that you are training.

So if a person wanted to rob me. And for some insane reason I had 10 Oz gloves on and only punched. I still have the tools necessary to defend myself. I am still capable of rendering that attacker unconscious.(or again not, depending on how good I am)

With that kernel of truth I can base a plan to defend myself.

And look. That is a super common story. And a common trap we fall into processing self defence. This idea that something works. Just not here. Just not under these conditions.