How many do you need?

[TKDTony2179]

Wondering the thoughts of some of the veteran of these threads. How many martial arts do some one need for self protection? Will one or do you need many? Should some one train in a hybrid fighting art or do one full art each at a time until they are well rounded?

My thoughts are if you can find such art that has many in one(kajenkenbo, mcmap, jeet kune do, etc) then you are on to a great start. Having a stand up art that cover many ranges is a must. Knife and gun defense is a must. Ground defense is a must. (Not to be confused with ground fighting)

So tell me your thoughts guys. One or many?

 

[K-man]

Wondering the thoughts of some of the veteran of these threads. How many martial arts do some one need for self protection? Will one or do you need many? Should some one train in a hybrid fighting art or do one full art each at a time until they are well rounded?

My thoughts are if you can find such art that has many in one(kajenkenbo, mcmap, jeet kune do, etc) then you are on to a great start. Having a stand up art that cover many ranges is a must. Knife and gun defense is a must. Ground defense is a must. (Not to be confused with ground fighting)

So tell me your thoughts guys. One or many?

With the right instructor, hopefully just one. In my case my initial training was very much sport based with very little that was directed at street scenarios. As a result I felt the need to cross train. So I would hope that now I am offering my guys enough that I can cover their requirements without them needing to go elsewhere, although I would always encourage them to take a look at what else is on offer.
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, this'll be interesting to see how it's taken....

Wondering the thoughts of some of the veteran of these threads. How many martial arts do some one need for self protection?

None. Martial arts teach fighting, not self protection.

Will one or do you need many?

No, and no.

Should some one train in a hybrid fighting art or do one full art each at a time until they are well rounded?

What's that got to do with self protection?

My thoughts are if you can find such art that has many in one(kajenkenbo, mcmap, jeet kune do, etc) then you are on to a great start.

Okay.

Having a stand up art that cover many ranges is a must.

"Must"? Nope. Most of the most successful "street fighters" have been really good at one thing, and only one thing (maybe two). Covering many ranges isn't necessarily necessary, being able to dictate and control range is far more powerful.

Knife and gun defense is a must.

Not necessarily... here, for instance, gun defence is really not necessary at all... there's just so little realistic need that it's not a high priority. The US might be a bit different....

Ground defense is a must. (Not to be confused with ground fighting)

Again, as with the rest, arguable.

So tell me your thoughts guys. One or many?

None. To fight, though, is another question... and will need a much deeper clarification of the form of fighting being referred to....

 

[Flying Crane]

you need very very little, if you understand how to use it properly. you do not need a complete system at all. a couple techniques, and understanding the principles that make them effective are plenty.

every "complete" system has way way more material and curriculum than you really need.

 

[DennisBreene]

Hmm, this'll be interesting to see how it's taken........

I may not be exactly in the demographic that was solicited but this is an interesting recurring theme.

None. Martial arts teach fighting, not self protection.....

Tend to agree. But, this reminds me of the thread that discussed what qualified as successfull self defense instruction. We had trouble agreeing on terms and may not have resolved much in the long run. It is probably generally accepted that martial arts schools are marketed as teaching self "defense" and I believe a lot of students have expectations that their training actually provides this. So I think it is fair to ask if the training actually delivers on the promise.

"Must"? Nope. Most of the most successful "street fighters" have been really good at one thing, and only one thing (maybe two). Covering many ranges isn't necessarily necessary, being able to dictate and control range is far more powerful.....

I don't have extensive street fighting experience, but in discussions with a relative few who do, controlling the fight seemed to be of primary importance. The general theme seemed to be the use of "sucker punches" and overwhelming force at the outset. Don't give the opponent a chance to defend. Does that resonate as true among those with street experience?

Not necessarily... here, for instance, gun defence is really not necessary at all... there's just so little realistic need that it's not a high priority. The US might be a bit different....
....

And what constitutes defense. Is the goal successful disarms? Or survival? It seems to me that the philosophy of defense here would significantly affect what was taught.

None. To fight, though, is another question... and will need a much deeper clarification of the form of fighting being referred to....

Completely agree. While I can see where a certain practitioner's techniques would appear to be highly effective in the dojo. How do I know that any of that translates to effective technique in the street? My primary self defense training was a mixture of Kajukempo and Tang Soo Do, taught by a man who had extensive combat experience in Vietnam (including hand to hand). Does that mean it would translate to effective technique by me on the street? How do we establish criteria for something that occurs so rarely in most modern societies. I don't think I know more than one or two practitioners who have actually had to use their training for self defense. All I can comfortably say for myself is I probably can fight better than before my training. That doesn't mean I'll be successful if I take on an experienced street fighter with no formal martial arts training.

Until there is some general consensus as to what constitutes self defense and what techniques are appropriate; how can you determine what the correct training mixture is?

 

[MJS]

Wondering the thoughts of some of the veteran of these threads. How many martial arts do some one need for self protection? Will one or do you need many? Should some one train in a hybrid fighting art or do one full art each at a time until they are well rounded?

My thoughts are if you can find such art that has many in one(kajenkenbo, mcmap, jeet kune do, etc) then you are on to a great start. Having a stand up art that cover many ranges is a must. Knife and gun defense is a must. Ground defense is a must. (Not to be confused with ground fighting)

So tell me your thoughts guys. One or many?

Wondering the thoughts of some of the veteran of these threads. How many martial arts do some one need for self protection? Will one or do you need many? Should some one train in a hybrid fighting art or do one full art each at a time until they are well rounded?

My thoughts are if you can find such art that has many in one(kajenkenbo, mcmap, jeet kune do, etc) then you are on to a great start. Having a stand up art that cover many ranges is a must. Knife and gun defense is a must. Ground defense is a must. (Not to be confused with ground fighting)

So tell me your thoughts guys. One or many?

I suppose the answer will vary, both from person to person and art to art. IMHO, during the years that I've spent training and talking with various people, I've yet to see 1 art that addresses all areas. Actually, I take that back. One guy that I used to train under taught a Filipino art, KunTao. His version seemed much more complete than other arts I've seen.

Now, to clarify: pretty much every art out there, addresses all ranges of fighting. Kenpo, an art that I've trained in for quite a while, addresses punches, kicks, grabs, weapons, attempted takedowns, etc. However, it has it's limits. I've had people, other Kenpoists, tell me that it's not all Kenpo, just the way I'm doing it. Sure, that may be the case. Perhaps it was just my teachers who didn't understand it, thus leading to my not understanding. Then again, maybe its really them..lol. Of course, IMO, understanding the various ranges of fighting is important. If someone doesn't understand a particular area, odds are, they're going to fail in that area. How you get that understanding though, is understanding how others operate. Think about it...an art that specializes in something is probably going to be very good in that area. Now, typically when we enter this discussion, people will say what they usually do..."Well, on the street, you're not going to be fighting a trained person." Oh, and you know that how? It's like having insurance on your car. We hope and pray that our car won't get damaged in a crash, and we may go our entire life, never needing it. But it's something we have to have, in the event we do need it. I'm not able to predict the future, and I doubt anyone else can either. So again, how do we know who we're going to face in a potential SD situation? We don't!

I'm a big advocate of cross training. I do it, a) because I like it, b) because a lot of my training partners do it, so I just went with the flow, and c) because I wanted to get a deeper understanding of certain things. I've trained BJJ on and off for a while. I don't hold any rank, nor am I affiliated with any organization. I'm not interested in rank at this time. My goal, was simply to get a better understanding of the ground. I wanted to learn the basics, get good at them, and then, should I end up there, at least my odds of survival went up. Does this mean I'm on the same level as a blue, purple, brown or black belt in BJJ? Hell no! LOL! I train in Arnis, which is a Filipino art. I have my Black belt in that art. That art has helped me very much, by giving me a much deeper understanding of bladed weapons, both defensively and offensively, as well as impact weapon defense. This training has given me a better understanding of my Kenpo weapon defenses, as well as a better understanding of the takedown defenses.

Again, this is not something that anyone has to do. If you want to, great, do it. If you don't, great, don't. Of course, nothing says you have to abandon your base art, and take up BJJ, Kali, etc. But IMO, understanding how they operate, will in the long run, help you. Now, this doesn't mean that you should start training in 10 different things. That leads to a jack of all trades, master of none.

Hope that answered your questions.

 

[MJS]

None. Martial arts teach fighting, not self protection.

Yes, this has been discussed numerous times. I think that the SP part is something that is, more often than not, left out of training. The majority of what's taught today is what I call the "During Phase". The dealing with the grab, punch, kick, etc. The "Before" and "After" parts...not so much. Before meaning what could've we done to avoid the situation altogether or verbally defuse is, and the after, meaning, dealing with the aftermath of the situation. ie: the legal aspect, etc.

No, and no.

Umm..ok??

"Must"? Nope. Most of the most successful "street fighters" have been really good at one thing, and only one thing (maybe two). Covering many ranges isn't necessarily necessary, being able to dictate and control range is far more powerful.

I can agree and disagree with this.

Not necessarily... here, for instance, gun defence is really not necessary at all... there's just so little realistic need that it's not a high priority. The US might be a bit different....

I'd say area depending.

Again, as with the rest, arguable.

I'll disagree. See my other reply.

 

[oftheherd1]

Originally Posted by TKDTony2179
Wondering the thoughts of some of the veteran of these threads. How many martial arts do some one need for self protection?



None. Martial arts teach fighting, not self protection.

Just for the sake of curiosity, do you think Hapkido or Aikido primarily teach fighting or self protection?

An interesting thought that occurs to me: When I studied TKD, it was understood, and often pointed out, that we should always try to avoid a fight. If we could not, then we were free to defend ourselves with what TKD we had learned. The Hapkido that I studied frowned on fighting as well, but there was no restriction on defense. In fact, what we were taught was mostly defensive in nature. Much of it could be used offensively, but that wasn't the thrust of our training.

I will agree we weren't given instruction on methods of avoiding fights. I think doing that was just part of life's lessons people were expected to learn.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Just for the sake of curiosity, do you think Hapkido or Aikido primarily teach fighting or self protection?

An interesting thought that occurs to me: When I studied TKD, it was understood, and often pointed out, that we should always try to avoid a fight. If we could not, then we were free to defend ourselves with what TKD we had learned. The Hapkido that I studied frowned on fighting as well, but there was no restriction on defense. In fact, what we were taught was mostly defensive in nature. Much of it could be used offensively, but that wasn't the thrust of our training.

I will agree we weren't given instruction on methods of avoiding fights. I think doing that was just part of life's lessons people were expected to learn.

I look at aikido as a I do ad Tai Chi Chuan. Internal arts for self protection and self improvement. Something to be used by the quite guy that don't fight but if pushed would put a hurting on you. Hapkido is the same to me but it also has some external for attacking. Yes, it would depend on yhe instructor because I am sure combat Hapkido isn't taught the same as Hapkido in Korea.

 

[Balrog]

What's needed is common sense. That will take care of 99% of personal defense. Good training in a martial art will fill in the last 1%.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Well I do think that most arts teach all range of attacks but at the same time most have a certain range they perfer. Yet some are weaker in the grappling and some are weaker in the weapons field. I have notice on some web sites of martial artist that they may be well rounded or maybe have 5 to 10 disciplines. Maybe they wasn't happy with what they first learned or just love the arts so much they wanted more knowledge.

I myself plan on continuing my training in the arts. While I have training in kickboxing and bjj with no gi, I am going to be training in fma.
As you can tell one is stand up with limited grappling, one ground fighting, and one with weapon and grappling. To me this is the classic training of a ma. Strikes, grappling, and weapons.

Do you need to be heavily advance to protect yourself? Nope. But having experience in them would help.

 

[TKDTony2179]

You can argue that fighting and self protection is are two different things. But I am not trying to turn this into a debate of self-defense and having awareness. We have seen too many altercations when someone is tricked into going somewhere and then being jumped. I am talking about only the physical side here.

I will agree that if you can control range then you can hit or not get hit when wanted too.

 

[DennisBreene]

Well I do think that most arts teach all range of attacks but at the same time most have a certain range they perfer. Yet some are weaker in the grappling and some are weaker in the weapons field. I have notice on some web sites of martial artist that they may be well rounded or maybe have 5 to 10 disciplines. Maybe they wasn't happy with what they first learned or just love the arts so much they wanted more knowledge.

I myself plan on continuing my training in the arts. While I have training in kickboxing and bjj with no gi, I am going to be training in fma.
As you can tell one is stand up with limited grappling, one ground fighting, and one with weapon and grappling. To me this is the classic training of a ma. Strikes, grappling, and weapons.

Do you need to be heavily advance to protect yourself? Nope. But having experience in them would help.

It seems like you've pretty much answered your own question. Did the discussion in the thread change any of your conclusions? If so, in what way?

 

[TKDTony2179]

It seems like you've pretty much answered your own question. Did the discussion in the thread change any of your conclusions? If so, in what way?

No, but every fighting system that man have created is limited and usually you will have to fill in the gaps. Besides these are three arts I wanted to to learn anyway.

 

[Flying Crane]

No, but every fighting system that man have created is limited and usually you will have to fill in the gaps. Besides these are three arts I wanted to to learn anyway.

There is nothing wrong with training in several different systems, if that is what you are interested in doing. The sheer enjoyment of training and learning new things justifies training in several systems, understanding different approaches to combat. So go ahead and do that, embrace the training, learn what you can, see how that helps you develop.

However, do not make the mistake of believing that you need to have several systems, or you will be lacking. One system, understood properly, can give you the means to deal with whatever you might come across. And as I pointed out earlier, you don't even need the whole system. Just a few things can be enough, if you really understand it.

good training to you.

 

[TKDTony2179]

However, do not make the mistake of believing that you need to have several systems, or you will be lacking. One system, understood properly, can give you the means to deal with whatever you might come across

So, you believing someone with the system of just boxing or caporeia can handle a situation like a knife threat?

 

[Flying Crane]

So, you believing someone with the system of just boxing or caporeia can handle a situation like a knife threat?

yes, as i've said, if the've taken the time and put in the effort and the training to properly understand the system.

 

[Grenadier]

Just about any respectable martial arts system can be usable for such purposes.

Whether you want to cross train and get more of a surface understanding of two systems, or get a deeper understanding of one, is entirely up to you, and what you want to do with it.

 

[flo]

Tony,

I am a capoeirista (capoeira fighter) and in my honest opinion, it's not a complete art. In this art, we practice too much preset movements, and when we fight in a game (roda) there is not enough contact. In other words, capoeiristas are not prepared for any serious confrontations.

This is a double edged sword. Most capoeiristas end up being a "NOBODY". They can't fight well, they can't dance well. Their music talent is so-so and their brazilian Portuguese is not useful.

I usually don't recommend anyone to be in capoeira.

However, let me say this to you clearly. Capoeiristas can be very "DEADLY" when they have free open mind, coupled with off the chart athletic ability, lean body frame, robust joints and 40 inch plus jumping ability. It's a martial art meant for only "west Africans."

As always, my comment to your original question. Yes, train for one art. Know all your strengths and weaknesses and always overestimate your opponent.

 

[Zero]

Tony,

I am a capoeirista (capoeira fighter) and in my honest opinion, it's not a complete art. In this art, we practice too much preset movements, and when we fight in a game (roda) there is not enough contact. In other words, capoeiristas are not prepared for any serious confrontations.

This is a double edged sword. Most capoeiristas end up being a "NOBODY". They can't fight well, they can't dance well. Their music talent is so-so and their brazilian Portuguese is not useful.

I usually don't recommend anyone to be in capoeira.

However, let me say this to you clearly. Capoeiristas can be very "DEADLY" when they have free open mind, coupled with off the chart athletic ability, lean body frame, robust joints and 40 inch plus jumping ability. It's a martial art meant for only "west Africans."

As always, my comment to your original question. Yes, train for one art. Know all your strengths and weaknesses and always overestimate your opponent.

But does not this in itself simply boil down not to the art but those who are training in and those who are teaching the art, and which aspects whatever club is focusing on? Maybe in the "West" (not sure where you are or training) those training capoeira have got hung up only on the apsects that appeal to them - I gotta admit the clubs I checked out in the Southern Hemisphere and UK were very disappointing regarding either martial or gymnastic skill, seemed almost more like some semi-hippie commune atmosphere...but as you say, I would think an athletic capoerist that has focused on their skills for the purpose of fighting, including timing/distance etc could be quite a handful.