How many do you need?

[TKDTony2179]

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.

Thank you for your comment. I do believe some caporeia fighters can be be dangerous without weapons but I have yet to see any training with weapons. I think that was something not developed because of its roots. So a person would have to develop other skills of hand grappling and weapons as needed.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Here is a video showing the some knight fighting(horse play) but I can't take this serious. Weapons may be some where in the art but not advance.

 

[Chris Parker]

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

Hi Dennis,

Ha, you might not be... but then again, it wasn't really aimed at anyone other than the OP. All other takes on my comments are bonuses, really!

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.

Yeah, there were a couple of those threads... and I agree that, if a martial art school is saying it offers self defence training, it should deliver on that... which means the teacher making the claim should understand exactly what it means... but, sadly, most seem to equate martial arts with dealing with violence (without realising that no martial art deals with anything other than it's own form/context for violence), and "dealing with violence" with self defence/protection, and neither of those are actually true.

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?

Well, yes and no. Acting first and decisively is the way I'd put it... often meaning pre-emptive striking, set-ups that limit the likelihood of you being a victim of such a tactic yourself, and so on. But it's also going to depend on the aims you go into it with... self defence will be predicated on the idea of getting out as safely as you can... security work/bouncers don't have that as their primary focus, as their focus is to control undesirable elements until they are removed from the environment that the security is being paid to look after... police might have a focus of safely engaging and restraining/arresting, rather than getting away... and a social predator might just want to hurt someone, so won't leave unless they are hurt themselves, or feel in danger of being hurt. Each of those emphasises will dictate a large or small change to the tactical approach being applied.

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.

In the context of gun defence? I'd say avoiding being shot... which will begin with understanding the likelihood of someone being armed (either open or concealed carry), awareness of where the weapon might be, recognition of tactical positioning, body language, and de-escalation to reduce the likelihood of the gun being brought into the situation in the first place, all before we're even dealing with the need for a disarm. But, when the gun is in play, the aim is to be in a safe position where you're not going to be shot... disarms are important as it takes away the opponent's ability to continue to threaten or use the weapon, so it's one way of achieving a secondary aim.

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.

Yep, agreed with all of this. In terms of knowing if it'll "work", well, you can't. All you can do is test it as realistically as you can, research and come to understand how real violence differs from the dojo, and stay as honest in your training as you can.

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?

It all comes down to context. What is most likely to be required here is, as mentioned, different to what is most likely to be required in the US... or in Japan. Question what you're doing, as well as how and why, and ensure it fits with your requirements. I'd honestly be doing my students a disservice if I spent a lot of time on gun defence... it'd be taking time away from what they actually need... but having a large focus on knife defence (here) is a very good plan... it's the most likely weapon they'll deal with, followed by improvised blunt impact weapons. So my mixture teaching here is different to what it would be elsewhere... there isn't one single "correct" mixture. Even going to a different city in Australia, I'd completely re-assess what I'm showing and why, as I might need to do more of one thing, and less of something else, depending on the most likely assaults there.

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.

It's not really "left out", so much as not there in the first place. It's not what martial arts deal with.

Umm..ok??

Ha, yeah, I was a little... vague. I'll see if I can clarify.

Will one martial art do? No. You need a lot of education that comes from outside of martial arts study itself, so you'll need to supplement the martial art (physical skills) with self defence/protection training (de-escalation, awareness, knowledge of adrenalized response, predator tactics, pre-fight indicators, dealing with post-event trauma, dealing with post-event fallout such as legal repercussions, knowledge of different forms of assault [they're not all physical], knowledge of laws in your area, and more).

Or do you need many? Nope. As a physical base, many martial arts are fairly equal when it's all said and done. Some will specialize in one or another aspect or range, but that's about it. Additionally, a single art might deal with more than a limited methodology/aspect, or it might get you so skilled in a single area that other arts aren't needed. Alternatively, you might want to get a wider appreciation of methodologies and approaches, in which case, go for cross- or multi-art training... it's not needed, but it might be desired.

I can agree and disagree with this.

Okay.

I'd say area depending.

Yep, that was the point.

I'll disagree. See my other reply.

Sure, and I know the reasons... but the statement from the OP was a definite (ground defence is a must), I was pointing out that, well, it's not. It's a very good idea in todays MMA-aware world, but it's not a "must".

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

As you seem to have quoted myself there, I assume the question was for me?

I think they both teach via the medium of combative or fighting techniques... which isn't the same as saying they teach fighting, and certainly isn't saying they teach self protection... nor do I think they teach the same thing as each other.

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.

And honestly, that's not teaching anything. It's just lip service.

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.

Which is what I'm talking about... you go to a martial arts school, ostensibly for "self defence", and they basically say "you should do this, but you should go and figure out how for yourself"? Do they suggest you defend yourself with kicks, but hey, go and see if you can figure out how to kick by yourself?

Hmm...

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.

So you're defining things based on what you think the physical techniques are (offensive or defensive)... might not be the best way to go about it. I'm rather fond of telling my guys that some of the most brutal, nasty, offensive stuff I've ever come across is in Taiji... and it really should be remembered that Ueshiba was essentially a hard-man leg-breaker for ultra right wing groups prior to WWII... hardly "the quiet guy that doesn't fight"...

My point is that you're perhaps looking far too superficially at these arts... which might go further in the way you see all of them.

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.

Martial arts tend to specialize in one range, not deal with "all ranges" at all. When it comes down to it, martial arts are specialist fields. I don't know what you're talking about with the websites and "5 to 10 disciples" (my guys are students, not disciples, for one thing... but more importantly, without anything specific [what arts? What do they teach? What does student number have to do with anything?], it really doesn't say anything to me)...

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.

Okay. Remember, of course, that that's your take on things, and isn't necessarily reflected in reality... it all comes down to context. What a martial artist is is very dependant on the time and culture that you're dealing with... what might be called "the classic training" approach might not be something you'd recognise...

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

Sure.

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.

Well, this seemed to be in reference to my comments, so I'll look at this as well.

Fighting and self protection are two different things. But, if you're only dealing with the physical sides of things, the first aspect (for self defence on a purely combative physical plane) is to come to an understanding of what the most likely assaults in your area are, and then gear your training towards that. And, in that case, you only need one approach, provided it actually deals with what you're needing it to. And that certainly doesn't reduce the list to only one.

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

Well, you have a better chance to, sure.

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.

If you want to learn them, great. But you do realize that the reason there are limitations is because such things are required... they're necessary, and without them, there's no way anything could be of any value. All arts deal with their particular context... which gives their "limits"... it's not a bad thing, in fact, it's a very good one. There are only ever "gaps" when you try to apply something that has one context in a very different one.

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

Well, due to it's context and methodology, capoeira wouldn't be my first choice against a knife... boxing, though, certainly has tactical methodologies that can be quite effective... it's still not the best for it, as that's not it's context either, but sure, it can be used in such a situation if necessary.

 

[Zero]

It's not really "left out", so much as not there in the first place. It's not what martial arts deal with.

....You need a lot of education that comes from outside of martial arts study itself, so you'll need to supplement the martial art (physical skills) with self defence/protection training (de-escalation, awareness, knowledge of adrenalized response, predator tactics, pre-fight indicators, dealing with post-event trauma, dealing with post-event fallout such as legal repercussions, knowledge of different forms of assault [they're not all physical], knowledge of laws in your area, and more).

Now this is interesting Chris, particuarly the first above quote.
Are you really saying that it’s not what the martial arts deal with?

Certainly a lot of the focus of many styles these days, and particular schools within such styles, is either sport focus or tournament focus. And the physical techniques required to win such tournaments are what are honed. On a mental side (if you happen to have a better or more serious coach/club), it is often only the appropriate competitive or fight mentality, strategies and competition psychology that is also dwelled on. To that extent I would agree with you.

However, there must be many martial art schools that do focus on all aspects of self-protection, including situational awareness and disengagement or de-escalation and those other aspects that should be active on a day to day basis and operate (like long-range radar) quite often a long way out in front of any physical altercation taking place (and also how to best protect yourself post-experience, such as legal ramifications and implications). While in judo and TKD I never had this, pretty much from day one when I picked up goju ryu, this was a focus of training and often after the night had finished, these matters would be discussed also informally. I have been to other goju clubs and while not such a big focus the sensei has spent some time on “awareness” and talked to the kids, and adults, about spatial awareness, ie not having the earphones in walking down a dark street etc etc.

You could argue that this is not the art itself, take goju for example, and that the art is just the application of the physical techniques of this form of karate. But I don’t think that is the case. Funakoshi in “Karate-Do” talks about and gives several examples of his practice in life of situational awareness and alertness to potential and increasing threats and at de-escalation and talking one-self out of a confrontation (albeit not always with success) rather than getting into the “doing phase” as Denise calls it. It seems that it was very much a part of the art and I am pretty sure the founders of many arts would have seen “self-protection” integral to the art itself.

There are certainly schools around the world that still have this woven through the style and training. If only going on my own experience. Maybe I have misunderstood you as I would have thought you would have seen this in your own school, or do you not see koryu as a martial art as such? Even so the concept applies equally.
Are you really saying that it’s not what the martial arts deal with?

 

[Flying Crane]

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.

most people, in most martial arts, do not train properly to be able to fight effectively. Capoeira does not have the monopoly on that issue. Yes, there is a difference between training for the roda and training to fight, and most schools seem to train for the roda. But that doesn't mean that the tools necessary to train for the fight do not exist. They do.

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.

as I said above, most people who train martial arts of an kind, cannot fight well with it. So there's that.

Capoeira isn't about dancing, so if they can't dance, well so what?

the music, that's a cultural aspect of the art, but irrelevant to fighting, as is the Portuguese. Like it or leave it, it's irrelevant to fighting.

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

you still train capoeira, but you have so little faith in it that you don't recommend anyone else do it? that's a very strange thing to say.

I was a capoeirista fo a number of years, but left it as i realized it was not a good fit for me. But like anything, if trained properly and understood properly, it's got all it needs

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

How many martial arts do some one need for self protection?

You can look at this from 2 different angles.

1st angle:

You will need to know how to train

- power generation,
- speed generation,
- grappling skill,

2nd angle:

You will need to have tools in:

- kick,
- punch,
- lock,
- throw,
- ground game.

 

[Chris Parker]

Now this is interesting Chris, particuarly the first above quote.
Are you really saying that it’s not what the martial arts deal with?

Yes.

Certainly a lot of the focus of many styles these days, and particular schools within such styles, is either sport focus or tournament focus. And the physical techniques required to win such tournaments are what are honed. On a mental side (if you happen to have a better or more serious coach/club), it is often only the appropriate competitive or fight mentality, strategies and competition psychology that is also dwelled on. To that extent I would agree with you.

While that's certainly true of sporting systems, it's not a simple, or as limited as that.

However, there must be many martial art schools that do focus on all aspects of self-protection, including situational awareness and disengagement or de-escalation and those other aspects that should be active on a day to day basis and operate (like long-range radar) quite often a long way out in front of any physical altercation taking place (and also how to best protect yourself post-experience, such as legal ramifications and implications).

Martial art schools addressing such areas is one thing... martial arts themselves, on the other hand, is something else. And, honestly, even when looking at martial arts schools addressing such issues, I'm not sure I'd put it as "many"... other than lip service.

While in judo and TKD I never had this, pretty much from day one when I picked up goju ryu, this was a focus of training and often after the night had finished, these matters would be discussed also informally. I have been to other goju clubs and while not such a big focus the sensei has spent some time on “awareness” and talked to the kids, and adults, about spatial awareness, ie not having the earphones in walking down a dark street etc etc.

Okay, here's how we tell if it's part of the system, or something added in for that school... What was the structure of the lessons for awareness? Were there specific strategies related to the Goju system itself, or was the instructor saying what he thought was good advice? How detailed was the advice? Was there anything about actual tactics for awareness and observation, or was it more along the lines of "try and stay aware"?

You could argue that this is not the art itself, take goju for example, and that the art is just the application of the physical techniques of this form of karate. But I don’t think that is the case. Funakoshi in “Karate-Do” talks about and gives several examples of his practice in life of situational awareness and alertness to potential and increasing threats and at de-escalation and talking one-self out of a confrontation (albeit not always with success) rather than getting into the “doing phase” as Denise calls it. It seems that it was very much a part of the art and I am pretty sure the founders of many arts would have seen “self-protection” integral to the art itself.

What are the Shotokan verbal de-escalation tactics and methods? If there aren't any (other than "you should try to de-escalate"), then it's not part of the system. Remember that Funakoshi's book was entitled "My Karate-do", in other words, it's his way of karate... and how it gave rise to influence in areas of his life.

Of course, here's where it gets tricky.... Martial arts, by dirnt of the very way they are, will tend to develop and improve someone's awareness... of themselves, and of others around them, primarily by being aware of openings in your movement, in the opponent's movement and stance, and so on. Thing is, that's one form of awareness... and isn't necessarily the same thing as social or societal awareness.

There are certainly schools around the world that still have this woven through the style and training. If only going on my own experience. Maybe I have misunderstood you as I would have thought you would have seen this in your own school, or do you not see koryu as a martial art as such? Even so the concept applies equally.

Koryu certainly deal with the societal conditions they are based around, but they don't deal with anything to do with current ideals of self protection. And Koryu are very, very, very much martial arts... to my mind, far more than most things that are afforded the title.

Are you really saying that it’s not what the martial arts deal with?

Yes.

Martial arts (each martial art) deal with their particular context and application within that context. They are collections of knowledge and lessons taught within a particular framework... what most people miss is the part where you look at the art itself, and understand what it's context is, before trying to make it fit something that you think it should be. I mean, you're not about to turn up at a Sushi restaurant expecting great pizza, are you? A good meal, certainly... but know what to expect before you head in the door. Still, most think all restaurants (martial arts) are serving the same thing, just in different flavours.... not so much, really.

 

[TKDTony2179]

You can look at this from 2 different angles.

1st angle:

You will need to know how to train

- power generation,
- speed generation,
- grappling skill,

2nd angle:

You will need to have tools in:

- kick,
- punch,
- lock,
- throw,
- ground game.

Seem to forget weapons.

 

[flo]

Oh boy, flooded with replies. Let's go one by one.

To Zero, the "clubs" you are referring to, we call it groups. AKA groupo in Portugese. There are a wide variety of groups outside of Brazil. Some groups are superior to others, but in general the differences are minor because the roots are the same. That being said, capoeira practiced in Brazil is similar to what you see in Brazilian football. It's very aggressive and not forgiving. You certainly don't see it in Briton football leagues.

To Tony, yes that video is a showcase of capoeira basics. In the past, weapons are used in capoeira fights. It's razor that can be used on hands and feet. But defense to weapons? you are on your own.

To Flyin crane, a good capoeirista is often a excellent dancer. Remember, the martial art is African. So the drums, singing and dancing is more important than anything else. The reason I shun away potential people into capoeira is simple. Is the person naturally gifted in athletics? There is very little room for growth in capoeira either if you are old (beyond 35 years old) or talented with how to use your body. This is reality, so it's better to tell truth ahead of time.

 

[Zero]

Okay, here's how we tell if it's part of the system, or something added in for that school... What was the structure of the lessons for awareness? Were there specific strategies related to the Goju system itself, or was the instructor saying what he thought was good advice? How detailed was the advice? Was there anything about actual tactics for awareness and observation, or was it more along the lines of "try and stay aware"?

What are the Shotokan verbal de-escalation tactics and methods? If there aren't any (other than "you should try to de-escalate"), then it's not part of the system. Remember that Funakoshi's book was entitled "My Karate-do", in other words, it's his way of karate... and how it gave rise to influence in areas of his life.

Yes, I guess for the most part you have it then. For goju ryu as it stands and when it is transferred or applied between schools, the consistency is very much in the kata and the techniques and not the "self-protection" (other than in the "doing it phase") aspects. The SD lessons and discussions at my old goju club where very much from my sensei's personal experience as a LEO on the beat and from working in the cell blocks and protecting against and witnessing/learing from other officers get suckered by prisoners, from a senior who had his own SD business and that trained in knife and weapon defense at our club and from a shihan that had spent many years as a bouncer. So the distillation of their experience and advice and techniques you could say had nothing at all to do with goju ryu itself.

Perhaps because, unlike TKD and judo (where the focus is entirely sport and competition (at least my old clubs)), the other goju ryu clubs I have visited and trained at have not been purely "sport karate dens" there has been the time and room to put some focus on SD and awareness but that is really down to the particular sensei or seniors and not the club or style itself.

I guess then for many clubs where the sensei or trainers do not have real life experience or a desire to focus on self protection, then adhering to the curricular of the art itself may result in one being quite bereft of "SD" training. One would like to think that the "spirit" of most martial arts is to produce a rounded "self defense" practitioner but that may well not be the case in the majority of clubs and styles - I wonder if this is more of a recent aspect or formation(and if the styles, at least those styles before evolving into sport forms, while in their foundation years did focus on SD to a larger extent and not just the physical techniques)??

Given the philosophy of many styles is not to use the techniques for violence and to avoid action unless necessary in defense, it would seem very odd if the primary means of avoiding violence and having to act with one's hands (ie, what makes up so much of SD/self protection) were simply omitted and never dwelt on? Karateka says: "I will strive to never use my techniques and skill on another human and will seek to avoid violence, oh here I go walking down a dark alley again with some bums lurking in the doorway up ahead..."

 

[Zero]

Yes.


Yes.

Martial arts (each martial art) deal with their particular context and application within that context. They are collections of knowledge and lessons taught within a particular framework... what most people miss is the part where you look at the art itself, and understand what it's context is, before trying to make it fit something that you think it should be. I mean, you're not about to turn up at a Sushi restaurant expecting great pizza, are you? A good meal, certainly... but know what to expect before you head in the door. Still, most think all restaurants (martial arts) are serving the same thing, just in different flavours.... not so much, really.

Actually, I must admit it did pain me somewhat to so readily agree with you Chris, and on reflection, I do think some of the simple and fundamental and mental training aspects of martial arts such as in karate do focus on "self-protection" - this is present in the style and the application of the style itself (perhaps simply not focused on in many clubs these days). My first goju club did (along side what was clearly not goju ryu-originated SD work) spend quite a lot of time on "zanshin" and at the end of katas and technique execution - zanshin as you no doubt know being a "state of relaxed awareness" of one's surroundings.

So maybe you are doing a diservice to the original form of the styles - and those clubs that still focus on such, and maybe I did the same in too readily agreeing with you.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yes, I guess for the most part you have it then. For goju ryu as it stands and when it is transferred or applied between schools, the consistency is very much in the kata and the techniques and not the "self-protection" (other than in the "doing it phase") aspects. The SD lessons and discussions at my old goju club where very much from my sensei's personal experience as a LEO on the beat and from working in the cell blocks and protecting against and witnessing/learing from other officers get suckered by prisoners, from a senior who had his own SD business and that trained in knife and weapon defense at our club and from a shihan that had spent many years as a bouncer. So the distillation of their experience and advice and techniques you could say had nothing at all to do with goju ryu itself.

Yep. And, honestly, that's the better way to go for such aspects... if you're looking for modern self defence realities, why would you look to a 100+ year old karate system from a completely different culture, social structure, approach to violence, and so on? You're better off looking at understandings grounded in the environment you're in... which isn't part of the martial art, but can (and should) be a part of the martial art school, if they're claiming to teach self defence.

Perhaps because, unlike TKD and judo (where the focus is entirely sport and competition (at least my old clubs)), the other goju ryu clubs I have visited and trained at have not been purely "sport karate dens" there has been the time and room to put some focus on SD and awareness but that is really down to the particular sensei or seniors and not the club or style itself.

Most Goju Ryu schools aren't sports focused, Goju Kai tend more towards that side of things. Thing is, of course, "sports" and "SD" are only two of the possible focus' of any particular martial art or school... I train in a number of systems that have no sports aspect, and no concern for self defence either... and they're then also removed from each other in terms of focus and context. One is a duelling system, another is focused on personal development, another is to do with addressing military methodologies, strategies, and tactics as an overarching body of knowledge, yet another is to do with armoured combat, one more deals with maintaining a mindset of perpetual readiness, then there's one that's focused on control and restraint... then there's another, well, half dozen or more that I train or teach...

I guess then for many clubs where the sensei or trainers do not have real life experience or a desire to focus on self protection, then adhering to the curricular of the art itself may result in one being quite bereft of "SD" training. One would like to think that the "spirit" of most martial arts is to produce a rounded "self defense" practitioner but that may well not be the case in the majority of clubs and styles - I wonder if this is more of a recent aspect or formation(and if the styles, at least those styles before evolving into sport forms, while in their foundation years did focus on SD to a larger extent and not just the physical techniques)??

Nope.

Look, there's a tendency to want all, or most martial arts to be the same thing... they're all about "self defence", or provide a self defence skill set... and that's simply not the case. Nor is it the case that such concerns were even a part of the origins of most martial arts... and that's as much to do with the common marketing of martial arts as being about self defence as it is anything else... but it's simply not the reality. In fact, in general terms, specifically when dealing with any caste or feudal societies, the older the art, the less it has to do with self defence in context, concept, origins, or intended usage. And that goes triple for systems with weapons, particularly if that's a major, or primary aspect.

Given the philosophy of many styles is not to use the techniques for violence and to avoid action unless necessary in defense, it would seem very odd if the primary means of avoiding violence and having to act with one's hands (ie, what makes up so much of SD/self protection) were simply omitted and never dwelt on? Karateka says: "I will strive to never use my techniques and skill on another human and will seek to avoid violence, oh here I go walking down a dark alley again with some bums lurking in the doorway up ahead..."

Yeah... I'm not sold on that actually being the philosophy of, well, pretty much any martial art. To get at why I think that, you need to do some reverse-engineering of behaviours and what that tells us.

To go through in order, experiences (memories) form your beliefs, which form your values, which inform your perceptions, which give rise to your behaviours. In other words, if you go to an Indian restaurant for the first time, and have a curry that is a fair bit spicier and hotter than you're used to, as well as not being digested easily, you might form the belief that all Indian food is like that... which leads you to apply a low value to Indian food, as you didn't like what you tried... leading you to a perception that all Indian food is something you don't like. The behaviour, then, is that when someone suggests you go out for Indian, you say no. Of course, if you liked that first meal, the opposite could take place. Or you might not associate it with Indian food in general, but just curries... or anything else, really. Once you understand that sequence, it's not too difficult to reverse-engineer it... to look at someone's behaviours, and extrapolate what that tells you about their perceptions, values, and beliefs, which can provide an indication of the types of experiences and memories they have (the scope of human experience just isn't that broad...). And, of course, this applies equally to martial systems as it does to people.

So, if you're going to discuss what a martial art actually espouses, you need to first look, not at what's said/claimed, but at what the behaviours are... the training methods and techniques, the choice of weapons, the tactics preferred and strategies employed. That starts to give you an idea of how that martial art perceives a range of things (such as it's perceptions of what violence is like), providing insight into the values (testing via competition, refinement of the person, provide the fastest "solution" to a problem, and so on), which then takes you back to it's beliefs (kicking is powerful, ground fighting is superior, strong striking is what wins etc), all of which stem from it's origins and contextual application. In other words, if the origins and contextual application is a form of competition, that will give a particular methodology to it's development and techniques, and so on. But where am I going with this?

Well, a philosophy is a set of unified, guiding beliefs and values (which, as we know now, stem from the experiences and foundations associated). It then shapes the perceptions (the way of seeing the world), which directly leads to the behaviours (the ways of interacting with the world). Now, if a particular martial art has a philosophy of avoiding violence, but has no behaviours that dictate that, it's not part of it's philosophy. It is, instead, likely a philosophy of the instructors applied over the top of the arts itself... commonly as a set of morals and ethics, more than an actual philosophy itself. I mean, to take karate as an example, the idea that the students should avoid violence doesn't match the fact that all the behaviours (techniques and methods) of the system deal with being involved in violence. It's incredibly incongruent for a martial art to say "you should never fight... now, let's practice our kicks, punches, throws and blocks!" while at the same time never actually teaching you anything about avoiding violence in the first place. It's also a very modern addition to martial arts... classically, many would train in martial arts in order to gain a career as a teacher or a warrior/soldier... you train to fight in order to be able to fight, not to avoid it.

Actually, I must admit it did pain me somewhat to so readily agree with you Chris, and on reflection, I do think some of the simple and fundamental and mental training aspects of martial arts such as in karate do focus on "self-protection" - this is present in the style and the application of the style itself (perhaps simply not focused on in many clubs these days). My first goju club did (along side what was clearly not goju ryu-originated SD work) spend quite a lot of time on "zanshin" and at the end of katas and technique execution - zanshin as you no doubt know being a "state of relaxed awareness" of one's surroundings.

Ha, and we were doing so well..!

I was discussing with one of my guys last night just how different aspects of awareness are from each other... and how each needs to be developed. In martial arts training, you typically develop a far greater sense of awareness of yourself (your reach, your sense of distancing, your strengths and weaknesses, to know when you are open and where, and when and where you are guarded, and so on), and a sense of awareness of an opponent (reading their body language, recognizing attacking patterns, seeing openings, seeing strengths to be evaded, and so on). But that's not the awareness needed in self protection/self defence methods. There, you need to have awareness of social and societal realities, awareness of common assault patterns, awareness of differing forms of violence, and what is most likely in any situation, awareness of your surroundings (entrances, exits, reading and making a tail), and more. None of these forms of awareness come from martial art training (combat training), and need to be looked to separately.

When it comes to zanshin, that's a part of it... it means "lingering mind", as I'm sure you know, and has been given in cases as you present it. But another way of looking at it is as a method of dealing with the after-effects (what is "lingering" in your "mind"), especially of adrenaline. It's a way of handling the endorphin release after an adrenaline dump, really. In terms of awareness, though, it's really just another part of same combative awareness as found in the rest of the martial methods.

So maybe you are doing a diservice to the original form of the styles - and those clubs that still focus on such, and maybe I did the same in too readily agreeing with you.

Nah... believe me, I'm more than aware of what the original forms were... and it's not what you're thinking it was.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Seem to forget weapons.

If you want to get into integration, you may have to give up weapon training. I have trained dagger, single edge knife, double edges sword, staff, pole, spear, and Guan Dao. I have to give up all those training in oder to find enough time for my integration efford.

I first gave up all weapon teraining. I then gave up all form/Kata training.

 

[Chris Parker]

No, I'd disagree there... it's a personal choice, really. In my systems, we have very strong strikes, powerful throws, powerful joint locks, and far more weaponry than most... the only stopping things being properly integrated is if they don't match, which happens if you try to take things from disparate sources and tack them all together.

 

[K-man]

Yep. And, honestly, that's the better way to go for such aspects... if you're looking for modern self defence realities, why would you look to a 100+ year old karate system from a completely different culture, social structure, approach to violence, and so on? You're better off looking at understandings grounded in the environment you're in... which isn't part of the martial art, but can (and should) be a part of the martial art school, if they're claiming to teach self defence.

I'm looking forward to showing you first hand.

Look, there's a tendency to want all, or most martial arts to be the same thing... they're all about "self defence", or provide a self defence skill set... and that's simply not the case. Nor is it the case that such concerns were even a part of the origins of most martial arts... and that's as much to do with the common marketing of martial arts as being about self defence as it is anything else... but it's simply not the reality. In fact, in general terms, specifically when dealing with any caste or feudal societies, the older the art, the less it has to do with self defence in context, concept, origins, or intended usage. And that goes triple for systems with weapons, particularly if that's a major, or primary aspect.

I understand where you are coming from but I still believe karate, as it started out in the late 1880s and early 1900s was designed for providing civilians with a means of defence against other unarmed civilians. Even the simple weapons that they used like tonfa and bo are still effective for self protection, not that I include those in my training but they are near the back door at home.

So, if you're going to discuss what a martial art actually espouses, you need to first look, not at what's said/claimed, but at what the behaviours are... the training methods and techniques, the choice of weapons, the tactics preferred and strategies employed. That starts to give you an idea of how that martial art perceives a range of things (such as it's perceptions of what violence is like), providing insight into the values (testing via competition, refinement of the person, provide the fastest "solution" to a problem, and so on), which then takes you back to it's beliefs (kicking is powerful, ground fighting is superior, strong striking is what wins etc), all of which stem from it's origins and contextual application. In other words, if the origins and contextual application is a form of competition, that will give a particular methodology to it's development and techniques, and so on.

I agree that the origin of the art determines its application in a modern context.

Nah... believe me, I'm more than aware of what the original forms were... and it's not what you're thinking it was.

I first gave up all weapon teraining. I then gave up all form/Kata training.

And I had the opposite. I basically ignored kata for years and now it is at least 60% or 70% of our training.
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm looking forward to showing you first hand.

Ha, sounds fun!

I understand where you are coming from but I still believe karate, as it started out in the late 1880s and early 1900s was designed for providing civilians with a means of defence against other unarmed civilians. Even the simple weapons that they used like tonfa and bo are still effective for self protection, not that I include those in my training but they are near the back door at home.

Sure... but violence and assaults on Okinawa in the 1880's is quite different to violence found in Australia in 2014... the social set-ups are different, the physical forms of attack are different, the weaponry are different, the legal system is different, the social expectations are different, and so on. Oh, but Bo is fine if you have the room (of course, the Okinawan approach is a fair bit different to the Japanese methodology, and you guys don't need quite as much room as we do...), there are other weapons I'd have nearby if I decided to do such a thing myself...

I agree that the origin of the art determines its application in a modern context.

Hmm, no, not quite. The origin determines the way it works in it's own context... to change that to a modern context, you're already moving it away from the origin.

And I had the opposite. I basically ignored kata for years and now it is at least 60% or 70% of our training.

Yeah, I'm with you there, kata (to me) is everything that the art is teaching. Testing methods can be part of that, or you can use other forms, but kata is the art itself.

 

[MJS]

It's not really "left out", so much as not there in the first place. It's not what martial arts deal with.

Yup, shame isn't it. This is along the lines of what I mean, when I talk about keeping up with the times. In todays law suit happy world, IMHO, knowing those things are just as important as the physical side of training.

Ha, yeah, I was a little... vague. I'll see if I can clarify.

Will one martial art do? No. You need a lot of education that comes from outside of martial arts study itself, so you'll need to supplement the martial art (physical skills) with self defence/protection training (de-escalation, awareness, knowledge of adrenalized response, predator tactics, pre-fight indicators, dealing with post-event trauma, dealing with post-event fallout such as legal repercussions, knowledge of different forms of assault [they're not all physical], knowledge of laws in your area, and more).

Or do you need many? Nope. As a physical base, many martial arts are fairly equal when it's all said and done. Some will specialize in one or another aspect or range, but that's about it. Additionally, a single art might deal with more than a limited methodology/aspect, or it might get you so skilled in a single area that other arts aren't needed. Alternatively, you might want to get a wider appreciation of methodologies and approaches, in which case, go for cross- or multi-art training... it's not needed, but it might be desired.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I can agree with the first part. As I said in my previous post, those things that you list are just as important as the physical side of the arts. As for the 2nd part...yup, I can agree with that as well. I'd say a lot of it (and this is just my opinion) has to do with the way the art is taught, which ultimately leads to the teacher knowing what he/she is doing. I suppose it really comes down to what each person wants. I enjoy cross training because it does give me a more in depth understanding of things.

Sure, and I know the reasons... but the statement from the OP was a definite (ground defence is a must), I was pointing out that, well, it's not. It's a very good idea in todays MMA-aware world, but it's not a "must".

Ok.

 

[wingchun100]

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?

Since you feel (and I agree) that ground defense is a must, I'd say you'd be all set with a close-range system.

 

[yak sao]

No, I'd disagree there... it's a personal choice, really. In my systems, we have very strong strikes, powerful throws, powerful joint locks, and far more weaponry than most... the only stopping things being properly integrated is if they don't match, which happens if you try to take things from disparate sources and tack them all together.

If someone cross trains simply because they love to train and learn new things, then I am totally supportive of it. I begin to disagree with cross training when the person thinks that their multi-system approach is going to put them on equal footing against fighters who train exclusively in one system.

In other words, they try to out box the boxer, or out wrestle the BJJ fighter, or out kick the TKD stylist. If you take things from different sources and try to link them together, they won't flow naturally together. Your approach to fighting will be compartmentalized, and you allow your attacker to dictate the terms of the fight.

I still think the best approach is to find the system that is the best fit for you and train it exclusively and derive everything you can from it.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yup, shame isn't it. This is along the lines of what I mean, when I talk about keeping up with the times. In todays law suit happy world, IMHO, knowing those things are just as important as the physical side of training.

Sure... but "keeping up with the times" is only really needed if that's what you're looking for. My Kenjutsu training, my Iai training, my Kyudo training... not really much need to keep up with the times there (other than knowing the laws pertaining to owning and carrying certain weapons to and from class). By the same token, when I look at my traditional Taijutsu methods, a lot of what we do there just isn't that suited to todays world... dropping their back across the knee, dropping people on their heads, breaking arms as you throw them and so on... none of that gets transferred into the modern material I teach, of course, but that doesn't mean I should change it in the traditional side of things... I just need to be absolutely clear as to which is which.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I can agree with the first part. As I said in my previous post, those things that you list are just as important as the physical side of the arts. As for the 2nd part...yup, I can agree with that as well. I'd say a lot of it (and this is just my opinion) has to do with the way the art is taught, which ultimately leads to the teacher knowing what he/she is doing. I suppose it really comes down to what each person wants. I enjoy cross training because it does give me a more in depth understanding of things.

Cool.

If someone cross trains simply because they love to train and learn new things, then I am totally supportive of it. I begin to disagree with cross training when the person thinks that their multi-system approach is going to put them on equal footing against fighters who train exclusively in one system.

In other words, they try to out box the boxer, or out wrestle the BJJ fighter, or out kick the TKD stylist. If you take things from different sources and try to link them together, they won't flow naturally together. Your approach to fighting will be compartmentalized, and you allow your attacker to dictate the terms of the fight.

I still think the best approach is to find the system that is the best fit for you and train it exclusively and derive everything you can from it.

Yeah, that's part of it... it goes a lot further, but that's a good way of putting the essence of it.