Martial Arts and Self-Defense

[Tgace]

An excerpt from the larger wikipedia entry about martial arts. Much truth in what it says. Opinions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_artist#Martial_arts_and_self-defense

In order to justify their existence and to attract students, many (if not most) martial arts schools make claims about their usefulness in "self-defense". Such claims are a matter of constant debate among beginning level students of the martial arts.

Self-defense situations happen with extreme rarity in most modern societies where such martial arts classes exist, and what situations do develop can generally be avoided by other means (e.g., not walking around drunk in bad neighbourhoods, not buying or selling illegal drugs, not getting involved with biker gangs, and so on). Therefore understanding what is needed for self-defense requires understanding the situations that are likely to arise.

There has been an ever-increasing perception among the general population, fuelled by the mass-media, that they are in constant danger of violence on the streets. It is this fear that self-defense classes are intended to counter. Since the fear is largely unfounded, self-defense classes need only reduce the feeling of fear in order to be effective. In practice, for the people to whom these martial arts classes are being marketed, the most likely situation in which they will experience a physical confrontation is domestic violence.

Finally, the largest problem confronted by most people who are attacked is not a lack of physical ability to resist but an emotional reaction: a paralyzing panic or an undisciplined, blinding rage will turn a bad situation into a potentially disastrous one.

All this said, years of serious training in martial arts are expected to take the emotional charge out of physically violent confrontations (after hundreds of hours of sparring, a punch or a kick becomes just a fist or a foot, a purely physical force, reduced by experience to something easily dealt with and not a "personal" attack as such) and gives practitioners good general coordination and confidence, both of which can discourage aggressors before aggression begins. So, the experience of physical interaction over an extended period of time in martial arts training may be more relevant to its overall effectiveness at practical self-defense than any individual technique the art in question may include.

The self-defense aspect has also changed the techniques used. In our modern world, we may be attacked by an unarmed person, someone with some sort of clubbing weapon (a baseball bat) or armed with a knife. The chance of being attacked by a fully armored, sword-wielding samurai is practically zero. Most martial arts included battlefield combat techniques in the past, but the emphasis on such techniques has declined in most styles.

 

[KenpoEMT]

Since the fear is largely unfounded, self-defense classes need only reduce the feeling of fear in order to be effective

I have long believed that the elimination of the fear of physical confrontation is the most useful aspect of the martial arts.
Quite frankly, I knew how to fight before I started learning Kenpo. Didn't most of us know? Fighting isn't hard...living peacefully and without fear in various difficult environments is hard.
So, the value of any martial art is found in it's effect on the psychological state of the individual.

...the push-ups don't hurt either :lol:.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

I have long believed that the elimination of the fear of physical confrontation is the most useful aspect of the martial arts.
Quite frankly, I knew how to fight before I started learning Kenpo. Didn't most of us know? Fighting isn't hard...living peacefully and without fear in various difficult environments is hard.
So, the value of any martial art is found in it's effect on the psychological state of the individual.

...the push-ups don't hurt either :lol:.

Agreed on the elimination of fear. Fighting isn't hard...agreed. The hard part is coming out of it with little to no personal injury.

 

[Sapper6]

i never was a big fan of wikipedia as a source of useful reference. no different than forums if you ask me...i've been known to be wrong though :idunno:

 

[BlackCatBonz]

so if the martial arts were created to defend against a fully armed sword wielding samurai, i guess they wouldnt be very effective against an unarmed or club wielding moron.

 

[arnisador]

Lots of truth there, but no news. Yes, carrying a cell-phone is better self-defense than having a black belt.

 

[Simon Curran]

I agree that there is a lot of truth in that article, but it doesn't exactly tell the whole storyIn the event of the (admittedly rare) worst case scenario, even if it is just a psychological aid, better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

[jujutsu_indonesia]

so if the martial arts were created to defend against a fully armed sword wielding samurai, i guess they wouldnt be very effective against an unarmed or club wielding moron.

Ahh!! that explains why sensei always say "This is to preserve traditions, do not use in real life" when explaining certain archaic Jujutsu techniques

 

[KenpoEMT]

Lots of truth there, but no news. Yes, carrying a cell-phone is better self-defense than having a black belt.

Very true. I myself am a master of 'Cell Phone Do'. My speed-dial technique is unparelleled.

 

[Phoenix44]

Yeah. I think run-jutsu is a good self defense art, too.

 

[Bigshadow]

so if the martial arts were created to defend against a fully armed sword wielding samurai, i guess they wouldnt be very effective against an unarmed or club wielding moron.

I would tend to disagree with that statement. If you look at the sword training as mere techniques (tech A versus Tech B) and don't really understand and feel the principles of space, distance, and physics, then it truely would be useless. But to me, in principle, there is no difference between the sword, a baseball bat, a knife, a punch, an elbow strike, a shoulder strike. With this in mind, training to avoid and defend against sword strikes can be EXTREMELY valuable! Swords tend to exagerate the principles.

 

[KenpoTex]

I would tend to disagree with that statement. If you look at the sword training as mere techniques (tech A versus Tech B) and don't really understand and feel the principles of space, distance, and physics, then it truely would be useless. But to me, in principle, there is no difference between the sword, a baseball bat, a knife, a punch, an elbow strike, a shoulder strike. With this in mind, training to avoid and defend against sword strikes can be EXTREMELY valuable! Swords tend to exagerate the principles.

Very true. However, without an understanding of the applications of the movements--how they relate to various attacks--then they are just archaic techniques. This is why it is important to understand the principles behind the technique, and how they can be applied to different scenarios, instead of merely training a series of movements.

 

[Bigshadow]

Very true. However, without an understanding of the applications of the movements--how they relate to various attacks--then they are just archaic techniques. This is why it is important to understand the principles behind the technique, and how they can be applied to different scenarios, instead of merely training a series of movements.

I think that was what I was trying to convey. :idunno:

 

[cfr]

I think the article is right on. I need to learn to deal with adrenaline and stress from a physical confrontation, not so much learn techs. Of course techs have they're place as its good to know footwork and such to not get hit. Or know some combos to not just stand there looking dumb when you should be swinging. But overall, for me its about getting used to a punch coming at me that really counts.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

I would tend to disagree with that statement. If you look at the sword training as mere techniques (tech A versus Tech B) and don't really understand and feel the principles of space, distance, and physics, then it truely would be useless. But to me, in principle, there is no difference between the sword, a baseball bat, a knife, a punch, an elbow strike, a shoulder strike. With this in mind, training to avoid and defend against sword strikes can be EXTREMELY valuable! Swords tend to exagerate the principles.

i was being facetious.

i made that statement with the implication that the exact opposite is true.
i too often hear about modernization of martial arts to deal with a bigger stronger attacker.......which i think is a load of bull. principles are principles, even if your 10 feet tall.

 

[KenpoTex]

I think that was what I was trying to convey. :idunno:

I think so too...I was agreeing with you

 

[Bigshadow]

I think so too...I was agreeing with you

OOHhhh... OK. I didn't catch that.... My apologies.

 

[Bigshadow]

i was being facetious.

i made that statement with the implication that the exact opposite is true.
i too often hear about modernization of martial arts to deal with a bigger stronger attacker.......which i think is a load of bull. principles are principles, even if your 10 feet tall.

Cool! Darn, looks like I didn't catch that one either.

 

[Drac]

Lots of truth there, but no news. Yes, carrying a cell-phone is better self-defense than having a black belt.

I agree 100%..

 

[CuongNhuka]

can i just say this about that.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO INSULTED IN MY LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND THAT IS SAYING SOMETHING!

evil monkeys.

Sweet Brighit Bless your blade, and wake up those dumb -blank- that make that stupid website, or punish that's just as good, right???

John