Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[Steve]

And for what it's worth, I think our discussion is very grounded in the topic of martial sport vs self defense. I really don't think we're off topic here.

 

[Buka]

Thread turning ugly. Mongo need to punch horse.

 

[Steve]

Thread turning ugly. Mongo need to punch horse.

 

[drop bear]

i dont need to let is sink in. i never once questioned your credentials as a doorman. but you and i both know Thompson is not known for his judo or karate. i am not saying he was the best, meanest SOB doorman to walk the planet. there probably were and are better people at the job than him but he wrote books and made videos and taught lots of people, and people listened due to his backround (and ability to tell a story) in being a doorman in a rough neighborhood.

Either way. I am not against all self defence. Just where it is an excuse for poor results.

 

[drop bear]

Here's the issue. You're putting your experience on me. The training I went through served several people I trained with quite well when they needed to use it. I actually train more of what I don't want now than I used to (you seem to keep ignoring that I do and have done that). There are some things I'm not willing to do and accept that they limit my range, something else you seem to keep ignoring.

You put a lot on the term "self-defense". There are people who do train for SD and use sport as a tool for that. I applaud them, and agree it's a good move. I wish I'd done it earlier. You can call it an excuse if you like - and you likely will, so I'll only say this once. If I bend my big toe just a little too far (anything even close to normal range of motion is too far) under weight, I'm likely out of the fight (that much pain), and will hobble for a week. I know this from experience. The more I do that, the worse the toe gets. That means avoiding doing that to my toe actually improves my ability to defend myself, and probably prolongs my ability to do so later into my life. Sorry if you don't think that's a good decision. I actually train to avoid one toe entirely and limit the use of the other (one is far worse, but neither is particularly good).

But there you made a different argument. Limited through injury is different to just not wanting to.

But I have put that idea of the fat guy in your head now.

And you will see his excuses turn up all the time.

 

[hoshin1600]

Either way. I am not against all self defence. Just where it is an excuse for poor results.

Ok then we are in agreement.

 

[drop bear]

That you were a bouncer longer isn't pertinent to his SD credentials, nor is the guy who was set on fire. I like his approach because it's based on real world (not sport) and informed by sport. There's something to be learned from each side, and I like that he brings both. Sport gave him a chance to work a wider range of techniques than he'd likely try out in his job if he didn't have that kind of resistance to work with.

Interestingly, that's also why I read your posts.

Except technically I am more SD than most people. Which is kind of ironic.

Actually my coach is doing his first bouncing shift tonight. I will let you know if he bashes anyone. (He is cutting weight so honestly he is on a short fuze at the moment)

 

[drop bear]

My point was that credibility isn't a concern to me. You interpret my references to instructors as a plea for credibility - they are not. They are part of how I look for what works. What an LEO finds useful is more likely to be useful in general (not always - have to consider the differences in context). Same for a bouncer, etc. Those comments were simply meant to give you an idea that I don't just follow what feels good to me.

I know that people who've used what I taught or helped teach have found it useful (not just single incidents, but bouncers, LEO's, and others with ongoing exposure). If it impeded them, it did so oddly. It is entirely possible they would have survived those encounters without using what they learned, but that's the statistical problem of self-defense in general (rather than a problem specific to me). What I taught worked (note that it's not just that they survived, but that they actually used some of what I taught).

And it seems that you don't understand that it's possible to verify things work without a ref. Dunno what to tell you on that. Is it ideal? Nope. There is no ideal validation for training intended for SD. The best we can do is validate where we can. And, no, the ref doesn't necessarily make it more or less valid. You've not yet made any real argument as to why it would, except that somehow the difference is that it's a focal point.

I'm not a badass, don't claim to be that, and don't claim to make others that.

If you don't have the consistency you get that historical medicine problem.

Where you did a bunch of stuff. And something worked. And you are not really sure if it was the medicine or the prayers.

 

[Buka]

 

[Steve]

We can say for sure that Mongo has experience fighting with horses. I think, if he's attacked by a horse in a dark alley, he will be okay.

 

[Anarax]

Thus, anything that doesn't have that problem becomes "MA focused on SD", while anything with that problem is "SD course". It'd be like me saying sick people aren't healthy. Nothing particularly wrong with it - just wanted to make sure you realized you'd created a distinction that actually includes the problem. So, it's not that SD courses have that problem, but that programs with that problem are "SD courses".

Okay, I see what you mean now. I used Krav Maga as an example of both a Martial Art that lacks concepts and one that focuses more so on SD. However; I used Aikido as a MA that focuses on SD yet has concepts. Thus I believe that there is overlap.

So folks with thin training (especially those going off a certification program that's 40-80 hours) are unlikely to really have that set of principles, and are more likely to present specific solutions to problems, rather than approaches to solving them.

This is where I differ in approach and method. I find the idea that someone can get an SD instructor certificate in 2 days to be questionable. The short-term(1-2 days) instructor certificates I see are a means to try and legitimize that type of training. Certificates are used to display completion of a course, but completion is to convey a degree of aptitude. For example; I changed majors in college and had to take the core classes for my new major, but I didn't have to retake my math, english, humanities, etc. If I got a vocational certificate I would have to get a new one nor would I have a foundation in which I could pursue an advance degree with. Having a conceptual MA foundation will help you develop as a Martial Artist and will instill a greater skill set than just step by step moves. It's a larger investment but has a bigger pay-off. I just see short-term and a lot of long-term(not all) SD courses as a shortcut.

My point was that the history doesn't really give much to go on. To some extent, lineage can be helpful. If someone had an excellent instructor, they are more likely to be at least a good instructor. Beyond that, even lineage doesn't promise much. In fact, some folks lean too much on the history of their art, going back to its roots too often (like the sword-derived movements I see in a lot of Aikido dojos), rather than letting the movements evolve for a specific purpose. A brand new art's problem isn't so much the lack of history to view, but that it hasn't had time to evolve and there are likely few practitioners to see how it looks outside the dedicated few. I like history, and find it interesting. I love to learn about the back story of arts, and tend to be more interested in arts that are somehow tied to the (thin) history of my primary art. But that's all intellectual curiosity, not practicality.

I agree with some of what you're saying. I'm not advocating for style "purity", but more so style authenticity. I'm all for someone creating their own style after they have a firm grasp on at least on styles concepts. I see a teacher's background like a resume, it's not the only thing I will judge them by, but I still want to see it. If I put on my resume "worked in medicine", I'm sure my interviewer will ask me to be more specific. I've seen a lot of vagueness in SD instructor's backgrounds and it makes me question their credentials.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But there you made a different argument. Limited through injury is different to just not wanting to.

The "don't want to" was earlier in my career (had no real interest in competition), and now for competition that focuses on striking. You and I have discussed before that I know and accept that I'm limiting my training, and that I'm doing that for reasons that are important to me (protecting my brain and not interested in hurting people to win a contest - 2 separate reasons).

The not competing at all (now) is because I don't see a competition I'm interested in that I can physically do.

But I have put that idea of the fat guy in your head now.

And you will see his excuses turn up all the time.

That statement shows a high opinion of your argument and a low opinion of my self-awareness.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Except technically I am more SD than most people. Which is kind of ironic.

Actually my coach is doing his first bouncing shift tonight. I will let you know if he bashes anyone. (He is cutting weight so honestly he is on a short fuze at the moment)

That is the ironic part to me. You train (iIRC) primarily for that reason, yet you bash that reason rather generally from time to time. If that's not what you mean to communicate, either you or I (or both) have missed something in the communication.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you don't have the consistency you get that historical medicine problem.

Where you did a bunch of stuff. And something worked. And you are not really sure if it was the medicine or the prayers.

That's true of SD training whether sport is involved or not.

 

[drop bear]

That's true of SD training whether sport is involved or not.

In sport you get more consistency.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In sport you get more consistency.

Agreed, assuming it's within a single sport (MMA, being a positive example). There's a huge variety among martial sports, and not all do much to improve skill for use outside that sport.

 

[hoshin1600]

Okay, I see what you mean now. I used Krav Maga as an example of both a Martial Art that lacks concepts and one that focuses more so on SD. However; I used Aikido as a MA that focuses on SD yet has concepts. Thus I believe that there is overlap.


This is where I differ in approach and method. I find the idea that someone can get an SD instructor certificate in 2 days to be questionable. The short-term(1-2 days) instructor certificates I see are a means to try and legitimize that type of training. Certificates are used to display completion of a course, but completion is to convey a degree of aptitude. For example; I changed majors in college and had to take the core classes for my new major, but I didn't have to retake my math, english, humanities, etc. If I got a vocational certificate I would have to get a new one nor would I have a foundation in which I could pursue an advance degree with. Having a conceptual MA foundation will help you develop as a Martial Artist and will instill a greater skill set than just step by step moves. It's a larger investment but has a bigger pay-off. I just see short-term and a lot of long-term(not all) SD courses as a shortcut.

I agree with some of what you're saying. I'm not advocating for style "purity", but more so style authenticity. I'm all for someone creating their own style after they have a firm grasp on at least on styles concepts. I see a teacher's background like a resume, it's not the only thing I will judge them by, but I still want to see it. If I put on my resume "worked in medicine", I'm sure my interviewer will ask me to be more specific. I've seen a lot of vagueness in SD instructor's backgrounds and it makes me question their credentials.

With little exception I agree with this. If this was your point from the beginning...this post explains it better than the others.
This also explains where are views diverge. Your looking at self defense on the micro level, meaning the courses you describe. I see self defense on the macro level. Where guys like Rickson Gracie have self described themselves as teachers of self defense. There may be short courses and videos and even on line schools but there is a much bigger entity behind that.
You called me ignorant, ,but while BJJ is right now predominant in sport there is also BJJ courses marketing directed towards the segment of the population that wants self defense without the bowing, gi, counting in Japanese ect. They want a version that focuses on self defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is where I differ in approach and method. I find the idea that someone can get an SD instructor certificate in 2 days to be questionable.

I didn't reply directly to this earlier, but as I re-read it, I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I find that practice more than questionable. I find it ludicrous. The only way I'd consider a 2-day certificate to teach SD valid is if the attendees were already certified instructors of the style, had been in many SD classes based on that style, and were simply being taught how to translate the classical training to SD focus. That's a lot of requirements and I'm not sure what the value of an additional certification for that would be.

Okay one more possibility, if it's an intensive 2-day program that's intended to help experienced instructors have a better SD focus (meaning not new techniques, but a new teaching approach). That might be okay, too.

In both cases, the certificate is still about marketing, though. I might attend either of those types of weekends, but not for the purpose of any certification.

 

[Steve]

Agreed, assuming it's within a single sport (MMA, being a positive example). There's a huge variety among martial sports, and not all do much to improve skill for use outside that sport.

Yes, but would you agree that they all do a GREAT job of building skill for use within that sport? If so, why do you think that is?

 

[Steve]

That's true of SD training whether sport is involved or not.

Please support this assertion with something other than confidently declaring that it is true.