Military arts vs street arts vs health arts vs other

[Bob Hubbard]

I've been giving some thought recently to the differences in the arts, their aproach to training, their goals, and such, and was wondering what everyones thoughts were. I realize I'm being kinda vague here, but I'm not sure what the real question is.

What are the differences in the arts, the training techniques, etc. I mean, a "Military" art would be (imho) geared towards little flash, but fast, quick and lethal efficiency, where as a "health" art would be geared less towards confruntation, but perhaps towards strength, flexibility or medatative aspects. What arts do what, and how do they compare?

:asian:

 

[Cthulhu]

Perhaps you can use these distinctions, along with my sleep-deprived explanations:

Combative - designed for quick, close quarters work. Relatively few techniques taught, but the ones there are drilled extensively. Techniques porbably culled from several systems.

Self-defense - geared toward the average person wishing to defend themselves on the street. Can be based on a single system, with little or no crosstraining. System is taught as an art, and self-defense aspects are revealed in training.

Fitness - just a good workout, and maybe for sport. Tae bo. Kickboxing. Could possibly have self-defense value, but possibly isn't part of the general curriculum.

Self-improvement - Tai Chi, Aikido, Kyudo, Kendo. Based off of combative/self-defense systems. Practical techniques can be derived from the movements after some training. Geared towards the 'perfection' of the individual through physical training.

These are all GROSS generalizations. For the most part, I think every system contains a bit of each of these, in varying degrees. Also, I'm about to pass out, so my brain is probably not firing on all cylinders. Take these with a grain of salt. Better yet, a salt lick.

Cthulhu

 

[Icepick]

Dr. Gyi teaches that every martial art has 3 aspects.

1.) combatives
2.) athletics
3.) aesthetics

The complete art will have some overlap between these 3, and individual practitioners can focus on one or another. Obviously, some arts include more of each than others. To use Dr. Gyi's terminology once again, Bando is a "dump truck system", ugly but does the job quickly. Modern Arnis is a Ferrari, a huge system with all the flash you want to wring out of it.

Thinking about this reminds me of watching Remy's new videos with Remy and Dr. Gyi. On video, Remy rattled off about 15 different locks in rapid succession. Dr. Gyi turned to Remy and said, "You are not a martial artist, you are a magician!". I thought the grin on Professor's face would split his head, it was so wide!

Just a little memory I treasure.

 

[Cthulhu]

Icepick,

Thanks for sharing that info! Both the Dr. Gyi 3's thing and the little tidbit on Remy. Very cool. I think I'm going to 'borrow' Dr. Gyi's 3's from now on. With proper credit given, of course

Cthulhu

 

[Icepick]

Cthulhu -

You should come up to meet Gyi in May! Do you still have exams, or are you ABD?

 

[Cthulhu]

ABD? I withdrew from school following some rather serious personal issues. The only real problem I have with going up to New York is, well, I'm all the way down here in Florida!



Cthulhu

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
I've been giving some thought recently to the differences in the arts, their aproach to training, their goals, and such, and was wondering what everyones thoughts were. I realize I'm being kinda vague here, but I'm not sure what the real question is.

What are the differences in the arts, the training techniques, etc. I mean, a "Military" art would be (imho) geared towards little flash, but fast, quick and lethal efficiency, where as a "health" art would be geared less towards confruntation, but perhaps towards strength, flexibility or medatative aspects. What arts do what, and how do they compare?

:asian:

I think Mr. Cthulhu and Mr. Icepick have pretty much explained it all. The one thing I find important to bring out is the importance of flexible teaching skills needed for the different ideologies explained already.
From my experience when coaching the military in combatives, the instructor needs to have a strong connection between techniques. Each technique or drill should have a clear, defined connection in order for the student to be able to take it home or back to their quarters and practice as well as visualize it. The lesson plan should be almost like a simple math equation a+b+c. where in a dojo environment the instructor can challenge the students to think and find their own connection.
Also in the military training the instructor needs to allow more individual interpretation of the technique shown. The soldiers have been exposed to so many arts that they want to learn that particular technique shown and get frustrated when it doesn't come to them or they find themselves doing something entirely different. This is where as a coach we need to encourage the techinque that they have already programmed into their repertoire. We need to show them the connection, or how to improve on that particular technique, or just tell them "that works!!". Where on the other hand in a dojo we are learning an "art" and self expression or exploration has its time and place.
Overall, we as instructors or future instructors have to evaluate the program and see what would be most effective with the amount of time we have with these particular individuals.
Same concept works with the self defense, most people take one class here and one class there, so as instructors we are not going to teach them joint locking, we are going to teach them ballistic movements, and attitudes.
I hope what I wrote helped....
Bob

 

[Cthulhu]

Bob,

I also think that for Law Enforcement/military training, the instructor has to have some actual knowledge of what will actually work.

My buddy is a cop in a fairly large metro area in Florida. I like to quiz him all the time about their hand-to-hand techniques.

Anyway, I found out that the department teaches all sorts of wristlocks and submission techniques. No one on the force can make them work in a real-life situation. The techniques, while flashy and impressive looking and very technical, have no real application for the officers on the street. My friend ends up taking perps to the ground using an armbar he learned when he was a kid. The wristlocks they've been taught are too complicated for an officer to pick up in just a few classes.

Anyhoo...

Cthulhu

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think you both hit on some very valid points.

For both the military and law enforcement, you have a limited time to master techniques, which must work -for them- and be both natural and automatic. No time for flash, or wasted movements, or even thinking.

In the civilian side, we have the time for leasurly exploration, and hours of "play".

(Did I understand it right guys? )

 

[Cthulhu]

Ayep, I think so, Kaith.

My buddy told me one time he chased a guy who ran off with a storeowner's cashbox. He caught the guy and they ended up fighting for the cashbox. Then, the guy started grabbing my buddy. He didn't know if he was going for his gun or not, and he couldn't get to his radio because they were still struggling. He said in degenerated into a 'sissy slap fight'. He wasn't taught anything that would have ended that situation quickly.

He's going to give me a copy of his department's procedures. I'm going to do some research and try to come up with something that falls within that department's guidelines. Hey, he's one of my best buds...gotta make sure he stays safe.

Cthulhu

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by Cthulhu
Bob,

I also think that for Law Enforcement/military training, the instructor has to have some actual knowledge of what will actually work.

Cthulhu

Ya won't get any arguement outta me!! I totally agree with you and don't know why I didn't mention that. I must have been in a daze earlier.
i have met numerous cops that have been taught water downed or complicated techniques myself. I have had friends come to me right after a DT class from the academy and asked me to explain certain things.
Same goes with the military, a lot of guys have trained all over the world and have a lot of good stuff, but a lot are still confused on why they learned how to kick head level while they were wearing full gear.
What I have surmised and this is just my opinion that the DT classes for cops are thought up to keep the public happy. the public does not want to hear their officers out training DT stuff and they definately do not want to pay for it. Also, what is sad is that some agencies do not want to seek outside instructors because they are not cops, so their programs do not progress.
I agree with ya totally, and good luck on helping your buddy.
I was tutoring a cop friend in joint locks, and I showed him a joint lock flow that I had learned, but told him to make sure he listened to his instructor and do it their way. He came back and told me that he slipped up and used my flow that i gave him, he said he got yelled at in class, but after class he was approached by the DT instructor because he wanted to learn what my buddy had did.
again good luck on your research
Bob

 

[Cthulhu]

What would be great is to teach just two or three simple locks, and then teach flow and sensitivity. Unfortunately, I think your average officer, and most likely the person who would authorize the training, are used to seeing kicks and punches and complicated joint locks. They would probably be wary of flow drills. Of course, if you whipped a couple of locks on them, utilizing flow, then you'd probably have a new believer, as evidenced by your post.

Cthulhu

 

[vincefuess]

There isn't enough room on the internet to really address that question!!! Do what makes you feel good for your own reasons. Go forth and prosper...

 

[John_Boy]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz

What are the differences in the arts, the training techniques, etc. I mean, a "Military" art would be (imho) geared towards little flash, but fast, quick and lethal efficiency, where as a "health" art would be geared less towards confruntation, but perhaps towards strength, flexibility or medatative aspects. What arts do what, and how do they compare?

:asian:

Another consideration is that typically military styles spend less time on one attacker. They tend to want to end the confrontation (typically in a devastating fashion) as quickly as possible so as not to waste time when there are others to dispatch! They do not want to take someone into custody and they don't want to not hurt them.

Law enforcement styles typically are all about how to control without damaging the opposition. I have spent a few years working in various security companies in Minneapolis and have spent alot of time with the local cops...almost all of them admit that they would have to pull their sidearm if they needed to inflict deadly force. Their training is all about taking someone into custody without hurting them.

These are vastly different mentalities. When they get confused people get hurt. The law enforcement personnel that think they are masters of unarmed combat because they have had a 40 hr course on dt this year are sadly mistaken. (can you tell this is a pet peave of mine?!):soapbox:

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by John_Boy

Another consideration is that typically military styles spend less time on one attacker. They tend to want to end the confrontation (typically in a devastating fashion) as quickly as possible so as not to waste time when there are others to dispatch! They do not want to take someone into custody and they don't want to not hurt them.

At least as important as the possibility of there being another opponent is the fact that if they do not dispatch their single opponent rapidly then he may be able to raise an alarm or acquire or utilize a weapon. It is didfferent. In FMA we often fight with a "defang the snake" attitude that may take some while to whittle down an opponent. Such a dueling attitude needs some modifications for modern militray applications.

Are there any statistics or even anecdotes on actual uses of hand-to-hand by military personnel in recent conflicts? For most it's self-confidence boosting material and aggressiveness training, like the pugil sticks.

 

[Chiduce]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
I've been giving some thought recently to the differences in the arts, their aproach to training, their goals, and such, and was wondering what everyones thoughts were. I realize I'm being kinda vague here, but I'm not sure what the real question is.

What are the differences in the arts, the training techniques, etc. I mean, a "Military" art would be (imho) geared towards little flash, but fast, quick and lethal efficiency, where as a "health" art would be geared less towards confruntation, but perhaps towards strength, flexibility or medatative aspects. What arts do what, and how do they compare?

:asian:

I will just consider the military arts in this post! The military aspect of martial combative arts is strictly to fatally injure the attacker. This does not matter if physical weapons or natural weapons are used. To seek, find, and destory in the most swift silent and deadliest manner. Instruction is very specific, working with mainly the basics of flowing, stroking, choking and strangling, targeting vital points, stabbing and removing sentry methods. Their are close, medium and long range combatives. Each is studied and mastered! Sincerely, In Humility; Chiduce!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Reviving the dead here, lol.

"I've been giving some thought recently to the differences in the arts, their aproach to training, their goals, and such, and was wondering what everyones thoughts were. I realize I'm being kinda vague here, but I'm not sure what the real question is.

What are the differences in the arts, the training techniques, etc. I mean, a "Military" art would be (imho) geared towards little flash, but fast, quick and lethal efficiency, where as a "health" art would be geared less towards confruntation, but perhaps towards strength, flexibility or medatative aspects. What arts do what, and how do they compare?"

Anyone got any new thoughts on this idea?

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I think a good example would be comparing the RBSD people to the "Tai Chi" people down at the senior center. One is entirely focused on confrontation, whereas the other, if you can call it a MA, is focused only on the health aspects. Traditional styles will fall somewhere between the two extremes.

I do want to clarify that the Tai Chi I'm talking about is the stuff taught by the instructors who "learned" it in a weekend seminar and the like.
Jeff

 

[exile]

Taekwondo exists in every one of the alternative forms you mention, Bob.

Military: Simon O'Neil has a very nice discussion of military TKD in his 9th Combat TKD newsletter. He notes that

The function of Taekwondo in the Korean army of the 1950 was that of killing... Taekwondo's purpose was to enable soldiers to incapacitate and preferably terminate an enemy with their bare hands if a weapon was not available. There are several accounts of Korean military men doing precisely this during the Korean and Vietname Wars... [to achieve this], it was essential that the techniques be learned in as short a time as possible, and that they should offer substantial guarantees of success even under highly stressful conditions. This mean that the core methods should be few and simple

The core techs that SO'N details—techs which are reflected in the Chan Hon tuls, as he notes, and a number of later KKW forms—are power strikes, throat attacks and damage to the head and neck, especially head twists, for the specific purpose of breaking an enemy's neck. As SO'N notes, during this earlier, pre-sport phase, TKD was known in the West for extremely hard power strikes and no-nonsense low/mid kicks whose clear function, as in the ROK army, was to severely damage an attacker's limbs or other body parts with the goal of setting up one of several possible killing finishes. The terrifying use of these techs at the battle of Tra Binh Dong in 1967 is now a part of military history.

Street Defense: The TKD toolkit has many of the same techs that karate does, where the latter was designed primarily for civilian street defense, hence incorporates a lot of moves which appear to be particularly useful in responding to typical assault initiations along the lines discussed by Bill Burgar, citing Patrick McCarthy on `habitual acts of violence'—the kind of thing we're used to seeing as the lead-up to a violent attack. Grab-and-punch is still one of the all-time favorites, and both karate and TKD—which insofar as it's a fighting art, is simply Korean Shotokan—have many of the same technical responses to grabs, e.g., wrist trap/elbow pin followed by strikes to the head with fist, knifehands or, probably most devastatingly, elbows. Unlike the military situation, the techs involved in controlling the attacker would not, in the normal course of things, have been ramped up to the level of a killing (counter)attack, and could be adjusted to allow a finer-grained response than would have been available to a heavily-laden soldier under CQ H2H combat conditions.

Sport: The killing/damaging techs are suppressed, and CQ methods, crucial to survival in military or street fighting, are replaced by longer-range methods, corresponding to the completely artificial conditions of tournament competition (a trained opponent, as vs. untrained assailant, who is trying to score points rather than kill you or damage you, etc.) Kicks, which give the contestant the best chance of scoring points while staying safely out of range, become the paramount weapons, and the scoring system is designed to favor kicks which are both spectacular and technically difficult. Hand techs are virtually elmininated, and high head kicks become the summum bonum of the arena.

Health/fitness: Ironically, this is the role which TKD now apparently plays in the ROK army, according to SO'N. Many people train TKD primarily for exercise; kihon line exercises are an end in themselves, and thing like cardio kickboxing can be usefully seen as the final dilution of the martial content of TKD.

It's clear that the TMAs are sufficiently versatile that any of these variants can be realized. The range of their toolkits, and the available training methods, pretty well guarantee that just about any level of violence, from nil to max, can be applied, along the lines illustrated in in the foregoing. And then it just comes down to what you want...

 

[seasoned]

I've been giving some thought recently to the differences in the arts, their aproach to training, their goals, and such, and was wondering what everyones thoughts were. I realize I'm being kinda vague here, but I'm not sure what the real question is.

What are the differences in the arts, the training techniques, etc. I mean, a "Military" art would be (imho) geared towards little flash, but fast, quick and lethal efficiency, where as a "health" art would be geared less towards confruntation, but perhaps towards strength, flexibility or medatative aspects. What arts do what, and how do they compare?

:asian:

I for one am a stickler on the fact that in the heat of battle you will automatically use what you practice most. So I guess from that point of view it would depend on what your motive for training is and what you expect to get out of it. From a purely self defense point of view you would want to limit your attackers ability to move freely about as quickly as possible. In this context I would say IMHO that Okinawan GoJu, if done properly would fit the bill. Now this is my first love, so I can’t speak for everyone, and this is only my point of view. All kata of GoJu teach initial contact, close in , grab, brake balance, strike, take down and finish. This above concept is also done with all corresponding drills. Once initial contact is made, with a deflect and grab you stay with your attacter while affecting all bunkai within the kata. All kicks are kept low as in the kata, and all strikes are done with the whole body as in hands, elbows, shoulders, hips, knees while at the same time keeping them off balance with the main objective, to destroy them. Now how does this lend itself to sparring, I’m not sure, would this type of training be conducive in this day and age, probably not. Is there a definite difference between the above and a sport based art, you be the judge. It boils down to differant strokes for differant folks.