Practical

[Master of Blades]

This is sort of an add on from my Kali Impractical!!!! thread. What do you guys feel makes a Martial Art practical? Could you give me an example of what you feel a practical art is? Is studying 2 or more arts at the same time more practical then studying just one? Does anyone feel that Unarmed training is a lot more important then learning to even look at a weapon yet or does anyone feel that the Philippino way of weapons first is more practical? Just a few questions :asian:

 

[kenpo12]

It really depends what you want out of an art. Personally I think what makes an art practical is solid and sound basics. Technique's are great and I think most Martial arts have some practial merit but when it comes down to it, it's strong basics that are going to save your butt in the street. I do think it's best to start out learning empty handed mainly because you don't generally walk around with sticks in your hand all the time.

 

[Mormegil]

Originally posted by kenpo12
It really depends what you want out of an art. Personally I think what makes an art practical is solid and sound basics. Technique's are great and I think most Martial arts have some practial merit but when it comes down to it, it's strong basics that are going to save your butt in the street. I do think it's best to start out learning empty handed mainly because you don't generally walk around with sticks in your hand all the time.

I like the concept of depending on what you get out of it.

I studied Kali, which heavily emphasizes weaponry, initially due to cultural heritage. I also enjoy the excercise, increase in my agility and hand eye coordination (I almost always catch anything that drops in front of me). I have a lot of fun doing it, and I simply enjoy learning physical activities (I also Swing dance, and half of those guys in my class did MA). I haven't been in any kind of fight since I was in high school, and that was over ten years ago. I am not a bouncer, I'm a molecular biologist - I don't need it for work.

Still if I got in an altercation (and I avoid these), I'm sure my Kali training will be very useful and appreciated. Especially since (as noted in the other thread), weapons can and are often brought in, sticks, knives, bottles etc. My training in Kali/Eskrima has tought me how to defend against, and use these weapons. In addition, the Kali base is in weapons, but extends to empty hands, and we practice that too (kind of like the reverse of a lot of other styles, such as Wing Chun, where Butterfly Sword technique is based in earlier learned hand technique). So this art is good against weapons and empty hands. I don't know if other weaponry arts are meant to translate empty hands in the same way (such as Ken Jitsu, Kendo or even Archery).

You mention a strong base is good. Well, Kali, and other FMA tend to have a strong base also, it just starts with weapons. It's not all just technique. So for example, we may be taught an icepick hold, upward knife slash to an arm, a fist, or even a face. That's the base. Remove the knife, and it's an upward vertical elbow instead, with the same body mechanics.

One other thing, most people don't walk around with a stick, but it's easy enough to find a pool cue, a stick, or a pen (seen Bourne Identity? Lots of Kali in that one). Plus, I know a number of people who study Kali, and carry a small locking folder.

if I didn't make it clear, most FMA (Filipino Martial Arts) that emphasize weapons don't just use sticks - swords, knives, and of course empty hand.

So I think it's practical. But ultimately, it's for you to decide if it's practical for you.

 

[Brother John]

Does anyone feel that Unarmed training is a lot more important then learning to even look at a weapon yet or does anyone feel that the Philippino way of weapons first is more practical?

I think that in the North American society it's more important to study empty hands first and foremost and then to study weapons to round it out. Combat in our society should focus on doing only as much as is needed to survive an attack, I think.

I think that if a person were to find themselves in a place/time when mortal combat were a probability, not just a potentiality, then weapons would predominate the training. In such an environment surely the attackers would have training in and be armed with weapons... it's the whole "don't bring a knife to a gun-fight"... which brings me to my next point: in such an environment the key weapons youd want to work with and against would be small fire-arms; not your average asian martial arts weaponry. Back this up with blades and blunt/swung weapons... THEN empty hand.

Just my thoughts....
It depends on the needs for which you train.
Your Brother
John

 

[Mormegil]

Well, here's a question:

Who here has been involved in an assault or fight (hopefully against you, not you doing the assaulting)?

Were there any weapons used? Stick, bat, knife, gun, bottle?

Personally, I was in two fights in high school, and they only involved fists (and some really, really pathetic kicks since I didn't start training till college).

 

[Brother John]

I worked for years in detention facilities for juvenile offenders, was in 'scuffles' off and on, but at least some sort of altercation each week.

Once a 230lb, 6'4" gang-banger broke down a closet door and grabbed the mopp... he broke off the mopp and broke the stick into two (almost) equal length sticks w/sharpish ends. First he went after my partner, broke his forearm with the stick and knocked him out cold. My other partner locked herself in the control room and hit the panic button. He then tried to attack three other youth who were pinned at the end of a long hall way w/out any place to excape to and the only thing between him and them was ME. I had to survive... but I also had to make sure the youth in my charge also came out OK. VERY tense moment... until I busted the glass case that held the fire extinguisher, sprayed him in the face, threw it at his knees and dashed in to tackle and restrain until the police came pouring through either end of the building to cuff and carry.

That was probably my most hazardous fight, could have ended up VERY badly. He did manage to hit me with one of the sticks across my left thigh... stung like mad, but I still got him down and restrained. I'm VERY glad that the fire extinguisher was right there at the end of the hall!!!!!

I've been in lots of scuffles, work related and not. Had a knife pulled on me once, but he was more afraid of the blade than I was. (though, I was very afraid) He didn't move it as I took his arm over and hyperextended his elbow... just prior to the take down.

Is that what you were looking for?
Your brother
John

 

[Mormegil]

Originally posted by Brother John


Is that what you were looking for?
Your brother
John

Well, yeah. You were able to handle that situation well. Now in my opinion, weapon training could only have helped more. If anything, that shows that familiarity with weapons could be of practical use (but not always necessary).

 

[Brother John]

If anything, that shows that familiarity with weapons could be of practical use (but not always necessary).

BINGO...

Your Brother
John

 

[Mormegil]

I'm glad we're in agreement Brother John.

Not to say which is MORE practical. I still think it's up to you. Which do you feel more comfortable with? What are you going to use this for?

If you want self defense, wouldn't OC spray be more practical? You don't have to spend years of training and such.

Now if we just focus on martial arts (excluding guns and sprays), for self defense. Which is more practical? Well we might as well argue which is the better religion. I don't think we can come to any conclusion over which is better, much less convince anybody. I will admit, I think that Kali is more practical for me (especially since I can't kick too high).

You can have evidence going either way, anectodal and otherwise. The only way would be to look a statistically significant, unbiased sample of assaults against martial artists. I don't think this data set exists, so we can just argue till our faces turn blue.

 

[Mormegil]

Originally posted by Brother John


Is that what you were looking for?
Your brother
John

Well, yeah. You were able to handle that situation well. Now in my opinion, weapon training could only have helped more. If anything, that shows that familiarity with weapons could be of practical use (but not always necessary).

 

[Mormegil]

I have no idea why my old reply showed up again as new. Please disregard it.

 

[karatekid1975]

I believe in learn strong basics and empty hand defenses first, then empty hand defenses against weapons, then weapons. Only because when I was attacked (and others I have talked to) didn't have any weapons on them. The attackers did. But they defended themselves against these weapons (knife, bat, stick, ect).

 

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by Master of Blades
This is sort of an add on from my Kali Impractical!!!! thread. What do you guys feel makes a Martial Art practical? Could you give me an example of what you feel a practical art is? Is studying 2 or more arts at the same time more practical then studying just one? Does anyone feel that Unarmed training is a lot more important then learning to even look at a weapon yet or does anyone feel that the Philippino way of weapons first is more practical? Just a few questions :asian:

I think that what makes a practical art for training is one that will keep you alive at the end of the day. It must also be court defensible... eg here in Aust. the only civilians who carry weapons are bad guys. As the weapons laws are pretty strict, those of us who are law abiding, have to learn how to defend against them, without ever having the chance of carrying them.

I don't believe these so called super styles are any good... you know, the ones as used by the navy seals or the commandoes or any other kind of military based system. These systems will work for the guy that can do 500 push ups with a military pack on his back, but for your average guy, no I don't think so.

These are just my opinions, and not meant to upset anyone.

--Dave:asian:

 

[Nightingale]

Originally posted by Master of Blades
This is sort of an add on from my Kali Impractical!!!! thread. What do you guys feel makes a Martial Art practical?

Will it help you in most situations? For example, an art that only uses a bo (and I do quarterstaff fighting, so I know this one) isn't going to help you a whole lot when you don't have your weapon, because both hands work in tandem so much to control the weapon, that the training doesn't easily transfer to empty hand. I've never used escrima, so I don't know how easily that would transfer.

Could you give me an example of what you feel a practical art is?

Sure. Kenpo's very practical because:

1. its simple. take the technique "obscure wing" for a grab from behind, in close, his left hand on your right shoulder. back elbow to the stomach, follow with a hammerfist shot to the groin (its right there anyway, so might as well just drop your fist to hit it) and that's gonna make him bend over, so hit him with an obscure elbow as his chin comes down)

2. it uses body mechanics. the techniques are structured around the way the body reacts naturally... in the above technique, it uses the fact that if you elbow someone in the stomach or hit the groin hard enough, they're gonna bend over so you can elbow them in the chin.

3. it's logical. if you're in a street fight, you're not going to do a jumping spinning hooking heel kick. you're gonna kick out the knee and get the hell outta dodge. that's what kenpo teaches. get in, get dirty, get out. fast. Sure, our advanced techniques get very involved and incorporate some fancier stuff, but I've had quite a few black belts tell me that when it comes to the street, they rely on their yellow-blue belt techniques, but they do them like a black belt (which is why you can't just stop after blue)

Is studying 2 or more arts at the same time more practical then studying just one?

Yes and no. If you're a beginner (been training less than three years or so) stick to one art. At that point, you don't have the knowledge to figure out what other art will compliment what you're doing, and which ones will contradict. I ended up cross training in Kenpo and TKD (wanted another kenpo school, but TKD was the only one within ten miles and I had no car, so I settled...not bashing TKD, I just wanted kenpo). BAD. They directly contradict each other in many areas of philosophies. I had to unlearn my kenpo to learn TKD, and unlearn my TKD to go back to kenpo. that's not what you want to accomplish. You want your arts to compliment each other or you're wasting your time.

Also, think about how much time it takes you to master even ONE system. You don't want to be a "jack of all trades, master of none." which is where a lot of crosstrainers end up, because they're not devoting enough time to a single art. Get your black belt in one art first, then look at your art and decide if there are areas that you want to supplement, then find other training and encorporate it into what you already know. A second art should be used to supplement, to add to what you already know well.

Don't crosstrain as a beginner, because you'll have two teachers telling you two different things, and nothing's gonna make sense.

Does anyone feel that Unarmed training is a lot more important then learning to even look at a weapon yet or does anyone feel that the Philippino way of weapons first is more practical?

I think you need to learn how to handle what you've already got (your own hands and feet) before you add on anything else. An unarmed art will teach you how to move, and what to do when you don't have your weapons. Its something you can use in any situation, because all you need is yourself. Weapons don't always work. My quarterstaff instructor tells us "don't ever rely on your staff for self defense, because chances are, when you need it, you're not going to have it." I trained in staff fighting for six years, and in empty hand for fourteen. Empty hand has saved my butt at least twice that I can count. And each time, there wasn't any staff lying around that I could pick up. Weapons aren't as practical in close quarters either, just because you need room to use them. Again, I've never trained in sticks, but in both my situations, I can tell you that there weren't any sticks lying around either, so you'd have to rely on how your art transferred to empty hand. If you're going to have to rely on empty hand anyway, why not learn it to begin with?

I believe weapons should be used to supplement empty hand training, because chances are, when you need your weapon, you're not going to have it.

Just my philosophy. Do whatever works for you.

-N-

 

[sweeper]

in my opinion what you practice should simply directly reflect what you want to get out of it, if you want sport go to a sport school, if you want SD train for what kind of attack you are going to be dealing with the most and with what weapons you tihnk you will have with you.

If you don'tcarry a stick that won't help you all the time, if any of the time, you can't just hope there will be a wepaon laying around.. also there is a good posability that whoever attacks you may supprise you or just hit you before you have time to go forage, so even if you plan on carrying a cane or a knife empty hand is always going to be needed, as well as quick draw/implementation of whatever weapon you would prefer.

I know alot of people who carry a knife or knives, for them weapon training is just as important as empty hand, obviously they aren't gona pull a knife for every situation so they do need empty hand skill, but at the same time if someone else brings a weapon in or there is more than one attacker they are probably gona use a weapon and they need to know how to use it also.

I think it's quite posable for someone to cross train depending on what they are cross training to/from. somethings won't realy contradict, but you do have to know what to do/pic for a second art. You might just ask instructors about that though, I mean if you realy want to practice TKD go to TKD schools, find one you like and once you settle in ask them about whatever it is you are considering crosstraining in..

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by sweeper
in my opinion what you practice should simply directly reflect what you want to get out of it, if you want sport go to a sport school, if you want SD train for what kind of attack you are going to be dealing with the most and with what weapons you tihnk you will have with you.

If you don'tcarry a stick that won't help you all the time, if any of the time, you can't just hope there will be a wepaon laying around.. also there is a good posability that whoever attacks you may supprise you or just hit you before you have time to go forage, so even if you plan on carrying a cane or a knife empty hand is always going to be needed, as well as quick draw/implementation of whatever weapon you would prefer.

I know alot of people who carry a knife or knives, for them weapon training is just as important as empty hand, obviously they aren't gona pull a knife for every situation so they do need empty hand skill, but at the same time if someone else brings a weapon in or there is more than one attacker they are probably gona use a weapon and they need to know how to use it also.

I think it's quite posable for someone to cross train depending on what they are cross training to/from. somethings won't realy contradict, but you do have to know what to do/pic for a second art. You might just ask instructors about that though, I mean if you realy want to practice TKD go to TKD schools, find one you like and once you settle in ask them about whatever it is you are considering crosstraining in..

Sweeper,

So, I should never train with a weapon, for I will not have a stick on me, and the many times knives have been pulled on me, I only had time to use what was in my hands already. I had no time to pull my own knife.

So, I agree empty hands is good training.

Yet, how am I to practice against a weapon, unless I have done some weapons training and can use the weapon and then understand the weapon. Oh I see, my empty hands training of just blocking or passing should be enough. I think NOT!, since the blade has different properties then the empty hand.

If I was never to have picked up a weapon in my life (* excluding empty hands *), then yes I will make harsh and bold motions and offer my weapon for you to disarm and or take away, or to avoid.

Try Dancing with a person who is trained with weapons. If they have a bladed weapon in their hands they will cut you. If they have an impact weapon they will use their range to attack your empty hand weapons until you no longer can defend yourself then they will take you out. If they have no weapon then they weapon trained person can use the same principals in the empty hands. In particular they can defend themselves against someone with a weapon.

As for training with what you carry, this is a good comment. I train with my pens. Yep Pens. I can carry them at work in the office and also on a plane, and ever where else I go. I always carry two, one red and one black, You see I am a geek engineer.

Sweeper et al, you are all entitled to have your own opinions, and mine is that weapons training helps you even when you are empty hand fighting.

:asian:

 

[Nightingale]

it didn't seem like he was saying that you shouldn't train in weapons... he said if you're going to carry one, then weapons training is important.

He did say, however, that empty hand was just as important, because you're not always going to be able to get to your weapon, or you may be in a situation where you can reach it but can't use it (you're attacked by a friend who's high on something or having some kind of breakdown and you don't want to use a weapon or something like that).

What it seems like to me is that in a situation, you are more likely to need empty hand training than you will martial arts weapons training. Firearms are a matter that I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about, so I'm not going there.

 

[pesilat]

I think empty hand training is vital. But I don't see why anyone would think the two should be exclusive. To me, they're integrally entwined with each other.

What it seems like to me is that in a situation, you are more likely to need empty hand training than you will martial arts weapons training. Firearms are a matter that I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about, so I'm not going there.

As for this statement: in my experience, I've never been in a situation where I didn't have access to weapons if I chose to use them. Never. And, I don't carry any "weapons" on me (except for my body, my clothes, and whatever's in my pockets - keys, coins, wallet. Or what I may be carrying in my hands - a grocery bag, a book, etc.).

The world is full of weapons. Also, I don't necessarily have to pick up something to use it as a weapon. If I slam a guy's head into a wall, then I'm using the wall as a weapon

Like I say, I've never been in a place where I didn't have access to a plethora of weapons if I chose to use them. But without my training in weapons, I wouldn't even recognize a lot of the stuff as potential weapons.

Mike

 

[Mormegil]

Rereading the original post: One interpretation of the question is, is it practical to learn weapons first?

I say this because, it mentions empty hand training before looking at a weapon "yet" and compares to the "Philippino" (Filipino) way of weapons first...

I guess it depends on how tradition your FMA school is. At the first place I was learning, we were just doing sticks, sticks, sticks (with empty hands for the intermediate and advanced student). In hindsight, at that school, I may not have been prepared for unarmed combat early on. I didn't know how to translate the weapon base into empty hand.

I've since studies at a few other places, and everywhere else, we learned empty hand, hand in hand (pun intended) with weapons. We would do the stick or blade, then immediately do it empty hand. In this case, I felt that a person could be more proficient with defending themselves both empty hand and armed more proficiently.

So if your looking at FMA, I think a simultaenous approach to learning is more practical than a traditional sticks first, and stick only training (if this is indeed traditional, as I had learned).

Now looking unarmed training vs. armed training. You can look at this in the context of, what are the chances a weapon will be used in an altercation? This assumes that weapons training will prepare you for defending against weapons (in the FMA, I feel it does, I don't know about other arts, such as Bo). Well, I put up a poll yesterday, on if you have been attacked or assaulted, was a weapon involved? So far 2 to 1 for weapon involved.

So if these results are true, then armed training can help, but ONLY if it's armed training that teaches you how to deal with armed combatants, when you may or may not be armed. FMA does this (right away or eventually depending on your school).

My opinion (and no Rich, I'm not saying don't train weapons, as you've concluded this before on another post of mine, where I didn't say that

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Mormegil
Rereading the original post: One interpretation of the question is, is it practical to learn weapons first?

I say this because, it mentions empty hand training before looking at a weapon "yet" and compares to the "Philippino" (Filipino) way of weapons first...

I guess it depends on how tradition your FMA school is. At the first place I was learning, we were just doing sticks, sticks, sticks (with empty hands for the intermediate and advanced student). In hindsight, at that school, I may not have been prepared for unarmed combat early on. I didn't know how to translate the weapon base into empty hand.

I've since studies at a few other places, and everywhere else, we learned empty hand, hand in hand (pun intended) with weapons. We would do the stick or blade, then immediately do it empty hand. In this case, I felt that a person could be more proficient with defending themselves both empty hand and armed more proficiently.

So if your looking at FMA, I think a simultaenous approach to learning is more practical than a traditional sticks first, and stick only training (if this is indeed traditional, as I had learned).

Now looking unarmed training vs. armed training. You can look at this in the context of, what are the chances a weapon will be used in an altercation? This assumes that weapons training will prepare you for defending against weapons (in the FMA, I feel it does, I don't know about other arts, such as Bo). Well, I put up a poll yesterday, on if you have been attacked or assaulted, was a weapon involved? So far 2 to 1 for weapon involved.

So if these results are true, then armed training can help, but ONLY if it's armed training that teaches you how to deal with armed combatants, when you may or may not be armed. FMA does this (right away or eventually depending on your school).

My opinion (and no Rich, I'm not saying don't train weapons, as you've concluded this before on another post of mine, where I didn't say that

Mormegil et al,

It is quite clear here from this post, that you are talking about empty hand versus weapon. It is quite clear to me as you also pointed out, that training and tranlating from stick to blade to empty hand is important. I apologize if my previous comments were taken wrong. I am just tired of the picture that people think FMA can only work with a stick. And just were are you going to carry a stick 100% of the time?

And when most people from most systems wo are empty hand only, talk about empty hand training, they are not talking about empty hand versus a weapon in their training. This is very different then just empty hand to empty hand. The range and type of weapon and its' properties will determine how the fight will proceed. No disrespect taken and none meant to be given.

best regards