Common expressions that are wrong....

[Jared Traveler]

There is so many options and circular information sharing (blind leading the blind) in martial arts. Often really bad advice gets cemented into people's thinking, or into the martial arts culture at large.

What are some common expressions, or common thinking that you find to be flat out wrong, over simplified, or misleading?

 

[skribs]

Statements that are made as absolutes are usually wrong. A lot of people see a wrong statement and make an absolute in the other direction. This is often also usually wrong. I'll give two examples:

• Forms are useless
• Forms are 100% practical technique

In my experience, forms are great for conditioning and for teaching purposeful movement (among other things). They are similar to a BJJ student shrimping or a boxer doing pushups and situps. But they aren't very good at teaching you how to fight any more than watching a Jackie Chan movie.

• Krav Maga is useless because it doesn't pressure test
• BJJ is useless because it's designed for the mat and not the street

It is true that KM has a quality control issue (much like most arts that do not have a sport setting with which to compare effectiveness). But in my experience in online discussion, most folks who do those sport arts tend to think of self-defense as "competition fight, but on pavement."

In a lot of cases, I think folks need to look honestly at the limits and gaps in what they know, and look more at what they can learn from something instead of why they're smarter than something. Someone who has trained Krav and BJJ is going to have a much more well-rounded view of martial arts than someone who has just said, "Krav is best, BJJ is stupid" (or the opposite). Or at the very least, someone who has had discussions with the attitude of "what can I learn from X" instead of "how can I show I'm better than X".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"Boards don't hit back."

This is true but misleading. It implies that training breaking techniques isn't valuable because it doesn't include defensive techniques. Push-ups don't include defensive techniques either. Are push-ups without value?

Worse, this has become a mantra for those who wish to denigrate the training others do.

Will breaking teach you to fight? No. Breaking isn't for that. Breaking teaches body mechanics for the application of power, as well as providing the occasional psychological lift in terms of seeing just how powerful the human body can be, among other attributes.

No, boards (and bricks, etc) do not hit back. They're not supposed to. That's not what they are for.

 

[Steve]

The idea that you can become an expert pilot without ever piloting a real plane.

The answer is always more guns.

Bar fights are a thing people should be worried about.

The idea that because some cops see a lot of violence, they are experts in civilian self defense.
Sub point to this, the misconception that all cops are experts in civilian self defense.

 

[Jared Traveler]

"Boards don't hit back."

This is true but misleading. It implies that training breaking techniques isn't valuable because it doesn't include defensive techniques. Push-ups don't include defensive techniques either. Are push-ups without value?

Worse, this has become a mantra for those who wish to denigrate the training others do.

Will breaking teach you to fight? No. Breaking isn't for that. Breaking teaches body mechanics for the application of power, as well as providing the occasional psychological lift in terms of seeing just how powerful the human body can be, among other attributes.

No, boards (and bricks, etc) do not hit back. They're not supposed to. That's not what they are for.

This is a great example Bill.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Statements that are made as absolutes are usually wrong. A lot of people see a wrong statement and make an absolute in the other direction. This is often also usually wrong. I'll give two examples:

• Forms are useless
• Forms are 100% practical technique

In my experience, forms are great for conditioning and for teaching purposeful movement (among other things). They are similar to a BJJ student shrimping or a boxer doing pushups and situps. But they aren't very good at teaching you how to fight any more than watching a Jackie Chan movie.

• Krav Maga is useless because it doesn't pressure test
• BJJ is useless because it's designed for the mat and not the street

It is true that KM has a quality control issue (much like most arts that do not have a sport setting with which to compare effectiveness). But in my experience in online discussion, most folks who do those sport arts tend to think of self-defense as "competition fight, but on pavement."

In a lot of cases, I think folks need to look honestly at the limits and gaps in what they know, and look more at what they can learn from something instead of why they're smarter than something. Someone who has trained Krav and BJJ is going to have a much more well-rounded view of martial arts than someone who has just said, "Krav is best, BJJ is stupid" (or the opposite). Or at the very least, someone who has had discussions with the attitude of "what can I learn from X" instead of "how can I show I'm better than X".

You make a lot of good points. I think people overly value something in many cases because they are overly vested in it. Or they devalue something, because they can't obtain it, or are not wanting to invest in it.

 

[Jared Traveler]

The answer is always more guns.

The two extremes here are:
1. I have a gun, therefore I am safe
2. Vs If someone I know is carrying a gun, or has one in the home, we are now unsafe

Of course the truth is neither one of these statements are necessarily true. The truth is typically somewhere in the middle.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The two extremes here are:
1. I have a gun, therefore I am safe
2. Vs If someone I know is carrying a gun, or has one in the home, we are now unsafe

Of course the truth is neither one of these statements are necessarily true. The truth is typically somewhere in the middle.

I remember hearing that second one. Even had a teacher tell my class in primary school something like "If you enter someone's house and find out that their parents have a gun, find an excuse to call your mom and go home". Never made sense to me since my dad had a gun for work, and showed it to me/my brother/proper gun safety...he was a police officer.

By that teacher's logic, it meant he might kill all my friends if they came to visit. Same with my best friend's dad who was an avid hunter.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What are some common expressions, or common thinking that you find to be flat out wrong, over simplified, or misleading?

The "no contact combat" is a high level MA skill.

 

[Jared Traveler]

The idea that because some cops see a lot of violence, they are experts in civilian self defense.
Sub point to this, the misconception that all cops are experts in civilian self defense.

The fact that cops study self-defense laws, determine probable cause for making arrests if someone breaks those laws, determines when someone has appropriately used self-defense legally, interacts daily with violent criminals, interrogates suspects of violent crimes to determine motive and methods, searches suspects on a regular basis to understand what types of weapons criminals are carrying/and how they conceal them, interviews countess victims of violent crimes, obtains tips from citizens to understand the criminal activity going on in their city better, is trained to appropriately collect and preserve evidence regarding crimes, has experience and training testifying in court, studies supreme court rules, is trained in ethical/moral/legal self-defense of their persons and third party civilians, has specialized training and years of experience in de-escalation when speaking to violent people, has experience in a wide variety of acute life and death stressful events, has extensive training in firearms and tactics, and specialized training in dealing with people in emotional crisis, has training and experience to recognize Pre-attack indicators/intoxicated-imparied persons/people attempting to conceal weapons, and typically has survived being assaulted by criminals, used force on many occasions in self-defense, has lots of experience being first on the scene of many turama relates medical injuries, and is constantly responsible for showing up to very violent situations and making those situations safe in NO WAY makes them an "EXPERT" on self-defense.

I totally agree Steve! The term expert is way overrated. At best moderately knowledgeable compared to the average person.

 

[GojuTommy]

Banned from sport must means super effective and dangerous.

Being a black belt in a ‘self defense’ style makes you an expert on self defense.

 

[Steve]

I remember hearing that second one. Even had a teacher tell my class in primary school something like "If you enter someone's house and find out that their parents have a gun, find an excuse to call your mom and go home". Never made sense to me since my dad had a gun for work, and showed it to me/my brother/proper gun safety...he was a police officer.

By that teacher's logic, it meant he might kill all my friends if they came to visit. Same with my best friend's dad who was an avid hunter.

For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with your primary school teacher. But From a self defense perspective, I think the more likely danger is that your friend accidentally shoots you or vice versa. Accidents do happen, even in police officer’s homes.

But that’s really not what I was thinking about. I had in mind more the idea that guns are the answer to all of our self defense problems. I’ve heard them referred to as the great equalizer, for example.

 

[Steve]

The two extremes here are:
1. I have a gun, therefore I am safe
2. Vs If someone I know is carrying a gun, or has one in the home, we are now unsafe

Of course the truth is neither one of these statements are necessarily true. The truth is typically somewhere in the middle.

Err. I don’t know. I think the two extremes are:
1. Everyone has a gun, and so we are all safe
2. No one has a gun, and so we are all safe.

While neither of those are practical, they do represent philosophical extremes that we actually hear vocalized. I was specifically referring to the first one.

As you say, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Depending on one’s situation.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Err. I don’t know. I think the two extremes are:
1. Everyone has a gun, and so we are all safe
2. No one has a gun, and so we are all safe.

While neither of those are practical, they do represent philosophical extremes that we actually hear vocalized. I was specifically referring to the first one.

As you say, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Depending on one’s situation.

Yep. That sounds right. I certainly don't think everyone should have a gun. But you are right, many do think that way.

 

[Steve]

The fact that cops study self-defense laws, determine probable cause for making arrests if someone breaks those laws, determines when someone has appropriately used self-defense legally, interacts daily with violent criminals, interrogates suspects of violent crimes to determine motive and methods, searches suspects on a regular basis to understand what types of weapons criminals are carrying/and how they conceal them, interviews countess victims of violent crimes, obtains tips from citizens to understand the criminal activity going on in their city better, is trained to appropriately collect and preserve evidence regarding crimes, has experience and training testifying in court, studies supreme court rules, is trained in ethical/moral/legal self-defense of their persons and third party civilians, has specialized training and years of experience in de-escalation when speaking to violent people, has experience in a wide variety of acute life and death stressful events, has extensive training in firearms and tactics, and specialized training in dealing with people in emotional crisis, has training and experience to recognize Pre-attack indicators/intoxicated-imparied persons/people attempting to conceal weapons, and typically has survived being assaulted by criminals, used force on many occasions in self-defense, has lots of experience being first on the scene of many turama relates medical injuries, and is constantly responsible for showing up to very violent situations and making those situations safe in NO WAY makes them an "EXPERT" on self-defense.

I totally agree Steve! The term expert is way overrated. At best moderately knowledgeable compared to the average person.

Sorry. Touched a nerve. Do all cops do all of those things all the time?

And are we sticking strictly to legal self defense? It’s your thread. I’ll try to follow your rules.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Sorry. Touched a nerve. Do all cops do all of those things all the time?

And are we sticking strictly to legal self defense? It’s your thread. I’ll try to follow your rules.

Nope. You didn't touch a nerve at all. Although I suspect that was your intent. Regarding your first question, those are basic activities of an average street cop with a few years on the job. Nothing special in that list.

I'm not sure I understand your second question though?

 

[Steve]

Nope. You didn't touch a nerve at all. Although I suspect that was your intent. Regarding your first question, those are basic activities of an average street cop with a few years on the job. Nothing special in that list.

I'm not sure I understand your second question though?

Not trying to strike a nerve, and I’m glad I didn’t. Im just remembering your recent reaction to a post of mine. I’ll be honest. I’m kind of on guard against the next one. Snark like your comment above isn’t a good start.

Regarding the post, I may be mistaken, but I don’t have the impression that all cops are street cops, or that all cops have the same qualitative or quantitative experience. For example, it may be that a cop in a small rural town has the same expertise as a cop in a large metro area. I wouldn’t think so.

Regarding the second part, the cop profile you shared has a particular intersection with self defense. It’s completely valid, but not the only one. Personally, almost everything you listed isn’t what I would consider self defense. But If that specific slice of the self defense pie is all you want discussed in this thread, I’m happy to do so. That’s all.

 

[skribs]

You make a lot of good points. I think people overly value something in many cases because they are overly vested in it. Or they devalue something, because they can't obtain it, or are not wanting to invest in it.

I've long held that every art is overrated by those who train it and underrated by those who don't.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with your primary school teacher. But From a self defense perspective, I think the more likely danger is that your friend accidentally shoots you or vice versa. Accidents do happen, even in police officer’s homes.

Only when the adult's not responsible. In my dad's case the only time he'd take the guns out (outside of work) was to teach me and my brother gun safety, at which point he'd lay it down unloaded and with the safety on before calling us into the room. Rest of the time it was in a safe, with no one else knowing the code. In my friends house, I knew he was a hunter, but I never saw any of his weapons until I was an adult-definitely not in 2nd grade. He kept them in a locked room in the basement that, again, to my knowledge only he had the key to.

Admittedly, there's no way to know everyone will be safe, but accidents happen because of recklessness in this regard.

But that’s really not what I was thinking about. I had in mind more the idea that guns are the answer to all of our self defense problems. I’ve heard them referred to as the great equalizer, for example.

Yeah, I was addressing the 2 here that jared brought up/mentioning an anecdote it reminded me of. I don't agree with either extreme.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Not trying to strike a nerve, and I’m glad I didn’t. Im just remembering your recent reaction to a post of mine. I’ll be honest. I’m kind of on guard against the next one. Snark like your comment above isn’t a good start.

Regarding the post, I may be mistaken, but I don’t have the impression that all cops are street cops, or that all cops have the same qualitative or quantitative experience. For example, it may be that a cop in a small rural town has the same expertise as a cop in a large metro area. I wouldn’t think so.

Regarding the second part, the cop profile you shared has a particular intersection with self defense. It’s completely valid, but not the only one. Personally, almost everything you listed isn’t what I would consider self defense. But If that specific slice of the self defense pie is all you want discussed in this thread, I’m happy to do so. That’s all.

Not all cops are street cops, or have equal experience. And again, I agree being a cop doesn't make you an expert on self-defense. But nearly every cop starts out working the street and nearly everything on that list is basic 101 police training and work.

Regarding experience, most cops experience the same relative things, just in different does depending on the jurisdiction.