Does Your Martial Art Teach Self Defence?

[K-man]

In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Absolutely it does. I know this because I've used my training on the street, and I use it quite frequently in the ER.
Am I an unbeatable superman? Of course not; only Chuck Norris is. But I am well prepared.

 

[Chris Parker]

In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.

My martial arts training? No. My self defence training? Yes. Are they related? Yep. Are they the same? Nope.

And, honestly, I can't think of any martial art that is actually designed for modern self defence. Many can be used for a framework of such, but that's different to them being designed for it.

 

[K-man]

My martial arts training? No. My self defence training? Yes. Are they related? Yep. Are they the same? Nope.

And, honestly, I can't think of any martial art that is actually designed for modern self defence. Many can be used for a framework of such, but that's different to them being designed for it.

Well I haven't posted my vote yet either but I am interested in your comment, and a little surprised.
So ignoring your self defence training, where on the scale would you rate your MA training in providing the ability to defend yourself?

As to your comment on 'modern' self defence. I would have thought a 'modern' martial art like Krav might cover that. Then when I look at Goju, there is nothing in Krav that isn't in Goju, with the exception of the ground moves which are influenced by BJJ. Which makes me wonder about Ninjutsu which I had always considered a comprehensive collection of systems.

But even then, the question was not phrased in the self defence context, despite the thread title. The question was, does your MA give you the skills to defend yourself? So is your answer still 'no' and if you still think that perhaps you could tell us why you think that way.
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

Well I haven't posted my vote yet either but I am interested in your comment, and a little surprised.

Ha, thought you might be...

So ignoring your self defence training, where on the scale would you rate your MA training in providing the ability to defend yourself?

Honestly? I wouldn't rate it at all. And that has nothing to do with mechanical/technical methods taught... because that's the last, and least important aspect of being able to defend yourself.

As to your comment on 'modern' self defence. I would have thought a 'modern' martial art like Krav might cover that.

Nope, that's designed for a military context. Can it be used in a self defence context? Sure. But it isn't designed for it.

Then when I look at Goju, there is nothing in Krav that isn't in Goju, with the exception of the ground moves which are influenced by BJJ.

The techniques mean nothing, though.... and I really, honestly mean that. There's almost nothing in Goju that's in Krav Maga, and vice versa, other than mechanical/technical methods.

Which makes me wonder about Ninjutsu which I had always considered a comprehensive collection of systems.

Well, yeah... but what are the systems in that collection? Broadly speaking, there are six common systems (with quite a number more in the Genbukan, one more in the Jinenkan, and three more, albeit rarely/barely taught from, plus a few related and other ones in the Bujinkan), which are Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu, Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu Jutaijutsu, Koto Ryu Koppojutsu, Gyokko Ryu Kosshijutsu, Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu (with another line, Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu/Jujutsu/Taijutsu being taught in a few of the organisations), and Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken, which is actually made up from a few different Kukishin Ryu lines.

Togakure Ryu is about espionage and infiltration. It's entire martial methodology is based on avoidance and escape from guards in a feudal Japanese castle/town. Many of it's methods are dealing with sword attacks.

Kukishinden Ryu, Koto Ryu, and Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu deal with combat in armour, and include a range of methods that are designed to immediately damage/maim/kill. SFR Jutaijutsu, to give an idea, is based more around the idea of using the weight of the armour (yours and the opponents), and deals with very few "attacks", instead, it teaches a range of actions/tactics stemming from a variety of possible grips/positions you might find yourself in. Kukishinden Ryu deals with more of handling an attack, but in a way very removed from anything modern, as well as having a large syllabus of weapons (sword, short sword, jutte, bo, hanbo, jo, naginata, spear, bisento), none of which have any real relation to any modern forms of assault. Koto Ryu teaches yet another method of handling opponents (many of these systems actually use the term "teki", meaning "enemy" rather than "uke", or "receiver", or opponent... to give an idea into the emphasis), including a large focus on attacking methods. A number of the kata specifically deal with two persons walking towards each other, and the "defender" simply strikes or attacks the "attacker"...

Gyokko Ryu is, again, a different approach to a similar context, with the attacking forms very removed from modern assaults, and much of the system being centered around defending against a long or short sword. Takagi Yoshin Ryu (and, to a fair degree, Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu, although it's rather different in it's approach/focus) is very broad, and has a large number of very powerful techniques... but are based in primarily grabbing assaults rather than striking ones, and includes a range of techniques from a formal seated position, and, like all the others, moves from a very different distance than anything in modern violence, as well as having attacking methods that don't match, other than in a very vague, general fashion, modern assault.

The other systems, including Bokuden Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu etc also fit this structure/pattern.

But even then, the question was not phrased in the self defence context, despite the thread title. The question was, does your MA give you the skills to defend yourself? So is your answer still 'no' and if you still think that perhaps you could tell us why you think that way. :asian:

Because physical techniques are not anything to do with having the skills to defend yourself, or, really, are the least important part of it all. If that's all you're relying on, you've missed the point.

 

[K-man]

.

Originally Posted by K-man
As to your comment on 'modern' self defence. I would have thought a 'modern' martial art like Krav might cover that.

Nope, that's designed for a military context. Can it be used in a self defence context? Sure. But it isn't designed for it.

Mmm, maybe. When it was first designed by Imi Lichtenfeld in the 1930s it was for civilians to defend themselves against the civilian mob violence directed against the Jewish communities in Europe. Only when he reached Israel did it become 'military' and now it has civilian, police and military applications. But regardless of which application you were to chose, to say it wasn't designed for self defence is not accurate.
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah, that comes down to when was it really Krav Maga... Imi was starting to develop things that would become Krav Maga in the 30's, but I feel it only really came into it's own (and got really codified in any real way) when he was teaching for the IDF... which gives it a military focus. Eh, semantics at that point...

 

[Kong Soo Do]

In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.

If the martial art in question doesn't teach self defense then either it is not a martial art or it has been taught incorrectly.

 

[Chris Parker]

If the martial art in question doesn't teach self defense then either it is not a martial art or it has been taught incorrectly.

Kyudo? Iaido? Bojutsu? Sojutsu? Kenjutsu? Far more "martial" art than these modern unarmed methods, I feel....

 

[Dirty Dog]

If the martial art in question doesn't teach self defense then either it is not a martial art or it has been taught incorrectly.

I don't think that's very accurate. Sword arts (eastern or western...), for one example, are not exactly usable for self defense in todays world.

 

[Kframe]

Isnt self defense more of a mindset then anything else? You have to have the presence of mind to act, and not cower. To know when and were likely trouble spots are.

Ya many if not most arts teach techniques useable against a variety of attacks, but in the end its up to you to defend your self. All arts teach techniques, some with different contexts.. However, in the end it is on you and you alone to apply what you learned to defend your self. Self defense starts with the mind.

I thought systems such as Tony Bluers S.P.E.E.R system and the various things taught by Michael Janich, such as his martial blade concepts and the various unarmed combative schools, would be considered modern self defense systems. As that is the focus of much it.

 

[SENC-33]

My self defense regiment takes from Thai Boxing, Silat, Kyusho and Systema among other "martial arts". But it is tailored to my self defense liking based on what works for me and my strengths with the traditional junk stripped away.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Kyudo? Iaido? Bojutsu? Sojutsu? Kenjutsu? Far more "martial" art than these modern unarmed methods, I feel....

I don't think that's very accurate. Sword arts (eastern or western...), for one example, are not exactly usable for self defense in todays world.

I don't see where the OP mentioned 'modern' or 'todays world'. However, let's examine this for a moment in the context of modern. Who's modern are you thinking about? Are you thinking western culture? What about in the countryside of a third world country? Although they aren't modern in the context of walking around with an Ipad and/or smart phone...they're still in the 21st century just like us. So would/could a stick art, sword art, knife art etc be used for effective self defense? Of course they could. And to be clear, they could be used effectively for self defense in our 'modern' culture as well. Sure, they're a bit dated. And yes, walking down the street with a sword here in the U.S. would probably be frowned upon outside a festival. But it can still be effectively used for self defense if the need arose. And improved weapons abound in third world countries. I know because I've been to and lived in them.

So in the context of the OP, if a martial art doesn't teach SD then it really isn't a martial art. It could be a martial sport, which is fine if the student is aware of the fact and that is the goal and/or desire. Otherwise the instructor isn't or doesn't know how to teach the martial art correctly.

 

[Danny T]

Martial art training can be used within the actions of self-defense however martial art training is not self-defense training. In the everyday aspects of self-defense martial art training has very little to do with it as there is far more to self-defense than being able to fight or giving the appearance of being able to fight and being able to fight as we see in the full contact aspect of MMA or other ring sports is so far removed from self-defense it is as comparing being able to swim to climbing a tree.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

All MA system teach you how to "land your fist on your opponent's face". That's "self-defense" by default.

 

[TKDTony2179]

In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.

I believe someone would have to know or understand the technique in their martial art and be able to use it with full resistant in order to know if it will work. Also depends if they took their training serious enough to know what will work and what won't work and if they train the things that work more often than the things that don't.

So yes and no. On the street I know I can defend myself from empty hand fights. But if gun or knife is put into the equations, no. Yes self defense is a mindset and martial arts can teach some of that but it is the instructor goal to teach self defense within the art or otherwise you will be doing nothing but martial art techniques with no purpose.

 

[K-man]

Ah, that comes down to when was it really Krav Maga... Imi was starting to develop things that would become Krav Maga in the 30's, but I feel it only really came into it's own (and got really codified in any real way) when he was teaching for the IDF... which gives it a military focus. Eh, semantics at that point...

Mmm! And Kano was teaching his style of judo for several years before he called it judo, Miyagi was teaching Goju for decades before it was called Goju.

If the martial art in question doesn't teach self defense then either it is not a martial art or it has been taught incorrectly.

The very point I made elsewhere.

I don't see where the OP mentioned 'modern' or 'todays world'. However, let's examine this for a moment in the context of modern. Who's modern are you thinking about? Are you thinking western culture? What about in the countryside of a third world country? Although they aren't modern in the context of walking around with an Ipad and/or smart phone...they're still in the 21st century just like us. So would/could a stick art, sword art, knife art etc be used for effective self defense? Of course they could. And to be clear, they could be used effectively for self defense in our 'modern' culture as well. Sure, they're a bit dated. And yes, walking down the street with a sword here in the U.S. would probably be frowned upon outside a festival. But it can still be effectively used for self defense if the need arose. And improved weapons abound in third world countries. I know because I've been to and lived in them.

So in the context of the OP, if a martial art doesn't teach SD then it really isn't a martial art. It could be a martial sport, which is fine if the student is aware of the fact and that is the goal and/or desire. Otherwise the instructor isn't or doesn't know how to teach the martial art correctly.

The question was deliberately left open. All someone training Iaido has to do is say 'no', if that's what they feel.

I believe someone would have to know or understand the technique in their martial art and be able to use it with full resistant in order to know if it will work. Also depends if they took their training serious enough to know what will work and what won't work and if they train the things that work more often than the things that don't.

So yes and no. On the street I know I can defend myself from empty hand fights. But if gun or knife is put into the equations, no. Yes self defense is a mindset and martial arts can teach some of that but it is the instructor goal to teach self defense within the art or otherwise you will be doing nothing but martial art techniques with no purpose.

It is not the issue as to whether 'someone' might understand how to apply the technique. It is obvious that many people don't know. The question is personal. Do you know?

 

[K-man]

Just a little background reading for anyone interested:

The function of fighting techniques is to effectively cause injury or incapacitation to another person so as to end a fight. The purpose of a martial art however can be to improve the individual's capacity when necessary to efficiently and humanely defend themselves by fighting techniques and, when possible, potentially make use of such violent force superfluous. It's the Martial that provides the how, but it's the Art that decides the why. For techniques alone do not hold values, Arts do. It is here where meaning is found for practice to go beyond utility for potential self-defense situations.


If the study of fighting techniques as a self-defense system does not include these factors nor speak to how the individual student of the craft is personally affected—mentally and emotionally—by their acquisition, how then is it a true Art of fighting?
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Defining-A-Martial-Art.html

 

[TKDTony2179]

Why yes I do. But like stated I feel comfortable with empty hand fighting than against weapons. I have limited training with that.

 

[CNida]

In a recent post the observation was made that training a martial art doesn't automatically teach self defence. I would like to explore whether you think that your Martial Art does equip you with the skills needed to defend yourself on the street if the need were to arise.

Do most martial arts not center around defending oneself?

Self defense is such a generic term I don't see how it can warrant such a deep and thorough explanation. Self defense is the defense of one's own self, generally understood to be referring to the act of thwarting a physical threat through similarly physical means.

I understand a martial art to be much more than protecting one's self in physical combat. Even though I don't practice an art, nor do I have much outside of military experience, but I truly believe that someone who devotes themselves to Martial arts becomes a living manifestation of that art. They embody it in every facet of their life.

Of course we could get into an argument over what's more effective in a self defense situation and we could end up making this thread look like the recently closed TMA vs MMA thread, but that's not what we are talking about.

My opinion? Anyone who trains a martial art and takes it at least a little bit seriously has the capability to defend themselves. Whether they can take that art and defend themselves "effectively" is a totally different thing altogether.

Ah, that comes down to when was it really Krav Maga... Imi was starting to develop things that would become Krav Maga in the 30's, but I feel it only really came into it's own (and got really codified in any real way) when he was teaching for the IDF... which gives it a military focus. Eh, semantics at that point...

Okay but is there really a difference in military and non-military applications of self defense?

As a soldier, when I go to war, I am trying to kill my enemy or at the very least neutralize him as a threat. Sure, it might be a bit more brutal than defending yourself against a mugger but the concept is the same.

In self defense the focus is to make sure you walk away with your life. There is not much difference in military, law enforcement, or civilian self defense, other than what tools are more readily available to you.

The "focus" of defending yourself doesn't change just because you're in a firefight, apprehending a murderer, or protecting yourself from a serial rapist.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous