Does Your Martial Art Teach Self Defence?

[donald1]

My style is Okinawan goju ryu and yes, various self defense from simple blocks and punches, to ground fighting all the way to advanced flips and throws.

Hard and loud forms like sanchin and like gekisai dai - San with variations in-between like another form seiunchin

That and other fighting techniques and combinations. I've done it for some years now and teach it

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

A mindset? Not sure that I'd put it that way... I'd say a different mindset is required (for training self defence, as opposed to other foci in training), but no, self defence isn't a "mindset" itself. It's a distinct aim and defined purpose in approach, and contains a range of very definite aspects as necessary. The presence of mind you refer to isn't actually necessarily anything to do with self defence (actual self defence training will teach you that sometimes, cowering is the better approach, for example), and the last comment is more about awareness (a vital aspect, certainly, but more a trained skill and tactic, rather than a mindset).

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.

No, self defence starts with awareness and recognition. The techniques, by and large, aren't important.

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.

Tony's system is really an RBSD system, in that it features very little "techniques", but is designed as something that can be "added on" to any martial system (unarmed), with a few key concepts and principles. Michael's approach is quite reality based, and has it's core mechanics coming from FMA methods, and again, can be imported into other arts quite easily (as is it's design)... I've been incorporating a lot of it into my schools self defence curriculum for a number of years now. Again, these systems/approaches are far more RBSD than "martial arts"... and yeah, they're self defence systems. A big clue is the fact that they focus beyond the physical techniques, into the surrounding context and realities of modern violence and assault. And both teach that physical techniques are not the important, or first choice response.

I don't see where the OP mentioned 'modern' or 'todays world'.

By using the terms "self defence" and "the street", modern application was implied.

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.

I deal, in these cases, in the context of my environment, so, for me, it's a modern, Western society, specifically Australia, most specifically Melbourne (the culture is a bit different to, say, Sydney, or Perth, or Brisbane). I have no reason (currently) to design my self defence training and teaching methods around the needs of an American culture, or an Indonesian one... or an English one... or a South African one... or anything else. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of the differences in requirements and environments, rather I do a fair bit of research into such things, but it's not immediately relevant to my teaching and training. If I was to visit somewhere like that, I'd certainly change the way I did things and presented them to suit that culture... which isn't something I've seen everyone do.

An example would be Richard Dmitri versus Deane Lawler. Richard is a Canadian who teaches his system/approach of Senshido out of the US, best known for his primary technical method, referred to as the "Shredder", which he uses against pretty much everything. Deane Lawler is an Australian RBSD instructor, who teaches a system/approach known as R-SULT, focused on surviving an initial assault primarily. There is one "technique" taught, which is a form of half-spear/half-cover used to immediately move from defence to offence. When Richard was out here, he was teaching verbal de-escalation... and his approach to the strategy was to be rather apologetic, backing away from the other guy, aiming to not aggravate the situation. The reason was that it was geared towards an American application... where the other guy might easily be carrying a gun. Deane saw it, and commented that such an approach to verbal de-escalation where he was from (Western suburbs of Sydney) would be seen as weakness, and be an invitation to a massive beating. Deane's verbal de-escalation is far more aggressive... and suits the environment his approach is born from and for. Use either in the wrong environment, and you're in some real trouble.

So would/could a stick art, sword art, knife art etc be used for effective self defense? Of course they could.

Stick? Maybe. Knife? Again, maybe. Both come down to the environment and culture you're dealing with. The Filipino culture is quite heavily skewed towards blades... as is the South African one... so there, absolutely it'd make sense to have bladed methods a large part of your self defence approach.

A sword art? No. And that's from a sword guy.

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.

No, you'd get locked up. And, in that simple example, you've shown a lack of awareness of the first principle of self defence.

And improved weapons abound in third world countries. I know because I've been to and lived in them.

Improvised weapons are also a key aspect of many self defence approaches... not sure what you're implying there, honestly. It really doesn't have to be a third world country to have them as a good included aspect.

So in the context of the OP, if a martial art doesn't teach SD then it really isn't a martial art.

Complete garbage, frankly. The most "martial" arts have nothing to do with self defence. My stuff isn't about self defence. It's about killing you (the enemy you, not you you). And, no, I'm not being dramatic... it's purely (on a tactical/technical level) about killing the other guy.

Again, Kyudo, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Kendo, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Kenjutsu, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Bojutsu, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Sojutsu, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Naginata, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Sumo, not in any way concerned with self defence.
Many classical forms of Jujutsu (and related), not in any way concerned with self defence.
Hojutsu, not in any way concerned with self defence.

And I'm only dealing with Japanese arts there. These are very martial arts, and have nothing to do with self defence. Perhaps your understanding of what a martial art is needs expanding?

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.

Maybe they know more about teaching their art, and what it is, than you do.

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

No, it's not. It could be assault, for example. It could be a competition. It could be a challenge match. It could be an ego-boosting monkey dance taken too far.

Oh, and not all martial art systems teach you how to "land your fist on your opponent's face". None of the ones I listed above do, except for the Jujutsu and Sumo (with an asterix on them, of course).

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.

There's a reason I keep saying that Judo is really just another form of Jujutsu....

The very point I made elsewhere.

It's not a correct one, though.... just sayin'....

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

Contextually, Iai methods were designed for a form of self defence (well, response against sudden assault, at least... in some cases... in others, somewhat less "defensive" actions are preferred...), but in a modern context, for self defence today, nope.

Do most martial arts not center around defending oneself?

No, they don't. Frankly. I've found that instructors do, though... not always knowing what it actually means...

I'll put it this way: It's rare to find practitioners/instructors of modern, primarily unarmed martial arts of all varieties who don't think they're either learning or teaching self defence on some level... but it's also rare to find one who thinks of anything beyond "these techniques work, so it's self defence, and it works". Commonly, the context in which the techniques "work" is ignored, or simply not recognised or understood...instead, what is seen as technical superiority is seen as being validation of the self defence methods. During my time in BJJ I saw that a lot, honestly. I would be told that what I was doing was all for self defence, then chastised for not having my knee in a certain place (which, to me, sacrificed my stability) as I would "lose points". Attending a seminar with Royce Gracie was more of the same... what was presented as self defence was technically quite a "good" technique... except that the context was rather removed from actual social or asocial violence, and the responses given were quite technical, requiring complex motor actions, and ending in a dangerous position. Not very good self defence, but very good BJJ (hell, it was Royce, of course it was very good BJJ!). This isn't to trash BJJ, as I've seen it in many other systems, but these are some pertinent examples from an art that touts itself as being "the answer" a lot of the time... the problem is that it's the answer to a different question.

For something to centre around defending oneself, the first thing that has to happen is that there needs to be an understanding of what you would need to defend against...and, honestly, that's what I see as the biggest lack in many systems approaches.

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.

Why physical as a response? That's the last part of actual self defence training. Physical techniques are just that, physical techniques. They happen after you've missed most of your self defence options, and you're reduced to "fighting". By that point, you've failed a number of times already.

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.

Er... no.

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.

Nope, besides the point, really.

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.

I train in Kyudo (Japanese archery). It looks like this:

Is that giving me the capability to "defend myself"?

I also train in a form of Iaido. It looks like this:

How about that?

I also train in forms of Kenjutsu. Kenjutsu looks like this:

Any "defending myself" coming from that?

I take all this incredibly seriously. And none of it has anything to do with any capability to "defend myself"... I have other stuff that deals with that.

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

Abso-goddsdamn-lutely there is!!!

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.

No, it's really not the same at all. When you go to war, you are employed by the army to follow orders and achieve the aims and directives as laid out to you. Those aims might be to suppress/kill the enemy, they might be to infiltrate and stage an extraction, they might be to take a particular important territory, they might be to perform recon and avoid detection, so on and so forth. The point is that it's really not all going to be the same as anything like self defence... and even if we just look at the combative execution of action between the two, the aims, outcomes, circumstances, and more are vastly separated. Military service requires you to attempt to achieve the aims of the mission, self defence doesn't. Self defence gives you the choices, military engagement doesn't. And if you kill an enemy combatant in the execution of your duty, that's one thing... someone throws a punch at you, and you knife them (military response), you go to jail.

They are completely removed from each other.

In self defense the focus is to make sure you walk away with your life.

Which is not necessarily the aim in military engagement. It might be part of it, and is almost certainly an ideal, but the completion of the mission takes precedence. Oh, and self defence really is more concerned with avoidance of danger, military engagement can actually necessitate the opposite.

There is not much difference in military, law enforcement, or civilian self defense, other than what tools are more readily available to you.

There are huge differences, as detailed above.

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.

Yes, they do.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

By using the terms "self defence" and "the street", modern application was implied.

They didn't have self defense and streets a thousand years ago? It doesn't imply any era. And according to the OP himself it was open ended without implying anything. So you made an assumption and it was incorrect.

deal, in these cases, in the context of my environment...

That was your second mistake. You can't have tunnel vision in terms of self defense. And focusing only on your environment is an unsound tactic because your attacker may not necessarily be from your environment.

Stick? Maybe. Knife? Again, maybe.

Absolutely no maybe about it. Both continue to be effective weapons, be it offensive or defensive. And they always will be effective weapons for either. L.E. and military still uses stick to this day...we call it a baton or ASP. Not just for blunt force trauma but for locks and transporters.

Sword, again as stated, within the context of self defense it has always and will always be an effective tool and can be considered with full justification a martial art. Is it practical in the modern world? No. Is it still effective in the right circumstance? Yes. And again, this discussion was never limited to the modern world.

Improvised weapons are also a key aspect of many self defence approaches... not sure what you're implying there, honestly.

This explains quite a bit.

No, you'd get locked up. And, in that simple example, you've shown a lack of awareness of the first principle of self defence.

You're just being snarky. And you're allowing your faulty assumption to cloud your perspective.

Complete garbage, frankly. The most "martial" arts have nothing to do with self defence. My stuff isn't about self defence. It's about killing you (the enemy you, not you you). And, no, I'm not being dramatic... it's purely (on a tactical/technical level) about killing the other guy.

Self defense is an encompassing term. I would have expected you to be aware of that. Self defense, despite the use of the word 'defense' being used, is defensive as well as offensive at its very core. Regardless of whether or not we are talking a pre-emptive strike or a counter-strike it is all under the umbrella of self defense. Perhaps you'll understand more clearly if we use a term that is more readily adhered to in the SD community....personal protection. As a result, ALL martial arts are designed for self defense (personal protection) without exception. Whether they are taught that way or not is another matter.

 

[Instructor]

What I've learned protected me in a very real encounter. My answer is yes unequivocally. I have little doubt that I would be dead now without my training.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

This is a somewhat complicated question and it helps to break it down a bit.

95+% of self-defense has nothing to do with physical techniques. It has to do with lifestyle, awareness, attitude, social skills, and all the related factors that help avoid a situation where someone is physically trying to harm you. Martial arts training does not typically address these directly. It can have a positive influence in this realm. For example, being able to control one's temper and one's ego can be a valuable self-defense skill. Being able to project physical confidence without seeming arrogant or combative is another. My martial arts training has helped me with both of those, but it's more of an indirect effect than something explicitly taught in class.

The remaining 5% - how to protect yourself if all else has failed, someone is physically attacking you and you can't de-escalate or get away - is what people tend to think of when they mention self-defense in a martial arts context. I would break down the potential benefits of martial arts training for this situation into attributes (physical and mental), physical skills, tactical instincts, and techniques appropriate to the situation at hand.

With regard to specific techniques, that last qualifier - appropriate to the situation at hand - is important. It also applies to determining whether your tactical instincts are likely to be helpful. The circumstances of a teenage girl defending herself from a date rapist are not the same as those of a bouncer fending off an unruly patron. There is no universal template that you can apply to say "this is what a real fight looks like" or "this is what a real self-defense situation is like". There are commonalities that can apply across different situations, but there are also very important differences.

With regard to my own training:

Attributes: My training has absolutely helped me build attributes that are important for surviving a real fight or self-defense situation. My BJJ and Muay Thai training have been primary in this front.

Skills: Ditto, although I've picked up useful skills from a variety of arts over the years.

Tactical Instincts: I actually picked up some important things here from my time in the Bujinkan. I've also done a lot of independent study of RBSD methods and how real fights tend to unfold and have worked on applying that knowledge to how do my training.

Techniques: I am comfortable with a number of techniques that I am confident can serve well in a self-defense situation. I am very aware that both BJJ and Muay Thai contain many techniques (and tactics) which are appropriate for a competition or a challenge match rather than a self-defense situation. I keep the distinction of which is which very clear in my mind.

When I teach, I make a real effort to make sure my students understand the techniques and tactics appropriate for self-defense first and foremost. There's always time for them to learn the sportive aspects of the art later, should they choose to pursue that.

 

[K-man]

There is tendency for some to drift off into the more esoteric arts as an example of arts that are not for self defence. Although this thread is not strictly about that I would like to point out that certain weapon arts can translate into empty hand as well. Aikido for example contains a lot of elements from sword or jo. Filipino stick and knife arts also translate into empty hand and in the kendo clip that Chris posted as an example of something he trained that would not be used for self defence, I recognised multiple examples of potential unarmed 'self defence'.

But this thread is not about other arts or other people or what is or isn't 'self defence'. None of those things matter. What I am trying to find with this poll is whether you as an individual feel that your form of martial art is providing you with the means of defending yourself in the situation where you are attacked on the street, in the pub or in your home for that matter.

The poll gives you the option to choose between the extremes of yes and no.
:asian:

 

[CNida]

Er... no.

Er... yes? And I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way.

Being snarky serves no purpose in an intelligent conversation. If you're opinion is different, that's fine. I would love to hear it. But there is no call for such a rigid dismissal of someone else's ideals.

I train in Kyudo (Japanese archery). It looks like this:

Is that giving me the capability to "defend myself"?

I also train in a form of Iaido. It looks like this:

How about that?

I also train in forms of Kenjutsu. Kenjutsu looks like this:

Any "defending myself" coming from that?

I take all this incredibly seriously. And none of it has anything to do with any capability to "defend myself"... I have other stuff that deals with that.

Abso-goddsdamn-lutely there is!!! I am sure I could think of several situations where it would be handy to know how to handle a katana or a bow to defend yourself. I know absolutely nothing about any of those art forms, so I can't just say you're -wrong-, but from the outside looking in? If you're going to tell me that if your life depended on it and you had those tools available to yourself for use, but the art doesn't show you how to effectively use those against an assailant, then I would wonder why train in them if it isn't purely a hobby?

Abso-goddsdamn-lutely there is!!!

I beg to differ.

No, it's really not the same at all. When you go to war, you are employed by the army to follow orders and achieve the aims and directives as laid out to you. Those aims might be to suppress/kill the enemy, they might be to infiltrate and stage an extraction, they might be to take a particular important territory, they might be to perform recon and avoid detection, so on and so forth. The point is that it's really not all going to be the same as anything like self defence... and even if we just look at the combative execution of action between the two, the aims, outcomes, circumstances, and more are vastly separated. Military service requires you to attempt to achieve the aims of the mission, self defence doesn't. Self defence gives you the choices, military engagement doesn't. And if you kill an enemy combatant in the execution of your duty, that's one thing... someone throws a punch at you, and you knife them (military response), you go to jail.

They are completely removed from each other.

When I said 'go to war' it was an all encompassing term. As a soldier you might be ordered to perform reconnaissance. You might be ordered to set up a TCP (Traffic Control Point). You might be ordered to even detain a HVT (High Value Target). That's all semantics when it comes to the point I am trying to make here. In any of those situations, you might encounter an enemy, and in any of those situations, the interaction with the enemy is pretty similar. It's you or him. Kill or be killed... unless he is the HVT you are trying to capture, but that's outside the scope of what I am saying here. It is very much the defense of oneself in killing an enemy at war, though it could be labeled a bunch of other things too. At the end of the day, he will kill you or worse, capture you, unless you neutralize him as a threat first. How is that not self defense?

Like I said - the difference is the tools and tactics available to use. In war I have no compunctions or legal restraints (or at least not as many) about killing my enemy. Even if it weren't inherently clear that he meant to hurt or harm me, if it even looked like he was about to, I am completely justified in the taking of his life. In the civilian world? You have a bunch of other things to worry about, so a self defense situation isn't going to be as lethal 90% of the time. You're absolutely right here: if I kill someone for simply throwing a punch at me, chances are I am going to spend some time in jail. It's still self defense though, not matter what way you look at it.

Which is not necessarily the aim in military engagement. It might be part of it, and is almost certainly an ideal, but the completion of the mission takes precedence. Oh, and self defence really is more concerned with avoidance of danger, military engagement can actually necessitate the opposite.

Very true here, to an extent. Just because you are ordered into a dangerous situation doesn't take away the aspect of self defense. Civilian self defense? Absolutely. You have no reason to walk down that really dark alley towards that crazy dude holding a machete. In the military, you have every reason to walk through an insurgent-laden town, if it is ordered. But at the very basic sense, if you encounter conflict, no matter the environment - you have to defend yourself.

There are huge differences, as detailed above.

I don't believe the differences are that gigantic. The tactics, techniques, and equipment is vastly different, but that's it. At the end of the day, it is still defending yourself, you're just doing it in a different way.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

What I am trying to find with this poll is whether you as an individual feel that your form of martial art is providing you with the means of defending yourself in the situation where you are attacked on the street, in the pub or in your home for that matter.

The poll gives you the option to choose between the extremes of yes and no.
:asian:

The answer is a definite yes. It is designed solely for self-defense.

 

[Steve]

For what it's worth, I think most martial arts will teach some skills that will help people defend themselves. Some teach more practical skills than others, and some students are going to be better able to use the skills than others.

But, as I said in the other thread, defending oneself is a pretty narrow view of what i would consider "self defense."

 

[K-man]

For what it's worth, I think most martial arts will teach some skills that will help people defend themselves. Some teach more practical skills than others, and some students are going to be better able to use the skills than others.

But, as I said in the other thread, defending oneself is a pretty narrow view of what i would consider "self defense."

So where would you put yourself in the poll?
:asian:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

not all martial art systems teach you how to "land your fist on your opponent's face". None of the ones I listed above do, except for the Jujutsu and Sumo (with an asterix on them, of course).

I don't share the same experience as you do. I have cross trained more than 10 different CMA systems:

- Shuai Chiao
- long fist
- praying mantis
- Baji
- Zimen
- WC
- white ape
- Taiji
- XingYi
- Bagua

Every system has "fist meets face" technique.

If I can land my fist on my opponent's face first, I can avoid my opponent's fist to have any chance to land on my face. That's my way of "self-defense".

 

[Steve]

So where would you put yourself in the poll?
:asian:

Option five.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[TKDTony2179]

I know K-Man is looking for an individual opinion about their art. But I ran up on this page which I thought had some interersting points that go along with some of the comments on this thread. Especially what Chris Parker was saying.

http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/martial-arts-dont-work

 

[K-man]

I know K-Man is looking for an individual opinion about their art. But I ran up on this page which I thought had some interersting points that go along with some of the comments on this thread. Especially what Chris Parker was saying.

http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/martial-arts-dont-work

I read it with great interest, and went down most of the rabbit holes he had going.
I agree with most of what he says although I sense he is pushing a MMA line a little, especially with regard to sparring. But most of what he says is common sense. Unfortunately, as we all know, common sense is not all that common. I have subscribed to SD newsletters, I've spent thousands of dollars on SD DVDs and I've attended heaps of seminars. A lot of what I have learned I have incorporated into my teaching, but the most valuable thing I have learned is how to separate the things that will work under pressure from the things that might work with a bit of help but really have no place in a real fight. What I have done is incorporated just about all David Erath talks about into my Goju training and I believe I have been able to do that without corrupting the traditional training.

I firmly believe that most martial arts were provided for self defence. Some people in other threads have been bagging the different MAs as ineffective or not as good as a certain well known brand so I thought I would start a poll to determine just who thinks their chosen style would serve them well in an altercation. Am I surprised at the results? Not really. Most of the guys responding are those that have been on this forum for a long time and have demonstrated an understanding of their MA that would make me believe that they most certainly could use their training effectively should the need arise. I am surprised that more people haven't responded but seeing that I made it an open poll it is understandable that those not confident that their training would be adequate, might be reluctant to post.

So I suppose I now have to tip my hand and cast my vote. My vote is for number 2. I am confident what I have trained will be effective because I know what I train has worked for others, it had worked for me in some minor circumstances and I have seen what others claim to be effective. It incorporates most of the things the SD gurus promote as 'best' self defence practice and I stand by my claim that I won't teach anything that you couldn't use in a bar brawl. I haven't had to use my training in a life or death situation so I don't know with 100% surety that it will be adequate. Let's say I'm 95% sure. Hence number 2.
:asian:

 

[CNida]

I went with the last option.

I don't really know if the training I've had will help in a self defense situation. I am thinking: probably not.

I haven't been in many, if any, situations where my life was really in danger.

What training I do have in Army combatives is not very practical. There are some throws and restraints that might give cause to delay an attacker, and then there is the whole ground grappling portion which lower level combatives is structured around.

I can say this much: it has been of no use to me in my profession which says a lot in my opinion.


____________________________

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

 

[Kframe]

No, self defence starts with awareness and recognition. The techniques, by and large, aren't important.

Ok, how is that any different then what I posted... I just said that self defense starts with the mind, and awareness of your surroundings and not being to distracted to notice whats going on around you.. I must be stupid because I don't see, how I posted anything incorrect with regards to self defense... I don't recall saying anything of substance,about techniques and why you would mention them with regards to my post...

I never said that techniques were important, I mentioned them in passing. I mentioned everything you did as important and yet you found some way to disagree. Some how im wrong, educate me, because I was not that far removed from you on this issue.

 

[Chris Parker]

They didn't have self defense and streets a thousand years ago? It doesn't imply any era. And according to the OP himself it was open ended without implying anything. So you made an assumption and it was incorrect.

You're kidding, yeah? Seriously? The question is whether or not you feel your martial art training gives you the skills and ability to defend yourself, which is an automatic implication of the here and now (present day and environment), and you ask about a thousand years ago?!? Really? Mate, I made no assumption, I read the context of the post, and was correct. You, on the other hand, are completely off base in a range of things. The "open ended" part of the post was in not defining exactly what the skills were themselves, not in saying "hey, if you come across a rogue samurai, are you going to be able to meet him in an honourable duel with katana?"... if you think it was, and you think that's actually anything to do with self defence preparation or training, you really need to rethink your understanding of such matters.

That was your second mistake. You can't have tunnel vision in terms of self defense. And focusing only on your environment is an unsound tactic because your attacker may not necessarily be from your environment.

Garbage. The only thing you can do, if you're going to actually focus on self defence, is to focus on your environment and it's particular needs. There's no point me teaching as if my students are in the US, or the Middle East, or Africa, or East London... I need to prepare them for what they're most likely to encounter... which means it has to, by definition, be concerned with the local environment. The environment is one of the most defining aspects as to the forms of violence that could be encountered, as well as the options and responses you have available to yourself, regardless of the origin of the attacker. Again, if this is indicative of your take on self defence, you really need to rethink your understanding of such matters.

Absolutely no maybe about it. Both continue to be effective weapons, be it offensive or defensive. And they always will be effective weapons for either. L.E. and military still uses stick to this day...we call it a baton or ASP. Not just for blunt force trauma but for locks and transporters.

You really missed the point there. I wasn't saying that the knife or stick/baton wouldn't be effective weapons, I was saying that the applicability of them can be heavily dependant on the environment/culture you're in, as well as other factors. I mean, what's the good of a knife if it's illegal for you to carry one? You also asked, not about the weapons themselves, but the arts for their use... and, again, that is a definite maybe. I mean, I could teach you a traditional Japanese approach to knife work, and that is really not such a good thing for a self defence practice at all. Same with some stick arts I know.

Sword, again as stated, within the context of self defense it has always and will always be an effective tool and can be considered with full justification a martial art. Is it practical in the modern world? No. Is it still effective in the right circumstance? Yes. And again, this discussion was never limited to the modern world.

If we're talking about defending yourself (and, without a time machine, that means the modern world), then it's really quite impractical. And almost no sword arts have any real concern with anything even close to "self defence", even when looked at historically. There are instances of swordsmen finding themselves in sudden fights stemming from ambushes, but that still relies on it occurring in a culture that allows the carrying and usage of such weapons in regular life. But really, the sword has never been a self defence weapon. To think it was/is is to have no idea whatsoever of the weapon or it's usage.

This explains quite a bit.

Mate, I said that improvised weapons exist in all cultures, and are something I'd consider essential to a self defence approach... they're hardly exclusive to third world countries, and they have no relevance to the arts I brought up (tactically). Your insistence that you have been to third world countries and seen improvised weapons didn't seem relevant in the slightest, and appeared to be a way to imply some experience that, bluntly, doesn't say anything at all. Hence my saying that I didn't quite see what you were implying.... so, care to actually clarify, or....?

You're just being snarky. And you're allowing your faulty assumption to cloud your perspective.

That's not me being "snarky", son, it's me pointing out that you really don't seem to know what you're talking about. And my perspective is based in training and teaching both sword arts and self defence... I know exactly where each of them begin and end. You, on the other hand, how much sword have you done? How much do you know about the actual usage of the weapon?

Self defense is an encompassing term. I would have expected you to be aware of that.

Please... weren't you just accusing me of being "snarky"? And, again, I know exactly what self defence is... and where the limits lie.

Self defense, despite the use of the word 'defense' being used, is defensive as well as offensive at its very core. Regardless of whether or not we are talking a pre-emptive strike or a counter-strike it is all under the umbrella of self defense. Perhaps you'll understand more clearly if we use a term that is more readily adhered to in the SD community....personal protection.

Son, you really don't need to talk to me about various tactics within self defence. My point is that I do know exactly what they are, I also know exactly what is found in the arts listed, and when I tell you it's completely removed from self defence, that's because it is.

As a result, ALL martial arts are designed for self defense (personal protection) without exception.

There are thousands of exceptions. Tell me, how is Jigen Ryu designed for self defence, or personal protection? How about Heki Ryu? Morishige Ryu? Owari-Kan Ryu? If you don't know these arts, pick any Ryu (traditional school) of Kyujutsu (archery), Hojutsu (gunnery) or Sojutsu (spearmanship)...

Whether they are taught that way or not is another matter.

Mate, that is simply, bluntly, and demonstrably wrong. I have already listed a number of martial arts that are incredibly "martial", and have nothing to do with self defence at all. If they are taught as self defence, then the instructor has no clue about the art he's teaching.

There is tendency for some to drift off into the more esoteric arts as an example of arts that are not for self defence.

Hmm, I wasn't getting esoteric at all, really... I was more looking at arts that are primarily martial, that are also not designed for, or related to self defence at all.

Although this thread is not strictly about that I would like to point out that certain weapon arts can translate into empty hand as well.

Sure.

Aikido for example contains a lot of elements from sword or jo.

Er.... kinda. Not really the same thing, though.

Filipino stick and knife arts also translate into empty hand

And there's a definite connection between the empty hand and weapon usage there, for the record.

and in the kendo clip that Chris posted as an example of something he trained that would not be used for self defence, I recognised multiple examples of potential unarmed 'self defence'.

Er.... "kendo"? Where was that?

If you're talking about the Kenjutsu clip, yeah, there can be some things that can be extrapolated, at a pinch, but that's really completely beside the point of that art. There's quite a lot that you'd need to get past first, if you were to make it into anything like a self defence system, you'd need to completely throw out everything that makes it the art that it is... which makes the entire activity pointless.

But this thread is not about other arts or other people or what is or isn't 'self defence'. None of those things matter.

Fair enough.

What I am trying to find with this poll is whether you as an individual feel that your form of martial art is providing you with the means of defending yourself in the situation where you are attacked on the street, in the pub or in your home for that matter.

The poll gives you the option to choose between the extremes of yes and no. :asian:

My answer would be "I don't see the connection between martial arts and self defence...."

Or, to quote Barney Stinson: I'm sorry I don't follow you.That's like saying 'how can an ant lift fifty times its body weight, but root beer floats are still delicious?'. Are the two even related?

Er... yes? And I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way.

You missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying you couldn't think it, I was saying that your belief has no basis in reality. It's fantasy.

Being snarky serves no purpose in an intelligent conversation. If you're opinion is different, that's fine. I would love to hear it. But there is no call for such a rigid dismissal of someone else's ideals.

No, not opinion. And, again, I wasn't being snarky. I was giving you insight into the fact that your belief is a fantasy. It's akin to saying that you believe the moon is made of cheese, because you heard it when you were little. I wasn't dismissive of your ideals, I was telling you that you are not correct, when looked at in the light of reality. And really, you have no real martial art background, having done a little military combatives (so have I), but studied no art, and you're trying to tell me what the results of martial training is...? For everyone that trains?? Really? You don't even rate your military combatives training highly... what makes you think that you'd know better than someone with three decades involvement in martial arts?

Abso-goddsdamn-lutely there is!!! I am sure I could think of several situations where it would be handy to know how to handle a katana or a bow to defend yourself.

This ain't the Hunger Games, you know. And, again, I do train with both of those, as well as training and teaching self defence, and believe me, the ability to think of some random hypothetical situation where some imagined attack is thwarted by the archaic, largely impractical weapon you just happen to be carrying at the time has absolutely nothing to do with self defence at all. It's, again, pointless fantasy.

I know absolutely nothing about any of those art forms, so I can't just say you're -wrong-, but from the outside looking in? If you're going to tell me that if your life depended on it and you had those tools available to yourself for use, but the art doesn't show you how to effectively use those against an assailant, then I would wonder why train in them if it isn't purely a hobby?

You should really just stop with stating that you "know absolutely nothing about these art forms". Because, frankly, I do know them. I know their context, I know their methods, I know their applicability, I know what they're designed to deal with, and I know the types of opponents they're geared up to work against. And, one more time, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything related to self defence.

And there are many reasons to train in them. Self defence is not the only reason to train in martial arts, you know.

I beg to differ.

Then you're wrong. Sorry, but that's again not an opinion, it's the reality.

When I said 'go to war' it was an all encompassing term. As a soldier you might be ordered to perform reconnaissance. You might be ordered to set up a TCP (Traffic Control Point). You might be ordered to even detain a HVT (High Value Target). That's all semantics when it comes to the point I am trying to make here. In any of those situations, you might encounter an enemy, and in any of those situations, the interaction with the enemy is pretty similar. It's you or him. Kill or be killed... unless he is the HVT you are trying to capture, but that's outside the scope of what I am saying here. It is very much the defense of oneself in killing an enemy at war, though it could be labeled a bunch of other things too. At the end of the day, he will kill you or worse, capture you, unless you neutralize him as a threat first. How is that not self defense?

Because none of that is self defence. Self defence is not, and I really want to make this clear here, it is not about physical combat prowess or simply facing someone who wants to hurt you. There are many, many contexts in which you can face against an opponent and have absolutely nothing to do with self defence. And really, if you don't understand that, or can't see it, you don't know what self defence is.

Like I said - the difference is the tools and tactics available to use.

That's not the difference. The difference is the context.

In war I have no compunctions or legal restraints (or at least not as many) about killing my enemy. Even if it weren't inherently clear that he meant to hurt or harm me, if it even looked like he was about to, I am completely justified in the taking of his life. In the civilian world? You have a bunch of other things to worry about, so a self defense situation isn't going to be as lethal 90% of the time. You're absolutely right here: if I kill someone for simply throwing a punch at me, chances are I am going to spend some time in jail. It's still self defense though, not matter what way you look at it.

No, it's murder or manslaughter. It's not self defence. To think it is is to have no real grasp of what self defence is.

Very true here, to an extent. Just because you are ordered into a dangerous situation doesn't take away the aspect of self defense. Civilian self defense? Absolutely. You have no reason to walk down that really dark alley towards that crazy dude holding a machete. In the military, you have every reason to walk through an insurgent-laden town, if it is ordered. But at the very basic sense, if you encounter conflict, no matter the environment - you have to defend yourself.

See, you're fixating on the idea of "physical methods of engagement including protecting yourself" being self defence... it's not. Here's an odd paradox for you... even if you have to defend yourself, that doesn't make it self defence. In the military scenario you describe above, you've put yourself (or been put) in a situation where you are required to engage. And sure, in the course of that, you might have to employ defensive actions. But it's not self defence anymore than it is in an MMA match, frankly. The scale and potential for real danger and risk are different, and I'm not saying that military engagement is the same as an MMA match at all, but I am saying that, simply due to the complete removal of the context, neither of them are self defence.

I don't believe the differences are that gigantic. The tactics, techniques, and equipment is vastly different, but that's it. At the end of the day, it is still defending yourself, you're just doing it in a different way.

Honestly, you're wrong. Again, sorry, but that's the reality.

I don't share the same experience as you do. I have cross trained more than 10 different CMA systems:

- Shuai Chiao
- long fist
- praying mantis
- Baji
- Zimen
- WC
- white ape
- Taiji
- XingYi
- Bagua

Every system has "fist meets face" technique.

If I can land my fist on my opponent's face first, I can avoid my opponent's fist to have any chance to land on my face. That's my way of "self-defense".

You know what, you're right. You don't have the experience I have. And that's not self defence, that's fighting. Big difference.

I know K-Man is looking for an individual opinion about their art. But I ran up on this page which I thought had some interersting points that go along with some of the comments on this thread. Especially what Chris Parker was saying.

http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/martial-arts-dont-work

Interesting... personally, I think the article(s) are a little hit-and-miss... there's some good material and concepts presented, but some are outright incorrect, and show a fair lack of understanding of some subjects. Additionally, he's (like many others, including those who think that they're dealing with self defence) only looking at one type of violence/attack, and missing quite a range of other forms that need to be dealt with. Some of his advice will help in some forms, but be quite a problem/escalation in others... in other words, depending on the context, his ideas can help or be quite hurtful to the person applying them.

I went with the last option.

I don't really know if the training I've had will help in a self defense situation. I am thinking: probably not.

I haven't been in many, if any, situations where my life was really in danger.

What training I do have in Army combatives is not very practical. There are some throws and restraints that might give cause to delay an attacker, and then there is the whole ground grappling portion which lower level combatives is structured around.

I can say this much: it has been of no use to me in my profession which says a lot in my opinion.

So you haven't really trained in any martial arts, only some army combatives, which you didn't think really helped much, and you don't think was very practical, but you're questioning my responses based on your vast experience? Hmm.

Ok, how is that any different then what I posted... I just said that self defense starts with the mind, and awareness of your surroundings and not being to distracted to notice whats going on around you.. I must be stupid because I don't see, how I posted anything incorrect with regards to self defense... I don't recall saying anything of substance,about techniques and why you would mention them with regards to my post...

I never said that techniques were important, I mentioned them in passing. I mentioned everything you did as important and yet you found some way to disagree. Some how im wrong, educate me, because I was not that far removed from you on this issue.

I mention techniques as a focus because, well, in the four sentences of the paragraph I quoted, they were the central topic of the first two, and provided the context of the next two. That, to me, certainly implies some attribution of importance. As far as how it's different, you were talking about a mental attitude (to "fight back and not cower") when you spoke of "self defence starts with the mind". I was saying that that's not where it starts... it starts with education of what self defence is, which leads to awareness (not just of what's going on around you) and recognition (of the realities). The "mental attitude" comes later.

 

[K-man]

I feel we need to define our terms as there is a difference between what 90% of people consider self defence and what 10% consider self defence and we are getting bogged down. So I suggest we take the legal definition of self defence and move on.

Self Defense Law & Legal Definition


Self-defense is the right to use reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm, or to a lesser extent, one's property, from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a defense to a criminal charge or to tort liability. To establish the defense, the person must be free from fault or provocation, must have no means of escape or retreat, and there must be an impending peril.


The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to prolong the attack or use excessive force. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/self-defense/

So perhaps we could look at self defence in this context. "Self Defence is the use of reasonable force to defend oneself where there is impending danger and no means of escape or retreat."
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

I'd argue that there's a difference between a legal definition to differentiate from assault and self defence as a practiced application. The legal one only begins at the end of the practiced form.

 

[Kframe]

Chris, In your long post, you have criticized just about everyone here's view of self defense as fantasy and wrong, yet you have not actually given your view of what self defense is. Since you seam to think that technique is not important, then what is self defense for us in the great unwashed? You have yet to define self defense, only lecture about your view of it. Your reality is not everyone elses, your answere is not everyone elses, nor does it make everyone else wrong.. Your being disrespectfull.

I have no idea what far out concept you have of self defense, but im pretty sure most people here, with regards to self defense are mainly talking about dealing with physical assults. In that regard, Most any martial art will due. Weather you like it or not, sometimes you have no warning of a impending assult, or that your going to be attacked. Guess what chief, I have first hand experience with it.