Family-friendly vs. ruthless: responsible teaching

[StudentCarl]

In a couple of hours I'm off to help with the kids' class before I workout. When talking about practical use of Taekwondo, I notice that (at least where I am) we're pretty careful to teach good technique to everyone, but less specific about targeting to do the most damage except with more experienced adults.

I'm curious what you do and don't teach at different ages.
Just to add to the mix, here's a list of the MMA technique fouls from the Nevada State Commission. You're not supposed to do these in an MMA match:

• Butting with the head
• Eye gouging of any kind
• Biting
• Hair pulling
• Fish hooking
• Groin attacks of any kind
• Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
• Small joint manipulation
• Striking to the spine or the back of the head
• Striking downward using the point of the elbow
• Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
• Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh
• Grabbing the clavicle
• Kicking the head of a grounded opponent
• Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent
• Stomping a grounded opponent
• Kicking to the kidney with the heel
• Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck
• Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent
• Spitting at an opponent

What do you reserve for adults or select groups? Are there some things you just won't teach at all?

Carl

 

[K-man]

Firstly, I stopped teaching children. Under special circumstances I will accept a student under 18 but 18 is my normal starting point. Next, I prefer students who have achieved BB level in any MA. Finally, I no longer teach 'sport' karate.

As long as I can be reasonably confident my students are responsible adults I will teach them reality based SD including all the 'nasties'. If, at any time I feel my teaching is not suited to a particular student I will refer them to another school.

As a result, I don't have a lot of students and the ones I have are an older demographic than most schools.

I teach sound technique in the basics but the application is a lot more flexible. All strikes and kicks are strategically targeted. Unless you are into sport, I can't see the benefit of spending years pussyfooting around developing students who can't be reasonably expected to look after themselves in the event they need to use their MA skills.

So, I suppose what I teach is 'ruthless', but I hope not irresponsible. :asian:

 

[Gorilla]

I think a better term realistic\ rigorous training!

 

[ralphmcpherson]

At our school we leave all the "dirty" stuff for our self defence training. All other facets of our training stay within the respectable limits. When teaching self defence though, it is all about doing what ever is neccessary to destroy the opponent as quickly and effectively as possible. My daughter is still about 12 months off black belt and has lovely copy book technique in sparring, form, timber breaking etc but she knows if she is grabbed by someone in "real life" to eye gouge, kick/punch the testicles, attack the throat etc. She wouldnt do this in a schoolyard altercation obviously, but she knows if its "the real deal" its not about staying within the rules. Most of our self defence starts or finishes with attacking the vital points.

 

[puunui]

What do you reserve for adults or select groups? Are there some things you just won't teach at all?

I can tell you that when GM Ji first moved from Korea to the US and started teaching, he taught certain types of techniques in certain ways. Now I notice that he changed certain techniques to make them less lethal. Too bad, the original way I think it was better. Oh well.

But I can tell you that for most techniques, there is a safe way and an unsafe way of doing it, safe meaning you do not permanently injure your opponent. For example, a two handed eye gouge using the thumbs. Most people saw Steven Seagal do it in one of his movies and aim straight for the cornea, which will leave your opponent blind, or at the very least with serious eye damage. A better way of doing the same technique is to aim for the outside corners of the eyes. There is a natural ledge in there which you can grab a hold of. It hurts and is scary as hell, but when you let go, there is no permanent eye damage, or at the very least, the potential for eye damage is greatly reduced. It is a technique I learned from GM Mike Wollmershauser, who I think had some of the best hand techniques I have ever seen or felt.

Like I have said before, people misunderstand Hapkido and think that it is an art to kill or maim people, but that is not what Hapkido is about at all. If you think those kinds of thoughts and train with that sort of intention, then sooner or later it will return back to you. In self defense, the goal is to get the other person to stop bothering you, not permanently injure them. A hateful or destructive mindset runs counter to Hapkido's philosophy, or any martial art's philosophy really.

 

[msmitht]

Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.
When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.
When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.

I can see where you are coming from, but if someone ever grabs my daughter I hope she uses any means neccessary to get away.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.
When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.

OK, you are welcome to your opinion.

For me, someone tries to hurt me or someone els and I have the power to stop it I will do whatever I can to revoke their birth certificate.

 

[K-man]

Technique? I see no technique listed. Most of what you listed are brawing moves with one or two that could get you serious jail time, even if it was self defense.
When I was an infantry marine we were trained to kill and with good reason. Eye gouging, heel stomping, throat ripping were the norm. THESE ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR CIVILLIANS. I don't care how you try to rationalize it.

So it's alright for ex-service guys to have the knowledge to protect themselves under dire cicumstances but not ordinary people. They just accept that they could be badly beaten by thugs and are happy not to learn the things that could save their lives.

Something not quite right in that logic .... but, I suppose in the US you can just pull out a gun.

( ... and, I agree, these things are not suitable for children.)

On a brighter note, just what brawling technique can't I use to save my life? I must have read a different law book on self defence! I thought you could use whatever reasonable force is necessary. That can include lethal force if required. You will always have to justify your actions at a later time but as long as the risk remains, I don't see anything in that list I wouldn't use.

 

[K-man]

Here's a school that sounds as if they mean business. Coincidently, it is in Reno.

http://renokravmaga.com/classes.html

Here are just a few of the things that you can expect to learn...
* Knife Combatives
* Stick Combatives
* Handgun Combatives
* Carbine/Assault Rifle Combatives
* Improvised Weapons
* and much, much, more!

... and I shouldn't teach groin strikes, attacks to the eyes or throat, or a knee to the neck when my opponent is on the deck (still with a knife). BTW, these are all in the traditional Okinawan kata. I should keep it a secret, yes?

Give me a break! :asian:

 

[msmitht]

Always the same "well if my son/daughter/wife was being attacked..."
Get over it already. Teaching someone how to rip out another persons throat does not make your style "combat effective". Almost every striking system teaches a finger jab, groin kick, knee stomp...etc, so no, you are not special or unique.
And YES, weapon (gun) combatives should only be allowed for the armed services/police. Why would a teenager need to learn...wait a minute...I'm gonna stop. Some idiot will try to rationalize everything.
K man, your school can teach whatever it wants. Yay for you if someone sticks a gun in one of my kids faces they will probably crap themselves(a normal response. Saw it many times in iraqq) I too took a 4 hour KM seminar in vegas and got a cert saying I could teach it.

 

[jks9199]

Why shouldn't anyone willing and capable of being responsible be permitted to learn dangerous martial arts techniques? Can you guarantee that they'll never need them?

Some techniques are certainly not appropriate for teaching to children. Some students, no matter their age or maturity, simply don't want to learn that sort of thing, either. So be it... that's their call. There are teachers who teach nothing but sport or only the "fun family stuff" and they're legitimate places to train, with skilled practitioners. But that's a far cry from saying "only military & LE should learn" certain techniques. If a person is of good character (I won't teach those of bad character) and mature enough and willing to take on the responsibility, they have every right to learn any technique.

 

[StudentCarl]

I think a better term realistic\ rigorous training!

Rigorous relates to intensity, and realistic depends on the context (realistic for street or for national tournament). You can train rigorously for realistic tournament runs.

Think more like rated G vs rated R. I use the term ruthless to mean the (legitimate) purposeful use of techniques to immediately stop one or more opponents who are serious about maiming or killing your or those you care for.

I think there is a place for training both ruthless mindset and technique, but it clearly should not be taught to all students either by age or rank...hence the question about what to teach when, or whether you just "don't go there". I respect that as an option too.

 

[msmitht]

Why shouldn't anyone willing and capable of being responsible be permitted to learn dangerous martial arts techniques? Can you guarantee that they'll never need them?

Some techniques are certainly not appropriate for teaching to children. Some students, no matter their age or maturity, simply don't want to learn that sort of thing, either. So be it... that's their call. There are teachers who teach nothing but sport or only the "fun family stuff" and they're legitimate places to train, with skilled practitioners. But that's a far cry from saying "only military & LE should learn" certain techniques. If a person is of good character (I won't teach those of bad character) and mature enough and willing to take on the responsibility, they have every right to learn any technique.

Because most people are not capable of being responsible, especially when it comes to a technique that could kill or maim. We play the way we practice. If youlearn a knee stomp, eye gouge and throat strike combination and practice it enough then that will be your automatic response. Same with a jab, cross and hook combo for a boxer. I will agree that there are a few who could learn but why? As a marine I was trained to kill because that was my job. Why do average citizens need to learn the easiest way to break someones neck?

 

[granfire]

Because most people are not capable of being responsible, especially when it comes to a technique that could kill or maim. We play the way we practice. If youlearn a knee stomp, eye gouge and throat strike combination and practice it enough then that will be your automatic response. Same with a jab, cross and hook combo for a boxer. I will agree that there are a few who could learn but why? As a marine I was trained to kill because that was my job. Why do average citizens need to learn the easiest way to break someones neck?

Well, I think the deal is that 99% are playing MA. And really, you can't full out practice how to most effectively maim a body, because sooner rather than later you run out of training partners.

First of all, not everybody has the desire to know all of that, nor the need to.
Then there are those who are dangerous as it is, no need to add fuel to the fire there and really, there are only a few that need and want to learn 'it all'

 

[dancingalone]

Well, I think the deal is that 99% are playing MA. And really, you can't full out practice how to most effectively maim a body, because sooner rather than later you run out of training partners.

First of all, not everybody has the desire to know all of that, nor the need to.
Then there are those who are dangerous as it is, no need to add fuel to the fire there and really, there are only a few that need and want to learn 'it all'

I think you have hit on the crux of the matter. Of course, if we are teaching fully sanitized martial arts, it would probably be more honest to find another label for this activity. I think the broad public still associates martial arts with learning self-defense skills, sometimes of a violent and possibly lethal shape.

Maybe 'martial sport' or 'martial-themed exercise' could work.

 

[jks9199]

Because most people are not capable of being responsible, especially when it comes to a technique that could kill or maim. We play the way we practice. If youlearn a knee stomp, eye gouge and throat strike combination and practice it enough then that will be your automatic response. Same with a jab, cross and hook combo for a boxer. I will agree that there are a few who could learn but why? As a marine I was trained to kill because that was my job. Why do average citizens need to learn the easiest way to break someones neck?

Why shouldn't they? The easiest, most effective way to kill today is a firearm. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every citizen to have access to a gun, and there's no reason they can't learn various tactics and skills to use them combatively.

Are there some tactics and procedures used by the police or military that aren't necessarily appropriate to teach civilians? I've got mixed feelings. Because anything can be misused -- and we've got gang bangers serving now, bringing not only training, but real combat experience back to the streets and gangs. And tactics are adapted to situations, so learning one set of tactics isn't necessarily going to give you an edge if the cops come for you.

In the end -- I trust my students with the knowledge I share with them. If I don't -- they aren't my students.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Exactly Jks9199! Military, LEO's, Civilian, Children, etc. if someone faces a very violent situation then should they not have the skill sets to protect themselves and or their loved ones? Especially given the fact that when most (almost all) of these violent things happen there generally is not a military, LEO, etc. around. Now this does not denigrate LEO's it is just a fact that most predators do not attack their prey when protectors are standing around. (that is reality)

I say teach them as long as they are of good moral character and of course old enough to understand!

 

[puunui]

If a person is of good character (I won't teach those of bad character) and mature enough and willing to take on the responsibility, they have every right to learn any technique.

How do you determine whether someone has good vs. bad character?

 

[puunui]

I think the broad public still associates martial arts with learning self-defense skills, sometimes of a violent and possibly lethal shape.

If that were the case then commercial dojang filled with kids would not be the norm. Of the schools that give questionaires to new or potential new students, the majority check "discipline" or "respect" or "weight loss" instead of "self defense" as their reason for interest in enrolling.