How can you become a good fighter if self-defense is your goal?

[Deleted member 39746]

So, what about things like general agility drills? Those aren't directly applicable to combat - they are one level (at least) removed.

They are related, as they are attribute building for combat. You dont know when you need to vault a wall, crawl under soemthing, dive for cover etc. Or contort yourself to hide in a cupboard while a masked serial killer is chasing you.

(the definition isnt exactly rock solid, but neither are some others in this subject)

 

[skribs]

Good question. That'd depend how folks look at it. I wouldn't say it's a self-defense situation, though the non-physical skills you talk about (what I classify as "self-protection") would apply to helping prevent that. And some of the physical fighting skills might be useful if only to keep from getting injured as they yank the bag away, but also if you decided you wanted to keep that fantastic bag.


Wasn't there a SNL skit with that theme, using dressing in a kids' sailor costume or something similar? Or did I just imagine that?

I don't know about SNL, but there is this scene from Malcolm in the Middle:

They are related, as they are attribute building for combat. You dont know when you need to vault a wall, crawl under soemthing, dive for cover etc. Or contort yourself to hide in a cupboard while a masked serial killer is chasing you.

(the definition isnt exactly rock solid, but neither are some others in this subject)

So indirect training only works if you can understand why it relates to the training. If you don't understand it, then you consider it fluff. This is why your perspective is so narrow. You've already decided what works and what doesn't, with barely any training and even less experience. You don't even understand what you consider "fluff" to know whether or not it's relevant.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They are related, as they are attribute building for combat. You dont know when you need to vault a wall, crawl under soemthing, dive for cover etc. Or contort yourself to hide in a cupboard while a masked serial killer is chasing you.

(the definition isnt exactly rock solid, but neither are some others in this subject)

My point is that they are movement exercises. Which is one role things like kata can serve (depending how they are used). If fight training doesn't include some sort of auxiliary fitness training and agility/balance work, it can still be decent fight training, but will be lacking compared to something more complete.

Sometimes "fluff" is either a misunderstanding of a drill's purpose, or just an example of someone misusing the drill. And sometimes it's just something for a non-fight purpose (which "-do" martial arts do usually have, on purpose).

 

[Deleted member 39746]

My point is that they are movement exercises. Which is one role things like kata can serve (depending how they are used). If fight training doesn't include some sort of auxiliary fitness training and agility/balance work, it can still be decent fight training, but will be lacking compared to something more complete.

Sometimes "fluff" is either a misunderstanding of a drill's purpose, or just an example of someone misusing the drill. And sometimes it's just something for a non-fight purpose (which "-do" martial arts do usually have, on purpose).

My definition, basically didnt make any kata that can actually be applied fluff. I mean the things you learn via kata that you will never use or learn how to use in a actual fight. Attribute building is not fluff under my definition. Kata can be divided into 3 groups, attribute building, spirtuality or direct application to fighting. (they can for sake of argument be put in more than one) The 2nd group is fluff in the definition, the third group is fluff if not taught or used in any actual live fighting drill. (paired is excluded as it is a "drill" for sake of argument)

I can agree with the last point in part, but if a kata has effectively lost its meaning, its fluff. It could be based in a valid point and situation but if everyones forgotten it or how to apply it in context, it is no longer effective and is fluff. Spirtuality for sake of argument is fluff, as above explains.

 

[Steve]

My point is that they are movement exercises. Which is one role things like kata can serve (depending how they are used). If fight training doesn't include some sort of auxiliary fitness training and agility/balance work, it can still be decent fight training, but will be lacking compared to something more complete.

Sometimes "fluff" is either a misunderstanding of a drill's purpose, or just an example of someone misusing the drill. And sometimes it's just something for a non-fight purpose (which "-do" martial arts do usually have, on purpose).

More doesn't necessarily equal more complete. It just equals more.

Training is a bit of a results oriented thing. If you're training folks and they can do what you're teaching them, the training works. A central problem with "self defense" training is that the training is also the result. Which leads to, among other things, undue focus on the training.

 

[skribs]

My definition, basically didnt make any kata that can actually be applied fluff. I mean the things you learn via kata that you will never use or learn how to use in a actual fight. Attribute building is not fluff under my definition. Kata can be divided into 3 groups, attribute building, spirtuality or direct application to fighting. (they can for sake of argument be put in more than one) The 2nd group is fluff in the definition, the third group is fluff if not taught or used in any actual live fighting drill. (paired is excluded as it is a "drill" for sake of argument)

I can agree with the last point in part, but if a kata has effectively lost its meaning, its fluff. It could be based in a valid point and situation but if everyones forgotten it or how to apply it in context, it is no longer effective and is fluff. Spirtuality for sake of argument is fluff, as above explains.

I'm glad you are so well trained in the kata that you know which ones can or can't be applied. Kudos to you for all of that hard work training the kata and learning them and their meaning. Kudos to you for all of your research into the techniques in the kata to test their practical application.

Oh...wait...

 

[Steve]

I'm glad you are so well trained in the kata that you know which ones can or can't be applied. Kudos to you for all of that hard work training the kata and learning them and their meaning. Kudos to you for all of your research into the techniques in the kata to test their practical application.

Oh...wait...

Hey man, if people here can be experts on self defense without ever self defensing, why can't someone be an expert on kata without kata'ing?

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Hey man, if people here can be experts on self defense without ever self defensing, why can't someone be an expert on kata without kata'ing?

Despite my repeated statements of me doing TKD. (and also not claiming to be a expert in anyway) Bemusingly, i have actually "self defenced" several times in my life if i recall situations correctly.

 

[Flying Crane]

My definition, basically didnt make any kata that can actually be applied fluff. I mean the things you learn via kata that you will never use or learn how to use in a actual fight. Attribute building is not fluff under my definition. Kata can be divided into 3 groups, attribute building, spirtuality or direct application to fighting. (they can for sake of argument be put in more than one) The 2nd group is fluff in the definition, the third group is fluff if not taught or used in any actual live fighting drill. (paired is excluded as it is a "drill" for sake of argument)

I can agree with the last point in part, but if a kata has effectively lost its meaning, its fluff. It could be based in a valid point and situation but if everyones forgotten it or how to apply it in context, it is no longer effective and is fluff. Spirtuality for sake of argument is fluff, as above explains.

And what exactly is your vast experience and education to know that this is an accurate description of kata?

 

[Flying Crane]

Despite my repeated statements of me doing TKD. (and also not claiming to be a expert in anyway) Bemusingly, i have actually "self defenced" several times in my life if i recall situations correctly.

Oh I get it now. The kata you were taught was fluff. I suppose because you had a lousy instructor.

Well, that makes sense then that you would perpetuate an opinion based on ignorance.

 

[skribs]

Despite my repeated statements of me doing TKD. (and also not claiming to be a expert in anyway) Bemusingly, i have actually "self defenced" several times in my life if i recall situations correctly.

And statements that you never even learned a Pattern, because you quit before you got that far. You're claiming to know what works and what doesn't, when you've never stayed long enough anywhere to do so.

As far as we're aware, you've done a couple months of TKD, some very bad self-teaching on a heavy bag, and then just read a bunch of articles and goofed off with your friends in the back yard. You make a lot of bold claims, but we've got 5-year-olds in my school with more martial arts experience than you. (As well as more humility and respect).

 

[drop bear]

Technically, the issue with Krav Maga is, people are appling it to things it doesnt exist to do, and also the thousands of break away schools claiming they do krav etc. Its basically the karate of the self defence/combatives world, even places that dont do it call themselves it.

Krav Maga in its correct role, is meant to give you the basics of fighting and thats it basically, they have since added upper level things (as is the trend) for people who want to treat it like a martial art and to give a longer learning peroid etc for the people who want to keep doing Krav, plus the realities of teaching in the civilian world that some people cant dedicate a month off of work to pay for a course and to tailor to a class by class model as opposed to a bloc of learning one.

That and i think the statement that "krav maga in the U.S is based on fear mongering" is apt.



Granted the above is apt for pretty much apt for all martial arts.

I don't think it ever really worked.

 

[drop bear]

Double post.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

More doesn't necessarily equal more complete. It just equals more.

Are you arguing that adding fitness training to fight skill training isn't going to improve fight capability?

Training is a bit of a results oriented thing. If you're training folks and they can do what you're teaching them, the training works. A central problem with "self defense" training is that the training is also the result. Which leads to, among other things, undue focus on the training.

Same song, same tune.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So, just to be clear, central to my question is the presumption that the "defense" for a bag snatch is to simply let it go. In other words, is the danger to oneself in a bag snatch entirely a function of trying to hold onto the bag?

I guess it all depends if the person gets tangled up in the straps and what's actually inside the bag. If there is nothing of value in the bag then I can see someone not making a big deal of it. But if there is something valuable in the bag then I can see someone hanging on or trying to fight the person off. For example. ID with address + house keys = try to fight for the bag. I can see how someone would want to prevent the person from going to the address on the ID and then using the key to get in and steal more stuff. I can see how the person may be thinking about preventing that future danger by fighting against the present danger.

But like I said. I don't carry a bag, so all if the bag snatching stuff is "foreign to me." To this day I have never taught how to deal with that scenario in any of my self-defense classes.

When my wife carries hers, I tend to position myself strategically around her so as to prevent someone trying to take an angle. Traditionally speaking in many cultures the man leads the way when walking. For the men in my family and with one of my friends. We walk behind the women of our family and guard the back. So none of the above applies to me. I always lock my car and that's just habit from living in or nearby rough areas. Living around rough areas changes a lot of behaviors in terms of personal safety. My wife has been stalked before by someone tailing her in the car while she was walking. I teach this method in self-defense classes but never, the bag snatch scenario.

My entire perspective on self-defense is to "become a hard target". People who do things like that, want easy targets that they can ambush or creep up on. If your behavior addresses that then those same criminals are more likely to pick someone that looks like an easier target. I can sum up my self-defense in one phrase. "Don't be the easy target."

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you don't test your skill in the ring daily, what kind of chance do you have when you step in the ring the 1st time?

Had they stepped into the ring for training then they would have understood the strengths and weaknesses enough to know when they are out skilled. There's actually a Sun Tzu quote.


“Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy, but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.”

or
" if you know the enemy and know yourself, the victory is not at risk. If you know the Heaven and you know the Ground, the victory is complete."

I think I'm going to train really hard for 2 probably 3 years due to corona lol.. Buy some silk tai chi clothes, become a self-proclaim master of some unknown made up system and then pretend that I can't fight lol. What would be the headlines then if I win?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Or contort yourself to hide in a cupboard while a masked serial killer is chasing you.

lol.. If that's who is chasing me, then I don't want to hide. I want to know where that guys is at every moment. I want reduce my visibility while maintaining my visibility on where the threat is. If I couldn't do it visually then I would need to use sound to help keep track of where the danger is.

I definitely wouldn't hide in a cupboard. There's no escape once you do that. lol

 

[JowGaWolf]

I mean the things you learn via kata that you will never use or learn how to use in a actual fight.

lol don't make me break out my sparring videos. I've been doing kung fu for so long now that I don't remember how I used to fight before kung fu. With the exception of the karate stuff. Both Karate and Kung fu uses Kata / forms. I can actually use the things that are in my kung fu form. Not all of it but a lot of it. The stuff I'm not able to use is because I don't understand it in the correct context of application.

There are lots of things that I see in kata that are actually used in fighting. My opinion on using Kata or Form in fighting, is that you have to spar against a system that is different than what you train, and you have to get into the ring to spar so that you can understand the technique better. When it comes to using Kata and forms when fighting, you have to understand the timing that's required and the only way to do that is to spar.

Here's a Jow Ga instructor explaining the form.

You will find it really difficult to fight using the techniques found in kata or forms if this is the the limits of your training. You can't learn it without sparring and you'll learn it faster if you try to use it against someone outside of your system.

 

[Martial D]

The majority of the skills you learn in the ring can be used in the real world as well. Plenty of people have effectively used pretty much every sport art I can think of in self defense. Off the top of my head, I can think of videos I've seen of guys using Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ, Karate, and Taekwondo to successfully win a street fight or fend off an attacker.

And as much as I argue with people like @Martial D and @drop bear as to the efficacy of non-sport arts, it's impossible to deny the benefits you get from sparring and competition. The people who spar the best are usually those in sport arts, where they test their skills in pursuit of a tangible goal (victory in the sport) instead of a nebulous goal (preparedness for a street fight).

Even if you don't compete, sparring against competent opponents is important to learn how to manage distance and timing, how to set up your opponents, and how to use your techniques effectively. The biggest criticism of a lot of the "no-fluff" combatives styles that you're proposing are that they don't spar, or they only spar with people trained in the combatives school, where bad habits might fester (because nobody in the school knows how to take advantage of them).

The only difference between a 'sport' art and a 'non sport' art is one of them is actually doing it.

Besides, TKD is also a 'sport' art, with the key difference that sport tkd no longer in any way resembles fighting, where as mma is the closest possible approximation.

 

[jobo]

The only difference between a 'sport' art and a 'non sport' art is one of them is actually doing it.

Besides, TKD is also a 'sport' art, with the key difference that sport tkd no longer in any way resembles fighting, where as mma is the closest possible approximation.

i was tkd kicked so hard that despite the pad i was holding i had seriously bruised ribs, it looked like a perfectly good fighting technique to me ?