How much do you really need?

[Flying Crane]

in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)... but anyway.

My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways. I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter. Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%. And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.

I don't believe a highly developed or elaborate strategy is necessary. A simple and straight forward approach, meant to end the encounter quickly, is what is needed. A more elaborate strategy is appropriate for competition fighting, where the fight will last long enough for that kind of thing to play out. A self-defense scenario won't last that long, and there isn't much room for an elaborate strategy.

These are my thoughts. Feel free to comment.

 

[marques]

A few thoughts.

You're doing well (avoiding physical conflict). When we are adults we can manage it quite easier managing our lifestyle. When we are kids... no so simple.

My (first and foremost) organisation was giving the same importance to what never happens or not dangerous (as wrist grab) and to what is really common and quite dangerous (as a punch in my face - at least it was what I feared the most). Of course, the 'freedom times' as sparring were there to solve it partially. Just to say that I would like to keep the same (extense) programme/syllabus, but giving more emphasis to some parts, instead of learning only the '6 good techniques' (even if the 6 are enough).

In self-defence, the strategy should be simple. Yet, it should be a good one. We need options. And then things may become more complicated and the 'competition fighting' strategies may become useful. (Of course, not exactly the same, but relatively the same level of complexity.)

Finally, self-defence was my first motivation. Now it is not. I just like to train. It is a vice. So, if there is fine art, with good body mechanics and understanding of human body and mind, I am happy training regardless if it will be eventually useful or not.

PS: I believe I saved my life (and more 2 lives going on the same vehicle) not by the self-defence training, but by a self-defence group lunch where we discussed safe driving and so on. It was all so new to me that I kept thinking about that for days (which is equivalent to real training if you visualise with enough intensity). And when I needed it I just did it, automatically. I would never react 'the good way' without that discussion and would be death (or without a leg...without 1 or 2 friends...). Hundreds of €€ and training hours may be justified in a second, or never (ignoring the heath and fitness benefits). This is why I say train if you like. Because otherwise, it may be a waste... or not! But most of the conflicts we can avoid as you do. To sum up, I used one simple technique, but the good one, out of many useless in that vital moment.

 

[MI_martialist]

No matter what fancy, advanced techniques one learns, if one was programmed at first with basic, simple, easily accessible applications, that is where one will return...leave the learning and go back to the programming.

As for not having a choice but to fight...there is always a choice....one can choose to stand there and take it without fighting. Only one who is well versed in fighting and defeating an opponent truly has the freedom to choose to not fight...

Competition sparring really should not be used in a real protective situation...the only rule that exists is survival...and the conditioning from competition sparring does not help achieve that goal...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)... but anyway.

My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways. I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter. Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%. And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.

I don't believe a highly developed or elaborate strategy is necessary. A simple and straight forward approach, meant to end the encounter quickly, is what is needed. A more elaborate strategy is appropriate for competition fighting, where the fight will last long enough for that kind of thing to play out. A self-defense scenario won't last that long, and there isn't much room for an elaborate strategy.

These are my thoughts. Feel free to comment.

The issue, for most of us, is that learning just a few techniques gets boring and we eventually move along. Having a more extensive "vocabulary" to learn, along with deeper physical principles, has kept me training and improving. It's all useful stuff, but some is more complex, so I keep finding more layers I can work on. That consistent practice means I'm always as ready as I can be to defend myself, rather than having several years of rust to dig through.

For my part, I've started moving as much of the simple stuff as possible to early teaching. This way, if a student quits after a few weeks, they are probably better prepared to defend themselves.

 

[MI_martialist]

The issue, for most of us, is that learning just a few techniques gets boring and we eventually move along. Having a more extensive "vocabulary" to learn, along with deeper physical principles, has kept me training and improving. It's all useful stuff, but some is more complex, so I keep finding more layers I can work on. That consistent practice means I'm always as ready as I can be to defend myself, rather than having several years of rust to dig through.

For my part, I've started moving as much of the simple stuff as possible to early teaching. This way, if a student quits after a few weeks, they are probably better prepared to defend themselves.

I agree...especially with the simple stuff at first...natural before formal will allow a newer person to access what is needed without the whole thinking.

In the end, no matter how fancy a technique is...it all boils down to specific limited movements permutated in different ways to express application. We need to focus on the core, core, core movement in all applications.

 

[marques]

The issue, for most of us, is that learning just a few techniques gets boring and we eventually move along. Having a more extensive "vocabulary" to learn, along with deeper physical principles, has kept me training and improving. It's all useful stuff, but some is more complex, so I keep finding more layers I can work on. That consistent practice means I'm always as ready as I can be to defend myself, rather than having several years of rust to dig through.

For my part, I've started moving as much of the simple stuff as possible to early teaching. This way, if a student quits after a few weeks, they are probably better prepared to defend themselves.

Following that logic, and after my academic experience... when we learn complex things, we keep the basics. When we just learn the basics, we forget everything.

Also, with more 'fun' you keep training, so ready to act effectively. If it is becoming boring and you quite... it may not work as you think when you need it.

'Complexity' may have uses that are not the direct applications...

 

[Kickboxer101]

I kind of agree that basics will always be what you mainly use but I do think you shouldn't just rely on them either its best to get as many tools as you can. E.g even if I threw a jab a certain way it's always good to learn a couple different ways just in case that way fails or doesn't work for that situation

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No matter what fancy, advanced techniques one learns, if one was programmed at first with basic, simple, easily accessible applications, that is where one will return...leave the learning and go back to the programming.

As for not having a choice but to fight...there is always a choice....one can choose to stand there and take it without fighting. Only one who is well versed in fighting and defeating an opponent truly has the freedom to choose to not fight...

Competition sparring really should not be used in a real protective situation...the only rule that exists is survival...and the conditioning from competition sparring does not help achieve that goal...

It does help achieve that goal. That conditioning includes reflexive blocking, often hitting to win, maintaining distance until ready to strike, and many other concepts that are useful in self-defense. Lumping together all competition training as useless for self-defense is an extreme over-statement.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I kind of agree that basics will always be what you mainly use but I do think you shouldn't just rely on them either its best to get as many tools as you can. E.g even if I threw a jab a certain way it's always good to learn a couple different ways just in case that way fails or doesn't work for that situation

I agree with this. The basics leave gaps, and more variations can help fill those gaps. In fact, some of the techniques I teach, I refer to as "gap fillers", because they wouldn't be what you reach for under most circumstances - they show up when the basic stuff fails or doesn't fit.

In addition to that, some of the deeper, more complex stuff actually lets us focus on principles that are masked by the simple stuff. There are techniques that will work absent some useful principles that should be there. And there are techniques that will absolutely fail without those same principles. We often use the latter to improve the former, by developing those principles.

 

[Kickboxer101]

I agree with this. The basics leave gaps, and more variations can help fill those gaps. In fact, some of the techniques I teach, I refer to as "gap fillers", because they wouldn't be what you reach for under most circumstances - they show up when the basic stuff fails or doesn't fit.

In addition to that, some of the deeper, more complex stuff actually lets us focus on principles that are masked by the simple stuff. There are techniques that will work absent some useful principles that should be there. And there are techniques that will absolutely fail without those same principles. We often use the latter to improve the former, by developing those principles.

I know my name is kickboxer but I have been getting more back into my kenpo background as well as kickboxing I love both equally for different and they compliment each other well but anyway in kenpo the higher flashier looking techniques have a lot of similiar stuff to the basics it's just rearranging them putting the same moves into different scenarios so they're not actually more complicated and are easier to learn than the early tecniques because you already know those moves

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know my name is kickboxer but I have been getting more back into my kenpo background as well as kickboxing I love both equally for different and they compliment each other well but anyway in kenpo the higher flashier looking techniques have a lot of similiar stuff to the basics it's just rearranging them putting the same moves into different scenarios so they're not actually more complicated and are easier to learn than the early tecniques because you already know those moves

There's a good bit of that in NGA, as well. Techniques are held for late in the curriculum, at which point they are fairly easy to learn - in fact, some students "discover" them before they are taught.

 

[KangTsai]

More moves are just more options. That's not really detrimental is any way, is it?

 

[Touch Of Death]

The point is not to have an elaborate strategy; the point is to have a strategy...

 

[drop bear]

If there is a thin chance you may get in a fight at some point in your life. Training is probably not that high a priority.

If you absolutely are going to get into a fight. Then do as much training as you physically can.

 

[Justin Chang]

in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)... but anyway.

My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways. I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter. Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%. And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.

I don't believe a highly developed or elaborate strategy is necessary. A simple and straight forward approach, meant to end the encounter quickly, is what is needed. A more elaborate strategy is appropriate for competition fighting, where the fight will last long enough for that kind of thing to play out. A self-defense scenario won't last that long, and there isn't much room for an elaborate strategy.

These are my thoughts. Feel free to comment.

Great thread topic!
I have been thinking about this a lot in the last few years especially when I think about Krav Maga which in my understanding was developed to quickly teach the Israeli people how to defend themselves effectively. I always wonder how they keep students (if they do) for any length of time. Krav Maga is (in my opinion) supposed to be a quick and dirty Self-Defense system like our version of the military basic training (Modern Army Combatives) or whatever the military is teaching at boot camp nowadays. You don't often see this taught as a martial art to be studied for years, it is a program that you take and maybe every now and then you re-certify in it. I wonder if systems like Krav Maga wouldn't be best if taught as a 8-10 week course.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If there is a thin chance you may get in a fight at some point in your life. Training is probably not that high a priority.

If you absolutely are going to get into a fight. Then do as much training as you physically can.

The approach most of us studying for self-defense take is simple: the priority only changes when you need it, and then it's too late. So, we make it a higher priority. Of course, as with sport, there's a lot more benefit we get from it (community, fitness, accomplishment, etc.), so we can enjoy it, even hoping we never actually need it again.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Great thread topic!
I have been thinking about this a lot in the last few years especially when I think about Krav Maga which in my understanding was developed to quickly teach the Israeli people how to defend themselves effectively. I always wonder how they keep students (if they do) for any length of time. Krav Maga is (in my opinion) supposed to be a quick and dirty Self-Defense system like our version of the military basic training (Modern Army Combatives) or whatever the military is teaching at boot camp nowadays. You don't often see this taught as a martial art to be studied for years, it is a program that you take and maybe every now and then you re-certify in it. I wonder if systems like Krav Maga wouldn't be best if taught as a 8-10 week course.

The issue would be that after 8-10 weeks, the motor habits would degrade quickly. The value of long-term MA study of any kind is largely in the building of durable "muscle memory" (mostly myelin sheathing of neurons and activation of neural pathways).

I've been working on a KM-inspired curriculum extracted from NGA. The idea would be to teach a few basic movements, never get into the Classical forms, and deliver it as a series of workshops. It would have reasonable value if the students followed up by coming to classes 2-3 times a month after completion, to keep honing their skills and building that muscle memory.

 

[Kickboxer101]

If there is a thin chance you may get in a fight at some point in your life. Training is probably not that high a priority.

If you absolutely are going to get into a fight. Then do as much training as you physically can.

I don't think anyone absolutely knows they're going to get in a fight people train because they enjoy it that's the main thing

 

[Justin Chang]

The issue would be that after 8-10 weeks, the motor habits would degrade quickly. The value of long-term MA study of any kind is largely in the building of durable "muscle memory" (mostly myelin sheathing of neurons and activation of neural pathways).

I've been working on a KM-inspired curriculum extracted from NGA. The idea would be to teach a few basic movements, never get into the Classical forms, and deliver it as a series of workshops. It would have reasonable value if the students followed up by coming to classes 2-3 times a month after completion, to keep honing their skills and building that muscle memory.

This is why I study KAPAP instead of Krav Maga, for me KAPAP goes further and is more about long term study and Krav Maga (in my opinion) was designed and should be a simple easy to remember course on self protection.

 

[wingchun100]

Since most people do NOT train in martial arts, you are right: usually simple is better. Every now and then you might have a self-defense scenario where the person is naturally a good fighter, but I think those are more rare than one might think. In a competition, you need to know more because your opponent knows more.