Is all the Martial Arts and Self Defense techniques really that different to each other?

[Indie12]

No, technique wise they are not all that different! A punch is a punch and a kick is a kick, and a grab is a grab!

 

[Indie12]

Now this point we got to is what I always wonder about.
I never really understood why MA always seem to stick to the same tunnel.

With my personal experience I have come to a point where I believe a few corresponding simple bases allowing for complex response is the best way to go, yet most seem to do the exact opposite.
Could it be that most MA get stuck too much with too many versions of the same answer to the issue "combat"?

At least that is my personal view, how about you guys?

Keep it simple, if you make it too difficult you complicate things, which could have a disasterous result. (I know my spelling is off)

 

[fenglong]

Keep it simple, if you make it too difficult you complicate things, which could have a disasterous result. (I know my spelling is off)

Agreed, a problem of many Chinese styles in my opinion.

 

[Indie12]

Agreed, a problem of many Chinese styles in my opinion.

I would include all systems in that!

 

[Chris Parker]

Now this point we got to is what I always wonder about.
I never really understood why MA always seem to stick to the same tunnel.

With my personal experience I have come to a point where I believe a few corresponding simple bases allowing for complex response is the best way to go, yet most seem to do the exact opposite.
Could it be that most MA get stuck too much with too many versions of the same answer to the issue "combat"?

At least that is my personal view, how about you guys?

My personal view is that the above post is yet another example of how little you know about or understand about martial arts, especially the bold section (my emphasis).

First off, if you think all martial arts have the same "answers", then you don't know much about the variety of martial arts that exist. Second, the idea of base principles guiding all the responces within a martial art is exactly the way they all work, so thinking you've come up with something different is way off base. This is the big problem with coming up with "creative" responces to form a martial art, but I'll deal with that in the thread you have about that there. Thirdly you are again showing a lack of understanding of why martial arts develop in the first place.

Agreed, a problem of many Chinese styles in my opinion.

Not to bring another thread into this one again, but if that's how you think, why on earth are you wanting to spend a year living as a "martial arts hermit" in China then?

ok diferent martial arts have diferent doctorins and tactics. the end result is the same, but how they use the tools and get there is diferent.

take for instance a punch at an aikidost. ... he changes body and blends with the attack and redirects the attacker and usually uses attemei to finsh the take down... attemie is a strike usually to head or neck or eyes.. not nessesarily a hard punch either. if the attacker stays there the aikidost usually either calls the cops or walks away.. if he gets up, and attackes again, then he may slam him down harder, but usually is not using multiple strikes and things to make him stay down.. he may pin him with a lock and then call the cops ..

now an Okinawan karateka, he will change body and block and other wise redirect the energy and take down perhaps to, but he will strike at least once, often several times with hands or feet or both to put him down hard so he can not get up and continue the attack. then he may call the cops or just walk away.

diferent docterin and tactics to get to the same result.

Ha, don't really know about that....

For example, I train in some Traditional Sword Systems, the end result there is rather different to the end result from an Aikidoist, it must be said......

 

[Balrog]

I mean the human body can only move certain ways. Whether you strike with your palm, side of hand or fist, the movements of your arms and hands are basically the same. Strikes with elbows, knees and head can't differ that much between styles really, neither is any kicking movements any different between styles.

What do you guys think?

As has been said before, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick. If one learns to do a side kick with power, balance, focus and timing, does it matter whether they learned it as a karate student, a taekwondo student or a gung-fu student?

It's the mindset of first learning how to execute the technique and then learning how to properly use the technique that is important. And another famous saying, slightly modified, is that the ultimate goal of martial arts training lies not in victory or defeat, but in the perfection of the character of the student.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Martial arts don't all have the same answers, because they do not ask the same questions. A master in Iaido, a master in fencing, a master in boxing, and a master in Bang Bang Pow are all going to have very different answers. That being said, there are going to be similarities between each master.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Hi everyone!

This is just me being curious. What is really the difference between ALL the various forms of martial arts and self defense styles, when the techniques effective in real life violence are basically the same.

I mean the human body can only move certain ways. Whether you strike with your palm, side of hand or fist, the movements of your arms and hands are basically the same. Strikes with elbows, knees and head can't differ that much between styles really, neither is any kicking movements any different between styles.

What do you guys think?

We need to realize that there are two separate venues of the martial arts. One is centered on sports training and the other is centered on self-defense. There are substantial and dramatic differences and this reply isn't meant to put one above the other or degrade one in preference to another. It is simply to identify two separate animals. I made a more complete set of remarks here http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148268/1791679

But for a reader's digest version;

Sport training can be geared towards point sparring or submission contests or towards demonstrations i.e. forms (sometimes set to music or with glow-in-the-dark weapons etc). Although contact/submission matches are physical, they aren't self defense oriented. Here's why;

• A referee is involved for the purpose of enforcing pre-determined rules that were mutually agreed upon by each opponent.
• There are often timed rounds with a short break in-between where a player can catch his/her breath, get a drink of water, get some advise from a trainer.
• The match is in a well lit, dry, level, soft venue.
• The opponent is unarmed.
• The opponent is alone with little chance others will join in.
• Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
• The opponent usually isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
• If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
• The prize is a ribbon, plastic trophy or maybe cash.

Such training could utilize refined motor skills. It could employ a particular strategy i.e. wear the opponent down, put them against a corner and tie them up with a submission etc. Such strategy may involve making the match go long on time.

As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

• Where there is no referee enforcing rules. You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
• There are no rules.
• There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
• The assualt can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. I will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
• The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
• The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
• There is no safety gear, but likely a plethoa of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
• The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
• To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
• The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes.

SD training relies solely on gross motor skills. If it isn't a gross motor skill, it isn't a self defense technique. Under duress you will lose the abilty to operate with refined motor skills. You may have tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of dexterity in your extremities etc. SD training does everything possible to address these situations and deal with them.

SD training deals with the O.O.D.A. loop and flinch response. SD training is often outside the Dojo/Dojang. It should often be in street clothes. Shoes. Dim light conditions. Position of disadvantage. Sloping surfaces, grass, asphault, close quarters etc.

So those are my thoughts. Stay safe.

 

[Kenpo Missle 47]

krav maga seems very intresting , its a must i check it out !

 

[Kong Soo Do]

krav maga seems very intresting , its a must i check it out !

Krav Maga (from a qualified instructor) is an excellent self-defense art. I became a Hisardut (Survival) Krav Maga instructor back around 2000 or so. Very straight-foward system that uses a lot of gross motor skills and natural movements. The only thing I don't like is the edged weapon defense. For edged weapons I prefer the Lauren/Boatman 'pat-wrap-attack' method. I was able to become an instructor in this also around the same time frame as the KM. I'd recommend both highly.

 

[chinto]

My personal view is that the above post is yet another example of how little you know about or understand about martial arts, especially the bold section (my emphasis).

First off, if you think all martial arts have the same "answers", then you don't know much about the variety of martial arts that exist. Second, the idea of base principles guiding all the responces within a martial art is exactly the way they all work, so thinking you've come up with something different is way off base. This is the big problem with coming up with "creative" responces to form a martial art, but I'll deal with that in the thread you have about that there. Thirdly you are again showing a lack of understanding of why martial arts develop in the first place.



Not to bring another thread into this one again, but if that's how you think, why on earth are you wanting to spend a year living as a "martial arts hermit" in China then?



Ha, don't really know about that....

For example, I train in some Traditional Sword Systems, the end result there is rather different to the end result from an Aikidoist, it must be said......

well most systems when a weapon is used the end result is lethal. Kobujitsu that is very true of, and actually most Okinawan systems are predicated on a life or death situation.. generally aikido is not generally taught with the idea that a lethal outcome is desirable.

I was showing by example how the two different doctrines worked. one was to blend and use the softer technique, looking to just stop the attacker with less injury, and the other wants to do maximum damage to make sure there is no re-engagement with that attacker. other systems have slightly different doctrines and tactics then the two I mentioned.

all of your older styles are predicated on self defense. some more then others. but it is not en till you get to the 1920's and 30's on that you get the more sport oriented styles really happening by and large. ( one exception is kodokan judo.. but i understand they do reintroduce the more damaging techniques from jujitsu that were taken out for sport after shodan rank. )


there are a lot of different martial arts out there. Each has its own doctrine and tactics and philosophy to go with them. some are very similar and some are very different. however, most are designed and developed with survival in mind when attacked with lethal intent by armed and or unarmed attackers.

 

[Barry Drennan]

The real difference is "intent".

 

[Steve]

The real difference is "intent".

Welcome, Barry. Can you share a little more? What does intent mean to you?

 

[Barry Drennan]

Steve, Thank your question - In expanding of intent being the difference between Martial-Arts and Self-defense, we first have to accept the fact that the majority of Martial-Arts and more so martial artists are geared toward an intent of self-preservation in an uncontrolled violent attack. In uniquely focused self-defense self-preservation is the sole intent. In martial arts we have subdivisions, such as health-oriented e.g. common Tai Chi, we have pure sport e.g. Olympic Tae Kwan Do, we have club that have no sparring even though their techniques would allow them to, we also have the whole MMA/UFC approach. None of these carry the code of injuring with really bad intent. Nor do they emphasis the body anatomy, nor the preemptive ambush theory, nor a heavy emphasis on Situational Awareness and its various skills. It is simply not their intent. Here again a proper Self-Defense course/school will place these as an extreme intent in terms of intentional function. In a final and most decisive point I return to the point of injury. In an extremely high percent of Martial Arts it is an extremely low number of courses/ schools that emphasis injuring with bad intent. Where as in Self-Defense it is an extremely low number of course/schools that don't emphasis injuring with bad intent.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Steve, Thank your question - In expanding of intent being the difference between Martial-Arts and Self-defense, we first have to accept the fact that the majority of Martial-Arts and more so martial artists are geared toward an intent of self-preservation in an uncontrolled violent attack. In uniquely focused self-defense self-preservation is the sole intent. In martial arts we have subdivisions, such as health-oriented e.g. common Tai Chi, we have pure sport e.g. Olympic Tae Kwan Do, we have club that have no sparring even though their techniques would allow them to, we also have the whole MMA/UFC approach. None of these carry the code of injuring with really bad intent. Nor do they emphasis the body anatomy, nor the preemptive ambush theory, nor a heavy emphasis on Situational Awareness and its various skills. It is simply not their intent. Here again a proper Self-Defense course/school will place these as an extreme intent in terms of intentional function. In a final and most decisive point I return to the point of injury. In an extremely high percent of Martial Arts it is an extremely low number of courses/ schools that emphasis injuring with bad intent. Where as in Self-Defense it is an extremely low number of course/schools that don't emphasis injuring with bad intent.

Berry, great points. I have been thinking about starting a post regarding how important prioritize are in determining outcomes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In some arts, the key difference is the inclusion of (and often focus on) specific principles. In the aiki arts, for instance, even where the techniques are the same, there is often a focus on using aiki body principles in them. This can involve practices that seem (and in some cases are) well removed from direct application. Remembering that “-do” arts have a partial focus (primary or secondary, depending upon the system and/or school) on self-development, and these principles may be very entwined in that focus.

Even ignoring that focus, these principles can create a very different feel to some of the techniques.