It's impossible to teach someone "Self Defense"

[punisher73]

It doesn't matter what ANY art teaches whether it's punches or kicks, or grappling. It all comes down to MINDSET. Let's take Kyokushin for example, the person enters that dojo and learns how to dig deep and keep fighting through the pain and apply what they need to on a resisting opponent. We take another person and teach them western boxing, and they do the same thing, keep a licking and keep on ticking. Then we put another person in BJJ, and everytime they start to get in a bad place they give up and tap even though they weren't at risk yet of a submission, just a bad position or we could have said the boxer only trains on the pads and hates any contact so he won't spar in the ring. Which one do you think would do better in a self-defense situation? It's NOT the art that matters because we can switch ANY of those arts around apply the same types of people to them. One of the things that combative sports (in all it's forms, eastern or western) DOES have an advantage is developing that competitive mindset of not giving up. People tend to learn how to tune into that mindset or they quit. Many arts are trained that the person doesn't have to tune into that attitude and they don't develop it. Then there are some that through life have already got that never give up mindset and probably would be fine without formal training for most situations.

So, while you can't "train" self-defense, I think the various arts give someone the path to self-discovery so they can teach it to themselves through their actions.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Animals "spar" to learn more about pack dynamics then how to actually fight - its about pecking order and mating nothing more.

Not true. Quite a few animals fight to the death. They also learn to hunt and capture prey if they are predators and how to fight back and try to avoid being eaten if they are prey. They learn these techniques by play fighting when young. Play fighting is sparring. Then they know what to do when it's for real.

How does a wolf know where to bite a deer to bring it down? Partially it may be instinct. Partially it may be from watching its parents do it. And partially from applying the same technique to his brothers and sisters as a pup, just not so hard.

 

[Steve]

Animals "spar" to learn more about pack dynamics then how to actually fight - its about pecking order and mating nothing more.

People can definitely be taught how to defend themselves but as someone put it - it comes down to "how" they train. Bruce Lee said "we all have two arms and two feet" and in combat, sports or self defense this is true so what does that tell us? Well, there might be an infinite number of techniques and scenarios but there is really not that many different ways to move. Study how the human body moves and its dependencies and then train for the physical and mental affects of being put in that type of situation along with drive and aggression and you get a very high percentage outcome.

At some point animals do it for real. That's where they move from pups or cubs to actual, functional predator.

I hope it's clear that I'm not suggesting that you can't train up to a certain level of rudimentary competence. What I'm really getting at is that there is a ceiling above which you will not progress without practical application. And in our society, the catch 22 is that most of us are lucky enough to seldom need tactical self defense skills such as gun disarms and such. Certainly, the folks who are in self defense situations often enough to move beyond competence and into what we could legitimately call expertise are rare.

And as a consequence, we have people learning 'self defense' in a system, and then eventually TEACHING self defense as a system to others without anyone really be practical experts.

 

[Chris Parker]

Steve, with respect mate, I think the entire premise of this thread shows a gap in your experience of other training methods. Training for self defence is absolutely possible, and believe it or not, it really doesn't involve sparring (in the sense of a competition between two people). Perhaps you've just never seen actual self defence training?

 

[Steve]

I believe that training for self-defense is possible. It's not perfect, because not every situation can be anticipated. But it is far better than nothing, in my opinion.

I think that it's far better to focus on objectives in training that CAN be perfected. As I said before, you can train for self defense, but you are as likely as not to be learning from someone who has little to no first hand experience him or herself. And even with experience, it is unlikely that he or she will have enough experience to be legitimately called an expert.

I've said before that in a self defense situation, my ideal back up would be a well trained MMA fighter who has common sense, has some awareness of his surroundings and isn't a jerk.

The kicks and punches, in the clinch and on the ground, the MMA fighter is executing his techniques against a range of opponents in situations that are unscripted and at full speed. The difference between this and some other martial arts isn't necessarily in techniques. It's in the stated goals and purposes of the training. As Tez often says, MMA is a sport. The athletes are training for that sport. And so MMA training, while clearly NOT self defense training, is well trained and there is a clear path to expertise.

 

[Steve]

Steve, with respect mate, I think the entire premise of this thread shows a gap in your experience of other training methods. Training for self defence is absolutely possible, and believe it or not, it really doesn't involve sparring (in the sense of a competition between two people). Perhaps you've just never seen actual self defence training?

Maybe so, Chris. I don't know a lot of martial arts styles. But I am pretty up on how people learn, believe it or not, and my experience has been that the subjects are largely irrelevant.

And as I'm hoping to clarify a bit, I'm not suggesting that the training is questionable as such. Really, what I'm driving at is more that the objectives are questionable because they offer no realistic opportunity for the student to move beyond, at best, a comprehension level understanding of the material. In other words, the average "self defense" student will never have an opportunity to apply the skills and so the skills will remain theory. And in some cases, these students become instructors.

There are a number of potential benefits to training in every martial arts style. My parents train in Tai Chi and they love it. They are learning blocks and punches and kicks, but they understand that the objective of their training isn't self defense.

 

[Steve]

It doesn't matter what ANY art teaches whether it's punches or kicks, or grappling. It all comes down to MINDSET. Let's take Kyokushin for example, the person enters that dojo and learns how to dig deep and keep fighting through the pain and apply what they need to on a resisting opponent. We take another person and teach them western boxing, and they do the same thing, keep a licking and keep on ticking. Then we put another person in BJJ, and everytime they start to get in a bad place they give up and tap even though they weren't at risk yet of a submission, just a bad position or we could have said the boxer only trains on the pads and hates any contact so he won't spar in the ring. Which one do you think would do better in a self-defense situation? It's NOT the art that matters because we can switch ANY of those arts around apply the same types of people to them. One of the things that combative sports (in all it's forms, eastern or western) DOES have an advantage is developing that competitive mindset of not giving up. People tend to learn how to tune into that mindset or they quit. Many arts are trained that the person doesn't have to tune into that attitude and they don't develop it. Then there are some that through life have already got that never give up mindset and probably would be fine without formal training for most situations.

So, while you can't "train" self-defense, I think the various arts give someone the path to self-discovery so they can teach it to themselves through their actions.

This is getting to the heart of it. You can't teach self defense. So it's about being specific about what you CAN teach. In a combative sport, you will be taught the techniques of that sport, and the mechanism for developing the expertise will promote the appropriate mindset. The competition is what I'm referring to when I say that there is a clear path to developing expertise (not competence, proficiency or familiarity, but actual expertise).

Not everyone who trains in a combative sports style will become an expert. Rather, the experts have truly internalized the techniques to the point that they can intuitively adapt them to suit any situation.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think this is devolving into semantics. It's like saying you can't teach someone to kill a human being with a rifle, because you're not allowed to shoot human beings with rifles under most circumstances, they won't know how to do it until they do it. True. But we still call it self-defense and for good reason. What would you have us call it, 'not really self-defense but an analog that is imperfect but as close as we can get to the real thing'?

I'm going to keep calling it self-defense. The term is fine as-is.

 

[Chris Parker]

Maybe so, Chris. I don't know a lot of martial arts styles. But I am pretty up on how people learn, believe it or not, and my experience has been that the subjects are largely irrelevant.

But I'm not talking about how people learn (I'm pretty up on that myself, for the record), I'm talking about different ways of drilling and training, which are designed to do exactly what you're saying can't be done... move into application in a realistic fashion.

And as I'm hoping to clarify a bit, I'm not suggesting that the training is questionable as such. Really, what I'm driving at is more that the objectives are questionable because they offer no realistic opportunity for the student to move beyond, at best, a comprehension level understanding of the material. In other words, the average "self defense" student will never have an opportunity to apply the skills and so the skills will remain theory. And in some cases, these students become instructors.

I'd probably suggest more reading into things like Geoff Thompson's approach, RBSD approaches, scenario drilling, and the like, because they are designed to do exactly that. They far more realistically mirror actual assault conditions, far more than sparring does, and are a way of realistically training an application of the theories and concepts.

Really, Steve, self defence can be trained and taught, and is trained and taught. I just don't think you've ever experienced it, honestly. And that's not an attack, really, as it's not your focus, so it's hardly something you would have sought out, but then saying that it's impossible to teach is a little out of order I'd say. Personally, I spend a lot of time teaching it.

There are a number of potential benefits to training in every martial arts style. My parents train in Tai Chi and they love it. They are learning blocks and punches and kicks, but they understand that the objective of their training isn't self defense.

Agreed that not everyone is coming to martial arts looking for self defence. Some are interested in the fitness, or competition, or meditation, or whatever. And I've gone on record here a number of times saying that there are no martial arts that are actually geared towards self defence in a modern Western setting a number of times. There's also no denying that the "self defence" courses often leave a lot to be desired. But that in no way means that self defence can't actually be taught. Otherwise I might as well say that teaching three sectional staff is impossible, as I've never learnt it or really been exposed to it, and haven't seen how it really is taught.

 

[Steve]

I think this is devolving into semantics. It's like saying you can't teach someone to kill a human being with a rifle, because you're not allowed to shoot human beings with rifles under most circumstances, they won't know how to do it until they do it. True. But we still call it self-defense and for good reason. What would you have us call it, 'not really self-defense but an analog that is imperfect but as close as we can get to the real thing'?

I'm going to keep calling it self-defense. The term is fine as-is.

Yeah, maybe. I'm not talking about the words though. You can call it whatever you want. But unless someone is going to be in self defense situations often, they will NEVER become an expert in self defense. It's just not going to happen.

In the same way, you can teach a soldier to fire a rifle and do your best to simulate combat conditions, but until they are IN combat situations, they will never become "experts" at it.

My point isn't to say that you can't teach usable skills. It's simply to suggest that because most of us are lucky enough to live in relative safety, we will likely never have an opportunity to advance our "self defense" skills beyond perhaps one step over theory.

 

[Steve]

But I'm not talking about how people learn (I'm pretty up on that myself, for the record), I'm talking about different ways of drilling and training, which are designed to do exactly what you're saying can't be done... move into application in a realistic fashion.

Soldiers go through basic and advanced training, but there is a functional leap between training and reality that must be bridged by actually taking the plunge. Unless that's done, all of the training remains theory, and I'm wondering if it isn't deceptive to suggest otherwise.

I'd probably suggest more reading into things like Geoff Thompson's approach, RBSD approaches, scenario drilling, and the like, because they are designed to do exactly that. They far more realistically mirror actual assault conditions, far more than sparring does, and are a way of realistically training an application of the theories and concepts.

Again, I think you're missing my point. I'm sure you can get closer, but there will always be a gap that will NEVER be bridged by the student between theory and application unless they are actually in real self defense situations on a regular basis.

Really, Steve, self defence can be trained and taught, and is trained and taught. I just don't think you've ever experienced it, honestly. And that's not an attack, really, as it's not your focus, so it's hardly something you would have sought out, but then saying that it's impossible to teach is a little out of order I'd say. Personally, I spend a lot of time teaching it.

Agreed that not everyone is coming to martial arts looking for self defence. Some are interested in the fitness, or competition, or meditation, or whatever. And I've gone on record here a number of times saying that there are no martial arts that are actually geared towards self defence in a modern Western setting a number of times. There's also no denying that the "self defence" courses often leave a lot to be desired. But that in no way means that self defence can't actually be taught. Otherwise I might as well say that teaching three sectional staff is impossible, as I've never learnt it or really been exposed to it, and haven't seen how it really is taught.

I hope it's clear that I'm enjoying the discussion and am learning a lot. I put this out there to see what you guys think about it, and if I'm flat out wrong, that's okay.

But, I still think there's a disconnect. It's not the quality of training I'm referring to. It's the gulf between comprehension and application. The bridge between knowing how to do something in a lab and knowing how to do it amid chaos. I'm wondering whether it's a mistake to believe that an expert in self defense techniques learned in a school translates to expertise in real world self defense. And further, that this lack of expertise is compounded when that student becomes an instructor.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, it's seeming to me that you're defining the idea of "teaching self defence" to necessarily include actually using said lessons in self defence. And that, to me, is the disconnect here.

Learning something, or teaching something, is just that, learning and teaching. When you train in BJJ and learn a new sweep, or a new escape, if you haven't applied it yet in competition, but have drilled it thoroughly, including against a partner who is trying to stop you, or at least offer some resistance so you have to work to get it, are you saying that you haven't actually learnt it? Personally, I'd say you had. You may have not applied it in a live situation, but that's not the only way of learning... and, when it comes to self defence, is that really the time to discover that you haven't learnt it as you didn't drill it properly in class in the first place? Just because you get into a situation doesn't make you an expert, whereas more time drilling and training (learning) can, whether you ever end up applying it in a live situation or not.

Oh, but for the record, I have been in self defence situations and similar and used exactly what I teach as self defence. Just to ensure that that part isn't missed if we're talking about a removal of real experience from the instructor's side of things.

 

[jasonbrinn]

Bruce Lee also said:



and:

Nice. You got me.

So yes, Bruce Lee said those things to and I would love to argue what I believe he was actually meaning by those statements but for now let me just say that...uhhh I hate this....I actually disagree with Bruce Lee on SOME (very few) things. That hurt to write.

 

[punisher73]

One disconnect that I see is how the brain works and how many instructors have made money by talking about a certain approach. Namely, the often quoted stats about how many repetitions it takes to "master" a physical movement. For many activities I would say that is true, especially in sports. BUT, that also doesn't take into account the subconscious mind that logs all information into the brain.

How many of us have met people or heard of someone that after taking a self-defense class or learned a new technique in class actually used it to protect themselves in a real S-D situation? I have met people who have and also have done it myself. When the mind is allowed to control things it can do some pretty amazing stuff that was never "mastered" or repped enough to come close, it just didn't get in the way.

But, how do you quantify that or try and teach that? I think that is one reason why many eastern MA teach meditation alongside the physical techniques. They understand that the mind is more powerful than the body and if left to do it's job does it better than the conscious part of us can and practice their training through lots of partner drills. This approach to lethal combat has been used for thousands of years. Less lethal and dangerous methods of sparring were also used to help instill other attributes like mindset and as many RBSD instructors train using the adrenaline stress training. I think that both are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Steve]

Hmm, it's seeming to me that you're defining the idea of "teaching self defence" to necessarily include actually using said lessons in self defence. And that, to me, is the disconnect here.

Learning something, or teaching something, is just that, learning and teaching. When you train in BJJ and learn a new sweep, or a new escape, if you haven't applied it yet in competition, but have drilled it thoroughly, including against a partner who is trying to stop you, or at least offer some resistance so you have to work to get it, are you saying that you haven't actually learnt it? Personally, I'd say you had. You may have not applied it in a live situation, but that's not the only way of learning... and, when it comes to self defence, is that really the time to discover that you haven't learnt it as you didn't drill it properly in class in the first place? Just because you get into a situation doesn't make you an expert, whereas more time drilling and training (learning) can, whether you ever end up applying it in a live situation or not.

Oh, but for the record, I have been in self defence situations and similar and used exactly what I teach as self defence. Just to ensure that that part isn't missed if we're talking about a removal of real experience from the instructor's side of things.

Sort of, Chris.

I'll try to use golf as a metaphor. I want to learn to play golf, so I go to the driving range and sign up for lessons from Phil Mickelson. Phil is a tremendously successful, elite level golfer who should be more than qualified to teach me. Right?

So, Phil teaches me to play golf, but there aren't any golf courses around me. Not one. Not within 100 miles, and for whatever reason I don't have the time, money or circumstances to ever play a round of golf. So, I go to the driving range and I hit balls. And I'm really, really good at hitting them. In the sterile laboratory of the range, I can hit a ball. But I've never played a round of golf. I have never experienced a tough lie or a tricky dogleg. There's a gap that exists for me and while I can pretend on the range, nothing will replace the pressure of having one chance to hit the ball correctly. No mulligans. I'm on the tee and this is my one chance to hit the ball well. I never experience this.

Now, I am not saying that this is bad. I should be able to adapt. At some point, once I take the leap and start playing rounds of golf, I will get the experience.

My point, though, is this. What if I don't? Most people who train in something billed as self defense never do.

Further, what if I don't AND I begin to teach others what I know. I know enough to appear credible, but having never played golf on a course, I am lacking experience that will have allowed me to move from borderline competence to expertise. And I'm passing that inexperience on to my students. Who may very well do the same.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm. Honestly, Steve, I'm not fond of the golf metaphor you're fond of, and I've said so a few times before, mainly as I don't see it as being even close to the same situation, really. But if we're going to use it, let's look at it properly.

Going off on a round of golf is fine, and is what is done (metaphorically speaking) in self defence training. It's not just swinging on the driving range. The better simile for you to use isn't a round of golf, it's playing in the US Masters. Now, does not playing in the Masters mean you're not a golfer? Not at all. And that's a far more accurate comparison, really.

Just hitting a ball at a driving range isn't the equivalent of any form of training in self defence or martial arts. It would be the equivalent of only learning sweeps from the guard, no submissions, nothing from mount, no escapes etc. The stroke for a drive is only one part of the golf game, you'd also need to drill a short game, and putting. In other words, have a complete skill set. Just driving isn't that. And unless you're suggesting that a self defence instructor (such as myself, for instance) is offering an incomplete skill set, it's just a bad metaphor. Not to mention the application side of things is so far removed you might as well have talked about learning to knit, then saying that if you never knit a scarf, or a jumper, you're not a knitter. It's really that far removed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yeah, maybe. I'm not talking about the words though. You can call it whatever you want. But unless someone is going to be in self defense situations often, they will NEVER become an expert in self defense. It's just not going to happen.

In the same way, you can teach a soldier to fire a rifle and do your best to simulate combat conditions, but until they are IN combat situations, they will never become "experts" at it.

My point isn't to say that you can't teach usable skills. It's simply to suggest that because most of us are lucky enough to live in relative safety, we will likely never have an opportunity to advance our "self defense" skills beyond perhaps one step over theory.

Yeah, that's semantics. You're arguing that what we call 'self-defense' isn't, the reason being that it's not actual self-defense, which cannot occur in a simulated environment. Point taken. So what do we call what we do? I call it self-defense, while not disagreeing with you that it's not 'real' self-defense. Give me a different word, then. Until then, you're arguing about what we call it, not what it is.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, that's semantics. You're arguing that what we call 'self-defense' isn't, the reason being that it's not actual self-defense, which cannot occur in a simulated environment. Point taken. So what do we call what we do? I call it self-defense, while not disagreeing with you that it's not 'real' self-defense. Give me a different word, then. Until then, you're arguing about what we call it, not what it is.

What I'm suggesting is that you call it what you are actually learning. Let's say, Karate. That is the point. If it's not self defense, call it what it actually is.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What I'm suggesting is that you call it what you are actually learning. Let's say, Karate. That is the point. If it's not self defense, call it what it actually is.

Then the words 'self-defense' shall be stricken from the English language. They don't exist because there is no such thing. Done.

 

[Steve]

Then the words 'self-defense' shall be stricken from the English language. They don't exist because there is no such thing. Done.

Not true. There are people who are in positions to develop expertise in self defense, albeit each with different emphasis. Bouncers, LEOs, people who are in situations where they are required to defend themselves. In other words, not most of us here.