kata?

[Buka]

learning one thing with a focu in another doesn't turn the first into the second. In that vinn diagram, it can perhaps enakrge the area of overlap, but that's it. If you're learning karate, you are developing expertise in that, and not something else. In the same way that when you learn aikido or bjj, you are learning that and not so wing else.

Even the concept of bunkai is the process of learning kata and then divining application of that kata. The kata is the exercise. It's the skill being learned. Any other benefits are ancillary to the physical skill. It's like a solo drill in judo or bjj.
to call a defending a thrust kick in light sparring "self defense" training is so far away from what the self defense "experts" around here chide others for, it's nuts. But that standard seems only to apply to a few.

Karate is trained to improve one's skill in karate in the same way that BJJ is trained to improve one's skill in BJJ. That there is crossover for self defense is incidental. People don't train karate or any other specific style of martial arts with a self defense emphasis. I believe that to be crap. People train to improve in that style, and most hope or believe their style overlaps with self defense to some degree.
yeah. Okay. If you accept this, I really don't want to hear any more BS about anything else. If a thrust kick is self defense, then I really don't want to hear anything about how BJJ isn't realistic. If you're saying in ga thug thrust kicking is realistic self defense training, please for the love of Pete never suggest that ground fighting is unrealistic.

I've seen a lot of fights, broke up a lot as well (cop), can't remember seeing a thug throw a thrust kick. Seen plenty of "street kicks", though.

However, I've thrown a thrust kick in a mess I got into (didn't see it coming) I was wearing a really nice pair of boots, too. Hit him dead center between his hips. (he didn't see it coming, either) he went flying and fell really hard. He was with some folks and so was I. My friends got a kick out of it. His friends just wanted to go home.

On another occasion, several years later, I threw a thrust kick to keep somebody else away. But I pushed it (purposely.)

So....maybe a thrust kick isn't a common attack in self defense. But it can work really well as self defense if you're a skilled kicker. I was a skilled kicker.

As to "Karate is trained to improve one's skill in karate in the same way that BJJ is trained to improve one's skill in BJJ. That there is crossover for self defense is incidental"

Maybe so, but it wasn't in my case (BJJ) it was originally taught to us as self defense. Worked better than just about anything I can remember, too.

On a related note - friend just gave me a t-shirt that says "Closed Guard is the new Berimbolo." Even though it was an ugly brown, I loved it! Until I tried it on. It's way too small. And it's mens XL. Must be for midgets. I was bummed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agreed. Threat Awareness & Evaluaiton and Target Hardening etc come first.

It was more to point out that when things do get physcial, the physcial side is not like fighting. Kata teaches you the physical side, it doesn't teach fighting.

Define the difference between physical self-defense and fighting, please. I don't see the distinction as being something that universally excludes kata from either.

 

[drop bear]

So you think ALL martial arts practice is done for sport? You've obviously never studied what the past masters, the founders, if karate have said.





"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Conceptually sport. Pre arranged competition between known participants under a rule set.

So a grading would be sport. Bunkai would be sport and so on.

 

[drop bear]

Ideally any situation where they are attacked/assaulted/likely to be attacked, and wish to get away safely. That is what they claim to teach.

Who attacks them to verify their claims?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Conceptually sport. Pre arranged competition between known participants under a rule set.

So a grading would be sport. Bunkai would be sport and so on.

I disagree. There's no competition or scoring competitors in bunkai, and often not in grading (excepting certain parts - sparring and testing against specific attacks). Your brief rule would make anything with agreement and rules a sport. The SAT is not a sport.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Who attacks them to verify their claims?

As has been discussed many times, the only full verification possible for self-defense is in a real attack. There are too few of those for anything we could call actual verification for self-defense purposes. Competition (or some similar sparring exercise) is the only reliable verification of skill-on-skill, but is not valid for self-defense verification.

 

[drop bear]

As has been discussed many times, the only full verification possible for self-defense is in a real attack. There are too few of those for anything we could call actual verification for self-defense purposes. Competition (or some similar sparring exercise) is the only reliable verification of skill-on-skill, but is not valid for self-defense verification.

So there is no self defence verification. Then why do people use it to market their product?

 

[drop bear]

I disagree. There's no competition or scoring competitors in bunkai, and often not in grading (excepting certain parts - sparring and testing against specific attacks). Your brief rule would make anything with agreement and rules a sport. The SAT is not a sport.

What is the sat?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So there is no self defence verification. Then why do people use it to market their product?

We've had this discussion before. What verification would you have someone use? Those of us who teach for self-defense purposes use techniques that are well-constructed, many have actually been used in self-defense situations. There simply aren't enough self-defense situations to provide what I'd consider statistically valid verification. If you have no answer (and you've never provided any I can recall), then why keep arguing the point. We know the stuff works, as far as it has been tested both in-school and in the encounters it has been used in. That's the best anyone can manage without putting lives at risk.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What is the sat?

Sorry, it's a test commonly used to assess students' preparation for college. There are rules. There's a score.

 

[drop bear]

We've had this discussion before. What verification would you have someone use? Those of us who teach for self-defense purposes use techniques that are well-constructed, many have actually been used in self-defense situations. There simply aren't enough self-defense situations to provide what I'd consider statistically valid verification. If you have no answer (and you've never provided any I can recall), then why keep arguing the point. We know the stuff works, as far as it has been tested both in-school and in the encounters it has been used in. That's the best anyone can manage without putting lives at risk.

"We know the stuff works" is the best you have?

And you wonder why I have an issue with that.

Look if you could show the in school testing is valid and the success in the real world it would certainly add to the credibility of your claims.

 

[drop bear]

Sorry, it's a test commonly used to assess students' preparation for college. There are rules. There's a score.

Gotcha.

It is a competition though. It is not "street"

 

[drop bear]

Self defence is a meaningless claim. As reflected here in marketing on food labels.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/six-meaningless-claims-on-food-labels/?_r=0

 

[Gerry Seymour]

"We know the stuff works" is the best you have?

And you wonder why I have an issue with that.

Look if you could show the in school testing is valid and the success in the real world it would certainly add to the credibility of your claims.

I ask again, what would you consider valid testing of self-defense. We use techniques that have background in battlefield use, sport use, and/or have been actually used in self-defense. As I said, that's how "we know". I don't consider any of that _statistically_ valid verification, but it's the best that can be used.

I repeat: do you have a better suggestion? If not, what is your actual complaint? Answer the question, or drop your line of attack and find a valid argument.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Self defence is a meaningless claim. As reflected here in marketing on food labels.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/six-meaningless-claims-on-food-labels/?_r=0

"Self-defense" is not a claim. It's an outcome. We teach techniques that work on the human body. I've never claimed that what I do is scientifically validated with thousands of trials (yes, that's what it would take) in real attacks on the street. Just that it works, which has been proven out by what validation is available.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Gotcha.

It is a competition though. It is not "street"

Nor is anything in any dojo, gym, or school. Only the street can be "street".

 

[drop bear]

"Self-defense" is not a claim. It's an outcome. We teach techniques that work on the human body. I've never claimed that what I do is scientifically validated with thousands of trials (yes, that's what it would take) in real attacks on the street. Just that it works, which has been proven out by what validation is available.

So proven out by insufficient validation. By your own standards?


And sorry. But anything along the lines of. "We train for self defence" is a claim.

 

[Steve]

It is possible to approach self defense in a scientifically sound way. It's just like corporate training. You identify a specific need, along with a set of measurable, specific outcomes/objectives, create a training plan designed to improve the measurables, and then actually follow through by evaluating the success of the program. A group addressing sexual assault in college campuses put together a program that, in six weeks, had a measurable, positive affect. Interestingly enough, the portion of training most often central to self defense training (physical self defense techniques) was a minor element of the program.

Otherwise, it's all intuition and wishful thinking. Gpseymour, you more than anyone should know this is true.

So, if you're asking me what I would consider a valid test of self defense, I'd start by asking you to define some actual objectives or measurable goals of your training. A valid test of your specific self defense training would depend entirely upon the answer.

Absent this, you are hoping for the best. Earlier, yiu asked how a sport art could prepare someone less for self defense than a non sport art which purports to emphasize self defense. I think there is integrity in a system that tests what it teaches. In a sport, one learns to perform skills in a context, and the test is consistent with the objectives. in a style that does eschews sport, the test bears little resemblance to the purported goals of the training. I have heard that a karate test is a grueling affair, which combines execution of kata, some sparring, perhaps some Oral or written component. But as you say, you can't test self defense. So, there is an inherent disconnect... A fundamental lack of structural integrity.

This isn't to say that the skills are useless. Rather, it means that there is a perfect environment for confirmation bias. Self defense is not defined, so it can literally mean anything. Which also means that I can measure the success of my training any way I wish, and excuse the failures in the same way.

AndBill'scomment about kata and the thrust kick is a perfect example of self defense training that doesn't correlate to self defense.

I'll add just that you mention how you identify the techniques yiu choose to teach, which is great. But that's only half the story. You also have to ensure thateach individual can execute these techniques in some measurable context which is consistent with the desired outcome. Or simply put, I know some techniques work because I see others execute them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So proven out by insufficient validation. By your own standards?


And sorry. But anything along the lines of. "We train for self defence" is a claim.

I repeat: what is your alternative, recommended form of validation? Do you even have an answer, or are you going to continue avoiding the question?

 

[drop bear]

I repeat: what is your alternative, recommended form of validation? Do you even have an answer, or are you going to continue avoiding the question?

There isn't one. Self defence is a meaningless claim. I don't have to come up with an alternative.