Martial "Arts" vs "Reality"

[Bob Hubbard]

A reply made on another topic. Posting as I think its potential for a good stand alone topic.
====

There is theory and there is application.

Theory is a series of what-ifs, done under ideal circumstances in a controlled environment. Like spending time on a rifle range allows you to learn and practice, without fear of reprisal.

Application is where things get messy, where the perfection of practice give way to short cuts, thinking on your feet and automatic response. Application is rarely pretty, but it either works or doesn't.

Martial Arts are theory, based on past experience. You have time to do it over, and check your notes.

Self Defense is practice, based on real time, right the hell now, circumstances. No redos, no notes, just do it.



Thoughts?

 

[Cyriacus]

Many Martial Arts (Well, not the majority, but many) will practice their SD routines in Casual Clothing, and in varied conditions. But even if they dont, consider that the concept of most MA SD is to create reflexive responses to presented applications of force, allowing you to respond as you see fit, based on the person or persons. Hapkido would be the most commonly known example of this, since a good Hapkido training place will teach against a resisting opponent. Though if all you take is Self Defence classes, your learning an "If someone does this, you should do this or this or maybe this" logic. Take for example, if someone grabs your Lapel. Consider everything you could do from there with either a MA or SD. Now consider if at any point, the other person immediately resisted and started Punching, Kicking, ramming their body into you, and ignoring any attempt to pacify them with pain caused by small joint manipulation, like most opponents will in the heat of the moment. Now consider if it would be beneficial to be trained in a style which would permit you to strike them hard enough to pacify them that way. And what if your opponent is proficient in something? Or to put it another way, while i may not like using MMA as an example sheet, who do you think would stand a better chance in a No-Holds-Barred, No-Targets-Barred, TKO/KO-Ending-Untimed-Only matchup: A MA'ist, trained in an All Round style, or, for the sake of discussion, Kickboxing and BJJ; Or someone whos taken Self Defence Lessons.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is what do you want to learn? A series of Techniques for pacifying an assailent, and getting away (Self Defence); Or a range of Techniques designed to incapacitate an assailent, and go from there?

Two which i would respond, that Martial Arts which teach a Self Defence angle are probably the best option, rather than restricting yourself to one of the two.

On a sidenote, not all MA are based on theory. Ive seen plenty based on a more Power+Speed = > Accuracy/Technical logic. Im interested to read where that post came from, to see the context in which that was said.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Original Thread: http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?12831-Larry-Tatum-American-Kenpo-Karate-Workshop

 

[WC_lun]

In my opinion, most martial arts taught today are either focused on sport or tournament competition. While these are worth while pursuits, they are not the same as self-defense. While people trained in sports may indeed be able to defend themselves, they are not trained to do so, despite what is claimed. You will fight how you train, and knowing the difference between training and real life is an important distinction too many martial artist cannot make.

 

[Jenna]

A reply made on another topic. Posting as I think its potential for a good stand alone topic.
====

There is theory and there is application.

Theory is a series of what-ifs, done under ideal circumstances in a controlled environment. Like spending time on a rifle range allows you to learn and practice, without fear of reprisal.

Application is where things get messy, where the perfection of practice give way to short cuts, thinking on your feet and automatic response. Application is rarely pretty, but it either works or doesn't.

Martial Arts are theory, based on past experience. You have time to do it over, and check your notes.

Self Defense is practice, based on real time, right the hell now, circumstances. No redos, no notes, just do it.



Thoughts?

I agree with these definitions of theory and application in martial arts and but I would have a different opinion about martial arts being the theory while self defence is the practice. I think the two are not discrete and but components in teh same machine (even in competitive arts though they do not emphasise the usage as a defence - yet that ability is latent).

In common with every skill-based endeavour from making a wicker basket to removing a brain tumour, all arts are designed off the back of a set of theories concerning the defence of oneself and/or the suppression of an opponent. For anyone to have designed a martial art as a standalone theory on its own would be a peculiar thing as it is like designing a musical instrument that was never supposed to make a melody. There are other 'arts' that are not martial and but the martial aspect ensures it is generated from a theory designed specifically as a framework for the physical application of the forces and momentums involved in fighting. Likewise there are few martial arts that cannot be applied to self defence. Some are more explicitly SD based than others yet even those that are not initially or apparently SD-grounded are also plainly applicable to SD, Tai-Chi, competitive TKD, Capoeira or whatever...

If you can think of a martial art theory that is neither designed specifically for or is applicable to self-defence then I would be interested to know. Otherwise, I think the theory of martial arts is only a prelude to its defensive application and they are just two sides of the same coin rather than disparate activities. I do not know if I am answering the question right. I hope so.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The theory is the forms most arts practice.

For example, lets look at a EPAK technique:

Thundering Hammers (Front- Right Step-Through Punch)
1. An attacker from 12 o'clock comes at you with a right step-through punch.

2. Step your left foot ot 10:30 into a left neutral bow looking to 1:30 (at your attacker) as you execute a left inward block to your attacker's right arm.

3. Shuffle towards 12 o'clock utilizing back-up mass as you pivot into a left close kneel and execute a right horizontal bottom fist to your attacker's mid-section.

4. Shift into a right close kneel facing 4:30 as your right hand checks across your attacker's back and essentially slaps the back of their head and stopping at their right shoulder. Continue the flow of motion to maximize the marriage of gravity and execute a left inward overhead hammerfist to your attacker's kidneys.

5. Shift back into a left close kneel facing 10:30 as your left hand checks across your attacker's back as you utilize gravitational marriage and execute a right inward overhead hammerfist to your attacker's neck.

6. Step your left foot to 7:30 into a right neutral bow facing 1:30 as your left hand wraps forward to the left side of your attacker's face. Roll their face so it is facing you. As your hand finishes, loop it through and execute a quick right backfist to your attacker's right cheekbone.

7. Push drag to 1:30 as you execute an upward palm strike to your attacker's face.

8. Cross out towards 7:30.

For example, moving from step 3 to 4 requires the following occur:
1- you hit. Missing is not addressed.
2- subject reacts as expected and bends over. Falling backwards or to either side is not addressed. Nor is a collapse.

etc.

This is the theory portion. A popular question in Kenpo is the idea of "completion". "Do I need to do the rest of the moves"?
One kenpo master put it this way "I hit you. You fall down. Complete."

The 'what ifs' I bring up are most likely covered in a different theoretical technique.

 

[Chris Parker]

A reply made on another topic. Posting as I think its potential for a good stand alone topic.
====

There is theory and there is application.

Theory is a series of what-ifs, done under ideal circumstances in a controlled environment. Like spending time on a rifle range allows you to learn and practice, without fear of reprisal.

Application is where things get messy, where the perfection of practice give way to short cuts, thinking on your feet and automatic response. Application is rarely pretty, but it either works or doesn't.

Martial Arts are theory, based on past experience. You have time to do it over, and check your notes.

Self Defense is practice, based on real time, right the hell now, circumstances. No redos, no notes, just do it.



Thoughts?

Hmm, thoughts....

The first thought is that the concept of self defence being presented is very limited, and is thinking only of the idea of physical combative or violent situations. That's actually the last resort, and least of all that self defence actually entails. I can see where you're coming from, Bob, but their comments can equally apply to martial arts, particularly when dealing with competitive sport systems. So I don't implicitly agree.

Many Martial Arts (Well, not the majority, but many) will practice their SD routines in Casual Clothing, and in varied conditions. But even if they dont, consider that the concept of most MA SD is to create reflexive responses to presented applications of force, allowing you to respond as you see fit, based on the person or persons.

I know of a number of systems (and a few schools within some systems or organisations) that train in "street clothes", but I'd hardly say it's even "many". That said, the idea that the training "allows you to respond as you see fit" is a fair bit off. That implies the ability to consciously decide, and if you rely on that you've already been hit. A few times. There will be aspects of personality that will influence what a person (individually) responds with, but that's really a different thing altogether.

Hapkido would be the most commonly known example of this, since a good Hapkido training place will teach against a resisting opponent.

Ooh, I feel a range of other arts may well (and very legitimately) argue with you on that....

Though if all you take is Self Defence classes, your learning an "If someone does this, you should do this or this or maybe this" logic.

Logic really has no place in this discussion, I must say. What has a place are congruent and established methods based on the concepts of the system itself, and that can actaully go directly against "logic", especially when it comes to the ideas of self defence.

Take for example, if someone grabs your Lapel. Consider everything you could do from there with either a MA or SD.

Right. But before you get there, how is the lapel grabbed? There's a big difference between a traditional Japanese lapel grab (or Korean, for that matter) and a grab to the front of your shirt in a street confrontation. And that may well have very big implications when it comes to what things you could do in responce.

Now consider if at any point, the other person immediately resisted and started Punching, Kicking, ramming their body into you, and ignoring any attempt to pacify them with pain caused by small joint manipulation, like most opponents will in the heat of the moment.

Honestly, this entire sentence I'm not sure about. You've basically said "Imagine what you'd do" against a particular attack, then followed it with "Now imagine if they didn't get beaten by your techniques". Er, right? You'd do something else, then, wouldn't you?

I do agree that the effects of adrenaline need to be addressed (both in your opponent and in yourself), as well as the potential of drugs/alcohol etc, but the entire idea presented here suffers from the "but what if!" problem that plagues martial arts.

Now consider if it would be beneficial to be trained in a style which would permit you to strike them hard enough to pacify them that way.

If they're not responding to the pain of having their finger or wrist broken, striking them hard won't really do much more. Striking them accurately, to well selected targets, on the other hand... But this does read as if saying "grappling doesn't work, hitting hard does!". Not sure about that....

And what if your opponent is proficient in something? Or to put it another way, while i may not like using MMA as an example sheet, who do you think would stand a better chance in a No-Holds-Barred, No-Targets-Barred, TKO/KO-Ending-Untimed-Only matchup: A MA'ist, trained in an All Round style, or, for the sake of discussion, Kickboxing and BJJ; Or someone whos taken Self Defence Lessons.

"What If?" shouldn't exist like this. It's never-ending, and shows a lack of confidence and understanding of the system, with the doubt that's being displayed in the question (or in yourself, in some cases). As for your hypothetical, there is too much unsaid to answer it... for example, what are you defining as success? For me, if it's self defence, the aim is to get away safely, with the minimalist risk to your safety and health. In that case, if the self defence classes have instilled escape and observation/awareness then they may very easily be the better equiped to handle the situation.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is what do you want to learn? A series of Techniques for pacifying an assailent, and getting away (Self Defence); Or a range of Techniques designed to incapacitate an assailent, and go from there?

I thnk that is overly simplifying things, and misses the point of both. As well as missing the range of martial arts that exist, and the reasons people train in them.

Two which i would respond, that Martial Arts which teach a Self Defence angle are probably the best option, rather than restricting yourself to one of the two.

For yourself, sure. But that's to do with your personal values. Others may be different... and finding someone who can actually teach a good self defence "angle" can be harder than most think. There's another thread in the TKD section at the moment about what a particular poster should be doing in his self defence teachings, and it highlights to me a huge lack in people's understandings of both topics. And that's with some of the people I respect a lot here.

On a sidenote, not all MA are based on theory. Ive seen plenty based on a more Power+Speed = > Accuracy/Technical logic. Im interested to read where that post came from, to see the context in which that was said.

Hmm, I'd be interested to know which martial arts are based more on power and speed being greater than accuracy and technique. I can't think of any that I'd classify as martial arts. They all prefer technique over power, although power and speed can be a big part of what they do.

 

[tinker1]

There are a wide variety of teaching styles used in Martial Arts in general - and particularly when teaching self defense. Probably the most common teaching approach to self defense is basically learning by rote. Learning technique followed by technique, and so and and so forth. Sometimes these techniques are numbered and then tested at promotion times, as in : "do number 4 choke escape".

Personally I tend to shy away from this approach because, in my opinion, it is light on understanding WHY the technique works and HOW it works, also many times it fails to teach vision to the student.

Vision is, in my opinion, one of the most important aspects of any skill. By vision, I mean the ability to see opportunity and/or weakness in your opponent. Whether the attack is via a weapon, a punch or kick, or a grab or a hold - or just a bull rush take down, it is important for the student to have the ability to see the weakness in their opponent and seize that opportunity as a means of escape from a bad situation. Much of this vision comes from learning the weak points of the body - this is something that I don't see taught much anymore.

Further, many times I have seen someone get hit unexpectedly. Sucker punched. This is actually pretty common. So the student has to have the ability to perform when they're hurt. Again, this is another skill that isn't taught much any more.

The mental state and inner strength of the student is critical in a self defense situation. The student must have clarity of thought so that they can see opportunity and act on it. Self defense situations tend to be very fluid... a stand up one on one fight can quickly turn into what looks like a scrum in Rugby.. The student needs to be able to adapt to a changing environment, changing opponent(s), obstacles, terrain, the list goes on and on.

 

[Cyriacus]

Two things ill quickly mention first: 1; Im not stalwardly set in my opinions. So long as your statements remain as constructive, im more than willing to consider them 2; Youll likely notice i wont be mentioning my own art. This is because where i train, everything is geared in a more Applicable direction, and some things otherwise less practiced are practiced more. Therefore, where i train is a bad generalisation to make, since its emphases (Multiple emphasis. I assume that would be emphases) are geared away from sport/competition, only really participating in them due to the idea of it psychologically preparing people to be hit, and hit back. Thats another story though. Moving ahead...

I know of a number of systems (and a few schools within some systems or organisations) that train in "street clothes", but I'd hardly say it's even "many". That said, the idea that the training "allows you to respond as you see fit" is a fair bit off. That implies the ability to consciously decide, and if you rely on that you've already been hit. A few times. There will be aspects of personality that will influence what a person (individually) responds with, but that's really a different thing altogether.

^^To be fair, i phrased my comment terribly. I said many, but not the majority - My intention was, that to not be the majority, it needs to be <50%. Therefore, its well under half. Which is still a fair few, but at the same time, not a great number. And when i say respond as you see fit, im referring more to whether or not you make use of force, or flight, or diplomacy. Your initial reaction in a confrontation is subjective to how you respond.
As for Personality, i strongly agree.

Ooh, I feel a range of other arts may well (and very legitimately) argue with you on that....

(Not much to comment on here)

Logic really has no place in this discussion, I must say. What has a place are congruent and established methods based on the concepts of the system itself, and that can actaully go directly against "logic", especially when it comes to the ideas of self defence.

Perhaps logic wasnt the right word. "Basis", "Platform of Reasoning", or even "Defined Approach" would be better words. I was referring to the Train of Thought previously mentioned, not applying Logic to SD as a whole.

Right. But before you get there, how is the lapel grabbed? There's a big difference between a traditional Japanese lapel grab (or Korean, for that matter) and a grab to the front of your shirt in a street confrontation. And that may well have very big implications when it comes to what things you could do in responce.

Fair enough. Though i was visualising just an untrained, regular grab.

Honestly, this entire sentence I'm not sure about. You've basically said "Imagine what you'd do" against a particular attack, then followed it with "Now imagine if they didn't get beaten by your techniques". Er, right? You'd do something else, then, wouldn't you?

Well, since it isnt actually taking place, of course you have to imagine it. You imagine using anything you learn from Self Defence against a real adversary, dont you? Thats imagining as well. My intention was to communicate for you to think of anything youve learnt, that you would apply to that circumstance.

I do agree that the effects of adrenaline need to be addressed (both in your opponent and in yourself), as well as the potential of drugs/alcohol etc, but the entire idea presented here suffers from the "but what if!" problem that plagues martial arts.

(Addressed later)

If they're not responding to the pain of having their finger or wrist broken, striking them hard won't really do much more. Striking them accurately, to well selected targets, on the other hand... But this does read as if saying "grappling doesn't work, hitting hard does!". Not sure about that....

Id beg to differ - Say you applied pain to someones finger or wrist, and at that moment, it made them very angry. What you want them to do is recoil in pain, but if this person is, as mentioned, intoxicated, or doped up on something, or just damn angry, they wont respond as readily to their own injury. Striking, however, or a jointlock, or even a harsh shove, will work well enough to give them a second to think about it. I never said Grappling doesnt work, though. Grappling does work. I just think it needs to be well trained, first, and perhaps not depended on entirely.

"What If?" shouldn't exist like this. It's never-ending, and shows a lack of confidence and understanding of the system, with the doubt that's being displayed in the question (or in yourself, in some cases). As for your hypothetical, there is too much unsaid to answer it... for example, what are you defining as success? For me, if it's self defence, the aim is to get away safely, with the minimalist risk to your safety and health. In that case, if the self defence classes have instilled escape and observation/awareness then they may very easily be the better equiped to handle the situation.

What if, i think, needs to be taken slightly more seriously. But not to any extreme degree. Are you saying its a bad idea to think, What If, this person has a concealed weapon, such as a firearm, or knife? Its just being considerate of circumstances you cant possibly initially know about. Such as, blood born diseases, the other person being somewhat experienced, or if they have a few friends around that corner your about to run around.
I will also say, in addition though, that i am perhaps defining self-defence in a constrained way, to an engagement, rather than an overall confrontation in which escape is your aim. Thats my bad, there.
In a final statement to that, there is every possible negative ending, and every possible positive ending, to a SD situation. The purpose, if im not mistaken, of SD, is to minimalise the number of possible negative endings, which is ultimately achieved by being well clear of the area. But you have to get out of the area, and evade your pursuers/disable your pursuers, first.

I thnk that is overly simplifying things, and misses the point of both. As well as missing the range of martial arts that exist, and the reasons people train in them.

Fair enough. Upon re-reading my statement, it wasnt very sensible.

For yourself, sure. But that's to do with your personal values. Others may be different... and finding someone who can actually teach a good self defence "angle" can be harder than most think. There's another thread in the TKD section at the moment about what a particular poster should be doing in his self defence teachings, and it highlights to me a huge lack in people's understandings of both topics. And that's with some of the people I respect a lot here.

This is why i cant use my own Training as an example - Due to the increased emphasis on SD. Ive never experienced bad SD Training, so i may be slightly biased away from it. Looking around on here though, is quickly enlightening me to the presence of bad SD Idealogies.

Hmm, I'd be interested to know which martial arts are based more on power and speed being greater than accuracy and technique. I can't think of any that I'd classify as martial arts. They all prefer technique over power, although power and speed can be a big part of what they do.

Kyokushin Karate, Muay Thai, and possibly Kali. Im sure there are more, but their Techniques are geared more toward being basic applications of Power and Speed. Having said that, they are still using Predefined techniques to attain that, so what i should have said is "Emphasise Power and Speed more than Technique, but Technique is still a large factor.

Apologies for using Bold Text, by the way. But on my monitor, it became slightly tedious to cypher over which persons text was which, and im a touch busy to insert Quote Markers or do any fancy HTML

 

[JohnEdward]

I think the word "art" in martial arts says allot. Personally, I lean toward the term art, then theory alone. Where art contains its own theory and application. I don't see application or theory standing alone. For me there is the practice of the art (unless it is a sport) regardless of how street effective the techniques are they are taught in a prescribed systematic practice, an art: a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice i.e., the art of fighting. Not married to this idea, I hold it as rule of thumb.

 

[Chris Parker]

Two things ill quickly mention first: 1; Im not stalwardly set in my opinions. So long as your statements remain as constructive, im more than willing to consider them 2; Youll likely notice i wont be mentioning my own art. This is because where i train, everything is geared in a more Applicable direction, and some things otherwise less practiced are practiced more. Therefore, where i train is a bad generalisation to make, since its emphases (Multiple emphasis. I assume that would be emphases) are geared away from sport/competition, only really participating in them due to the idea of it psychologically preparing people to be hit, and hit back. Thats another story though. Moving ahead...

Constructive is my aim, hopefully this (and previous statements by myself) can be, and are, taken in that light. And, as regards to your personal system, it may be noted that I have a background in another form of the same one, and was ranked a fair bit higher than yourself there. So I know where you're coming from that way. But, again, that's another story....

To be fair, i phrased my comment terribly. I said many, but not the majority - My intention was, that to not be the majority, it needs to be <50%. Therefore, its well under half. Which is still a fair few, but at the same time, not a great number. And when i say respond as you see fit, im referring more to whether or not you make use of force, or flight, or diplomacy. Your initial reaction in a confrontation is subjective to how you respond.
As for Personality, i strongly agree.

This is more what I am getting at when you talk about "logic", and I'll address that in a moment. But no, things like "flight or fight" are not based on responding how you see fit, it's more about how you are hardwired as a human being. It really has nothing to do with any form of decision making, although training will make a difference (within a certain parameter). What your personality will do is give you certain ways of expressing your responce within those parameters (in other words, if your "fight" responce is triggered, your personality will determine whether you move in offensively, absord defensively, or move evasively).

Perhaps logic wasnt the right word. "Basis", "Platform of Reasoning", or even "Defined Approach" would be better words. I was referring to the Train of Thought previously mentioned, not applying Logic to SD as a whole.

The thing is that a reasoned train of thought really doesn't suit either. As I said, it's more about understanding hardwired responces, and acting within those than having any reasoned responce. Logical, or reasoned, responces to an attack, can often go against the very way a human being is hardwired to respond to things. While you can reasonably decide to move in against a knife, for instance, it's not what's going to happen, at least not immediately.

The easiest way to check this is to consciously think through a technique/responce to a certain attack, then have it come at you relentlessly, fast, and powerful. You won't respond the way you logically, or reasonably think you will.

Fair enough. Though i was visualising just an untrained, regular grab.

There's still a fair variety there, though. An assault, violent and sudden, will typically have the grab very close and tight, pulling you in. On the other hand, an attempt to control someone, avoiding them hitting you, then the grab will be a "stiff-arm", holding you out at a distance (this is a fun one, BJJ guys love it).

Well, since it isnt actually taking place, of course you have to imagine it. You imagine using anything you learn from Self Defence against a real adversary, dont you? Thats imagining as well. My intention was to communicate for you to think of anything youve learnt, that you would apply to that circumstance.

Still not sure what you're getting at here.... We do train the idea of techniques "failing" in my schools, if that's what you mean, but the way it was phrased is more of the "but what if it doens't work?" which is an endless cycle to be avoided.

Id beg to differ - Say you applied pain to someones finger or wrist, and at that moment, it made them very angry. What you want them to do is recoil in pain, but if this person is, as mentioned, intoxicated, or doped up on something, or just damn angry, they wont respond as readily to their own injury. Striking, however, or a jointlock, or even a harsh shove, will work well enough to give them a second to think about it. I never said Grappling doesnt work, though. Grappling does work. I just think it needs to be well trained, first, and perhaps not depended on entirely.

Well, your original statement was:

Now consider if it would be beneficial to be trained in a style which would permit you to strike them hard enough to pacify them that way.

so I'm sure you can see how that was taken as "striking is greater than grappling". And who said that you just applied pain with a lock? Personally, if it hasn't gotten the result by pain compliance, I'd break it.

What if, i think, needs to be taken slightly more seriously. But not to any extreme degree. Are you saying its a bad idea to think, What If, this person has a concealed weapon, such as a firearm, or knife? Its just being considerate of circumstances you cant possibly initially know about. Such as, blood born diseases, the other person being somewhat experienced, or if they have a few friends around that corner your about to run around.
I will also say, in addition though, that i am perhaps defining self-defence in a constrained way, to an engagement, rather than an overall confrontation in which escape is your aim. Thats my bad, there.
In a final statement to that, there is every possible negative ending, and every possible positive ending, to a SD situation. The purpose, if im not mistaken, of SD, is to minimalise the number of possible negative endings, which is ultimately achieved by being well clear of the area. But you have to get out of the area, and evade your pursuers/disable your pursuers, first.

Oh, I take the idea of "what if" very seriously. But, as I said, thinking about contingencies is very different from "what if", which is a cyclical and dangerous thing to get caught in, as it simply reinforces a lack of confidence in the system, or yourself.

This is why i cant use my own Training as an example - Due to the increased emphasis on SD. Ive never experienced bad SD Training, so i may be slightly biased away from it. Looking around on here though, is quickly enlightening me to the presence of bad SD Idealogies.

Oh, I've experienced very bad "self defence" training, in some cases under well known and highly skilled instructors, so I know the variety that can exist out there. Thing is, many who were learning the bad stuff genuinely thought they were learning good self defence. I hope you are learning some good stuff.

Kyokushin Karate, Muay Thai, and possibly Kali. Im sure there are more, but their Techniques are geared more toward being basic applications of Power and Speed. Having said that, they are still using Predefined techniques to attain that, so what i should have said is "Emphasise Power and Speed more than Technique, but Technique is still a large factor.

These are all still more focused on technique, over power and speed. It's just that the technique is geared towards higher levels of speed and power, but the technique is the main thing.

Apologies for using Bold Text, by the way. But on my monitor, it became slightly tedious to cypher over which persons text was which, and im a touch busy to insert Quote Markers or do any fancy HTML

Ha, not a problem. I've been known to use a similar device myself in the past....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not sure where to begin with this.

As most of you know, I'm no martial arts expert. I don't claim to be one, either. I can't even say I'm a self-defense expert, although in my previous employment, I've been in a scuffle or two (military police in the Marines and civilian law enforcement). But there are some things I believe are true, and they apply here.

The first is that the body responds as you train it. Repetition creates so-called 'muscle memory' and modifies automatic responses. I would accept the argument that many martial arts students do not train enough to fully ingrain those responses, but I would reject the notion that martial arts training in general is useless for self-defense. That's just a smoking pile of BS, in my humble opinion.

The second is that martial arts training calms fears and builds confidence, both of which are important to self-defense. A person who is attacked 'for real' and has never had any kind of training is unlikely, in my opinion, to respond with aggressive self-defense (or physical sports like football) of any kind; they are more likely to cringe away, dive for cover, curl up into a ball, cry, pee themselves, or whatever. And I'm not putting them down - that's a normal natural reaction for someone who has never faced violence, even under controlled conditions. Getting hit - even in a controlled setting - builds a mental understanding of what happens when you get hit - confidence is built that yes, you can take a hit, you can respond, you can get the block up in time.

Third, trained reflexes are the same as speed. I am notoriously slow with my reaction time, but after three years of Isshin-Ryu training, I can stand in a yoi stance, relaxed but ready, and still have plenty of time to block those punches - even when I don't know which punch is going to be thrown.

I've learned things that are important to self-defense notions, such as the need to continue past exhaustion, the need to throw more than one technique at a time, the need to respond with extreme aggression to an attack. These are not specific; it's not like I'm going to throw the first three techniques in Chinto kata when I'm attacked, even if the attack doesn't fall into that pattern (and I can't imagine that there are many times that would ever happen!). But I have used elements of kata in open sparring, and successfully - combining a double collar-grab with a throw immediately and then attacking the fallen opponent - straight out of Chinto, and by golly, it worked. I'd use that in a 'real fight' if the opportunity presented itself; but I'd not be limited to trying to use that technique or any other - just that they're in my box of tools, and if I see it as an opportunity, I'd take it. And given experience using it, I have the confidence that it would stand a real chance of working for me. If it didn't, I'd move on.

I'm sure that self-defense systems that concentrate on 'real world' situations only work fine - I don't doubt it. But I do not like this criticism of traditional systems that emphasize kata, basic exercises, and repetition. I feel they're incredibly useful in 'real world' situations too.

Yesterday, I went to a Celtic Festival. I was invited by a local sword-fighting school that was doing demos to try out the German Broadsword. Never picked up a sword before in my life (these were wooden). I got the stances, they seemed familiar to me. I had the muscle and stamina to swing it around from using a bo. I saw the mechanics of the postures, even though I know nothing about sword-fighting. And when I was encouraged to do whatever I wanted, I used a bo thrust against my instructor and then an overhead butt stroke with the pommel by grasping the blade and pivoting around that hand; obviously not something one would do in a 'German Broadsword' match, but I used principles I understood on something that seemed somewhat similar to me and it was effective in a small sense. I don't claim for a moment that I was anything more than a novelty or a laugh to the instructor, but I enjoyed it. The point is that experience matters, whether it is doing 'real world' self-defense or punching air in the dojo.

It all counts, in my opinion. What is important is to keep training and to practice assiduously. When it comes time to defend yourself, you'll be better equipped than someone who has no training. That's my opinion.

 

[Cyriacus]

Constructive is my aim, hopefully this (and previous statements by myself) can be, and are, taken in that light. And, as regards to your personal system, it may be noted that I have a background in another form of the same one, and was ranked a fair bit higher than yourself there. So I know where you're coming from that way. But, again, that's another story....



This is more what I am getting at when you talk about "logic", and I'll address that in a moment. But no, things like "flight or fight" are not based on responding how you see fit, it's more about how you are hardwired as a human being. It really has nothing to do with any form of decision making, although training will make a difference (within a certain parameter). What your personality will do is give you certain ways of expressing your responce within those parameters (in other words, if your "fight" responce is triggered, your personality will determine whether you move in offensively, absord defensively, or move evasively).

And a Human Being in question may be more inclined to do one of the two - We're kind of saying the same thing in a different way. Im referring more to instinctual choice, and your referring more to predispositions. There isnt much of a difference.



The thing is that a reasoned train of thought really doesn't suit either. As I said, it's more about understanding hardwired responces, and acting within those than having any reasoned responce. Logical, or reasoned, responces to an attack, can often go against the very way a human being is hardwired to respond to things. While you can reasonably decide to move in against a knife, for instance, it's not what's going to happen, at least not immediately.

Though if someone has it down to muscle memory to respond on a particular way, they likely will. Which is why bad SD is really bad.

The easiest way to check this is to consciously think through a technique/responce to a certain attack, then have it come at you relentlessly, fast, and powerful. You won't respond the way you logically, or reasonably think you will.

Out of interest, in your opinion, if youve trained in a sparring style based on Relentless, Fast, and Powerful, would that not improve your reaction to it?

Still not sure what you're getting at here.... We do train the idea of techniques "failing" in my schools, if that's what you mean, but the way it was phrased is more of the "but what if it doens't work?" which is an endless cycle to be avoided.

That is pretty much what i mean. Im beginning to see that this is as much you hating the phrase "What If", and then explaining the same thing that i was explaining in a clearer way



Well, your original statement was:

so I'm sure you can see how that was taken as "striking is greater than grappling". And who said that you just applied pain with a lock? Personally, if it hasn't gotten the result by pain compliance, I'd break it.

And thats pretty much the point. But after one lock, youll likely be in a better position to follow up with striking, as oppose to more grappling. But that is largely situational. In my experience with close distance grappling, usually after a release, it can be awekward to re-initiate with a different hold. This is probably just my opinion/response.

Oh, I take the idea of "what if" very seriously. But, as I said, thinking about contingencies is very different from "what if", which is a cyclical and dangerous thing to get caught in, as it simply reinforces a lack of confidence in the system, or yourself.

Im fairly sure its largely the same two things, only with different retrospects associated with them. In other words, pretty much what you just said. But at the same time, ive yet to think of a better way of phrasing "What If", since "Accounting For Possible Variables" sounds... Not that bad actually. Heh



Oh, I've experienced very bad "self defence" training, in some cases under well known and highly skilled instructors, so I know the variety that can exist out there. Thing is, many who were learning the bad stuff genuinely thought they were learning good self defence. I hope you are learning some good stuff.

Im fairly sure i am. Mainly from this site, as mentioned. Ill read something thats either too needlessly complicated, or which leaves too many openings, and often in tune with me thinking about how inefficient that is, reading a comment saying just as much.

These are all still more focused on technique, over power and speed. It's just that the technique is geared towards higher levels of speed and power, but the technique is the main thing.

Fair Enough


Ha, not a problem. I've been known to use a similar device myself in the past....

Also, in response to Bill Mattocks, above me;
Using Bo-Staff Tactics to wield a sword is an interesting comparison, that could lead me to tell several stories about a similar usage of training in that way myself - But ill just shorten it down to "Yes, Training in one thing can aid Training in another", due to time constraints.

 

[ATACX GYM]

A reply made on another topic. Posting as I think its potential for a good stand alone topic.
====

There is theory and there is application.

Theory is a series of what-ifs, done under ideal circumstances in a controlled environment. Like spending time on a rifle range allows you to learn and practice, without fear of reprisal.

Application is where things get messy, where the perfection of practice give way to short cuts, thinking on your feet and automatic response. Application is rarely pretty, but it either works or doesn't.

Martial Arts are theory, based on past experience. You have time to do it over, and check your notes.

Self Defense is practice, based on real time, right the hell now, circumstances. No redos, no notes, just do it.



Thoughts?

Based on this example,there is more room between your "theory--application" continuum than in mine.Using the analogies that you have given...my theory would include:

basic firearm safety classes


shooting at the range

movement drills while at the range

force on force practice of every nonlethal stripe

feedback at each and every level


We agree in the broad strokes of things,methinks.While nothing is equal to actual self-defense EXCEPT the self-defense throwdown itself,the closer and more comprehensive we make our safe fun training to the real deal? The better we will be served by it.We're on the same page,I just include more steps...and see the whole as a continuum.So yeah when the real deal hits the fan and there's no redos,notes and you just gotta do it? By that time,you've done alot more quality,directly translateable reps in practice and you're waaaay more prepared.That's the difference in EVERY LEVEL between functional and nonfunctional training.People who do functional kata training look like they know what they're doing veeeery much,people who train kata less functionally look like they know what they're doing but...oftentimes not quite so much.

IP ORIENTED,PROFICIENT KATA TRAINING SHORT FORM 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzvObJVyVjw&NR=1


FUNCTIONAL SHORT FORM 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ttUxmNxPs


IP ORIENTED TIGER-CRANE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75E_m...eature=related

FUNCTIONAL TIGER-CRANE

(old skool and new skool baby)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU8bc...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcANY...eature=related

 

[MJS]

A reply made on another topic. Posting as I think its potential for a good stand alone topic.
====

There is theory and there is application.

Theory is a series of what-ifs, done under ideal circumstances in a controlled environment. Like spending time on a rifle range allows you to learn and practice, without fear of reprisal.

Application is where things get messy, where the perfection of practice give way to short cuts, thinking on your feet and automatic response. Application is rarely pretty, but it either works or doesn't.

Martial Arts are theory, based on past experience. You have time to do it over, and check your notes.

Self Defense is practice, based on real time, right the hell now, circumstances. No redos, no notes, just do it.



Thoughts?

The theory is the forms most arts practice.

For example, lets look at a EPAK technique:


For example, moving from step 3 to 4 requires the following occur:
1- you hit. Missing is not addressed.
2- subject reacts as expected and bends over. Falling backwards or to either side is not addressed. Nor is a collapse.

etc.

This is the theory portion. A popular question in Kenpo is the idea of "completion". "Do I need to do the rest of the moves"?
One kenpo master put it this way "I hit you. You fall down. Complete."

The 'what ifs' I bring up are most likely covered in a different theoretical technique.

This is something I see alot. Yes, I'm sure there're people out there who address the 'what if' phase, but I rarely see it on the typical YT Kenpo clip...well, with the exception of Brutha Ras' clips. Anyways, there are also some who claim that if you do the technique right, there wont be any need to worry about what if, or if the attacker does this or that, because he'll be down and out. Well, last I checked, there wasn't anyone around who predicted the future, so my question is...how the hell can these people say that?

When I teach, its pretty simple and to the point....I teach the tech as written, in the perfect world setting. Everything goes right, the person moves just so, etc, etc. Why do I do this? I like to give a student a platform to build from. But, once they get that, then, I'll take it to the next level. I'll have the attacker start to throw a monkey wrench into the mix, ie: changing attacks, throwing an additional attack or attacks, move, resist, etc. Why? So it gets the student to think outside of the box, and not be bound by the original tech.

Personally, I dont care if they do the original tech. I dont even try to do the original tech. When the guy attacks, I adjust my plan accordingly to whats happening. As an example...last month I tested for my 4th in Kenpo. My uke, a 1st degreee, wasn't 100% familiar with the techs I was doing. My teacher had a list of techs that I was doing, and as much as I tried to keep things original, it didn't happen. My uke, when he attacked, it was hard and fast....in other words, if I didn't move, I was getting hit. There were many times, he didn't move 'right' so no biggie....I just adapted and adjusted. Thats what matters, and thats what my teacher wanted to see. On a side note, I passed and he was very happy with my performance.

The moral of the story....ya gotta take your training outside of the box. Spontaneous reaction drills, IMO, are the way to go. I've had students say, during me teaching them a tech, "Well, he moved so I can't do the next strike." My reply....Yeah, so what???? Dont worry about it. Whatelse can you do? Theres always something else available. Who cares if you have to skip a move....just adapt and move on to the next. In reality, we're not going to know how the person is going to move. Maybe we'll be lucky, hit the guy a few times, and he'll take off running or drop. Maybe he'll get pissed off and come at us twice as hard. It all comes down to the basics.

 

[Chris Parker]

And a Human Being in question may be more inclined to do one of the two - We're kind of saying the same thing in a different way. Im referring more to instinctual choice, and your referring more to predispositions. There isnt much of a difference.

If by "the two" you are refering to flight or fight, no, that's not really so much to do with the personality as it is the surrounding circumstances. The personality comes into it in the way that the fight responce, for example, is expressed or employed, but that is dependant on the correct circumstances to trigger the fight responce in the first place.

Though if someone has it down to muscle memory to respond on a particular way, they likely will. Which is why bad SD is really bad.

Ah, muscle memory... it's only half the story, honestly. Repetition is essential, but it needs to be the correct repetition. And, to be frank, that's not what I'm refering to in "good" or "bad" self defence training. It's a part of it, yeah, but only a small part.

Out of interest, in your opinion, if youve trained in a sparring style based on Relentless, Fast, and Powerful, would that not improve your reaction to it?

No. Mainly because there are plenty of things that separate it from what would be needed.

That is pretty much what i mean. Im beginning to see that this is as much you hating the phrase "What If", and then explaining the same thing that i was explaining in a clearer way

Ha, cool. Yeah, I'm really not a fan of the dreaded "What if?" syndrome... one of my students posted another "what if?" on our facebook page today, asking about a slight variation to knife defence. And the answer is simple: Use what you've already been taught, there's a reason it's designed the way it is (most contingencies already considered).

And thats pretty much the point. But after one lock, youll likely be in a better position to follow up with striking, as oppose to more grappling. But that is largely situational. In my experience with close distance grappling, usually after a release, it can be awekward to re-initiate with a different hold. This is probably just my opinion/response.

Thing is, though, in order to transition from one hold to another doesn't involve releasing the first one until the second is secured. This is most probably our different experiences in grappling systems coming out, though...

Im fairly sure its largely the same two things, only with different retrospects associated with them. In other words, pretty much what you just said. But at the same time, ive yet to think of a better way of phrasing "What If", since "Accounting For Possible Variables" sounds... Not that bad actually. Heh

Ha, once again, cool.

Im fairly sure i am. Mainly from this site, as mentioned. Ill read something thats either too needlessly complicated, or which leaves too many openings, and often in tune with me thinking about how inefficient that is, reading a comment saying just as much.

Good. My "self defence" training during my time in the system (related to yours) was far from good, honestly, and was an attempt to cut and paste what the instructors thought was good against poor attacks, with unrealistic responces, and no consideration of awareness, avoidance, body language, psychology, being a "hard" target, and so on. Good self defence deals with a lot more than just the conflict aspect.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is something I see alot. Yes, I'm sure there're people out there who address the 'what if' phase, but I rarely see it on the typical YT Kenpo clip...well, with the exception of Brutha Ras' clips. Anyways, there are also some who claim that if you do the technique right, there wont be any need to worry about what if, or if the attacker does this or that, because he'll be down and out. Well, last I checked, there wasn't anyone around who predicted the future, so my question is...how the hell can these people say that?

When I teach, its pretty simple and to the point....I teach the tech as written, in the perfect world setting. Everything goes right, the person moves just so, etc, etc. Why do I do this? I like to give a student a platform to build from. But, once they get that, then, I'll take it to the next level. I'll have the attacker start to throw a monkey wrench into the mix, ie: changing attacks, throwing an additional attack or attacks, move, resist, etc. Why? So it gets the student to think outside of the box, and not be bound by the original tech.

Personally, I dont care if they do the original tech. I dont even try to do the original tech. When the guy attacks, I adjust my plan accordingly to whats happening. As an example...last month I tested for my 4th in Kenpo. My uke, a 1st degreee, wasn't 100% familiar with the techs I was doing. My teacher had a list of techs that I was doing, and as much as I tried to keep things original, it didn't happen. My uke, when he attacked, it was hard and fast....in other words, if I didn't move, I was getting hit. There were many times, he didn't move 'right' so no biggie....I just adapted and adjusted. Thats what matters, and thats what my teacher wanted to see. On a side note, I passed and he was very happy with my performance.

The moral of the story....ya gotta take your training outside of the box. Spontaneous reaction drills, IMO, are the way to go. I've had students say, during me teaching them a tech, "Well, he moved so I can't do the next strike." My reply....Yeah, so what???? Dont worry about it. Whatelse can you do? Theres always something else available. Who cares if you have to skip a move....just adapt and move on to the next. In reality, we're not going to know how the person is going to move. Maybe we'll be lucky, hit the guy a few times, and he'll take off running or drop. Maybe he'll get pissed off and come at us twice as hard. It all comes down to the basics.

One of my senseis is pretty big on bunkai. He basically will take a standard defense move and apply it in all kinds of ways, against a dizzying array of attacks. It's eye-opening; a 'chudan uke seiken tsuki' (middle body block, lunge punch) can be used in so many ways, I lost count. His comments to us are somewhat from a different perspective than yours. He adapts the technique, but he keeps the technique he wants to use rather then abandon it. He says "If I am planning to use a middle-body block and a straight punch, I don't *care* what punch you throw, I can cover it." Then he demonstrates, tying his uke (often me) up in knots. He refers to it as 'committing to the technique'. So, a different point of view. Both valid, I suspect.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

A reply made on another topic. Posting as I think its potential for a good stand alone topic.
====

There is theory and there is application.

Theory is a series of what-ifs, done under ideal circumstances in a controlled environment. Like spending time on a rifle range allows you to learn and practice, without fear of reprisal.

Application is where things get messy, where the perfection of practice give way to short cuts, thinking on your feet and automatic response. Application is rarely pretty, but it either works or doesn't.

Martial Arts are theory, based on past experience. You have time to do it over, and check your notes.

Self Defense is practice, based on real time, right the hell now, circumstances. No redos, no notes, just do it.



Thoughts?

Bob, I'm going to repost a reply to a similar topic elsewhere to save time and typing cramps

If your goal is SD then you blend for the benefit of your students. For your consideration:

http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148268/1781914

http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148250/1801375

http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148250

http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148268

Pure and effective SD is not flashy or complicated. It is simple, quick and based upon gross motor skills. Take your base art of TKD and seriously consider each principle or technique. If it doesn't work against a real, determined attacker then ditch it in favor of something that does work. Also, is the technique or principle dependent on size and/or strength? Consider smaller males and females in the equation. Have you actually used the technique in question against a determined attacker? Has the technique been used at all against a determined attacker? If so, by who and what was the result? Does it conform to;

KISS (keep it super simple)
CWCT (closest weapon closest target)

Once you have blended the best of what you know, given those criteria, you'll find a streamlined system that is devote of flashy, complicated techniques. Which is what SD is all about i.e. quick and ugly at lethal levels, quick and effective at less-than-lethal levels. Locks, throws etc have a place but remember that it isn't the nice, neat choreographed and flowing martial arts spectacular that is often shown in the videos or from hollywood. It is quick, dynamic and above all realistic.

Hope this helps.

 

[MJS]

One of my senseis is pretty big on bunkai. He basically will take a standard defense move and apply it in all kinds of ways, against a dizzying array of attacks. It's eye-opening; a 'chudan uke seiken tsuki' (middle body block, lunge punch) can be used in so many ways, I lost count. His comments to us are somewhat from a different perspective than yours. He adapts the technique, but he keeps the technique he wants to use rather then abandon it. He says "If I am planning to use a middle-body block and a straight punch, I don't *care* what punch you throw, I can cover it." Then he demonstrates, tying his uke (often me) up in knots. He refers to it as 'committing to the technique'. So, a different point of view. Both valid, I suspect.

Excellent points! Yes, its amazing what can be done, if the person has the know-how to do it.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Agreed, very good post. Bunkai Jutsu for kata can be so much more than what immediately meets the eye!