Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[drop bear]

I can certainly see that. I do think (as DB pointed out) that most people are more affected by loss in front of a group than in private (though that doesn't compute for me - I'd be more interested in not losing in front of a few people who know me than 1,000 strangers). That probably means the opponent is likely to be fighting harder. I agree there's a potentially large difference, but not a clear delineation. If I didn't make that clear, that's on me. I see them as potentially (not necessarily) variations of the same thing.

You don't have the tools to compete. But you do have the tools to spar.

There is either a difference or there isn't.

 

[hoshin1600]

So the main complaint of self defence is the lack of verification that any of it works at all.

That aspect in itself is what makes self defence training terrible.

first ...you would have to explain to me what self defense is. second... a major component is BJJ ,,,,so your telling me that BJJ is terrible for self defense?????

i think the Gracie family would argue against you on that.

 

[drop bear]

first ...you would have to explain to me what self defense is. second... a major component is BJJ ,,,,so your telling me that BJJ is terrible for self defense?????

i think the Gracie family would argue against you on that.

BJJ is only partially validated by its self defence component. And when it is they produce video evidence to support their concepts.

So instead of trying to create mental gymnastics to support unsupportable ideas they just show a video of someone getting messed up by a BJJer.

Otherwise I don't really have to define self defence. If self defence is some sort of indefinable mess. That gives the people attempting to validate their method by self defence more work. Not less.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You don't have the tools to compete. But you do have the tools to spar.

There is either a difference or there isn't.

I can spar (and could compete) striking with no significant limitation.

I can roll with a lot of limitation (can't use my toes in any significant way). If rolling is strikes-free (something similar to BJJ competition rules), I'm hosed by anyone with skill, because my kneeling base will always be weak, as are transitions from knee to foot. I can get around that in working with people by depending a bit on strikes, but if they have ground skill, I'll eventually be eaten.

I can do standing grappling with less limitation on most days. As long as I stick to standing finishes or a few choice ground finishes, I'm okay. I do spend some focus keeping my toes safe, because one hard stub or stomp and I'm out of the fight (not so much of an issue with shoes), but it doesn't create much of a limitation. The knees are more the issue. If we're grappling-only, I have a hard time getting under for some throws many days. If I were to try to enter a Judo competition, anyone who kept their weight low would cause me no end of problem. If I'm allowed strikes, tie-ups, and hard shoves (none of which I think are allowed or at least favored in Judo rules), I can overcome this. Consistently stalling other people's techniques also works well in sparring, but not in Judo competition.

I have the tools. My legs just suck. I get by in sparring by leaning on what I can do and being really good at defending. When the rules (whether spoken or just understood) allow me more latitude, I'm pretty capable if I stay off the ground.

I can't say if I'd be any good at competing, but I have the tools to do it. I just don't know of a ruleset (other than striking) that I'm still able enough for.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

EDIT: Double post.

 

[hoshin1600]

I don't really have to define self defence.

actually for this argument ,,yes you do, because it is the underlying crux of the entire argument.
@Anarax has been trying to make a point that traditional martial arts are better than self defense.
but self defense is defined as: a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. as per WikiP
it is not a style. it is not a collection of techniques. Thus you cannot get a certificate in it and cannot be accredited as an instructor. it doesnt have a history or linage.
it is an : aim, goal or purpose FOR training. training in what? training in martial arts. what martial art? the art of your choice,, you get to choose. which is why my comment to Anarax was to not generalize about self defense. sometimes self defense training is nothing more that traditional martial arts and there is a long list of arts to choose from.

and that brings me to being done on this topic.

 

[pdg]

Thus you cannot get a certificate in it and cannot be accredited as an instructor.

The results of a quick search I just conducted contradict that...

 

[hoshin1600]

The results of a quick search I just conducted contradict that...

incorrect per my comments. i asked them to define self defense. self defense as defined by wiki that i posted cannot be. however an organization can give you a certificate to teach "their curriculum". they may define it as self defense but that is improper, they are certifying you in their program that presumes a use as self defense.

its semantics for sure, but more accurate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You don't have the tools to compete. But you do have the tools to spar.

There is either a difference or there isn't.

I just realized I answered a different question than I think you intended. I blame it on sleep deprivation.

When I said sparring can be nearly identical to competition - no functional difference - I was speaking of it in general. My sparring (rolling, randori, whatever) isn't like Judo competition or BJJ competition. I can adjust the rules to accommodate my injuries when necessary - something I cannot do with competition.

 

[Anarax]

Okay, so what I teach is a SD course, by that calculation, unless you include some of the self-development that occurs (which will occur to some extent in any focused endeavor).

I'm not telling you what you're teaching, but I will explain the different categories of what I'm referring to. The three primary categories I'm using for the sake of this thread are Martial Arts(Karate, Kung Fu, Japanese Jujitsu, Judo, Kali), MA styles that emphasize SD(Aikido, Krav Maga) and SD courses themselves. Please note there is some overlap.

My teaching is centered around SD. I use NGA as a primary tool toward that, and the style itself is focused on SD.

Here's what I think makes the differences are between MA, MA focus on SD and SD courses

1) MA is based on concepts which shape what a MA will focus on and how it will function. I see concepts as the Genesis of MA, concepts bridge into tactics and from tactics, techniques. Having a firm grasp on concepts is vital for any martial artist, regardless of the focus. If your style focuses more so on the SD(not course, but an actual MA style) side of it, you approach it by maintaining the core concepts of the style. NGA has a clear history and there is a certain level of authenticity that I can verify if I wanted to take classes from you. However; if you only advertised yourself as an SD instructor and under your "about" page it said "background in Martial Arts". It's too vague and can't really be verified nor substantiated. However; your site gave very specific information with dates and instructor's names. Essentially, there's no requirements nor credentials needed to advertise yourself as an SD instructor and a lot of them give very vague information.

2) Many SD courses I've seen lack concepts, it's just techniques that people are taught. I think there's more to MA than just teaching people techniques. Rewiring(not brainwashing related) how someone moves and reacts with deeply ingrained MA concepts is what I think is part of the goal of MA. I haven't made any MA techniques, but I have used certain techniques that I haven't been taught, but they are very "Kali" looking techniques. I think that's another example of conceptual Martial arts training.

3) Having taken Aikido and Krav myself, I can speak from experience. Krav draws from so many sources it lacks any definite concepts. It has plenty of techniques, but the techniques themselves lack any conceptual consistency. However; Aikido is different from KM in regards to its concepts being more complete. Aikido's techniques are based on the Aiki concept, thus you could apply that concept to training in other systems and blending other techniques into your curriculum. If you only knew the techniques without understanding the concepts you would only be a copy of your instructor. That's how many other style came to be, slight conceptual deviations which results in changes of techniques and emphasis.

I've blended in other techniques and approaches from other sources to improve the SD focus. I evaluate every technique (and teach my students to do so) for its strengths and weaknesses as a SD tool, or as a tool for learning principles useful in SD.

That is a good approach. Would you say you had a good foundational understanding of at least one MA style before you started teaching? What is the name of what you teach exactly?

 

[Anarax]

as far as dictating how people should word their posts, it has been a running theme on this web sight for years and something that is just common logic that broad brush statements are usually incorrect and do tend to be corrected here on this sight. so yeah you were making generalized comments.

When you essentially say "don't say that" without an explanation as to the why, you open yourself up to criticism and questions. For example; GP is explaining to me how his class approaches SD and we're having a conversation about it.

i believe you and i have "gotten into it" before about this same kind of misunderstanding.

Honestly I don't have the attention span to remember who I have and haven't "gotten into it" with.

you seem to think that because i said something i am talking about myself ONLY....on the contrary i am nothing special so if i am doing something...
A....i must have learned it somewhere and from someone
B...logically i can not be the only one doing it
C.... it would then be a logical conclusion that a generalized statement would not hold true.

No, but I do think you're taking any criticism of SD personally. Anytime I posted a criticism or said how and why I placed MA above long-term SD courses, you replied equating my words as meaning SD is "crap". You used "crap" multiple times in your responses suggesting that's what I said and meant. That shows you're jumping to conclusions and are very defensive about this topic.

you were expressing your opinion based on your experience, i was stating that my experience has been different.

Yes that's part of what we were doing.

no traceable history??? so what people just pulled stuff out of their butts??

Adding a wrist throw doesn't make it Aikido, nor does adding knife techniques make it Kali. The style's actual history is important, it brings context and validity to its understanding.

there is nothing in traditional martial arts that cannot be found (or a similar equivalent to) in combatives or SD training, except the white pajama's and the foreign words and bowing and stuff.

Wow, the last part of that comment is very ignorant. I think that clearly illustrates why we're not agreeing on this topic, we obviously view MA very differently

 

[Anarax]

it is not a style. it is not a collection of techniques.

Yet you're defending the long-term courses, thus we can conclude that self-defense courses exist?

Thus you cannot get a certificate in it and cannot be accredited as an instructor. it doesnt have a history or linage.

There are instructor certificates. Link

Anarax was to not generalize about self defense. sometimes self defense training is nothing more that traditional martial arts and there is a long list of arts to choose from.

It's not simply that. We weren't debating on the concept of SD, we were debating the differences on MA and SD courses.

 

[Buka]

My twelve cents..

I never competed in MMA. The first UFC didn't come around until I was in my forties. Even though Jorge Rivera tried to get me to fight in one of his events in Puerto Rico when in my fifties, my wife wouldn't let me. [yes, I'm pussy whipped] But I sure wish I had, if for no other reason than the fun of it and to have the right frame of reference when discussing all kinds of competitions. Even though I was an MMA judge for years in New England, judging guys like Kenny Florian and Joe Lauzon in the early part of their careers - watching and judging sure ain't doing.

Anyway...for tournament style competitions, where you fight a guy and if you win you fight another guy - until the division has one winner, there's really, in MY OPINION, little self defense going on in your head. You aren't trying to hurt the guy, or knock him out, you're just trying to beat him. To me, the very hardest part of tournament competitions has always been driving hours to the tourney and waiting what seems like eons to hear your damn name called. Sometimes, when you're ahead, you stall. I mean, he's losing, he has to come to you, and the clock is ticking. Ticking in your favor. You really don't stall much in self defense, unless you're waiting for the cops or other factors that might save your butt .

In ring fighting, while you may very well be trying to kayo him, maybe even hurt him a little, it's still different. I kick boxed professionally for some years in New England, and when Massachusetts outlawed kick boxing for a while, yes, that's correct, it was against the law to have kick boxing in Massachusetts. In case you're wondering why - kick boxing shows were outselling boxing shows by a big margin, HUGE margin. The State House in Boston Massachusetts had a lot of old time boxers working there in FAT political jobs - they pushed a bill through declaring that since kicking was considered "dirty fighting" they banned all kick boxing in the state. So, F em', we went to other states and fought.
Interesting side note - years later, these same son's O bitches in the State House - I ended up training them how to judge MMA matches in Mass. Weird how life comes full circle some time.

Anyway...if you're kickboxing, you are aware of all rules, how many kicks you are required to throw or lose the round and/or the fight. You are aware of where you are in regard to where the judges sit, you are aware if you finish the round strong, the judges might give you the round even if you didn't deserve it. So many things come into professional fighting your attitude, movement, focus - is as far from self defense as Washington D.C is from honesty.

Competition gets easier the more you do it. Those first couple of times you are as nervous as a cat. Then it becomes something you just waste a perfectly good Saturday on because it's fun. And sometimes there's money!

And I was always taught that training should be much harder than any competition, or any self defense situation, you ever get into. That's the way we always approached it. Seems to work. Ain't nobody died yet.

And the only advice I'd give to guys going to tourneys....bring a lot of sandwiches. You're going to need them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not telling you what you're teaching, but I will explain the different categories of what I'm referring to. The three primary categories I'm using for the sake of this thread are Martial Arts(Karate, Kung Fu, Japanese Jujitsu, Judo, Kali), MA styles that emphasize SD(Aikido, Krav Maga) and SD courses themselves. Please note there is some overlap.

Here's what I think makes the differences are between MA, MA focus on SD and SD courses

1) MA is based on concepts which shape what a MA will focus on and how it will function. I see concepts as the Genesis of MA, concepts bridge into tactics and from tactics, techniques. Having a firm grasp on concepts is vital for any martial artist, regardless of the focus. If your style focuses more so on the SD(not course, but an actual MA style) side of it, you approach it by maintaining the core concepts of the style. NGA has a clear history and there is a certain level of authenticity that I can verify if I wanted to take classes from you. However; if you only advertised yourself as an SD instructor and under your "about" page it said "background in Martial Arts". It's too vague and can't really be verified nor substantiated. However; your site gave very specific information with dates and instructor's names. Essentially, there's no requirements nor credentials needed to advertise yourself as an SD instructor and a lot of them give very vague information.

2) Many SD courses I've seen lack concepts, it's just techniques that people are taught. I think there's more to MA than just teaching people techniques. Rewiring(not brainwashing related) how someone moves and reacts with deeply ingrained MA concepts is what I think is part of the goal of MA. I haven't made any MA techniques, but I have used certain techniques that I haven't been taught, but they are very "Kali" looking techniques. I think that's another example of conceptual Martial arts training.

3) Having taken Aikido and Krav myself, I can speak from experience. Krav draws from so many sources it lacks any definite concepts. It has plenty of techniques, but the techniques themselves lack any conceptual consistency. However; Aikido is different from KM in regards to its concepts being more complete. Aikido's techniques are based on the Aiki concept, thus you could apply that concept to training in other systems and blending other techniques into your curriculum. If you only knew the techniques without understanding the concepts you would only be a copy of your instructor. That's how many other style came to be, slight conceptual deviations which results in changes of techniques and emphasis.


That is a good approach. Would you say you had a good foundational understanding of at least one MA style before you started teaching? What is the name of what you teach exactly?

Okay, I think I see your point. I should point out that you're defining "SD course" in a way that it has to be problematic, since you've basically included the problems in the definition. Essentially, the difference between what I do and a SD course is that I use concepts. If I didn't, it'd be a SD course. It's like saying "all McDojos are bad", which is pretty true, since all of us tend to use the bad habits some dojos have to define "McDojo".

As for what I teach, it depends when you ask me. My primary art is Nihon Goshin Aikido (a derivative of Daito-ryu). I have background in Judo, FMA, Karate, and a smattering of exposure to BJJ and MMA training, as well as Aikido and some other miscellaneous stuff. So, if someone asks what I teach, if they are not MA-oriented, I'm likely to say "martial arts". If they are MA oriented, I'll often say "Nihon Goshin Aikido", though that's not entirely true (my curriculum includes material NGA folks wouldn't recognize). To me, NGA is the base of what I teach, and is a reasonable container for the rest (if it wasn't, I'd have to find something else). Nothing I teach conflicts with the principles I see in NGA, but some of it probably conflicts with how others see NGA.

 

[drop bear]

actually for this argument ,,yes you do, because it is the underlying crux of the entire argument.
@Anarax has been trying to make a point that traditional martial arts are better than self defense.
but self defense is defined as: a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. as per WikiP
it is not a style. it is not a collection of techniques. Thus you cannot get a certificate in it and cannot be accredited as an instructor. it doesnt have a history or linage.
it is an : aim, goal or purpose FOR training. training in what? training in martial arts. what martial art? the art of your choice,, you get to choose. which is why my comment to Anarax was to not generalize about self defense. sometimes self defense training is nothing more that traditional martial arts and there is a long list of arts to choose from.

and that brings me to being done on this topic.

OK. Self defence is a marketing tool. Designed to give the illusion that there is a real level of competency when there isn't.

It sounds cool but means nothing. Like tactical.

So you can have a collection of self defence techniques and be part of a self defence school and be accredited in self defence. Because anyone can come along and make that stuff up.

Same as I could do tactical training be accredited in tacticalness. And so on.

But real places teach self defence so self defence training exists. I could go to that school and train self defence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The style's actual history is important, it brings context and validity to its understanding.

I tend to disagree with this. NGA's history isn't what makes it valid or provides my understanding. I validate individual techniques based on their utility, both in my experience and how others (both in NGA and outside it) have used them. Seeing a technique used by a LEO, someone defending themselves, or someone in an MMA or wrestling competition is more important to me than its history as part of NGA or Daito-ryu.

 

[Anarax]

I should point out that you're defining "SD course" in a way that it has to be problematic, since you've basically included the problems in the definition

I don't understand, I'm not being coy. Could you clarify?

Essentially, the difference between what I do and a SD course is that I use concepts.

Yes, but I think that makes a huge difference. You are basing it on a firm conceptual foundation.

To me, NGA is the base of what I teach, and is a reasonable container for the rest (if it wasn't, I'd have to find something else).

This is how I approach learning other styles as well.

Nothing I teach conflicts with the principles I see in NGA, but some of it probably conflicts with how others see NGA.

Differentiating between maintaining core concepts and the purists mentality is important. I'm not advocating for style "purity".

NGA's history isn't what makes it valid or provides my understanding. I validate individual techniques based on their utility, both in my experience and how others (both in NGA and outside it) have used them.

I understand, I was more so referring to concept based martial arts and understanding the context of the style. I didn't mean any style with history automatically makes it valid. However; if I walk into a Rex Kwon Do school vs a Kyokushin school, there's at least history for Kyokushin I can go off of, though nothing is guaranteed.

Seeing a technique used by a LEO, someone defending themselves, or someone in an MMA or wrestling competition is more important to me than its history as part of NGA or Daito-ryu.

LEO?

 

[Anarax]

OK. Self defence is a marketing tool. Designed to give the illusion that there is a real level of competency when there isn't.

It sounds cool but means nothing. Like tactical.

So you can have a collection of self defence techniques and be part of a self defence school and be accredited in self defence. Because anyone can come along and make that stuff up.

Same as I could do tactical training be accredited in tacticalness. And so on.

But real places teach self defence so self defence training exists. I could go to that school and train self defence.

View attachment 21333

I only saw Pole Fitness and lost concentration

 

[drop bear]

I only saw Pole Fitness and lost concentration

That is a local place. I just have never been game to try it.

It is probably self defence based on pole fitness. Maybe with some Zumba thrown in.

But yeah. Strange mix

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't understand, I'm not being coy. Could you clarify?

Look at your distinction between a MA focused on SD, versus a SD course. You've put in the very definition that the SD course has no principles. You've provided a definition that includes it having that problem. Thus, anything that doesn't have that problem becomes "MA focused on SD", while anything with that problem is "SD course". It'd be like me saying sick people aren't healthy. Nothing particularly wrong with it - just wanted to make sure you realized you'd created a distinction that actually includes the problem. So, it's not that SD courses have that problem, but that programs with that problem are "SD courses".

Yes, but I think that makes a huge difference. You are basing it on a firm conceptual foundation.

Every SD instructor I've ever actually had a chance to work with or talk shop with seems to do that (not saying there aren't any that don't - I just haven't had a chance to talk shop with them to find it out). I suspect those who don't are poorly trained - good teachers (theirs) tend to instill the principles of whatever they teach into the practice of the students and instructors they develop. So folks with thin training (especially those going off a certification program that's 40-80 hours) are unlikely to really have that set of principles, and are more likely to present specific solutions to problems, rather than approaches to solving them.

I understand, I was more so referring to concept based martial arts and understanding the context of the style. I didn't mean any style with history automatically makes it valid. However; if I walk into a Rex Kwon Do school vs a Kyokushin school, there's at least history for Kyokushin I can go off of, though nothing is guaranteed.

My point was that the history doesn't really give much to go on. To some extent, lineage can be helpful. If someone had an excellent instructor, they are more likely to be at least a good instructor. Beyond that, even lineage doesn't promise much. In fact, some folks lean too much on the history of their art, going back to its roots too often (like the sword-derived movements I see in a lot of Aikido dojos), rather than letting the movements evolve for a specific purpose. A brand new art's problem isn't so much the lack of history to view, but that it hasn't had time to evolve and there are likely few practitioners to see how it looks outside the dedicated few. I like history, and find it interesting. I love to learn about the back story of arts, and tend to be more interested in arts that are somehow tied to the (thin) history of my primary art. But that's all intellectual curiosity, not practicality.

LEO?

Law Enforcement Officer (read: cop).