Properly identify what you teach and learn.

[Gerry Seymour]

In a different thread, you admonished someone for being "MMA or bah." In the same thread Drop Bear was doing pretty much the exact same thing, he just wasn't as aggressive in his wording.

If you're talking about the practicality of teaching that in the US (carjacking and carbines), then I would agree it's not the greatest investment.

However, dealing with heavily armed individuals who hold you up in the car, is a thing in certain parts of the world.

I feel like you're moving farther and farther from the original point you replied to. I also don't feel like either of us is gaining anything from this side discussion, so I'll let it drop.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I will make one more attempt at this;
Do you all understand that the point I'm making is not specific at all to 3 guys carjacking you with 3 AK47s? It could just as easily be a scenario where your mother or wife is robbed of her purse by someone holding a screw driver.

How she is going to avoid being in that situation, and/or mitigate it is not found in "martial arts" training. Mitigating it possibly could be done from using firearms based "self-defense" training(let's be realistic they aren't armed, so that's out) but almost certainly not in "combatives training." And oh by the way, she is more likely to be injured in a car wreck on her way to the store, as opposed to actually being robbed, so let's keep this in perspective, remember "safety training" and to wear her seatbelt.

It's really that simple of a concept.

This gets back to my original point about the terms being too vague to make statements like this. "Martial arts" can contian a lot of things, depending upon how you define it, and the experience/knowledge of those teaching it. Many in MA do teach mitigation, de-escalation, avoidance, etc. Some even teach those things well.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I feel like you're moving farther and farther from the original point you replied to. I also don't feel like either of us is gaining anything from this side discussion, so I'll let it drop.

I am simply responding to what you had to say.

If you prefer not to directly address it, that is your prerogative.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Does Bear actually have any "friends" here? It seems like his primary primary form of entertainment on MT is to irritate as many people as he can.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Oddly, he's the kind of (insert vulgar term used rather readily and sometimes semi-affectionately in Australia) I'd have a beer with after class. Particularly because we manage to disagree mostly civilly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It just always seems a bit like a gimmick when martial artists do it.

While there are some who do those things well, I think many do it either just because someone who taught them did, or because it seems like something they "should" do.

There's a lot of stuff I don't teach that was taught to me, because I either don't think it's good teaching, or just don't have any idea if it's good practice. That's the same reason I teach (well, taught - probably will teach again) stuff that wasn't taught as part of my primary art.

 

[Jared Traveler]

This gets back to my original point about the terms being too vague to make statements like this. "Martial arts" can contian a lot of things, depending upon how you define it, and the experience/knowledge of those teaching it. Many in MA do teach mitigation, de-escalation, avoidance, etc. Some even teach those things well.

I don't disagree that the terms are in some cases vague, which is why I'm suggesting as individuals we try to define them more specifically.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

This gets back to my original point about the terms being too vague to make statements like this. "Martial arts" can contian a lot of things, depending upon how you define it, and the experience/knowledge of those teaching it. Many in MA do teach mitigation, de-escalation, avoidance, etc. Some even teach those things well.

Defining martial art:

Merriam webster: any of several arts of combat and self-defense (such as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport

Cambridge: a sport that is a traditional Japanese or Chinese form of fighting or defending yourself

Britannica: any of various fighting sports or skills, mainly of East Asian origin, such as kung fu (Pinyin gongfu), judo, karate, and kendō.

Wiki: codified systems and traditions of combat

Oxford reference: a broad term that covers a variety of schools and forms whose unity derives only from their origins in the arts of war and single combat. Thus, it covers the ‘empty-hand’ fighting style of karate as well as forms that concentrate on the use of various weapons, from swords and bows and arrows to farming implements such as sickles and threshers.

What do they have in common?--if it involves fighting, it's a martial art.

Mitigation, descalation, and avoidance, are not martial arts skills. They are just taught together depending on where you learn.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't disagree that the terms are in some cases vague, which is why I'm suggesting as individuals we try to define them more specifically.

That was one of my original questions: why do we need to define those terms more specifically? So long as we know and can communicate what we teach, why do the marketing terms need to be specifically defined?

 

[drop bear]

While there are some who do those things well, I think many do it either just because someone who taught them did, or because it seems like something they "should" do.

There's a lot of stuff I don't teach that was taught to me, because I either don't think it's good teaching, or just don't have any idea if it's good practice. That's the same reason I teach (well, taught - probably will teach again) stuff that wasn't taught as part of my primary art.

The thing is. For me. Most of the stuff I will do on the street. I can try in the classroom. Without having to pre warn people. I just have to be careful about it.

 

[Jared Traveler]

That was one of my original questions: why do we need to define those terms more specifically? So long as we know and can communicate what we teach, why do the marketing terms need to be specifically defined?

Great question! The biggest reason is as instructors, we want to provide our students with solutions to threats. I think most instructors have good intentions. But if we try to have a solution for everything, we will come up with answers based on our training and experience to do it. In many cases lacking the experience, and knowledge to give those answers. Why? Because we are often drawing from the same well.

In other words, to put it in a martial arts example, if you practice kickboxing and what to learn grappling, you don't get their by studying kickboxing at a deeper level. No you go to an expert to learn what you don't know about grappling. If you want to teach self-defense at a higher level, you don't get their by becoming the best combatives guy in town. You have to discover nuances you are previously unaware of.

By being aware of the nuances, we can begin to broaden our understanding of many topics and skill sets we were previously unaware even existed.

This thread is NOT intended to be a "stay in your lane" speech. The fact is the student or client is going to reach out to you as a martial arts instructor in many cases, regardless if it's the right context. But if we are self-aware, we can better begin to understand what type of skill set they best need. We can grow in ways we didn't know existed, to help them. We can teach better classes. On the other hand sometimes, this may simply mean saying, "You don't need martial arts instruction, you need...."

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Great question! The biggest reason is as instructors, we want to provide our students with solutions to threats. I think most instructors have good intentions. But if we try to have a solution for everything, we will come up with answers based on our training and experience to do it. In many cases lacking the experience, and knowledge to give those answers. Why? Because we are often drawing from the same well.

In other words, to put it in a martial arts example, if you practice kickboxing and what to learn grappling, you don't get their by studying kickboxing at a deeper level. No you go to an expert to learn what you don't know about grappling. If you want to teach self-defense at a higher level, you don't get their by becoming the best combatives guy in town. You have to discover nuances you are previously unaware of.

By being aware of the nuances, we can begin to broaden our understanding of many topics and skill sets we were previously unaware even existed.

This thread is NOT intended to be a "stay in your lane" speech. The fact is the student or client is going to reach out to you as a martial arts instructor in many cases, regardless if it's the right context. But if we are self-aware, we can better begin to understand what type of skill set they best need. We can grow in ways we didn't know existed, to help them. We can teach better classes. On the other hand sometimes, this may simply mean saying, "You don't need martial arts instruction, you need...."

Hence my thread on the Gen section.

You want to learn how to fight, you go learn from accredited martial artists, and you have the sub disciplines per skill.

You want to learn how to practically apply those skills as a civilian or officer, you go learn from people who specialize in real-world altercations and today’s street threats.

You want to learn about knives, you to go someone who’s specialty is “shankology,” preferably someone who’s been on the receiving end, and had to use their weapon.

You want to learn about guns, you go to someone who’s had to shoot people for a living.

And so on.

 

[lklawson]

Very mDefining martial art:

Merriam webster: any of several arts of combat and self-defense (such as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport

Cambridge: a sport that is a traditional Japanese or Chinese form of fighting or defending yourself

Britannica: any of various fighting sports or skills, mainly of East Asian origin, such as kung fu (Pinyin gongfu), judo, karate, and kendō.

Wiki: codified systems and traditions of combat

Oxford reference: a broad term that covers a variety of schools and forms whose unity derives only from their origins in the arts of war and single combat. Thus, it covers the ‘empty-hand’ fighting style of karate as well as forms that concentrate on the use of various weapons, from swords and bows and arrows to farming implements such as sickles and threshers.

What do they have in common?--if it involves fighting, it's a martial art.

Mitigation, descalation, and avoidance, are not martial arts skills. They are just taught together depending on where you learn.

Very much disagree. Learning how to avoid unnecessary fights has been a staple of martial doctrine since before Sun Tzu.

 

[lklawson]

Great question! The biggest reason is as instructors, we want to provide our students with solutions to threats. I think most instructors have good intentions.

Except when that's not the point of studying martial arts.

Again, for the umpteenth time, not all martial arts study is related to "self defense" or whatever.

 

[lklawson]

Hence my thread on the Gen section.

You want to learn how to fight, you go learn from accredited martial artists, and you have the sub disciplines per skill.

You want to learn how to practically apply those skills as a civilian or officer, you go learn from people who specialize in real-world altercations and today’s street threats.

You want to learn about knives, you to go someone who’s specialty is “shankology,” preferably someone who’s been on the receiving end, and had to use their weapon.

You want to learn about guns, you go to someone who’s had to shoot people for a living.

And so on.

Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Except when that's not the point of studying martial arts.

Again, for the umpteenth time, not all martial arts study is related to "self defense" or whatever.

For the umpteenth time, that's my point also.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Very much disagree. Learning how to avoid unnecessary fights has been a staple of martial doctrine since before Sun Tzu.

There is a difference between avoid fighting verse avoiding victimization.

 

[Jared Traveler]

For the umpteenth time, that's my point also.

I'm sorry iklawson, that was rude of me. Please take a look at my original post, you seem not to realize you are saying, what I said from the very beginning.

 

[lklawson]

I'm sorry iklawson, that was rude of me. Please take a look at my original post, you seem not to realize you are saying, what I said from the very beginning.

OK. I re-read your thread-start post. I still believe it to be far too restrictive, missing many of the reasons that people train in martial arts.

While I agree that those reasons, Self-defense/combatives/etc., are what are often cited as the reason, it turns out that, well, they're usually not. I was speaking to a fine gent just the other day who's training Judo, BJJ, & Boxing for the social aspect; just a bunch of folks training together and having fun with a hobby in order to avoid social isolation.

Maybe you've expanded your list and I missed it somewhere up-thread?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

There is a difference between avoid fighting verse avoiding victimization.

Sales training is your best resource for that by the way.

Because they do that sort of thing competitively.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The thing is. For me. Most of the stuff I will do on the street. I can try in the classroom. Without having to pre warn people. I just have to be careful about it.

I feel like I missed something in this. Was this a reply to the post you quoted?