In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.
I'm afraid I really don't agree with that at all. In fact, I can personally think of absolutely no martial arts geared towards self defence, so to train them with that frame of mind (only) is to actually miss the point of them. Now, that's not to say that aspects of martial arts cannot be used, helpful, or highly advantageous in a self defence situation/scenario, however to think that that is what they are designed for is, I feel, to fundamentally misunderstand the teachings, training methods, ideologies, and actual precepts of the arts. But, being me, I'll give some examples to demonstrate my point:
To begin with, I think self defence needs to be understood, as simply thinking that "a punch is a punch, if an arm-bar broke someone's arm three hundred years ago it'll do the same thing today, people really haven't changed that much..." is a very limited and shallow understanding of this concept. Like martial arts, the techniques are the least of the actual reality here.
So if self defence isn't the techniques, what is it really? Well, self defence is just as it sounds, defending your self (and obviously can be extended to defending others as well, although that is honestly stretching the definition, and stretching the limits of most systems as well). And that lends itself to a great number of very non-martial arts aspects. In order to defend yourself, the main aim is to avoid engaging in dangerous situations, and should you find yourself in an unavoidable one, to extract yourself from it as quickly as possible. A large emphasis has to be on getting used to and handling the pre-fight, the adrenaline, and the after-effects. Technical considerations will demand that the actions are universally gross-motor, low-risk, and high-return. This is very brief, but sufficient for us to get going. Now to martial arts....
Martial arts are different. They simply are not self defence, and I for one would be thrilled to see them stop being advertised as such. But, of course, that raises the obvious question, if they are not self defence, what are martial arts really, when you get down to it?
Again, martial arts are not their techniques. Tae Kwon Do is not it's kicking methods. BJJ is not it's armbars, chokes, and ground-based submissions. Judo is not it's throws. And Kendo is not it's sword-work. These are all simply representations, or expressions, of what the martial arts in question really are, which is a method of teaching a philosophy (a series of beliefs, values, understanding, and behaviours) through the medium of combative techniques. Now, most people only really see the outward aspects, the physical techniques, and come to the natural conclussion that that is what they are about. And if a martial art is dealing with combative techniques, then it is about handling violence, right? And if it's about handling violence, then that is the same as self defence, right? No, actually.
As said, the techniques are not really what the art is about. But to take this easy path into the heart of the systems, let's look at them in a little more detail. To take a few broad brush strokes:
Karate/Tae Kwon Do/Kick boxing/Muay Thai etc.
These systems deal with primarily striking and kicking methods, with a little grappling in some cases, and occasional weaponry (Oriental). Movements tend towards angular, forwards, backwards, and sideways. Techniques are performed at a range of about 1 1/2 - 2 paces or further, against attacks as found in that system, against an attacker you know is there. Techniques can include complex combinations, fine motor actions, and skilled movements (movements that require training to be able to perform, such as jodan mawashigeri, crescent kicks, combination joint-locks/takedowns etc).
Judo/Aikido/Hapkido/BJJ/Sanshou etc.
These systems focus more on grappling, relying more on throwing (Judo), joint-locks (Hapkido/Aikido), or submission-style incapacitation (BJJ). The range is typically started at about 1 - 1 1/2 paces, techniques are applied against similar actions in the same system, and often involve complex or fine-motor actions and skilled movements.
Classical systems/koryu/ninjutsu-related arts etc.
These systems can be very broad-ranging, with each having their own speciality, which may be a particular weapon (archaic, oriental), a particular approach to combat (if we're talking Japanese systems, typically stand-up grappling based, with unarmed weapon defence). Depending on the system, techniques are performed within actual combative distace (typically with a ritualised beginning and end with a deal more distance) to outside of combative distance (to enable other aspects of training, such as heightened speed while remaining relatively safe, or extending the training exercises to improve endurance). Techniques are trained against attacks peculiar to the system itself, or typical of feudal-period combat and costume (what is worn can have a huge effect on technical considerations). These systems often include complex sequences, fine motor actions, and skilled movements.
Iaido/Kyudo/Taiji/Jodo etc.
These systems are often solo (with the exception of Jodo), and are less concerned with combative success than with the perfection of form. They can include the use of weaponry (archaic, oriental), and involve fine motor actions, complex sequences, and skilled movement.
I can go on, but I'm sure the basic gist is clear.... By contrast, self defence requires almost the opposite of each of these descriptions:
Self defence, from a technical perspective, requires gross-motor actions, simple combinations, and a reliance on simple movements, requiring less skill. The opening distance for a real confrontation is what is often refered as a "interview" distance, typically about 1- 1 1/2 handspans... about 1 1/2 feet. This is much closer than martial artists train, for a variety of reasons. Self defence involves handling an attack from different places (in front, on the side, behind... behind or on the side while someone in front takes your attention...), and are ambush, where you don't know there's an attacker until you're being hit, while martial arts predominantly teach with a known attacker in front (not a realistic self defence training method, really), self defence deals with the pre-fight, including awareness of the environment, and awareness to escape if possible. Martial arts deal with the combative aspect once this time has passed. Once again, I could go on, but this is going to be incredibly long as it is...
That's not to say that other reasons for participating in Martial Arts are not legitimate, but we should be asking the question, 'Do these other reasons bond with, or detract from that Self-Defence element?"
Martial arts, by their very nature, are removed from that self defence element. Combative is not the same as self defence, and to confuse them is to not understand them. Frankly, the "other reasons" for participating in martial arts are far more accurate than thinking it's geared for self defence. For example, Tae Kwon Do promotes, through it's training and competing, a series of values and moral teachings, a code of ethics and behaviour that are exemplified through the system itself. I mean, have none here wondered why many TKD organisations have non-contact or light-contact sparring/tournaments as a focus, including point-sparring and it's ilk? It's not for combative excellence or self defence capabilities, as I'm sure many here would agree that it is fairly removed from that.
So why is that method chosen? Well, to understand that you simply need to look to the underlying philosophy of TKD, which includes a creed, and a list of basic, fundamental tenets, which teach respect, loyalty, self-control, and more. It teaches these by teaching respect for others (by pitting yourself against the skills of others in tournaments), self-control (contact is limited, and you are held in check by yourself) and so on. So light-contact point sparring tournaments work perfectly to get these values across.
Perhaps the nearest non self-defence aspect of training which is closest in relation to SD is the sport element.
To be honest, I don't really get what you're saying here.... are you saying that the sporting aspects are the closest to a real self defence situation? If so, then I rather disagree with your basic premise here. Sport is geared up for many things that are the opposite of self defence. Honestly, there are far better methods, that are far more realistic, more realiable, and get the skills developed far faster... but we'll get there.
I know, I know...Sport is NOT self defence, etc, blah, blah, blah...But surely some form of contact training is preferential to none, and the various sport formats do allow, rule sets notwithstanding, a degree of pressure testing your art in a controlled enviroment.
Hmm, the "blah blah blah" part of this typically shows that you aren't actually open to hearing alternate viewpoints... hopefully that's not the case here. But, to cover it, yes, some contact is certainly preferable to none if self defence is your goal. But (and to address Andy's points as well)....
One of that basic precepts of training is that you are training your unconscious responces, muscle memory, or whatever term you prefer to use there. In other words, it is acknowledged fairly universally that should you need these skills, your conscious mind will not be the part of you that is in control, so to simply say (when not in the situation, say, when sitting in a calm place, typing on a keyboard, such as I am here) that you can switch your mindset from sport to defence, and not have those ingrained and trained responces (pulled punches from non-contact tournaments, trying to submit someone instead of disengaging and escaping) come out in the heat of the moment. Frankly, that is not the way it works.
Under the effects of adrenaline, your conscious mind will simply shut down, getting out of the way for more primal parts of yourself to come to the fore, the parts of yourself geared towards survival. And that survival part of yourself will instantly search through your past experiences for strong, dependable experiences in relation to the situation you are in. If you have no such experiences, most people simply freeze (as there is nothing for the survival part of yourself to work with, therefore no actions to utilise). If you have training in a sport system, and you have experienced even a degree of success (or even witnessed what you unconsciously value as "powerful" by another practitioner), then your unconscious will go to those experiences as a template for your actions, and seek to replicate that success. And that may very easily lead to inappropriate actions (such as trying to get distance to kick when in a crowded bar, or looking for a submission on one guy while his friends circle around you). And if you train in various arts, you will automatically go to whatever experiences your unconscious believes is the most powerful, whether it is your current art, the one you've trained in the longest, or something you did 6 months of when you were 7, but looks just like all those powerful heroes in the movies (remember, the unconsious can't tell the difference between real and made-up).
So it really comes down to what part of your training you believe is powerful, because that is what will come out.... but here's the thing. One way to find out just what is unconsciously believed to be powerful is to put yourself under a great degree of pressure (such as a tournament), and take notice of what comes out. So if you are pressure testing yourself in sporting constraints, you are reinforcing that the sporting approach is powerful, both by putting yourself in a situation where you are looking for your skill under that pressure, and by deliberately focusing that pressure testing on those sporting aspects. So it can actually be rather detrimental to self defence again.
This got me to thinking however.
As you can tell, I'm a huge advocate of Sport Martial arts, and that comes from my background and experiences, (exactly, it's what you unconsciously believe to be powerful, based on your experiences, which gives you your beliefs, which gives you your value system [sport = good for self defence, martial arts = self defence], which in turn gives you your behaviours [your techniques under pressure, and your words and thoughts here]) but, do some methods and systems delude their students into believing that their particular sport format will transfer well into a live self-protection scenario?
As said, I think that all martial arts do this to some degree... at least, those that claim self defence as a benefit of their training. Doesn't matter if it's sport or not, martial arts are so removed from the realities and requirements of self defence that to claim they are the same is to be a little deluded in this regard.
For example, some Sport Karate formats teach students to pull techniques prior to impact, and as for WTF Taekwondo..I'm sorry to say that in my 33 years studying Martial Arts (24 of which have been as an adult) I can see no practical transfer from mat to street from that particular format.
But the problem here is that you are trying to insist that these formats, being martial arts, should necessarily have practical transferance to self defence in these aspects. And that is not the case. But for the record, it can have practical benefits by promoting fitness, endurance, confidence, targeting, and more. These can (and often are) shocked out of the student with the first hit, but if that first hit is on the students behalf, then it may be enough!
On the other hand Sporting formats such as MMA, Kyokushinkai, Lei Tai, Muay Thai, and other Kickboxing methods, are more suited as a base for crossover intoSelf-Defence/Protection.
Unfortunately, no. Sporting formats such as MMA, Kyokushin, Muay Thai etc are better suited to prepare you for hard contact sporting competition. Martial arts are better suited to prepare you for martial arts. Self defence training is best suited to prepare you for self defence training. The ideals are again just too different.
To give you an idea, let's look at a typical timeline for each (I'll take MMA and a bar-room brawl/assault here):
To take an MMA fight first, it begins with any amount of general training and conditioning (taking into account the types of techniques likely to be encountered, including punching, kicking, stand-up grappling, takedowns, shooting in low, ground-based striking, ground-based grappling, and so on. It does not include group assaults, weapons, ambushes, and so on), then there is notification of an uncoming fight. This may be a few weeks to a few months. Typically you will know your opponent, which allows the lead-up time to transition into specific training and conditioning (training for the known preferences of your known opponent, as well as heightening those aspects of your own training that are known to generate success in this environment).
On the day of the fight, the pre-fight is well managed, with people to help you warm up, stretch, and psych yourself up for the experience. You are allowed to mentally prepare yourself for the reasonably predictible experience you are about to enter into (to get an idea what I mean by that, think back to Mike Tyson's infamous ear-biting incident. That would be considered an unexpected, and therefore unpredictible experience, and had an immediate effect of shocking Evander Hollyfield out of his gameplan, as well as Mike getting disqualified). Then the fight itself is a known quantity, you will know how many rounds there are, how long they go for, who your opponent is, what they are likely to attack you with, how they are likely to defend against your attacks, and so on. The post-fight is also very well managed, with trainers and others there to take you through the come-down from the adrenaline, as well as to help deal with any psychological aspects from the fight. Many fighters then often take time off from training, coming back to general training and conditioning, often knowing pretty soon how soon they will need to start ther specific conditioning again (and for who, when, and where).
By contrast, self defence experiences (if you are training for it) has a rather different timetable, although many of the same conditions are passed through in the same order.
In self defence training, all your training is general preparation. There is no specific preparation for known situations, as there are no known situations (you don't know when, or if, you will ever be involved in such an encounter). This general training needs to be very broad-ranging, taking into it's consideration striking, kicking, stand-up grappling, takedowns, takedown defence, weapon defence (and often use, most commonly improvised, but sometimes with specific weapons, depending on local laws), group defence, ambush defence, pre-emptive defence, escape, avoidance, talk-downs (verbal defusion), understanding of the psychology involved, understanding of adrenaline, awareness of being a hard target, as opposed to a soft, or easy target, handling the pre-fight, handling the post-fight, and much much more.
The pre-fight preparation you get is typically a few seconds at best. "You lookin' at my girl?!? YOU LOOKIN' AT MY GIRL!?!!?!?" Push.... THUMP!!! Not a lot of time, really. The actual fight can be over in a few seconds, or can last longer (most often a few seconds, though), and there is no one to help with the pre-fight, or help you handle the post-fight and the endorphin rush that follows the adrenal dump... during which most people lower their guard and awareness, and feel heavy, a little groggy, and slow.... and that's when they get hit again.
I know it's not what you train, but rather how you train, but are certain methods of sport martial arts more detrimental to self-defence than others?
Well, I think I've covered my feelings on the subject here, but realistically the major part of this is the "it's how you train" part. If you train a sport system for self defence, either you don't understand self defence and it's requirements, or you're not being entirely honest with yourself as to why you train. Because, really, self defence training, when done the way it really needs to be done (such as RBSD systems) is incredibly simple, but incredibly confronting, as it really needs to be. But it gives no real longevity to someone wanting to train long term, and get the benefits a martial art or sport have to offer. But the two shouldn't be confused, as they are as similar as chocolate cake and roast beef. Both great things to eat, but one is a main meal, and the other is a dessert... confusing them doesn't lead to anything good.
