Sports relation to Self Defence.

[alcatraz]

In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.

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?"

Perhaps the nearest non self-defence aspect of training which is closest in relation to SD is the sport element.

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.

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, 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?

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.

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.

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?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Well, it's only within the last few decades that people in the self defense community have tried to attach a negative connotation to "sporting" aspects of martial arts in general.

From jousting, to fencing to the earliest Egyptian wrestling inscribed on tomb walls, to modern pugil stick training, military training has *ALWAYS* had some degree of a "sporting" component. It's a necessary concession to reality: If your only goal was to prove conclusively, every time, that a technique works for "real", it won't take very long before you'll have no students who can move. Whether in a formal, national military context or a simple social tribe/pack situation, weakening/injuring the members of one's own group unnecessarily is not conducive to that group's survival.

The big sticking point tends to come up among the "Pavlov's Dog" crowd: the assertion is generally made that one will fight the way one is conditioned to, and indeed there have been cases of someone releasing a hold after their opponent "tapped", or where someone successfully disarmed a weapon and then handed it back because of long repetition of doing just that in practice, or of cops found dead with empty revolvers and pockets full of spent brass because at that time( 1970s) they were told to pick up their brass after ejecting on the range, and ended up doing so during Go Time, which gave the scumbags enough advantage to win that one.

What I find puzzling is that no one has just come out and plainly said: Do nothing which is useless. If you have to use your art, forget how to be nice. It REALLY ISN'T HARD to adapt.

It's a simple enough matter to stop handing back the practice knife right away and give your brain the signal that this is a new sequence.

A "safe" joint lock can be taken to it's natural, actual conclusion of a break without even changing the mechanics of the movement.

If you have to throw someone, it's REALLY not that hard to swap out which side you throw from so that they land face down instead of face up, or pin face down instead of face up( where they can still compete/fight you/see you).

If you're one of those rare people who can actually throw a kick above waist level with sufficient force to break something of substantial resistance, I like your chances of sweeping/blowing out a leg/ankle/knee BELOW the waist.


It's always made out that a "sports fighter" won't be able to adapt to "teh d34dly str33tz" and I guess I just can't see the impossibility or even the difficulty provided one has self defense intent in mind to begin with.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.

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?"

Perhaps the nearest non self-defence aspect of training which is closest in relation to SD is the sport element.

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.

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, 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?

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.

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.

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?

Whilst I agree mostly with what you say regarding WTF sparring (I hate the format), I dont think it can be said to have NO benfits. I remember reading somewhere that olympic tkdists have the fastest reflexes of almost any sport on earth. Also, they are incredibly fit, faster than you possibly imagine (they can kick you twice before you can blink) and have a very good understanding of range and distancing and are used to being hit in the head. For these reasons I dont think it can ever be said that a form of sport MA has NO self defence benefits, especially bearing in mind that the average guy on the "street" is an unfit pub fighter who knows a couple of dodgy punches. I agree it has limited applications to the street but I dont believe it can ever be said that their are absolutely no benefits. You say muay thai (for instance) crosses over better, and I agree that their kicks and punches are devastating and thy train hard, but do they teach methods to defend yourself without brutally maming your opponent or to defend against weapons or multiple attackers? I believe learning ways to disarm an attacker or ways to subdue an attacker without harming them is also important for real life self defence. If some drunk meat head wants to fight you sometimes it is better to put them to the ground in a 'softer' manner (such as the way a police officer would do it) rather than knocking them out with a flurry of punches (particularly from a legal perspective) and arts such as boxing, kickboxing etc may not always teach these techniques.

 

[MJS]

In my humble opinion, the study of Martial Arts primarily should be with a self defence/protection frame of mind.

Agreed.

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?"

IMO, it depends. If the MAs turely are about SD, then it shouldn't detract from it, but instead be a side benefit of the main goal. Ex: Lets take fitness. You could have a 1hr class, and spend 20-30min of that class, working fitness, doing things like stretching, cardio, strength, etc., but you could also a) do a quick 5min warmup or b) expect the students to warm up on their own, and get right into the meat of the lesson. With a hard, strenuous class, the cardio is now a side benefit, not the mail focus.

Perhaps the nearest non self-defence aspect of training which is closest in relation to SD is the sport element.

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.

It could be Sd depending on how its trained. I'll also give the sports arts credit for certainly things such as the contact and fitness. Look at a MMA guy and look at the average TMA guy. Chances are you'll see a much more fit MMAist. Many schools have members who're scared of getting hit, as they may break in half, yet a MMA guy is very used to the hard contact.

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, 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?

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.

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.

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?

I agree with your last paragraph...its how you train. Personally, I think that both the TMAs and MMAs can benefit from each other. Take a MMA guy and in addition to the sport side, show them how to defend against some common street attacks, some weapon defense, and IMO, you'll have a heck of a force to deal with.

 

[Shifu Steve]

I attempted to invoke an older chain but I have fallen short. In a prior post (something about sport vs self defense about a month or two ago) there was some great feedback on the point of martial arts. Obviously controversial but nonetheless relevant. Chris Parker drove the discussion. I believe his overall point, which resonated with my understanding, was that the martial arts were not designed for sport or self defense (for they are far too intricate). This obviously could be juxtaposed to personal reasons for studying, but the point that they (in general) take years to master they are not specifically designed for either. Yes, they can be adapted for one or the other, but the history tells a different story. Chris help me out here...

 

[alcatraz]

I attempted to invoke an older chain but I have fallen short. In a prior post (something about sport vs self defense about a month or two ago) there was some great feedback on the point of martial arts. Obviously controversial but nonetheless relevant. Chris Parker drove the discussion. I believe his overall point, which resonated with my understanding, was that the martial arts were not designed for sport or self defense (for they are far too intricate). This obviously could be juxtaposed to personal reasons for studying, but the point that they (in general) take years to master they are not specifically designed for either. Yes, they can be adapted for one or the other, but the history tells a different story. Chris help me out here...

However, the etymology of the English word, Martial, is taken from the root Mars, the Roman god of not just war, but also the Roman god of conflict.

As self defence/protection is about surviving a potential violent conflict, I stand by my opening sentence in this thread, that, in my opinion, the primary reason for studing martial arts should be with Self Defence/Protection at the forefront of reasons for training in the first place.

It is also my opinion that if SD is not the primary reason for studying Martial Arts, then when needed, ones training becomes as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The purpose of martial sport, originally, was to hone warrior skill during times of peace by engaging in male ritual hierarchical combat. That's why knights jousted.

 

[Chris Parker]

Cause Steve asked so nicely....

Er, settle in, it's a long one...... sorry.

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.

However, the etymology of the English word, Martial, is taken from the root Mars, the Roman god of not just war, but also the Roman god of conflict.

Very true, but it is more to do with "having reverence to the god Mars". And that is just the origins of the word, not necessarily it's application today.

As self defence/protection is about surviving a potential violent conflict, I stand by my opening sentence in this thread, that, in my opinion, the primary reason for studing martial arts should be with Self Defence/Protection at the forefront of reasons for training in the first place.

Depends on far too many things for that comment to be that sweeping.... I, for instance, study an old form of swordsmanship, a particular style where every technique is said to have come directly from the duelling experience of the founder of the Ryu, so it's credentials in combative effectiveness is not in question at all. However, there is no part of it that has anything to do with self defence (even in it's original context, it deals with duels, essentially going out and picking fights... hardly self defence there), I don't go around carrying swords on my waist, and I don't envision myself getting into a duel over honour of my clan or even to further my understanding of the strategy of the sword. So should I be training that with self defence at the forefront of my reasons?

It is also my opinion that if SD is not the primary reason for studying Martial Arts, then when needed, ones training becomes as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Again, you are looking at this with a very limited set of boundaries. SD may indeed be your primary (conscious) reason, but that doens't mean it is for everyone, or for every art. And the question may well be asked, out of your 33 years in the arts, how often do you get into fights? For myself, it's incredibly rarely... and I most often head it off well before it gets physical. That, to me, is self defence, and has nothing to do with what I've studied in martial arts themselves. Self defence I've learnt seperately (albeit within the same class).

Oh, and I said it's your primary conscious reason as I can pretty well guarantee that if that was your real primary reason, from an unconscious value/belief system, then you would have stopped many years ago, as soon as you felt you could defend yourself effectively.

 

[Tez3]

Ah there's a nice post Chris!

Now then about the MMA bit lol. Most who train MMA, here at any rate, may have one fight a year if even that, we train MMA AND SD, we do train for multiple attacks and weapons, mostly because a lot of us have jobs that need the expertise of fighting more than one, you know police, doormen, teachers etc, we do tend to know we'll need it at some point during any given night or day.
I think you have to distinguish between MMA fighters such as the pros you seen on the telly who earn a living at it so will only train for fights and the rest of us who train MMA as a martial art. There are very few full time fighters, in the UK I can count them on one hand but while they do fit your decription, the rest of us don't.
The SD 'type' we follow is the 'Geoff Thompson' type if you know what I mean? We have good instructors here, Karl Tanswell, Iain Abernethy etc. It's realistic as these guys have done the doors, done the fights that sort of thing. You could say we do MMA for relaxation lol!
I rather think it's because we do this my tolerance for child blackbelts is low which gets me into trouble on other threads!
I can't be as eloquent as you when explaining these things, grrr you annoy me when you say so perfectly what I want to say!! But I do think people should not imagine everyone who does MMA is a pro fighter!

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Ah there's a nice post Chris!

Now then about the MMA bit lol. Most who train MMA, here at any rate, may have one fight a year if even that, we train MMA AND SD, we do train for multiple attacks and weapons, mostly because a lot of us have jobs that need the expertise of fighting more than one, you know police, doormen, teachers etc, we do tend to know we'll need it at some point during any given night or day.
I think you have to distinguish between MMA fighters such as the pros you seen on the telly who earn a living at it so will only train for fights and the rest of us who train MMA as a martial art. There are very few full time fighters, in the UK I can count them on one hand but while they do fit your decription, the rest of us don't.
The SD 'type' we follow is the 'Geoff Thompson' type if you know what I mean? We have good instructors here, Karl Tanswell, Iain Abernethy etc. It's realistic as these guys have done the doors, done the fights that sort of thing. You could say we do MMA for relaxation lol!
I rather think it's because we do this my tolerance for child blackbelts is low which gets me into trouble on other threads!
I can't be as eloquent as you when explaining these things, grrr you annoy me when you say so perfectly what I want to say!! But I do think people should not imagine everyone who does MMA is a pro fighter!

Is that the way its normally done in MMA in regards to multiple attackers, wepaons defences etc? The only MMA gyms I know of train a combo of kickboxing, boxing, some groundwork and a hell of a lot of cardio work and train more for the sport aspect of MMA . I do live in a different country though and have not trained MMA but was under the impression that most places dont focus heavily on the SD aspects.

 

[alcatraz]

Chris, do you have a fire alarm in your house?

If so, why have you fitted that fire alarm?

Is it because you expect your house to be burnt down, or is at as a precautionary measure to aid you in the event of a fire breaking out?

It is exactly the same for Martial Arts. I said right of the bat that there are many legitimate reasons for studying martial arts, but (and I qualified my statement by adding 'In my humble opinion') I stand by my opening statement that the primary focus should be on Self-Defence/Self-Protection.

I also explained the etymology of the word 'Martial', and unless someone is planning on going to a war-zone, or out of their way to start fights, what other logical reason can there be for studying Martial Arts?

You don't go to a knitting class unless you want to learn to knit.

Ergo, one doesn't go to a class which teaches a fighting art unless one wishes to learn fighting skills.

Also, I do NOT advocate Sport Martial Arts as a substitute for reality training, however, your non-elite (average) MMA athlete, solely by the nature of their full contact training is going to be better prepared for a live violent confrontation than someone who does not train in methods which employ heavy to full contact in their Martial Art studies.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

First, it is the nature of mankind to compare oneself against others in tests of physical prowess. Always has been, always will be.

Second, sport allows such testing to be (mostly) non-lethal and (somewhat) objective in determining a winner and loser. Not perfect, but it's the closest we can come to determining if A can bash B's brains out without actually having to see B's brains on the dirt.

Third, sport allows those who cannot or will not otherwise compete in person to enjoy the vicarious thrill of thinking that they have in some manner contributed to the success of the person or team they have elected to support or compete by proxy.

Fourth, advertising drives sales, and since fans like sports and fans buy things, advertising supports sports.

So sport satisfies competitive urges in a controlled and non-lethal manner, it provides entertainment, and it sells products.

Thus completing the great cycle of life.

Personally, I don't care for it, but that's just me.

EDIT: And the discussion on self-defense versus sport has been going on a long time...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&pg=5162,6790593&dq=jitsu+sport&hl=en

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Irene,

Ah there's a nice post Chris!

Now then about the MMA bit lol. Most who train MMA, here at any rate, may have one fight a year if even that, we train MMA AND SD, we do train for multiple attacks and weapons, mostly because a lot of us have jobs that need the expertise of fighting more than one, you know police, doormen, teachers etc, we do tend to know we'll need it at some point during any given night or day.
I think you have to distinguish between MMA fighters such as the pros you seen on the telly who earn a living at it so will only train for fights and the rest of us who train MMA as a martial art. There are very few full time fighters, in the UK I can count them on one hand but while they do fit your decription, the rest of us don't.
The SD 'type' we follow is the 'Geoff Thompson' type if you know what I mean? We have good instructors here, Karl Tanswell, Iain Abernethy etc. It's realistic as these guys have done the doors, done the fights that sort of thing. You could say we do MMA for relaxation lol!
I rather think it's because we do this my tolerance for child blackbelts is low which gets me into trouble on other threads!
I can't be as eloquent as you when explaining these things, grrr you annoy me when you say so perfectly what I want to say!! But I do think people should not imagine everyone who does MMA is a pro fighter!

Shucks, thanks....

I would actually suggest that your guys are training in MMA and a Self Defence/Protection syllabus, and that the two are actually different. They may be taught together, but that doesn't make them the same thing. For example, I teach martial arts, and I also teach self defence/protection, and I teach them in the same class. But I also recognise that the two are different concepts with different requirements, and radically different approaches.

By your own words there, you train in MMA and SD, as your requirements (and those of the guys and girls around you) are rather more immediate than most. But the weapon defence, groups, etc are not really MMA, as MMA is a competitive training format based on single opponents, unarmed, and in a defined place and time. Really (and I've said this before as well), MMA is not "Mixed Martial Arts" at all. It's a Multi Ranged Unarmed Combat Themed Sports Training System, but the acronym for that is just awkward (MRUCTSTS.... hmm, just doesn't flow). It took the name of "mixed" originally from the early UFC concept of particular systems versus other particular systems, hence mixed martial arts (different martial arts) competitions. As the training and competitions evolved (with strikers learning some grappling, grapplers learning how to strike, through to a more balanced overall skill set), the name that was originally coined for the competitive format itself was adopted by the training methods to the point that it was deemed a new system. But it is by definition concerned with the competition aspect, and the training that goes along with it.

As said, I really think that you and your colleagues are simply training two different approaches simultaneously, rather than MMA being your SD training. However, as with most SD systems (such as the RBSD systems), the SD aspect will rely on the other training (traditional, modern, sport, or whatever your background is) to give the mechanics, whereas SD is far more concerned with the principles and approach. This is exactly what Geoff and Iain do as well, really. They use the Karate background for the mechanics and the framework for their SD approaches (really enjoy Geoff's work in particular, by the way), rather than simply need to re-invent the wheel. A martial art will teach how to mechanically hit, and you get that in your MMA training, whereas the SD aspect will give the when and why to hit. Does that make sense?

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Alcatraz,

Chris, do you have a fire alarm in your house?

Yes.

If so, why have you fitted that fire alarm?

It's a rental house, and legally required.

Is it because you expect your house to be burnt down, or is at as a precautionary measure to aid you in the event of a fire breaking out?

Okay, I was a little flippant with the rental house comment (although that really is my reason), but I'll address this in this post. This comment is a flawed analogy, mainly due to the fact that for this reasoning to be true, every person should be studying martial arts for self defence "just in case". Now, while you will probably say that that is indeed your ideal, it denies the personal desires, values, beliefs, understandings, wishes, and reasons that other people have to study the arts or not. Really, all you are able to say with concrete certainty is that your concept of SD is why you train (although I still maintain that you actually train for other reasons), not that that is the only reason everyone should train. It's just plain arrogant, and shows a lack of insight of a great number of things, some of which I'll address here.

It is exactly the same for Martial Arts. I said right of the bat that there are many legitimate reasons for studying martial arts, but (and I qualified my statement by adding 'In my humble opinion') I stand by my opening statement that the primary focus should be on Self-Defence/Self-Protection.

Yes, you did say that there are many legitimate reasons (not really sure what you mean by legitimate here... surely one persons reasons, whatever they are, if they are true and congruent for them are legitimate, yes? I mean, if one of my students trains in my school because they think that black is slimming, so they didn't want to train karate, then that reason, though maybe not the ideal, is legitimate for them), and added your caveat.... however your words following that, and here again, kinda deny that humble aspect to your opinion here.

I stand by my statement that you therefore don't have anywhere near a full understanding of martial arts, and are speaking only for yourself and your experiences, values, and beliefs. And while they work for you, that in no way makes them true for everyone, every art, every school, every teacher, every student, or every approach as you are inferring here.

To give you a few examples, do you think the 76 year old Grandmother of 6 should be focusing her Taiji on self defence? How about a student of Iaido? Naginata? Can't see much self defence to focus on in Jodo either...

I also explained the etymology of the word 'Martial', and unless someone is planning on going to a war-zone, or out of their way to start fights, what other logical reason can there be for studying Martial Arts?

Er, right... yes, you explained the basis of the word, which I expanded on. But you really want a list of logical reasons for studying martial arts other than self defence? Okay.... (just a note, as I tend to focus on the Japanese systems, they will get more of a look-in with my answers here, but the same things apply to systems from other nations as well).

Training in Iaido has no self defence aspect to focus on. It's logical reasons for training in include an interest in the use of the sword, from a historical point of view, a romantic interest in the weapon, a method of refining your actions, a method of disciplining your mind, a focus for your life, to provide direction and goals to aim for, and more. Same goes for Jodo.

Kendo and Atarashii Naginata-do are based primarily as sporting approaches to weaponry arts, again with no self defence aspect to focus on. Reasons for studying may include interest in the weaponry themselves, the thrill of competition, a sense of belonging in a dojo, a method of disciplining your mind, fitness, and more.

Koryu (classical Japanese arts, predating the Meiji Restoration) are often highly combative, however there is again no self defence aspect to focus on. Reasons include a sense of history, a sense of belonging, a sense of place in history and passing a tradition on, a method of disciplining your mind, a method of honing your mindset, and more.

There is obviously a lot more, but the point to take from this is that there are not only many reasons for training that have no basis in self defence, but there are many martial arts where there is no self defence aspect to focus on in the first place.

You don't go to a knitting class unless you want to learn to knit.

So you go to a knitting class if knitting is all you want to learn. But martial arts are far greater than that one aspect, really. This is like saying that every clothing and textiles class should be teaching knitting, because that's what everyone should be focused on, rather than sewing, cutting, composition of design, patterns, or the myriad other things that the textile arts are made up of. Oh, yeah, I have a very dear friend for whom these things are very much her life, same as my training is for me, so this is coming from experience too.

Ergo, one doesn't go to a class which teaches a fighting art unless one wishes to learn fighting skills.

Well, as demonstrated each of your analogies are actually rather flawed, so "ergo" is a little out here. But once more, these are your reasons, this is your approach, and to claim it for everyone is rather presumptious. There are as many reasons to go to that class as there are students in that class, and not all of them are there for fighting skills.

Another example? Okay!

I have recently begun studying Seitei Jodo, and I was discussing martial arts experiences and backgrounds with the teacher. Her husband also teaches Iaido, as well as Jodo, and some Koryu Iai, as well as studying Hontai Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu (a Koryu system). The Jodo instructor was comparing her experiences in the various systems, and told me about her time with her husband in HYR. Basically, she loved the system, loved watching it, loved the elegance and flow, but when it came to applying the joint lock techniques and throws, she didn't like doing that at all. She had no interest in training in such combative methods and learning about injuring other people. Now, what that meant was that HYR was not for her, not that martial arts were not for her.... after all, she now holds a Sandan ranking in Jodo, and teaches the art. How much do you think she thinks about learning fighting skills in class?

Also, I do NOT advocate Sport Martial Arts as a substitute for reality training, however, your non-elite (average) MMA athlete, solely by the nature of their full contact training is going to be better prepared for a live violent confrontation than someone who does not train in methods which employ heavy to full contact in their Martial Art studies.

Okay, at this point I am not going to rehash what I have said rather recently, but to give you some understanding of my take on such a comment (and how much you are missing if you think that is the only way to train contact, or even the best if self defence is really your ideal), I may suggest going through this thread: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87948http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87948 Look particularly to the discussion between sgtmac_46, Tez3, and myself. It's all there, really.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A martial art will teach how to mechanically hit, and you get that in your MMA training, whereas the SD aspect will give the when and why to hit. Does that make sense?

I think that sums up simply what it really boils down to.

As i've long maintained the main difference between the ring of the combat sport and the 'street' (for lack of a better term) is simply in mindset and application.

The ring is a set place with a set starting time, while the street is often about awareness, avoidance, preemption and the element of surprise. But when it comes to the physical blows themselves, what works in the ring works well on the street, with a proper understanding of the difference in application.

 

[Tez3]

Chris perfect sense again!
I think what I was more trying to say is that the MMA clubs here have more depth perhaps than many realise. Yes SD and MMA are done separately but are very closely linked. Here we tend to have MMA 'clubs', this denotes more a collection of like minded individuals training together, most MMAers here from a TMA background still. they don't train just MT, BJJ and boxing, their interest is wider than that. We have a couple of 'gyms' such as Wolfslair where training for MMA is hardcore, Rampage was there for a while, but even here you will see TKD classes.
My posts I think are more about the peception of MMA than the differences between MMA and SD, I want people to see there's more to it or at the very least there should be more to it than sweaty men in gyms just doing MT, BJJ and boxing.
Not that there's anything wrong with sweaty men you understand....sigh!

I want people to see that while I agree SD and MMA are trained separately we have huge interest here in training both, when we train we tend to train the elements we use in MMA separately anyway. We will have a stand up session ( includes karate btw), grappling session, escapes, locks sessions etc etc SD is taught as a separate session as well. We tend not to have fitness sessions as it eats into the club time and is better done outside the club, we'll have it sometimes if people want to ways to get fit. I'd like people to see what we do as something much deeper than they assume MMA is from watching the television.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that sums up simply what it really boils down to.

As i've long maintained the main difference between the ring of the combat sport and the 'street' (for lack of a better term) is simply in mindset and application.

The ring is a set place with a set starting time, while the street is often about awareness, avoidance, preemption and the element of surprise. But when it comes to the physical blows themselves, what works in the ring works well on the street, with a proper understanding of the difference in application.

Minor quibble; rules intended for safety prohibit certain strikes in sport. Since we do what we train to do, in SD one might pass over methods that might more quickly end an altercation.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yep. The main issue is the "proper understanding of the difference in application". This is absolutely necessary, however most people seem to put it in at the wrong time (ie "when in a real situation, I'll turn off the "sport" mindset and go into SD mode"). The difference needs to be understood at the level of training the responces in the first place, as in a real situation your conscious mind (the part that would say "hang on, this isn't a competition") basically goes walkabout. So you need to train with that SD mindset if that is the responce you want, rather than with a sporting mindset.

The addition to Bill's point is that you may indeed pass over more effective methods, but you may also find yourself going for things that are counter-productive in an SD situation, such as trading blows, not escaping, looking to go to ground without first taking care of possible members of a group etc etc etc.

 

[Tez3]

If we do what we train why then do the soldiers that do MMA manage to fight successfully in MMA, fight in combat succesfully and fight I mean 'defend' themselves so successfully in street/club situations? All three things train differently. Why are peple so sure that we stay in one frame of mind in situatons, I can succesfully change tack when at work or when in the club and then again between street situations and I'm not a very good martial artist.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If we do what we train why then do the soldiers that do MMA manage to fight successfully in MMA, fight in combat succesfully and fight I mean 'defend' themselves so successfully in street/club situations? All three things train differently. Why are peple so sure that we stay in one frame of mind in situatons, I can succesfully change tack when at work or when in the club and then again between street situations and I'm not a very good martial artist.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I had a friend who came home from Vietnam and gouged the eyes out of a man who broke into his car. With his thumbs. He said it was how he was trained.