Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[dvcochran]

What martial arts are you specifically describing? I was having a think about it and I can see the argument that say boxersise doesn't need any real martial value and shouldn't claim it. And say that would be fine.

I suppose it is all about intent. If there is a lack of choices in your area and boxercise is you only choice, I would say it is better than nothing for someone only looking to get in better shape.
We have three commercial gyms but only 2 MA schools of the same style in my town so I can really relate to the lack of choices without considerable travel.

 

[dvcochran]

Again, I'd argue that the better analogy would be in cooking without cooking in a restaurant. Because if we focus on those that don't cook/spar at all, I 100% agree that isn't helping anyone. Unless there goal isn't learning to fight/cook.

Outside of that, I agree with your overall point. With one new caveat-going to drop bears pros/cons list. The style shouldn't necessarily be listed as a pro or a con. If it's a boxing dojo where no one does any sparring, or any competition, that's worse than the TKD dojo where half the people going there are competing in kickboxing.

So out of all this back and forth between you and @Steve and all the cooking comparisons, just cut to the chase.
What MA styles do you feel are the posers? Which ones work and which do not?

Yes, there is more to the question but I want to see where you go with this first.

 

[Steve]

Yup. And if you have multiple goals, such as heritage and effectiveness, then you'll have a longer list. At some point if your list of required pros is too long or specific, you may have to decide what's more important. Or figure out a way to get it. So if I really really want to learn wushu because I think it looks awesome, that might be something I'm not willing to give up. But I also want to learn how to actually fight. But none of the wushu places near me teach me to fight. I now have to decide which is more important. I can train wushu and give up on combat effectiveness, or train MMA at the gym next door and give up on the cool flips and flashy sword stuff.

Or I can do both, so I learn both things. Or train wushu and then compete in amateur MMA fights and dog brothers fights to learn how to actually apply it. So without them teaching me combact effectiveness, it doesn't mean I can't learn combat effectiveness, so long as I know that's not what I'm getting going into the school.

Central to this conversation is the idea of an instructor who believes that his or her Wushu doesn't teach people how to fight; it teaches self defense.

That said, if you're training Wushu and one of your central goals is to use Wushu to compete successfully, one of two things will happen. Your Wushu will improve, or you will learn that Wushu is ill-suited to fighting.

Further, this will be individual development. Your Wushu skills employed while fighting will improve, but the Wushu being taught by your instructor, and the Wushu being learned by your fellow students, will not. You are, at this point, learning it on your own. As I said before, you can learn to do things by doing them without training. By changing the context of your Wushu, you're effectively going it alone, without the systemic support of training. It's harder to do this, but people just sort of figure things out all the time. Much easier if the training is aligned to the goal. As my grandfather once said, "You can teach a pig to climb a tree, but it's a whole lot easier to hire a squirrel."

I remembered you talking about that in the past. My point was that any style can add resistive training and other events to put the food back in the kitchen to varying degrees. Lack of application, while a common trait in some styles and even families if arts (I'm looking at you, aiki arts), isn't an inherent characteristic of the style.

No matter how good the training is, it can only get you to the edge of proficiency, unless training is the product. You can get a degree in Jane-Cook-Do, train for 10 years and become a certified "Chef." But if you've never cooked an egg, you're likely going to suck at it for a while, no matter how long you've cooked. Think about the implications of that fundamental truth in a self defense context. The stakes are much higher than inedible food.

I suppose it is all about intent. If there is a lack of choices in your area and boxercise is you only choice, I would say it is better than nothing for someone only looking to get in better shape.
We have three commercial gyms but only 2 MA schools of the same style in my town so I can really relate to the lack of choices without considerable travel.

If getting in shape is your goal, boxercise sounds like a great choice. Why would you think that's settling?

So out of all this back and forth between you and @Steve and all the cooking comparisons, just cut to the chase.
What MA styles do you feel are the posers? Which ones work and which do not?

Yes, there is more to the question but I want to see where you go with this first.

Posers? Why are you framing this discussion in that way? Also, it's really funny to me, in my pre-coffee state, that you're asking us to cut to the chase while also admitting you have a hidden agenda. That's moxy.

With that out of the way, it's curious to me that you can't answer this question based on what I've already posted. It's not about styles as a blanket statement. Rather, it's a way to evaluate any training. The question is, are you learning to do what you think you're learning? It's about how well training (any training) aligns with the goals of the training. When a person's individual goals are at odds with the training program, you have a situation like the wushu guy mentioned above, where you're essentially learning it on your own.

When the instructors stated goals are at odds with the training, you have a situation like the guys who "cook" without food. This is common in schools where "self defense" is the core goal. If you're training "for self defense" in a "self defense" school, you are cooking without food. No matter how long you train, you will still probably suck when you initially try to transfer your training into application.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So out of all this back and forth between you and @Steve and all the cooking comparisons, just cut to the chase.
What MA styles do you feel are the posers? Which ones work and which do not?

Yes, there is more to the question but I want to see where you go with this first.

I do not feel there are specific styles that are posers. I feel there can be schools which are posers, and those are schools that either a: encourage no sparring (one poster om this sub states that he has replaced sparring with something else and i withold my judgment on that until i see it), b: those that limit sparring to the point of uselessness (think no touch stuff) c: those that are focused purely on perfirmance, d: those that discourage theit members from engaging in competition, and e: those that discourage people from training outside of the school/style. And even then, a school is only a 'poser' with a, b or c if they're dishonest (d and e are auto 'posers') otherwise they're just ineffective for fighting or self defense.

As for specific styles, dim mak? Jedi-fu? Outside of that I have trouble thinking of a style where I know every school in a style is like that. It's why i mentioned a ninjutsu school could be good if trained right, and a boxing school bad.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

But we are still seppartating works from doesn't work.

Yup. And acknowledging what does and doesn't work. Boxercise like you mentioned is the perfect example. It'll get you fit, but won't teach you to fight better, really. And if you recognize that and the boxercise instructor recognizes that it's fine. It only becomes an issue when they state that by learning boxercise you can go out and win fights against randos on the street.

 

[Steve]

Yup. And acknowledging what does and doesn't work. Boxercise like you mentioned is the perfect example. It'll get you fit, but won't teach you to fight better, really. And if you recognize that and the boxercise instructor recognizes that it's fine. It only becomes an issue when they state that by learning boxercise you can go out and win fights against randos on the street.

How is boxercise functionally different from a school that teaches self defense? In both cases, you're getting in shape by mimicking the movements that other people apply in context.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Central to this conversation is the idea of an instructor who believes that his or her Wushu doesn't teach people how to fight; it teaches self defense.

That said, if you're training Wushu and one of your central goals is to use Wushu to compete successfully, one of two things will happen. Your Wushu will improve, or you will learn that Wushu is ill-suited to fighting.

Further, this will be individual development. Your Wushu skills employed while fighting will improve, but the Wushu being taught by your instructor, and the Wushu being learned by your fellow students, will not. You are, at this point, learning it on your own. As I said before, you can learn to do things by doing them without training. By changing the context of your Wushu, you're effectively going it alone, without the systemic support of training. It's harder to do this, but people just sort of figure things out all the time. Much easier if the training is aligned to the goal. As my grandfather once said, "You can teach a pig to climb a tree, but it's a whole lot easier to hire a squirrel.

Regarding the first-i have trouble understanding how someone could learn or think they're learning self defense without learning how to fight.

Regarding the second, yup it'll be tougher if you try to fight on your own with wushu. Which is why i also gave the option of training both wushu and something else, if you absolutely can't let go of wushu. But that's an individuals choice to make, and i feel it's common sense that if youre going to a performance based school and adapting it on your own, it's going to be tougher than if you had a coach or group that's helping you.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

How is boxercise functionally different from a school that teaches self defense? In both cases, you're getting in shape by mimicking the movements that other people apply in context.

That depends on the SD school. One of the kempo schools I trained at was an SD school. They're main goal was to teach SD, and for most of the time that I went there, there was only a few consistent people besides myself. The teacher was a professional kickboxer, his assistant was an amateur kickboxer, one of the other black belts was in the military (i forget what branch, but he saw combat) one of the other students was a former kickboxer and collegiate wrestling, another had his first fights when he was at this dojo, wnded up joining his hs wrestling team at our instructors recommendation, and has since gone on to become an MMA fighter, two more had no interest in competition, and I had two fights scheduled that both fell through for different reasons before deciding it wasn't in the stars for me. They taught self defense based in kempo, but also heavily based in kickboxing and wrestling. And we would constantly be doing sparring as if preparing for matches.

So that's how it's different. A school that teaches self defense can and should also be teaching application, and encouraging people to compete if they want to test their skills. I've never heard it even suggested that a boxercise class teach application or encourage people to compete.

 

[Steve]

Regarding the first-i have trouble understanding how someone could learn or think they're learning self defense without learning how to fight.

Regarding the second, yup it'll be tougher if you try to fight on your own with wushu. Which is why i also gave the option of training both wushu and something else, if you absolutely can't let go of wushu. But that's an individuals choice to make, and i feel it's common sense that if youre going to a performance based school and adapting it on your own, it's going to be tougher than if you had a coach or group that's helping you.

As the saying goes, "Common sense isn't all that common."

The term "self defense" is a tough one. First, I don't think most self defense schools teach people to fight. It's just not part of the model. Mostly, they teach movements that mimic the skills other people apply professionally. Just like boxercise, most self defense training is copsercize or navy seal-cercize or isreali-soldier... cicize. The only self defense training program I've ever seen that I would consider ACTUAL self defense training was focused, had measurable goals, and was accountable to specific outcomes. It wasn't "self defense" training. Rather, it was training for young women who were at high risk of sexual assault on college campuses. They learned skills they could apply which reduced their risk for being assaulted and for those assaults to be successful. Interestingly, if I remember correctly, it took 12 weeks and was very successful.

Regarding the second, sure, it's common sense. My point in saying it out loud is to acknowledge that training is valuable and plays an important role in skill development. While you CAN just go it alone and figure it out, it's often much easier, less frustrating, and more successful in the end if you just train appropriately for the task. Simply put, it's always easier if you have a goal and train for the goal vs having training and shoehorning it into a goal. But if you're applying technique, a little training goes a long way.

 

[drop bear]

Yup. And acknowledging what does and doesn't work. Boxercise like you mentioned is the perfect example. It'll get you fit, but won't teach you to fight better, really. And if you recognize that and the boxercise instructor recognizes that it's fine. It only becomes an issue when they state that by learning boxercise you can go out and win fights against randos on the street.

Yeah ok. So we are still seppartating people's motivations from the actual factual evidence of a working art.

I thought you were going for something like boxersise works because there are people who only want to boxersise.

 

[drop bear]

Regarding the first-i have trouble understanding how someone could learn or think they're learning self defense without learning how to fight.

Regarding the second, yup it'll be tougher if you try to fight on your own with wushu. Which is why i also gave the option of training both wushu and something else, if you absolutely can't let go of wushu. But that's an individuals choice to make, and i feel it's common sense that if youre going to a performance based school and adapting it on your own, it's going to be tougher than if you had a coach or group that's helping you.

People can be convinced of all sorts of stuff especially anecdotally.

I keep putting up that video of water divining to illustrate this.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So the problem is

- SD school teaches SD.
- Health exercise school teaches health exercise.
- Inner peace school teaches inner peace.
- ...

but they don't teach fighting.

 

[dvcochran]

I do not feel there are specific styles that are posers. I feel there can be schools which are posers, and those are schools that either a: encourage no sparring (one poster om this sub states that he has replaced sparring with something else and i withold my judgment on that until i see it), b: those that limit sparring to the point of uselessness (think no touch stuff) c: those that are focused purely on perfirmance, d: those that discourage theit members from engaging in competition, and e: those that discourage people from training outside of the school/style. And even then, a school is only a 'poser' with a, b or c if they're dishonest (d and e are auto 'posers') otherwise they're just ineffective for fighting or self defense.

As for specific styles, dim mak? Jedi-fu? Outside of that I have trouble thinking of a style where I know every school in a style is like that. It's why i mentioned a ninjutsu school could be good if trained right, and a boxing school bad.

Can you elaborate on 'C'?

 

[dvcochran]

As the saying goes, "Common sense isn't all that common."

The term "self defense" is a tough one. First, I don't think most self defense schools teach people to fight. It's just not part of the model. Mostly, they teach movements that mimic the skills other people apply professionally. Just like boxercise, most self defense training is copsercize or navy seal-cercize or isreali-soldier... cicize. The only self defense training program I've ever seen that I would consider ACTUAL self defense training was focused, had measurable goals, and was accountable to specific outcomes. It wasn't "self defense" training. Rather, it was training for young women who were at high risk of sexual assault on college campuses. They learned skills they could apply which reduced their risk for being assaulted and for those assaults to be successful. Interestingly, if I remember correctly, it took 12 weeks and was very successful.

Regarding the second, sure, it's common sense. My point in saying it out loud is to acknowledge that training is valuable and plays an important role in skill development. While you CAN just go it alone and figure it out, it's often much easier, less frustrating, and more successful in the end if you just train appropriately for the task. Simply put, it's always easier if you have a goal and train for the goal vs having training and shoehorning it into a goal. But if you're applying technique, a little training goes a long way.

I am having a hard time understanding/picturing you idea of what self defense/teaching self defense is. Can you elaborate?

 

[drop bear]

I am having a hard time understanding/picturing you idea of what self defense/teaching self defense is. Can you elaborate?

Think along the lines of cash in transit.

Which I can only do as pdf links.

Cash-in-transit guidance material | Safe Work Australia

 

[Steve]

Yeah ok. So we are still seppartating people's motivations from the actual factual evidence of a working art.

I thought you were going for something like boxersise works because there are people who only want to boxersise.

Boxercise does work... just not for boxing.

 

[dvcochran]

Why would you think that's settling?

Who said anything about settling? If a person is a neophyte about training/MA/working out is it completely uncharted territory for them. They simply do not know what they do not know and, since the choices are limited in the first place they do what is available to them. Where they go from there is up to them.

Posers? Why are you framing this discussion in that way? Also, it's really funny to me, in my pre-coffee state, that you're asking us to cut to the chase while also admitting you have a hidden agenda. That's moxy.

With that out of the way, it's curious to me that you can't answer this question based on what I've already posted. It's not about styles as a blanket statement. Rather, it's a way to evaluate any training. The question is, are you learning to do what you think you're learning? It's about how well training (any training) aligns with the goals of the training. When a person's individual goals are at odds with the training program, you have a situation like the wushu guy mentioned above, where you're essentially learning it on your own.

When the instructors stated goals are at odds with the training, you have a situation like the guys who "cook" without food. This is common in schools where "self defense" is the core goal. If you're training "for self defense" in a "self defense" school, you are cooking without food. No matter how long you train, you will still probably suck when you initially try to transfer your training into application.

I framed it as I did to get the question out of the way. Whether you realize it or not a Lot of what has been said in this thread has skirted around the edges of implying some styles are crap. The fact that you are implying schools goes without saying. There are people who peruse this site who do not have a lot of MA knowledge. I would hate to know I was the person who drove someone away from working out for the wrong reasons, simply because they misunderstood someone's intent.

I mentioned this in another thread; what is your definition of self defense or more so, teaching self defense? I have been in a Lot of MA schools of various styles all over North and Central America. Very few of them did Not include SD in some context.
I fully agree there has to be application that pushes and challenges the practitioner but nobody can sustain competition level training all the time.
Even if a person is learning mostly strength and conditioning this would help them in most SD situations. Yes, boxercise may be a stretch in this context.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yeah ok. So we are still seppartating people's motivations from the actual factual evidence of a working art.

I thought you were going for something like boxersise works because there are people who only want to boxersise.

If it works for whatever your goal is, then it works. If it doesn't work for your goal, then it doesn't work.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Can you elaborate on 'C'?

Things like XMA, those flashy bo and nunchuck demonstrations, the chinese shaolin wushu shows, stuntmen, that kinda stuff.

 

[Steve]

Who said anything about settling? If a person is a neophyte about training/MA/working out is it completely uncharted territory for them. They simply do not know what they do not know and, since the choices are limited in the first place they do what is available to them. Where they go from there is up to them.

When you use the phrase, "better than nothing," that suggests that you think that choice is settling.

I framed it as I did to get the question out of the way. Whether you realize it or not a Lot of what has been said in this thread has skirted around the edges of implying some styles are crap. The fact that you are implying schools goes without saying. There are people who peruse this site who do not have a lot of MA knowledge. I would hate to know I was the person who drove someone away from working out for the wrong reasons, simply because they misunderstood someone's intent.

Oh, I get it now. You're not having discussions. You're serving the public good. That explains a lot.

So, for the record, then, my opinion is that you're going to be much more successful learning a combat sport or taking cardio-kickboxing classes if your goal is self defense. In fact, I think you're probably better off at a parkour school or doing crossfit than training in many styles that are 'self defense' oriented, if your goal is to be safer.

Now, if you equate fighting skill to self defense, unless you're being mugged or assaulted frequently, the best you can do is develop skill in a complimentary skill set. You can get a job as a cop, a bouncer, join the military, or become a freelance mercenary. You could, I guess, join a gang or get yourself arrested so you can do some hard time. I bet those guys have really solid self defense skills. Or, if those aren't on the table, you can get pretty close training MMA, or another combat sport, and developing skill through competition.

I use ninjutsu as an example a lot, because it's the quintessential non-combat, self defense art. But to be clear, if you think it's fun, like the costumes, or are interested in the culture and history of the art, great. Knock yourself out (no pun intended).

But if we're getting to what makes people less likely to be victimized, I believe it's more to do with building real skills and understanding the subsidiary benefits of the activity. It's useful to train in an art where you get to use what you learn. Judo, MMA, wrestling, Shuai Jiao, boxing... they all have an advantage over arts where you don't use what you learn. And that, in itself, is useful, because you will know not just that the techniques work, but that YOU can make the techniques work. So, when it comes to whether someone will be able to perform in an emergency, the school teacher who competes in Judo is much more likely to succeed in using the skills in an emergency than the school teacher who has learned several ways to kill or maim someone with their car keys. This is because the Judoka has applied the skills in a complimentary situation, in the same way that a cop will be able to rely on skills used on the job if he or she is in a self defense situation.

But that's actually not the part that I believe makes me safer. The big thing is the subsidiary benefits of training in anything that has some structural integrity, which can be achieved by doing activities that don't involve fighting or maiming or killing. Confidence, fitness, coordination, positive self image, feeling like you're a part of a group... all of these things help you lead a balanced lifestyle. Not doing drugs or hanging out in bars, starting fights at picnics or otherwise engaging in a high risk lifestyle. These also help.