Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[dvcochran]

As long as your opponent's weight is on your back and his feet is off the ground. You can also just drag him backward non-stop until he is out.

Haha. This really made me laugh. I was a smaller guy when I was a LEO. I got a lot of flack over how I would handle some bigger guys that we had to go hands on with. I have a really good choke to make a person pass out. I was known for distracting a big person (which was almost everyone compared to my size) and jumping on their back and riding them until they went down. So much so that even the adjoining counties would ask me to help with some of their known trouble makers.

 

[dvcochran]

Can you choke a guy out with only half their weight on that cord?

Probably not considering only what you see. Surely there is some sort of follow up.
You could leave one hell of a burn line though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here is my concern. If your teacher taught you this technique. One day you decide that you no longer want to teaching MA system but to teach a SD system. You no longer teach this technique to your students. This technique will be lost forever.

A MA system then becomes 1/2 MA system.

And if it was never in the system?

Besides, taking out a technique doesn't render a system to half its former self. I've removed several things from the curriculum I learned under. And I've added more than I've removed.

The problem here is you're LOOKING FOR reductions to prove it's 1/2 a MA. But you'd have to define what a full MA is, in a way that includes every system you consider a full MA. Then you'd have to look at all the SD systems (okay, at least several) and see how much more and less they have in them.

What I think you'd find is there's a huge variation in what's in a MA or system, regardless. There's far more difference between boxing and sport BJJ than between sport BJJ and self-defense BJJ. And there's more difference between Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu and Taekwando than between Daito-ryu and NGA.

If you only look for evidence that supports your conclusion, you'll end up with a confirmation bias. Looking for evidence that contradicts your conclusion is a better test.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If a SD guy also spar, that mean he will use offense technique such as flying side kick, flying knee, jumping kick, ..., he is training how to fight. Why do you still want to use the term SD for?

What's wrong just to admit that a person is training "how to fight"?

A: I train SD.
B: You are a good person.
C: I train how to fight.
B: You are a bad person.

He will use offensive techniques, yes. They need not be those you mention, though. A boxer doesn't do any of those things, but they spar all the time, and certainly have a potent offensive arsenal.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you can find evidence of them sparring you can make a case that they do. This yeah I seen him fight a hundred men when nobody was looking really has no legs.

The problem with self defense is you have no discernible way of knowing who is good and who is terrible.

So you have five fruits but two of them is poison. You don't eat the fruit.

You need more evidence element of evidence to determine the real deal from larp ninja. Everything else is just marketing. The self defense that uses competition as a training tool dog brothers, gracie, military. Is much easier to identify truth from fiction.

But the SD world in general avoids this method like the plague and in doing so casts the wide brush of larp ninja over the whole industry.

Which is intentional so that people who can't apply their method can appear to.

Like a really funny Mc Map quote. "I may not be able to beat Randy Couture in the cage but if you get him on the street....."

This is where you get really close to making the point I keep wishing you'd put effort into making so folks could listen. There is a problem with a lot of SD instructors who actually talk down about competition as something less. Guys who were taught by those folks often believe they have capacity that doesn't exist, because they believe their "secret sauce" moves would easily handle a middling MMAer, boxer, etc.

I think competition's a good idea. I don't think it's necessary for everyone to get into it, but I think it's good if at least some of the folks in a school are competing, using some of the skills they're being taught. I don't think it's strictly necessary, but man it seems like a good idea, and I'd have sorted out some stuff much earlier if I'd understood that back when I was training hard.

 

[skribs]

There is a problem with a lot of SD instructors who actually talk down about competition as something less.

I think the problem goes both ways. People who don't compete look down on competitions, but people who compete look down on those who don't. A whole lot of judgement and not a lot of understanding in either group.

 

[drop bear]

This is where you get really close to making the point I keep wishing you'd put effort into making so folks could listen. There is a problem with a lot of SD instructors who actually talk down about competition as something less. Guys who were taught by those folks often believe they have capacity that doesn't exist, because they believe their "secret sauce" moves would easily handle a middling MMAer, boxer, etc.

I think competition's a good idea. I don't think it's necessary for everyone to get into it, but I think it's good if at least some of the folks in a school are competing, using some of the skills they're being taught. I don't think it's strictly necessary, but man it seems like a good idea, and I'd have sorted out some stuff much earlier if I'd understood that back when I was training hard.

It depends what you are trying to develop. If you are trying to create an environment where a person can defend themselves in a life or death situation.

A submission grappling match shouldn't be that big an ask to be honest.


I mean Mabye you would train some outliers with massive physical or mental challenges without competition. But the bulk of the guys really should be trained well enough to achieve at least that before you ever consider them prepared for self defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It depends what you are trying to develop. If you are trying to create an environment where a person can defend themselves in a life or death situation.

A submission grappling match shouldn't be that big an ask to be honest.


I mean Mabye you would train some outliers with massive physical or mental challenges without competition. But the bulk of the guys really should be trained well enough to achieve at least that before you ever consider them prepared for self defense.

It mostly comes down to their level of commitment. There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition. They can still learn and improve, and will gain some % increase in their probability of defending. Can't make people have more "want". This is the self-selection process I've discussed before.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It mostly comes down to their level of commitment. There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition. They can still learn and improve, and will gain some % increase in their probability of defending. Can't make people have more "want". This is the self-selection process I've discussed before.

Keep in mind with this, that they should be aware SD is a "you get what you give" kinda game. If they don't want to train that hard they should know that they're chance of defending themselves won't improve as much as if they did train hard. Once they have the knowledge, it's ultimately up to them-and most probably still won't want to train that hard since, despite all the people who state SD as their reason for coming in, it really doesn't seem to be their top priority when you talk to them over the course of a couple weeks.

 

[skribs]

Keep in mind with this, that they should be aware SD is a "you get what you give" kinda game. If they don't want to train that hard they should know that they're chance of defending themselves won't improve as much as if they did train hard. Once they have the knowledge, it's ultimately up to them-and most probably still won't want to train that hard since, despite all the people who state SD as their reason for coming in, it really doesn't seem to be their top priority when you talk to them over the course of a couple weeks.

That's common sense, which by itself is an oxymoron.

Some people learn a bit about a subject and know how much they don't know. Other people know a bit about a subject and think they know everything about it. I have a coworker that will read an article online about something, and he will start talking about it like he has a PHD level understanding of it, even if he's wrong about half of it. He thinks he's always the smartest guy in the room.

Let's look at another form of self-defense: gun fu. A lot of people believe that because they have a gun, they're safe. They don't have any strategy or training in:

• How to get to their gun at home (especially if a home intruder is between you and your gun)
• How to draw your gun efficiently or what to do if someone attacks you closer than you can safely draw and fire (the Tueller drill)
• How to effectively shoot at a moving target
• How to effectively shoot under stress
• Failure drills (i.e. gun fails)
• Movement with the firearm
• Shooting at multiple targets
• Testing proper self-defense ammo for function in your firearm (I have a couple that will only feed ball ammo, and won't feed hollow-points)
• Knowing what proper self-defense ammo is (not ones that will only go a couple inches into tissue, nor those that will go through several feet of tissue)

The list goes on. Guns are a great equalizer, and I encourage people who are concerned with self-defense to own a gun. But a lot of gun owners think that if you carry a gun while you're out and keep it in the safe at home, go to the range every once in a while and shoot at circles, and know the 4 safety rules, that's all you need.

The same applies to martial arts. Some people think that just by being there you can learn it effectively.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That's common sense, which by itself is an oxymoron.

Some people learn a bit about a subject and know how much they don't know. Other people know a bit about a subject and think they know everything about it. I have a coworker that will read an article online about something, and he will start talking about it like he has a PHD level understanding of it, even if he's wrong about half of it. He thinks he's always the smartest guy in the room.

Let's look at another form of self-defense: gun fu. A lot of people believe that because they have a gun, they're safe. They don't have any strategy or training in:

• How to get to their gun at home (especially if a home intruder is between you and your gun)
• How to draw your gun efficiently or what to do if someone attacks you closer than you can safely draw and fire (the Tueller drill)
• How to effectively shoot at a moving target
• How to effectively shoot under stress
• Failure drills (i.e. gun fails)
• Movement with the firearm
• Shooting at multiple targets
• Testing proper self-defense ammo for function in your firearm (I have a couple that will only feed ball ammo, and won't feed hollow-points)
• Knowing what proper self-defense ammo is (not ones that will only go a couple inches into tissue, nor those that will go through several feet of tissue)

The list goes on. Guns are a great equalizer, and I encourage people who are concerned with self-defense to own a gun. But a lot of gun owners think that if you carry a gun while you're out and keep it in the safe at home, go to the range every once in a while and shoot at circles, and know the 4 safety rules, that's all you need.

The same applies to martial arts. Some people think that just by being there you can learn it effectively.

Yup. Which is why as an instructor you have to make sure they understand that's not the case. Common sense is not so common.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Keep in mind with this, that they should be aware SD is a "you get what you give" kinda game. If they don't want to train that hard they should know that they're chance of defending themselves won't improve as much as if they did train hard. Once they have the knowledge, it's ultimately up to them-and most probably still won't want to train that hard since, despite all the people who state SD as their reason for coming in, it really doesn't seem to be their top priority when you talk to them over the course of a couple weeks.

Agreed, on all points. When I was an active student, I trained harder than most (not harder than all - some did outwork me at times). Others didn't work as hard. I didn't compete (wish now I had, but it is what it is). Anyone who trained as hard as me AND competed in something meaningful would likely have gotten better results than me, or at least likely would have gotten those results quicker.

But, yeah, I find a lot of folks who train in SD-oriented schools like the orientation (not focused on a ruleset, perhaps), but aren't super concerned about their safety. Mostly, they like the physical activity, the challenge, and learning something new. The cool factor (in their mind) probably helps.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Haha. This really made me laugh. I was a smaller guy when I was a LEO. I got a lot of flack over how I would handle some bigger guys that we had to go hands on with. I have a really good choke to make a person pass out. I was known for distracting a big person (which was almost everyone compared to my size) and jumping on their back and riding them until they went down. So much so that even the adjoining counties would ask me to help with some of their known trouble makers.

I had used that reverse head lock on the street before (Hawaii, summer of 1983). A guy attacked a girl. I attacked that guy. The guy let the girl go. I let him go after that. Nobody got hurt. Everybody lived happy after that. I saved that girl. Even today, I still feel good about what I did that day.

This is why I don't like the term SD. If you just want to defend yourself, you can avoid fighting or run away. If you have to defend for somebody else, you can't run away.

I truly don't see any difference between

- defend for someone else, and
- fighting.

 

[drop bear]

It mostly comes down to their level of commitment. There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition. They can still learn and improve, and will gain some % increase in their probability of defending. Can't make people have more "want". This is the self-selection process I've discussed before.

In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete. (Unless you are Ashton Kutcher)

So some styles are a lot better at creating commitment while also having a better standard of application.

Now if you choose to set the bar. Then that is on you. Not your students.

 

[drop bear]

Keep in mind with this, that they should be aware SD is a "you get what you give" kinda game. If they don't want to train that hard they should know that they're chance of defending themselves won't improve as much as if they did train hard. Once they have the knowledge, it's ultimately up to them-and most probably still won't want to train that hard since, despite all the people who state SD as their reason for coming in, it really doesn't seem to be their top priority when you talk to them over the course of a couple weeks.

If you are a self defense school. I would think equipping people for self defense would be a minimum standard though.

Regardless what else people get out of training.

 

[Buka]

I think the problem goes both ways. People who don't compete look down on competitions, but people who compete look down on those who don't. A whole lot of judgement and not a lot of understanding in either group.

Sounds like the Martial world in a nutshell, Skribs. Darn good sum up.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition.

This issue can be solved very easily. In the beginner of my class, I used sparring to warm up. I made 2 circles. The person in the inside circle had to spar against the person in the outside circle. After 1 minute, the inside circle rotate, everybody will get a new sparring partner. After 10 minutes (every student had sparred with 10 opponents), the regular class started.

The moment that a student came into my class, he only had 2 options, do whatever that I told him to do, or leave and never come back.

 

[drop bear]

That's common sense, which by itself is an oxymoron.

Some people learn a bit about a subject and know how much they don't know. Other people know a bit about a subject and think they know everything about it. I have a coworker that will read an article online about something, and he will start talking about it like he has a PHD level understanding of it, even if he's wrong about half of it. He thinks he's always the smartest guy in the room.

Let's look at another form of self-defense: gun fu. A lot of people believe that because they have a gun, they're safe. They don't have any strategy or training in:

• How to get to their gun at home (especially if a home intruder is between you and your gun)
• How to draw your gun efficiently or what to do if someone attacks you closer than you can safely draw and fire (the Tueller drill)
• How to effectively shoot at a moving target
• How to effectively shoot under stress
• Failure drills (i.e. gun fails)
• Movement with the firearm
• Shooting at multiple targets
• Testing proper self-defense ammo for function in your firearm (I have a couple that will only feed ball ammo, and won't feed hollow-points)
• Knowing what proper self-defense ammo is (not ones that will only go a couple inches into tissue, nor those that will go through several feet of tissue)

The list goes on. Guns are a great equalizer, and I encourage people who are concerned with self-defense to own a gun. But a lot of gun owners think that if you carry a gun while you're out and keep it in the safe at home, go to the range every once in a while and shoot at circles, and know the 4 safety rules, that's all you need.

The same applies to martial arts. Some people think that just by being there you can learn it effectively.

The problem is there is no definite end point.

If I learn self defense or carry a gun I may never have to use it. And for all those times krav maga or a water pistol will work as fine as anything else.

It is only when I have to defend myself or shoot someone that these preventive methods become important.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete.

In Chinese wrestling, a new student has to promise 2 things:

- compete, and
- teach in the future.

The ancient rule had indicated that when you have the SC jacket on, you cannot turn down any challenge. But I can take my SC jacket off when you put on your SC jacket. Without SC jacket on, I can refuse your challenge. The most serious rule was if you kill me with SC jacket on me, my family members cannot suit you. The moment that I put on my SC jacket, I have put my life in my own hand. This is why the SC jacket is also called "hero skin".

 

[drop bear]

In Chinese wrestling, a new student has to promise 2 things:

- compete, and
- teach in the future.

Seems fair.

The thing with wrestling is competition won't kill you. It is not like you are getting kicked in the head.