What do you think about this technique her? (Michael Janich self defense teacher)

[kehcorpz]

I watched some of his videos on youtube. Seems like a sympathetic guy to me.
But I wonder how good is his stuff?

For example the technique he demonstrates at 4:45. It's called humbat or something like that.
In the video it looks pretty simple and effective. But then again the problem is that he and his partner
do exactly the same stuff. I mean where is the challenge? He knows that his partner does the same
movements he does. They can just go on doing this for hours. He could do it being blindfolded.
But in reality the attacker would probably not act the way his partner does.
Even if he does the same attacking move at first he will probably switch to something else when
he notices that it's not bearing fruit.

Often times in videos where the defender and the attacker are just cruising and doing both the same stuff
I ask myself "what if the attacker did this or that instead of doing what he does"? I mean often it's like there
is an actual opportunity for attack (at least I see one) but the "attacker" doesn't do it cause this is just a video.
But in real life he could use it and then what?
For example why should the attacker always attack with 1 hand only? Imagine he punches and his punch gets blocked
then why should he always retreat his arm and then punch with the other arm? What if while the defending person
is blocking his attack using BOTH hands he decides to quickly hit him with his free hand? But this doesn't happen in
the videos. In the video it always looks fool-proof.

 

[JR 137]

You're starting to catch on, young grasshopper. There's hope for you yet.

 

[kehcorpz]

You're starting to catch on, young grasshopper. There's hope for you yet.

what exactly does this mean?

 

[JR 137]

what exactly does this mean?

You're seeing the flaws in what's being sold as the real deal. Your other thread asked if what the guy in the video did was realistic, but you picked out what is wrong with this video.

I'm not so sure if you're getting wiser, or if you were just being coy in the other thread.

 

[kehcorpz]

I'm not so sure if you're getting wiser, or if you were just being coy in the other thread.

No I'm just sharing my thoughts. I'm quite pedantic and analyze things and I always have many questions.
Let's say I bought this dvd from Janich and then watched it and then thought all the time "but what if the attacker
does this instead of that?" it would really ruin it for me.

To be honest I don't even know if, being a pedantic thinker, would not get my trouble with an instructor.
I mean if I asked him all the time what if this what if that he'd probably get pissed after a while or I'd probably
not even have the chance to even ask him all my questions cause he's not giving private lessons.

But if you learn a technique and then at the same time think that it has weaknesses then it also sucks.

I'm concerned that even if I had the chance to voice some of my questions/concerns to an instructor he might simply
brush me off with something like "that's not important right now. simply focus on this technique and what to do if
the attacker attacks differently is something you'll learn some other day." But I wouldn't want to wait.

I'd want to directly be demonstrated various different attacks and also different defending techniques so that I can
at least get an impression. If I saw that there are indeed answers to different kinds of attacks I could relax and simply
focus on learning them.
If on the other hand I had the impression that the techniques had flaws and then think to myself "what if the attacker did
this or that instead of what he just did?" then it would be worrying to me.
Then I'd consider switching to something else. But the problem is that you won't get such a demonstration when you join
a school.

What I also don't understand is how is it possible that this guy (Janich) has been into the self defense business for decades
and then teaches stuff which has flaws? Isn't this irresponsible? People may watch this and think all I gotta learn is the humbat
stuff and then I can defend myself against every punch coming my way.

If I was an instructor (maybe this is simply because of how I tick) I would DIRECTLY when demonstrating a technique
get into the pros and cons and directly show different attacks and how this technique works against different attacks
and discuss stuff like "now what if the attack decides to punch with the other hand or tries to headbutt me and so on?"
But usually this is never done in the videos. I have never seen an instructor really being systematic. I'm often frustrated
because of this cause you watch something and then you're left with many open questions.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You need to stop trying to get martial arts training from the internet. It won't work.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Find an instructor. No instructor I have ever had has been annoyed with "Well, couldn't X happen?" It adds a lot to my knowledge, and depending on the question forces them to think a bit. It's also not something you will get from these videos, since the person in the video can't explain his reasoning behind whatever move, and we can only guess it.

You're having issues finding a style, and I understand that. But continuously looking around online isn't going to help: go to classes near you, and see if you like what they teach. If you do, great! If not, check somewhere else.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

For example the technique he demonstrates at 4:45. It's called humbat or something like that.
In the video it looks pretty simple and effective. But then again the problem is that he and his partner
do exactly the same stuff. I mean where is the challenge? He knows that his partner does the same
movements he does. They can just go on doing this for hours. He could do it being blindfolded.
But in reality the attacker would probably not act the way his partner does.
Even if he does the same attacking move at first he will probably switch to something else when
he notices that it's not bearing fruit.

It's called "hubud" and it's not a technique or a fight simulation or a "challenge." It's a training drill for getting lots of repetitions of dealing with certain angles of attack in a systematic way.

I'm concerned that even if I had the chance to voice some of my questions/concerns to an instructor he might simply
brush me off with something like "that's not important right now. simply focus on this technique and what to do if
the attacker attacks differently is something you'll learn some other day." But I wouldn't want to wait.

If I was an instructor (maybe this is simply because of how I tick) I would DIRECTLY when demonstrating a technique
get into the pros and cons and directly show different attacks and how this technique works against different attacks
and discuss stuff like "now what if the attack decides to punch with the other hand or tries to headbutt me and so on?"

Here's the problem - for every technique there are literally hundreds of valid "what-ifs" you could ask. If you want the instructor to go through all of those what-ifs before you practice the technique, he's going to spend the entire class period demonstrating various possibilities and you won't end up having any time to practice or actually learn anything. In addition, students can really only learn a limited amount of new material from a given practice session. Throw too much material at them and they'll actually retain less than they would have if you focused the lesson more narrowly.

I'd want to directly be demonstrated various different attacks and also different defending techniques so that I can
at least get an impression. If I saw that there are indeed answers to different kinds of attacks I could relax and simply
focus on learning them.

It is good to know that the instructor is capable of providing answers for different scenarios. Just don't expect that you can hold up class with an endless series of what-ifs. Focus on learning what is shown, then ask your questions at an appropriate moment.

But usually this is never done in the videos. I have never seen an instructor really being systematic. I'm often frustrated
because of this cause you watch something and then you're left with many open questions.

YouTube videos are of limited length and are typically focused on one or two things, not providing a comprehensive catalog of possibilities. The video you link to above is a promo video that just contains short clips from a 2 DVD series. It's entirely possible that the full DVDs are much more systematic.

Some instructional DVDs are more systematic, depending on how good the instructor is at organizing the material. Even then, there's only so much material you can fit on a DVD. At some point you have to learn how to apply the principles and concepts you have practiced to different situations that may come up.

 

[kehcorpz]

Thanks guys.

2 questions come to my mind:

1) How is it usually in a class? I mean is the instructor in front of everybody and demonstrating stuff but he's always distanced like a school teacher or should he walk around and
watch everybody and talk to everybody, like giving a few comments or correcting something, or is this not realistic? i mean how do you know if the teacher is really interested enough?
to me it would be important to feel like i'm being cared for. but if it feels sterile and simply like a client-customer relationship then this would suck.

2) Are there even defending techniques which are "perfect" and basically offer no room for the attacker or are there always loopholes and weaknesses?
I mean could an attacker basically always get a few punches through?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

1) How is it usually in a class? I mean is the instructor in front of everybody and demonstrating stuff but he's always distanced like a school teacher or should he walk around and
watch everybody and talk to everybody, like giving a few comments or correcting something, or is this not realistic? i mean how do you know if the teacher is really interested enough?
to me it would be important to feel like i'm being cared for. but if it feels sterile and simply like a client-customer relationship then this would suck.

It varies quite a bit depending on the school, the instructor, and the art.

When I teach a typical class, I'll generally show 2-4 techniques, explaining a bit about the context and the underlying concepts, and give students a chance to practice each technique. As they practice, I go around the mat watching, offering corrections, and answering questions. Then we'll generally do some sort of live drill or sparring. I like to set up the drill so it gives students a chance to try the techniques they've just been practicing. At the end of class I try to leave a few minutes for questions and answers about anything we covered in class or any problems that the students ran into during the live drilling/sparring.

Other instructors do things differently.

2) Are there even defending techniques which are "perfect" and basically offer no room for the attacker or are there always loopholes and weaknesses?
I mean could an attacker basically always get a few punches through?

There is no foolproof defense to anything. Think about it. Have you ever seen a professional fighter who never, ever gets hit? These are people who train and fight for a living. If there was a guaranteed way to never get hit, they would the first to line up for it.

 

[JR 137]

What the posters before me said.

There are endless "what if..." questions, because there are virtually endless attacking combinations, and memorizing reactions to them isn't really going to get you anywhere. You have to develop your way of addressing things.

Developing your way doesn't mean you don't do what your teacher says, nor does it mean you try to learn on your own. It means you find a teacher who you relate to, who puts things in a way you understand them, and teaches you to think for yourself. Someone who gives you answers to all the what ifs isn't an educator. You're not a computer that can be programmed with predetermined responses for every scenario.

I'm a middle school science teacher. I teach my students the textbook facts, then I challenge them to make logical decisions to real world questions using the information I basically spoon fed them. I steer them away from completely wrong answers and try to get them to come up with as good of answers that they can come up with on their own. Basically, my real aim to to teach them critical thinking.

A martial arts instructor's ultimate goal should be to teach critical thinking and response, not memorized responses. Memorized responses will only work when the attack is exactly as it was trained for.

Where does this critical thinking get tested IMO? Sparring. I've found most instructors are quietest during sparring for some reason unbeknownst to me. That's the best time to give feedback IMO. It should be "you keep getting kicked in the thigh because your stance is too long and you keep coming forward right into his trap" or "you're getting punched in the head because you're using both hands to block his front kick."

So long as you're doing realistic sparring (definitions of that vary widely), sparring should answer those what ifs over time.

Sorry if I rambled. It's late...

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Thanks guys.

2 questions come to my mind:

1) How is it usually in a class? I mean is the instructor in front of everybody and demonstrating stuff but he's always distanced like a school teacher or should he walk around and
watch everybody and talk to everybody, like giving a few comments or correcting something, or is this not realistic? i mean how do you know if the teacher is really interested enough?
to me it would be important to feel like i'm being cared for. but if it feels sterile and simply like a client-customer relationship then this would suck.

2) Are there even defending techniques which are "perfect" and basically offer no room for the attacker or are there always loopholes and weaknesses?
I mean could an attacker basically always get a few punches through?

Like Tony said, this will vary from class to class/school to school. In my current school (At least for the first question. Second is straightforward):

1) We have set material to learn. We generally will learn it in private lessons, then practice it in class. If anyone has questions, he will answer, and if he sees anyone doing something wrong, he will fix it and explain why we do x instead of y. If there is a big class, he pairs the senior students with the newer students as well, so that they can help the younger students grow some days, and other days put the senior students with senior students and newer students with newer students so they can help each other.
It never feels sterile or client-customer relationship (that goes for everywhere I've practiced). You develop genuine relationships with your instructors and fellow students.
We also do a fair bit of no minds, live drills, and sparring in addition to our 'techniques'.

2) No. If there was, this would be all people do. Just as there's an incredibly high number of ways you can move your body, there is an incredibly high number of ways your opponent can move theirs.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I think the opening sequence is a bit of an over reaction.

 

[MAfreak]

don't watch all this crap.
if you want a good first view on how to fight, watch this and similar videos: Bas.Rutten.-.Extreme.Pancrase.-.01.-.Stances,.Footwork,.Bloc_土豆_高清视频在线观看
but it can't replace real training and sparring.

 

[marques]

I'm quite pedantic and analyze things and I always have many questions.
Let's say I bought this dvd from Janich and then watched it and then thought all the time "but what if the attacker
does this instead of that?" it would really ruin it for me.

To be honest I don't even know if, being a pedantic thinker, would not get my trouble with an instructor.
I mean if I asked him all the time what if this what if that he'd probably get pissed after a while or I'd probably
not even have the chance to even ask him all my questions cause he's not giving private lessons.

For some instructors it will be offensive. Others will try to please you all the time.

My opinion is, first of all, you need to trust the instructor you chose (you need to choose one first, right?). Start from what he have to teach you. He will never have the time to explain you all the possibilities. And you will just make things more complex to yourself. Training needs a sort of a simplified situation to start from. At the same time, never trust absolutely no one, keep thinking, but select carefully your questions (if not private lessons).

 

[HW1]

I watched some of his videos on youtube. Seems like a sympathetic guy to me.
But I wonder how good is his stuff?

For example the technique he demonstrates at 4:45. It's called humbat or something like that.
In the video it looks pretty simple and effective. But then again the problem is that he and his partner
do exactly the same stuff. I mean where is the challenge? He knows that his partner does the same
movements he does. They can just go on doing this for hours. He could do it being blindfolded.
But in reality the attacker would probably not act the way his partner does.
Even if he does the same attacking move at first he will probably switch to something else when
he notices that it's not bearing fruit.

Often times in videos where the defender and the attacker are just cruising and doing both the same stuff
I ask myself "what if the attacker did this or that instead of doing what he does"? I mean often it's like there
is an actual opportunity for attack (at least I see one) but the "attacker" doesn't do it cause this is just a video.
But in real life he could use it and then what?
For example why should the attacker always attack with 1 hand only? Imagine he punches and his punch gets blocked
then why should he always retreat his arm and then punch with the other arm? What if while the defending person
is blocking his attack using BOTH hands he decides to quickly hit him with his free hand? But this doesn't happen in
the videos. In the video it always looks fool-proof.

I'm at work so I had to watch the video with no sound. From what I've seen, the techniques shown involve mostly gross motor movements which is great in a self-defense scenario. I've seen the repeating hammer fists in a Krav Maga demo but performed fast and vicious. The guy in this video seems to be demonstrating it in a calm instructional way and looks like he's breaking down and explaining the movements as he's doing them. Will they work in the speed and intensity demonstrated? Absolutely not. But add an aggressive attitude and any technique has the potential to overwhelm an opponent. It doesn't help that this guy looks like a nerdy math teacher.

 

[marques]

The 2:36 never worked on sparring. Even if I have time for it, I am punched. Unless the opponent is little, unskilled or retract the arm first like that. (I still have my shoulder as a defence, but over extension is never good, anyway.)
I just jumped to this moment. No patience for the rest. He speaks too much (and no sound).
Show me the stats of things that worked for real, please. (Not the most real, but a lot of stats in combat sports.)

 

[JR 137]

You have a lot of questions here and scattered throughout the forum. It's obvious you're eager to begin training, but you're suffering from "paralysis by analysis." You're over thinking what you should and shouldn't do, and the result is you haven't done anything but contemplate your ifs.

Learning and training from videos isn't going to work very well. Let's say you want to learn how to play basketball. You buy some videos from the most respected coaches in the world, get some more ideas from the internet, get a hoop for your driveway, and go outside and practice everything you learned by yourself for hours on end. Would that make you a good basketball player? You'd have zero feedback, no questions answered, and most importantly, no idea what to do when someone actually defends you, let alone defends in a way you didn't see in a video.

Don't choose an art to study; choose a school. Research every school around you. Make a list, and eliminate the ones you can't afford. Then eliminate the ones you can't attend due to scheduling. Visit the rest.

While visiting, look to see if what's being taught makes sense to you. See if the teacher communicates his knowledge in a way you'd understand. See if the students are following what he says or if they're doing their own thing (if they're getting it or not). See if the students are working together or against each other; are they making each other better or trying to outdo each other. See if the students are people you'd want to train with (adults, kids, etc.). The teacher doesn't have to be the most skilled person, they have to be a great teacher; who was a more successful coach - Phil Jackson or Michael Jordan?

Pick a school, not an art. Your training will only be as good as your teacher and classmates allow. If there was actually an ultimate art out there that had an answer to every situation, how good would you be at it if the teacher was horrible and all your classmates were 8 year old Ninja Turtles wannabes?

 

[kehcorpz]

While visiting, look to see if what's being taught makes sense to you. See if the teacher communicates his knowledge in a way you'd understand. See if the students are following what he says or if they're doing their own thing (if they're getting it or not). See if the students are working together or against each other; are they making each other better or trying to outdo each other. See if the students are people you'd want to train with (adults, kids, etc.). The teacher doesn't have to be the most skilled person, they have to be a great teacher; who was a more successful coach - Phil Jackson or Michael Jordan?

This is really a lot to look for. I dont know if I can even figure out of the students do own stuff or if they follow the teacher.
You need skills to do this. I also can't tell an expensive wine from a cheap wine I don't have the experience and it's the same
thing here.

 

[JR 137]

This is really a lot to look for. I dont know if I can even figure out of the students do own stuff or if they follow the teacher.
You need skills to do this. I also can't tell an expensive wine from a cheap wine I don't have the experience and it's the same
thing here.

It sounds like a lot to look for but it really isn't. Are the students constantly confused by what the teacher is saying, or do they get it is another way to look at it.

The rest of it is pretty easy too - does what they're doing seem logical/realistic to you, or is it nonsense? Can you picture yourself training there for a long time?

Visit several places and you'll see a lot of different things, good and bad, that'll make your decision far easier.

As to telling the difference between cheap wine and expensive wine, the "experts" are easily fooled too. Studies have found the more expensive looking the bottle, label, and name, the higher the wine taste is rated, even when it's the exact same wine in several different bottles.

Get out and visit a bunch of schools. You're an intelligent and rational person. You're capable of making an intelligent decision.