whats wrong with an art thats quick to learn

[cfr]

So here is something Ive been pondering for the last few days. It just came to me, I dont know why. Why is it that many people in some particular arts seem to think that learning an art that is
relatively quick to learn means that you are missing out on something? To me, that would really depend on an individuals goals. My personal goal is self defense pure and simple. Im open to being spiritually and morally enlightened. Im open to becoming a better person, gaining confidence, finind the true meaning of life, and all that other stuff that people find from training. But those arent my goals. I want to be able to hurt someone when I need too. I know this sounds bad. But lets face it. The whole concept of being able to just control an attacker and then run may not always work out so well. My wife is 8 months pregnant. If Im with her, we arent running anywhere. So I want to inflict injury, not just pain. Im not violent contrary to how this makes me
sound. I dont remember the last fight I had. I get along with just about everyone. So my question(finally) is why is it frowned on by some to take arts that can be learned quickly. (comparitivley
speaking) Ive tried arts that seemded a bit slow to me. (I will be the first to say this could be just my perception. I left after a few months time.) Im currently training under an excellent instructor. The lineage can be traced back to some very reputable people. And in my opinion it is more quickly learned than some other arts. However, it is also looked at by people in other arts as a "shake n
bake" club. Or I have the "fast food mentality", meaning that I want it all my way right now. Or that Im just plain impatient. Nothing is free where I train. My school certainly doesnt sell
belts as we have none. We have got 5 phases. It takes normally 6 months to go from the Beginning Phase to Phase 1. So it certainly isnt quick promoting. I have no idea how long it takes to get to Phase 5 as Ive never asked. BTW I work my butt off @ my school. There is nothing easy about it. So again, why would it be looked at as though Im not seeing the bigger picture? That Im somehow disillusioned and that I just dont understand? To me, with the goals I have, my school is right on the money. Its not perfect, but the closest thing Ive got near where I live.

 

[arnisador]

Nothing wrong with it. It was one of the motications for Wing Chun, right?

The only thing I've ever heard against such a system is that one might get bored with it--that complex systems will be interesting, intellectually, for a lifetime of study of the art, keeping people at it. I'm sure there's something to that, but it's not enough to outweigh the fact that 6 months of boxing produces someone who can definitely defend himself in a lot of situations.

I asked a similar question once:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1035

 

[Seig]

If that is what suits your needs then there is nothing wrong with it. It sounds like that your nstructor is taking the time to ingrain the movement into you. I am one of the people that tends to poo poo the learn to defend yourself in two weeks courses. My reasons are the same that I beat into my own students heads. If you do not practice what you are taught ona consistant and regular basis, it is worthless. I work as a Government Contract security guard. Every two years I have to go through recertification. At the defensive tactics class, there were three of us out of 12 that were competent. A 12 year veteran police officer and two martial arts instructors. You can strip any art down to it's essentials, but then it ceases being an art. To effectively defend your self requires practice, practice and more practice.

 

[Cthulhu]

In some respects, a system that takes little time to learn can be beneficial. Instead of trying to learn many different techniques, you only need to learn a few. However, I think the problem comes when people learn the shorter curriculum, and then never train the techniques they've learned, believing they already 'know' them.

While the techniques of such a system may be learned in a shorter amount of time, it would still require a large amount of time training those techniques to ensure they would work in every situation.

As always, it depends not on the system, but the instruction and individual martial artist.

Cthulhu

 

[arnisador]

You can also have relatively few techniques, but a variety of ways of drilling them to make/keep them "alive".

 

[cfr]

I think I may have misled you guys. I will be training for years @ my school. I think someone else said it better with the "fewer techniques" idea. I think the other thing thats different is that are techs(so far @ least) arent very inticate. We are expected to strike a designated area and have proper footwork of course, but I guess the techs just seem (for lack of better words) more realistic. They seem IMO that they could be pulled off much more easily that other styles Ive seen. Its pretty rare that I need to wonder "could that really work"? Or think to myself "Ive never seen anything that vagely resembles that in real life". Where in other schools I had those thoughts often. What could possibly be wrong with the way we are doing it?

 

[tshadowchaser]

If you are able to learn and retain the thehniques and feel you are able to use them in a street situation , there is nothing wrong.
The system need not have 2 million techniques each a little more difficult and complacated then the last. Good techniques are only as good as he person useing them, and that person must be trained to properly do what is needed to be done. That is what takes time, the repatition of doing a tech 1000 - 3000 or more times untill it becomes a reflex not a thought out then delivered tech

 

[Kempo Guy]

I think if the art is based no sound principles (not memorizing techniques) it would be fairly quick to learn (once the principles have become natural).

I don't know what you mean by quick though as it's all subjective...

KG

 

[cfr]

I guess what I mean is that practitioners of some arts(Krav Maga, Muay Thai) claim to be able to having people able to defend themselves in relatively short amount of time. Whereas other arts are pretty upfront that you need to dedicate lots of time and go through several belts before the same can be said.

 

[arnisador]

Yes, Krav Maga on the one side and Aikido and Tai Chi on the other side.

When I started Karate I was told it'd be at least a year before I could use it to defend myself. I found that reaonably accurate, though of course after one year it wasn't that I was great--rather, that my body had adjusted to fighting that way and I had begum to understand something of the approach so that I could make some use of it.

 

[MJS]

I think alot of the times, when people hear about the so called quick arts, or shake n bake, the first thing that comes to mind would be a 2 week course. This is simply not the case. Sure, there are arts that offer seminars or camps, but IMO, you can't expect to learn 100% of the art in that short amount of time. A seminar or camp is designed to give you something extra to what you already know about the art.

As for arts like KM or people like Peyton Quinn, Geoff Thompson, and Sammy Franco---To them what they are doing IS their art, just like Kenpo would be to us. Keep in mind that just like we, as individuals, train for different reasons, their arts are taught for different reasons. The people who train under these guys are just as devoted to that art as the Kenpo student is devoted to Kenpo. The learning curve is going to be much different, but that does not mean that the student who studies KM is going to be any less of a fighter than a Kenpo guy.

CFR made a good point. Sure running is always an option and is a very good one at that. However, it might not always work, and if you want to get out of that situation, you better have a back-up plan to fall back on. As I said before in another post,you can't predict if you'll get attacked, how many people will be there, if there will be weapons, etc.

Every art has something to offer, be it Boxing, JKD, Kenpo, KM, BJJ or the Filipino arts. They are all different, but they are the same in some way, shape or form. But to say that one is not good just because there are no belts is crazy. What does a belt show?? Nothing!! You can have a black belt with 100 stripes on it, but that doesnt mean that you can defend yourself. Is JKD a bad art just because there are no katas? Of course not. Is the KM student any less of a fighter because it takes less time to learn something, where it may take the Kenpo student 4 months longer? No.

Again, rather than have such tunnel vision, some people should take a step back, and take the time to examine the differences in these arts, and then maybe that will clear up some questions.

Mike

 

[tshadowchaser]

I think there is a big difference in Learning and the ability to do something.
I can show you 10 techs. that will take your attacker out for good, and you can learn how to do them in an hour or so, BUT your not going to be able to do them with out constant practice.

 

[cfr]

Originally posted by MJS
But to say that one is not good just because there are no belts is crazy.

I agree 100%. Who said that?

 

[cfr]

Originally posted by tshadowchaser
I think there is a big difference in Learning and the ability to do something.
I can show you 10 techs. that will take your attacker out for good, and you can learn how to do them in an hour or so, BUT your not going to be able to do them with out constant practice.

I agree absolutely. Which is why I will be training for years to come.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by cfr
I agree 100%. Who said that?

Ok. Let me clarify what I meant. You hear some people on here say that if you dont do the katas, then you're taking away from the art. I dont recall ever hearing anyone say anything about the belts, but I wouldnt be surpirsed if they did. I guess I was just stating that alot of these "reality based" systems dont have belts, they have what you referred to, phases or steps, as far as the progression levels go. Boxing has no belt levels. JKD as far as I know doesnt. I believe they also have levels or phases of training.

Sometimes you hear about the tradition of an art. Tradition being, bowing, weapons, katas, etc. The belts are also part of that tradition.

That is what I meant by that comment.

Mike

 

[Karasu Tengu]

I think Quick is a relative term. One can learn "techniques" rather quickly but understanding comes later. In Special Forces that what happens. You learn the quick way to dispatch the enemy and can worry about the intricacies later.

But, isn't that why firearms were invented? Any idiot can pull a trigger so if your looking for quick that's the perfect art.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Karasu Tengu

But, isn't that why firearms were invented? Any idiot can pull a trigger so if your looking for quick that's the perfect art. [/B]

Sure, but is every situation you're gonna come across going to require you to pull a gun? Most civilian people that carry a gun, if they carry it with them at all times on them, will have to have it concealed. I havent seen too many people other than LEO walk around with a gun hanging off their side. Getting it out and actually using it is going to take longer than most people think. Then, you take into consideration the stress, taking time to aim, the chance of low light, etc. and now you just added more to what you already have to worry about.

Mike

 

[Seig]

YOu both made good points. A firearm is like any other mode of self-defense. You need good, solid basic skills nad must take the time to practice the techniques involved...Drawing, reloading, shooting, etc... Just having a gun is not enough

 

[Karasu Tengu]

Very True. But it is a far quicker deterent to a physical encounter than jumping into a fighting stance.

MJS: I was merely making a point. Also do not leave out the fact that A LOT of people carry conceiled weapons that are not permitted or licensed as well.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Karasu Tengu

Very True. But it is a far quicker deterent to a physical encounter than jumping into a fighting stance.

Agreed. Look at it this way though. Considering that the majority of times, people find themselves getting sued, due to the sue happy world that we live in, dont you think that if you pull a gun and the attacker is unarmed, that you wont be facing some serious questions? Will you know if the guy is armed or not? No, probably not, but I would think that if someone was going to carjack you and he was armed, that he would use that weapon in the carjacking. I dont think he'd sit there and say, "Well, I have a gun but I'm not going to use it unless the owner gives me a hard time." Of course not. He's gonna put that gun in your face and demand your car.

MJS: I was merely making a point. Also do not leave out the fact that A LOT of people carry conceiled weapons that are not permitted or licensed as well.

Again, agreed. A knife is very easy to conceal. And yes, there are many people running around with guns that are not legal.

Mike