I saw this comment in the thread about feeling safe in sheffield.

Has anyone else taken a single or a series of self defence classes?
If you have, has it made you feel safer?
Do you believe that it would be any use for real?
And did they teach you that the best defence was running faster than your aggressor?

Originally posted by Cyclone
I saw this comment in the thread about feeling safe in sheffield.

Has anyone else taken a single or a series of self defence classes?
If you have, has it made you feel safer?
Do you believe that it would be any use for real?
And did they teach you that the best defence was running faster than your aggressor?

- I class Muay Thai as a combat sport, not self defense.. But I guess it works just as well ;)
- Much safer.. Never been a soft lad anyway, but MT put my confidence through the roof.
- Yes, definitely.
- No. He taught me to jab-cross-hook until the idiot hits the dirt.. :thumbsup:

i specifically meant either a single class or a course that is advertised as self defence, not a martial art.

i teach jiu jitsu, and being a university club we have a stall at freshers fair every year. You always get the typical 5' nothing petite girl who you're trying to convince to join come back with the rejoinder

"I don't need to do a martial art, I took a self defence class once". I just wonder what kind of experience people who've taken a class or a course in self defence have and whether they come out of it having gained something or having a false sense of security.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i specifically meant either a single class or a course that is advertised as self defence, not a martial art.

I don't class it as a martial art either. Boxing isn't a martial art, and MT is much more violent :P

just because boxing isn't eastern doesn't mean it's not a martial art. I'd say that it fulfills all the criteria to be classes as a martial art.

Anyway, anyone who's actually gone to a class advertised as 'self defence class'?

I would like to go to a self defence class, but I'm scared of looking a pillock, or getting beat-up by a girl.

Originally posted by nick2
I would like to go to a self defence class, but I'm scared of looking a pillock, or getting beat-up by a girl.

it's not just self-defence, but you're welcome to come to the uni jiu jitsu class. We have plenty of novices who've come for between a couple of sessions and four or five weeks at the moment, so you won't look like a pillock, nor get beaten up by a girl.

It's not a self defence class though. I don't teach de-escalation, situation control, talking people down or running away all of which are vital self defence techniques. Nor do i particularly teach you awareness and/or habits to avoid or pick up, which is also part of self defence.

I've tried one self defence class some years ago and found for the most part it was worse than useless. The techniques they tought were far too complex, often relied on your opponant reacting in a certain way (i.e. you do this, he does this then you do this) which is wildly unrealistic or were totally unsuited for self defence (sacrifice throws anyone!) and not enough time was given to even learn let alone practice techniques. The prime self defence technique should always be avoidance, followed by running away followed by using a simple reliable technique then running away!

Those personal attack alarm things work as well, I tested my mums out on my mate the other day when he didn't expect it :)

Originally posted by Cyclone
just because boxing isn't eastern doesn't mean it's not a martial art. I'd say that it fulfills all the criteria to be classes as a martial art.



not unless it has been taught by the military to its troops as part of their regular training.

Who made up that rule? And doesn't that discount ermmm well most traditional eastern martial arts?!?!

Well i'm pleased to see that under those criteria tai chi chuan definitely is classed as a martial art it was taught to and used by the chinese imperial guard. Though evidence of the martial aspects are often lacking in many of its teachers.

Did anyone see the self defense story on bbc morning tv. here's the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4012709.stm

in the interview the marine said they were training simple techniques and self awareness, not turning people into martial artists. The self awareness was common sense stuff but still valuable.

The technique they showed was a wrist lock which IMHO needs to be practiced more than a few times(ie 1000's) before it becomes second nature.... Possibly this can give a false sense of security to those on the course.

Neil

that's the main problem with teaching physical techniques in a single class or short course. I've been practising a set of 6 specific wrist locks now (part of the style i teach) for 8 years. And i'd probably still stick to something that requires less fine motor control if i had to defend myself.
Showing it to someone once and practising for 30 mins isn't going to be anywhere near enough time to make it stick and work under pressure.

hexdrumer, i presume you're thinking of tae kwon do, i can't think of many other martial arts that have or are taught to the military.
Jiu jitsu was the art of the samurai to be used in the event of being unhorsed and without sword, but the samurai weren't actually the military...

The best thing you can probably get out of a short course is the psychological and awareness aspects of it. Just getting people to actually throw a punch or scream in each others faces, you'd be surprised how many people freeze up in an unexpected conflict.
And of course avoidance through awareness is the best thing to do.

i just had a look at that article.

All the moves required skill, but not strength, and I was taught that by twisting an arm in the right direction I could gain control over a potential attacker.

this is almost certainly pointless. They might make it work in a dojo under little or no pressure with a compliant partner. But when scared for their life in the dark being attacked by someone, i doubt it.

I'd definetely say that gift of the gab, half decent 400m time and not having a massive chip on your shoulder when you're out for a night are a lot more usefull techniques than get taught in self defence classes.

Having more mates then them don't hurt neither like....

Originally posted by Cyclone
i just had a look at that article.

this is almost certainly pointless. They might make it work in a dojo under little or no pressure with a compliant partner. But when scared for their life in the dark being attacked by someone, i doubt it.

A friend of mine who has many black belts in various martial arts said he thinks they're pretty much useless for self defence. His advice is to talk your way out of it, run away or as a _very_ last resort, completely loose it - kick bite scratch - anything but just go completely wild - not defending yourself but attacking your attacker.

A lot of people mis understand the concept of self-defence. It's not just about been able to physically defend yourself it is also about avoiding been attacked and been a victim all together.

Anticipation and alertness are the two main elements that fuel your reaction instinct. Anticipation of attack and violence will not make you paranoid like some faint hearted specimens would have you believe.

In some cities statistics suggest that one out of every three people will face some form of violence against themselves or their property. You have to be prepared. In other words expect to come under attack at some point by basically anticipating potential attacks. This ensures that you develop a mind-set of preparedness for action.

This is one area in which 'Martial Arts' simply don't meet the bill. Martial arts training presupposes a nice comfortable, controlled environment. Out on the street the situation is not subject to any kind of rules, regulations or control. It is completely unpredictable. If you are not anticipating danger, it will be with you before you are aware it's coming. If you are expecting trouble you will already be taking precautionary measures that will instinctively become part of your life and already you will be averting possible attacks.

I did some form of Karate when I was younger but I wouldnt say I was prepared if someone tried to mug me in the streets... I would say all my martial arts skills, if i have any left, are a lot less important to me in most situations than my ability to run extremly fast...

its not long since i was stalked by a bloke for about a mile, and i ended up with the choice of either kicking the crap out of him, or running... i chose to run, he followed, but i out ran him...

I dont believe there is any martial arts form or self defence class that would give you the skills or knowledge to confront any situation... you can learn as many techniques as you want on how to disarm someone with a knife... but when it happens you'll most likely brick yourself unless your 6' tall and about 15 stone :P

I also second whoever said take the crazy approach... I've seen this before and if you act like your totally possesed in the head you can make people back off in most cases...

screw self defence classes, join the gym and get yourself fit so you can out run someone, and so that if you do need to fight you've got some muscle on you... I'm a skinny runt but i'm rather lean and I know I'm good at running...

Cyclone, which Uni's club you do the jiu jitsu classes for?

Originally posted by Saifa
I'd definetely say that gift of the gab, half decent 400m time and not having a massive chip on your shoulder when you're out for a night are a lot more usefull techniques than get taught in self defence classes.

How very true, certainly on the door of the Wap all the bouncers had to be aware that it was far better to 'talk' the person down rather than thump them.
Howevera guy who was a mod in the 60's once told me if you get attacked and are going to be in hospital make sure the guy in the bed next to you is one of the assailants. His idea seemed to be stand near a shop window and put at least one of your attackers through it, I have a horrible feeling he was talking from experience.
One of my lady friends once was approached in a non too friendly way when she got off a late night bus luckily she remembered something I'd told her, 'if you kick or knee a bloke between the legs they don't just grunt and keep moving, no rather they fall down moaning horribly and sometimes being physically sick, so off she trotted leaving the rat probably wishing he'd picked on some-one else.

The University of Sheffield.

The surprising thing about men and their groins is that we are aware of them and are actually pretty quick to cover them up. It's a good target if you hit it, but certainly not the be all and end all.

I agree with all the comments I think, except about possibly expecting to be attacked all the time. That does sound rather like paranoia, you generally have plenty of warning if somethings going to happen, and if you don't then you can't maintain a level of alertness for very long that would be sufficient to help in the case of a completely random and unexpected attack.

I'd disagree that training in the dojo is useless as well. It's not going to be as usefull as actually going out and fighting, but not many people can say that they spend 4 hours a week fighting on the street.
The idea with drilling techniques in a controlled environment is that they are learnt to a level where you can do them without conscious thought, like riding a bicycle or driving a car, once you've done it for a while you no longer have to think about each step, you just do it.
And at the end of the day it does also improve your strength and fitness and you get used to occaisionally being hit, so at least you have an idea of what to expect.

Even the controlled environment of the dojo allows you to place people under some pressure and this is useful in any conflict as most people are unused to dealing with the fear and the massive adrenalin dump.

The consensus in the martial arts world, at the moment, appears to suggest [from what I've been told and from what I've read] that the Brazilian form of Ju- Jitsu and Thai Boxing [Muay Thai] are regarded as the most effective forms of street defence. The Defence de la Rue forms of French Savate [the sport form is Boxe Francaise-Savate] are also gaining a great reputation, particularly in the USA. Savate, which is taught in Cambridge, London and [I think] Newcastle is not as well known as it should be. It originates from a mixture of English boxing, French hand techniques, and a mixture of Basque, regional French [largely Paris and Marseille] and Oriental kicking techniques. Also included in the "street" form are techniques from Lutte Parisian [wrestling]. Savate is most famous for its kicks, however, which many [including Danny Inosanto and the late Bruce Lee] consider to be superior to those of Karate, Kung Fu, Tae Kwon Do and Kempo.
I have a background in Karate and Kung Fu, and would not attempt to "mix it" with a Thai Boxer or Savateur. RE Brazilian Ju Jitsu-all the Kung Fu in the world wouldn't save you from some of their moves.
Also rated as an "ultra-effective" art is the Israeli method , but I know next to nothing about this form.

every art has it's strengths and weaknesses. In a fight on the floor a bjj guy has a lot of skill, but stood up they've got nothing at all.
Fighting on the floor certainly isn't somewhere you want to be if outside, it's dirty, might have glass on it, and puts your head far too close to other peoples feet. But being able to control a fight on the floor allows you to quickly regain your feet.

I don't know a lot about savate apart from what i've read, but with some basic variations a kick is a kick is a kick.

I can see why muay thai would be considered to be effective, it's quite viscous and the people training in it tend to compete, which is a good type of training for actually fighting.

Hi all and hi Timo

I have a couple of questions the 1st one is for Timo

Hi Timo
You mentioned that you have a background in Karate and Kung Fu but you would not attempt to "mix it" with a Thai Boxer or Savateur. RE Brazilian Ju Jitsu WHY NOT??? I have, yes if you go to the ground in a NHB comp with someone that is into Ju Jutsu you will not come off good or if you go in a ring with a Thai Boxer you might not win. But as this is about self Defence why not Kung Fu and Karate can and do hold there own with other styles in the street its all about believing in your training and doing the more Traditional Fighting techniques that are in your chosen style. I.e. elbows, low kicking, locking, throwing, vital strikes & backing to name only some of the things you can do.

You also stated
All the Kung Fu in the world wouldn't save you from some of their moves.
Please don’t underestimate Traditional styles just because they might not that good in a competition.

Ok my second question is
What is self-defence & what is the difference between Martial arts & Self-defence???
Is it just the enfaces on what is in the class or is it more???
Ok so that was in 2 parts.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I DO NOT THINK 1 ART IS ANY BETTER THAN ANYOTHER THAY ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER.


Dave
www.moifa.20m.com

Hi Dave,
In answer to your questions; firstly, I should have been a tad more specific. I wouldn't want to tackle a "good" exponent of Bras Ju Jit because I think the chances are I'd end up on the floor and in the most terrible knots. I do think their ground techniques are more efective than any others I've seen. By the way, my training has been in Lau Gar and Shukokai. When I was younger I did some full contact in Lau Gar. Having experienced it, and fought in competition with Shukokai people too, I think there is a world of difference between the effectiveness of the techniques and those of Muay Thai. The use of the leg as a battering ram in a kick, as opposed to say, Karate's use of just the foot is in my view a more effective technique. I think their training and sparring is also more rigorous. I think you are right in saying that ALL arts have their good techniques, but I personally think the legwork of the Thai style, and the groundwork of Brasilian JJ is potentially more effective in both competition and self-defence. Maybe it is a case of "find a style that best suits you"? This is where, for non-East Asian people, Savate might come in. Don't you think, Dave, that some "Oriental" styles are really more suitable for those of East Asian physique?
Secondly, and by the way, I respect your obvious knowledge and wisdom which comes across in your posting, I should have been specific about the difference between competition and self-defence. I acknowledge that some techniques [many of the basic techniques of Silat, for example] can't be used in a competition because they are too dangerous.
Please be assured that I did not mean to disparage traditional arts. My use of the phrase "all the Kung Fu in the world wouldn't save you" re Brasilian Ju Jitsu was, in retrospect, an example of over-enthusiasm. No offence to the traditional arts, and their skilled practitioners intended. I do take your points re all styles having strengths, but they also have weaknesses. I found Lau Gar and Karate's weaknesses, with respect, to lie in close-quarter fighting. Also, I honestly believe that it is difficult, to say the least, to use traditional blocks [Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Okinawan ] against the combinations that a good Western Boxer can put together. Isn't that really why American -style Kickboxing, and French Savate use a combination of Western boxing techniques with kicks etc?
Hope this is an okay reply. Once again, I respect the traditional arts but it is healthy to compare them with other styles. You probably know much more than I do , but I've tried to answer your questions with respect.

Hi Timo & All

To be perfectly honest if I went up against an exponent of Bras Ju Jit I'd end up on the floor I would end up in a knot also. But keeping it on the topic of self-defence do you want to go to the ground??? I know I don't but if I did I would be wishing I had spent more time training in that area.

I think there is a world of difference between the effectiveness of the techniques of Lau Gar and Shukokai to those of Muay Thai. But they are totally different sports.

Yes the use of the leg kick in Thai boxing I think is second to non but there are other ways of kicking the side kick that is used in free style comps are so effective but how good is it on the street in a self-defence situation??? I know the front kick in wing Chun is a very versatile way of kicking.

"Oriental" styles are really more suitable for those of East Asian physique?
mmm Yes and no I have always been told to question what I have been shown and find my own way, westerners are all different in size and shape its finding what works for you. But if is not working don’t gust disregard it but find out why its not working, it might be that you didn’t do the right defence at that time but that’s not to say that its no good.

You found weaknesses in your Lau Gar and Karate's training to lie in close-quarter fighting. I don’t know about Lau Gar as all I have seen is the sport side but karate has much more than you think, but I didn’t come across it till after I had stopped training in it. The blocks are not just blocks.

As for traditional blocks i.e. Chinese against the combinations of a good Western Boxer I have had no problem in using my traditional blocking against any art as long as it is in full contact. A lot of Traditional Kung Fu practitioners use there arms in the same way as a Thai boxer uses there legs i.e. to waken there opponents as a Thai boxer might attack there legs to slow them down we attack there arms in the same way.

And yep it’s a good reply I just like a good chat about MA

IF I OFFENDED ANY ONE OR STYLE SORRY ITS NOT MY INTENTION. IT’S HARD TO GET WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY ACROSS ON THE NET.


Dave
www.moifa.20m.com

PS Timo do you still train and if so what style are you doing???

Its a trueism but its not any one art that is superior but the person using it!

Dave,
Thanks for your excellent, thoughtful reply. You make some good points here. Sadly, I stopped training a few years ago. However, at 43, and with some weight gained I feel it is about time I went back to MA. I am always interested in the topic, particularly in comparing different styles. Maybe there is no "ultimate" art, but I definately think some arts are best in certain, specific areas. By the way, I admire your honesty re Brasilian Ju Jitsu- most of us would end up on the deck against those buggers!

just to drag this slightly back towards topic, it was supposed to be about "self defence classes" not martial arts, and those classes are generally targetted at and taken by people with little or no experience in any ma.

You are spot on Cyclone we should get back to self-defence.

OK so what is self-defence and what is reasonable force when it comes to self-defence???

Dave
www.moifa.20m.com

As I said before Self defence is not just about physically beating off an aggressor it also consists of preventing a potential aggressor from having the opportunity to attack you.

When you have inculcated an attitude of anticipation and preparedness, your reaction will be swift. You will not freeze in a moment of panic.

Of course it would be nice if we were all civilised and could live in peace, but the true fact is that thugs and such tour the streets on the lookout for victims. The idea is to anticipate trouble and be prepared. You can sharpen your anticipation first by simply admitting the violence factor around. Just face it, a percentage of the population are not civilised or nice. Make it your business not to become part of those statistics. Understand that the police generally only turn up after violence as occurred, so basically the onus is on you to do something about it.

If your attitude is one of anticipation it will make sure that you will never be caught looking desperately for help when there is none available. Not only should able and willing to react quickly, but your whole behaviour will let any potential thug know that he is not dealing with an easy victim and could quite possibly discourage them from even starting anything in the first place.

The anticipation of trouble means you will not be taken by surprise. The element of surprise and consequent fear that comes with this is one of the thugs main advantages. If you are taken by surprise, you do tend to freeze. However, if you anticipate and are prepared, then your reaction time will totally turn the tables on an aggressor and the surprise will be theirs!

I think it is extremely difficult, to say the least, to define "appropriate" self-defence . Surely, it depends on he situation, number of assailants, whether weapons are involved etc. I don't think "appropriate force" is clearly defined in law, and the interpretation is down to the subjective opinion of the Judge. I have been told, by police officers, that a harder line is usually taken against those who kick, trample or jump upon a fallen "opponent"/victim. The use of the foot is seen as more serious than the use of the fist. This, in itself is nonsensical, as a big guy may be able to inflict greater damage with his fist than a smaller guy would using both.

So if Self-defence is not just about physically beating off an aggressor but preventing a potential aggressor from having the opportunity to attack you. Then shouldn’t that be the main focus in a self-defence class and not (well if he grabs your arm you can do this or that).
Shouldn’t the class be called something ells other than self-defence i.e. a self-protection class??? The word defence implies to me that you have to weight to be attacked first and that is not the case if you are feeling threatened you are within you rights to attack 1st.

Dave
Ps if this isn’t making any sense sorry its 6.20am and im in a rush to get to work.

geoff thompson's book 'dead or alive' is a great source of information on 'self-protection'.

Anvil,
Thompson's books are good, but we'd end up sent to prison if we employed some of the methods. I agree with Davemantis about renaming the classes "self-protection", as defence does imply wait to be attacked first. If some lout is threatening a decent member of the public, and the latter feels genuinely in danger of being assaulted, then I think it is very appropriate for them to strike first [and never just once...].

Originally posted by timo
Anvil,
I agree with Davemantis about renaming the classes "self-protection", as defence does imply wait to be attacked first. If some lout is threatening a decent member of the public, and the latter feels genuinely in danger of being assaulted, then I think it is very appropriate for them to strike first [and never just once...].

Funnily enough, this is exactly what Geoff teaches in 'Dead Or Alive', along with other self protection techniques such as locking car doors and avoiding dark alleys at night. he also provides info about the legalities of certain situations and the reasons why some people get locked up and others don't. if people want more info, it's well worth a read - it certainly doesn't suggest to me anything other than what you've said yourself...

Geoff Thompson is one of the best and he has some valuable points, but he comes across a little O, T, T for me but at the time I think that is what was needed in the Martial arts world. I think there can be a happy medium between what Geoff is doing and saying and what is put accross as self-defence today. There are some very good books out there on S-D not just Geoff T'S books.

Dave
www.moifa.20m.com

Originally posted by Davemantis
Geoff Thompson is one of the best and he has some valuable points, but he comes across a little O, T, T for me but at the time I think that is what was needed in the Martial arts world. I think there can be a happy medium between what Geoff is doing and saying and what is put accross as self-defence today. There are some very good books out there on S-D not just Geoff T'S books.

Dave
www.moifa.20m.com

There’s no denying that some of Geoff Thompson’s methods have attracted a certain amount of controversy, and some of his ideas on martial arts may come across to many as ‘OTT’, but with all due respect, I didn’t refer to Geoff in terms of martial arts, but rather in terms of ‘self-protection’ (see your own discussions for the difference), and I didn't refer to his 'methods’, but a specific text that focuses on topics such as awareness, avoidance, adrenalin/fear control, aftermath, legal implications and the ‘criminal psyche’. It is not a book about martial arts or about winning fights, and it is not full of complicated techniques - it’s a book that teaches precautionary measures to make oneself less vulnerable, hence the recommendation. I’m sure there are other books of a similar nature, but having not read them, I’m not in a position to recommend them.

Anvil,
You are certainly right, in my view, about the usefulness of Thompson's books re precautionary behaviour. Good advice indeed; if you can avoid confrontation, avoid it. This is an essential part of "self-protection", often neglected by other books and magazines.

All Geoff Thompson is saying in his books is what we have all know for years but forgot from time to time, he has even admitted that himself. Some people (AND I HAVE BEEN GUILTY AT TIMES) Just changed the focus martial arts over the years and all he is doing is reminding us all what martial arts was all about, Defending oneself and family. The only problem is people don’t want to hear it they don’t want to hear how nasty some people and the world can be.

As far as I am concerned Geoff Thompson has always been a Martial artist his focus is just on self-protection and not forms or competitions that’s all.

So what is the difference between M/A and S/D???

(The 2 are linked and always will be)

Ps im not talking about the sport side that is totally different subject.


Dave
www.moifa.20m.com

I will attempt to clarify my point again. I am not referring to Geoff Thompson’s ‘books’ – I am referring to a specific text. Geoff Thompson has written widely about martial arts, but he has also written about other subjects, both related and unrelated. SELF-PROTECTION is a related subject and the focus of the book ‘Dead or Alive’. The fact that it is a related subject does not make it the same subject – Dead or Alive includes some techniques derived from various martial arts, but that is only part of the book, therefore in this instance, martial arts can be seen to contribute to self-protection – it cannot be seen to be the same thing. Advice on locking your car door as soon as you get in it, reversing into parking spaces and avoiding dimly lit places may appear to be common-sense advice, but IMO, it is not martial arts. Other areas of the book (as I’ve already mentioned) include awareness, avoidance, analysis of the ‘criminal mind’, fear/adrenalin control, 1st aid, the law, and aftermath. Not all of these are taught during marital arts classes (at least not at those I’ve attended), nor do they appear in many martial arts books, therefore once again martial arts can be seen to contribute to (but not be the same as), self-protection (yeast contributes to bread, but that doesn’t make yeast bread).

Geoff Thompson has been involved with martial arts for many years, and is probably better known for this involvement than for anything else, however he has also written on other subjects (although I first became aware of him through ‘animal day’, the first work of his that I actually read was on stress management). I am not denying Geoff’s involvement in martial arts, I am simply stating that the book ‘Dead or Alive’ is not about martial arts – it includes some martial arts techniques, yes, and Geoff possibly couldn’t have written it without his martial arts background, but that still doesn’t make the book about martial arts, in fact, in the introduction, it claims to be about ‘self-protection’, there’s no mention of ‘martial arts’, and furthermore, it states that ‘the physical teachings, whilst important, are secondary’. Physical techniques are surely primary to martial arts, but to ‘self-protection’, (according to this book at least), they are ‘secondary’

So what is the difference between M/A and S/D? well, that’s already been discussed in this thread by other contributors, and the difference between S/D and S/P – well that’s been discussed by yourself.

The next time I recommend a book I’ll do so in the ‘what book are you currently reading?’ thread, a LOT less hassle!

1st - good reply Anvil.

2nd - The questions I have been asking have just been to provoke conversation and not direct at you personally so if it came across that way I AM DEEPLEY SORRY it was not my intention & please keep recommending books it helps every one.


Ok let’s get back to it.

So if martial arts can be seen to contribute to self-protection but cannot be seen to be the same thing. What were MA created for if not self-protection???

You make a good point that awareness, avoidance, analysis of the ‘criminal mind’, fear/adrenalin control, 1st aid, the law, and aftermath are not taught during marital arts classes (nor have they been at any of the classes I have been to. But I do try to include some of them, not all mind into my classes but that is a short fall on my behalf that I will have to think about) nor do they appear in many martial arts books or videos. So if Ma was created fore Self-protection say why don’t people teach that side of it in a class. Is it because people only want to Kick Ass when they start and don’t fully understand what Ma is all about? Or is it because the instructors feel they don’t know enough about the subject to teach it or something ells???

On the physical side of things how practical is it to teach a techniques I a say 6 week sd class and expect someone to remember what they have been shown or further more pull off a technique???

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY 1 MORE TIME THAT I DO NOT MEEN TO GET AT ANY 1 OR STYLE OR CLASS PURSONALY, ITS JUST THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS. IF YOU DO FEEL THAT I HAVE GOT AT YOU I AM MORE THAT WILLING TO APOLAJIZE ON THE NET OR PUSONALY.


Dave
www.moifa.20m.com

martial arts come about from a desire to codify combat ability.

They were not created for self protection, they were created to cause damage to your opponent. There's a clear difference between intending to win a conflict and intending to avoid a conflict.

Self defence is more about the latter, and if that fails it then falls back on doing enough damage to allow you to disengage and escape.

Martial arts help with self defence because they increase your ability to cause that damage should your first line of defence (avoidance and awareness) fail.

And i suppose that difference in purpose is also why there are aspects of self defence or self protection that are generally not covered in martial arts. The martial art is generally about the physical ability, and possibly mental control to go with that. But some things from self protection just don't naturally fit within the framework you use to teach a martial art.

I would have thought though that some of the things you've listed as not taught should be. We certainly cover issues such as the law in my classes (not every class obviously, but it's mentioned regularly), adrenalin and fear control are tested/trained through increasingly pressurised training scenario's, 1st aid is taught to all our senior grades with instructors requiring to do a refresher at least once every 2 years.

Originally posted by GazB
Those personal attack alarm things work as well, I tested my mums out on my mate the other day when he didn't expect it :)

:D How long did it take you to scrape him off the ceiling? Sorry cyclone I just had to ask - this made me laugh.

No, I haven't done any self defense classes but I have done some karate - when my daughter was doing this (between the ages of 12 & 13) I only graded once as I was mainly doing it for the exercise (I have rheumatoid arthritis which restricts me, but as this was a non contact form of karate I was ok). My daughter was only a couple of gradings from her first dan black belt when she gave it up because it clashed with her football training but I wish you luck with it in my opinion (speaking as someone who is only 5' 31/2" myself) these are the ones that it is the most useful to.

Hi Cyclone

You mentioned that Ma were not created for self-protection, they were created to cause damage to your opponent??? That comes across as if Ma were created not for SP but for attacking. If that is the case then why do most Ma tend to defend 1st??? And why do most people take up a Ma fore SD???

If I have miss took what you are saying sorry.


I agree there's a clear difference between intending to win a conflict and intending to avoid a conflict. But if winning means that you have to hurt an attacker to get away from them then I intend to win at all cost don’t you???

One more thing can you explain what you mean (martial arts come about from a desire to codify combat ability).


dave

3 simple questions

1 - should Sp classes be separate for men and women and what about the old???

2 - how would people feel about going to a women’s SP class with a mail teacher or even the other way round???

3 - what’s the view on mixed Sp classes???


Dave

Originally posted by Davemantis
Hi Cyclone

You mentioned that Ma were not created for self-protection, they were created to cause damage to your opponent??? That comes across as if Ma were created not for SP but for attacking. If that is the case then why do most Ma tend to defend 1st??? And why do most people take up a Ma fore SD???

If I have miss took what you are saying sorry.


I agree there's a clear difference between intending to win a conflict and intending to avoid a conflict. But if winning means that you have to hurt an attacker to get away from them then I intend to win at all cost don’t you???

One more thing can you explain what you mean (martial arts come about from a desire to codify combat ability).


dave

what i was trying to get at was that a samurai wasn't learning jiu jitsu to be safe when walking through a dodgy part of japan. He was learning it to improve his ability to kill people.
Shaolin monks didn't learn kung fu to be safe walking through a village, they learnt it to defend their temple from bandits attacking it.
These activities are clearly not 'self-defence' you can't defend a temple by awareness and disengaging and running off, in self-defence terms you'd have won, in defending your temple terms you'd have lost. And the same for a samurai, self-defence is generally the opposite to what someone in a martial organisation or situation would do.

What i meant about codifying combat ability was that originally it was just someone who'd done a lot of fighting. They codified what they'd learn, called it something and passed it onto a group of students.

Martial arts aren't about self-defence, because self defence involves not being in a fight or getting out of the fight as quickly and safely as possible. Martial arts are about winning fights.

Hopefully that makes it a little clearer, although it still sounds less clear than i'd like.

Originally posted by Davemantis
3 simple questions

1 - should Sp classes be separate for men and women and what about the old???

2 - how would people feel about going to a women’s SP class with a mail teacher or even the other way round???

3 - what’s the view on mixed Sp classes???


Dave

1) No, this is counter productive. As other people in the class have to take the part of 'attackers' it makes sense to try it with as varied a group as possible.

2) I'm not sure that a postman would be much use at teaching self defence. But i disagree with the idea of having single sex classes anyway.

3) I'd say it's vitally important.

Looking at your post and I was wondering what a postman has to do with SD till I had a look at what I had put lol


I agree a samurai wasn't learning jiu jitsu to be safe when walking through a dodgy part of Japan. He was learning it to improve his ability to kill people. But it was to defend his town village and so on. Yes Shaolin monks didn't learn kung fu to be safe walking through a village, they learnt it to defend their temple from bandits attacking it. But they still had a vow not to kill (& b4 anybody says it I know they did kill people)

The only difference between SD then and now is the law or the land.
Is it self-defence to kill some that is in an army that attacks England???

SD is more than just 1 on 1 or even 5 on 1. Do the Police defend us??? (Ok bad example lol) do the Armed forces defend us??? I know it’s not right that people get killed but at times that is what happens.

So you cant say Ma is not for self-defence just because some of the techniques are to kill people. But there are different degrees of defence.

>Martial arts aren't about self-defence, because self-defence involves not being in a fight or getting out of the fight as quickly and safely as possible.

But that what martial arts teach us is control so when we have delt with an assailant we don’t just stamp on him for the fun of it and run off.



>Hopefully that makes it a little clearer, although it still sounds less clear than I’d like.

I know what you mean it is hard to get across what you want to say. Especially without it sounding offensive.


Dave

i still think that the aim of a martial art is different to that of self-defence.
In MA you are training to fight, in self-defence you are training to escape.

The former does help the latter, but it's not vice versa.

Maybe an example...

in self-defence if being mugged a good defence is to hand over your wallet, this isn't something that would be taught in a martial art.

With the monk or the samurai, i'd say that there is a clear difference between defending something and self-defence. To defend your temple you sometimes place your own well being in peril in order to achieve what you see as a greater good. In self-defence everything except you is secondary.

I have to agree if being mugged a good thing to do is hand over your wallet,
But you say this isn't something that would be taught in a martial art. I do teach people what to do if attacked but I also tell them the best thing to do is give them your wallet. (It is a little more complex than that but you know what i mean)

I had a friend once that got cut up in a car park he shouted something at the other driver the driver got out and started shouting at him. He hit him for it, and then got into a fight and he knocked the other driver out. He asked what I would have dun. I told him I would have found another parking space and not hurled abuse at him. I asked him what good it did to knock him out he told me he would think twice about doing it again. So I asked, but did you get you parking space back. I think you know what the answer is to that I don’t need to tell you. He thought I was a coward for not wanting to fight him but to me that is part of MA/SP and that is what I teach the kids in my class don’t hit him just because you can or because you think you can beet him, find another way. To hit someone is the last thing you should do. (Mind you some people need it)

So I think it comes down to who and how MA are being taught. To me it is for defence but not just the physical side it’s also the mental. You can’t have one without the other, other wise all you are doing if street fighting then you are a bully.


Dave
www.moifa.20m.com

Ok what about kids and Self Defence??? i.e. bullying


Dave
www.moifa.20m.com