PDA

View Full Version : Which martial art would you recomend for self defense



agent00
15th February 2010, 14:24
Hello everbybody. I am intersted in learing am martial art or self defense system to protoct my self on the street. Following martial arts are tought in my hometown

karate
krav maga
jiu jutsu
Wing Tsun
Takewondo
Hapido

Which of these martial arts would you recomend? Or would your recomend something else.


Greetings from Austria

Peter Pirker

Eric Joyce
15th February 2010, 22:07
Hello everbybody. I am intersted in learing am martial art or self defense system to protoct my self on the street. Following martial arts are tought in my hometown

karate
krav maga
jiu jutsu
Wing Tsun
Takewondo
Hapido

Which of these martial arts would you recomend? Or would your recomend something else.


Greetings from Austria

Peter Pirker

Hey Peter,

This is a question that has been asked many times before and one that can be hard to answer. A lot of it depends on your training goals. If I may make a recommnedation for you, I would suggest visiting this site: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/ I apologize in advance to the moderator if posting this link breaks protocol...just wanted to help the guy out.

It has some good information in it that may be able to address the question you proposed. Others in this forum (which have way more experience than me) will be able to help out. Good luck with your search.

bu-kusa
16th February 2010, 00:33
Hello everbybody. I am intersted in learing am martial art or self defense system to protoct my self on the street. Following martial arts are tought in my hometown

karate
krav maga
jiu jutsu
Wing Tsun
Takewondo
Hapido

Which of these martial arts would you recomend? Or would your recomend something else.


Greetings from Austria

Peter Pirker

It massively depends on the clubs teaching it. Krav maga, and jiujitsu/jujutsu may be more inclined to cover 'self defense' material, but some styles of these there are quality control issues, the best thing is to visit the schools, try a few lessons and see if you have to sweat and enjoy it.

The main 'self defense' benefit in martial arts is stress reduction, and cardiovascular and muscle conditioning, put simply self defence includes heart disease.

If you want to protect yourself from street violence there are easier, cheaper and faster options then learning a martial art. The main ones being your lifetyle and home/work address.

Jeffrey Goodwin
16th February 2010, 18:48
If you want to protect yourself from street violence there are easier, cheaper and faster options then learning a martial art. The main ones being your lifetyle and home/work address.


I agree with my E-Budo colleague here. This is a debate that is always topical! If you want to learn to be safer and "defend yourself" then why not do a Self-defence course or if you want a better, deeper level of skill then look at a combatives practice.

It isnt about which martial art; pick one that suits you and you feel comfortable with; ethically and physically. The dojo and the teacher are extremely important also.

If you are naturally thick set and prefer "hands on" then why not consider Judo or another grappling art? The martial Art is in some ways not important. Any art, properly taught and properly practised will be of great benefit when you have acquired a reasonable level of skill through years of dilligent study. A "traditional" martial art doesn't teach you how to fight, it teaches you how not to.

You need the skills and tactics and the knowledge, calmness and discipline how to use them. A budo will develop these but you will (or should) make any "fighting method" your own.

Enough of my ramblings...

JKDcalvin
9th March 2010, 22:39
Not all martial arts are STRICTLY used for defence only...so if your looking for a martial art with defense as its main point...then i would say jujitsu :D

1. It redirects your attackers force and turns it against them.
2. It does not require you to be a certain build (muscular,slim etc)
3. it is an all-round martial art making it effective at all quarters (close,afar,ground)
:D

wmuromoto
10th March 2010, 02:12
As kids we used to joke that nothing really beats Gun-a-te.

One of us would take a karate stance. "Kah-rah-te!!!!"
Another would take a Bruce Lee stance: "I beat you with gung fu! Woo-tah!!!"
Another would take hanmi, "Aikido! Yah!"

Then a wise guy would point their index finger at us, thumb straight in the air, other fingers curled into a fist. "Gun-a-te!! Bang! Bang! You guys are all dead!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHdEbRDdMiI


Wayne Muromoto

kurzweilfreak
10th March 2010, 19:12
I know it was a joke, but I hear that response all the time.

"Why do you do that martial arts crap? If someone wanted a piece of me, I'd just whip out my [insert gun here]!"

Obvious legal issues aside, my response is usually "oh really? Do you have your gun on you now?" Answer is always "no" or "It's in my car" or something similar. "Really now? So that gun doesn't do you much good does it? *punch them in the face*"

I don't really punch them in the face ;) , but I think the point still stands. Yes, carry a gun when you can, but you won't always have it on you. Then what?

wmuromoto
10th March 2010, 19:33
Yes, it's a joke. On the other hand, jokes often carry a grain of truth. The last thing you want to do is carry a chip on your shoulder because you do martial arts. That attitude of false bravado can lead to a confrontation in which, alas, some young, foolish "martial arts student" thinks he can beat someone with his blue-belt skills and instead is false-cracked, shot, stabbed, and/or gang-piled. That's about as bad as thinking you really are safe packing...but the gun is at home.

Guns certainly aren't the 100% salve for individual protection, indeed. But in an encounter, one should assume that YOU don't know what weapon someone has on his body, guns included. The danger for many sports-oriented folk, as Kit LeBlanc notes, is that sports gears your head to do some stuff that could literally get you killed; like if you did judo you'd think your opponent is going to grab you a certain way. Or if you did karate you think you would square off, get into a stance and punch and kick (note the YouTube videos of early BJJ folk jumping on karate guys in intra-dojo matches and dragging them unceremoniously to the ground), or if you did aikido, of COURSE the guy is going to run at you and swing a shuto chop or grab your wrist. On the other hand, with kata-oriented systems, you do miss the effect of...if you do X and the guy wants to do Y what now?....(on the other hand, in our system, there are counters to counters, and variations on basic moves that take that into account).

Final note: as others have said, IMHO there's no one single "style" that will make you unbeatable in self-defense situations. You need to look at the situation from the total, overall view...Like, well, don't walk down a street if you know it's dangerous and full of criminals, if you can help it. Move to a safer neighborhood. Get more sane friends who don't go out looking for trouble. Get in shape. Learn to run fast away from danger. Be mentally prepared and disciplined. Yada yada. Doing a martial system is only one part of the total equation.

Wayne Muromoto

Joseph Svinth
11th March 2010, 02:32
If you're truly worried, then yes, you carry the piece everywhere. I used to train in a karate class where most folks kept their piece in the gym bag, in the dojo, while training. The instructor sometimes wore his piece even during the sparring. Of course, he made sure there wasn't a round under the hammer, or the next chamber, as he didn't want to lose anything important if kicked there during sparring. Another fellow kept the 12 gauge in the dojo. Okay, it wasn't right at hand, but it was close enough.

wmuromoto
11th March 2010, 03:17
J.C. Penny, Joe, where'd ya train???? Clint Eastwood-town???

Wayne

wmuromoto
11th March 2010, 03:25
You lookin' at me, sempai? You lookin' at me?

Wayne Muromoto

Joseph Svinth
11th March 2010, 05:20
Nah, both those were in the greater Seattle area.

That said, I also used to be a regular at a country and western bar. Guns were legal in that particular part of the world, so most everybody carried. (Except the guys I was with; our employer only let us carry at work.) Anyway, one night, this drunk kept dropping his .38 on the floor. I turned to the fellow next to me, another regular, and said, "Now what do you need to bring your gun here for?" He lifted his coat, showed me his nine, and said, "Didn't want to leave it at home. Somebody might steal it." I couldn't argue with that, so I put both hands on the bar, slowly, in plain sight, and said, "Buy my friends here a drink."

Hissho
11th March 2010, 05:31
Well, some people do have their guns on them most if not all the time, and not just cops. But some segments in the firearms and shooting communities point out the same idiocy in the thinking that goes "I don't need to know how to fight, I have a gun, what is he going to do to me?"

Well, perhaps take it from you and feed it to you muzzle first??

Empty hand skills may be the deciding factor as to whether you ever even access your gun or use it effectively. Many a police officer has been disarmed and murdered with his own weapon because his hand-to-hand skills were not effective in retaining the firearm.

RE: Sports - very true, but in accepting the premise that sports may make us default/do things we don't want to do because of how we are conditioned by the practice ("you fight the way you train"), then we must also accept that kata practitioners will have a very difficult time actually hitting/damaging anyone in a real fight because they generally pull their strikes and don't follow through on damaging locks to their uke.... I have visions of a "joint shattering" arm lock stopped because the practitioner never actually shatters an elbow in practice, and a stomp kick hovering over the downed attacker's head but never actually connecting because it is always stopped there in training....

This is of course stretching the issue... but "training scars" are certainly very real. Therefore, the more we mix our training methodologies, add different elements to work on different skill sets and follow through, the more we can shape what we do to the encounter.

arnuld
11th March 2010, 09:32
Hello everbybody. I am intersted in learing am martial art or self defense system to protoct my self on the street. Following martial arts are tought in my hometown

karate
krav maga
jiu jutsu
Wing Tsun
Takewondo
Hapido

.. SNIP...


Hey Peter,

I will say find a good Master instead of a specific MA (Martial-Art). I wanted to learn the Chinese way and hated the Japanese way because all Indian learn Karate and hate Chinese way. I am still not learning Karate but in other way I am. I am learning Goju-Ryu way of exploring the human limits, and my Master taught me so many fundamental things of Japanese arts that that I think any fighter must know. 2nd, After I watched the Black Belt (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1084019/) movie, I fell in love with Gojy-Ryu , now also thinking of learning defense using Japanese weapons.

There is one question you need to ask though: sports or fighting and then find a good Master, Master is the one who will make you love or hate the art.

Chuck.Gordon
12th March 2010, 17:08
You lookin' at me, sempai? You lookin' at me?

Wayne Muromoto

You're looking at me, but your'e not LOOKING at me ...

I guess I lead a sheltered life. From my, admittedly limited experience, I'd say that 99.99% of the time, simply remaining situationally aware, avoiding dangerous (or stupid) situations and people, moderating drink and avoiding mind-altering drugs have kept me mostly violence-free for these 53 years.

And of the times it didn't, I was either professionally engaged in said violence or off the job, I was responsible for it through my own stupidity and carelessness.

Joseph Svinth
13th March 2010, 01:52
The guy who carried all the time, even in class, routinely made diamond deliveries. The guy with the shotgun had bad friends, the kind who tried to harvest medicinal herbs without asking.

That said, Wayne lives in a town where, when the kid you're babysitting dies, you don't call 911, you chuck him off the overpass onto the freeway...

wmuromoto
13th March 2010, 03:44
Hey!!!!

That said, a drug addicted punk-a** who my mom once babysat when he was a cute toddler was thrown in jail for his megamillionth petty crime. He stole from my mom, he stole from the neighbors, he stole from his own family. He told the judge that he couldn't help it. Da drugs and his mean old friends made him do it. So the judge stuck him in jail and ordered him restricted to a rehab clinic. Before the clinic had any room for him, he was put in a prison for mentally unstable convicts and those undergoing mental evaluation per their trial case. His cell mate was that aforementioned crazy guy who threw the baby off the bridge. Imagine having to go to sleep in the same room as that guy. Karma is a b****, man.

Wayne

Richard Scardina
13th March 2010, 04:58
As kids we used to joke that nothing really beats Gun-a-te.

One of us would take a karate stance. "Kah-rah-te!!!!"
Another would take a Bruce Lee stance: "I beat you with gung fu! Woo-tah!!!"
Another would take hanmi, "Aikido! Yah!"

Then a wise guy would point their index finger at us, thumb straight in the air, other fingers curled into a fist. "Gun-a-te!! Bang! Bang! You guys are all dead!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHdEbRDdMiI


Wayne Muromoto

The problem with Gun-a=te is that one will not always have it with them all of the time.

Like going to or leaving a airport, restaurant, movie, etc. (PER leaving or towards a car),

Richard Scardina
13th March 2010, 05:02
J.C. Penny, Joe, where'd ya train???? Clint Eastwood-town???

Wayne

I wonder who was the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? :cool:

wmuromoto
13th March 2010, 20:01
All three of 'em left with a Fistfull of Dollars.

Wayne Muromoto

Richard Scardina
15th March 2010, 04:42
All three of 'em left with a Fistfull of Dollars.

Wayne Muromoto

Nope- Only two.

Bob van Tuyn
19th March 2010, 12:13
I would suggest Krav maga if you are looking purely for self defence

Richard Scardina
20th March 2010, 01:29
I would suggest Krav maga if you are looking purely for self defence

I think Krav Maga had been mentioned. I wonder if Kajukenbo should be a consideration?

DenCQB
21st June 2010, 10:39
In my opinion, for effective self-protection training it is more important to choose an instructor with real street experience, rather than a specific system.

Richard Scardina
21st June 2010, 11:43
In my opinion, for effective self-protection training it is more important to choose an instructor with real street experience, rather than a specific system.

I agree with this

Hissho
21st June 2010, 16:21
Me too - but one thing to keep in mind is the instructor's placing things in the proper context.

This is an adjustment that the instructor needs to make - an instructor with street experience as a soldier, a cop, as a doorman, or as a correctional officer will each be coming from a very different perspective.

While it may seem really cool to take training with someone who tells lots of war stories about their exploits, the real question is whether it can be transferred to useful application for the average person.

DenCQB
21st June 2010, 17:50
This is an adjustment that the instructor needs to make - an instructor with street experience as a soldier, a cop, as a doorman, or as a correctional officer will each be coming from a very different perspective.


Very true. There is, however, an area which is largely common to all those professions, and that is situational control. This essential aspect includes Theat Evaluation, Combat Indicators/Avoidance, Proxemics, Body Language, Pre-assault Cues, Verbalization, and unobtrusive Ready Positions.
Experience gained in law enforcement, or, security work in handling potential aggression can form a good basis for a curriculum of self-protection.

Hissho
21st June 2010, 18:58
Agreed, Dennis - however certain things won't be common, even with those essentials when a bad guy is dealing with someone they know is a uniformed officer, a doorman, etc. versus some guy in the fast food line.

As well, a professionals goals may be very different from those of a citizen, which in turn will influence the application of those essentials.

By and large, the basis derived from professional work will be very sound; but especially in teaching others the professional will need to adapt the approach to the needs and goals of the students.

This is as true even within professional circles, soldiers teaching cops and vice versa, cops teaching security professionals - and even what type of security professional.

wmuromoto
21st June 2010, 19:55
For what it's worth, since I make no claims to being good at teaching pure self-defense, I would agree with Kit. Dennis makes some good points about teaching basic modes and subjects, but in our society, there is a different response that is considered appropriate and adequate in different situations and for professionals in different fields. A soldier in the field does have to respond quickly and intuitively in a different way compared to a police officer responding to a domestic, say, compared to a security person trying to break up a verbal argument between two drunk friends. In all cases, situational awareness, body balance, distancing, timing, etc. are important, as Dennis notes, but physical responses to different levels and situations of aggressions are different.
Top that off, as Kit notes, with such professionals teaching each other across professions or "civilians" and you have a lot of places where a "one size fits all" notion or the idea that there is One Best Martial Art or combative system can go awry, although I'm sure Dennis doesn't mean this, but is referring to the general overall concepts.

(Note: For example, in Hawaii the State Legislature finally fixed a law that made YOU the criminal if someone invaded your house to rob and/or injure you, and you ended up shooting the invader. Until then, you were possibly liable for trying to protect your life, limb and property.)

It may be true that the best instructor for self-defense is the one with real combative experiences; the US military tries to make use of combat veterans in training and leading new combat troops. One of my students served in Afghanistan and he ended up returning Stateside to train his own squad and is now leading them in his second tour, and one of his comments was that he was always correcting his soldiers regarding "how it really works out there" vs. how they were taught in Basics.

That said, he felt traditional martial arts training was good in terms of teaching him basic body movement and concepts, drilling those things into his body and mind. ...Not so good concerning small arms and modern weapons, of course. But good in terms of those general concepts Dennis mentioned.

So if a martial arts instructor is aware of the limitations of what he/she is teaching, and is a good teacher at what the art is (and isn't), There is some worth to MA: as body conditioning, coordination training, concept, theory, movement, and maybe a tiny bit of SD. For pure combatives, of course, you should seek out a combatives instructor; there's no doubt about that.

Kit and I have PM'd about it, but although we come from different ends, we both have concerns when a martial arts teacher claims to teach a whole lot of self-defense and yet they are teaching and doing things that are combatively ineffective, such as stressing "point-touch" sparring with thick padding, groundwork without concern for concealed weaponry or other attackers, sparring/grappling rules that create dangerous positions and "gaming" that would get you injured in the streets, and so on. These are good conditioning and strength exercises, but one should be very careful about blowing their SD worth out of proportion to what they are good for. And let's not even talk about most aerobic kick-boxing or other such drills. They'll get you in shape, but if you practice bad form without contact or context, you'll just end up doing aerobics, not any MA or self-defense worth much.

I guess the gist of my post is that people may look for easy answers a lot here, but oftentimes, a simple sounding question can be really complex, filled with "but..." "however..." and "on the other hand..."

Wayne Muromoto

DenCQB
21st June 2010, 22:15
As well, a professionals goals may be very different from those of a citizen
Spot on. The biggest difference usually is that those professionals are duty bound to intervene in confrontations, while the citizen isn't. Avoidance and disengagement are essentials in that case.
The problem is finding an instructor experienced in street confrontations who hasn't been involved in those professional catergories. Who else would be frequently getting involved in violence? And would you want to train with them?
As always, the trainee should put the training through the filter of what suits his needs, lifestyle etc.
Without doubt the best training method is high-stress scenario training; facing an active, aggressive assailant, and with the entire confrontation, from pre-fight right through to after-action included, and with decision making built in.

Hissho
21st June 2010, 22:27
Wayne,

This with your student (I think we are talking the same guy) is exactly on point....you teach him mental and physical organization, strategic/tactical thinking re: movement in relation to confirmed adversaries, weapons acquisition and deployment, etc. The things that I think martial arts teachers can should be teaching.

He then adapts and applies it to his present professional reality. Here is where I think the lessons of the past have their most usefulness to modern day. I think it would be a mistake to attempt to re-engineer the ryu and teach "Takeuchi Tactical Handgunning," and to equate directly things found in the one with the other without the background in both.

But I am willing to bet that there is some great synergy that your student has discovered in both the obvious, and in some of the stuff that probably you or he never considered would be applicable in certain contexts, or that is hidden to someone that might not have ever been in a close fight, with weapons, wearing armor...traditional or modern.

The essentials that Den mentions are where the disconnect is - martial arts really don't teach that in a modern context, and context is important for the reasons we have already been discussing.

My observations with LE and citizen students is that LE has a much better grasp of Den's essentials, but on average much poorer physical skills and understanding of fight strategy and tactics, and the committed citizen martial artist understands physical strategy and tactics and skills, but is often not very comfortable with the awareness, threat evaluation and management, etc. within the modern context.

Good stuff, all.

Hissho
21st June 2010, 22:31
Spot on. The biggest difference usually is that those professionals are duty bound to intervene in confrontations, while the citizen isn't. Avoidance and disengagement are essentials in that case.
The problem is finding an instructor experienced in street confrontations who hasn't been involved in those professional catergories. Who else would be frequently getting involved in violence? And would you want to train with them?
As always, the trainee should put the training through the filter of what suits his needs, lifestyle etc.
Without doubt the best training method is high-stress scenario training; facing an active, aggressive assailant, and with the entire confrontation, from pre-fight right through to after-action included, and with decision making built in.

Absolutely on all counts! Finding an instructor who can offer the latter training to a professional standard is finding a gold mine.

DDATFUS
21st June 2010, 23:37
I think it would be a mistake to attempt to re-engineer the ryu and teach "Takeuchi Tactical Handgunning," and to equate directly things found in the one with the other without the background in both.

But I am willing to bet that there is some great synergy that your student has discovered in both the obvious, and in some of the stuff that probably you or he never considered would be applicable in certain contexts, or that is hidden to someone that might not have ever been in a close fight, with weapons, wearing armor...traditional or modern.


One interesting thing to look at in this context would be the shooting system taught by the IHS (http://battlehand.com/ICSCourses/CombatMindsetPistol.aspx). Someone with a bit of exposure to the IHS shooting program once told me that this program had a very noticeable Shinkage flavor to it, which is interesting. Then you have the Marine bayonet system developed by George Bristol, which also seems heavily rooted in Shinkage Ryu.

On a related note, I find it interesting how the old schools still seem to hold up so well with regards to the mental side of training soldiers. While I agree that we don't necessarily need to make Takeuchi Ryu or Araki Ryu the core of all our military training, it's odd that we spend so much time trying to make civilian self-defense arts and sports fill a military training role that they were never designed for when there are very relevant military-oriented arts out there that could provide a great starting point.

Hissho
22nd June 2010, 00:22
On a related note, I find it interesting how the old schools still seem to hold up so well with regards to the mental side of training soldiers. While I agree that we don't necessarily need to make Takeuchi Ryu or Araki Ryu the core of all our military training, it's odd that we spend so much time trying to make civilian self-defense arts and sports fill a military training role that they were never designed for when there are very relevant military-oriented arts out there that could provide a great starting point.


There's a lot to that...you'd still have to make them fit a modern training role, and its in how exactly we might do that the questions lie. That is something that has lately been fascinating me after initially abandoning the idea.

I personally believe that the old schools with an actual military provenance offer something in terms of overall development of a warrior ethos and mindset, and even in "weaponizing" those modern civil arts and combat sports that have come to the fore. The latter need not be dismissed because they have a role as part of a total package and frankly are today more proven entities than the old schools. After all, more soldiers, cops, specials ops and SWAT types do MMA, JKD, and even ninjutsu than probably any other fighting systems out there.

I think part of that is because there aren't many people in military and LE that are actually training in old schools. Those with the position to influence training are fewer still, and then probably in a very limited role.

My thought from the LE perspective: the question is getting people to be both confident and competent with the judicious use of force, but at the same time having the willingness to overcome the fear of death and "close with the enemy" against incredibly violent suspects: which now include terrorists with little but a body count on their minds.

The challenge is in everything from current societal trends in LE recruits to in-service training time and methodologies; training biased toward fear of liability, and a lack of willingness of the average officer to prepare to decisively engage at close quarters (Tasers are an example of this). Without this basic framework it is hard to get very far in terms of empowering individual decision making with a flexible and adaptable approach to high end threats.

The role for the old schools may be in where the ICS brings in the "warrior case studies;" Kinda cool to be doing such things through actual physical/mental training versus simply reading history books! Perhaps more as high end "train the trainer" type stuff, though.

wmuromoto
25th June 2010, 22:33
Kit, you wrote (snipped):
"...I personally believe that the old schools with an actual military provenance offer something in terms of overall development of a warrior ethos and mindset, and even in "weaponizing" those modern civil arts and combat sports that have come to the fore. The latter need not be dismissed because they have a role as part of a total package and frankly are today more proven entities than the old schools.
The role for the old schools may be in where the ICS brings in the "warrior case studies;" Kinda cool to be doing such things through actual physical/mental training versus simply reading history books! Perhaps more as high end "train the trainer" type stuff, though...."

I think there is worth in modern systems, too, and wouldn't venture to offer how to implement koryu en masse. From what I have deduced, and what other more learned researchers have concluded, most surviving koryu weren't meant for mass training. They were elite systems often catalogued just when their possible effectiveness was already being supplanted by other weaponry. For example, our Takenouchi-ryu kogusoku short sword was meant for grappling in armor, but already in the late 1500s the possibility of a footsoldier needing that was less than needing to train him in the use of riflery. It wasn't totally irelevent, but decidedly less so for the average grunt with a rifle and a short training schedule before he went off to fight for Nobunaga, Hideyoshi or Ieyasu, etc.

My student thought it was still useful in learning body movements in full gear with using a possible knife or pistol, but what he says he gained most from the training were basic body movements in general and a specific mindset/awareness.

The mindset, therefore, stays the same. George Bristol once wrote to me about how the best mental training he got was in koryu systems; ditto that student we both know who's now back in-country. Technically and physically, however, more modern sportive MA may of course help in conditioning and unarmed combatives, but IMHO, the mental preparation for a sport is somewhat different from combative, LE or self-defense. The best of such systems are really great for conditioning, and probably could be adopted faster and easier for general consumption, as many of them already are.

But, someone doing kickboxing aerobics (as a gross example) in an air-conditioned room, padded floor, surrounded by beautiful people in tight leotards, kicking and punching air while a Tom Cruise-look alike instructor goes, "And one, and two..." may build up abs and conditioning, but it doesn't take into account the high stress mental impact of real situations. Likewise, I have no illusions that swinging a sword while wearing a hakama makes me any more prepared or ready for "street self-defense." It just don't work that way. Of course, having general conditioning and training allows me to run like the Dickens away from danger. That I owe more to jogging with my dog, to be honest.

Wayne

wmuromoto
25th June 2010, 22:48
Kit,

Here's one example of maybe looking at koryu for techniques:

A lot of SD instructors go through judo or aikido training, or subsets thereof. These are good systems; I've done both in my time. So these drill instructors adopt the tumbling and breakfalls of those systems. When I started in Takenouchi-ryu, my teacher noted that I was doing judo breakfalls and showed me the difference. At first I thought it was just stylistic differences, but then, after discussions with senior students, I realized TR breakfalls made more sense...not if you were in a contest and trying NOT to fall any way possible on your back (thereby losing a match), but if you were being dumped in a strange, contorted position onto concrete or hard ground. Some things about a judo or aikido breakfall or kaiten work fine when you are on a mat and taking a clean throw. Not so good if you are being shoved straight into the asphalt without any chance of doing a nice round ukemi, and I say this with great appreciation and respect for those arts. The odd way that TR teaches breakfalls turned out to have been developed to protect the ankles, feet, back of head, groin and face, from a not-so-nice, not-so-round throw.

When a student of mine started training at the local police academy, he came back and said he was being taught a breakfall that, in his opinion, would lead to some damage to his arms and face if he had to do it "for real." I recognized the front fall being taught as a kind of makeover of a judo mae ukemi. It wasn't terribly bad, but it wasn't optimal either. I encouraged the student to simply do it the way his instructor said, and not to make a big deal of it, but to remember how to take a front fall in the TR way to save his butt (and face).

On the other hand, I encouraged him to take up judo when he was stationed near a very good judo club. He would learn some good ashiwaza and freeform grappling, and get into tremendously good conditioning. It's all good, you just need to have things in perspective.

Wayne Muromoto

Hissho
26th June 2010, 00:17
...surrounded by beautiful people in tight leotards, ....

Not, in and of itself a bad thing...could be a reminder of what you are really fighting for.....:p


FWIW I think some of that mindset will depend on how you are training what you are training, and even with whom - just as it does with any fighting art, any self defense, etc.

With the right people and the "right stuff" passed down (a nod to why lineage and keeping the tradition intact is important), I suspect there is more to the picture with the old school stuff. One thing that has really been intriguing to me has been some of the "mindset concepts," for lack of a better term, and how they seem to square with what modern research suggests.

In that light, revisiting some things has been interesting in terms of understanding and analyzing what is going on in your own mind under extreme duress, and it provides a coherent platform for passing the same kind of understanding on to others.

It has certainly become a rewarding path of inquiry...


RE: Elite:

Karl Friday's Off the Warpath seems to suggest something along these lines as well: as I understood it "battlefield" swordsmanship really wasn't, which you already alluded to.

The training was much more about the most serious of warriors - really the "warrior-trainers" of the day - using a weapon and training system most identified as symbolic of the desired warrior ethos.

I wonder too at some of the "founding stories" we hear about: your own tradition being a classic: highly skilled warrior, secludes himself in a temple precinct for a prolonged period of highly austere living and extremely rigorous training, the end of which he is "enlightened" in a martial sense and formulates his own method....

This has struck me more and more as resonant of part "Special Forces Selection" and training, part physical/spiritual forging befitting the Japanese social context of the time.

I've found some interesting echoes in works about mountain climbers and other extreme-adventure types who in extreme situations (they they get themselves into) go past their normal limits and experience things that can only be described as "mystical." For some it becomes a drug of sorts and they continually seek it.

If we consider these founders to have been pretty hard core types, I think there is a parallel between them and the highest level military special operators and the extreme-athlete types of today. Secluding oneself for a thousand days of training certainly is of a rare order of commitment. They were just wired very differently than most of us, willing to push past far more in terms of personal limitations.


RE: Breakfalls:

Having only seen video of what I think you are talking about wouldn't venture a comment, other than to say that it is cause for pause to see people taking full out falls on hard wooden floors. If you are taking ukemi like that regularly and NOT getting banged up, there is something there worth looking into!!!

It is interesting to note that Chinese shuai jiao - with roots in "old school" combative grappling - also break falls very differently.

wmuromoto
26th June 2010, 04:26
At the risk of off-tracking this thread, here's more food for thought, Kit:

In talking to my teacher, he notes that although the Takenouchi-ryu was "founded" by Takeuchi Hisamori, he dug up family records that seem to infer that Hisamori was already a master of an already existing family sword style, the contents of which we don't really know. So as you noted, at least in the case of our ryu (and that of others that I know of), there was a priori skill that was augmented by, as you note, an intense period of "pushing through," no doubt similar to those near-mystical experiences of modern day extreme athletes. In addition, founders like Hisamori or that Katori Shinto-ryu's Iizasa Choisai (but not necessarily all the koryu founders) were from highly educated, upper class warrior stock, and in those days that meant a group that was trained in literate as well as martial skills from an early age. I think, perhaps, part of the impetus for the ryu spiritual philosophies were attempts to try to square the horrors and profound violence of actual combat and the necessity to learn...as we are clumsily saying...a mindset...that created many traditional ryuha. If it was only for killing, it would have stopped at just a few basic methodologies that would work most of the time. And in fact, from what little I have experienced, the gokui of a ryu can be quite simple, contained in just five or six kata. All the rest is elaboration. So why train in all the rest?

But I think there was a need to justify a ryu's existence beyond cataloguing physical violence because the intellectual, cultured side of that society needed to contain and integrate the training into their world view and society. The whole system of a koryu, not just the gokui, was a training regime that focused and repeated the physical concepts of a founder, which possibly could lead to an understanding of the mental and spiritual concepts as well. This, BTW, is probably a pretty good explanation of a "ryu" not just in terms of a martial ryu, but in art and craft systems, as well, as in tea, flower arrangement, and so on. Japanese ryu attempt to understand how the originator thought and worked, but allows eventually for changes and innovation, if they follow along the same patterns. Not to say that we'll one day see Takeuchi-ryu machine-gun waza; but the ryu did participate in helping develop many of Kodokan judo's sportive techniques, and there are distant echoes of it in so many grappling endeavors nowadays that were once originally TR-ish. It's interesting for me to see how well some of those things work in actual practice nowadays, and I can go back and make modifications based on what's been tried by judoka, MMAers and others.

The weakness of this kind of kata geiko methodology, from someone who does it, is that sometimes it gets too stuck in rote repetition without meaning, just as, conversely, the weakness of modern sport budo can be its rootlessness, if it tries to be a half-digested mish mash of a little of this and a little of that. But what lies in between among individuals who are seriously studying and applying old and new concepts can be really interesting. More power to 'em if they are seriously thinking and trying to apply some ideas to see if they work.

I'm getting too long winded in this. Gotta go practice.

Wayne

Brian Owens
29th November 2013, 04:46
The problem with Gun-a=te is that one will not always have it with them all of the time. Like going to or leaving a airport, restaurant, movie, etc.

I'm late to the party, but thought I'd resurrect this thread with a comment on this quote.

It depends on where you live, whether you have/need a permit for concealed carry, etc., but in my case I usually do have mine with me when going to or leaving an airport, restaurant, movie, etc. The exceptions are when I have to go all the way to the gate at the airport or when I have to sit in the bar at a restaurant (which I try to avoid).

Richard Scardina
30th November 2013, 20:02
I'm late to the party, but thought I'd resurrect this thread with a comment on this quote.

It depends on where you live, whether you have/need a permit for concealed carry, etc., but in my case I usually do have mine with me when going to or leaving an airport, restaurant, movie, etc. The exceptions are when I have to go all the way to the gate at the airport or when I have to sit in the bar at a restaurant (which I try to avoid).

Self defense is as much, if not more of preparation and mentality, rather than trained in combat skills or carry of a weapon

Hissho
30th November 2013, 22:31
Self defense is as much, if not more of preparation and mentality, rather than trained in combat skills or carry of a weapon

Well rounded self defense is ALL of these things in balance, and then balanced against the threat one is training to handle.

The vast majority of situations are resolved through awareness and decision making. These situations do not require well rounded self defense skills.

Negotiating more serious, physical encounters requires confidence. Confidence comes from being well versed in combative skills. Lack of training in such skills in and of itself demonstrates lack of preparation, and thus lack of mentality. These are inseparable.

We simply cannot tell ourselves we have the "will to win" if we don't even have the will to work out...

Against the most serious encounters, where a committed assailant in bent on serious harm and weapons skills are a reasonable option, being truly prepared for success in these - versus just knowing enough to have a false sense of security (as in the vast majority of the firearms and martial arts communities), requires that much more in terms of both mentality and preparedness.

Richard Scardina
30th November 2013, 23:47
Well rounded self defense is ALL of these things in balance, and then balanced against the threat one is training to handle.

The vast majority of situations are resolved through awareness and decision making. These situations do not require well rounded self defense skills.

Negotiating more serious, physical encounters requires confidence. Confidence comes from being well versed in combative skills. Lack of training in such skills in and of itself demonstrates lack of preparation, and thus lack of mentality. These are inseparable.

We simply cannot tell ourselves we have the "will to win" if we don't even have the will to work out...

Against the most serious encounters, where a committed assailant in bent on serious harm and weapons skills are a reasonable option, being truly prepared for success in these - versus just knowing enough to have a false sense of security (as in the vast majority of the firearms and martial arts communities), requires that much more in terms of both mentality and preparedness.

The odd fact, based upon my observations, is that one does not need to train many years in martial arts to become defense ready

Hissho
30th November 2013, 23:49
Indeed. Training in martial arts often sends one down a rabbit hole.

Richard Scardina
1st December 2013, 01:11
Depends if it is a rabbit hole

Brian Owens
1st December 2013, 19:00
Self defense is as much, if not more of preparation and mentality, rather than trained in combat skills or carry of a weapon

Very true, and something that too many "self defense instructors" -- to say nothing of their students -- don't put enough emphasis on. I'm appalled at the number of people I see walking down the streets with their eyes on their smart phones, not paying any attention to the world around them.

JasonNorin
11th March 2015, 09:19
This is a timeless topic and I would also like to contribute something. The OP might have chosen one already but this one is for the people who are currently asking the same question. I am not a highly proficient martial artist but I'll give it a go. In my opinion, choosing the type of Martial art requires self assessment. You can answer the following questions:

*What discipline do you find yourself excelling to?
*Why type of discipline do you think your overall physical strength can be highly effective?
*Do you like getting punched in the face? If not, then try to avoid disciplines that involve striking
*Do you have brittle bones? Then try your very best to avoid disciplines that require grappling
*If you like to learn Martial arts for self defense, what type of environment are you at? Will you most likely be attacked with a gun, a knife, or by bare knuckles alone? Once you answered those questions, then it's time to do some research on what type of martial art would suit you best.

I hope this will help. :)

Cady Goldfield
12th March 2015, 14:58
Hi Jason,
Welcome to E-Budo. Please note that in the forum rules, advertisements and links to commercial sites are not permitted. I have thus removed the link in your post. Links to personal blog sites and one's own budo-related web sites are permitted, but not links to on-line betting businesses or commercial products or services.

When you have the opportunity to do so, check out the forum rules, which are pinned to the top of each forum. In the meantime, we hope you will continue to enjoy the forums, both reading and contributing to them.

Axel
1st April 2015, 23:41
I'd like to add something to the "I'll just carry a gun" statement:

People in our often materialistic society seem to think that a gun, a simple tool, can single-handedly be used to protect themselves. Even though they have never actually used or trained with it outside of their square, indoor ranges or plinking in the desert. Even if they carried it around at every moment of every day, there are so many factors in using it. First of all, do you have the will to shoot (possibly kill) someone? Do you have the skill to put combat effective rounds on target, draw the weapon from concealment in (potentially) a contact-distance encounter under the threat of death? And, considering you have all these skills, are you going to shoot someone every time you are faced with the threat of a physical confrontation? There are times you may need to defend your self, but you are not morally and legally justified in killing your assailant.

cxt
1st April 2015, 23:50
There is at least "some" anecdotal evidence that many people--regardless of training, simply can't injury people.

They can't jab thier fingers into peoples eyes.

Might of course simply be that the "really" didn't feel any real fear in the test so they simply could not do it. Might be a whole different story if it was a reall attack.

Guns have been recovered from battlefields in the Civil War with 5-6 plus rounds etc that have never been fired. etc.

Some people literally can't pull the trigger.

Me? I hope I never have to find out.

Kempo Guy
10th April 2015, 16:31
I know it was a joke, but I hear that response all the time.

"Why do you do that martial arts crap? If someone wanted a piece of me, I'd just whip out my [insert gun here]!"

Obvious legal issues aside, my response is usually "oh really? Do you have your gun on you now?" Answer is always "no" or "It's in my car" or something similar. "Really now? So that gun doesn't do you much good does it? *punch them in the face*"

I don't really punch them in the face ;) , but I think the point still stands. Yes, carry a gun when you can, but you won't always have it on you. Then what?

I have added my own, personal touch in the response. Tough guy: "How's that gonna work against my gun?"
Me: "Been shot before. Pisses me off."
Said in my best Dirty Harry voice, of course!

Derzis
19th February 2016, 02:29
A late answer here too:
Q: Which martial art would you recommend for self defense
A: One that teaches you when is time to run and when is time to fight.