Samuel said:
Ok, I see a couple of issues that you are bringing up -
1. looking "big picture"
2. practicality/realism of training
1. My definition of "self-defense" also agrees with yours in that it encompasses more than just physical altercation skill sets/techniques/ability. There is nothing wrong, however, in focusing training on a specific or smaller portion of "self-defense" as long as you (the student) are aware that "there is more to it than that". And, if/when everything else has "failed" and the S is hitting the fan, it Would be good to have some "martial arts" training under your belt. Btw, just fyi, there Are styles/systems/schools that DO teach "big picture" and thinking "outside the box" - I've trained with some of them...
2. I also agree that MA and SD training can vary immensely - in all sorts of ways. Without getting into the subject of "how to choose a martial art and/or martial art school", here again, we are talking about semantics. Training in itself is Not the same as poor/ineffective/unrealistic/etc Training. Therein lies perhaps the biggest disagreement I have with your statement. Not All MA training is "bad" or "BS" or is Not "practical", "realistic", and/or "effective" and suggesting that they (All) are is inaccurate. Yes, there are those systems/schools out there that will not offer you much in the way of winning/surviving a life/death situation (even if they are only focused on dealing with the incident itself) but again, not every MA is sport oriented. Not every MA has been watered down. Not every MA is BS. One of the problems I see is that most beginners don't know what to look for, can't tell good from bad, and/or make the wrong choice for their goals/purposes.
Btw, they way I see it, among all the various types of training and education you offer, you Are also teaching martial arts...
Ok, lemme see if I can reply here. I think we are pretty close on this issue, with just a few varying points seperating us... which is ok of course.
In your #1, you basically state that it is ok to teach just the physical/technique stuff in isolation so long as the student knows it's just one piece of the puzzle that they are learning (I think I summarized that fairly well).
My reply would be that if you looked at the martial arts world/industry as a whole, I would bet that 95 to 99% of all the schools / systems out there DO NOT educate thier student's that they are not learning the "big picture". I know because I was deeply involved in that world / industry for more then a decade. In fact, they market / advertise that they ARE a good solution for protecting yourself from being attacked.
I would also add that just teaching the physical stuff alone, is highly irresponsible for an educator to do. This would be parallel to learning how to operate a handgun without learning the laws related to owning and using that firearm... or the safety measures needed to keep that gun safely in your home (away from kids for example).
Just teaching the physical techniques draws false emphasis on the role that those techniques play in surviving a violent encounter. Ultimately, it does a disservice to the student, who depends on thier teacher / school to prepare them to handle violence... as they probably advertised / said they would.
You are right... there are "some" martial arts systems / schools out there that do a responsible job with what I've been talking about... but they are very rare, and they are the exception and not the rule it seems.
You also suggest (in your second statement) that martial arts prepare you for the actual incident. You said "(even if they are only focused on dealing with the incident itself)". I would argue that martial arts (again, I'm speaking on a whole here) IS NOT even good for preparing you for the incident itself. Martial arts training generally neglects the physiological / bio-chemical changes that happen to your body when you are in an aroused (stress) state (life-or-death).
They don't teach your about the principal of "mind drifting" in a struggle. They don't explain any of the verbal or physco-dynamic principals involved. They don't go into your moral disposition about inflicting harm and/or killing the attacker. etc. etc. etc. So with all these missing pieces, and many more I'm too lazy to type out
what part of "the actual incident" is martial arts focusing on?
Even the way you learn martial arts is a poor educational method for survival training. This is a huge point that I'm not going to do justice to in this post, but hopefully I will be able to talk about in episode 008 on my podcast.
Basically, martial arts (again, I'm speaking generally here, there will always be exceptions to anything) doesn't incorporate realistic scenario simulations that trigger the adrenal-stress response in the target student. Martial Arts focus on the techniques, and technique execution as compared to an ideal form.... NOT on response effectiveness, and goal achievement. In other words, they tend to emphasize how you do a technique, rather then if you can effectively manage a violent situation.
Anyway, there is like 10 more pages of stuff I could type out here, but again, I'm lazy
Thanks for the debate my friend
i was trying to highlight it lol.
