Martial arts discussion thread

[GoktimusPrime]

well yeah - no material possession is worth fighting for. Except maybe Time Warrior.

Self defence techniques are learnt in situations like:
+ Someone is obstructing your nearest point of exit and you need to get through/around them in order to escape.
+ Someone has already launched an attack on you without making any demands (e.g. surprise attack). Like it or not, the fight has already started and you need to react.

Unfortunately we have certain members of our society who start fights unprovoked just because they can (typically angry people with low self-esteem who feel like randomly lashing out at strangers).

[klystron]

There is no first strike in karate.

[GoktimusPrime]

Nice one.

[Hot Rodimus]

i disagree with some of what has been said. to me defensive tech is blocking,parry,covering and footwork. unless u have a clear escape path you normaly have to fight back. attacking techniques such as strikes, grabs,chokes,throws are essential. why wait to teach a student this, surely they are better off building a solid well balanced foundation to begin with. pre emptive striking can also be neessary at times.this does not mean i agree with starting fights as the person you refer to though Gok.
apologies too as i am using a t-hub to write this qnd it takes ages and wish i could type more but frustrating thing this touch pad is lol.

[GoktimusPrime]

It all depends on the situation. Legally we're entitled to use reasonable force in self defence - so if an attacker is presenting us with sufficient force, then we can retaliate with more aggressive techniques such as striking. I don't think anyone is saying that attacking and striking are necessarily wrong or bad.

Funakoshi said there is no first strike which means that a Karateka shouldn't be making the first attack. Now remember that you don't need to wait to be hit in order to defend yourself. The law defines assault as any act which makes you fear for your safety. The following scenarios also legally count as assault which would entitle you to act in self-defence:
+ Credible verbal threats. e.g. if someone says, "I'm gonna f***ing smash you!" then you can strike. They already verbally attacked your first, so your strike really isn't a "first" strike.
+ Violent/hostile/aggressive gesture or body language. e.g. if a person raises a fist at you or presents a weapon in a threatening manner then you are entitled to pre-emptively engage in self defence. Even if a person looks like they're about to throw a strike (e.g. chamber a punch) then you can strike.
...but in all of these scenarios, it's not you who's the instigator. You can pre-emptively react to an attack, but not initiate the attack - and I believe that's what Funakoshi meant by a "first strike".

Also there are many ways to _passively_ attack and strike that are less aggressive and devastating. For example, if someone is obstructing your escape path you can grapple an incoming strike and move them out of the way so that you can run away. You don't _have_ to hit them. Depends on the situation of course.

But my earlier point - and it's a point I've made before - is that teachers need to be selective in terms of what techniques they teach to who... and particularly be careful in avoiding teaching more aggressive techniques to people with an aggressive disposition (i.e. someone who's inclined to be a thug or bully). A morally responsible instructor should feel quite concerned if any of his/her students were to use techniques taught by them to go around attacking people. Unfortunately it seems that some instructors don't seem to care -- just as long as their student turns up to lessons, pays their fees and behaves at the Dojo then it's all good. They're not too concerned about their behaviour outside of the Dojo (where it matters). Some instructors are just as bad. I once met an instructor who worked as a bouncer and he was suspending from bouncing for a period of time because he had used excessive force in dealing with clients. :/

IMO people with such dispositions should NOT be taught aggressive martial arts techniques. If an instructor becomes aware that a student of theirs has such a disposition, then they should either:
+ Stop teaching them any more aggressive techniques (either solely revise techniques already learnt or just expel them - depending on the situation)
+ Teach them passive defensive techniques.

A lot of internal martial arts specialise in passive techniques, and some like Aikido almost exclusively uses defensive techniques -- Aikido has almost no attacking moves. Aikido (as well as Jujutsu) evolved from Taijutsu which was used by Samurai in situations where they were unable to draw their sword (e.g. caught by surprise or in the presence of a Lord (where drawing one's weapon was illegal and redeemable by honourable Seppuku).

[Hot Rodimus]

Sorry Gok but I read your posts in this thread and I can't help but think your someone who reads a little bit too much into the theory of things and idolises the 'old masters'.
In reality it is better to practise simple techniques as your fine motor skills rapidly get thrown out the window and all your fancy techniques that have been practised with a compliant partner (most schools are guilty of this as are most demonstrations on youtube and ones shown in this thread) do not work.
You were reluctant to answer if you had ever been in a real fight earlier, if you have you will know this to be true, hence why a lot of 'martial artists' or 'blackbelts' get snotted in a real fight. They have either never been exposed to real violence before or not trained for it or they are ineffectual as there perfectly practised roundhouse punch or spinning dragon magic kick with no shadow didn't turn into the fight stopper like it did in the dojo/kwoon.
A lot of what you type has sound principles as I have read a lot of this before but instead of taking other peoples words as gospel broaden your horizons and expose yourself to other styles and training so you can actually comment on it from experience. You bag out some styles for being 'sport' styles etc but in reality a lot of these guys who train in these styles are better equiped for a real fight than you and your traditional stylist practitioners.
Just wondering how long you have been training for?
Considering you can spar with your arms tied behind your back and with a blindfold you must be impressive, regardless of wether it is with white belts or not....though then again if I was a white belt again (something which has been the case many times over the years as I expose myself to different styles) I would have found this rather insulting.
Looking forward to chatting with you about this.

[Bartrim]

This is an interesting point that Hot Rodimus makes. When I first looked into starting martial arts I really wanted to learn one specific discipline, but due to lack of schools in Ulladulla I had to study KRMAS. I was a little bit hesitant at first as although it is mainly a type of karate (I'm not sure of what style yet as I haven't asked my instructor) it also incorporates other disciplines. Now after going for 6 weeks this is now my preference as it is a very practical system that we learn. My instructor demonstrated this last night. He got mysef and several other late 20's-early 30's in the class who have had some real fight experience. (By real I mean out a pub real) He then gave us a variety of (training) weapons and asked as to attack as best we could. I gave my instructor every thing I had and he took me out with ease, sorta embarresed that I squealed like a girl too