Martial arts discussion thread

[5FDP]

But isn't Martial arts supposed to be defensive? so I'd have to get them to attack me before I kick their asses

There is nothing more I can teach you. You are ready my student

[Bartrim]

There is nothing more I can teach you. You are ready my student

You could teach me how to provoke them so I can kick their asses

[GoktimusPrime]

But isn't Martial arts supposed to be defensive? so I'd have to get them to attack me before I kick their asses

Generally speaking, no. Most martial arts can be easily used quite aggressively and for attack. Remember that most martial arts evolved from ancient battlefields and were used by warriors and soldiers in war. Punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, headbutting etc. -- every time you're practising a form of attack, it's not defensive (strictly speaking).

There are some martial arts styles that are more passive and defensive, like Tai Chi, Aikido, Jujutsu etc., but any style that uses striking/attacking is not purely defensive. Now in this day and age, most of us learn martial arts as a means of defence, and lawfully we can use attacks to defend ourselves if we are provoked, so long as we use a reasonable amount of force. But you'll notice that people like bouncers and police officers are often taugh passive techniques like holds, grabs and submissions over actually striking. It allows them to adequately defend themselves and neutralise opponents without actually hitting them. The same goes for teachers, we are allowed to restrain students for their own safety (e.g. if they're trying to harm themselves or others), but of course, we're not allowed to strike them. I've seen the instructional handbook for teachers aides (who often deal with kids with severe intellectual handicaps that they can lash out violently and these aides need to know how to safely restrain them) - and all the techniques were basically the same holds, grapples and submission techniques that I've seen in passive internal martial arts.

You could teach me how to provoke them so I can kick their asses

Ask me this next time we meet IRL. I'm not talking about anything illegal or unlawful, but I think it would be best if we discussed this further off the board.

[Hot Rodimus]

if a fight is going to happen (usually there are signs before it does such as verbal, posturing etc) then in all honesty you are better off getting the first one in.
I know all the legal buffs here are going to say "oh but you will get done for assualt etc" which may be the case depending on if there are any witnesses at the time etc but you greatly improve your chances of walking away in good condition.
Action is always faster than reaction, it is a fact that can't be argued. remember back to the school yard when you used to play games like 'slap hands etc'. It always sucked being the person getting slapped didn't it?
You can still act in self defense and throw the first punch.
Sorry my skin was getting all wrinkly in the shower....

[Bartrim]

Generally speaking, no. Most martial arts can be easily used quite aggressively and for attack. Remember that most martial arts evolved from ancient battlefields and were used by warriors and soldiers in war. Punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, headbutting etc. -- every time you're practising a form of attack, it's not defensive (strictly speaking).

There are some martial arts styles that are more passive and defensive, like Tai Chi, Aikido, Jujutsu etc., but any style that uses striking/attacking is not purely defensive. Now in this day and age, most of us learn martial arts as a means of defence, and lawfully we can use attacks to defend ourselves if we are provoked, so long as we use a reasonable amount of force. But you'll notice that people like bouncers and police officers are often taugh passive techniques like holds, grabs and submissions over actually striking. It allows them to adequately defend themselves and neutralise opponents without actually hitting them. The same goes for teachers, we are allowed to restrain students for their own safety (e.g. if they're trying to harm themselves or others), but of course, we're not allowed to strike them. I've seen the instructional handbook for teachers aides (who often deal with kids with severe intellectual handicaps that they can lash out violently and these aides need to know how to safely restrain them) - and all the techniques were basically the same holds, grapples and submission techniques that I've seen in passive internal martial arts.


Ask me this next time we meet IRL. I'm not talking about anything illegal or unlawful, but I think it would be best if we discussed this further off the board.

Really? Oh ok. Well we are taught from a strickly defensive point of view. Every move/sequences of moves we are taught begin with us countering an opponents attack. We are never taught to be the aggressor... although make sparring interesting especially with us rookies as we just bounce around waiting for the other to strike

Oh and that last comment about provoking was stricly tongue in cheek Gok.

[GoktimusPrime]

if a fight is going to happen (usually there are signs before it does such as verbal, posturing etc) then in all honesty you are better off getting the first one in.
I know all the legal buffs here are going to say "oh but you will get done for assualt etc" which may be the case depending on if there are any witnesses at the time etc but you greatly improve your chances of walking away in good condition.
Action is always faster than reaction, it is a fact that can't be argued. remember back to the school yard when you used to play games like 'slap hands etc'. It always sucked being the person getting slapped didn't it?
You can still act in self defense and throw the first punch.

Actually, I think the law would be in support - providing that you use reasonable force in self defence.

Remember that the law defines assault as "to cause another to apprehend (perceive) immediate harmful contact." Someone does not need to touch you in order to assault you - once they do make contact, then that's battery (thus once you're attacked you're a victim of assault and battery). So if someone gives you the honest perception that they're going to harm you, then they are assaulting you, and you are allowed to defend yourself using a reasonable amount of force.

"A conditional threat, such as 'Don't move or I'll kill you' is still an assault. This is even though, technically, if the victim does not move they will not be killed and have nothing to fear. This is because the basis of the offence is the creation of fear, and someone will always be scared with a knife in their back." (M. Parker, B. Derwent, "Justice, Law & Society 1", Longman Cheshire, 1991)

So there's no need for people to necessarily assume that they're powerless to defend themselves if a potential attacker is merely making threats. Threats can be verbal and non-verbal. For example, adopting a fighting stance (e.g. raising your fists in an aggressive and hostile manner) is a non-verbal way of threatening someone - and thus could be argued to be assault and you would use this as your justification to enact self defence. If a person raises a fist as if they're going to punch you, then it would not be unreasonable for you to punch them first. You don't have to wait for the punch to being as the threat has already been established (and thus you are _already_ under assault). Meeting the threat of a punch with a punch should be perceived as a reasonable amount of force in self defence. The law states "reasonable" force, but most people go by the rule of using "equal or lesser force" compared to the attacker.

Waiting for someone to throw a hit before defending yourself isn't necessary and it can be dangerous - cos after all a single good king hit can be fatal (e.g. David Hookes).

Really? Oh ok. Well we are taught from a strickly defensive point of view. Every move/sequences of moves we are taught begin with us countering an opponents attack. We are never taught to be the aggressor... although make sparring interesting especially with us rookies as we just bounce around waiting for the other to strike

It's really good that you guys are being taught martial arts from a strictly defensive perspective, but to be frankly honest we have to admit that the martial arts were originally designed to hurt, maime and even kill people. They're not called "defensive arts," but martial arts and the word "martial" means "inclined or disposed to war" -- to practice the martial arts is to practice the art of war itself.

I completely agree with learning it as a means of self defence, but at the same time I also acknowledge that most of these techniques were designed for warfare. But that's okay - because it helps to understand how brutal attacks work in order to learn how to adequately defend yourself from them. It doesn't mean you have to or want to use them yourself, but it helps to learn how to defend yourself against them. For example, I can't imagine myself breaking someone's arm, leg, neck or spine (unless they threatened me with lethal force, but even then it wouldn't be my preferred option) - but it doesn't mean I don't learn to defend myself against such brutal attacks.

One thing that I see some martial arts school do - and the school I've recently started training in is guilty of this too - is practice against attacks that are too "gentle" or "kind" (as 5FDP also discussed before, the problem of over-compliant partners in training). It doesn't mean that you should go ape on your training partner, but at the same time I think it's a disservice to let them continue training with the belief that they're successfully countering your attacks when you can see various massive flaws in their technique. e.g. If a throw a punch and a person steps across me while blocking it with their groin exposed, I'm not going to kick them in the nads, but I'll tell them that they're groin is exposed and maybe lift my leg to do a half kick just to illustrate my point, but not make any actual contact.

[Bartrim]

One thing that I see some martial arts school do - and the school I've recently started training in is guilty of this too - is practice against attacks that are too "gentle" or "kind" (as 5FDP also discussed before, the problem of over-compliant partners in training). It doesn't mean that you should go ape on your training partner, but at the same time I think it's a disservice to let them continue training with the belief that they're successfully countering your attacks when you can see various massive flaws in their technique. e.g. If a throw a punch and a person steps across me while blocking it with their groin exposed, I'm not going to kick them in the nads, but I'll tell them that they're groin is exposed and maybe lift my leg to do a half kick just to illustrate my point, but not make any actual contact.

I agree with this. I had this problem at the start as no one in the class was of similar size to me so I had to chop and change partners all the time and as such we were too gentle with each other. Now Mitchell has started class and we are of the same size (actually he is a bit bigger then me) we always partner up together. As such we have gotten a feel for how each other moves and what each other can tolerate as far as how hard we can hit each other we now carry out the exercises with alot more speed and intensity. I feel that sincethis has happened I have improved quicker then what I would of without a regular partner.

[GoktimusPrime]

Training with different partners has its advantages too though. It prevents you from getting too used to one person's particular fighting form - it can be useful to train against various opponents of differing shapes, sizes, strengths, speeds/tempos etc. Even if the person you're training against may feel inferior to you, then that perosn you're training against should be benefitting from training with a superior opponent.

I've seen some schools which only allow their students to train with students of equal status (or as close to as possible), but I think there's a lot to gain by allowing people of different levels to mix and train with each other. A well-trained novice should be able to hold off against an experienced fighter - they may be unlikely to get a hit in or 'win', but they should at very least be able to avoid getting hit themselves, which from a self defence POV is pretty much what you want to fundamentally achieve anyway.

At the same time the more experienced fighter ought to be mentoring the less experienced student as they train - i.e. specifically point out weaknesses and help teach the student how to improve. Or if they don't know how to advise, then do some problem solving and try to work it out. Sometimes when I'm training against a superior opponent, say for example they might put me in a hold that I can't get out of... usually they'll say sorry and offer to restart the exercise again with an easier hold, but I'll ask them to please try the difficult hold again and let me work out how to counter it myself. Cos in a real fight you're not gonna be able to ask the attacker to take it easy on you.

[Hot Rodimus]

Gok I think your last two posts were very informative and spot on.

[GoktimusPrime]

Thanks

Looks like my English slipped a bit here...

You don't have to wait for the punch to being as the threat has already been established (and thus you are _already_ under assault).

What I meant to say was, "You don't have to wait for the punch to be thrown as the threat has already been established..." My English is the gooderest.