49 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mark B
Mark B's picture
teaching Bunkai with actual experience

I know this is a touchy subject,  and has been discussed in part in the past.

Over the years however the membership of this forum has changed quite markedly,  so I thought I'd revisit this issue again.

My approach to the study of kata and the applications I draw from my study are, relatively speaking,  very simple and straightforward. The reason for this is because I  can refer them back to actual situational experience.  This prevents me from indulging in what I  call "demonstration Bunkai " as I believe sincerely that this type of kata application  practice would be ineffective against a genuine physical assault.

So what are your views? Can a person talk about and teach the actual sensation of applying  a grappling Oyo in a genuine situation,  where the fear and risk of injury is real if they have never experienced those sensations themselves?  Can the Sensei teach about what it feels like to give & receive impact if they don't have any experience in that arena.

Now I'm not talking about teaching the aesthetic approach to karate. I'm referring to standing in front of a group and describing the effects of violence on the karateka, and how the combative engagement feels, physically and mentally. Can we truly understand how our Bunkai will play out in reality if we've never experienced reality, because I  can assure you that no matter how vigorous you train it's never the same as real, certainly not as aggressive,  and most definitely nowhere close to the speed and ever changing energy of civilian conflict.

What are your thoughts??

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

This is an interesting subject.  I've heard this both in the context of self-protection and in the context of competition.  I'll offer my two cents.

I don't think it's necessary for instructors to have "actual experience" in order to be effective.  

I travel a lot as part of my job, so I've had the opportunity to train with a diverse range of instructors.  At my old school, most of the instructors and students were cops and bouncers (or had military experience).  It was valuable to have an instructor with live experience, but I don't look for it any more when I'm seeking out training.  Some of the best martial artists and instructors I've trained with had almost no live experience.  What's important is that they have a pragmatic approach that fits the context you're looking for (whether it be self-protection or competition or whatever). 

You also have to watch out for those guys who have actual experience but who teach questionable methods.  For example, the 220 pound athletic phenom who makes even terrible techniques work in live situations.  Or the guy who's seen live combat but sucks at throwing strikes and defending takedowns.  Or the cop who has a ton of hands-on experience, but only because he has a serious anger problem and is constantly skirting the bounds of acceptable conduct.  A martial artist can't always trust an instructor on the basis of real-life experience alone.     

It's a little bit easier to discuss in the context of competition.  Back in March I dropped in to take a class under a very well-regarded grappling competitor.  This guy had won several top-ranked tournaments, nationally and globally.  He was an amazing athlete and competitor, but honestly one of the worst instructors I have ever met.  I have immense respect for his achievements, but I don't plan to seek out his instruction in the future.    

Again, just my two cents.  I agree with you that having actual experience (in competition or in self-protection) can be valuable, but I don't think it's necessary.  

Editing Note;  I should clarify that by "live experience," I'm not referring to "live training."  So it's OK with me if an instructor doesn't have real-life self-protection experience or combat experience (or whatever).  But the instructor at least has to do "live training"--that is, making techniques work on resisting opponents.  An instructor who doesn't train live at all has no credibility with me.  Live training is essential for martial artists to have a prayer of using a technique in real-life or in competition.  

Mark B
Mark B's picture

You make some excellent observations. Actual experience is not enough certainly. The instructor must be able to demonstrate efficiency in all the elements taught. Also, said instructor must be able to convey the ideas in a way that is clear, and engaging. As you say, if the guy makes stuff work simply because he's a big, heavy set individual then that is not great either. Also someone with anger issues would certainly not be the person to seek to learn one of the systems. I think my main two issues with instructors with no actual experience are "feel" & "time". To know how it really feels, either pre engagement, or once an altercation has begun. To understand that their isn't the time to apply much of the groovy Bunkai we see demonstrated with such confidence and certainty. Also, alongside those issues we need to understand that whilst what's called live practice is great,( we do it in my dojo and is very important,), it isn't real!! I can't comment on sport, but your point about great skill not necessarily ensuring a good instructor is a solid point. I think one of my main pet peeves regarding kata application is that there are too many examples these days of applications that will only be effective against a passive Uke.I believe this is because the people demonstrating in this way lack the experience of reality to understand that these things ONLY work because Uke is passive. This is unacceptable, and dangerous. If an instructor doesn't have real life experience, but does understand that only the most simple applications of Kata will be effective, and that an opponent will not stand and wait for technique 2 & 3 in a real altercation then that's not too bad I suppose.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Always an interesting topic! One we need to thoroughly think through too.

First-hand experience obviously gives a perspective and insight that will be lacking in those without that experience. However, all experience is limited. For example, the guy who experienced bar fights in his youth may not have experienced sexual assault, domestic violence, mugging, home invasion, etc.

Putting that aside, most people will not have experienced every single possible variable either i.e. all numbers, all weapons, all conditions., etc. And even putting that aside, we have only experienced the situations we have experienced as ourselves. What worked for one individual, may not work for another individual with differing attributes and skills. Additionally, in what role did you experience it? Doorman? Civilian? Police officer? In a relationship with a violent partner?

All experience is limited.

I’ve never been a woman (that’s just a rumour ;-), but I feel confident teaching self-protection to women. Also, when I see women teaching self-protection, I don’t feel compelled to ask how may attempted rapes they have fended off in an attempt to determine their legitimacy. I can judge their legitimacy by the quality of what they are teaching. That applies to others too.

In one of his books Rory Miller talks about his experience defending against knives. He makes the point he has had to do it five times (I think?), and having done something five times does not make you an expert. There is no one alive who has had to personally defend against the thousands of committed knife attacks needed to become an expert via that route.  The way forward, it seems to me, is to look at collective experience so we have tens of thousands of situations we learn from.

Like science, we get the best understanding from the most data, so at some point everyone has look to the experience of others if what they teach and practise is not to be very limited. We do that all the time in martial arts. For example, I teach kata that I did not create. They do not come from my own experience; they come from the experience of others. My experience tells me they are valid, but I’ve not “field tested” everything I’ve ever been taught. My experience is useful in telling what will work and what will not. And the experience of others is very useful in that regard too. The experience of my teachers is something I listen to. I want my students to do the same with me. “Second hand experience” does have validity.

Also, if we do take the position that direct experience is a must then two things immediately follow:

1 – Everything we teach is pointless, because it is “second hand experience” and that is invalid.

2 – People need to get involved in violence as part of any legitimate education. We are therefore encouraging people to put themselves at risk and break the law.

Neither of the above is valid or acceptable in my view. We need to teach effectively such that the experience of others can be of benefit to people who have not had that experience.

Do you feel you have anything of value to teach? Do you feel you can help people perform better than they would have done when faced with real violence? If the answer is “no” then stop teaching. If the answer is “yes” then we acknowledge that “second hand experience” has value.

The military works this way. They learn from the experience of others and create training programs to ensure effective action under pressure. It works! They don’t say, “You have to learn it first-hand”.

Real experience needs to inform training. That’s a must. However, just like the military, we can train effectively without that experience being real or first-hand.

Good training will give people the experience needed to perform well in the face of danger. It does not give the actual experience of the real life danger. Good training will be realistic; but it is never real. That’s a good as it can get. Training can include stress, fear, chaos, shock, surprise, etc. Not at the level of reality, but enough to ensure right action when faced with reality.

Martial artists have a bad habit of putting style dogma ahead of people’s actual experience. They reinvent violence to fit with their own pre-existing “solution”. However, if people take into account the experience of others, then I don’t think that experience needs to be first hand.

As a quick aside, there is a potential paradox here too. While, from a knowledge perspective, first-hand experience is better than second hand experience, the guy who claims to have had thousands of “street fights” is not someone you would want to learn self-protection from … because his emotional control, awareness, and de-escalation skills obviously suck. He may have the physical side of it down, but he’s demonstrably clueless and inexperienced around the wider topic. Follow such a person's advice and you’ll end up hurt or in jail! Caveat emptor.

It probably worth touching on the wider issue of alternate approaches to bunkai too. We need to be careful not to write something off based on incomplete information.

We all need to look at things in a discriminating fashion. Ultimately, the only valid approach is our own. It is wrong for instructors to say, “I am the sole holder of universal truth” and it is wrong for students to think, “I can get 100% of all the answers from this one person”. That’s how cults are made. Not healthy. So it’s good there are alternate approaches being put forth. However, as well as being discriminating about that is shown, we need to be careful not to make assumptions or jump to conclusions about the approaches of others. Particularly when we are not learning them first hand and we are instead relying on YouTube videos, etc.

A short clip cannot convey the entirety of a method. We generally don’t know how it fits in to wider training. I get this all the time with my clips, I show a flow drill designed to permit the quick practise of a kata, and I get “people won’t just stand there”. I know! And everyone I taught the drill to in person knows that too. I show a single technique to people who are just learning it and I get, “What if the person does X instead?”. We will cover that! And everyone I taught the technique to in person will have covered those options. They make false assumptions.

I like the stuff you (Mark) do, but if I assume I know everything about what you do based on YouTube clips alone, and go into “troll mode” I could illegitimately write off pretty much every video you put up. Picking a video at random:

0:38  - “What if he is stronger than me and won’t let me lift the arm? That won’t work against someone strong. Why don’t you move off line too? Why just rely on you being stronger than him?”

0:51 – “He’s not just going to stand there like that. He will move. It won’t be that easy to hit the head.”

0:57 – “Who says he will throw that punch at that point? It’s choreographed. Real fights aren’t choreographed.”

0:57 onward – “Is he just going to stand there and let you do your routine? In real fights people move. In fact, you even said:

Mark B wrote:
an opponent will not stand and wait for technique 2 & 3 in a real altercation.

So why is your uke standing and waiting for things in your own clip!?”

And so on.

To be clear, I know none of that is valid! It’s good stuff! If you could not lift the arm you’d simply do something else. I understand you are showing something in isolation. I know it’s a drill too (not a “technique”) and you’re showing it to people in the learning phase. It’s all legitimate stuff. But you see how someone could be misunderstood on the basis of just watching the clip alone. So a person demonstrating bunkai may not be engaging in “demonstration bunkai”. They could be, but we won’t know for sure unless we understand the wider training matrix.

So in conclusion:

1 – Seeking first-hand experience is dumb and illegal. We need to be careful not to make it a must have for people to be deemed “valid”.

2 – Objectively taking into account the reality of violence is vital. Whether the experience is first hand or not is not vital.

3 – Martial arts are essentially made up of “second hand experience”, so if we believe that has no validity then martial arts are pointless and we should quit teaching because we don’t truly believe we can help people prepare for situations that have not yet faced.

4 – Everyone’s experience is limited. We all need to rely on the experience of others because no individual has experienced all types of violence to a sufficient level to be an “expert” based on personal experience alone.

5 – When assessing the methods of others, we need to be careful not to make assumptions if all we have to go on is a YouTube clip. Methodologies can appear to be a lot better or a lot worse than they truly are because we have no idea how things fit into the wider training matrix.

6 – Training can be realistic, but it is never real. Nevertheless, it can still prepare people to effectively deal with violence.

All the best,

Iain

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi Iain

Great reply, loads of excellent points made. I'm not dismissing the opinions or teaching practices of instructors who teach without the dubious benefit of real experience (although there is a growing number of people who are beginning to do just that). Of course there is a contradiction - real experience means at some point you screwed up, or was maybe acting like a dick. I know that could apply to me. Fortunately instead of continuing in that vein I managed to find a better, more positive use for said experiences. I refer to purely street situations, rather than security work etc, but I do find that these experiences do greatly underpin a lot of my training and teaching. I get that you can't judge an individuals approach based on YouTube. I am however perfectly comfortable if people want to criticise my own stuff. If I had issues with thatI wouldn't put the stuff out there to be shot at. I still say however that some Bunkai Oyo is clearly not fit for purpose & looks effective only because of the passive way in which it's practiced. You're right of course when you say my video is exactly the same as other peoples who teach in so much as it is pre arranged, so could be questioned. That is why I pre empt the exercises at a seminar with an explanation about the issues you raise - he may not do this, he won't stand still etc, that said, almost every application I taught at the Naihanchi seminar has been used (or something very close to it) in situations I have experienced. Anyway, I hope at least that raising this subject has got people thinking, maybe even reevaluating.

All the best,

Mark

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Mark B wrote:
real experience means at some point you screwed up, or was maybe acting like a dick. I know that could apply to me. Fortunately, instead of continuing in that vein I managed to find a better, more positive use for said experiences.

Very true. Aside from some occasions where I was going to the aid of others, I can say that pretty much every situation was avoidable in retrospect.

I think growing up pays a big part of it too. You can see that in the crime stats. When you’re young “proving yourself” is a big deal. We do dumb things as a result. Most of us grow out of it.

The danger is some recount “war stories” and inadvertently present messing up / gaining “real experience” a rite of passage for martial artists. We therefore inadvertently encourage stupid behaviour. As was once said on the TV show Malcom in the Middle, “Precautionary tales should never end with ‘it was so cool!” :-)

Mark B wrote:
I get that you can't judge an individual’s approach based on YouTube. I am however perfectly comfortable if people want to criticise my own stuff. If I had issues with that I wouldn't put the stuff out there to be shot at.

Absolutely. I think criticism and critique are vital. We just need to be careful we are critiquing what is actually being put forth, and not our false understanding of it.

Mark B wrote:
I still say however that some Bunkai Oyo is clearly not fit for purpose & looks effective only because of the passive way in which it's practiced.

That’s very true. I’d just add that we ned to be sure what the “purpose” is. Sometimes things are for “as is” use, other times they are drills to develop attributes which will be tested in other ways. Trapping drills are good example of the latter. We can see these long “trap-athons” bunkai drills where the range is fixed and things fly back and forth. Looks cool: Will never happen like that. So if it’s been presented as real life “as is” drill, it’s not fit for purpose. If it’s an attribute development drill designed to develop a specific skills set, and the application of the individual components of that drill will be tested in live unscripted drills, then that’s OK.

There’s good and bad, and confusion between the two, in all areas of the martial arts. Bunkai is no certainly exception.

Mark B wrote:
You're right of course when you say my video is exactly the same as other peoples who teach in so much as it is pre-arranged, so could be questioned. That is why I pre empt the exercises at a seminar with an explanation about the issues you raise - he may not do this, he won't stand still etc,

Absolutely. Something those just watching the clip may not understand. I’ve put up 3-minute summary videos of a full weekend’s worth of training, and people don’t get all the supporting knowledge, and so they frequently make false assumptions. That’s also why Sensei YouTube is a poor teacher :-) A great tool for share ideas nonetheless, despite its limitations.

Thanks for kicking this thread off Mark.

All the best,

Iain

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Trap - athons. Lol

You've got to love that.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Mark B wrote:
Trap - athons. Lol

You've got to love that.

Glad you liked that. As I remark at seminars,over the last decade or so someone in Hollywood has decided extended bouts of trapping looks cool! Bond, Batman, Captain America, Jason Bourne, etc. now all fight that way. If you look at the Jason Bourne fight below you can see a couple of “trap-athons” (in the hallway and after he pick up the pen).

It DOES look cool, but it’s not reality. Movies are still having an influence on how people train and think about violence. Maybe not the 1980s spinning kicks so much anymore, but trapping would seem to be part of the modern take on that.

When we do trapping drills in the martial arts, we need to remember, and emphasise, that we are isolating a skill, and that that skill needs to be taken into more realistic drills in order to be fully realised.

I think it’s a little like how skipping can improve a boxer’s shoulder endurance and footwork … but it’s a mistake to think boxers will “skip” when fighting. It can develop attributes that do have application, but the act of skipping is not the application.  Same with extended trapping drills: they are not replications of the real (and should never be presented as such), but they can help develop usable attributes … if, they are part of a wider training regime.

Bunkai drills which are trap-athons presented as a representation of reality are therefore a problem. They are OK if understood as isolated attribute development though.

All the best,

Iain

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Well I have to confess to being more than a little disappointed!!! On a forum of supposed "practical" martial artists, several of whom share videos which, although only brief windows into their approach, give the impression at least of their stuff being genuinely applicable in a real altercation scenario I get two replies!!!!! Others engage in debates on the subject of violence, yet........silence! Iain mentions different types of violence - domestic etc. That often happens on here, the waters get muddied. I may be wrong, but the greater percentage of people will start martial arts (competition aside) as a means of self defence against the habitual acts of physical violence which they fear they may be subjected to 'on the streets ", so for the sake of this thread let's keep it to that. So, real life practical karate people - what's your opinion??

Tau
Tau's picture

Mark B wrote:
On a forum of supposed "practical" martial artists, several of whom share videos which, although only brief windows into their approach, give the impression at least of their stuff being genuinely applicable in a real altercation scenario I get two replies

I plead guilty on all counts.

I've read the thread and felt no desire to reply nor would my reply benefit. I saw it as repetition of old discussion with a little baiting thrown in. I wasn't going to get drawn into it.

I'm a pragmatically-minded martial artist. That is to say that the emphasis of what I do and teach is on real life with all that that entails. I've certainly had my share of altercations, mostly through school. But I've been smart enough to (mostly) avoid them in adulthood. My job means I can't always avoid them. The upside is I've had the rare opportunity to critique my real-life performance on CCTV after the event.

Short of changing my occupation or hobby so as to increase my chance of engaging in violence what else do you propose? What I choose to do is listen to the "experts" and maintain a critical and open mind. Learn from their real-life experiences and evolve my own martial arts accordingly. I also choose to disregard some information and indeed the views of some people.

Mark B wrote:
Iain mentions different types of violence - domestic etc. That often happens on here, the waters get muddied. I may be wrong, but the greater percentage of people will start martial arts (competition aside) as a means of self defence against the habitual acts of physical violence which they fear they may be subjected to 'on the streets ", so for the sake of this thread let's keep it to that. So, real life practical karate people - what's your opinion??

I agree that people will start pragmatic martial arts as means of self protection. However self protection means different things to different people. For some it is indeed the supposed threat of mugging or sexual assault. I suggest from the perspective of anyone teaching pragmatically-focussed martial arts as opposed to simply studying them we accept that the waters are indeed muddy and not every scenario can be described in one discussion.

My teaching does cover these above scenarios. And also school bullying and domestic abuse. And therein lies another perspective:

A given person on this forum may have lots of experience of door work - down and dirty with real-life violence/weapons/multiple attackers and so on. And all respect to that person and I'm certainly receptive to what they have to say. But does that person have any direct experience of domestic abuse? What about the school system and the issues of bullying?

Personally I don't have much (adult) experience of violence and I'm happy to keep it that way. However my job means I do get a unique perspective on violence. Given the former does this mean I'm not "qualified" to teach pragmatic martial arts? I would argue "no" for exactly the latter reason.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Repetition of an old discussion?? Typical. What about the newer members of this discussion board!?? I certainly won't apologise for revisiting this most important of subjects. As for baiting.... is that what we label attempts to stimulate a conversation about such a fundamentally important subject, or does it sit uneasy as a subject we'd rather not revisit? This isn't a trick question. I'm interested to know how people who teach, and certainly if they share their approaches on the Web - get around the issue of actual experience if they themselves don't have any. What are the methods employed to consider how it FEELS as a situation develops, if those feelings have not been experienced by the person teaching. Are there particular drills that can be practiced? Do you use bad language in the dojo? Does the teacher know HOW to be the bad guy etc. Why is my attempt to keep the subject to "street violence" such an issue? I'm not talking domestic, door, security - I'm trying to keep it to a narrow subject - that of violence "on the streets". Yes, I know - we can then try and deflect the conversation to avoidance, awareness, de-escalation - I want to move beyond that, to the physical reason that karate ever existed in the first place - to protect your own person against an unprovoked attack with the swiftest, most efficient means possible. We all know that on this forum we keep the tone as civil and respectful as is possible, however, there are more and people on social media who are asking the very question I have here, but must more directly, and a good deal less politely - I believe this is because this is becoming a significant subject for a lot of people! As for avoiding violence now, as a guy in his mid forties - you bet I do, partly because I've been and done some of that and I didn't much care for it (in the cold light of day), but as I shared in an earlier post - I find those experiences invaluable for the karate I teach today, which is why I asked the question in the first place.

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

Hi Mark

I wrote a long reply to your post whilst on my phone, but then promptly lost it. To be honest after all that fiddly typing I really can't be bothered to start it again.

Basically my view is that only someone with psychopathic tendencies or very poor judgement would have a real life experience covering the majority of the applications they teach. 

Most of us have had, to a greater or lesser extent experienced physical violence. My take is that, unless you are a rare individual like Rory Miller, your personal experience will be very niche and contextual. Little snippets of reality that might validate some aspects of what you teach. 

As Iain outlined above, validate your training  methods and underlying principles on a combination of what you have experienced and what you can get second hand from those who have experienced it. It is a collective thing... That is what a martial art is, a framework to teach people, who do not have the experience, how to defend themselves based on a set of applications and core principles distilled from actual experience. By definition it has to be generic.. 

I don't think I am saying anything different from what the majority here think, you included.

Leigh Simms
Leigh Simms's picture

Hi All!

Speaking from my own small experience, which thankfully is at a 100% success of resolving conflict without physical violence, this brings up an interesting question, one which I will keep to the context whereby an enemy attempting to or actually violently attacking an innocent. I will refer to this scenario as violent encounters for sake of simplicity.

Firstly, personal antidotal evidence should be always used cautionary, especially when we can collect evidence on a more objective and larger scale. Luckily for us this is available in the area of violent attacks.  

As my own training and teaching began to change from sport to self-protection, I realized very quickly that I needed to understand the “problem of violence”. I have studied and researched this topic in detail. This includes gaining information in relation to the psychological and physiological effects of violent encounters on the innocent party.

Secondly, I would note that even if someone has first hand experience of violence, it in no ways indicates that they are best suited to pass the experience/information to others.  

The ability to teach, transfer information (especially information regarding feelings, body changes and emotional responses) is a difficult skill. I would make an assumption that there are actors/professional speakers, who are able to communication what is like to be in a violent encounter far greater than myself, other martial artists on this board, including those who have been in real encounters! This isn’t a knock on anyone, just an observation that communication skills are important. 

An interesting thought experiment: -

Instructor X - no real life experience

Instructor Y - involved in 10s of violent encounters

Scenario 1

Y relays information of what it feels like to be in violent encounters to the students

Scenario 2

X learns from Y how it feels to be in violent encounters. X relays this same to his students.

Scenario 3

Y is in Spain teaching Spanish students, Y relays information of what it feels like to be in violent encounters to Spanish Translator. Spanish Translator relays information to the Spanish Students 

Which of the above, if any, are qualified or not-qualified? Is it a case that some are more qualified than others? and if so, why? is not the case that the information being transferred to the students will be the same?

What if in scenario 2, X (in addition to learning from Y) also reads books with information received from other people who have had experience of violent encounters, and then goes on to teach the students. Although he as no first hand experience himself, doesn’t he seem to be in a better position to teach the effects of violence to others?

The second part of this topic that I feel needs to be looked at is how the theory is applied in the dojo. 

Albeit this is antidotal, I am fully aware of a jujitsu instructor who fully comprehends and has been in violent encounters, yet he teaches self-defense from: -  “and the attacker attacks from 10feet away with an oi/jun zuki” 

My point being that even for someone who had been in real violence based situations, it doesn't necessary mean that they are able to create and/or find the correct training practices that accurately reflect what they experienced. 

In my own dojo, we have specific training practices to replicate, as much as possible, the physiological and psychological effects of violent encounters. However, lines have to be drawn and for example, I am not willing to make my students experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which coincidentally, I likely had at one point. I also knew people, that never had PTSD, who were able to communicate the feelings and effects of the disorder better than me).

In conclusion, my views would be the following: -

1) It is more important to have the ability to communicate the actual effects of violence encounters than it is to be involved in violent encounters; 

2)  Self-Protection training should include training practices which include the physical and psychological effects of violent encounters; and 

3.  That these practices replicate the above mentioned effects as much as possible without causing unnecessary distress or harm to the participants.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Thanks for the replies. 

I'll address a couple of the points made.

ThOmas -

The assertion that someone would have to have psychopathic tendencies, in my opinion misses the point somewhat.  One altercation that continues beyond the ideal strike and escape could include loads of application principles,  which could all play out comfortably in less than ten seconds, so a person could say they've coped with punches aimed at the face which morphed into being grabbed at the lapel which then led to a head lock being applied.  That would happen in a flash, yet 3 different "Bunkai scenarios" were played out !!

Leigh - 

You are correct in saying that just because someone has experience, in whatever shape or form that may take,  the ability to share  info efficiently is not garaunteed.  We see this in sport all the time - a great footballer doesn't necessarily make a great coach. Fortunately I  myself am very good at engaging and getting my points across to my students and seminar attendees.

One of the reasons for this is because I speak as if I KNOW how it feels, and feel is more important than the physical side of the teaching. An actor may do it better, but they're "acting" aren't they.

I can't understand why anyone who has been near violence would teach supposed practical martial arts against Oi Zuki from ten feet, very odd.

I wholeheartedly agree that communication skills are vital.

The reason I began this thread was because on social media I read posts & seminar reports from instructors where I  feel myself nodding in agreement.  They refer to the fact that what they teach/ taught in a given seminar is based entirely on actual experiences.  They do understand that communicating with their students or seminar attendees in a way that engages the group while still getting the information across is essential,  but the bottom line is that,  in their view real hands on experience is essential if you want to teach it. 

As I say, I find myself nodding in agreement as I read it. 

It's clear that the majority on this forum are probably shaking their heads as they read my posts, whilst nodding vigorously as they read Iains, Leighs and the other replies.

That's fine - it's a bi-product of the environment in which I'm posing the question.  

Ask this question in the arena where I've read opnions which are similar to my own and the alternative approaches and opinions/replies I've received  would probably be roundly booed :-)

Again, depends on the crowd you're engaging with 

Perhaps my views are out of step with the "collective" here.

Regards 

Mark

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

Hi Mark, great a debate! :-) 

There have not been enough of those in my opinion. 

Firstly there are many reasons why people train, and many people like to excel in using their karate techniques in an idealised format ... Just for the pleasure of getting good at that particular thing. If they want to be effective outside the dojo they need to adapt their training regime accordingly.

To your point, the best scenario is to have an instructor who not only has extensive real world experience, but also is a great communicator and coach. These beasts are rare. Unfortunately. 

I have been lucky to come across a few of those and one in particular who had a significant influence on me. However he was a controversial figure, to put it mildly and he was not an easy person to be associated with.   Both ethically and socially.

His real value was the validation he brought to our training and the particular physiological emphasis required to be in the correct mindset for real violence. His training sessions were never pleasant, but always thought provoking. As I think you alluded to, it is often not the what but the how that is critical.

I think the point is that having lots of real world experience is not the only criteria and having someone instructing in a framework built around those who have had the unfortunate experience of testing it for real, can also be valid.

There is also the problem that personal anecdotal evidence is very subjective. Personally I have vivid memories of what worked, but seem to be vague on what I did to set that up... Or what didn't work.  It is as if my brain has its own marketing team which glosses over the bad bits and cherry picks the good. I am left with a vague impression of my emotions at the time and a very non-critical assessment of my performance.

My point is that "real-life" experience is a validator, but not necessarily a good coach. Developing a framework on which you can learn effective strategies, tactics and applications and then test them as realistically as possible is, I think, the best model. 

Personally my own experience has given me a yard stick to measure what I don't know and the areas I am uncomfortable with. I experienced more physical confrontation as a young man and ironically more in a dojo environment than anywhere else (which statistically speaking makes sense) - I particularly remember a very nasty situation in a kyokoshinkai dojo, that really shocked me and gave me a brutal very real experience of being heavily battered. A valuable lesson about dealing with shock and the problem inherent with inventing violence to suit how I was training, that at the time I didn't realise was a problem in my karate practice. I still keep that in the forefront of my mind today. Does the fact that it was not outside a pub on a Friday night, but in a dojo with an unethical instructor who liked to humiliate his guests make it less valid ? I would argue that that situation had a lot of similar themes, certainly psychologically and physically to an equivalent stand-off outside on the street.

As I have got older I am a lot less hot headed and I tend to make it a habit to avoid confrontation that leads to violence. So as time stretches those hands on experiences become even more idealised, shaped by my own brain to fit the personal, sad to say, "heroic" image of myself :-) I need to train to ensure I don't fall into the trap of re-invent violence to suit what I find convenient.

So to summarise, yes an instructor with personal experience of real violence is ideal, but it is subjective. I have taught applications that I have never used outside the dojo that my students have applied, and have been successful for them, in real situations.

Knowledge management is all about distilling your experience and the experience of others into an easily digestible form to facilitate a transfer of skills. It is the process to that end that is important, not necessarily the person who conveys the message ( all things being equal)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Mark,

I’ve said all I want to on the topic, but I do feel the need to post about some of the things you have said about the forum generally, and the way this topic has progressed.

You have a blunt style, so I know you won’t mind me being similarly blunt.

Mark B wrote:
Well I have to confess to being more than a little disappointed!!! … I get two replies!!!!!

People don’t have to engage in all topics Mark. Plenty of posts get only a few replies. Many don’t get any.

Mark B wrote:
I may be wrong, but the greater percentage of people will start martial arts (competition aside) as a means of self defence against the habitual acts of physical violence which they fear they may be subjected to 'on the streets ", so for the sake of this thread let's keep it to that. So, real life practical karate people - what's your opinion??

Mark B wrote:
Iain mentions different types of violence - domestic etc. That often happens on here, the waters get muddied.

I was making the point that none of us have experience of every kind of violence. Can we teach rape defence if we’ve not had someone try and rape us? It’s a valid question and a valid point. I was not muddying the waters, but pointing out something relevant to the decision (see the post).

A good discussion needs people putting forward their views, asking questions, and expanding it to cover other aspects if needed.

It’s not a dissuasion to start with a conclusion you wish to push everyone toward. That’s seems to be what is happening here.

Mark B wrote:
Repetition of an old discussion?? Typical. What about the newer members of this discussion board!??

They can search the forum for the older topics. They can start a new thread asking the question for themselves. In this case, we are taking about a well-worn topic that has been discussed many times.

It is important, but we can’t demand people participate. No one else does on any other tread, so don’t take it personally or as being reflective of the forum as a whole. The fact your thread has not been the “hot topic” is not a big deal.

Mark B wrote:
It's clear that the majority on this forum are probably shaking their heads as they read my posts, whilst nodding vigorously as they read Iains, Leighs and the other replies.

Being blunt, I think one of the reasons people don’t engage with your discussions Mark is that you often seem to want to portray yourself as the “odd one out” and the only one of us who has experienced it in the real world (which not the case). So some don’t want to indulge you in that. I feel like that at times when reading your posts.

Anyone reading this tread will see that you have been agreed with many times! But people have also added in nuance and other areas to consider. As it should be.

In your posts replying to me, you have agreed with me on many of the points I made … and yet further on in the thread you are stating that everyone disagrees with you and agrees with me. That’s plainly not the case! It’s logically impossible because we actually agreed on a number of points.

Mark B wrote:
Hi Iain, Great reply, loads of excellent points made.

If I made “excellent points” and I agree with you on many issues, how can people “nod along” with me, and “shake their head” at you? I don’t see that happening. There is no basis for you to assume the position of “lone voice”.

It therefore does not feel like you actually want to talk through the issue. It feels like you want to set yourself apart from the group as the sole “bringer of truth”, even when people are agreeing with you on many parts of the issue.

Where people disagree, you need to put your case as to why you feel they are wrong. What you have done in this thread is blame the group for not agreeing with you:

Mark B wrote:
That's fine - it's a bi-product of the environment in which I'm posing the question.

Mark B wrote:
Ask this question in the arena where I've read opinions which are similar to my own and the alternative approaches and opinions /replies I've received would probably be roundly booed :-)

If you start a discussion you should want discussion. Instead you are pushing for everyone to accept your view (without any addition, question or nuance) and if they deviate, even slightly, you label the whole forum as somehow faulty.

You are agreeing with much of what others have said. They are agreeing with you on many points too. It seems you are ignoring the actual discussion (i.e. what you and others actually said).

Mark B wrote:
Again, depends on the crowd you're engaging with

Again. As I said, you seem to want to the “odd one out” who is telling everyone one else they are doing it wrong; even when they agree with you. You also say you want to have discussion, but it seems only so long as it agrees with you 100%. If not, you label to group as generically faulty.

Mark B wrote:
Perhaps my views are out of step with the "collective" here.

And again. You are marking yourself out as a “lone rebel”. You’re not an unrecognised genius Mark. I read your posts. I hear what you are saying. I can add my own points and question (as can others) and that does not make us confused, lost or in need of rescue.

People have agreed with you on points, and you have agreed with others on points. The topic is not clear cut (they never are), and people have put forth nuanced points to add value to the thread.

On the one hand you are asking for discussion, and on the other hand you are wanting all to agree with you without any expansion or question. When the discussion you ask for arrives, you slight the group as being deficient. Even when you agree with them and they agree with you on many issues. It seems like it’s not the issue that matters, but you putting yourself forth as a the “lone voice of truth” irrespective of what is actually said.

You don’t have to post here Mark. You make good points and your videos are enjoyed by many. However, we are not “lost sheep” in need of a shepherd. People also want genuine discussion; not “soap box preaching” where all dissent is met with general dismissal.

I do value your posts here, but I do feel they are sometimes not about sharing information and engaging in discussion but instead are primarily about establishing yourself as an unrecognised genius among the poor souls too deluded to recognise that genius.

That certainly how it comes across at times and I think that’s a shame because if you let your material do the talking I think you’d get greater support. As it is the “you’re all lost and let me show you the light!” tone of some of your posts just turns people off. I feel the argumentative and accusatory style is also not serving you.

This is not because you actually are that “lone voice” and everyone is pushing back because they are blinded by their “delusions”. It’s because that’s plainly not the case. You contradict yourself about the topic (i.e. agreeing with people, and then posting as if everyone disagrees with you) as you push towards restating your view that you are something akin to the “unrecognised messiah of the forum”.

Anyone reading the posts objectively can see that. It therefore can come across as you just wanting to argue to aggrandise yourself. Irrespective of what is actually said.

As the moderator here, I want genuine open discussion. I know you say you want that too Mark, but the fact you frequently slight the whole forum is not congruent with that. Your claim that all here are misguided because they don’t fully align themselves with you is not born out by what actually goes on.

The cream naturally floats to the top. The good ideas and valid points will find the biggest audience through honest, open and free discussion.  

If you want people to agree no matter what. If you want lost souls to save. If you want a place to be the “chosen one”. This forum is not it Mark. If you dislike it that much, and if you see no value in the posts of other members, then you don’t have to post here.

All the best,

Iain

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi ThOmas

Yes, I was after a bit of debate. As you say they are not as frequent as was once the case. The reason I often say "great points", even if I don't agree with them entirely is because they have given me something to consider, as I don't see myself as a Maverick, or the last word on training methods. A large part of me beginning this thread was the fact that I base much of what we practice in my dojo on my experiences - both physical and non physical. Granted, this experiences are not that recent, but I learnt enough for them to be of use. I'm not sure how i would approach my karate if I didn't have that experience. I was genuinely interested in how people who don't have those experiences address that fact. Thomas's last post was a perfect example of that - what you experienced in the dojo was clearly a disgrace! It also clearly had a lasting effect on you. You made an extremely valid point which I certainly didn't consider - and the way you've used it as a positive is not dissimilar to how I channelled my negative experiences. That was kind of what I was after when I started the whole thread off. Maybe the tone is not to most people's liking, although getting the actual intended tone across is sometimes awkward through the written word. I will think very carefully before adding any further comments

Regards

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Mark B wrote:
Yes, I was after a bit of debate. As you say they are not as frequent as was once the case.

Debate is good. There are loads of differing views and insights put forth in this forum.  There seems to be an unrecognised paradox around this in your posts i.e. “if people debate with me, that is a sign there is no debate”.

When others debate here, they don’t claim the position of a lone voice against the “collective”. I think that’s the difference; as I pointed out in the above post.

A look through the posts shows that the debate is there. Indeed, the most active and read posts are the debates. I therefore don’t agree with the repeated assertion there is a uniform party line that you are alone is speaking out against. The posts don’t bear this out.

I also see the logical fallacy of appeal to (self) authority in this thread:

1 – I am an authority on real violence

2 – I have made a claim on the subject I am an expert on

3 – Because I am an authority the claim is valid

4 – The fact people are at variance with my valid claim is proof they are wrong

Nowhere in this is actual debate. In a true debate, things you disagree with are calmly challenged and counterpoints engaged with. What he have predominately had is arguing and asserting.

Mark B wrote:
The reason I often say "great points", even if I don't agree with them entirely is because they have given me something to consider …

That’s why I like them too. But if I am going to disagree with a point after consideration then I need to articulate why I disagree and be prepared to have that challenged. The “appeal to authority” derails things and stifles debate.

There has been the assertion that you’d be agreed with elsewhere, and the fact you have not been here – even though on many aspect of the discussion you have been –  is a sign that all other members of the forum (the “collective”) just don’t get it. I think that is more than a little demeaning to all other members and even comes across as being self-aggrandizing.

It’s the lines that I quoted above where the forum as a whole is presented as faulty:

Mark B wrote:
That's fine - it's a bi-product of the environment in which I'm posing the question.

Mark B wrote:
Ask this question in the arena where I've read opinions which are similar to my own and the alternative approaches and opinions /replies I've received would probably be roundly booed :-)

Mark B wrote:
Again, depends on the crowd you're engaging with

Mark B wrote:
Perhaps my views are out of step with the "collective" here.

You as essentially inferring that other members are uneducated sheep who just don’t get it; because if they did get it they would not be saying anything other than “You are right Mark”.

If they have it wrong, then argue the case; as you can effectively do. However, the aggressive tone applied at times, and lines like the above, discourage real discourse.

As the moderator, this is the kind of discussion I want. Assertions and counter-assertions logically and respectfully discussed in order to produce an information heavy thread that readers can learn from.

The argumentative tone and dismissive assertions of other members does not sit well with me. It’s not what you are saying re: the actual topic; but instead the argumentative tone, the assertion you are a lone voice, and stating others are wrong simply by the sole virtue of disagreeing with you. Let’s have the debate without all that. Let the information do the talking.

The reason I felt compelled to raise it is because there has been a strong negative statement made about the competence of all other members and contributors to this thread. Their points are deemed invalid without actually breaking down why you feel they are invalid.  

I don’t see their contributions as being part of a “collective” and I would prefer points raised to be calmly discussed as opposed to being written off as being symptomatic of the forum simply not being able to get it when others would.

To say others would “boo” to something is not a counterpoint.

All the best,

Iain

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

Hi Mark

Thanks for the response.

My example I outlined above was to attempt to differentiate between an actual fight, where physical blows were exchanged for an extended period, under high stress in a very antagonistic environment that I couldn't escape from or talk my way out of. This is compared, in my experience, against the confrontations I have had outside the dojo, where the pre-fight build up actually gives you a load of options to de-escalate and avoid a physical result. For me that has been a far more common outcome within those circumstances. Not a great opportunity  to test my application skills, given that in at least two occasions I was outnumbered 3 or more to 1.

In the original example, I was so angry afterwards I decided not to let it lie and went back the following week, much to the instructors surprise. However forewarned was forearmed and the outcome was completely different to the previous week. The fact it was a dojo meant I had that option, clearly not something you can do morally or legally out side a pub.

What was interesting, looking at it with the wisdom of years was that there was nothing wrong with my technique, but how I applied it, and the level of agression I used.

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

Hi all

Here is my view on the consensus views in this forum... And I expect there to be a consensus on this :-)

A lot of lurkers and posters here will be attracted to the subject matter, which if you accept that the martial arts is a broad church is niche in comparison. 

So naturally on a broad range of subjects within the pragmatic sphere there is very likely to be broad agreement. To be honest, I get a lot of enjoyment from debating my views with others who have a significant difference of opinion about MA's or just the plain ignorant.. And there are a lot of other forums for that.

This forum is absolutely a huge wealth of excellent information, shared views, videos and discussion points. It is an absolute pleasure to come here and dip in.. But I am not expecting to be in violent dissagrement with anybody ( a few notable exceptions now no longer posting).

Iain, Mark, Tau, wastlander etc please keep sharing so I can carry on enjoying this great community :-)

To paraphrase

"We are all individuals!"

"Yes, we are all individuals"

..."I'm not"

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Thanks for the reply. You've made some good points, and shared some examples of experiences that can help in structure, approach and method with regards to how you could feed them back into your training. I don't know if you feel that your training would be as good, or better without your personal experiences. You mentioned being outnumbered 3 to 1. I can relate to that - unfortunately my multiple opponents experience was a few more than 3 onto just me, and they weren't interested in my attempts to de-escalate. This resulted in a pretty heavy beating - first strike the classical punch from the blind side. A fractured cheekbone, broken ribs, mouth cut to pieces. Not good. My sinuses are a mess to this day. However, these days I try and channel what I learned that night (with hindsight) and feed it back into my training and teaching. This is what I mean by a personal experience, and using it for positive ends. So basically, when we look at multiple opponents training I've got a reference. This reference allows me to understand the reality of that type of situation, and to stress the importance of avoiding it in the first place, which I think greatly enhances what I can share with my group.

Regards

Mark

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi Thomas I must have posted almost at the same time as your last contribution. Beautifully put. Excellent post Regards Mark

Dod
Dod's picture

I think this is an important topic ie how important it is for a practical karate instructor to be experienced in real violent situations.  Many karateka and instructors will not have much such experiences (actually people who have successfully defended themselves many times maybe would not think of seeking out karate in the first place).  

Like one of the other posters above I have had lessons from an instructor who was definitely "hard" and had worked as a doorman for years in different countries,  but incredibly the bunkai he taught was worse than useless choreographed stuff we have all seen before. Therefore I can confirm that this type of experience does not guarantee that the instruction will be good.       

I think if all else is equal an instructor with this experience should definitely add extra valuable knowledge and insight to the mix as long as his teaching skills and general understanding are up to scratch.  But I don't think this experience is essential - I think a well-rounded instructor without vast "street" experience is way better than the one I mentioned above.

We now all have lots of good and not so good resources to learn from (internet, seminars etc),  but regardless of the experience of the  instructor you got an idea from at some stage it must be up to all of us individually to make techniques "our own" through some sort of repeated pressure testing and increased resistance in training in order to decide which ones work for us individually. 

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

Is that you Doddy?

If it is I think we are talking about the same instructor. I would totally agree with you regarding some aspects of the choreographed stuff he would teach ( although to be fair they were often done to teach an emergent principle, rather than specific techniques).

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it was more the attitude that was valuable. Although unpleasant, it would certainly shake up the rather cosy training environment that can often evolve where a group are very used to each other.

This I think is a common failing with dojo communities, things become predestrian, which doesn't replicated the emotional trauma and build coping mechanisms vital to be effective in a real encounter.

Cheers

Tom

Dod
Dod's picture

Hi Tom,

Could be the same guy :) although I think there may be a few out there.  

I do agree that the mindset and attitude is important. I also think that it is importatnt for people like Mark continue to "keep us honest" although it may generally be preaching to the converted on this forum - yes, sometimes people post videos where the uke is not going fully at it, however, most people here should realise that demonstrating the mechanics of the move is only the first step, only repetition and increased resistance (and attitude) will prove it.  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dod wrote:
We now all have lots of good and not so good resources to learn from (internet, seminars etc),  but regardless of the experience of the  instructor you got an idea from at some stage it must be up to all of us individually to make techniques "our own" through some sort of repeated pressure testing and increased resistance in training in order to decide which ones work for us individually.

Very true. We are not hiring a bodyguard when we seek out martial arts instruction. It’s not what they can do, but what they can enable us to do.

The need for solid pressure testing is also key so people can learn what does and does not work for them. Experience enables us to create drills that reflect the goals and nature of such situations. So maybe there is another aspect worthy of demarcation here?

Stating “this technique worked for me, so it will work for you” is not overly useful. We are all different and what one finds easy another can find difficult.  So it that sense the value of personal experience is limited. However, what is very useful is experience of how violence works and feels like generally. And that is useful because is enables us to create drills to help the individuals find what works for them.

The paradox is that it is this “recreated violence”, and the associated journey of learning and discovery, that is most useful to the student. Now if that student learns the drills well, such that they are able to run others through them so they can in turn learn from them, is anything lost? The second generation student is doing the exact same drills, which will be communicated and ran in the exact same way, and hence they have the exact same learning opportunities; even though they are being taught them by someone with no first-hand experience. It is the fact the drill is based on real experience that is key. Indeed, this is the same process that the worlds’ militaries use to prepare people for combat. It works.

Dod wrote:
Like one of the other posters above I have had lessons from an instructor who was definitely "hard" and had worked as a doorman for years in different countries,  but incredibly the bunkai he taught was worse than useless choreographed stuff we have all seen before. Therefore I can confirm that this type of experience does not guarantee that the instruction will be good.

That’s the other side of it. Here we have a person with real life experience, teaching drills not based on that experience. So again it’s not that real life experience is key; what is key is that the training is key based on real life experience.

This is a nuanced topic and neither of the following statements hold up to close scrutiny without qualification:

1 – Real life experience is not needed

2 – Real life experience is a must

As the thread has shown, both statements have an element of truth, but that truth is dependent on many other qualifying factors.

One element that has only being skated over so far is the following:

If a person is of the view that personal real life experience is a must for all instructors, then what do you do to qualify your students to teach?

Insist on work in the security field? Tell them to start hanging out in dangerous places? Or do you just accept that you can never teach people to instructor level?

I know of a group that used to demand at least 6 months door work for all dan grades, but they stopped that because it was found to be not practical. People have families and jobs that can’t permit taking on an extra job. Security firms are also not keen on employing a person temporarily for the sole purpose of them gaining a martial arts rank.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Assuming that the instructor in question is a well versed karateka who is able to communicate ideas, concepts and emotions to their students and everything else that makes a good teacher.

Does an instructor who teaches karate kata bunkai and applications need to have personal experience in violent encounters?

I would think that actual hands-on experience in violent encounters may enable the instructor to

a1) authentically speak about the emotional side of being victimised and the aftermath of having survived the situation, or

a2) authentically refer to how criminals think, or

a3) authentically tell you how easily the monkey brain may take over if your ego is being challenged, and

b) instictively assess the practicability of possible techniques, because they have an idea of the stress and the speed of real-life violence.

But is this kind of personal experience on the instructor's side an essential requirement for teaching self-defence based on karate kata?

It sure helps, I guess. No argument about that. But I don't think it is indispensable.

The problem is that the students will have only second-hand experience to work with in either case. So for them it does not really matter whether the instructor has experienced violence themselves or whether they "only" draw upon extensive studies and training. What matters is how well their instructor can prepare them for avoiding or resolving an eventual violent situation.

A question that follows directly from the original question of first-hand experience of the instructor is:

Can students of an instructor who had first-hand experience of violence become competent self-defence instructors themselves although they were able to avoid any violent situations themselves (due to the training they received from their experienced instructor)?

I would say, they can, because the lessons from the actual experience would have found their way into their teaching methods.

Four more thoughts came to my mind when I pondered over this topic:

1) Karate kata are essentially lessons from personal experience of violent encounters. They convey stuff that has worked for the past masters.

2) Instructors who have been able to avoid violent encounters entirely throughout their life may also have important first-hand experience to refer to, if they are aware of how they did manage to avoid dangerous situations: They can authentically teach their way of self-protection.

3) In training we want to be realistic, but we also want to avoid serious injuries to our training partners. Therefore training self-defence can never be "real". I think that avoiding injuries should not only refer to physical injuries but also to psychological injuries: Self-defence should be pressure tested, of course, but not to a level where the students would be traumatised by psychological stress inflicted on them. In the end, as Iain has often proposed, our training should not only be life-preserving but also life-enhancing. I don't want to actually be beaten up every week by the folks I like just to condition myself for the highly unlikely case of being attacked in reality. I like to take training seriously, but training should still be fun.

4) Can first-aid only be taught by an instructor who has been a first-aider at least once or twice in their lifetime? Can it only be taught by professional paramedics who administer first-aid on a day-to-day basis? Could it also be taught by well trained people who use the same training methods? Should first-aid training for the average person include stress training including noise, smoke, blood and the like?

Take care, everybody

Marc  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Marc,

That’s a good post with well-argued points. The first-aid analogy is one I want to draw out because it brings up some interesting points. They are quite different in many ways so not a perfect analogy, but still there are some potentially interesting talking points around it:

Marc wrote:
4) Can first-aid only be taught by an instructor who has been a first-aider at least once or twice in their lifetime? Can it only be taught by professional paramedics who administer first-aid on a day-to-day basis? Could it also be taught by well-trained people who use the same training methods? Should first-aid training for the average person include stress training including noise, smoke, blood and the like?

First-aid training is all about doing what we can to stop a situation getting worse until the experts arrive. It’s not about making people medical experts. The training is given by those with a much higher degree of skill and knowledge. And, importantly for the purpose of this thread, the training is based on best practise determined by studies that take into account the experiences of a great many people. People don’t teach first aid on the basis of personal experience alone. The information is based on the collective experience of a great many people.

Just like a first-aid course, a basic self-defence course is not seeking to make experts. It will cover the basic habits and security precautions a person can take to make them less vulnerable to crime. It may also cover some basic physical skills as a back-up should the soft skills fail.

I recently ran a course for a local women’s group where the average age would have been around seventy. It’s not appropriate to get them to hit pads and do live scenario training, but you can cover the precautions they can take to make themselves less likely to be a target (which is what self-protection should focus on anyway). Having done this course, they are not qualified to teach self-defence. But I’m sure they could still share the information given to them with others in a way that would benefit those people.

There is a demarcation between trained and trainer in both first-aid and self-protection. There’s also an element of the level we are seeking operate at too.

I have done many first-aid courses, both for my previous employment and in my role as a martial arts instructor. The work based ones did indeed include simulations with make-up, fake blood, screaming, etc. The last work based course I did had two scenarios as part of the final test: one was a person who had fell from a height (unconscious), the other was someone with their leg trapped under a heavy object (conscious). It was a useful exercise that moved things away from “desk top exercises” to a closer approximation of how things really happen. The simulation was regarded as a sufficient test of my skills to perform, but the main thrust of this thread is whether people can teach without real word experience.

There can be very few first aid teachers who have had to deal with every conceivable injury or illness, and yet they teach it. They teach how to deal with gassing, suicide attempts, electrocution, car accidents, poisoning, assault, etc, etc. One commonality though is they are all high stress situations. Direct experience of any of the aforementioned will provide such stress and will enable the trainer to talk from experience about that stress in general terms. They are certainly able to effectively teach things they may not have direct experience of doing themselves though.

Does anyone know if first-aid teachers can’t become qualified unless they have a certain degree of real world experience? If so, what is that level? It would be interesting to have that info as part of the thread.

A few months ago I did have a situation where a person was choking. It was a bacon sandwich blocking the airway and I was at the other end of a corridor from him. I was in the waiting area of the local courts so there were lots of people there. As I ran down the corridor, someone tried backslaps but it did not work. The guy was very distressed (as was the woman with him). I took over and eventually applied abdominal thrusts which cleared the airway. I’ve never had to do that before and I’ve never done a “stress-test scenario” of it before either (just a few walk throughs). I was able to do what was needed though. I have no idea if the person who taught me how to deal with choking on my last first-aid course has “done it live”. What I can say is whatever teacher training they got – based on the combined experience of the medical world – was sufficient to impart the skills needed to me. And, even if they have never done that for real, they would still be better teachers of it than me, even though I have. Their access to the collective experience and their greater education would trump my personal experience.

I’ve also had real experience of first-aid with unconscious people, people not breathing, a person losing part of their finger, people with acid on them, foreign bodies in eyes, even wounds that potentially had radioactive material entering the body (which very few people can have direct experience of), but it’s all nothing compared to someone who has been properly trained to teach first-aid. Irrespective of whether they have done the all the aforementioned or not, they are better qualified to teach it.

Those in the UK may remember the episode of “Cutting Edge” (Channel 4 documentary series) that covered Peter Consterdine training up prospective bodyguards. The first-aid section of that had Peter tell the various individuals there was “no pressure” and when he opened the room for one of the first aid tests there was a BANG and a body lying on the floor with “intestines” (meat) hanging out. Peter is screaming at them to act and, unbeknown to the person being tested, there was a person with a handgun hidden in the room. As they entered to deal with the badly injured person, the gun man shot at them. So something of a high stress test :-) But entirely appropriate for the field in which those trained are going to operate. As I recall, only one woman passed the test because she alone refused to enter the room without backup. All others got themselves “killed” and hence we unable to assist the injured person.

Military medics also get training based on collective experience and simulated experiences. The training is not based on the sole experience of the individual giving the training.

So I think there are some interesting parallels between first-aid and self-defence. However, one huge difference is the ease and legality of gaining personal experience. If a first-aider wants experience of dealing with impact injuries, for example, they can simply volunteer to be part of the medical support at a karate tournament. In doing so they are not putting themselves directly in harm’s way nor are they doing anything potentially illegal.

As I said in the post above, if real life experience is a must to teach self-defence, how do we get potential instructors that experience?

Asking if first aid teachers need real life experience to become qualified raises another point we may want to explore as part of the thread:

If the position is taken that live experience is a must, I think we then need to ask how much is enough to give that experience? One situation? A dozen situations? A hundred? Is there a point where experience of the physical side of things points to an undesirable inability to avoid conflict? What the ballance?

We could also ask why experience of avoiding conflict is not valued as much as experience of actual conflict in the martial arts / RBSD world? Is it simply because it’s less tangible to qualify i.e. we are talking about things that didn’t happen as opposed to things that did? Or is it maybe the perception that conflict gives better “bragging rights” than avoidance in a frequently testosterone driven subculture?

Ultimately I feel that real-life experience is very useful (including experience of resolving situations via non-physical means), but only if it is combined with good teaching skills and the inclusion of the collective experience of many across the full spectum of violent crime. I don’t feel real-life experience is a must for teachers though, so long as their training have been effectively given and is in full accord with the collective experience of those who have had that experience. Basically what I said in my first post.

However, irrespective of what view will all finally take away, it would be good to fully explore the topic and maybe some of the questions in the paragraphs above would be a good jumping off point for areas not yet touched on?

All the best,

Iain

Tau
Tau's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Does anyone know if first-aid teachers can’t become qualified unless they have a certain degree of real world experience? If so, what is that level? It would be interesting to have that info as part of the thread.

On another Martial Arts forum some years ago the comparison between emergency first aid and martial arts came up and the conclusion was that there is much in common. For those new to the forum I am personally a "Martial Arts expert" and a emergency care provision expert. My use and non-use of inverted commas is deliberate wink

In the UK a person can undergo training to teach first aid and become qualified to do so with NO live experience whatsoever. Much like we can become Martial Arts teachers without ever having live experience. And yes, the first aid teaching environment / dojo can do better or worse jobs at simulating reality and best preparing students.

I typed in an earlier post about how I choose to respect or disregard the views of different people or indeed respect or disregard the people themselves based on what they have to say and applying to a critical mind. All Martial Artists (all students of any art or science?) should not take information at face value. To consider one individual on this forum, Mark B talks of one domain of live experience and I respect his view and am inclined to accept what has to say. I appreciate that there are limits to his experience as we've explored on this thread. On the other hand there is one sometime-member of this forum who's views I've chosen to completely disregard despite the confidence with which he types. This is because his “experience” is completely incongruent with everyone else’s including my own observations. Equally so I have my speciality in emergency care but I have limits. There are some domains in which my knowledge and skill is on a par with senior A&E Drs but other domains in which I have a working knowledge only. I can talk about the scaphoid bone at length, indeed it’s very much within my speciality and is a fascinating bone. I treat potential scaphoid injuries every week. I can talk you through the anatomy and physiology of the kidney but I confess to limited knowledge. If you have a kidney injury then I’m going to refer you to the experts for investigation. Does this mean that information that I present about the kidney doesn’t have validity? Is the information that I present on aspects of self protection lacking validity?

Considering first aid and Martial Arts, you can undertake short courses and get competence in a very narrow and shallow skill set. The emphasis is on proven-effective simple skills. This will, however, enable you to save life and limb (no guarantees!) Many people choose to take up emergency care as a lifetime study. In Martial Arts, you can undertake short courses and get competence in a very narrow and shallow skill set. The emphasis is on proven-effective simple skills. This will, however, enable you to preserve your life and wellbeing (no guarantees!) Many people choose to take up Martial Arts as a lifetime study.

And of course it’s seldom black-and-white. A person may talk of having “no experience” but it’s relative. Iain talks of a successful life-saving intervention and this is more than many first aid instructors will have experienced. Who here has been a victim of a sexual assault? Who here has treated people who have been victims of sexual assault? Should the teaching of self protection in relation to sexual assault be restricted to only those who have been victims of it? Should the teaching of management of spine injuries in first aid be carried out only by those who’ve done it for real?

Sorry, I’ve rambled but I strongly feel that the comparison is a great one. The teaching and learning of both first aid and martial arts can have life-changing consequences?

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi all,

I think this thread has turned into a really useful debate which has thrown up loads of great points.

For my part I have re read my contributions and they do come across as very direct - that is my way, however no offence was intended to anyone and the tone of my posts wasn't intended to be quite as blunt as they eventually came across.  It is sometimes difficult to judge an intended tone through a short forum post. That said, I do tend to be very direct (my wife regularly reminds me of this fact), but by the same token I'm perfectly happy for others to be as direct/blunt in return:-).

 I'm happy to accept the idea that actual experience may not be necessary to teach perfectly sound karate/martial arts,  some excellent examples of how this can be done have been shared.  

I have the upmost respect for anyone who works in the emergency care environment,  one of my students is an A&E professional,  I couldn't do it.

I did however do a work related first aid course. Very interesting.  It also showed me that a few years earlier when my step daughter was young and choking on a boiled sweet that my striking her on the back while she was sat up was in fact the wrong thing, but it worked thankfully.  On my course I was told the the patient should be leaning forward from the hips with their head low before striking her back, as being upright whilst striking could make the problem worse. So I  did the wrong thing but achieved the desired result - that's  good ......I think.

Marcs post was excellent,  I thought. 

His points a 1-3 and point b summed up very nicely why I  think experience ( channelled correctly ) is so useful. However,  he shared  counter points, as others have which, I  have to confess, make good sense.

Regards 

Mark 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Coincidentally, today's news tells us that Dr Heimlich has used his own manoeuvre for the very first time to save a choking woman's life:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36397934

"He said he had demonstrated the life-saving method of dislodging something stuck in the windpipe many times, but never used it for real."

So, as mentioned in the above post, before today I therefore had more real life experience of using his method than he did!

All the best,

Iain

Pages