49 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dod
Dod's picture

Tau wrote:
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.

This comment weighed quite heavily on me, and I felt I should hazard a few more words.

I think it is normal to read views of some commenters more avidly than others depending on affinity with their previous comments.  As said above cream always rises.

I’m guessing that the comments are not disregarded because of perceived junior status of the commenter – especially on the current topic of teachers since the views of students could be interesting as well as the many accomplished instructors on the forum.

Rather the views are disregarded as it is believed someone is trying to make out to be something he is not, which is a different matter.

To clarify my own position,  I am perfectly comfortable with where I am on my long-term learning pathway and If I have given the impression that I was more senior that was an unintended error I can learn from. I am where I am and am not competing with anyone. Making comments can help to consolidate your own thinking.

It is only in the last 5 years that I started training again and researching after stumbling upon the teachings of Sensei Iain and others of the same stock who gave instant meaning to the katas I “learned” in the 80’s and 90’s in different clubs without proper explanation.  I was happy to start at white belt again because of a lapse of over a decade, and am just about to be dan grade for the first time.  I note that my first gradings as a youngster were in 1981 and 82 by Tomita sensei (not that I knew him from Adam).

(Incidentally I am wary of giving full name on the internet in relation to karate only because despite neither advertising or hiding my training I repeatedly discovered (in school, work, TA) that people can wrongly change their views about you,  make a big deal of it,  and and even test you.   

Tau
Tau's picture

Dod wrote:

Tau Said:"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."

This comment weighed quite heavily on me, and I felt I should hazard a few more words.

I think it is normal to read views of some commenters more avidly than others depending on affinity with their previous comments.  As said above cream always rises.

I’m guessing that the comments are not disregarded because of perceived junior status of the commenter – especially on the current topic of teachers since the views of students could be interesting as well as the many accomplished instructors on the forum.

Rather the views are disregarded as it is believed someone is trying to make out to be something he is not, which is a different matter.

Not quite. I want to be careful so as to not sew poisoned seeds on the forum. I won't name the individual but I'm sure long-term members who know who I'm referring to.

Let's keep on-topic to best explain. I typed about taking in information with a critical mind. I openly admit I don't have a huge amount of real-life experience of violence (although arguably still more than most people.) However my job means I gain certain insights into violence - how it occurs, between whom, what the causative factors are, what injuries occur, what the aftermath is. I'm current working a series of night shifts and it's a bank holiday weekend. Last night alone I treated two victims of assault. I'm also a confidant and outspoken person. I've told the following to Iain in person more as an endoresement than anything else.

As someone that isn't regularly exposed to violence I defer to the experts on the matter. People like Iain, Geof Thompson, Peter Consterdine, Kris Wilder, Rory Miller and many others because of their prominence I'm inclined to believe what they have to say. And I've been fortunate enough to train with all of those gentlemen in person. BUT I also have my own perceptions of violence based on what I've learned from my occupation. If my findings ran in contradiction to the information that we recieve from them then I would say so. I have no problem with speaking with mind. But.... my findings are entirely in congruence with what they tell us.

However, one forum member who types with authority insists that this isn't how violence happens. His concepts of bunkai are, in my opinion, bizarre. What I've found frustrating is that he'll tell us that we're wrong but he won't give us what he believes is correct.

So this is why I choose to acknowledge or disregard the views of different people. Again, keep an open and critical mind on everything you're told.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi all I want to add one more post to this thread. I was going to start a new topic titled "moments of clarity" but decided the things I wanted to say were still relevant to this conversation. Last Saturday I attended a lovely wedding and reception at a very nice hotel close to where I live. I say lovely, it was until one or two had too much alcohol to drink. The inevitable fracas ensued, at which point I found myself in a situation where one of the main protagonists was in front of me. My brother in law watched on and described how calm I appeared, whilst at the same time, he said, I looked completely switched on and in control (he also noticed the angle I adopted in relation to the guy in front of me) Now to the point - yes, I felt absolutely calm in the face of extreme aggression. I calmly tried to talk him down. However, I was absolutely prepared and willing to strike pre emptively if necessary. That's great, BUT, due to having the actual previous experience I was well aware that the guy in front of me might get the jump on me at this point. He's a big guy, heavily built. Apart from the clarity of my thought processes at this pre emptive stage I was also already certain that in the event of his instigating an habitual act of physical violence my study of Kata (mainly Naihanchi) would absolutely prove effective. This is based on my existing knowledge of this type of violence - speed, intent, predictable selection, etc allied to the templates of Kata I practice and impact work in which I'm proficient. If nothing else it once again demonstrated to me the value of karate, particularly practiced in the old ways of pragmatic close quarter civilian self defence. Alongside the inside knowledge of how it "feels" inside the "ruck" it really is one of the great life enhancing practices. Regards Mark

Tau
Tau's picture

Mark. Interesting and entirely relevent. One more face of violence exposed there. Just out of interest, this being a wedding, were you drinking alcohol? Does your Martial Arts influence your alcohol consumption?

From my end, I've just done four night shifts over the bank holiday. I was under no illussion what I was in for although in fairness it could have been much worse. I treated several assault cases. Saturday night when the Police attended one victim they said their whole night was being spent going between cases of violence. It's a sad state of affairs. At no point did I have any problems personally. All of my patients were the victims and were grateful for my treatment. Most were drunk. What got to me this was some of acts of violence performed. I can't go into detail for professional reasons. I will say that I had nothing life-threatening; no stabbings or anything that serious. But still, things done to other humans that I just can't grasp. Again, it makes me re-think the nature of violence and the challenges that we may face.

Marc
Marc's picture

Mark B wrote:

I found myself in a situation where one of the main protagonists was in front of me. My brother in law watched on and described how calm I appeared, whilst at the same time, he said, I looked completely switched on and in control (he also noticed the angle I adopted in relation to the guy in front of me) Now to the point - yes, I felt absolutely calm in the face of extreme aggression. I calmly tried to talk him down. However, I was absolutely prepared and willing to strike pre emptively if necessary.

Hi Mark, thanks for sharing your experience. How did it end? I hope it could be resolved peacefully.

To everybody, the situation Mark describes brings up a question that might deserve a thread of its own: This being a wedding, a gathering of friends to celebrate the love of two people - a scene of punches, blood and broken limbs would certainly ruin the experience.

So the question is: Should we train for potentially life threatening self-defence situations only, or should we also include methods to deal with family, friends and aquaintances who we can't handle the same way, because ... well, the situation is different? Or would you say that this sort of context is irrelevant?

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Tau, yes I did have a few drinks, but my martial training definitely does have an effect on how much I personally consume, and how quickly. It's fair to say I wasn't expecting trouble that day, and certainly not with the particular individuals involved. Touching on your comments regarding your work last week it is sickening when we see the violence people will inflict on another person, and so often for the most trivial of reasons. Marc, it did de-escalate at first, at which point I returned indoors (if was a warm sunny day, the altercation took place outside). Unfortunately the altercation reignited, once again outside. I decided I'd done my best and stayed away, plus my wife and her friend were now indoors, they were outside initially which is why I went out in the first place. It was obvious by now that the idiots doing the fighting weren't for cooling off and seeing sense. The hotel called the police. Very embarrassing for all the wedding guests who were interested only in enjoying a pleasant function with family and friends. I personally think an inclusive karate training system should consider "stopping" options, and a more passive "disrupt & restrain" approach also. It only takes a minor adjustment in technique application to switch between the two, as the principles are consistent. From a study point of view (albeit at very close proximity) it was really interesting to see the initial clash between the two parties - one head down and windmilling, the other trying to keep his face out of the way which meant he was trying to punch "linear", but while at the same time leaning back. Classic stuff!!! & exactly the type of most popular habitual acts of physical violence training in kata is designed to neutralise. It was interesting to note also that neither of the idiots managed to land a meaningful clean blow. Regards Mark

Tau
Tau's picture

Mark B wrote:
Tau, yes I did have a few drinks, but my martial training definitely does have an effect on how much I personally consume

Interesting. New thread, methinks

DaveB
DaveB's picture

This thread begs the question, if experience of violence is of value and real violence is illegal, shouldn't we look to require instructors to have experience of full contact fighting competition as a secondary alternative?

Marc
Marc's picture

DaveB wrote:
This thread begs the question, if experience of violence is of value and real violence is illegal, shouldn't we look to require instructors to have experience of full contact fighting competition as a secondary alternative?

Although full contact fighting competition surely covers some aspects of real violence, it is still a sport. Hence the "rules of engagement" are very different. I therefore think that, again, the experience might be helpful in judging whether techniques can be effective and which might work under speed and pressure, but it is not necessary for being able teach good self-defence karate.

Two articles and a podcast by Iain explain important points about the relation of competition and self-defence:

What TMA can learn from MMA (e.g. pressure testing).

The Nature of Fighting , especially the last section "Real fights are not like sporting contests".

The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) (on the overlapping skills of different fighting contexts).

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Full contact training  (not necessarily competition ) has its place. I don't however think that it can be considered as an adequate alternative to actual experience. 

One major issue is the reason why kata applications are effective in the first place - applications of kata are not efficient against someone who is aware of the techniques being used against them. They are however most effective against someone with no prior knowledge of the methods being used against them.

Motobu Choki told us as much, and this is a vital consideration.  Yes, full contact or extremely vigorous training is fine, but I  don't think it is particularly useful in trying to drill kata applications against a trained opponent,  as by definition we will begin "sparring", which is not close quarter combat of the type experienced in a dire self defence situation, nor what we should be aiming towards in self defence. 

DaveB
DaveB's picture

Mark and Marc, I know all the arguments differentiating sport and real violence and honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other. But following the logic, some experience has to be better than no experience.

We may not consider sports the equal of real experience but it is the only environment where someone with no ties to you will legally try to do you harm.

Similarly it may not prepare us for the shock of being jumped, but the need to overcome adrenaline or to defend after an unexpected bell ringer may well be found in sport.

As for Choki Motobu, I completely disagree with him and that interpretation of kata. I firmly believe that he's no different to the karateka who got their hearts broken by bjj fighter's in the early days of mma. Getting your arse beat by something new is a reason to reflect on your flaws and improve. Limiting the scope of your fighting art is just an excuse.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi Dave

I tend to interpret the statement of Motobu slightly differently. 

One of the examples I frequently use in my dojo is from a lapel grab. Aggressor grabs lapel and punches to my face. That's what aggressor expects to happen.

Now for the interpretation of kata according to Motobu.  

Aggressor grabs lapel  - I shift my weight back, which instantly disrupts aggressors intention.  I strike with hammer fist into aggressors arm and drive my forearm into aggressors jaw delivering stopping power, aggressor slumps to the ground.

I believe this is what Motobu was referring to. If aggressor had any notion of the techniques that could be used against him surely he would have thought twice before initiating an attack.

Regards 

Mark 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

DaveB wrote:
Mark and Marc, I know all the arguments differentiating sport and real violence and honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other. But following the logic, some experience has to be better than no experience.

We may not consider sports the equal of real experience but it is the only environment where someone with no ties to you will legally try to do you harm …

The dynamic of the two environments is markedly different, but there is obviously some commonality when it comes to dealing with adrenaline etc. That said, competitively it tends to be the slow build up because you know when you’ll be fighting. You can therefore prepare better. For self-protection it is a huge spike and you don’t know it’s going to happen weeks ahead.

I think Combat Sports can stand on their own and don’t need a strained link to self-protection to give them value. There is some cross over, but, for me, competitive martial arts are their own entity and have their own inherent value:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/defence-combat-sports

Back to the point, I would not say that competitive martial arts where a must have either. They are good, enjoyable and beneficial, but it is possible to pursue other areas of the martial arts without partaking in competative offshoots.

DaveB wrote:
As for Choki Motobu, I completely disagree with him and that interpretation of kata. I firmly believe that he's no different to the karateka who got their hearts broken by bjj fighter's in the early days of mma. Getting your arse beat by something new is a reason to reflect on your flaws and improve. Limiting the scope of your fighting art is just an excuse.

I would not see it as “limiting your scope” but instead focusing your training i.e. understanding the importance of using the right skill set in the right environment. Motobu is merely reflecting what others have said:

“[Karate] is not intended to be used against a single assailant but instead as a way of avoiding injury by using the hands and feet should one by any chance be confronted by a villain or ruffian.” – Anko Itosu, 1908

Here we can also see that the karate of Itosu’s time – which is the karate of the kata – was not intended for a “single assailant” (i.e. a square go or a consensual fight), but instead for “avoiding injury” (not “winning”) during a chance encounter with the criminal element i.e. self-protection.

While modern karate may also look at fighting skills – that’s certainly part of my teaching and practise – it’s very clear the kata are wholly self-protection focused.

In addition to what the likes of Itosu and Motubu tell us, you only need look at the kata themselves to see that. There’s no back and forth footwork, no guards, no methods for closing an exaggerated gap, and on and on. Those things can be part of our karate today, but they are not part of the kata and they are not part of karate of the past; which was essentially the karate of the kata.

In one of his books Rory Miller – not a karateka himself – remarks that the motions in kata look exactly like the motions of criminal violence to him. He has also remarked that karateka have a bad habit of taking these methods and trying to apply them at sparring range “where it sucks”. This is pretty much what Motobu and Itosu were saying too.

So I think the fact that the kata are self-protection focused and not fighting focused is undeniable historically and practically.

We need focused training. If we are training for self-protection, then we need to train in the most fitting way. We should not mix that skill set up with other methods that are not a good fit for violence of that nature. That would inefficient and potentially dangerous. There is no “one size fits all” method. To me it is a strength that the kata are clear in their focus.

I also think you are being unfair to Motobu. He was reflecting on his limitations when he made his statement. He was not “limiting the scope of his fighting art” retrospectively as an "excuse", but accurately reflecting on the pre-existing nature and remit of his training up to that point.

“The techniques of kata have their limits and were never intended to be used against an opponent in an arena or on a battlefield.” – Choki Motobu

He tried using those methods against a wrestler, and found them a poor fit. I’d agree that what is needed to defeat a wrestler in a square go, and what is need to avoid injury when faced with criminal violence, are not the same. We have different objectives, tactics and choice of techniques.

If Motobu wanted to go on to defeat wrestlers in duels, then he needed to study methods that will help with that (which are not found in the self-protection focused kata). That’s exactly what he is saying.

Conversely, taking wrestling without any adaptation into a self-protection environment is similarly pretty much doomed to fail. A takedown and a pin could see you stabbed repeatedly by accomplices and removes your opportunity to flee. Wresting does also not teach you how to deal with a barrage of strikes either. And so on. Not that there is anything wrong with wrestling, it’s just a fighting method designed to be very effective for a specific objective. Old style karate is just the same.

People often get defensive about Itosu’s and Motobu’s comments, and I know the offence karateka can take when folks like me back up those comments. When I say “the kata were not designed for a consensual fight with a fellow martial artist” what some folks hear is “karate is deficient and martial artists from other styles can easily defeat us”. What they are missing is the vital importance of CONTEXT.

If you use the methods of kata to fist fight a boxer then you will get your ass kicked. If you use the methods of kata to try to out-judo a judoka then you will lose fast. However, if you correctly apply the methods of the kata in self-protection they will work very well. Use a hammer to knock in nails, and use a paint brush to spread paint. Try to use either tool for the other’s task and it just won’t work … and that’s not because either tool is deficient; it’s because they are designed to be optimal for a clearly designated function.

I also think the confusion often arises from “mono-context thinking” i.e. there is only one kind of fighting. As this thread has covered, there needs to be a solid appreciation of the kind of violence we are dealing with in self-protection (whether that needs to come for direct experience or informed education has been the point of debate). If people only understand consensual fighting, they wrongly assume all violence is like that … and they then take offence at the Motobu and Itosu statements because they read them as saying karate can only beat untrained people and not martial artists from other styles. But that’s to miss the point entirely. Criminal violence has a different objective and dynamic to consensual fighting; and therefore they have different optimal solutions. Not better or worse, just different and context specific.

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/context-context-context-podcast

One of the great strengths of kata is that it is so focused. It is an optimal solution to the specific problem it was designed to address. I don’t want an unfocused muddled mess of generic “fighting skills” that fails to differentiate between contexts and fails to clearly define the different objectives in differing situations. That’s not going to be effective training.

Modern karate can extend its scope also look at “duelling skills” too. However, we still need to use the right tool for the right job. In my dojo the fighting skills are kept distinct from the physical self-protection skills. It is the kata and associated drills (both live and set) that cover the latter. The former are not to be found in the kata. That’s a good thing in my view.

All the best,

Iain

JWT
JWT's picture

Mark B wrote:

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??

Hi Mark  

I'm sorry for being one of the non responders. In my defence I was also a non reader until Iain shared a post on facebook. I have a lot on at present so am trying to stay away from forums where the itch to enter into discussion and idea sharing can be very strong. :)  

My answer to your question is 'it depends'.   

I've been in a number of poor situations in my life. Some of which with hindsight and over twenty years more life experience I know I could have avoided, others I could not. Some have been resolved with violence, others have avoided violence. In some I received rather nasty injuries, in others no injuries. In some I have experienced them in a professional capacity (security) which has influenced my mindset, preparation and response, while in others I have simply been trying to go about my normal life before being caught up in a very dangerous situation with very little warning.  

I can talk to people about 'reality' based on my experience. I can talk about 'reality' based on the knowledge and experience of many others which is available through a number of excellent texts. I can break down different levels of physiological response. But mental understanding from observation/reading  is not the same as the understanding that comes from the physical experience, though having the latter throws new light on the former so that you can experience through observation because of past physical experience (if you are skilled in visual and tactile mental replication).  

I know that in a great many ways I can recreate much of the psychological and physical response of a real event in a safe training environment - I know it because I have tried it and felt it to be 'close' to reality, and I have witnessed the reactions of participants in my training for whom it has felt very much like reality (one even feeling it was real, although we had to point out that a real attacker would not have stopped as soon as the safety word was called).  

The catch is that it isn't real. Even if it feels that way. Now I know that many of the people who have come to me have not experienced any real events, though some are quite experienced in comabt sport disciplines, and I also know that some are highly experienced in dealing with real events and HAOV (for example LEOs). For most the training is a real eye opener, no matter how much they have trained drills, or seen or read, being there is different. So even with personal real experience, I can talk to my students and give them experience based lessons, but until they've done that scenario training they won't fully feel the lessons of that bunkai training. Whether or not they take the next step and have to apply the physical element of their training outside of training will not I think make much difference to them as a teacher, or to the lessons they teach - because there are some things their students will never really 'get' until they've done it. So it is not the experience of the teacher per se that really counts here, it is the quality of the material being taught and how that has been assembled.  

I do think though there are other ways we can understand how are bunkai will play out, which is very important as most non consensual violent events tend to be too short to run through your bunkai repertoire and genuine individual experience of  non consensual violence should not only be fairly rare but also avoided. Most bunkai training, just like most kumite training, begins with static drills. Once students get to the stage where they are a ittle cocky, you up the ante and watch some of those things fail and the positions they create. These positions give rise to a different tier of bunkai drills. If these fail they give rise to other positions and other drills. So through failure cascade you can create for the student the pressure and dynamism of negating a sustained attack. This can replicate the speed and aggression of a real event and test the physical abilities. Graham Palmer who also posts on this forum has done (and shared here) some excellent videos where he demonstrates how sustained pressurised impact work can elevate the heart rate to adrenal levels resulting in the loss of fine motor skill, something that could be the precursor to one of these cascade failure drills if you wanted to assess skills access with that added dynamic. When Graham last came to a Sim Day with me we used the same padlocks to test reactions after mere seconds of violence and found that the results were pretty similar (after only a minute of verbal followed by 1-6 seconds of fighting). I intend to do that experiment again as we had delays in getting the padlocks to people post event. Simon O Brien has shown in videos shared here of his Bristol dojo how skills trained in kata and bunkai sessions can be applied under pressure in international BJJ competitions.  

So my answer is that depending on the type of training perameters you set yourselves, you should be able to get a very good idea of how your bunkai would play out for real and how you might react. I've seen some people adopt standing foetal positions - it happens, it's normal. What's important is helping them progress onwards from that experience and realisation, stretching not breaking.  

All the best  

John  

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Thanks for your input John. As with many of the other contributions on this thread you've made great points, well presented. I think I've already mentioned that one of the reasons I began this thread was because of stuff I've read on social media where individuals maintain you can't truly teach a martial art for real world self defence unless you have got a good amount of actual hands on experience - period!! No grey areas, no "alternatives" or replacements for the lack of said experience. I've got experience, and different types /scenarios /situations, but nowhere near what the people I'm referring to have, so maybe they would consider my experience inadequate, I don't know. I decided to retreat somewhat from my slightly aggressive position, not because I've changed my mind so much, more because I can't prove or disprove whether real experience is essential, as the people on social media absolutely say it is. One thing I will say regarding my experiences in relation to what I teach from kata, and how I teach it is time/speed/fear. I still maintain that no matter how good a scenario system is it will always lack that "thing" that makes real violence the repugnant experience which it truly is. Forearmed work that knowledge I have been able to help some of my students better deal with real situations on a physical, emotional, intuitive level, because, they tell me, it was just how I described it from experience, and because of that our training was on the money in dealing with all the elements before, during and after the given situation.

Regards

Mark

JWT
JWT's picture

Mark B wrote:

 I think I've already mentioned that one of the reasons I began this thread was because of stuff I've read on social media where individuals maintain you can't truly teach a martial art for real world self defence unless you have got a good amount of actual hands on experience - period!! No grey areas, no "alternatives" or replacements for the lack of said experience.

I wouldn't worry too much about social media claims or forum claims. People talk from the benefit of their experience or their imagination (and the internet is the home of childish posturing, falsehoods and trolling in ways that people would never do in real training venues). That does not necessary preclude the experience of other people. There are lots of good and safe ways to test what you are teaching, and there are lots of good sources from which an instructor can draw. Personally I am very wary of attributing any idea of 'self defence skill' to someone who claims to have been in lots of real violent altercations, and in terms of employment based experience, I tend to view that with the following analogy: "Basketball, football, netball, volleyball, cricket, rounders, baseball, ping pong, golf all use a round ball, can all have winners and losers, can all be competitive, share a number of common attrbutes, but they aren't the same thing."

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi John, I don't doubt the claims of the individuals I'm referring to, nor do I have an issue with what they say - I agree with a lot of it. Their assertion is that without first hand experience you shouldn't be teaching martial arts which claim to be for self defence - that's it, no grey areas!! I get what you're saying regarding different types of experience. Door work is often considered as a great acid test, I don't agree with that claim if we're talking about self defence.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

People do like things to be clear cut, but the reality is that taking un-nuanced positions on anything often results in more confusion (read a history book or watch the daily news to see this in endless effect). I also fear this thread is starting to run round and around in circles with nothing new being added.

Mark B wrote:
Their assertion is that without first-hand experience you shouldn't be teaching martial arts which claim to be for self-defence - that's it, no grey areas!!

It’s a poor assertion; and one I suspect is based more on ego than truth if it so tightly and dogmatically held onto.

There are lots of different kinds of violence and no one can have had experience of them all: protecting others, robbings, mugging, attempted rape, domestic violence, home invasion, carjacking etc. This has been discussed already so I’m not going to go over that again.

Mark B wrote:
Door work is often considered as a great acid test, I don't agree with that claim if we're talking about self-defence.

I agree that we can’t have direct experience of all types of violence, and they are different … but an attempted rape is different from a male on male “street violence” too. We can’t just choose the one type of violence and say it covers all, but all the other types of violence are limited.

Nuance is needed. Realising the limitation of personal experience is also needed. There is some commonality, but there is difference too. At some point we all need to draw on the experience of others. Again, I’m saying nothing new here.

To me, security work is one of the few positive ways to gain lots of experience of real violence. Such people are helping others remain safe in a way that helps society. I also feel Rory Milller (corrections), Lawrence Kane (venue security), Peter Consterdine (bodyguard and door man), Loren Christensen (police), etc have made massive contributions to this field across the board. Not just in the areas where they have direct personal experience.

To give a personal example, I have done a bomb awareness course that was delivered by Peter Consterdine. The course drew on materials and experience from all over the globe (the troubles in Norther Ireland, soldiers in Afghanistan, workers in animal testing facilities, etc). To my knowledge, Peter has never been involved in a bomb blast. However, his training, expertise, skill as a teacher and study of the field have made him an expert in this field. He regularly delivers training to individuals and institutions where this could be an issue. He also does risk assessments and designs policies to deal with potential explosives for companies and organisations.

My brother, however, has been directly involved in terrorist bombings (the 7 July 2005 London bombings). He survived and got out in largely one piece. Some of you may remember his on the scene interview as the media struggled to work out what happened. My brother had fragments in his back. The guy next to him on the tube was killed.

Now for education on bombing, do I go to my bother because he as “real life experience”? Or do I go to the guy with the education to really know what do to? They guy who has been trained by experts to deal with such situations? Even if such situations were simulations? I’m going to Peter. I feel any logical person would.

Being involved in an actual bombing is not the pivotal requirement. Knowing what you are taking about is.

It the same when it comes to self-protection for me. Real life experience can be helpful, but not vital and it will always be limited. Once again, I don’t think I’m saying anything new here.

Back to more “everyday” self-defence, if we write off all experience in the security field as being irrelevant, but maintain that real life experience is a must, then how do we suppose people get that experience?

It would seem that engaging in crime (as a criminal because we have already written off work in the security field) or being the potential victim of crime are the only sources of legitimacy. Not good or logically tenable.

In holding an un-nuanced, black / white position it inescapably follows that to teach rape defence we need “must be a rape survivor, or a rapist” as a qualification; and that’s obviously both amoral and ridiculous.

It’s also obviously false, as study after study shows. There was one from Canada this week that showed how effective learning self-protection can be in keeping women safe from sexual assault. Not all teachers are rape survivors; but if they are delivering good training then they are helping people.

I’m neither female nor have I ever been the victim of sexual assault. However, I can point to a number of female students of mine who have escaped and remained safe (including one attempted abduction and one attack at knife point) as a result of what they’ve been taught.

One of the most moving moments in my martial arts was when a former student thanked me for ensuring her children still have her as their mother. I have my experiences, but I have not experienced what she did.

If I had thought as some do – i.e. you need direct and specific experience of what you are teaching to defend against (even security work is not enough) – then that woman feels she would be dead, because I have not been attacked in that way and hence I should not have taught her.

Instead, I have learnt about the reality of such situations and designed training programs accordingly. I also believe that I remain a better teacher of those things despite her traumatic direct experiences, and I’m sure she would agree.

The direct experience young males get from being young and stupid has no real legitimacy. The only valid lesson is, “don’t be stupid” … we should not undermine that by making it into a “right of passage” or a must-have requirement.

“Don’t get into fights, but you’re going to have to if you want us to take you seriously” is a very dubious and inconstant view to put forth.

This needs to be about what is truly best for students; not about what sometimes amounts to little more than macho posturing.

What matters to me is that people get good quality training. Direct experience of all types of violent crime is impossible, unadvisable and unnecessary. What we need is training based on the reality of such situations as determined by collective experience (see previous posts).

I certainly would not want to disbar potentially good instructors from helping other people just because they had not ticked that particular violent crime off their “qualification tick list”.

If we are talking about teaching self-protection, then there is only one true test: That’s what our teaching does for our students.

If your students are better able to defend themselves after training with you; then you are doing a good job. That’s the bottom line.

If someone had loads of drunken fights as a youth then – aside from being something that should not be encouraged – it has no bearing on their overall level of education, skills as a teacher, ability to deliver effective programs, etc. But all this has been said before in this thread.

If people on other forums are going to stick to a totally un-nuanced position, then that’s their call. However, what I take from that is that that it’s not really about the reality of the issues (because, as this thread has shown, there are many reasons why such a firm position becomes impractical and illogical), but it is instead about them maintaining a position within their peer group.

It’s also not about what is best for the students either. If it was, then we would be focusing on the results of the training. A good training program is a good training program. If it gets results, it gets results. If that’s ignored in favour of the “qualifications” of the instructor, then it’s all about the “status” of the instructor; and that’s not where the focus should be.

Maintaining anything is a “must have”, without being able to articulate why, and sticking to self-serving dogma – as opposed to exploring genuine nuance – despite honest and legitimate challanges, means we are in “macho BS” territory. Other forums may be OK with that, but I’m pleased this one is a little more thoughtful.

To me, let the results of the teaching do the talking. A high dan grade, having trained with a certain group, real life experience, having studied in a certain part of the world, proficiency in a certain style, etc are often regarded as “must haves”. They are not. None of them are. We should judge by results. They can all be helpful, but the results of training are ultimately the only valid measure.

Real life experience can be useful; but it is not vial, nor is it the ultimate requirement of a good teacher. Many other things matter more. Training should always be based on reality, but relying on personal experience alone for that will result in limited one-dimensional training.

All the best,

Iain

Pages