cross

Or at the very least the instructor should make it clear with the student what the focus is before any training takes place.

This is an important point TigerDude, and if i can add a couple of thoughts: The part about martial arts instructors providing you with a service holds fairly true today, even if it was different in the past. The problem i see, particularly with traditional schools, is that even though the instructor is well aware that their main focus is the traditional aspects of the art, they still throw the "self defence" tag on there, or claim to teach "anti-grappling" or "secret groundfighting" found in their arts. They try to make their system fit every situation and be able to cover all bases, even though it most likely wont. Its kindof like a plumber claiming to be able to fix your car or something that has no relation to their job. You can rarely cover everything within one style, or fix everything with one "trade" under your belt, to follow the plumber analogy. If you step into a traditional school and say you wont to learn how to grapple, its rare to hear the instructor say "i suggest you should go to the bjj school down the street." More often they say "well we teach grappling that is found within the kata of our system".. They forget to mention that this makes up a tiny percentage of overall training. Or if you want to learn self defence and cover all aspects include pre, mid and post fight they rarely tell you to seek out someone who specialising in teaching this kind of thing, instead they try to make their system fit everyone and everything. Not doing so would mean admiting that they dont have all the answers, or that they may have something new to learn... this can be very hard for some people. So martial arts has a service.... i agree... and remember, you wouldnt call a plumber to fix your car. So use the same logic and common sense when selecting a martial art.

Definetly, that would be a good one to use if you are still in the begining of the talking stage and still evaluating the situation. The hand position also lends itself to a shot to the groin with your lower hand and a shot to the face with your higher hand. (or both at the same time).

Sounds like a new school may be in order for you. Do you still pay for lessons? If so, what are you actually getting.. Its hard to learn weapons unless you are under the watchful eye of a good instructor, being told that you wont be doing any of it in class but your expected to know it seems unacceptable to me.

Certainly, there is a fine line between using it at the right time or like you mentioned in your previous post, standing there looking silly when the person is just talking to you. It at times can be hard to tell, but thats where training comes in, knowing what kind of indicators an attacker will give off and how you should best react to them.

This is a good point baron, and i see where your coming from. However, i beleive the passive stance, or any other per fight posture has specific times when its used. This is where awareness is important. Im not suggesting that when someone walks up to you and asks for the time you should get into a passive stance, or if someone comes up to you and starts shouting abuse. Its not the only option for every potentially dangerous situation. If your are just having a conversation, then it is often not needed. Fights has a tendency of happening reasonable quickly. Sure, arguments can build up, if you let it, but you wont be in a passive stance the whole time, this position is predominently for use when the situation is close to becoming physical, or your personal space is being compromised. This is true, the idea would not be to hang around and chat, either talk until you are given a chance to leave, or until the other person leaves. If they are set on hurting you, not amount of talk will prevent it, however, rarely will someone have a long winded conversation with you if they are becoming more agressive, the longer the conversation goes (if the things you say are calming) the more chance you have of walking away without violence.

Making use of a specific, well practiced, pre-fight posture increases your ability to maintain distance, gives your opponent a false sense of security, puts you in position to reflexively respond to an attack, and allows for better overall control of the situation. There are lots of names floating around for this kind of thing. Passive stance, The Fence, Talking Stance, De-escalation Stance etc etc. Each one has slight differences, and while the basic principle is the same, they are unique in application and each is better suited for a different gameplan or circumstance. Personally, i practice the Passive Stance, has taught by Richard Dimitri (https://www.senshido.com). I find it provides the best all round position for effective self defence and offers a number of options in terms of response and pre-emptive attack. This should not be mistaken for a static posture like a stance in the traditional sense of the word. There is a practical methodology behind the posture. To get a picture in your mind, it looks like you have your hands up how you would if someone was pointing a gun at you and you were doing the "i surrender" pose, although the hands are a little more infront of the body and one foot is slightly forward of the other. The beauty of this position is that like the name suggests, its a "passive" response to any threat. Its almost borderline submissive, but this is used to your advantage. You can use it to guage and maintain distance by defining your personal space, and at the same time use verbal tactics to try and calm the situation. If you find yourself being challenged by someone because you were looking at them the wrong way or they dont like you for whatever reason, this position shows that you are not a threat and slightly raises the ego of your attacker. From here they may no longer see you has a challenge or threat to them and along with some verbal tactics from you, the situation ends there. Or, if they still feel the need to phyiscally attack you, or your in a different situation where physical attack is unavoidable, this position still raises the attackers ego, and at the same time, their "guard" drops slightly, because they feel they are in control of the situation and any physical response from you would be unexpected. This works in your favour because it gives you the element of surprise, and also lures the attacker a little closer to allow for effective pre-emptive striking on your part. Also having your hands in this position puts a direct barrier in between the attackers weapons(his fists, arms etc) and his expected targets(your face and body). This makes responding to any of his attacks alot easier for you being that he is now limited to how he can attack. In most cases he either goes straight down the middle, and you "close off" by bringing your arms closer.. or he goes around your hands in which case you "open up" by extending one or both arms to the outside of your body. Limiting your attackers striking options and therefore limiting your required defensive resposes is a huge advantage in any self defense situation. The less things you need to choose from means you are more likely to react correctly in the high stress event. Those are just some of my thoughts on the subject. Its not always covered in martial arts schools. Think about how you stand when sparring, and what position you practice most of your self defence techniques from, if you adopted the same position in response to a physical threat would the body language you give off match what you are saying("i dont want to fight" etc) in the situation? Thoughts and comments are welcome.

Do you think you will continue muay thai aswell?

Sounds like your heading in the right direction with jkd baron.

Well said baronbvp.

Maybe ill give him a discount of the electrical work im doing on his house at the moment.

Im considering speaking with the coach again and hopefully try to work out a deal where i can train and not compete. Will run it by him and see what happens.

Yeah, i dont mind training on my own, have some fairly good routines i rotate. Attending a few seminars here and there. Doesnt worry me to much. Cheers mate.

I don't think that a judge would really ask that kind of question. It will be based on level of threat, and how it was handled. It all goes back to use of force. I tend to agree with bushido_man96... If things turn physical it would be quiet difficult to effectively defend yourself with hurting the attacker one way or another. Its the amount of damage in relation to the threat that would be taken into consideration.

Unfotunatly not, i have tried both boxing instructors in my area, both have the same view on training. Competition only.

Spoke with the trainer again today to talk over the finer details of training. Turns out he is only interested in training people who want to compete(not me), and is not willing to train someone who wants to do it for fitness etc... which i completely understand, he wants to train competitors, so we agreed that i should not start training with him. A little disappointed, but not alot i can do about it, so ill continue my current training.

Wow, thats a huge surprise. Thanks alot guys. Glad im able to make a positive contribution to such a great community.

I have read quiet a few of his articles, mostly while i still trained in karate. He does take a more practical approach to training. But it still seems that he(like most traditional martial artists) is "finding" things in traditional kata, that are similar to alot of techniques that are out there is other arts. If your goal is to learn a technique to use in self defence, then doing kata, IMO, is the longest way to acheiving this goal. If we take an example, a fiqure 4 arm lock(this could be replaced with any technique you like).... The kata way: Perform the whole kata a number of times, doing an X-block in one part. Consider the applications of an X-block.... Work out that the arm/hand position sortof looks like something you saw a bjj guy do in ufc the other day... Do the kata a few more times, work on the "hidden" application of x-block with a complient partner a few times and move on. The non-kata way: Instructor demonstrates the figure 4 lock. Talks you through the key points of the technique. You practice with a complient partner, any kinks in technique are ironed out. Peform technique with added resistance from partner. Perform technique in all out sparring/scenario situation. This is a slightly exaggerated example, but is similar to how things happen in alot of schools. That ofcourse only addresses the "learning a technique for self defence" part of training... if you are doing it to maintain the art or tradition, or because you enjoy the body expression you can perform from kata, then im all for it... Like many have said in the topic already, to each his own.

Thats an interesting analogy, i have heard alot of different ones in reference to kata training... like it being part of the alphabet and a few others. While they sound pretty good, and are often used by kata people to justify training in kata so much, they dont address the reality of how much training methods affect the effectivness of a person at a given task.

Spent a few years doing kiai's in karate training, whilst im sure it has its place in maintaining the traditional aspects of an oriental art, i dont have any place for it in my current training, or find it useful. Alot of the time its done because a person is told to by the instructor, not because it serves a purpose. Growling is a more applicable tactic if you are talking about self defence situations. There is nothing more disheartening than hearing someone growling like a wild beast in your ear whilst trying to rip your head off.

I think this definetly contributes to the problem. With limited schools to choose from in an area, the instructors dont have to raise their standards to "compete" with other schools that may offer something better.

In a self defence situation, how are you going to know if the attacker is trained or untrained?

I think everyone will agree that self defence situations are unpredictable and your response will differ depending on the specific circumstances. But that doesnt mean you cant prepare and have some well practiced ways of dealing with some specific situations. The trick is to leave the responses open enough so they can be adapted easily during a situation depending on whats happening. This doesnt mean that you will hit first every time someone comes up to you and threatens. It depends who the person is, how serious they are, do they have friends close by, are they armed? There are alot of "What-ifs", and you cant plan for everything, but to not even prepare a basic gameplan is neglecting a crucial part of your survival tactics. Hitting first is a tactic that i would consider effective if a person is threatening me and moving beyond verbal and becoming more aggressive despite my attempts to calm the situation. These things can happen, you wont always be able to walk away, or be in a position to let your attacker attack first and you counter, or even see the first strike before it hits you. The premptive strike is not the answer to every situation, but its a very important tactic for some, knowing when and how to use it all comes from the preparation.

Kicks are a fairly limited tool in terms of self defence, i like to use the legs to maintain a strong base to deliver other offensive measures, occasionally throwing low line knees to either side of the thigh/groin area. Kicking required a few things that are rarely available to you in a self defensive situation where actions and positions are based on human behaviour, not technique. You need distance, balance, grounding, etc to execute a kick effectively. If you are lucky enough to have these things for a moment in time then you must make it count. If i had to choose a favourite kick it would be a toss up between a low front pushing kick and a low round kick. Both obviously have different uses and there is an appropriate time for each. I realise this topic is for discussion but keep in mind that to play favourites limits your ability to react with a spontaneous and correct response.

Obviously this hasnt been a benifit for the original poster to this point.