Whats Real Combative Arts Training

[Guro_Jeff]

Realistic fighting should also take into account the possibility that there may be more than one person potentially attacking you.

 

Just a thought.

 

Guro Jeff

[JerryLove]

Firstly, I think it's a mistake to so limit your range/weapon combinations. You assume grappling range is on the ground, you assume you are safe from hand-attacks at kicking range (you are not), you seem to ignore that range-changes can occur simultaniously with movements.

 

You also seem to make some assumptions about comprehensivenss when it comes to "combative". If I teach (for example) how to use a knife, even if that's all I teach, I've taught a (presmably) combative art. What I have not taught is a particularly comprehensive one.

 

Look similarly at your a'fore-mentioned Infantry school. The CQB taught there is basic at best, as is the knife work. You were taught a great deal around your rifle, how much were you taught with a flexable weapon (like a billiard ball wrapped in a washcloth)?

 

I think, to be a combative art, the art must contain material realistically focused on combat... though, quite frankly, I can think of several non-combative arts (martial sports) which make pretty good combative fighters.

 

Jerry

[Shane]

The whole idea of breaking down the ranges is for training purposes. It is an important process in building the foundation for individuals new to the combative arts.

 

Okay so lets look at Infantry school, so you mention CQB and learning basic techniques only. That is correct you learn just the minimum to prepare you for your unit and it is there you recieve your intermediate and advance training. It is the same with the different styles and systems. You need the basics (above all) prior to even trying to move forward.

 

As far as limiting yourself with ranges and the weapons, I can see that you might have read to much into my post. The post of course did not go into training methods, it just listed basic techniques that would be a good idea to cover to form a well rounded combative art. And if you read the end of the post it states that the those techniques would be a minimum to form a well rounded combative art. And we all know that most techniques out there have several variations for various situations so what some might think is limiting others would think well rounded.

 

But we all have our opinion and our ways and thats the great thing about combative arts is that they allow us to develop for oneself rather than ones instructor.

 

Good Post JerryLove

[Sasori_Te]

I was in the army, in the infantry as well. I played in the sand the first time around. I don't recall the Army ever making ME dangerous.

 

I think it's a faulty comparison. The Army taught me to be a part of the machine. I also think it was all of the training I got that made me an effective soldier, not just one part or the other.

 

I still don't think I've ever considered myself to be a warrior. I always thought of the warrior as being the specop guys. The guys that go out of their way to be extremely effective as a single unit or as a group.

[Ted T.]

After 20 yrs o ftraditional karate, I went on a search for a practical expression of my art. I never wanted anyone to say, "What I was taught did not do me any good."

 

I am still a traditionalist, and I love karate. But to make the transition from art to "social conflicts that end in violence," two changes had to be made in my classes.

 

First, a social context had to be practiced when we did our s-d. Practicing actual (as realistic as possible) scenarios of someone invading your space, you trying to decide if you should attack or keep de-escaling etc. It is the psychological traps of real social confrontation that trip up well trained m-a's, not an imperfection in their technique or style.

 

Second, harder contact. As the man said: "The average criminal cannot hit as hard as your average black belt, but he will hit you harder than you were ever hit in class!" (Thanks, Rory!)

 

These two things open a lot of doors to new experience.

[delta1]

...to make the transition from art to ...violence, two changes had to be made...First, a social context had to be practiced ...(as realistic as possible) scenarios of someone invading your space, you trying to decide if you should attack or keep de-escaling etc. It is the psychological traps of real social confrontation that trip up well trained m-a's, not an imperfection in their technique or style. Second, harder contact. As the man said: "The average criminal cannot hit as hard as your average black belt, but he will hit you harder than you were ever hit in class!"

 

Good post! Excellant evaluation!

[Sasori_Te]

TedT. Sounds reasonable to me too. excellent post.

[Treebranch]

The fact is all MA's can be used for violence and self-defense, but I don't think that's the point here. In Combat the fighting methods should work with very little effort especially when you are physically exhausted. Certain fighting arts that rely on strength and stamina wouldn't be as effective in a situation in which you will be fighting for 6 hours straight having to maim and kill people. You would tire out too quickly and you will die. So learning techniques that allow the structure of your body and uses the physics of the body will be advantageous in Combat. Combat Arts should cover all areas of combat including psychological unbalancing of an attacker as well as drawing someone in to the right place in order to take him. In every situation especially in a life or death one, if you panic you are done. So mind set is probably the most important aspect of survival. There is no "winning" in real combat, just "survival". Get the idea of winning a fight out of your head and you will find yourself not getting into bad situations.

 

Well that's my thoughts on the subject anyway.

[Shane]

There has been some great replies to this topic thanks for your input.

 

Keep them coming!!!!!!

[Humble Novice]

As my name suggests I'm new both to this site and (relatively) to the MAs.

 

But I would think that for awareness purposes, instinct practice would be best.

 

For instance, two friends (one is my 'older brother' teacher) and I goof around with different types of escapes. We don't do this just so that we know how to get out of a half-nelson (Oh, let me count the ways!!!) but any hold. We do this to train our mind to quickly think of the dangers and opportunities in each hold. (ie. in a sleeper hold, I'm told you have three seconds of conscienceness if you don't address your neck quickly) While, we take our time to think through them now, I hope to train my mind to be able recognize, assess, evaluate, and act within a split-second's time-frame.

 

The whole reason that you do regular exercises and and techniques is to train your muscles to react on reflex when necessary. So, in conclusion, I think that our instincts should be trained not onlyt to react in a split second, but in some cases to think and react in a split-second.