Dangerous Techniques and Children

[Rateh]

DON'T VOTE YET. I've been trying to fix the pole but its giving me an error. :/

I have been mulling this over for a long time now. At what point do we start teaching dangerous techniques to minors? At what age is it appropriate?

For the point of this poll...

Lethal: Any technique with the intent to kill the attacker

Seriously Injure: Any technique that, if performed correctly, would send the attacker to the ER (most likely in an ambulance)

The reason I have been thinking so much about it is because now that I have my own club with my own students, I really don't know if its appropriate to teach all of the techniques that are taught in the curriculum to my younger students. I just don't think that younger students have the maturity to determine the appropriate level of force in any given situation. And I don't want them to use dangerous techniques against their peers when a much safer method was justified.

I'd really like to know your all's opinions on what age's different techniques are appropriate to be taught to students.

[TKDKeller]

I would actually leave that to an advanced class but any technique can be a seriouslly damaging one depending on where it is hit. I would say upper teenager level at the least though or advanced black belts who have mastered the basics.

[BDPulver]

Well, i'm on of those few instructors that think all techniques can be lethal if done correctly but with intent (to either harm or incapitate). It's not a poll I myself could really answer though.

Have always been told the two most dangerous people in the dojo also is the white belt and black belt.

The white belt cause they are not sure of the technique you are teaching them and will usually cause harm to themselves.

The black belt cause they have ran through the drills to perfect the techniques and should know what is needed to more or less incapitate the said attacker(s).

So to not teach all techniques wouldnt make sense to me. But as I said what is and what isnt considered a lethal technique?

[JiuJitsuNation]

This is a difficult poll to vote on simply because most of what we do could result in serious injury. I start them at 8 learning basic chokes, which could be lethal.

[Rateh]

Hmm, perhaps I should have been more clear. By technique I mean both the movement and the target on the persons body.

So for example a side kick to the knee with the intent to break the knee would be a "technique" in this case.

I'm not asking when we should teach a side kick, but when we should teach to side kick someone in the knee. Not when we should teach the long fist, but when we should teach to use it against a persons windpipe. Etc.

[bushido_man96]

Don't worry about the techniques so much, as worrying about teaching them to call for help, be aware of where they are, making sure they have a buddy around all the time, and making sure their parents know where they are and what they are doing.

Teaching things like low sidekicks and spear hand strikes, I would not worry about so much. I think you can make kids understand what can happen if they kick someone's knee. As for hitting someone in the throat, that is a lot easier said than done. I actually watched my brother sock a kid in the throat in a fight as kids, and nothing happened to him. Maybe he got lucky, maybe not.

Here is kind of what I am getting at. You don't want to teach any techniques that might hurt severly in one fell swoop. However, I'm sure you already have made up your mind to teach punches. So here's a question: how many fights have you seen someone severly hurt/killed in which one lethal technique was thrown, and how many have you heard of like that because of severe blunt trauma to the head (repeatedly punched/struck in the head)? My guess is the latter.

Just food for thought.

[brickshooter]

I think that the general cutoff age should be about 12 in the United States. I don't live in other countries to make a determination on at what age kids from other countries mature nor the threats they face.

And if the kid lives in a tough neighborhood, I'd lower the age a little. If he comes from an upper class neighborhood, I'd raise the age a little. If there's a child molester on the loose, I'd lower the age a little. If there's a lot of school ground fights reported, I'd raise the age a little.

And it also depends on the techniques themselves. Strangulations is one thing. But finishing blows to the back of the neck is another thing. There are different levels of lethalities in techniques.

The more permanent the damage = the older the student should be.

However, sometimes by not showing the lethality, a student can accidentally kill someone. They may hold the strangulation for too long, or stomp on a person's neck.

[sensei8]

Imho, techniques have no age barrier. From day one, we teach our students techniques that are effective, yet, it's not the techniques that we need to worry about. No. It's the practitioner who's weilding those said techniques.

Yes, we instructors of the martial arts provide moral guidelines for these techniques, but, imho, it's the responsibility of the parents to put that necessary exclamation point on what we're teaching our students.

[DWx]

...So here's a question: how many fights have you seen someone severly hurt/killed in which one lethal technique was thrown, and how many have you heard of like that because of severe blunt trauma to the head (repeatedly punched/struck in the head)? My guess is the latter.

Totally agree. Pretty much everything we do has the potential to cause severe damage. Especially if you're training simple punches and kicks extensively, most likely students will react with them rather than the lethal technique they spent one class on anyway.

Personally I wouldn't withhold teaching techniques based on age, so many different reasons are going to mean one kid will have the maturity and discretion to know what to do compared to another. A grade barrier might be more appropriate (if you do grades). Teach the "lethal techniques" at a later stage when you've had time to reinforce the moral guidelines. I don't know about other styles but the techniques I would consider lethal require more technical knowledge and are harder to pull off than basic punches and kicks so on that basis I'd teach them at a higher level anyway.

I would introduce extra training and a different approach as to how the younger ones learn to use the techniques though. I think with kids its good to reinforce and spell out what responses are appropriate. So teach them that a kid who just calls them names at school doesn't deserve a fist to the face but that the guy who tries to sock them one does.

We spend whole classes with the really young students working with a 3-step approach to self defense. As a general rule they learn to shout "stop", shout "go away" and take a defensive stance, then they can attack.

[JiuJitsuNation]

Hmm, perhaps I should have been more clear. By technique I mean both the movement and the target on the persons body.

So for example a side kick to the knee with the intent to break the knee would be a "technique" in this case.

I'm not asking when we should teach a side kick, but when we should teach to side kick someone in the knee. Not when we should teach the long fist, but when we should teach to use it against a persons windpipe. Etc.

I understood. I think what I meant was that everything I teach in my particular style is meant to END a fight. So my kids are learning to choke, break arms, tear out shoulders, etc. I tap for them in class and make clear to them daily when it is ok to use their jiu jitsu and when. As far as I know BJJ is taught to children in this manner all over the world and I have never heard of any serious incidents. Giving the proper learning environment I fell is more important than what is being taught. Unless we go to the other end of the spectrum where the techniques are low percentage and basically ineffective and then thats just unfair to the student.