Teaching Kids "Deadly" Techniques!?

[sensei8]

Should we or shouldn't we teach kids "deadly" techniques??

Well, with the hope that the word "deadly" might be more understood, let me post the definition as it's found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary...

dead·ly (adjective) \ˈded-lē\

 

: causing or able to cause death

 

: extremely accurate and effective

 

: extreme or complete

 

[dead·li·er dead·li·est]

 

Full Definition of DEADLY

 

1

 

: likely to cause or capable of producing death

 

2

 

a : aiming to kill or destroy : implacable

 

b : highly effective

 

c : unerring

 

d : marked by determination or extreme seriousness

 

3

 

a : tending to deprive of force or vitality

 

b : suggestive of death especially in dullness or lack of animation

 

4

 

: very great : extreme

After looking at the dictionary definition(s), I've not changed my mind: I don't teach kids [and adults] "Deadly" techniques? No!!

What I teach them can be found in this provided definition...

** : extremely accurate and effective

As well as...

**b : highly effective

 

**c : unerring

 

**d : marked by determination or extreme seriousness

Having said that, even the most basic technique(s) have the possibility of being "deadly" in the hands of my students, no matter the age, and/or rank, and/or depth of knowledge/experience.

A basic reverse punch, for example, to the face can cause many things. Hopefully, what's concluded is the attack to the alleged victim of said attacker without ambiguity and/or reservation.

I teach kids to be extremely accurate with their intended technique; execution of said technique with a purpose. Not to just flail around and hope that the student finds its intended target. No. But, to be purposeful in their techniques because it serves no purpose to teach any techniques if the student isn't going to be accurate. Not close; but deadly on target.

I teach kids to be extremely effective with their intended technique; movements applied are nothing more than it's intended effect. If not so, then why even waste the energy to learn how to defend oneself, other than with effective means. With that sense of deliberate intentions that can't be confused with an ineffective movement aimed to do absolutely nothing.

MA techniques don't have to reside in the halls of the "deadly" MA techniques! No! More important, imho, is that creating and executing "deadly" techniques that end life aren't possible if one can't be highly effective, unerringly accurate, marked by determination, or extreme seriousness in even the most basic technique(s).

I don't have to teach kids such "deadly" techniques that have no other ending result except death!! In that, kids/adults don't have to learn "deadly" MA techniques to be effective.

[DWx]

Having said that, even the most basic technique(s) have the possibility of being "deadly" in the hands of my students, no matter the age, and/or rank, and/or depth of knowledge/experience.

A basic reverse punch, for example, to the face can cause many things. Hopefully, what's concluded is the attack to the alleged victim of said attacker without ambiguity and/or reservation.

So this is also the basis for my reasoning. Any technique; punch, kick or even a tackle can result in a serious injury or in the worst case scenario, death. I try to impart to kids and adults alike that every action has a reaction. Everything has a consequence. If I punch someone they will feel it. It may (should) cause some damage. It may knock them over so they crack their head open on the concrete. They may have an unknown underlying condition which is triggered by the head trauma. We just don't know what's going to happen.

Should you need to defend yourself, pick an appropriate response level, no excessive force, and be ready to own any potential negative outcomes.

(I also think this is a good life lesson too. That everything we do affects someone else in someway. Sometimes it's a small effect, sometimes it's life changing.)

I'm not sure what constitutes an "deadly" technique exactly as I consider all of them deadly to some degree. We don't specifically omit any from the childrens' curriculum though for that reason. I suppose things like eye gouges and the like aren't covered in great detail with the kids because it's more practical to focus on basic but effective simple strikes.

[devil dog]

Sensei8,

I view this in two ways.

1. for kids of my generation and older. I would feel comfortable teaching these skills. Here is the reason why - we used to bring our muzzle loaders to school and make new stocks in shop class or bring our shot guns to school to go hunting when our dads picked us up and no one shot anyother students or went crazy. We did not have the emotional problems that kids do today. And we would not have dreamed of doing the things kids do today for fear of our parents.

2. for kids in this day and age. Doubtful. The issue is kids do not have the same parent structure we had growing up and most of them have their heads in some violent video game. If you teach a kid something that can end life (deadly technique) and they go out and use it, you are liable and in todays society of news media pointing the finger at everyone but the perp, your the one holding the bag. There is less accountability and personal responsibility among most of the younger generation today.

Maybe on a case by case basis but not to an entire class of kids. I would have to know their mentality and feel comfortable teaching them these skills. To be honest unless you are teaching one on one thisa may be more difficult than you would think. Getting to truely know someone elses personality is something that can only develop over time. Unfortunately most of our students only see us for 2 hours a day, two days a week.

Not enough time in my book.

Your right that any of the basic techniques can kill. Sure a punch delivered correctly and with enough force or enough times can kill. However those techniques are common knowledge. I think that is the real difference.

Just my 2 cents.

[Zaine]

1. for kids of my generation and older. I would feel comfortable teaching these skills. Here is the reason why - we used to bring our muzzle loaders to school and make new stocks in shop class or bring our shot guns to school to go hunting when our dads picked us up and no one shot anyother students or went crazy. We did not have the emotional problems that kids do today. And we would not have dreamed of doing the things kids do today for fear of our parents.

Every generation has emotional problems, just like every generation has had school shootings. There are a plethora of documented cases of school shootings in the US dating back to the 1870s. I think the difference is that in today's world, we have access to a lot more information therefore these events get a lot more coverage from the news outlets.

2. for kids in this day and age. Doubtful. The issue is kids do not have the same parent structure we had growing up and most of them have their heads in some violent video game. If you teach a kid something that can end life (deadly technique) and they go out and use it, you are liable and in todays society of news media pointing the finger at everyone but the perp, your the one holding the bag. There is less accountability and personal responsibility among most of the younger generation today.

You're right, we don't have the same parent structure. Is that a bad thing? No, it's a good thing. The world is constantly changing and we (as parents) have to change with it. There is a lot more that we have to keep up with so that when it comes times we can explain it to our children. I would also like to add that there is no conclusive evidence (in fact, there is a lot to the contrary) that violent video games cause children to be violent. In fact, parents have a far greater influence on that. Children are able to separate the fantasy world from the real world whereas when children observe adults behaving violently they are more inclined to behave violently.

I would also disagree that there is less accountability and personal responsibility with today's generation. They are just as accountable as any other generation, the difference being, again, that this generation has more access to publicity that previous generations. We hear about all the trouble kids but I would argue that there were just as many trouble kids in previous generations, we just didn't hear about them as much.

[devil dog]

Zaine,

I appreciate your point but I must respectfully disagree in some respects. I am sure that some parts of the country are different than others. However I have been in the arts since I was 8 years old and I can tell you that there is a definite difference in the generations.

Our parents did not make excuses for us nor did they go to bat for us when we were out of line. I would imagine that most of the instructors on this forum have had behavior issues with a child and had their parents defend them as if you are the cause or there must be something wrong with you for even suggesting it. Or those parents that get in your face if their kids do not test even though they do little more than come to class and put in 10% of their effort.

And yes I have had the kid that did not understand that hurting people was not right. The major problem was the parents and they defended their kids actions and got angry when I told them they could leave and not come back.

I'm not perfect and have probably commited the same with my kids. However that does not change my point of view. I can appreciate that you disagree and may have had different experiences than me. However with deadly force techniques I for one will not teach them. You may disagree and that is fine and by all means teach the way you wish to teach. I am no authority on kids, parents or what to teach. This is just one mans 2 cents.

[sensei8]

Great posts, all, thank you!!

In my OP, the context of what I'm trying to get at is this...

What I teach them can be found in this provided definition...

** : extremely accurate and effective

As well as...

**b : highly effective

**c : unerring

**d : marked by determination or extreme seriousness

To teach techniques that are "deadly", therefore, are aimed to cause death to children/kids is the responsibility of the CI/Sensei in the dojo, and having said that, that accountability belongs to the CI/Sensei.

Outside of the dojo, that accountability belongs to the parent(s)/guardian(s).

When teaching any technique to children/kids, I'm reminded that they're just that: CHILDREN/KIDS! In that, I don't teach them any technique by telling them...

"If you do a certain technique(s) this and/or that way, you'll cause death!"

No, I teach them how to properly execute said technique(s) without emphasizing any possible medical ramification(s). That's for someone else to teach, and I'm not that person.

I don't even entertain that with adults because I'm not there to teach my students techniques that might cause death. I'm there to teach them how to be effective with what they're learning or have learnt outside of how to cause death to anyone.

I know I can, with what I've been taught, cause death to my attacker IF I CHOOSE TO, but Dai-Soke made it perfectly clear to all of us in Shindokan...

"If you want to learn how to kill, and not karate-do, then you've no right being here!! Go now!!"

But with the quote above, the closest to deliberately teaching "deadly" techniques to any of my students is by doing just what's in said quote above. I want to teach them the essence of Ikken Hisatsu WITHOUT teaching them how to kill. Be deadly accurate and so on and so forth!!

At the end of any testing cycle, I've never asked...

"With what you know, can you kill?"

NO!

Instead I ask...

"With what you know, are you effective?"

To answer this for myself, I say, "Yes, I am, but, I can always be more effective, but, that will take time. Until that time arrives, I will be the guardian of my MA betterment! That too, will take time."

If a CI/Sensei is telling their students, no matter the age that this and that can cause death, then, IMHO, that CI/Sensei is irresponsible across the board because, IMHO, while "deadly" techniques MIGHT be a by-product of any said MA technique(s), that should be the last thing that one wants to learn from the MA.

Again, this is only MY opinion!!

[Wastelander]

My Sensei has actually caught some grief for teaching things that are "too deadly" to children--specifically, an elbow to the face. MMA and Muay Thai coaches don't get the same backlash for teaching the same thing to their youth students. One person's "deadly" technique is another person's "basic" technique.

In reality, any strike can be potentially deadly. If I remember the statistic correctly, the majority of people who die during (unarmed) physical altercations die from one punch knocking them out and their head hitting pavement. After that, I think it was death caused by internal injuries from strikes to the body. How many martial arts teach punches to the head and strikes to the body? On top of that, many arts teach choking techniques, which are also known to be capable of killing.

With that in mind, I think it's important to teach ALL of our students how to effectively handle a physical attack. If we don't teach them effective techniques--which are, by their nature, capable of being deadly--then what good will any of their training do them when they are attacked?