How many Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, Kuk Sool, or other KMA schools have you been to/seen advertise "Self Defense" under their reasons for registerring. For me, it's been EVERY SINGLE ONE I've looked at. To me, that's duping someone, because I also know what was going on in most of those schools have seen it first hand or knowing their students.

How many Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, Kuk Sool, or other KMA schools have you been to/seen advertise "Self Defense" under their reasons for registerring. For me, it's been EVERY SINGLE ONE I've looked at. To me, that's duping someone, because I also know what was going on in most of those schools have seen it first hand or knowing their students.

Yes, and that is the point I am working to make.

The school "says" they teach self-defense.

The people who patronize the school "say" they want to learn "self-defense".

But teaching a MA as a form of even just "self-defense" let alone as a form of combat means the school needs to be willing to deal with liabilities.

And learning a MA even as a form of "self-defense" let alone a a form of combat means the students need to be willing to work hard and take some knocks.

Most schools don't want to take on the liabilities and most students don't want to work hard and take some knocks.

I think the result is a kind of "dirty contract" in which the schools and students agree at some level to "wash each other's hands". To wit: The school won't demand too much of the student and provide the image of MA training as long as the student keep the money coming on a regular basis. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I agree Bruce. Such a contract is almost certainly, however, unwitting on the part of most new students, who after all, know little of MA or SD. Most good MA instructors are alive to and open about the limitations of any MA/SD training in guaranteeing your safety/prowess. Its only the unscrupulous ones who say that their style/training or this or that technique is all you need. I think its partly the realisation of this unwitting contract that leads to the drift of higher level students into other MA/realms of endeavour. Most of the BB in my club have come to terms with the fact that 5 years of TKD has not turned them into the uber d33dly street fighting machine, nor made them bullet proof, nor, sadly, able to fly. Our club runs tournament training for those who want to focus on sparring and pushes self defense and 'alive' training in class, especially for the adult higher grades. But while I might want to spar and do heavy SD training, my 10 year old daughter doesn't -she wants to have fun and not come away battered - she has netball for that! So what's an instructor to do? MA may have started out about fighting, but they're more than that now, especially oi our society.

BTW - I'm with Wolf - and everyone else, I think - you can't learn to fight and protect yourself unless you pressure test techniques, and the easiest way to do that is contact sparring. But even at boxing, people don't aim to knock each other out all the time.

Yes, and that is the point I am working to make.

The school "says" they teach self-defense.

The people who patronize the school "say" they want to learn "self-defense".

But teaching a MA as a form of even just "self-defense" let alone as a form of combat means the school needs to be willing to deal with liabilities.

And learning a MA even as a form of "self-defense" let alone a a form of combat means the students need to be willing to work hard and take some knocks.

Most schools don't want to take on the liabilities and most students don't want to work hard and take some knocks.

I think the result is a kind of "dirty contract" in which the schools and students agree at some level to "wash each other's hands". To wit: The school won't demand too much of the student and provide the image of MA training as long as the student keep the money coming on a regular basis. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

See, knowing as many people as I do that study these arts, most I've met HONESTLY believe that they're getting REAL and PRACTICAL self defense instruction. I can't tell you how many TKD, HKD, KS black belts and lower I've met that think that they are really well prepared for a self defense situation even though all they've had is forms, light-no contact point-stop sparring, dead patter techniques and worthless knife defense.

If the schools exsit as you're pointing out, then fine. My suggestion for a change for THOSE schools is to come up with a new name for their type of instruction. I mean something OTHER than Martial Arts. I don't have a suggestion for that right now, but Martial Arts is the wrong term.

Most schools don't want to take on the liabilities and most students don't want to work hard and take some knocks.
From my perspective (UK/Full time instructor.. never gonna be rich!) I think thats mostly an excuse. On day 1 a student walks through the door they only have what is given to them.. if they are spoon fed crap, thats what they accept, if they are told hard training is the way to go, thats what they accept also!

Im sure for these schools with 500+ students that not making things as easy as they can will mean lose of profits, but thats because they have geared them that way. Ive had so many students from other schools visit mine and drop out (pretty quickly) due to the difference between what they were use to and the way we do it - but those that start at the beginning, more often than not continue and train hard.. because its the norm. Funnily enough, guys that have been doing things like boxing, kick boxing etc seem to stick it out longer as well and enjoy it, its other TKD students that cant handle it... because they have been given the easy road to their current grade and cant handle the fact when junior grades makes them look silly! The ones that do stick at it are the ones that accpet they have been to a dodgy school and want to make things right/better.. so perservere with it and eventually raise their game... but I think it takes a strong person to do that!

Whilst I agree that not everyone wants heavy contact, I do feel that it should be accessible for those that want it, the norm for standard training as well, with exceptions being made for those that cant handle it (ie. older students) and a few others if they dont want to for one reason or another.. but the benefits should be explained to them, so they know exactly what they are missing from not participating in it! But that sould never be allowed to become the norm! Sure it doesnt have to be all the time, but it should be regular & the standard!

The problem is now that even if some of these 'softy' schools did wanna change, the instructors are so use to the $$$ they wouldnt be prepared to take the risk of perhaps losing some $$$ whilst making the transition, but more likely they would be unwilling to acknowledge the fact that what they are teaching is mostly crap! Either way, they are gonna lose a few students, which in their eyes means lose $$$!



Stuart

Whilst I agree that not everyone wants heavy contact, I do feel that it should be accessible for those that want it, the norm for standard training as well, with exceptions being made for those that cant handle it (ie. older students) and a few others if they dont want to for one reason or another.. but the benefits should be explained to them, so they know exactly what they are missing from not participating in it! But that sould never be allowed to become the norm! Sure it doesnt have to be all the time, but it should be regular & the standard!

The problem is now that even if some of these 'softy' schools did wanna change, the instructors are so use to the $$$ they wouldnt be prepared to take the risk of perhaps losing some $$$ whilst making the transition, but more likely they would be unwilling to acknowledge the fact that what they are teaching is mostly crap! Either way, they are gonna lose a few students, which in their eyes means lose $$$!


I agree. The problem is when students aren't getting what they think they are. If all they want to do is 'the can-can in pyjamas', and thats what they're getting - that's fine. The difficulty is when they become deluded over their ability.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a school offering different tracks for students based on their needs and desires. Even most BJJ and MMA schools have a competition team with plenty of students that AREN'T on it, because they aren't interested in that aspect. OTOH, they still usually do the exact same training anyway... So, it's not quite the same as what we're talking about here. But I digress.

So would each school who honestly wanted to teach a MA have to divide their curriculum within the school or would a school have to make a commitment to either be entirely about Physical Education

-OR-

entirely about Contact? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

using TKD as an example, I'd say they'd divide the curriculum IF they wanted to cater to both sides.

Martial TKD and Fitness TKD with a VERY CLEAR message to the students about what each gives and the usefullness of it.

using TKD as an example, I'd say they'd divide the curriculum IF they wanted to cater to both sides.

Martial TKD and Fitness TKD with a VERY CLEAR message to the students about what each gives and the usefullness of it.
Stop taking my ideas Wolf :tongue11:

Seriously, the school/gym/dojang that I plan on opening in the next few years falls along the similar idea. If you want fitness sign up for those classes. If you want competative TKD do that. Once I'm a little more versed (read several years from now) in grappling I'll offer a section for that too.

The trick is to tell them exactly what they are going to get in the class and then make sure you as a school owner/instructor stick to that. Doesn't seem so hard to me . . . I guess I'll have to wait to see the reality of it once/if it ever happens.

So would each school who honestly wanted to teach a MA have to divide their curriculum within the school
yes. As is done in many full contact schools that run cardio kickboxing classes.