12/23/2005 10:59am, #11
I'm split on this whole debate.
1. Without an expedient weapon, it is rather difficult to physically kill a comparably sized resisting individual. Most techniques require a decent amount of strength behind them (d34dly techniques as well) to do serious damage. Even relatively "sensitive" areas like the eyes and groin require enough defined musculature to apply accurately.
As such, the idea that some techniques are just "too d34dly" for kids really irritates me. This reeks of bullshido and phony ass advertising.
In addition (in regards to this part of the argument), the primary "attacker" that children need to focus on is NOT other children...it is fully grown, predatory adults. Teaching techniques that are effective with little strength (i.e. d34dly techniques) are integral to developing a workable "Child Safety" course, and to neglect using said techniques is a disservice to kids.
On the other hand...
2. Argue nature vs nurture till you're blue in the face...the fact still stands that shitty, abusive adults were often shitty, abusive children. Not all children are precious little angels...some are vicious, cruel, mean-spirited little fucks. For one reason or another (not necessarily their fault, if you wanna listen to Freud), some of these kids will see the application of martial arts as a natural means to channel their cruelty.
As such, it also stands to reason that techniques that could conceivably do a lot of damage (chokes, eye strikes, join subs) should be kept away from children for their own good...until they can consciously make their own informed decisions.
I used to teach kids, and I've actually had to expel a student for bragging about "choking out his cat" and "proving that a groin strike causes pain".
---So...I'm torn. I think, ultimately, it is the job of the parents and the instructors to make such judgement calls.
The parents need to choose a school appropriate for their kids behavior, and an instructor needs to teach according to their style.
12/23/2005 5:29pm, #12
Thanks for reading my post. I know it must be hard to read since I forgot to put paragraphs in it.
12/26/2005 8:43pm, #13
I'm really not sure where the line is drawn between "normal" techniques and "deadly" ones. Obviously chokes can directly cause death. But there are a range of other techniques that can subdue an attacker to the point where they are helpless to protect themselves from an individual who wants to end their life. Just teaching a position like the mount allows a person to restrain another to the point where they can land devastating strikes that without a ref there to pull them off could easily result in death. The same is true of any striking art that allows individuals to land knock out blows. Rock someone well enough and you can have their way with them.
I think the real standard isn't what techniques would allow a "bad person" to kill someone else but rather those which could through negligence cause serious injury. These techniques may not be immediately deadly like certian neck cranks or chokes, but they can cause unintentional injury. Examples like various high amplitude throws or leg locks show moves that kids could try to show off with and end up doing some real damage with, as opposed to a choke which you need a lot more intent to cause major harm with.
Virtually any offensive martial arts technique allows you to take another persons life if you want. If you know how to effectively leg kick someone you can take out their legs and make it so they have a vast ammount of trouble resisting you as you try to take their life. I don't think that can effectively be the standard.
12/27/2005 8:53am, #14
- Join Date
- May 2005
- York, Yorkshire UK
I wasn't thinking of 'deadly' techniques so much as some techniques locks/brakes etc that are high risk, and if done a little over zelously could easily cause serious harm.
Because none of us has ever seen an injury a caused this way & kids never get carried away. I'm not saying adults don't, but understanting and considering possible consequenses is something that kids ar particulary bad at, so teaching them techniques befor they can grasp the possable consequenses of using them is ill advised.
In some ways the more obvious 'd234dly' techs would be more sense to show, as most people know getting poked in the eye hurts, so are less likely to be used by accident."This won't hurt me a bit..." - My training partner.:new_astha
1/03/2006 8:38pm, #15
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Buffalo, NY
- Jeet Kune Do
check out the January issue of Stuff! magazine. It has an interesting article on 10 year olds fighting Muay Thai on the Thailand/Burma boarder.
1/09/2006 4:46pm, #16
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Sacramento, CA
- Five Animal Kenpo
"Is it okay to teach children how to kill people?"
"Is it okay to teach children techniques that could kill people?"
I am an instructor at the school I train at and some of the self-defense techniques that we teach involve strikes that could cripple or kill. (i.e. Last session, we taught a technique that involved a handsword to the throat.)
Usually, I teach a back knuckle instead of a hand sword to the really young children (ages 4 - 7), but lately I've been introducing the hand sword. Of course, I throw in the disclaimer:
"Now, if another kid's messing with us on the playground, is it okay to hit them in the throat?"
The children all reply "no".
"If an adult we don't know is trying to grab us and take us somewhere, then is it okay to hit them in the throat?"
Some reply "yes", some say "no". To which I respond that if an adult is trying to take you somewhere, they usually want to do things that will hurt you and it's okay to do whatever you need to do to get away.
I think that teaching children how to do considerable damage to someone is okay, as long as you make it abundantly clear what the move will do and when to use it.
Kids hitting other kids in the throat or doing other serious damage to other kids: Not cool.
Kids hitting potential kidnappers or child molesters in the throat or doing whatever else they need to do to get away: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
You could also ask if it's okay to teach full-grown adults how do serious damage to others. The answer gets a little bit more complicated, but less explanation is needed as adults can reason when it's okay to maim, cripple or possibly kill someone, which is usually never.
2/26/2006 12:56am, #17
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
For some point of reference... let's say you got a six to ten year old kid that's not a bully and capable of learning (and is taught) the difference between right and wrong:
Q: What are three moves that you would teach them, and what are three moves that you would not?
2/26/2006 4:06am, #18
Originally Posted by Tom Kagan
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- MMA Noob
2/27/2006 3:07am, #19Originally Posted by Mr. Jones
I wondered about this because why bother teaching martial arts to a kid at all. Learning how to kill people seems like a natural outcome of martial arts training. Even Aikido guys are aware of how to apply techniques to end people's lives. What do you guys think did he do the right thing to take him out of the class and should kids even bother to learn martial arts at all?Kungfoolss, Scourge of the theory-based stylists, Most Feared man at Bullshido.com, and the Preeminent Force in the martial arts political arena
3/02/2006 12:14pm, #20
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Tang Soo Do
We have child-students in our school and whenever we go over techniques that could result in injury (wrist locks, arm bars, kicks to the knees, etc.), we STRESS that the techniques are dangerous and should only be done at full strength if they feel threatened with serious injury (ie. not playground horsing around). We do this everytime to make sure that they understand and remember.
So far (knock on wood), we have only had a few instances of in-class accidents resulting in injury and no cases that I know where a student has injured someone outside of class. The latter may be the result of student discretion or may be the result of not having any students so threatened.