Hell... defend yourself in a fight by kicking your own ass. That'll learn 'em!
Originally Posted by CodosDePiedra
Last edited by Uncle Skippy; 2/16/2009 5:07pm at .
Am I the only one who caught the irony of a chunner giving an excellent definition of "impractical technique"?
Originally Posted by wingchunx2z
Impractical would be anything that can't be replicated at speed, with resistance, at a high success %. It would be relative to the demands of the situation though. An impractical KK Karate tournie move, might be the godsend in a TKD comp.
A security officer's go-to move, might be an invite to broken fingers out-and-about.
The need for sparring is so great, because each person's wants and needs are different (there's a song in there somewhere) when it comes to fighting or confrontation on some level. In some circles, writing a stiff letter is more practical than cuffing someone upside the head.
for me, anything that requires leaving the feet, is impractical, because I'm such a clumsy bastahd, I'm likely to injure myself.
I often wonder how many people have gotten killed because of teh deadly techniques failing to be teh deadly in a serious self defense situation. If only they could come back to teach seminars.
As a case in point, look at some of the Ju-Jitsu wristlock.grab defences.
Guy grabs your lapel, you peel the hand off and lock it up. Doesn't matter which way you go, they both suffer from the same problem... that is, they work OK against someone who just gets hold of you and stands there.
When someone grabs you with real intent and starts ragging you about, possibly hitting you or bouncing you off a wall, it becomes rather harder to do this. Just peeling a grip off han be hard. As some of us say round here, there are three stages to a grab:
1. Before it's on
2. When it's just on, a bit
3. When it's really f**king on
Most of the neat and tidy defences work OK at stage 2, but fail at stage 3... which is where you need them to work.
This fits my own definition of 'valid but impractical' - the technique is real, and it does what it's supposed to do if you can get it... but getting it is very hard to do.
Originally Posted by Kantroce
This is one of my buttons. If someone wants to teach point-sparring, or non-contact Ju-Jitsu, or whatever, and just presents it for what it is, I'm fine with that. Might not be for me, but it's valid within its own limits.
But the moment you use the magic words 'self-defence', you're gambling with people's safety. And yet so many people use 'self defence' to sell their class to the masses when they're teaching (at best) applied martial arts.
Now, applied Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, MMA, some kinds of JJJ... well that's pretty much OK. There are some gaps between MA and SD, but if you teach something thats 'real' (ie you're actually doing it to a non-compliant opponent and not with a compliant partner) then the gaps are small and realtively easy to translate across. So yeah, what you're teaching is good for self-defence and the claim is valid. I have no problems with that.
But so often the 'Self-Defence' angle is either promotional and non-existent or just wishful thinking in the hope of validating a martial art that doesn't work in the real world.
How often have I seen an 'excellent for self defence' system that trains to deal with people who run up and grab a wrist, then stand there like a large piece of citrus fruit waiting to be clobbered... people who claim that they're training folks in self-defence should be held liable for the failure of what tehey teach.
To put that another way... I can box a bit. I can teach someone the basics of boxing or kickboxing, sufficient that they could go in a ring with a decent chance of success (Indeed, I've done this and the guy won a belt, for whatever that may be worth). But I would NEVER advertise myself as a boxing coach because I'm not.
Even though the consequences of me not being as good a boxing coach as I claimed are relatively limited compared to what can happen if you fail to defend yourself outside a kebab shop in Basingstoke at 2AM, I wouldn't claim to be a boxing coach. And indeed, I'd probably face some form of censure if I did.
Yet it seems not only possible but acceptable to routinely teach useless crap as 'self defence', when the consequences of failure can be dire.
It annoys me.
Think about it as natural selection=)
Originally Posted by Kantroce
That would be poetic justice if it was the instructors getting clobbered. It tends to be the students though. Who then get treated to the 'it works if you train hard enough' routine.
I've seen guys (instructors) fail to pull off a technique in class with a mostly compliant partner then insist that it really does work with someone trying to tear your face off.
Impractical technique to me is one that's as likely to get you killed as to save you - most knife and gun disarms fall into that category for me.
I realize there are times when they COULD be applicable. IE you're a military guard in Gaza. But to get good enough to apply a disarm at speed against a resisting assailant who probably just wants your wallet just doesn't seem feasible...give up the damn wallet.