Substance over style: decisions in a split second
Tue, Sep 11 2012 05:37
| training, form, fighting, www.amaclub.org.uk, street fight, Wing Tsun Kung fu, jackie chan, EWTO, martial arts Altrincham, siu num tao
| Permalink
Wing Tsun is a simple martial art. It’s just not very easy to do. It’s not easy to choose the easiest path for many people either. As a teacher it is a constant source contention for people I see time and again. I was just like my students once, and as someone who considers himself very much still a student, I hope that I still am. The greatest difficulty one can often have when teaching is to demonstrate the best method, using the correct concept.
This isn’t due to a lack of skill or disposition for hesitancy on my part. I know not to ask my students to do something I cannot. The greatest problem is the nature of people. We all want the newest, shiniest, smartest toy on the shelf. Our inner child and our id conspire against us as students all too often. We focus on doing the coolesttechnique when the smartest concept is a better option.
I was always a pain in the arse to train with (yes Barry I still am, I know) even from my formative years of learning Tsun. I liked smacking people in the most flourish-filled ways possible. A straight punch was “boring” pretty soon. I now see the same mentality in people I teach, at the same point I was back then.
This isn’t due to a lack of skill or disposition for hesitancy on my part. I know not to ask my students to do something I cannot. The greatest problem is the nature of people. We all want the newest, shiniest, smartest toy on the shelf. Our inner child and our id conspire against us as students all too often. We focus on doing the coolesttechnique when the smartest concept is a better option.
I was always a pain in the arse to train with (yes Barry I still am, I know) even from my formative years of learning Tsun. I liked smacking people in the most flourish-filled ways possible. A straight punch was “boring” pretty soon. I now see the same mentality in people I teach, at the same point I was back then.
However as teachers we often assume the role of parent to our students’ child. Pleading, cajoling, bribing them not do fancy right then and there. The problem being when we ourselves feel like indulging them and ourselves! ‘You can do fancy later when you’ve mastered simple’ is an idea I find myself saying and hearing from my teachers all too often. It’s not hypocrisy but like a parent I want those following me to learn from my mistakes. To fast forward past the hours of bad training I wasted my time on, and cut straight to the “good stuff”.
A good example comes from boxing. A jab, cross will make or break your fighting style and ability to grind out a win. That’s not just my opinion but one shared by plenty of people. I’ve read Andre Ward’s coach talking about it being all you need in the amateurs – the pro game being where you require more variation and options. Presumably, he tells us this because to deal with tough more experienced opponents you need more options. I can’t comment too much as someone who loves to box merely as a hobbyist.
The reason I raise this is because it speaks to me about my own views on the fundamentals in any fighting style – more crucially in any fight. You don’t win points for style in a street fight. No one is going to watch the CCTV and rate your knock out punch (maverick lawyers aside). It’s a common source of feuds within styles, arts, lineages etc. Which form, what form, why do form at all when it comes to transmitting the basics?
I’m not here to debate the merits of who has the nicest Siu Num Tao merely that you need to start somewhere and there is a reason for centuries students began here. Dogma is bad, common sense is not. The problems occur when after years of common sense we let dogma take over. This conflicts with our desire as students to “move on” – the next technique, shinier technique, the more devastating one, usually from the next (read better) form is a ghost we all chase at some time.
I’m not here to debate the merits of who has the nicest Siu Num Tao merely that you need to start somewhere and there is a reason for centuries students began here. Dogma is bad, common sense is not. The problems occur when after years of common sense we let dogma take over. This conflicts with our desire as students to “move on” – the next technique, shinier technique, the more devastating one, usually from the next (read better) form is a ghost we all chase at some time.
Ask yourself this, when you train and when you fight hard – whether it’s sparring, rolling, retzev, lat sao whatever your art and predilection may be; do you train smart? I try to, but can fall prey to ego too. If you can honestly say you take the right option every time without fail, then I take my hat off to you. It’s that skill I am talking about.
I watch a lot of people fall into “monkey kung fu” as I call it. Dicking about, with flim flam actions and trying unrealistic attacks/defences instead of training what they are asked to. I recognise it because I used to do it. Why punch a guy in the face when you can drive a spinning elbow through his neck with a little more effort and determination right?
How about safety? How about ease? How about the day you have to use it for real and then deal with his mates who might be noticing your fight unfold on a dark, wet Manchester night? It’s much better to end a fight quickly and make it look easy than bust out your Jackie Chan moves to impress the ladies nearby. Therefore I think you should take stock and ask yourself, honestly, do I train like that?
One of the reasons I love Wing Tsun so much is it’s willingness to discard the sacred cows, to hold on to what works. Only MMA has a similar ethos in my experience. Regardless, if you’re lucky enough to do an art, or have a teacher that does the same – all power to you!
Just ask yourself this, when I train do I take the simplest path to the victory or the one I like the look of more?
How about safety? How about ease? How about the day you have to use it for real and then deal with his mates who might be noticing your fight unfold on a dark, wet Manchester night? It’s much better to end a fight quickly and make it look easy than bust out your Jackie Chan moves to impress the ladies nearby. Therefore I think you should take stock and ask yourself, honestly, do I train like that?
One of the reasons I love Wing Tsun so much is it’s willingness to discard the sacred cows, to hold on to what works. Only MMA has a similar ethos in my experience. Regardless, if you’re lucky enough to do an art, or have a teacher that does the same – all power to you!
Just ask yourself this, when I train do I take the simplest path to the victory or the one I like the look of more?
Lawless: A hymn to how violence used to be
Sat, Sep 8 2012 04:20
| shia laBeouf, Nick Cave, films, film review, bare knuckle fighting, violence, street fight, lawless, tom hardy, weapons, Guy Pearce
| Permalink
Lawless is perhaps one of the best films I have seen for a very long time, for many reasons. There’s no getting around the fact that what could have been a star-studded dud, exceeds expectations and offers us a glimpse into a past we rarely consider. Albeit from a much safer place.
Based on a book, based on a true story the film is set in prohibition Virginia with a tangible of air of the authentic. In a time and a landscape both intoxicating and unforgiving it offers us an arena in which we all feel we know, but proves that most of us probably don’t. Tom Hardy seems to dominate this blogs film section of late and he comes into his own here. Much like his role as Bane here he also dominates the screen too as a brooding and menacing figure. Hardy plays the eldest Bondurant brother, the patriarch of a family gang of bootleggers and mentors in violence as he does in business.
The film is written by Nick Cave and the script is punctuated with a subtle acceptance of the consequences of breaking the law and making enemies of it with graphic and well placed depictions too. If the Wild West and all the retellings of it are revised, romantic, myths about the birth of America. Then the revisiting of the turbulent and desperate Depression era is surely the mythologising of the nation’s puberty. Stark demonstrations of effectively used brass knuckles, knives and honest gun fights make the point in visceral blood-spattered, scream-stifling, toe-curling fashion. It’s still Hollywood but without the lacquer we come to expect so often.
Compared to the slick, urban masterpiece of Michael Mann’s Public Enemies, Lawless doesn’t tread quite such familiar ground. Often we see films place “gangsters” as box office busting, flawed, semi-heroic, pedestal pacing, vessels of immorality. They sit beyond the social pariahs of their modern counterparts. Thanks to hindsight the names and the deeds of Al Capone, Dillinger et al. are well known folk tales. The comparatively obscure Bondurants are presented as opportunistic, rustic and greedy exponents of base desires and base actions – struggling with their own limitations and taking those assumed expectations and running with them.
It strikes me as interesting that Britons and British media prefers to downplay the violence of their forefathers, most people seem unaware of Victorian society’s relationship with the coshes, knives and bare-knuckle boxing which dominated it. Recent films are doing their best to remind us now and again, but ironically it’s not as high on the list as Dickensian rogues and the school Master’s cane. Class and power are far bigger preoccupations it seems.
American history and particularly American film strikes me as starting with the violence and working from there. Lawless is no different. Scenes are riddled with the audience seeing weapons concealed to be drawn later. Hardy offers us a real life example of confusing your opponent with questions to distract them before blindsiding them. The relentless nature of fight scenes within the film leaves us in no doubt how “real” the film makers intended them to be. Whether they succeeded or not, is something I’ll leave to you to gauge.
Martial artists these days often forget that weapons only stopped being the norm for many people relatively recently. We often think in terms of hand to hand combat, facing a weapon is rightly of extreme concern because we ourselves rarely if ever carry one. Society as a whole still has a lust and an urge for the days when that wasn’t the case, especially if the protagonists are that much more everyday. It’s important to reconcile the realistic with the reality, what’s likely with what’s entertaining and engaging. Every so often a film like Lawless comes along and gives everyone a meditation on reconciling those contradictions. Asking questions of us all, this is a film worthy of high praise and closer inspection.
The Dark Knight Rises: Keysi does it again
Mon, Jul 23 2012 06:25
| krav maga, keysi, martial arts, film review, christian bale, fighting, street fight, fighters, KFM, tom hardy, self defence, batman
| Permalink
This was always going to be my “film event of the year” the trilogy Chirstopher Nolan has masterminded sees it’s third installment crash on to screens with hype, controversy and just a little bit jaded cynicism murmuring away in some quarters which it answers at a canter.
For me, I’m not much a comic book fan, but Batman was always my favourite by a long chalk. The other two films took something not easily done and nailed it. Blending the fantasy of caped crusaders, sexy women and a life of danger and intrigue and not falling squarely into clichéd parody should be applauded. While I’m not here to review the film as a whole, suffice to say it makes a bold claim as part of trilogy which rivals Jackson’s LOTR venture.
This ‘reboot’ of Batman first landed in 2005 and for me only one other cinematic example of blending realistic martial arts with acting existed. All others before and since the Bourne films (oddly another trilogy, soon to be quadrilogy) had been put under a shadow of scrutiny when it comes to offering up audiences acceptable hand-to-hand combat for screen. Not only did Bourne take on-screen fight scenes and make you question the word ‘scene’ but they showed that our tendency to assign ‘hero’ status to a character doesn’t need to be sated like most childish urges by making theses characters immortal, flawless and untouchable when it came to the actual fighting.
To do that with the excellent but somewhat everyman that is Matt Damon was a landmark for me. It showed when Daniel Craig became the new Bond and then Bale as Batman showed that “real” just got a whole lot well, “realer” in Hollywood. Whatever the “style” it’s important to remember that stuntmen, actors, fight choreographers etc are all limited, by skill sets, resources and more importantly presentation.
To do that with the excellent but somewhat everyman that is Matt Damon was a landmark for me. It showed when Daniel Craig became the new Bond and then Bale as Batman showed that “real” just got a whole lot well, “realer” in Hollywood. Whatever the “style” it’s important to remember that stuntmen, actors, fight choreographers etc are all limited, by skill sets, resources and more importantly presentation.
When people remark they want to “fight like that” what they usually mean is, I want to be successful – copying ‘moves’ from a film is not high on my list of training methods. What these forays of my passion crossing over into the mainstream world does though, is question not only what is possible for these professionals honing a craft; but also what is possible in my own training.
The Batman films use the Keysi Fighting Method (KFM) as devised by two stuntmen who give vague reasons and recollections of their credentials when it comes to offering an art of sorts up. I know of one club locally, and anecdotal evidence of their training worries me. Putting a new student in at the deep end should be done to benefit the student, not everyone else. All KFM’s claims about being “solely” for the street should be scrutinised. Even Wing Tsun acknowledges, embraces and explores the history and heritage of the art as a cultural endeavour. Selling what you do, often involves managing the expectations of potential students – with this film behind them the KFM boys might need a bigger damp cloth right now.
What we see in The Dark Knight Rises is a stoic but still impressive continuation of the action scenes which have helped make it such a landmark set of films. Batman has after all still not shed the Adam West days of high camp for most people, for the films to steer well clear of it is logical. Instead we see fight scenes where Batman still utilises gadgetry and the advantage of surprise but ultimately he has to wade in and go toe to toe with adversaries to get the job done.
You can see why the Bourne and Bond films have so much in common beyond alliteration with our hero. To really make people believe these days you have to show them, almost unflinchingly that fighting is something visceral and animalistic, a necessary state and capability within everyone. While I have my doubts about KFM based on their own literature and the fact it seems very much “for screen” it does have a certain base which makes this film and Batman utterly captivating.
The physiques of Bale and Batman and Hardy as Bane are truly exceptional. As athletes they are clearly well coached and well drilled. The fitness, nutrition and physical training aspects of Hollywood, is a big industry in its own right. Hardy has already delved into MMA and clearly has the physical ability to play such roles. Here he ups his game. There is one scene where Bane and Batman go toe to amidst a crowd of people which really could have been a turkey. To give an audience that much visual stimulus and keep us engaged on the swinging fists, forearms and bone crushing hostility of the fight was exceptional.
This is where KFM comes into its own. I often think it looks like Krav Maga. It’s quick but unsubtle, smashing and carving into opponents offers the best reward for audiences. The hammer fists, elbows and repeated blunt blows to the same targets offer a strategically valuable insight into ‘real fighting’ but lack the realism of tissue, blood and bone trauma for a film aiming squarely at the young male market and in need of upholding it’s 12A rating. For me there is nothing new in the technique or approach. There are no secrets or hidden gems I haven’t used a thousand times myself. That’s why I remain a little unsure about KFM beyond entertainment. It looks great, but it doesn’t seem to be much more than the basics of self defence executed with a visual flourish and Hollywood’s eye.
The film itself is exceptional. It delivered for me. The action likewise, but before running off to don your cape and ape your hero take the time to ensure you separate fiction from reality. The likely from the possible, and check that what stuntmen have given the world of cinema shouldn’t remain there and there alone.
Gypsy Blood: Close to the knuckle
Fri, Jan 20 2012 10:55
| bjj, gypsy, bare knuckle fighting, boxing, fighting, www.amaclub.org.uk, street fight, fighters, escrima
| Permalink
Gypsy Blood aired on Channel 4 (10pm 19/01/12) to much interest from myself. I always watch C4’s forays into the insular world of travellers with a lot of guilt and voyeuristic interest. The derision and morally obliged sneering these programs create, are always sideshows away from what is an interesting and very real cultural ‘problem’ within British society.
The stereotypes and prejudices this community attracts are well documented and to a certain extent they are the skeleton for selling these documentaries to a wide mainstream audience. What Gypsy Blood tackled albeit somewhat ham-fistedly, is the phenomena that was once an everyday part of life for most people in Britain.
The scenes of hunting and butchery may have added an extra dimension to the violent and visceral nature of gypsy life, but it also highlighted just how people used to live and in many cases had to live to survive.
While you may find scenes of skinning and slaughter unsavoury; to eat meat in Britain and not know where it comes from when you pluck neat, vacuum packed chunks of meat from the shelves of your local supermarket, makes it hard to criticise people who make use of their own will and resources to feed themselves and their families.
As someone who grew up in a reasonably rural setting these ideas are nothing new and nor should they be seen to demonise a group of people. Unfortunately many comments over twitter as I watched the program seemed to use this as a second strand with which to condemn the gypsies on display.
In more mainstream culture boxing fans might be more au fait with the brilliantly named Tyson Fury. A gigantic figure quite literally, his moves into professional boxing give a glimpse of how the community finds itself both at odds with mainstream society and uses its ways to integrate in some small way.
The scenes of the children being educated in a mainstream setting should remind people that the power of education runs both ways. The cultural capital to these children is clearly very different to that of our own. How many middle class families insist their children now how to spot particular traits in working animals for instance?
Seeing a 7 year old boy check the wingspan of newly hatched chicks serves a stark illustration to the ways in which the travelling community are in many ways losing a race with the march of time and technology. It comes as no surprise that many of the complaints and accusations levelled at travellers can be traced not only to their status on the margins of society but the antiquated and somewhat odd way they have preserved their culture in ways only they see fit.
It is slightly ironic and coincidental that Channel 4 also regularly document the ways and lives of the Amish, who are perhaps a lot like the gypsies in being a somewhat maligned and stereotyped minority albeit in a much more positive tone. The supposition about religion and selective resistance to modernity might well be a way in which society at large deals with these groups.
For me the main draw was obviously the fighting culture that exists amongst gypsies. It is clear from both their treatment of animals and their own code of honour that fighting extends much beyond the man but out into the world. Like Filipinos and Brazilians the gypsies have a long and complex tradition in fighting cocks, dogs and each other to earn both reputation and status alongside cultural standing. This alone will be alienating to a society where fighting anything and anyone straddles and usually falls headlong into the criminal and subversive realm.
Interesting those countries mentioned above and their people would likely be seen in much the same ways as the gypsies are “lesser-developed”, archaic and in this case, vicious. But in those worlds the men who rear and fight animals or train themselves in the spheres of BJJ or Escrima respectively are not any different to the gypsy men who settle disputes with their fists.
Anyone who has the read excellent books A Fighter’s Heart or the sequel The Fighter’s Mind by Sam Sheridan will know the mixed feelings a little study and exposure these kinds of worlds can stir up in the Westerner.
The program showed this rather nakedly and almost indulging us viewers in the need to gawk and stare as the men threw punches, letting flesh and bone impact and collide. It was interesting to hear the familial lineage of the man whose grandfather fought so hard he lost a hand in the process of gaining victory. It was told in a way modern boxing fans might wistfully look back on the ‘Thrilla in Manila’ or Benn vs. Eubank etc.
While arguably the gypsy pugilists were accomplished and hardened fighters, it is easy to dismiss their brawn and brutish technique as a quasi-boxing style. What there might be in a lack of style is made up for in the truly universal spirit of ‘gameness’. The willingness to fight and the express wish for it to be passed down father to son was made plain numerous times. This is linked both not just to a sense of pride and self-worth, but also the reputation and future of the family within the community.
Parents in our society might well worry and endeavour for their children to strive for A level results and better themselves – here we see a similar paradigm placed on the ability and more importantly willingness to fight. Reference to the prejudices and difficulties these gypsies see coming from both their own community and the outside world were clearly evident amongst the numerous references to “not being talked down to or like you’re a fool”.
Feminists might cite with glee and some knowing glances; the overt masculinity to the point of parody even the pre-pubescent gypsy boys demonstrated for the camera, but aping their fathers shows just how predominant this culture is within the community.
Much disgust was rightly aimed at the lack of safety when allowing kids to spar and fall on concrete without any regard for safety. However it must be contextualised in two ways. First the question of how much of the scene was for the benefits of the camera and demonstrating the desired toughness the gypsies place so much value upon. Secondly we should consider whether this is any more dangerous than other sports and pursuits. In my classes children are never allowed to touch each other let alone spar; it is neither beneficial nor appropriate. However in the world were fighting is bred into you, it is a method that goes back to the year dot and is certainly no different to the millennia of training environments across the globe. It is simply alien and therefore shocking.
For anyone who has an interest in both boxing and its history they will be keen to point out that as recently as the Victorians Britons of all classes and creeds settled disputes in very public and very popular bare-knuckle matches. While far more bloody than some may care to contemplate the nature of bare-knuckled fighting actually seems far more palatable than that of professional or even amateur boxing. As Bob Mee suggests in his excellent if somewhat unashamed love letter to the bygone art of bare knuckle fighting Bare Fists the gloves of modern boxing cause far more damage and encourage far more trauma to the head and brain. Certainly the deaths in professional boxing that have caused so many accusations and controversies are far more shocking than the toll seemingly recorded in the annals of the bare knuckle histories.
Popular culture such as Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes franchise stars Wing Chun exponent Robert Downey Jr. who portrays the spectacle as Homes vividly meets and beats an opponent for fun! This longing and need to prove ourselves publicly and brutally was made famous by Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club made into a feature by David Fincher. It was particularly popular amongst young males in both formats but served as a reminder and insight into the masculinity attached to the desire and willingness to meet another man as the Ancient Greeks did and as these Gypsies still do.
Personally as a martial artist I see the pursuit of bare knuckle fighting as nothing shocking or new. These are pre-arranged fights and both participants are willing and able. Likewise there is a strict code and ethic attached to the fight both before during and after. Seeing the men shake hands and “put an end to the matter” struck me as far more, civilised than the brutal and savage street fights the news covers seemingly on a daily basis. For our society to judge with such an aloof and “informed” position leaves me uneasy to say the least.
For me, the programme had its problems and flaws but likewise the portrait painted of the travellers was a difficult and unflattering mixture of emotive themes and events. To pretend it is something new or specific to a underworld is utterly wrong and foolish. It is however a controversial relic from how life used to be and when framed in such a provocative community it is no surprise much of the outrage and disgust will be misguided and unbalanced.
The eternal question in martial arts
Wed, Dec 21 2011 09:57
| martial arts, fighting, www.amaclub.org.uk, street fight, Wing Tsun Kung fu, fighters, martial arts Altrincham, self defence
| Permalink
A fellow colleague was asked by his student recently “how do I know [Wing Tsun] really works?” It’s an interesting and age old question. Many people start learning a martial art for a multitude of reasons but usually they pick Wing Tsun because they want it to “work”. That is, it must defend them as easily and effectively as possible.
This mindset while not unreasonable is fraught with huge amounts of difficulties. If WT was easy everyone would do it. If WT was all you needed everyone would be invincible. As a teacher juggling your students’ expectations with their needs and the needs of everyone else in the room is the kind of multi-tasking that takes heroic amounts of effort and focus.
Sometimes (and only sometimes) it is necessary to overwhelm a student to the point where what they do doesn’t “work”, so they can feel the limitations and see their potential to improve and build something much better. Usually a better understanding of WT and a better version of how they employ the art is the aim and end result.
It’s not something you should do often but it can be a hugely beneficial experience which pulls people out of a rut or pushes them over the next plateau into a place where they can progress. That said, for the 99% of training time how do you show a martial art is beneficial to a student?
The answer is honestly, you can’t. You can demonstrate how it works for you, for your students, for half the world but that’s of little relevance if you can’t help someone see how they can share in that experience. Often this is the subject of selling yourself, your club, and your art to someone on their first or second class – but business needs aside, your club needs fresh blood as often as possible. Convincing people of the benefits of WT is essential.
So what really is it about Wing Tsun that works? Well it’s quite simple it’s the execution of it by someone fit enough, well educated enough and committed enough to practice and perfect it’s simple, but hard won rewards.
Whatever art you choose is only a fraction of the equation. The investment must also be made of your time, your patience and your openness to really succeed. Some arts are clearly better than others, but that doesn’t mean they are more valid than others. Being able to fight is innate you have to want it and be prepared to do what the other guy won’t. That applies to techniques as well as training.
Society teaches us from a young age to resist all urges to fight, but as animals it’s in there and teasing that out as well as combining it with the right concepts of martial arts is essential and this is one of WT’s cornerstones. As arts go, WT has very sophisticated and effective ideas underpinning what it is and what it does. That’s the crux of what makes it so good.
Like any art worth its salt it allows you to be injured, weaker, slower and less athletic than an opponent and still overcome. All of those natural advantages can be overcome with the ideas and by proxy the techniques concealed in the forms and training of WT. The mistake too many make is the “I don’t need…” syndrome.
Dismissing strength, fitness, diet, looking after yourself etc in the belief that WT alone is enough is the fundamental flaw of someone just waiting to get an all expenses trip to A&E. While you don’t need to be a world class athlete to be able to defend yourself, making the effort to train your body and equip with the capacity to perform every technique to its fullest potential is something anyone looking to really understand any art has to embrace.
The pasty runt with a pot belly that hides behind chi shields and bluster is no better than the witch-doctor of old. Passing off tradition and superstition as fact is still rife in some dark corners of the martial arts universe. People are wiser and more educated now just by dipping into the media coverage, youtube videos and forums that are everywhere these days.
So how do we know our art works? Short of taking the Tyler Durden approach and provoking strangers on a regular basis we must look to our own training and ask “am I making it work?” How often does a student ignore our advice as teachers? How often as students do us teachers think we know better? Humility is the key and honesty is the open door you have to walk through to get there.
Through training you can develop your own techniques and ideas and reinforce your learning. By slowly ramping up the intensity between you and your partner you can push techniques further and see how they work, illuminating your own understanding. But until that day comes where true aggression and an attack comes you won’t know how you will fare in any given fight, you will also learn how much of your art you have understood and taken on board.
Even the world champions of old know that you can lose, no matter who you are and some days it just isn’t your day. That isn’t a reflection on the art the art is merely a set of tools. How you use them is no reflection on the toolmaker after all.
This mindset while not unreasonable is fraught with huge amounts of difficulties. If WT was easy everyone would do it. If WT was all you needed everyone would be invincible. As a teacher juggling your students’ expectations with their needs and the needs of everyone else in the room is the kind of multi-tasking that takes heroic amounts of effort and focus.
Sometimes (and only sometimes) it is necessary to overwhelm a student to the point where what they do doesn’t “work”, so they can feel the limitations and see their potential to improve and build something much better. Usually a better understanding of WT and a better version of how they employ the art is the aim and end result.
It’s not something you should do often but it can be a hugely beneficial experience which pulls people out of a rut or pushes them over the next plateau into a place where they can progress. That said, for the 99% of training time how do you show a martial art is beneficial to a student?
The answer is honestly, you can’t. You can demonstrate how it works for you, for your students, for half the world but that’s of little relevance if you can’t help someone see how they can share in that experience. Often this is the subject of selling yourself, your club, and your art to someone on their first or second class – but business needs aside, your club needs fresh blood as often as possible. Convincing people of the benefits of WT is essential.
So what really is it about Wing Tsun that works? Well it’s quite simple it’s the execution of it by someone fit enough, well educated enough and committed enough to practice and perfect it’s simple, but hard won rewards.
Whatever art you choose is only a fraction of the equation. The investment must also be made of your time, your patience and your openness to really succeed. Some arts are clearly better than others, but that doesn’t mean they are more valid than others. Being able to fight is innate you have to want it and be prepared to do what the other guy won’t. That applies to techniques as well as training.
Society teaches us from a young age to resist all urges to fight, but as animals it’s in there and teasing that out as well as combining it with the right concepts of martial arts is essential and this is one of WT’s cornerstones. As arts go, WT has very sophisticated and effective ideas underpinning what it is and what it does. That’s the crux of what makes it so good.
Like any art worth its salt it allows you to be injured, weaker, slower and less athletic than an opponent and still overcome. All of those natural advantages can be overcome with the ideas and by proxy the techniques concealed in the forms and training of WT. The mistake too many make is the “I don’t need…” syndrome.
Dismissing strength, fitness, diet, looking after yourself etc in the belief that WT alone is enough is the fundamental flaw of someone just waiting to get an all expenses trip to A&E. While you don’t need to be a world class athlete to be able to defend yourself, making the effort to train your body and equip with the capacity to perform every technique to its fullest potential is something anyone looking to really understand any art has to embrace.
The pasty runt with a pot belly that hides behind chi shields and bluster is no better than the witch-doctor of old. Passing off tradition and superstition as fact is still rife in some dark corners of the martial arts universe. People are wiser and more educated now just by dipping into the media coverage, youtube videos and forums that are everywhere these days.
So how do we know our art works? Short of taking the Tyler Durden approach and provoking strangers on a regular basis we must look to our own training and ask “am I making it work?” How often does a student ignore our advice as teachers? How often as students do us teachers think we know better? Humility is the key and honesty is the open door you have to walk through to get there.
Through training you can develop your own techniques and ideas and reinforce your learning. By slowly ramping up the intensity between you and your partner you can push techniques further and see how they work, illuminating your own understanding. But until that day comes where true aggression and an attack comes you won’t know how you will fare in any given fight, you will also learn how much of your art you have understood and taken on board.
Even the world champions of old know that you can lose, no matter who you are and some days it just isn’t your day. That isn’t a reflection on the art the art is merely a set of tools. How you use them is no reflection on the toolmaker after all.
Stepping In and Staying Out of it.
Sat, Oct 8 2011 06:39
| fighting, violence, street fight, fighters, self defence
| Permalink
In the last few years I’ve moved into working in two seemingly different arenas populated with people who both have a lot in common; security guards and teachers. You may furrow your brow at this but bear with me.
‘Bouncers’ as we unfairly like to call them and teachers both have one fundamental issue in common when at work – safety. Not just the safety of ourselves but of other people. People who; are often smaller than we are (but definitely not always), emotionally fragile and potentially volatile. Whether drunk on alcohol or puberty, those in our care hold one common threat over our heads. The real but often overplayed threat of unpredictable and sometimes violent behaviour towards their peers, their surroundings and us!
What can one do? The policy of your employers can often differ wildly from that of the law in Great Britain. Much to my own annoyance the fear of litigation from those who cause problems, instead of the protection of those expected to deal with it seems to dominate the mind of them upstairs all too often.
Practically if people begin to fight in front of you the smart move seems to be to keep a wide berth, but if you have by your role a duty of care, that’s not always practical or possible. As a person with a certain inferred authority in the club or the classroom onlookers often turn their gaze to you to end trouble confidently, competently and in time.
My first consideration is to scan the horizon, know your surroundings and what you’re getting into. I’ve seen and heard of plenty of ‘white knights’ getting a good kicking for poking their nose into what they thought was a fight but was more a heated argument.
You need to understand who is involved, where they are in relation to you and who is in what danger at that given moment (you included). Your first mechanism of control is your voice. A commanding voice and direct commands can be powerful.
When people descend into a rage particularly a violent one they regress into mere animals their humanity is pocketed away and they should be treated as such. Like dogs a stern short command can provoke an obedient reaction in people. The word “Stop!” at the correct volume with intent can often cause people to do just that and stop in their tracks, maybe even pausing for thought and deflating the momentum of vicious intent they’ve blown themselves up into.
If you’re feeling oddly sceptical yet brave try shouting it suddenly in a public space with a crowd and notice that almost everyone will at least acknowledge the verbal command to some degree. Even if it is only expressed by them suddenly peering at you like you’re deranged. We cannot help but to respond even non-verbally with a turn of the head or body, it’s conditioned into us almost from birth.
The next step is to move as quickly and powerfully as you can towards the incident. This does not mean into it but just towards it so you are at a safe but workable distance to control the situation.
The next decision you must then make is whether to make any kind of contact with those involved. Typically the situation will involve two people one the aggressor and one the victim (this term should not be as morally loaded as it is, they might have started it after all).
What you need to be looking for here is typically “animal behaviour”. Are they actually fighting or merely sizing each other up? In nature animals will open their mouths, spread claws, arms and wings to show off their size and potential for doing damage. Often the spectacle of intimidation is enough for most to avoid coming to blows in what may potentially be a deadly situation.
Humans are no different. We evolved to kill and maim just like any other beast. Look and listen but don’t focus on what is being said. We all talk shit when adrenaline kicks in and I’m not ashamed to say I’m no different.
Observe how both people move and what they are actually doing, a good fighter will predict an opponent’s move because he sees the step or feint before the technique. He doesn’t wait for it to belt him in the mouth before making a call. This is a skill anyone breaking up a fight needs to some degree.
Often adolescents and partygoers alike are actually waiting for someone else to break up the fight before it gets going. It preserves their ego if they showed gameness but were prevented from actually engaging because of an external agent.
Take the example of the Saturday Night Neanderthal being held back by his tiny girlfriend imploring him “leave it, ee’s not wurth it!” It’s possible his companion is the fight equivalent of Moses to his Red Sea, but unlikely. If you want to kill the other bloke you always find a way to get a crack at doing it in my experience.
Potentially by your presence and use of authority a situation may disperse there and then but what if it doesn’t? There is no shame in not getting in there, too often people do a “white knight” and end up needing saving and or stitches themselves. I quite enjoy it, I won’t lie. But I have both the ego and flaw of feeling comfortable around flying fists etc.
Do not feel you need to morph into Bruce Lee and kick ass. There’s nothing wrong with trying to limit a horrible situation to involving just two people instead of twenty or worse. Using your voice and keeping others at bay whilst sending someone to seek help from colleagues is both sensible and effective.
Don’t be scared to let them tire each other out too. Sometimes a scuffle while unpleasant is not that serious. Once they’re both knackered you can pull them apart relatively easily.
But I can sense I’m dancing around the big anxiety, the massive ‘what if’ of you getting your hands dirty and physically separating people? Well let’s start by saying there’s no secret choke hold, debilitating but non-lethal strike that bouncers and teachers can use like some kung fu magic wand. If there was I’d have wasted my time typing all this out thus far.
What you must remember is there is at least one and by now, probably two massive forces coming together through fear, instinct and aggression – stepping in the middle of that is idiocy. Getting punched by two people at the same time generally hurts, if they’re not aiming for you it always hurts a lot more. Sod’s law perhaps.
Pick one, doesn’t matter who, as long as you feel comfortable that you can move them and do just that. Take one of the combatants out of the equation. Drag them or push them clear trying to make sure it’s not off a ledge, into a road, a solid object or anyone else. You’d be surprised how effective this can be if done correctly. The other person has no one to attack so the fight ceases and normality can begin to filter back into the room.
This needs to be combined with verbal prompts “Stop! Come here! Stay there!” etc as is appropriate. Actions speak louder than words but using both makes a right din.
Now there is a reasonable chance at this point you may get hit either on purpose or accidentally. Sorry. But you can worry about that afterwards. If you’ve jumped in, best start swimming. Distance or lack of it is your friend here. The closer you are the less distance their flailing limbs can accelerate over before crashing into you. That means for all you non physicists that they can’t hit you with as much force.
Again this comes with the disclaimer that you must pick an angle that keeps you away from errant blows where possible. Use their fixation with the other person to your advantage and ‘blindside’ them. Walk in on an angle where they don’t see you until you already have hold of their shoulders and are levering them out of harm’s way.
Don’t go for some complicated finger lock of doom, grab the torso particularly the shoulders and manipulate their centre of mass so that they have no choice but to step with you. Practice on some if you can and you’ll see what I mean.
With those pesky lawyers in mind I wouldn’t focus on the throat, the face or anything which might come off or snap in a struggle. Something big and manageable is the best bet in the heat of the moment.
Once the threat of violence has been dissolved you must conflict manage the hell out of the room. Let one of the combatants leave, its best if they aren’t together in case they are like Rocky and set on churning out sequels. The higher authorities can deal with chasing down people if necessary. Where you can let those involved be escorted away to give statements and face punishment etc.
Your first priority is to yourself and the onlookers, returning the room to normal literally and figuratively is tough. The physical effects of adrenaline can take a while to subside. But it’s important you don’t collapse into a gibbering wreck – not immediately you might have homework to set or a turn on checking the bogs to do.
As soon as you can write a report and get witnesses to do the same. Get as many facts down on paper as possible. It clears you of any accusation and wrongdoing and allows the mess to be sorted quicker if those investigating can present as many facts as possible.
It may surprise you to know that in my view martial technique and skill is not important in these scenarios it’s intelligence and presence of mind to take swift and affirmative action which saves the day. Do what you can and what you know which will help.
Obviously I’m speaking very generally but if you have specific questions, scenarios or ideas you’d like me to cover please let me know. I’d be happy to!
‘Bouncers’ as we unfairly like to call them and teachers both have one fundamental issue in common when at work – safety. Not just the safety of ourselves but of other people. People who; are often smaller than we are (but definitely not always), emotionally fragile and potentially volatile. Whether drunk on alcohol or puberty, those in our care hold one common threat over our heads. The real but often overplayed threat of unpredictable and sometimes violent behaviour towards their peers, their surroundings and us!
What can one do? The policy of your employers can often differ wildly from that of the law in Great Britain. Much to my own annoyance the fear of litigation from those who cause problems, instead of the protection of those expected to deal with it seems to dominate the mind of them upstairs all too often.
Practically if people begin to fight in front of you the smart move seems to be to keep a wide berth, but if you have by your role a duty of care, that’s not always practical or possible. As a person with a certain inferred authority in the club or the classroom onlookers often turn their gaze to you to end trouble confidently, competently and in time.
My first consideration is to scan the horizon, know your surroundings and what you’re getting into. I’ve seen and heard of plenty of ‘white knights’ getting a good kicking for poking their nose into what they thought was a fight but was more a heated argument.
You need to understand who is involved, where they are in relation to you and who is in what danger at that given moment (you included). Your first mechanism of control is your voice. A commanding voice and direct commands can be powerful.
When people descend into a rage particularly a violent one they regress into mere animals their humanity is pocketed away and they should be treated as such. Like dogs a stern short command can provoke an obedient reaction in people. The word “Stop!” at the correct volume with intent can often cause people to do just that and stop in their tracks, maybe even pausing for thought and deflating the momentum of vicious intent they’ve blown themselves up into.
If you’re feeling oddly sceptical yet brave try shouting it suddenly in a public space with a crowd and notice that almost everyone will at least acknowledge the verbal command to some degree. Even if it is only expressed by them suddenly peering at you like you’re deranged. We cannot help but to respond even non-verbally with a turn of the head or body, it’s conditioned into us almost from birth.
The next step is to move as quickly and powerfully as you can towards the incident. This does not mean into it but just towards it so you are at a safe but workable distance to control the situation.
The next decision you must then make is whether to make any kind of contact with those involved. Typically the situation will involve two people one the aggressor and one the victim (this term should not be as morally loaded as it is, they might have started it after all).
What you need to be looking for here is typically “animal behaviour”. Are they actually fighting or merely sizing each other up? In nature animals will open their mouths, spread claws, arms and wings to show off their size and potential for doing damage. Often the spectacle of intimidation is enough for most to avoid coming to blows in what may potentially be a deadly situation.
Humans are no different. We evolved to kill and maim just like any other beast. Look and listen but don’t focus on what is being said. We all talk shit when adrenaline kicks in and I’m not ashamed to say I’m no different.
Observe how both people move and what they are actually doing, a good fighter will predict an opponent’s move because he sees the step or feint before the technique. He doesn’t wait for it to belt him in the mouth before making a call. This is a skill anyone breaking up a fight needs to some degree.
Often adolescents and partygoers alike are actually waiting for someone else to break up the fight before it gets going. It preserves their ego if they showed gameness but were prevented from actually engaging because of an external agent.
Take the example of the Saturday Night Neanderthal being held back by his tiny girlfriend imploring him “leave it, ee’s not wurth it!” It’s possible his companion is the fight equivalent of Moses to his Red Sea, but unlikely. If you want to kill the other bloke you always find a way to get a crack at doing it in my experience.
Potentially by your presence and use of authority a situation may disperse there and then but what if it doesn’t? There is no shame in not getting in there, too often people do a “white knight” and end up needing saving and or stitches themselves. I quite enjoy it, I won’t lie. But I have both the ego and flaw of feeling comfortable around flying fists etc.
Do not feel you need to morph into Bruce Lee and kick ass. There’s nothing wrong with trying to limit a horrible situation to involving just two people instead of twenty or worse. Using your voice and keeping others at bay whilst sending someone to seek help from colleagues is both sensible and effective.
Don’t be scared to let them tire each other out too. Sometimes a scuffle while unpleasant is not that serious. Once they’re both knackered you can pull them apart relatively easily.
But I can sense I’m dancing around the big anxiety, the massive ‘what if’ of you getting your hands dirty and physically separating people? Well let’s start by saying there’s no secret choke hold, debilitating but non-lethal strike that bouncers and teachers can use like some kung fu magic wand. If there was I’d have wasted my time typing all this out thus far.
What you must remember is there is at least one and by now, probably two massive forces coming together through fear, instinct and aggression – stepping in the middle of that is idiocy. Getting punched by two people at the same time generally hurts, if they’re not aiming for you it always hurts a lot more. Sod’s law perhaps.
Pick one, doesn’t matter who, as long as you feel comfortable that you can move them and do just that. Take one of the combatants out of the equation. Drag them or push them clear trying to make sure it’s not off a ledge, into a road, a solid object or anyone else. You’d be surprised how effective this can be if done correctly. The other person has no one to attack so the fight ceases and normality can begin to filter back into the room.
This needs to be combined with verbal prompts “Stop! Come here! Stay there!” etc as is appropriate. Actions speak louder than words but using both makes a right din.
Now there is a reasonable chance at this point you may get hit either on purpose or accidentally. Sorry. But you can worry about that afterwards. If you’ve jumped in, best start swimming. Distance or lack of it is your friend here. The closer you are the less distance their flailing limbs can accelerate over before crashing into you. That means for all you non physicists that they can’t hit you with as much force.
Again this comes with the disclaimer that you must pick an angle that keeps you away from errant blows where possible. Use their fixation with the other person to your advantage and ‘blindside’ them. Walk in on an angle where they don’t see you until you already have hold of their shoulders and are levering them out of harm’s way.
Don’t go for some complicated finger lock of doom, grab the torso particularly the shoulders and manipulate their centre of mass so that they have no choice but to step with you. Practice on some if you can and you’ll see what I mean.
With those pesky lawyers in mind I wouldn’t focus on the throat, the face or anything which might come off or snap in a struggle. Something big and manageable is the best bet in the heat of the moment.
Once the threat of violence has been dissolved you must conflict manage the hell out of the room. Let one of the combatants leave, its best if they aren’t together in case they are like Rocky and set on churning out sequels. The higher authorities can deal with chasing down people if necessary. Where you can let those involved be escorted away to give statements and face punishment etc.
Your first priority is to yourself and the onlookers, returning the room to normal literally and figuratively is tough. The physical effects of adrenaline can take a while to subside. But it’s important you don’t collapse into a gibbering wreck – not immediately you might have homework to set or a turn on checking the bogs to do.
As soon as you can write a report and get witnesses to do the same. Get as many facts down on paper as possible. It clears you of any accusation and wrongdoing and allows the mess to be sorted quicker if those investigating can present as many facts as possible.
It may surprise you to know that in my view martial technique and skill is not important in these scenarios it’s intelligence and presence of mind to take swift and affirmative action which saves the day. Do what you can and what you know which will help.
Obviously I’m speaking very generally but if you have specific questions, scenarios or ideas you’d like me to cover please let me know. I’d be happy to!
Losing face means nothing
Wed, Jun 15 2011 01:24
| martial arts, conflict resolution, psychology, fighting, street fight, Wing Tsun Kung fu, martial arts Altrincham, self defence
| Permalink
Last night as I was pulling into my home I was abused and threatened. As I was turning into the gate that leads to my car parking space a shout and crash met me just next to my driver's window. I looked down to see a middle aged man picking himself and his bike off the road.
He'd bolted up from behind me on the wrong side of the road, despite me being stationary and indicating to turn right he was incredulous as to how I'd dare to nearly knock him off a bike he was riding too fast, without a helmet and weaving around me, on my driver's side.
I wound down my window and immediately any concern I felt was met with aggression. Insults were traded and the posturing of "get out the car I want a word with you" soon followed. After pointing out the man was on the wrong side of the road sneaking up on my blindside he then decided he actually "wanted a word" with me because I had apparnetly "nearly put [him] in the kerb" somewhere vaguely down the road because I was "a fucking stupid clown". The incident leading to him falling off his bike was forgotten about once his culpability had been established.
I couldn't control myself any longer. As suddenly as the fool appeared on the floor beside me an urge swelled up inside me and I suddenly started laughing at him. Right in his contorted snarling face. It was clear he was losing the initiative. His undirected aggression was giving way to his embarrassment.
Lying would be unfair. I can't deny as I wound down the window I studied his body language, his lack of balance as he leaned all over my door. I Listened to him but didn't really process the words. I was already sizing up if and when and how I'd hit him first. Not out of spite but necessity if this man chose to keep escalating the situation. Interestingly as I spoke with him and tried to reason with him, pointing out the fact he was at fault for what was a small and inconsequential 'nearly-accident' he backed off. Choosing to insult me from further away instead.
To some of you I may sound worse than him, talking of striking first and hard if necessary. However the training and outlook I've been given is to make a preemptive strike if necessary. To do the right amount of damage to someone to protect yourself.
After the adrenaline, confusion and ludircrous nature of the incident had played out in my head back on my sofa, I began to smile. I realised my training had come into play and I had 'won' by "fighting without fighting" as the kung fu movies might say. I put my point across, clearly and defiantly. I was not intimidated and I was under control of my emotions at least outwardly throughout the confrontation. But even better than that I risked neither my health, the man's health nor my liberty by starting a fight or assaulting him. Nor did I give him the opportunity to do the same.
After realising I had been given no incentive "to step outside" in a classic duel way and that I was quite happy to get on with my life the man soon rode away, angry and upset. But instead of being baited by childish aggression and name calling I chose to let the man vent a little, come to terms with his mistakes and gave him the opportunity to move on.
Had I verbally or physically taken away his dignity, given him nothing else to lose then quickly I would have found myself fighting him and perhaps injuring one if not both of us. It was a very real and very out of the blue test of all I'd learned without throwing a single punch.
The real key as found in many philosophies is that it is possible to pick your battles and still win without going to war. That's what my training and pursuit of martial arts is all about. Being so good at reading and controlling a situation I should rarely need to use force.
He'd bolted up from behind me on the wrong side of the road, despite me being stationary and indicating to turn right he was incredulous as to how I'd dare to nearly knock him off a bike he was riding too fast, without a helmet and weaving around me, on my driver's side.
I wound down my window and immediately any concern I felt was met with aggression. Insults were traded and the posturing of "get out the car I want a word with you" soon followed. After pointing out the man was on the wrong side of the road sneaking up on my blindside he then decided he actually "wanted a word" with me because I had apparnetly "nearly put [him] in the kerb" somewhere vaguely down the road because I was "a fucking stupid clown". The incident leading to him falling off his bike was forgotten about once his culpability had been established.
I couldn't control myself any longer. As suddenly as the fool appeared on the floor beside me an urge swelled up inside me and I suddenly started laughing at him. Right in his contorted snarling face. It was clear he was losing the initiative. His undirected aggression was giving way to his embarrassment.
Lying would be unfair. I can't deny as I wound down the window I studied his body language, his lack of balance as he leaned all over my door. I Listened to him but didn't really process the words. I was already sizing up if and when and how I'd hit him first. Not out of spite but necessity if this man chose to keep escalating the situation. Interestingly as I spoke with him and tried to reason with him, pointing out the fact he was at fault for what was a small and inconsequential 'nearly-accident' he backed off. Choosing to insult me from further away instead.
To some of you I may sound worse than him, talking of striking first and hard if necessary. However the training and outlook I've been given is to make a preemptive strike if necessary. To do the right amount of damage to someone to protect yourself.
After the adrenaline, confusion and ludircrous nature of the incident had played out in my head back on my sofa, I began to smile. I realised my training had come into play and I had 'won' by "fighting without fighting" as the kung fu movies might say. I put my point across, clearly and defiantly. I was not intimidated and I was under control of my emotions at least outwardly throughout the confrontation. But even better than that I risked neither my health, the man's health nor my liberty by starting a fight or assaulting him. Nor did I give him the opportunity to do the same.
After realising I had been given no incentive "to step outside" in a classic duel way and that I was quite happy to get on with my life the man soon rode away, angry and upset. But instead of being baited by childish aggression and name calling I chose to let the man vent a little, come to terms with his mistakes and gave him the opportunity to move on.
Had I verbally or physically taken away his dignity, given him nothing else to lose then quickly I would have found myself fighting him and perhaps injuring one if not both of us. It was a very real and very out of the blue test of all I'd learned without throwing a single punch.
The real key as found in many philosophies is that it is possible to pick your battles and still win without going to war. That's what my training and pursuit of martial arts is all about. Being so good at reading and controlling a situation I should rarely need to use force.
A Sporting Chance
Wed, Dec 30 2009 02:22
| kung fu, martial arts, boxing, training, street fight, martial arts Altrincham, kickboxing, self defence
| Permalink
If you ask our old friend Joe Public to name a martial art you tend to receive a narrow set of answers. Karate, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, Kung Fu (a coverall for hundreds if not thousands of styles), perhaps even boxing or wrestling or global brands such as UFC might all get the nod.
So what? You might ask. The common thread is that by and large all of those are sports. They have rules, referees, specific types of strikes/ranges and weight classes etc they are not practiced, designed for or implemented on the most important arena of all – the street.
However if you talk to our friend Joe Public they will not see the difference and nor should we expect them to. What is even more worrying is when students or even worse instructors of these styles cannot differentiate the gulf between these two contexts.
I do not seek to defame any one of these pursuits or criticise them as styles of combat. However it does bother me that from a cultural point of view there is a complicit willingness to mislead or simply avoid the gap between the mat and the pavement.
It is not to say that the skills and techniques from any of these sports cannot be used for self defence but in my humble experience it is often a case that a certain amount of adaptation and understanding is needed to make this work.
How often do you hear stories of martial arts enthusiasts suffering horrific injuries and humiliation at the hands of thugs and criminals? What can possibly cause this? How does the highly trained exponent of a fighting style fall foul of the untrained?
The answer can be complex but generally speaking there is a combination of the following factors often enough:
· An overinflated confidence of the individuals own strength and skills
· A lack of exposure to self defence/street fights
· A fundamental flaw in understanding their styles strengths and weaknesses
· A basic lack of conditioning to physical, psychological and verbal assaults from unprovoked opponents
· An assumption that an attacker may fight fair or within a consensual set of rules/code
Violent and criminal acts are often borne out of base desires or instincts the perpetrators often utilise the deepest and most animalistic of methods and traits. Regularly these acts are malicious, opportunistic, instinctive and cruel in nature. In essence they go against every cornerstone of the sporting world and culture no matter how violent or barbaric a sport may seem to outside world (see much of the moral debate over boxing and increasingly MMA bouts).
It is this dichotomy that in my opinion often leads to confusion amongst the martial arts community as to the validity and more importantly relevance of various styles to practical street defence. In martial sports their design and motivation is to achieve as much parity between contestants as possible. Fighters are seeded, compete in weight classes and receive medical care and attention as well as the grace and attention of referees to protect their health as much as possible.
On the street there is no code, no starting bell, no one to separate pugilists and there is no reason for an attacker to stop maliciously beating a stricken foe and inflicting severe damage and even death using any strike, weapon or method they choose.
At this point you may be thinking I am seeking to dismiss and undermine martial sports as a glorified side show and spectacle. Far from it! I love to box and kick-box and would hate to trade blows with any well trained exponent of Muay Thai, MMA, wrestling etc
My participation in those pursuits however, isn’t designed to improve my effectiveness but to improve my basic martial skills. The test of stamina, fitness, muscle, coordination and balance I gain from kick-boxing all provide ample reason enough to train it. Most importantly though I simply enjoy it!
My underlining point is that often instructors fail their students by not differentiating between the dojo and the alley way. I have seen instructors of various martial sports claim an in depth knowledge of self defence and for it to be an area they teach extensively in their class without a hint of embarrassment of self-denial.
Often this is simply a marketing ploy as the instructor knows full well a novice will not be able to discern the difference or the fact and fiction of what they are told until many hours of training have been undertaken. The martial arts which are well renowned amongst experts and enthusiasts for a high level of usability are also linked to various military and police bodies. These arts include Wing Tsun, Krav Maga, Systema, Sambo and Eskrima amongst others.
This is no coincidence. The military and police deal with dangerous and deadly encounters as a matter of course. They need and rely on techniques not only to do their job but to stay alive as they have no margin for error.
My question to you is does your training cater for what you need over what you want? It is easy to dismiss one art or one teacher over another. However it is fundamental that you not only find a teacher you enjoy training with, but you find a teacher who can deliver what you require.
So what? You might ask. The common thread is that by and large all of those are sports. They have rules, referees, specific types of strikes/ranges and weight classes etc they are not practiced, designed for or implemented on the most important arena of all – the street.
However if you talk to our friend Joe Public they will not see the difference and nor should we expect them to. What is even more worrying is when students or even worse instructors of these styles cannot differentiate the gulf between these two contexts.
I do not seek to defame any one of these pursuits or criticise them as styles of combat. However it does bother me that from a cultural point of view there is a complicit willingness to mislead or simply avoid the gap between the mat and the pavement.
It is not to say that the skills and techniques from any of these sports cannot be used for self defence but in my humble experience it is often a case that a certain amount of adaptation and understanding is needed to make this work.
How often do you hear stories of martial arts enthusiasts suffering horrific injuries and humiliation at the hands of thugs and criminals? What can possibly cause this? How does the highly trained exponent of a fighting style fall foul of the untrained?
The answer can be complex but generally speaking there is a combination of the following factors often enough:
· An overinflated confidence of the individuals own strength and skills
· A lack of exposure to self defence/street fights
· A fundamental flaw in understanding their styles strengths and weaknesses
· A basic lack of conditioning to physical, psychological and verbal assaults from unprovoked opponents
· An assumption that an attacker may fight fair or within a consensual set of rules/code
Violent and criminal acts are often borne out of base desires or instincts the perpetrators often utilise the deepest and most animalistic of methods and traits. Regularly these acts are malicious, opportunistic, instinctive and cruel in nature. In essence they go against every cornerstone of the sporting world and culture no matter how violent or barbaric a sport may seem to outside world (see much of the moral debate over boxing and increasingly MMA bouts).
It is this dichotomy that in my opinion often leads to confusion amongst the martial arts community as to the validity and more importantly relevance of various styles to practical street defence. In martial sports their design and motivation is to achieve as much parity between contestants as possible. Fighters are seeded, compete in weight classes and receive medical care and attention as well as the grace and attention of referees to protect their health as much as possible.
On the street there is no code, no starting bell, no one to separate pugilists and there is no reason for an attacker to stop maliciously beating a stricken foe and inflicting severe damage and even death using any strike, weapon or method they choose.
At this point you may be thinking I am seeking to dismiss and undermine martial sports as a glorified side show and spectacle. Far from it! I love to box and kick-box and would hate to trade blows with any well trained exponent of Muay Thai, MMA, wrestling etc
My participation in those pursuits however, isn’t designed to improve my effectiveness but to improve my basic martial skills. The test of stamina, fitness, muscle, coordination and balance I gain from kick-boxing all provide ample reason enough to train it. Most importantly though I simply enjoy it!
My underlining point is that often instructors fail their students by not differentiating between the dojo and the alley way. I have seen instructors of various martial sports claim an in depth knowledge of self defence and for it to be an area they teach extensively in their class without a hint of embarrassment of self-denial.
Often this is simply a marketing ploy as the instructor knows full well a novice will not be able to discern the difference or the fact and fiction of what they are told until many hours of training have been undertaken. The martial arts which are well renowned amongst experts and enthusiasts for a high level of usability are also linked to various military and police bodies. These arts include Wing Tsun, Krav Maga, Systema, Sambo and Eskrima amongst others.
This is no coincidence. The military and police deal with dangerous and deadly encounters as a matter of course. They need and rely on techniques not only to do their job but to stay alive as they have no margin for error.
My question to you is does your training cater for what you need over what you want? It is easy to dismiss one art or one teacher over another. However it is fundamental that you not only find a teacher you enjoy training with, but you find a teacher who can deliver what you require.