Reality Based Self Defence

The question is often asked; what martial art or fighting system is the best for self self defence? The answer is always going to be biased to some degree as we tend to practice systems which we believe in. As someone who has been trained in several martial arts and fighting systems I have come to the conclusion that the issue is not the martial art or fighting system but the extent to which the training is realistic and relevant to what you would encounter today.

Traditional or Non-Traditional Systems

One of the biggest debates has been whether traditional martial arts are relevant today. There are two common complaints against traditional martial arts. The first is that the sorts of scenarios we may face in the street today are not covered in traditional martial arts. The second, and linked to the first, is that traditional martial arts are too rigid and inflexible. Bruce Lee called this the classical mess.

I agree to some extent with both complaints but hasten to add that this does not have to be the case. More often than not it is the teaching and not the system that needs to change. The first complaint, that traditional martial arts do not cover modern day scenarios applies equally to non-traditional mixed martial arts (MMA) systems. In fact I get more annoyed with mixed martial arts claiming to be the next best thing than with traditional martial arts that have failed to deliver. Traditional martial arts might be stuck in defending against out-dated forms of attack or (more often) defending against themselves (against the attacks they would deliver) but mixed-martial arts are often stuck in defending against “cage fighting” attacks. These so-called “no-holds-barred” fights are anything but no-holds-barred.

The second complaint, that traditional martial arts are too rigid and inflexible is the chief complaint Bruce Lee had against traditional systems. His two main points were that the systems themselves were too rigid (stuck in certain patterns and postures) and that the systems squashed the freedom of expression required for “real” fighting. I understand where Bruce Lee was coming from and in many instances his analysis holds true but his complaint cannot be generalised to all traditional martial arts or rather to traditional martial arts teachers. My traditional martial arts experience is limited to Chinese martial arts and not to Japanese martial arts (as I have mentioned before Atemi-Ju-Jitsu is non-traditional). Generally speaking, students in non-traditional systems learn to fight faster than those in traditional systems because the traditional students spends more time learning the proper structure and form required to deliver the technique. Too often I encounter students of non-traditional systems with shocking form (even on boxing terms). But students of traditional systems find the cross-over to self defence scenarios so much easier because they have developed a solid foundation and in the end students of traditional systems often surpass students of non-traditional systems (with the caveat that those students have teachers who do not fall into the traps mentioned above). As soon as martial arts teachers are honest about exploring self defence scenarios they will discover the weak spots in the systems they teach and make the necessary adjustments. I have found that honest exploration leads to a better understanding of each system.

One more thing I might point out… when you look at how Bruce Lee taught his students you would be hard pressed to not think that his approach is traditional (he would make them punch his “straight blast” thousands of times until it was perfect and had became second nature… that is the traditional approach.

War and Peace

Most traditional martial arts were developed “in the field”. They were self defence systems before they became traditional martial arts. There are two things that I believe dilute martial arts, traditional and non-traditional alike, and lead to systems that are far removed from true self defence. The first is sport and the second is peace.

The influence of sport has watered down martial arts and resulted in systems that are ring fenced by rules and regulations. Martial artists involved in combat sports tend to focus on training for competition and adherence to the rules and regulations of these sports. As I mentioned, even these so-called “no-holds-barred” competitions are limited to rules and regulations. Two fighters engage each other within known parameters. In the street you may face multiple attackers, possibly with weapons, in an environment that is less than ideal. In competition the goal is victory. In self defence the goal is survival.

Throughout history, the advent of peace has led to the watering down of martial arts as systems of national or self defence. That is not to say that peace leads to the death of realistic self defence, but typically people in peaceful environments are less interested in realistic martial arts, and those teaching martial arts tend to focus on other elements of martial arts; such as fitness, sport or self development.  South Africa is one of the most dangerous places to live. 50 murders are committed everyday and typically non-violent crimes, such as house breaking, are often accompanied by violent crimes such as murder, rape and torture. An aside, knife crime is on the increase in the UK and I predict an increase in people searching for self defence classes that deal with realistic knife attacks. I wonder how many martial arts teachers are prepared for this. So South Africans look for martial arts and fighting systems that are going to help them defend themselves and their families against violent crime. South Africans do not have the luxury of learning martial arts for self development alone. I feel strongly that any student of mine who walks out the training hall is prepared for the real threat of violence.

Which System is Best for Self Defence?

As I mentioned, any system that focuses on realistic scenarios and is honest about adapting training methods to deal with realistic defences can be good for self defence. That said, some systems are better tuned for self defence than others. For example, Goshin Jujitsu, Atemi-Jujitsu, Filipino Martial Arts and Krav Maga are typically more focused on self defence. Karate and Judo are often more sport oriented. In terms of traditional martial arts I am biased towards Tai-Chi-Chuan and Wing-Chun-Kuen. Both are close combat systems and both enable students to develop responses to different attacks without needing to train  each and every scenario. People are surprised when I mention Tai-Chi-Chuan because the art is most popular for its health benefits, and the martial aspect is not taught much, but like Aikido, good Tai-Chi-Chuan is great for self defence (again with the caveat that you train for realistic scenarios). Mixed martial arts are often hold disparaging views towards traditional martial arts but they in truth are often too focused on the sport than on realistic scenarios.

Finally, even within the many good systems for learning self defence and there are techniques that can be debated. Different teachers have different points-of-view on what is real and what is not, and what works and what does not. Martial arts teachers should seek to avoid confirmation bias, that is, limiting their search for realism to that which fits with their current point-of-view. In the end, the quality of the self defence course depends on the teacher and the extent to which the system is relevant to the sorts of scenarios you might encounter in your everyday life. More often students need to be educated in what to expect, but sometimes martial arts teachers need educating too.

Popularity: 20% [?]