MODERN SELF-DEFENSE NEEDS?

 By Phillip Starr

Anyone who's practiced a traditional martial art for some time has no doubt heard the expression, “That traditional, old-fashioned stuff won't work nowadays”, or something similar. And then there are those who speak authoritatively on “reality-based” methods of combat (as opposed, I guess, to the “unreality” methods). Oddly enough, I've never heard one of these “authorities” explain just why the traditional methods don't work, and if they ever did, exactly when did they become obsolete?

Apparently, a good number of these critics believe there actually was a time when an aggressor chambered one fist on his hip and advanced with several straight punches that the intended victim blocked effectively when stepping back into a solid front stance...kind of like a fight scene in an old 1970's grade B kung-fu movie...or a basic karate/taekwondo class. When was this? When did the local thugs attack with crisp reverse punches and clean lapel grabs that enabled the victim to perform nifty joint techniques?

I've followed the logic of these “experts” for a very long time and it seems that the change in how people fought occurred sometime back in the 70's...about the same time that “full contact” karate came into vogue. It seems that someone woke up one morning and had an epiphane; real fights involve head butts, eye gouges, punches thrown in flurries, and wrestling maneuvers. Wow! How brilliant of these innovators to realize these previously unknown truths and to have set out to remedy things! We should all be thankful for their insight!

It's typical of some people, usually those of an adolescent mentality, to believe that nothing important happened prior to their own lifetimes. They seem to believe that before the advent of grappling, contact-type sports, fighting arts consisted of dorks attired in weird pajamas throwing “unrealistic” punches, fancy kicks, and, of course, “judo chops” at each other. And we must conclude that the old “traditionalists” were either involved in some massive cult-like deception, or that bad guys back then were really stupid and easily defeated by such methods.

Face it....in so far as hand-to-hand fighting is concerned, people have fought (whether on a battlefield or a local bar) in much the same way that they always have. Physiologically, we haven't changed much in a long time! True, culture plays a role in how we fight. I remember when I was very young, anyone who kicked in a schoolyard scuffle was regarded as a sissy. Of course, that's very common now. A century ago, an English schoolboy would expect his opponent to admit defeat if his nose was bloodied. City gangs back in the 50's often had semi-elaborate rituals and posturing as they approached each other in anticipation of a fight. Nowadays, they just drive by and spray gunfire. And practical aspects of daily life can influence the approach to combat...for instance, feudal Japanese martial arts rarely involve kicking because wearing a kimono or hakama made kicking very problematic.

But those are secondary considerations. When it comes to single hand-to-hand combat, we haven't discovered anything new. That's why it's silly to talk about “traditional” forms of fighting or “reality” combat disciplines. It's more important to think of differences in APPROACHES to learning how to fight effectively. Naturally, there are inferior and superior ways of teaching and learning how to engage in personal combat. A karate, taekwondo, or gong-fu school that practices forms robotically (as a rote exercise) is not engaging in traditional training. In fact, what they are doing is practicing an inferior method...probably because the instructor learned it that way from someone who didn't know any better and passed on his inferior method to his students, who will pass them on to others. A grappling school wherein students go to the mat immediately and never provides regular practice of the fundamentals...providing haphazard instruction in the hopes of finding “what works” in the heat of the moment, is not doing anything new at all. It's just bad training...akin to tossing someone off the end of a pier to teach them how to swim.

If karate or judo practitioners fail to adequately defend themselves, it is certainly no indication that their arts don't work. If I am practicing a sort of pantomime, watered-down version of judo or taekwondo and I don't fare well in a fight, it's no reflection on the effectiveness of the art. I'm simply not doing it correctly. They certainly worked very well in the past (taekwondo made its debut in Vietnam where it was shown to be highly effective at close-quarters).

To argue that these arts are no longer effective because we've “moved on” is to say that an M1 Garand is no longer a viable weapon...the military no longer uses it. But even the most modern rifles aren't effective if instructors fail to teach recruits how to use them effectively.

One chooses to practice a martial Way not because it is magical, perfect, or flawlessly reliable. One practices it because it is a serious way of confronting and dealing with violence...a Way that has been proven again and again over many generations. However, you can, if you so choose, believe that people just didn't know how to fight as effectively in the past as we do now; that the “traditional” Ways are outmoded and you are witness to (and may have participated in) a new and unique creation in the field of personal combat. Congratulations...