and add fun

My last blog entry was all about my belief that martial arts schools should focus their beginner training towards self-defence, rather than sport.

The counter argument is that to do so would alter the fundamental structure of the martial arts. How silly is that? I can see how that is how such a change might feel to somebody raised in the sport style, but it just isn't true of martial arts in general.

Take Judo. Before it became accepted as an Olympic sport, it was mostly focused towards real fighting. Real fighting and sport fighting cannot be the same, nor should they be.

For example, in competition there are rules that penalize or disqualify players who throw their opponents in an unsafe manner; on their head, for example. This is good in competition, and even in daily training in the dojo. In self defence, this is the exact wrong thing to do. Spiking the evil-doer headfirst into concrete would most likely end the confrontation quite dramatically, and even leave one free to concentrate on not getting beat up by his buddy.

Many Judoka train for decades without spending any time at all practising how to do this. I'm sure they could improvise something on the spot by doing what they would never consider doing in either competition or in the dojo, but that is nowhere as effective as doing something you've trained in. There is a strong likelihood that they'll throw their attacker flat on his back, which is one of the least damaging ways to get thrown. You tend to do what you've practised.

Too dangerous? Find a way. There are wonderful throwing dummies that don't mind getting spiked on their heads at all. Even if it isn't trained this way all the time, at least it would be part of the Judoka's repertoire.

Want more? A very effective way to get somebody to violently hit the ground is by grabbing their legs. In current competitive rules this is illegal. I have no idea why. In many Judo dojo, these techniques are no longer therefore taught.

There are many examples of martial arts creeping farther and farther away from real fighting.

All I'm really suggesting is to put the goals of the curriculum back where they used to be.

What I'm not suggesting is that the methods of instruction be rolled back as well. If anything, I would like to see them modernized.

Old-timers in Karate, like me, get all dreamy-eyed as they tell the younger folks how they used to stand for hours in horse stance, or how many thousand punches they did without stopping, or weeks of beginner practice with nothing more than break-falls. We sure weeded out the weak back then.

Really? Is the goal to weed out the weak, or to create the strong? If somebody is already able to pass all the hurdles to be permitted to learn martial arts, they don't much need them. The people that need them are the exact people that a weeding out process would eliminate.

So I say, bring back the good old days when the goal of martial arts had nothing at all to do with scoring points. Teach the grizzly art of beating people up in a non-rule-restrained fashion.

And while we're moving back to teaching real fighting, let's chuck our all the educational methods that are counter productive.

People learn better if they feel they are succeeding, or good at what they are learning, and not when if they think they suck. Lessons should be aimed at an appropriate level of difficulty, and then broken down into component parts that can be clearly demonstrated, easily understood, and then successfully performed by the students.

They should be praised for their success. That alone would just about kill some of my Karate instructors. Also, if correction is needed, don't flood the student with so much that they interpret it as all meaning that they royally stink and can't do anything right at all.

Bad example; "your punch is too high (push students arm to correct height), and off centre (further physical correction), and when you punched your arm left the hip too soon, and your elbow should have travelled closer to your body, and your thumb is sticking out, and your fist was loose....."

Good example; " that was good. One thing would make it better. Your fist was a little loose. Squeeze as you do the punch, as it would really hurt if you hit something solid. (student does another punch) Much better. Your fist was perfect." (a few minutes later the teacher returns, praises the tight fist again, and this time mentions another "one thing" that would make it better.

There also needs to be some fun. People are coming to martial arts for many reasons, one of which has to do with enjoyment. This winter 4 of us went to pickleball lessons. Bernie loved it. Lola loved it. Helen loved it. I would rather have been in a dentist's chair. Bernie, Lola, and Helen all look forward to playing again. After that single lesson I announced my pickleball retirement. Point being; if you don't find it enjoyable, you won't want to do it. Neither will your students.

A lot of Karate instructors don't want them hitting anything solid until students have developed at least passable form. Fair enough. Have them take turns holding pool noodles out as targets, and trying to punch those. If you think that's stupid, I kinda agree, but it took me maybe 15 seconds to come up with that activity. Spend few minutes and figure out some better ones of your own.

Or how about this; fun in another way?

I remember the first time somebody really scarey ended up in front of me for step sparring. We could reproduce that feeling on purpose. Line up all the new students to practice the only block they've learned while stepping back. Have them do it slowly, then when they can do it at least halfway well, have them do it a little faster. So far, it's just good, regular drill.

Now have scarey people line up in front of them. Who? You know; Brown Belts, Black Belts, or maybe the instructor. The scarey people put on their best poker-style dead face, and they are postured ready to attack, and at the perfect range for a one-step forward attack..

The rookies are told, “imagine this person is about to attack you. They are going to launch exactly the attack that you've been preparing to defend against. The difference is that they are going to COME AT YOU FASTER THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE. Are you ready?” They will be terrified of this. “Higher belts, move back 3 feet.” They do. “The only difference between this and a real attack is that they will not be able to reach you, even if you forget to step back.”

“Ready....GO....” This is repeated a couple of times. At this distance there is no contact between attacker and defender at all. It becomes a race. Of course the form of the newbies will pretty much collapse at that speed. This can be pointed out as an expected outcome, but that it will become less over time.

The next time this drill is done, the newbies will feel confident. After a couple of long-range attacks, the higher belts should be moved close enough that if the defenders don't move at all they could be hit. The higher belts should be ready for this possibility, and to abort their attack if necessary, but it shouldn't be needed. It will seem much more real. Again a race.

What you have is people moving fast, with a terrifying opponent. It's a bit like a roller coaster; safe but scarey. Fun. If you think it's a big waste of time, so what. The whole thing might take up 5 minutes of class time in each of two classes. I'd call it a wise use of time, not a waste. The high belts will likely get a kick out of terrifying the beginners, too.

So why not have a self-defence curriculum as the focus, taught using modern methods, and with a sprinkling of fun activities?

Unless the goal is to have as small a class as possible.