An interesting point can be found in the following
statement: "A part-time church goer and and
fanatic
can be found on the same pew."
That's an interesting point because, even though
they are both sitting in the same church, each of
them has radically different views on what is --
and is not -- religion. And that is INSIDE the
same church.
Wanna guess how diverse it can be in the
supermarket line?

The same idea can be applied to the "martial
arts."
People know what 'they' mean when they use the
term, but that meaning isn't the same to someone
else. I've heard incredible argument over what is
and isn't martial arts and where the dividing line
is. As such, the definitions are kind of squishy.
However, where the lines are a whole lot less
squishy is when it comes to the definitions of
self-defense, assault, battery and fighting. Those
are legally defined terms and the parameters are
more clearly established and agreed upon. The main
source of argument is whether or not a certain set
of actions fit within or outside those boundaries. And both sides are going to be fiercely attempting
to prove their point that it was in a particular
category. (Challenging the category's definition
is
the exception, not the rule.)

So the issue isn't if the martial arts is 'good'
for self-defense. The question is: Is what is
being taught 'as' the martial arts usable for
self-defense?

There's a big difference

Recognize that self-defense is NOT defined by the
martial arts (or a person's emotional, screaming
monkey brain). Nor is the entire subject of
self-defense automatically incorporated into the
'operating system' of self-defense. (Kind of like
DOS -- originally a separate language -- was
absorbed by Windows.) Putting it mildly ... just
because you know 'martial arts' doesn't mean you
know self-defense.
Unfortunately, like the religious fanatic who
views every aspect of life through the filter of
his interpretation of doctrine, many 'martial
artists' view the subject of self-defense through
the lens of their particular dogma. They tell
themselves that because they know A, they
automatically know B, because B -- at least to
them -- is part of A. This becomes particularly
problematic because so many people also believe
that 'martial arts' qualify you in everything up
to Z.
Not only is this why getting a definition of
martial arts is like nailing Jell-O to a tree, but
it also shows why accepting a 'martial artist's'
definition of what is self-defense is like playing
Russian Roulette. I, as have many other people on
this list, have seen some outrageous stuff
explained as 'self-defense' by the instructors of
martial arts, reality based self-defense and mixed
martial arts. But the people who really go off the
deep end with their everything through the filters
of the martial arts fanatacism are the acolytes of
these systems and forum junkies.
Quite frankly, speaking from the standpoint of
what I know about the legal standards of
'self-defense,' most of what I see being taught as
mixed martial arts has very limited application
for self-defense. What it will do is allow you to
win a bar fight. In fact, you'll probably kick ass
and take names in most watering holes. But that
ain't exactly self-defense is it? And once again,
I'm not talking about what the screaming monkey,
adrenalized brain is saying it is. I'm talking
about operating within those external standards of
actions and conditions.
On the other hand, we have the question: Can
aspects of what is taught in the MMA be applied in
a self-defense situation?

Obviously the answer is 'yes.'  But right then and
there, we've acknowledged we're not talking about
the whole of MMA training. That is not a
concession that many of the MMA fanatics are
willing to grant.
M
 

Return to top