Uechi-Ryu.com

I started a thread elsewhere on the current TMA decline but I would like to shift gears from the decline argument and ask a more beneficial question. It seems many people feel like TMA is in decline (let’s not continue that debate here) and are thinking it would be beneficial to modify what they teach to a more modern realistic self defense approach.
So I am asking those people who agree with this thought to explain what that art might look like. How would it be taught, what would be in the curriculum? If it is based on true self defense is that something that is reasonable to teach in a public setting without fear of legal retribution if one of our students has to use something we taught them?
A few posts ago I wanted to post a pic of some of my favorite knives. If I ever had to use that knife in a situation, would a prosecution attorney twist that post to try and show I was a crazy knife and gun fanatic?
Is there actually a customer demand for REAL self defense?

I have been thinking a lot about what I would call an aggregate system. If you go to an MMA school you can learn Muay Thai one night and BBJ the next and boxing on another. What happens is the “style” is dropped and you end up learning from necessity rather than what is except able at yellow belt or whatever rank you are. It always frustrated me when I was a teen that I would come to class after spending hours and hours at home working on some kick only to have my teacher tell me not to do that kick anymore because that is a brown belt kick. Oooooo ahhhh. Like there is some magic. The next generation is not going to spend three years just doing sanchin. In 2013 and forward things move to fast. Everything is instant and the younger people expect this speed. As a business if you can’t provide what is expected someone else will. So my new thinking is an aggregate system where students are free to learn what they feel they need. Now I may not be a judo guy but there is no reason I can’t get someone else in to cover that area. I am thinking like a coach who specializes in a certain area that I am a true expert in and let others provide their expertise. The new generation has little tolerance for bull. If you can’t walk the walk they will know. The magic fu fu dust death touch I would show you but you might die, kind of stuff is gone.
I think I would break the system into a few categories
1 striking and kicking
2 grappling
3 joint locks and throwing
4 traditional weapons (sword, sticks, knifes, whatever you fancy)
5 street weapons ( chain, baseball bat, lap top, fry pan, kitchen sink ect)

Good post. The next generation certainly will not spend 3 years on sanchin, nor should they. I like to dabble in the 5 categories you've mentioned here on my own outside the dojo, but yeah, it would be great to train uechi in the dojo as a complete system. TMA can be a complete system but it tends to be up to the experienced practitioner to make it complete on his own. Frustration for me is that uechi ryu has so much potential in all 5 of these areas. And the deeper the study gets the more is evident.

The title just gets me.......

Proper tma is self defense.....

now if some mucky muck disagrees or can't teach that way, and doesn't explore the brutal reality....

Why expect to learn anything on that list

Marcus ,this pretty much answers what you said

Qoute
"The new generation has little tolerance for bull. If you can’t walk the walk they will know. The magic fu fu dust death touch I would show you but you might die, kind of stuff is gone.
I think I would break the system into a few categories "

that has been the problem, that and the magic " Kata"

I think a lot of the old styles looked at it from the perspective of gaining an advantage, usually from Range, which is all BJJA did basically.

from the nuance of building a style I would probably go with boxing because it shows Guard, attack and move.and from that basis stick other nasty bits onto it

Hoshin
Love to see your knives.........I've been buying from China, Got a beauty.titanium handle with Carbon fibre scales, D2 steel blade.... $50

Marcus is dead right.

To ask how TMA can become more realistic in teaching self defence really should not be a question that has to be asked – and yet it is a valid question today.

Let me first say that I do my best to teach a realistic self defence program and I do it from my Uechi Ryu base so I see no conflict in TMA and SD whatsoever.

The question might be how did we come to a point where the question was valid?

I offer some thoughts on this for what they are worth and please take it or leave it because I am not trying to start any bashing or even a discussion.

1) Every training drill has both a purpose and a safety flaw.

a) I see that there was a shift in drills from a bunch of guys in their backyards training or some guys keeping their body guard/military ways secret to doing performances.

A performance for a crowd is much like a performance for a movie camera -- it is a show and a show that must be seen so many things are done “bigger” and fancier.

In addition things are sometimes done slower to show what is being done.

Also there are certain aspects that the art wants to show off so that is the focus of the “show.”

If the show becomes the focus then the training shifts to meet that need. And thus the art changes from effective self defence to what we often see in movies today.

b) A drill or a training tool that is created to teach a specific principle and it is intended to be just a stepping stone to the next level. If for whatever reason that next step is not taken then the drill meant to teach just one small first step aspect becomes “THE WAY.”

2) Copy degradation. If drills are taught and a student does not pick up on the purpose of the drill and the safety flaw then the drill is passed on incorrectly and actual training flaws begin to appear.

What one person understands and does well when copied if not understood to the same depth loses integrity and as the copying continues the loss of understanding grows to the point the training is no longer effective.

How do we then approach things to recover or continue teaching TMA as effective self defence?

Be honest.

Be analytical.

Be critical.

Ask yourself what are the principles of self defence you want to teach.

Ask yourself what are the principles of self defence or aspect of self defence being taught in the drills you do. Perform a really detailed anaysis.

Ask yourself what the safety flaw in each drill is and where in your training to counterbalance it.

If you can articulate the principles of self defence you believe are effective and you can point to the drills you do that support those principles and acknowledge the safety flaws and how you deal with them then I think you should have a solid foundation of TMA/SD.

_________________
Rick Wilson - http://wpd-rc.com/

I would agree with a statement that TMA SHOULD be real self defense however the reality of most dojos says otherwise. The problem stems from the past conflict of interest between what makes an effective art and what makes a successful dojo that puts money in the owner’s pockets. Thus my question “is there a customer demand for true self defense”. The other thread mentions certain karate seniors who “have thousands of students” truth be told they have had a small hand full of very good, very effective and powerful martial art students who may have also become great teachers of their own right but the rest of those thousands and thousands are very lack luster and mediocre who could not fight their way out of a paper bag. The training method is to teach to the general population which means a very broad brush version of karate that anyone can do and enjoy. The philosophy is that everyone comes to karate for different reasons.
1 community activity where you can meet people
2 lose weight
3 become more flexible
4 stay active as we age
5 coordination
6 build confidence

These are the reasons to learn karate that commercial dojo’s have been advertising for years. The self defense aspect was down played to the point where it seemed teachers were almost embarrassed that it was a fighting art. Why did this happen? Because we became child oriented. You can’t say to a parent “yeah we are going to teach your kid how to kick the living $%!+ out of the other kids. The focus became something other than fighting because fighting is a bad thing that only bad people do.
Did anyone notice other than me that the karate kid movie had a semi full contact fight with no protective equipment and within a few years karate was being associated with pizza eating turtle cartoons and kung-fu panda.
We created an image to bring the child students in the door so we could pay the rent. In doing so, we sold our souls and our dignity. Yes teachers will try to rationalize this and say “well yes I teach kids but my adult class is REALLY about self defense”. I say bull. Lots of teachers have classes that mix the parent and child in the same class. The number one karate school in my area as far as student enrolment goes is called “family martial arts” I think that says it all.

1993 rolls around and the UFC comes out. A few years later The Ultimate Fighter TV show explodes in popularity. Suddenly it’s not so much a taboo to say we teach fighting. The trouble is the TMA School is no longer seen as real. A bunch of guys walking around in pajamas showing off their belt to show how good they are. Doing fake fighting in the air and when there is someone in front of them the dojo rules say no contact.

I made this thread so we can start to shake this image and if needed remove the old Japanese model and create a new modern way of teaching the stuff that actually works.

from my perspective to punch someone in the face is to punch them in the face, it works, its effective and its real. however a martial art is more than this. there is a whole lot of baggage that comes along with it. you have to separate the chaff from the wheat, some schools will have more wheat and others more chaff.
so i have a few questions,
if belt ranks where created by Kano for sport judo divisions,,,why do we still use them if we are to be self defense oriented?
why wear a gi?
why bow, meditate before a class, look at a shomen and clap 3 times?
why do we have a shomen, why call it a shomen?
why have a class lead by an insturctor who stands in front of the class with everyone standing in file rank?
why do we punch from a chambered postion with the hand in your arm pit?
why cant a student learn any kata they want at any time?
why do i have to be in a "stance" why cant i just put my feet where i feel comfortable?
why cant i see something on youtube and bring that idea to class so we can all practice it?
why when i ask why does the reply end up "beacuse thats the way the okinawans what us to do it?


i think i might need a bigger spoon to stir this pot

_________________
Van

Hoshin the short answer is you dont have too

folks can practice however they want so i wont knock it its a circular argument

the biggest issue is just a profound disconnect and turn based approach to aggression

what i see fundamentally is good practitioners who have been ingrained to respond to an attack rather than shut it down or preempt

i call it practicing being a victim .... Think about that

im a tma.... Ive done the mma components and sparred mma. ... I dont see the conflict

i have no issue with any of the components on the original list, And can teach them from uechi ryu

ive already recomended my uechi sources and they have a good take on this stuff imho

So nothing stopping anyone going there

I learnt from this forum that criticising the status quo is futile, the real courage is to go it alone together and carry others with you by example.

And get together with the like minded when you can.

hopefully enough will have the courage of their convictions and the style will survive.

This post makes me say a big Amen , as I agree with this. I think the question is not if tma is not effective, but rather why is it taught in such a way and where is it studied in a down and dirty way? I've seen Rick's videos and Laird's and this is how it should be trained, at least after some basic principles are grasped. At best, small groups of relatively advanced students break off before and after a traditional class and experiment with what works for real and train in a non cooperative way to ingrain it. No "cross training" should be needed, although I 've done my fair share. Getting back to the original Okinawan way of teaching would be great(as opposed to the Japanese and now American way) but for the most part it does not exist in most places. Really hard training with self defense in mind seems almost like an underground pursuit within uechi.

And with regard to what karate has become, I agree fully. A type of Little League, where cute little "dragons" kick balloons, develop coordination and move on to other interests by puberty. Then, at a stage of life when it could be truly beneficial and become a lifelong pursuit, they choose other pursuits because they want the "real stuff" and if interested in martial arts turn to mma. MMA is fine but has a very short shelf life and in its entirety is not for everyone.

All of this is really too bad.

When we talk about self defense, we need to define it.

Self defense against whom or what that is 'likely to happen' these days to any of us?

Train all you want in styles etc., but unless you train in the study of violence, you won't feel complete.

See this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRuVUxWnOK0

_________________
Van

Good posts

when comparing karate to mma or sport arts youve got to be carefull, these guys often are more physically superior simply because the train harder, your comparing pro athletes to mostly amateur ones often.

and even the amateur have a specific focus of sporting physical adaption, the sport karate fighter takes similar steps if there wanting to be a champion.

If were talking self defence its got to be a brutality and understanding of the dynamics of violence thats comes from the attackers having an advantage, and of mindset strategy and surprise

Quote
"
when comparing karate to mma or sport arts youve got to be carefull, these guys often are more physically superior simply because the train harder, your comparing pro athletes to mostly amateur ones often.

and even the amateur have a specific focus of sporting physical adaption, the sport karate fighter takes similar steps if there wanting to be a champion.

If were talking self defence its got to be a brutality and understanding of the dynamics of violence thats comes from the attackers having an advantage, and of mindset strategy and surprise

I agree, but don't underestimate the bad guys either, many of them train, they tend to do weights and take steroids. Most prisons have a weight room. sometimes they are ex boxers who haven't trained in years but still retain quick hands and 5 seconds of violence from them can be life changing

The understanding of the dynamics of violence is where 'self defense' is at.

Bad guys come in all sizes, shapes and forms...they need not be ex cons etc.

A couple of skinny dope heads with surprise and intent on their sides, will put you six feet under, your skills in 'boxing' 'TMA' 'MMA' or whatever...notwithstanding.

Train under Rory and you will see what 'reality' is.

_________________
Van