How is your martial art designed for self-defense? For war time or peace time

Self-defense involves mind, body, spirit. Most in the Western cultures can figure out the different aspects of self-defense involving the mind, the body, and the spirit separately, but the combination of all three is a concept mostly from Eastern cultures. For example, it is common to talk about awareness and avoidance as important in self-defense in the same conversation, but fighting spirit and deterrence could be viewed as different conversations in the West.

However, in Eastern cultures, there would be no such separation. For instance, avoidance would include showing no weakness or even acting crazy to make the enemy not want to fight you. Awareness would include fighting spirit to be brave, much like how the alpha male provides lookout for the rest of the pack.

So now on to the topic of war time and peace time technique. Both can be used during peace or war times, but they have different goals to understand when one or the other is more appropriate.

War time technique: Has the goal of killing or disabling/neutralizing the enemy as more important than self-protection. Has the goal of protecting something besides yourself (such as your brothers/sisters in arms). Train to stand your ground (no retreat) as long as possible. Takes bravery to wait until the last possible moment to act. These techniques are generally NOT self-defense; however, they can save your life by causing the enemy to hesitate, surrender, or flee. You also put trust in your brothers/sisters in arms to protect your back the same as you protect theirs. Takes training in teamwork and deception to be most effective. Is as much psychological warfare as physical warfare. Emphasis on efficiency (e.g. ability to perform a limited set of functions at a high level).

Peace time technique: Has a goal of controlling a situation. Has a goal of self-protection and improving positioning. Can be done "on the run" (you can retreat, counter attack, retreat again, etc.). Techniques are limited so to provide alternatives on a force continuum starting with verbal deescalation on one end and lethal force on the other end. Emphasis on strong fundamentals (e.g. more well rounded).

For example, one martial system was developed for palace guards. It was not about self-defense. Almost the entire system comprised of standing your ground and attacking to take out as many of the enemy as possible before dieing. Had very little in the way of evasion (no room in narrow hallways to evade) and relied on other palace guards covering your flanks. A group of a few guards could hold off many more attackers in a hallway.

Another martial system was developed by nobility and included much more evasion and aspects of dueling.

Both systems above adapted over time to include aspects of the other. System for palace guards started to include more evasion. System for nobility started to include more direct attack.

So based on the origins of your martial art, is there more emphasis on wartime techniques or peacetime techniques. Has things changed over the last twenty years on this, and for what reasons?

 

On what do you base these assertions?

 

I'll have to find the book that describes the differences. The book was written around thirty years ago, so things have changed.

So what I said is based mainly on about thirty years ago. I've seen the gap between West and East become less since then. I ask people to say spirit, mind, body and most people I ask repeat:

"Spirit, mind, AND body"

The people add in the AND to the phrase.

Apparently, as I remember from the book, there is no concept of the AND in Eastern cultures. Spirit, mind, body is ONE concept as all have to work together.

As an example in self-defense classes there was hand-to-hand training and separate class on body language. Western culture likes to explain how things work.

In Aikido, the posture (Kame) was as much about body language as it was about footwork and alignment. You would just be told to have a superior attitude (or even fill yourself with Ki)... no explanation about it. You are supposed to understand that with the posture includes mind, spirit always.

In BJJ, the concept of escalator versus elevator is used in shooting in. Escalator provides warning of danger, elevator does not set off warning of danger and thus is used for a better shoot/double/single leg take down.

In Judo, you would just be instructed on proper form, no explanation of why it is done the way it is done. You are supposed to understand that with the physical movements there is mind, spirit always.

 

Well the actual history of wing chun, not the legend, is somewhat complicated but essentially it derives from militia training with weapons common in Southern China. Less injurious techniques can be selected for use so you can run the gamut on the level of force used.

The techniques all originate from the weapons and the system is now taught somewhat in reverse. Where weapons used to be of primary importance they are now secondary and many people never learn the Baat Jaam Do or Luk Dim Boon Gwan. Unfortunately this means there are plenty of people who have no concept of how and where some of the empty handed techniques, movements, and structures originate and what that means regarding their use.

 

So BJJ wartime or peacetime?

 

Mat-time - the only time that matters.

 

Excellent point!!

But the question stands because the only reason I dont maim you or kill you in BJJ is because I choose to let go.

 

You're supposed to tell me what you think.

But since you asked. BJJ is mainly peace time martial arts. It is tough to say any unarmed martial art is not more for peace time situations, such as self-defense, law enforcement, crowd control, and sport.

In BJJ, the chokes are war time technique, but the arm breaks are peace time technique since they would not kill in battle. It takes more skill and time training for peace time techniques (you need to be overall better at more things) so many of the best developments in martial arts around skill level come about during peace time, IMHO.

I consider the arm breaks to be a development of skill. For example, in BJJ you should go for the choke out first if possible. However, when the opponent defends or counters the choke, this can leave them open for an arm bar. So there is a progression of skill from the choke to learning other techniques.

All arts consist of war time techniques and peace time techniques but for safety or other reasons, not all things are allowed or trained.

Peace time and war time does not mean one is better than the other. Peace time techniques can be used in war time effectively. For example, gunting (limb destruction) in FMA is a peace time technique, but it could be just as useful in war time as peace time depending on the situation.

There are lots of gray areas too. An eye gouge is war time technique, but an arm break is not. Neither kills in battle right away. So it isn't the technique alone that makes something war time or peace time, but how it is used in combination with other things.

 

Gunting is a knife cutting the arm - only in the absence of a blade is e/h used, so no that is not peace time

 

Maiming a combatant is a highly effective strategy. Don't count out the joint locks.

 

Here is a question. In BJJ are you trained to go for the choke first or trained to go straight to some other submission?

Going for the choke first is "war time training" and everything that follows is "peace time" training.

If you never go for the choke first, then the training consists of peace time training.

Thoughts?

 

You take whatever sub is available

 

Right, I meant gunting unarmed is a peace time adaption from a war time technique.

 

I think there are two more appropriate questions:
1. Does the level of force in the martial art you train fit with the level of force you could reasonably expect to apply in a combative situation
2. Does the martial art you train fit with that expected context optimally

For most civilians the answer will be no. For most law enforcement the answer will be no. For most soldiers the answer will be no.

 

So...I think the premise is a little silly. War-time and peace-time is a very arbitrary way of categorising techniques and styles, make yet more arbitrary by the lack of a clearly defined definition for either. But more importantly, you haven't motivated the question - why should we care? If BJJ is peace-time training and JJJ is war-time training (for argument sake, let's say that is true), how would that inform any decision making we might need to undertake?

 

Maiming can be highly effective. It is getting into the gray areas. If the maiming is direct then it falls more under war time technique. Hard to explain but for instance, if a police officer systematically broke the wrists, arms, and legs of an attacker, that falls under war time technique. Or conversely, a samurai chops the hand off of an enemy. That is war time technique.

Any severe technique can be considered war time technique.

However, a wrist break that happens as a result of a wrist lock that is resisted, would be peace time technique even though the wrist is still broken.

 

Interestingly I think their might be some of the western reductionist thinking that you refer to within your question.

For me personally there is no distinction between fighting in war or in peace. I personally would only fight if it is absolutely necessary. If I fight I accept that it is possible for either myself, the opponent or an innocent bystander to get injured or killed.

To me all fights are potentially fatal, so the context / distinction between military or peacetime, is of little practical importance.

 

The last question is the one I wanted people to get at.

We lump martial arts training into big buckets but if you look at what training is composed of, you might see some things that carry over from "war time" conditions and other things from "peace time".

Take BJJ for example. I was taught to always go for the choke first and all other techniques are a result of that. In Aikido, I was taught to, for the sake of simplicity, enter with a palm strike to the face. All technique that follows was a result of this. These to me are examples for war time influences in martial arts.

So what are the war time influences in the martial art you study, for example?

I think identifying these are important or maybe they get neglected and fail to be passed on to the next generation, risking the watering down of the martial art.

 

I am ready to talk you down, punch you, choke you or kill you as circumstances dictate - whats the difference?

 

Haven't captives pretty much always been more valuable than dead enemy combatants?