Should Martial Arts still teach lethal techniques? If so how do you judge who is responsible enough for this information? Cooler.
I believe lethal techniques are a must-teach, and I'd have to say the standard method of observing character for a long period (left to the discretion of the instructor) before they're taught is probably still the best method.
I think they should be taught but that the instructor must be selective as to the student's attitude etc.
It depends on what you mean by leathal technique. The majority of techniques can be leathal in the correct (or incorrect) application.
That's a good point freeform you could easily punch someone and kill them by mistake. What I mean is techniques which are taught to students with the main aim of doing serious injury or possibly killing your opponent. Cooler.
As a rule I wouldn't teach things like that to anyone under sixteen, and I would have to have seen what their attitude was as well over a period of time.
I personally think that techniques of that sort should be taught to only the most responsible students.... The ones that would end up inheriting their instructor's position etc. And most likely not until somewhere around 6th Dan. I myself would be afraid of teaching such a technique because the instructor ultimately is responsible (morally in their own mind at least) for what the student does with the knowledge. And the person has to live with that if it is misused. Rob
I feel that the Ultimate goal of a Sifu, Sensei, Guru or whatever, is to either replicate, or surpass themselves thru their Students. The continuation of the Family line etc. If the Master fails to Mould a trustworthy student, that will continue on the tradition of the style, then he/she has failed, and is impotent. If Dim Mak is to be taught, then it has to be taught, only so that the teaching is not lost. It must only be taught for it's 'artistic value', not for personal gain. If someone is openly teaching these techniques, then I would question whether they are a suitable person to hold such knowledge. It is interesting to watch the change in a students attitude as they become more accomplished in technique! Do they use what they have learned to show off, or to improve others? We can all be guilty of showing off, but most of us realise later. Some people never quit trying to get 'one-up', and I worry about people like this getting access to 'secret techniques'. Interesting topic Cooler. Oh, by the way, remember that odd technique I caught you with when we sparred a couple of years ago? Well you've got about two weeks to live mate...........sorry about that.
Andy, As a student myself, I thought I'd have a go at trying to answer this from a previous clubs' perspective. Do they use what they have learned to show off, or to improve others? We can all be guilty of showing off, but most of us realise later. Some people never quit trying to get 'one-up', and I worry about people like this getting access to 'secret techniques'. I remember at my last dojo, we had an intake of 2 new karateka that my Sensei was not to sure about showing techniques too. Two chaps in their early twenties, who within weeks of starting with us, made enquiries about tobi geri and how to perform it. This instantly made our Sensei cautious as it was obvious that they were interested in 'flashy' techniques rather than the art. It was a real shame. It meant that others in the class missed out on technique training unless these two didn't show up, or we arranged for one on one training with the Sensei. Fortunately at my current dojo, so far this isn't a problem. Melanie
Hi, Bottom line. Flashy arts don't work in real life encounters. High kicks don't either, unless you are darn lucky. Use the KISS principle (Keep it Simple Stupid). This will most likely keep you alive, with enough time to run away. Yes, Flee! Martial Arts are not here to bedazzle us. They are proven techniques of war, if they have been used in a war. Study the true history of your system, don't take an instructors, or students word on matters such as this. Deadly techniques are fine to learn, as long as you are a sane and good person. Look into your instructor to see if he/she has a benevolent heart. If not. Leave. Matters such as deadly techniques cannot be taken lightly. Please, believe me. Country Ninja, Tracy Crocker
Well, lets be honest about it, anyone that really wants to learn these techniques can pick up a book. Anyone that really wants to kill someone will likely use a weapon. I wouldn't teach anything to anyone unless I though them capable of practicing it safely. Or at least not let them practice it in my Dojo. Twist the neck hard enough, they die. Strike the throat hard enough, they die. Cut a big enough artery, or puncture something important, they die. Its really not that complicated to kill someone. But there is a difference between teaching them, and conditioning a person to respond with them. Guess it just depends on what you mean by teach. Making someone aware that something can be done, and actually giving them the conditioning it takes to be able to do that in a real situation are different. No one, at any rank, should be conditioned to respond in a lethal way out of instinct, but that doesn't mean they won't know how to if they really wanted to.
I agree with what Andrew Green posted, causing another person to stop living is not exactly rocket science. I cannot think of any technique, from an opening salutation to the most basic series of blocks, to the mildest Aikido odori, to the most insignificant Taijiquan weight shift, that wouldn't produce lethal results if applied to the wrong place at the wrong time. Anyone who has ever been taught how to properly swing a baseball bat (or start up a chainsaw), has been given lethal techniques. Anyone who has taken basic CPR training has been shown vulnerable parts of the human body, such as the xyphoid process and the carotid sheath. I would tend to take the path of treating ALL techniques as lethal, and would teach MA students in exactly the same manner that I would teach someone to handle a gun, instead of trying to portray the techniques as 'lethal/not lethal'. just my .02 paul
Personally by "teach" I mean to train the person to actually use the technique. Not only show them it is possible but prepare them to execute it if necessary. Not something I would do with just anyone. Rob
To me, the interesting part of Coolers question is " how do you judge who is responsible enough" What are the important factors we judge people on, to ascertain whether or not to pass on information?
The way one of my Sensei dealt with this was to give a trial period. He'd not charge you for six weeks training, if you didn't like it after that you were free to leave. If however he didn't like your attitude he'd kick you out.
" To me, the interesting part of Coolers question is " how do you judge who is responsible enough" What are the important factors we judge people on, to ascertain whether or not to pass on information?..." Excellent point. Personally, I factor in a lot, starting with age, and I prefer to know as much as possible about someone before teaching them ANY martial applications. (See my earlier post about all techniques being lethal). I have recently decided to only teach Qigong/zhanzuang to the 'public', and I will only work with people on martial applications in a private or semi-private lesson setting. I have mentioned that I equate MA training with firearms training, and I recently spent 2 years as the advisor to the Florida State University criminology club/pistol team. This experience had a lot to do with my current approach to the way I teach MA. just my .02 paul
How about taking a leaf out of the big companies' books and performing psychometric testing on possible candidates? Any takers?
I think a person should be judged on their character in a way. I wouldn't want to give definitely lethal knowledge to someone with no self control and no moral character. That is tantamount to murder really. Such as taking someone you don't know at all and teaching them how to kill with single strikes etc. It could be someone who is already planning to use that knowledge. But I don't think a full psychological exam is in order either (although at this point congress would probably disagree lol) Rob
