I realise this topic has probably come up before. There is a distinction in the minds of some MAists that sport and self defence are two different things... Is it possible that sport arts like boxing can be good for SD as well? Should a practitioner train traditional arts as well?
i honestly dont know if "traditional" arts are geared to self defence. very few (depends on the teacher) deal with de-escalation tactics which makes them no better than "sporting" arts im assuming the distinction youve made between sporting and traditional is that sport has resisted contact training? in that case resisted contact training is much better than no contact training and no deescalation training.
We answered some of those question in this thread. Sometimes being a martial artist can actually cause problems when it coms to self defence. Rather than relying on a natural instinct to protect yourself and talk down a potentially physical altercation, you think you can handle the other guy and actually encourage a physical exchange only to realise you're woefully lacking.
Martial arts trained realistically for self defence are useful for self defence. That means pressure testing physical skill (including armed, unarmed and the grey area where you don't know which is occurring), practising methods of escape and de-escalation, and knowing laws regarding your rights and obligations when defending yourself. Many sport arts are closer to being good for self defence than the majority of non-sport schools out there because of the pressure they put themselves through. That said, most martial art schools are not primarily geared towards teaching pure self defence, it's just an incidental benefit for many. Can someone get good at self defence using only sporting martial arts as their combat base? Absolutely. Can someone get good at self defence using only non-sporting martial arts as their combat base? Absolutely.
Wrestling is arguably THE most traditional, and the oldest sporting martial arts, and the most effective martial art in personal combat and warfare. Wait you mean traditional arts can also be competitive and sportive :jawdrop: Now when it comes to striking arts I would argue that the earlier the adoption of modern protective equipment allowing more resistive training produced a generally higher quality of realism and instruction. More about that here if you fancy a read.
Sports like track and field or soccer are very good for Self Defense. Boxing or wrestling are also great. "Traditional arts" that aren't taught for sport can also be good, but the most important thing is to know what you are learning and how it applies(or doesn't) to the circumstances of violence(both social and asocial) that are common to your environment and age group. Learning more about SD courses, psychology, and many more things can all be useful. I wouldn't think you could learn everything you need to know for SD from either a martial sport or traditional martial art alone. I'll give you an example, no amount of training in boxing or karate would help you talk down a drunk uncle who is standing on a rooftop holding a baby while you look up from the other side of the roof. Self defense is much more than just learning how to fight. Without first determining what self defense means to you(which might change with age and familial relationships among other things), it's hard to say what you may need to consider learning.
I think an experienced competitor in boxing thai boxing wrestling kick boxing etc , would stand a very good chance of being able to handle themselves in a SD situation how is this not clear? After all, they are trained to, and actively fight against one another in a full contact unarmed combat!
Sport and self-defense are two different things. If you take boxing and train it for self-defense, you would be doing things differently than if you trained it for sport. With that said, the fundamentals and principles remain the same. Even the mindset can be the same. The difference would be in how prepared you are for the situation. Edit: The primary factor is going to be experience. A boxer with lots of ring experience is going to be more experienced in fighting whether in the ring or out of the ring than almost everyone that trains boxing for self-defense as a hobby. The reason is that the stuff used in the ring (although restricted by rule set) still would work under pressure in a self-defense situation. Someone with little experience, even training self-defense with "no rules" might not have really experienced what works and what doesn't for them in a real self-defense situation. Conversely, someone with ring fighting experience and who trains specifically for self-defense would probably be best prepared because they have both experience and training. IME.
Their ability to engage an individual is not in question (not by us who know better). Their ability to effectively understand when to appropriately engage or disengage, how to monitor the surrounding area, be aware of other potential combatants, account for the presence of weapons, use a legally justifiable level of force, and many other factors are not dealt with in those contexts. There is a reason corrections and law enforcement don't just hire a combat sports instructor and call it a day. The lessons from those arenas are well learned but the context of civilian self defense, LEO, etc. call for skills other than simply grappling and pugilism. Saying that a sport art is good for self defense is like saying riding the mechanical bull will teach you how to be a rodeo cowboy. You learn a lot of similar skills and mechanics and you could probably handle yourself better than most who who hadn't ridden the robot, but a mechanical bull doesn't have horns, it doesn't drive forward, and won't crush you and stomp your guts out when you hit the ground.
When did the OP mention being all special forces about a situation? I quote "is it possible that sports martial arts can be good for self defence as well" I think I answered that with my own opinion . And the skills you mention regarding controlling situations , psychology etc can't be learned from just traditional martial arts either! It takes special training for Leo, police etc And I might add that how effective self defence is no matter WHAT the training is entirely down to the individual. I wouldn't fancy many general random attackers chances against most pro boxers This could branch into such a wide spectrum of questions What's the best art for defending against an attack by - a Thai boxer - a random attack - a mugger - mike Tyson It's ridiculous really, I know a marine who is also a pro thai boxer . He got hit from behind in the street by a drunk guy half his size, he hit his head on the curb and died People need to take up a art or sport because the love it. Not for the self defence aspect If a situation should arise then they can take comfort in knowing they stand a better chance than if they didn't train at all
I was illustrating the fact that the skills required for self defense are context dependent and even more context dependent to the specific type of self defense than simply self defense in general. Also I'm not sure how you got "all special forces" out of me mentioning law enforcement and corrections. Those aren't even military roles :bang: You also asked how it wasn't clear that sport arts are good for self defense. I elaborated as to why they are not optimally adapted to self defense. No they can't. Please show me where I said they could be. Which is why I mentioned that self defense is extremely context specific and requires more than simply resistant sparring, though resistant training is a component. In that case I guess it doesn't matter how someone is trained. It's all the individual and training has no bearing And I wouldn't expect a boxer to be any better at diffusing a situation before it begins than he would be without the boxing skills. 99% of self defense is prevention, avoidance, and diffusal. Combatives skills are for when the rest of that fails. It could but that's not what we're discussing. Based on the OP's question we are discussing whether sport martial arts and/or traditional martial arts are well adapted to self defense and the answer is... partly. And no amount of training would have saved him from that. It's irrelevant to our discussion. Now that I certainly agree with. Still if you want self defense the goal is making sure the situation doesn't arise. You don't do VIP protection by packing an m16 and 12 hand grenadges. You carry a small firearm and you try to control every aspect of where the principal goes.
Semantic thing: I was accepting the definition of TMA as kata based pyjama wearing martial arts. Very much take your point on wrestling, will read your essay with interest!
Judo has kata; I bet someone, somewhere is teaching BJJ kata (pronounced weirdly) that they can do in their gis Mitch
not in a gi but could be in one! basically just kata! [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjP50SOwK4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjP50SOwK4[/ame]
Self defense is both a thing in its own right and a subset of both martial arts and sports fighting. A good boxing / wrestling / martial arts coach should teach how to avoid, defuse, or control non consensual violent situations, but not all do.
I knew a cop who did Judo, and a bouncer who did MMA. So it seems like they should be effective in SD. And I also knew a JJJ isntructor who was a bouncer, so perhaps the TMAs still work. But I do think there is more than just the techniques, there is also the de-escalation etc as some have pointed out.
