Does your Martial Art teach “Self Defence?” (no not that)

Sensei Canna offers insight into the real world of self defense!

Moderator: Van Canna

Does your Martial Art teach “Self Defence?” (no not that)

Postby Rick Wilson » Tue May 26, 2015 4:16 pm

If you were expecting a rant on martial arts not being effective in reality based self defence you’ll be disappointed.

While you can define martial arts in many ways the teaching of a martial art often involves some form of handing down a “system.”

This system was created in the past and for a specific purpose and what was taught in that system worked in that time, that place, for that purpose and based on those laws (ignoring criminal application).

As you pass on your martial art how are you presenting it?

Are you presenting it with the caveat that as cool as what you are doing is this is not relevant to modern day civilian application?

I just finished a splendid 40 hour core dump seminar with Rory Miller. At one of the breaks he was explaining that his system of Jujitsu has more than one assassination Kata. In addition many of the moves were intended to break the neck on the person it was being applied to.

His system was a battlefield JJ system meant to be used in combat when you’ve lost your weapon against an armoured and armed aggressor. There was no messing around the goal was to kill him and take his weapon.

The system is brutal and for many martial arts buffs very cool.

However, the system was designed for a battlefield where the appropriate goal was to kill the other side.

Now I am not criticizing anyone from wanting to preserve and pass on this system – let me be clear about that.

However, if you are teaching it without teaching that it would rarely be appropriate in modern self defence then I do have a problem.

If you are teaching it to be used in self defence I do have a problem with it.

I have publicly posted up to #14 of the 20 clips on the “Plea of Self Defence” (thread here on Van's forum) and the clips are not getting a lot of views and that's fine. I’m told they are decent clips so why are people teaching self defence not interested? I will guarantee the vast majority have little or no knowledge on the subject.

I think it would alter what they teach – I know it has altered what and how I teach.

There are three main sections to an assault:

Pre-assault: What lead up to it.
The Assault: The attack itself and how you respond.
Post-assault: The legal aftermath both criminal and civil and the possible physical, emotional and mental effects.

Most of us focus on the assault with little or no coverage of what brought us there or what will happen after the student does exactly what the teacher taught them to (hmm legal ramifications on that?).

At the end is a clip with some nice moves but take note that at the start the person defending is armed and the person attacking isn’t. Also note the “finishing” moves.

Could you articulate why you shouldn’t spend the rest of your life in jail?

Could the teacher explain why the family shouldn’t take everything he owns in a law suit for what he taught his student to do?

Nothing wrong with passing on a venerated system just be very clear of what you are teaching and when it applied to self defence and how and if it is relevant to “self defence” today. ... 9/?fref=nf
Rick Wilson -
User avatar
Rick Wilson
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:43 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests