When I was in my late
teens, early twenty's, I used to go to the Renaissance festival. They
had the society for creative anachronism which did their
little “reenactments” of knights doing various forms of
swordplay. They were all dressed up in their little armor outfits,
and had their replica swords (covered with foam and such) and would
offer the public the chance to give it a try.
It reminded me a great
deal of how a martial arts “match” would be done. Both
participants would face one another (swords at ready) and the “ref”
would signal a start. I (of course) just had to give this a
try (as it looked like fun, and I was considering joining
their group).
When the signal to begin
was given, I immediately cut downward at my opponents leg. This
caused him to block the blow (low) with his sword and I shuffled in
and punched him in his face shield (we had to wear helmets). When he
staggered backward, I kneed the inside of his right leg (which spun
his sword arm away) and I forearmed his chest (which put him on his
ass). I was then able to bring my sword down (point first) under his
helmet skirt.
(Foolishly) Believing
that I had “won” the match, I found myself escorted out of the
arena, stripped of the “armor”, and told that I was UN-chivalrous
and not to attempt to
participate again,...well SHIT!
This
early experience obviously tainted me in
regards to competitive matches (LOL), but it illustrated one of the
mistakes that are made with these types of training methods. Not that
the exercise needs to be
more realistic, but
that the consequences of making mistakes be realized
by the student (as opposed to ignoring the problem, by not allowing
it to occur because of “rules”).
On
this subject, I was reading an article (on another blog), that was
discussing training simulators
used by the military (often for pilots).
They
discovered that instead of allowing the student to crash
the vehicle (plane, tank, boat), it was more beneficial (for
training) to reinforce the
correct actions being
made initially (that would prevent
the occurrence of the failure).
Having read what was
presented in the article (which was done in more complete detail than
I have done here) I was surprised to read the comment left (by
another reader of the article).
“The Scenario must
be authentic to the actual event being prepared for. Even though I
was inducted into the Black belt Hall of Fame, and I sincerely do
have the greatest respect for the arts, I do not consider classical
martial arts training as true self-defense training. It does not
simulate the actual event of a real fight or all that comes before a
physical fight when there is the opportunity for de-escalation and
avoidance. Nor does it educate the student about the thinking and MO
of the human predator which will allow him to avoid being selected as
a victim”
I
had several
problems with this persons comment. First off, what does whether
they've been added to some hokey list
make any
difference at all (to what their about to say) ? And then, before
saying something sucks,
saying that you have the greatest respect
for it ?
I
don't necessarily believe that it is the purpose
of the martial art (itself) to provide training in the other listed
aspects. Many of those subjects are dictated by circumstance and
situation. The establishment of the mental
attributes
of a predator can vary by geographical region as well as the
psychological condition of the perpetrator.
Though
those subjects Do
fall into the realm of “self-defense”, I don't think it's the
responsibility of the individual “martial-art/system” and/or
instructor, to dictate the establishment of those conditions.
A
martial art (as I
understand it) should provide the methodology for training a student
in the physical aspect of dealing with a physical aggression when (or
just before) it begins. It should also provide the means to end
that confrontation (if/when necessary). Training beyond that level is
something that the instructor can/should provide the option
of learning if/when needed.
This
is a (generally) moot point if/when I'm training Law Enforcement.
Those officers would find it rather presumptuous
(of me, as the instructor) to attempt to instruct/inform them
of legal
precedence for the use of what was taught (much less a moral
justification/restriction for the use of what was being shown).
It's
this “show of force” attitude that spurs the whole sparring
BS. Practice of this wanna-be dueling
stuff serves no
purpose for Life-protection or
for the practice of the defensive
motions/techniques that are being taught.
No comments:
Post a Comment