A recent trend in martial arts material is the issue of combat effective training. Many styles have a self-defence base in the system they practice, historically the most effective self-defence recognised is a style that has all the elements of defence in its system.
In the past that honour fell mainly on the Ju Jitsu/Hapkido systems as they were not involved primarily in the sporting arena. For this reason instructor grades were hard to come by as years were taken to reach a level of competency in all sections.
Today with cross training becoming more acceptable and multi media now available, a lot of martial systems are becoming "unmasked". Equally a new type of entity has been born with some extraordinary claims being made to entrap the unwary. I have been fortunate to train with many unarmed combat instructors throughout the world on both sides of the political spectrum and my club has lately become the receiving depot for a new type of confused consumer. These people, after some time have realised that the marketing claims cannot provide what was expected or promised.
Let's look at the reason why.
"I teach self-defence not martial arts" – if you have a uniform, levels of competency, membership, all which you receive funds for, this could be called legitimately "freestyle" martial arts. Being a former law enforcement officer for example does not empower one to become an authority on techniques of defence other than the legal responsibilities of your jurisdiction. A police officer in today's force is required to show restraint, mindful of the legalities of excessive force. The current trend of overseas organisations having people learn as they teach, is flawed for both the probationary instructor and unaware student as the quality ingredient is absent. I have had an individual train specifically in knife work and when practising against our group in his "style" competition format, was defeated easily, repeatedly. The reason why is that he was not instructed in the concept required for edged weapons. Not his fault or even the probationary instructors fault, he had not been taught.
The fundamental difference is combat application with an edged weapon is based on military science compared with law enforcement confinement and civilan self defence laws. Put more simply, it is neutralization verses restraint or defence. I have viewed videotapes of forms of such techniques put out by people who have trained in the same style of martial arts as I have and even though we share one of the same instructors I see no evidence that the concept of Filipino combat techniques has been learned efficiently. When I questioned the Filipino Grandmaster about such person's training and qualifications I received laughter in response. Doesn't install confidence does it! Yet despite the promotion of being police trained or a Military CQC instructor and promoting self-defence instead of art, in my view the most obvious ingredient missing is a background in quality and quantity of martial arts training. What chance does the affiliated "learn as you teach instructor" have? What chance for the unsuspecting students?
To further reinforce that last statement a current case has a self-defence instructor with 20 hours of basic self-defence tuition teaching unsuspecting people in self-defence. This instructor has no history in crowd management/ law enforcement but picked up the ideas from "cyber space".
If a student completes his basic course and assists teaching on the next course, that person becomes an assistant instructor. Dangerous ground being practiced here.
Next is the "I'm a military combat instructor" being advertised to attract students. After a short time they too are getting found out, complimentary (sub standard) grade passes are not seen in their adverts, some contain mistruths about qualifications and backgrounds. The reason for this promotional type activity is the absence of a quality martial arts background that they can offer students. By quality I do not mean rank, we all would know of situations where a promotion was not warranted or earned so rank should always be followed by when and by whom and how.
Military Combat instructors are unique in society with good reason. They have a responsibility to the general public as well as the defence force. They are not swayed by financial considerations but rather than a level of competency.
One should note that Military Combat instructors use techniques that come from quality teachings. If you look into the qualifications of Master Combat Instructors you will find a history of quality training with high levels of competency achieved. I ask does the public require a cyber page to inspect the qualifications of persons advertising same? Would that stop this situation occurring?
What about the rest of us – depending on what is your primarily focus in martial arts. One successful solution I have witnessed is modulated training.
Take Karate for example – so rich in content between sport, applications, kata, conditioning, a self defence module or health (stretching/breathing) modules have been adapted to keep variety fresh in the minds of students and provide options for others that struggle in other areas being injury, age or interest.
What about the pioneers? I admire those that create rather than just repeat, and if that is what runs through your veins there are solutions available; fitness certificate, assessor and trainer, sport medicine, strength and conditioning combined with the techniques of interest provides you with a framework that is measurable at least to Government agencies and media so eager to pounce as witnessed in Melbourne Australia recently. I can personally recommend all of the above courses to any person as great value can be found in each content.
Is it the consumer's fault? Does a person walk into his local training hall unprepared? Does one research with as much diligence as if searching for a life long partner? Is it a mixture of both?
Is it martial arts fault? Have we lost our way or is the consumer demanding a different product? Is that the issue? Student's verses consumers?
Military Combat instructors should stay within the realm of those who currently serve and if instructing to the general public should provide full disclosure of qualifications and credentials. They have earned the right and must operate responsibly. Those who don't and advertise such, should they be made accountable?
I write this in hope it will create a functional debate.
Hugh Doherty- Japan
Godan Ju jitsu – certified Dai Nippon Butoku kai
Sandan Aki ju jitsu
Sandan Seibukaikan karate do – Philippines
6th degree Founder & Director of Kombatan in Australia.
Sec Gen International Philippine
Martial Arts Federation
Pekiti Tirsia – tri v formula Instructor. Thailand
Muay Thai – Nongkee Pauyuth
Lethway – approved by minister of sport Federation, Myanmar.
