Martial Arts Myths

Myth: Self-defense training is only good against an unarmed attacker. It doesn’t work if the attacker has a gun or knife.

The term ‘self-defense’ is very broad. It should not be construed to mean only a series of physical moves. Good self-defense training entails increased awareness, threat assessment, fear management, and finally, physical fighting skills. Obviously, an attacker armed with a weapon presents a serious threat. This doesn’t render null and void a person’s ability to protect oneself or make an escape. The above misconception is predicated on the assumption that self-defense training is simply a series of prescribed techniques. Sadly, I’ve heard the above sentiment from persons who have actually trained in a self-defense system. I’m not suggesting that it’s easy to survive an armed attack. The presence of a weapon may heighten the danger of the situation. The point is, it can and should be addressed by anyone who teaches self-defense. Police and soldiers learn how to defend against such attacks, there’s no reason civilians can’t learn these tactics as well.

Myth: Women should learn moves that are based on using their lower body, as they are generally not as strong as men in the upper body.

This is irrelevant. Structurally speaking, most people can exert more force with their legs than their arms. People making the above statement fail to grasp some very important facts. For one, this suggests that self-defense is predicated on being physically stronger than your attacker. This would be nice, but it’s rarely the case. Chances are, the person doing the attacking is going to be stronger than their target. Self-defense is a matter of escaping harm, not having a power lifting competition. It cannot be based on having greater physical strength, or it will fail. What is worse, this notion that women’s legs are inherently better suited to defense has led to some awful ideas about how to fight. Perhaps the worst is the idea that a woman should voluntarily drop to a prone position, and simply kick to keep her attacker at bay. Of course, you can do this if you fall to the ground, but never, ever go to the ground voluntarily. More on that with the next myth…

Myth: Groundfighting and grappling are more effective than striking or kicking. This has been proven in ‘no-holds-barred’ fighting tournaments.

Sport fighting is a sport. It is true that some of what you see in such tournaments is applicable to self-defense, but the context is completely different. There are no weapons, the contestants have agreed to participate, and no matter what they call it, there are definitely rules. The stuff that will really hurt you is usually barred, such as eye gouging and small joint manipulation. In such a scenario, being on the ground is essentially harmless, and is often a winning strategy for the contestants. In real life, being on the ground means you are immobile, when you probably ought to be running. More importantly, it leaves you very vulnerable to harm from multiple attackers. Doing some really cool arm bar on one guy isn’t worthwhile if his buddy is stabbing you from behind. It is a good idea to learn ground fighting, but realistic ground fighting should focus on getting back up, and remaining as mobile as possible. As for the notion that grappling is simply better than striking, this is a gross generalization. A good striker will pulverize a lousy grappler; it’s a matter of skill, not style. Again, this provides a nice segue into my next diatribe…

Myth: Most martial arts are ineffective in “the street”, as they are outdated and irrelevant to modern situations.

First of all, where is this “street” everyone keeps talking about? It sounds dangerous, and should probably be avoided. Having said that, this myth is the result of having a little knowledge, but not enough. All martial arts evolved out of a need for protection, and they are all effective, if fully understood and practiced well. The thing is, some martial arts are taught in a way that emphasizes history, health benefits and ritual over defensive applications. Also, some require considerable time and conditioning to be able to fight with effectively. However, no martial art should be dismissed out of hand as ineffective. Capoeira is widely regarded as simply artistic exercise by people who don’t know any better, as is T’ai Chi. Well here’s an eye-opener for you; one of the best fighters I know is a Capoeira and T’ai Chi practitioner. He understands the fighting applications of these arts, and he is a focused, aggressive fighter. The effectiveness of a martial art is dependant on how it is taught and understood. It is worth noting that the idea of a self-defense system being “practical” has become a selling point. There is some very good instruction out there, but there’s also a lot of hype. It’s what sells nowadays, so look out for charlatans, and draw your own conclusions.

Myth: All that martial art stuff is a waste of time. Why don’t you just get a gun?

The people who like to say this know nothing about self-defense, martial arts, or guns. They watch a lot of television. Guns provide certain strategic advantages, but they have a lot of drawbacks. The most obvious limitation is that you have to have the weapon in your hand, ready to fire for it to be effective at all. Guns are not the all-powerful weapon they are portrayed to be in television shows. Any professional who uses a gun knows this, which is why they have to learn firearm retention techniques. The danger of this attitude is that it places responsibility for protecting you in the weapon, which is an inanimate object. There isn’t and never has been a weapon which can protect you. You protect yourself, and if you’re going to use a weapon, you had better be trained and ready to use it. If you put your faith in a weapon, you’re going to be in for a rude awakening at the worst possible time. Better to plan ahead, and put your faith in yourself and your training.