If I told you that being an expert in martial arts does not mean being an expert in self-protection, you would tell me I was crazy and list off some famous martial artists that had defended their lives in life or death situations. Or you might even point to the UFC to validate your argument—perhaps citing the Matt Serra situation where he held down an abusive drunk for authorities to apprehend. But the cold hard truth is that martial arts and self-protection are not the same. In fact, they are completely different.
So why does the martial arts community and industry advertise self-protection if they are different? Too many in the martial arts community believe there is no difference, and they will defiantly argue in the face of all opposition. You might hear arguments such as: “it’s been around for thousands of years,” or “I can trace my lineage back to such-and-such a source in history,” or “I have used it on the job, so I know it works,” or “my instructor was this famous person and look at all my trophies, certificates, and awards that I have received,” or maybe they would just demonstrate how they can defend against an armed attacker to prove their skill. But do these arguments justify an instructor’s claim that they are qualified to teach self-protection to the public?
Before we jump into these arguments and explain why the supposed logic here does not hold up, let’s first look at what self-protection is. Self-protection is a modern term used for a set of skills that would be necessary to protect oneself from harm, which is more than just a person’s ability to fight. As I said, self-protection is a set of skills, and while this can include fighting, fighting does not encompass most of the skills for self-protection. While there is a baseline—or “generalization”—of skills that are required for someone to protect themselves, depending on someone’s social and work environments, these skills can vary. This makes sense given that people are not all the same nor do they face the same problems. It would be foolish to assume that one method or set of skills would work for everyone. A first responder has just as much need to protect themselves as the soccer mom living in the suburbs, but they would neither need the exact same level of training nor the same skill set.
Even in the case of first responders, they would not all be able to receive the same training. For example, a law enforcement officer is required and trained on how to use a firearm while an emergency medical service provider is legally unable to carry a firearm and is not trained in the use of them, yet one could argue they both face the same level of danger in their respected fields and firearms are a legitimate and, at times, necessary tool for self-protection. So, we must understand that we cannot approach self-protection from a one size fits all mentality.
Here is a quick run-through on some of the general skills required for self-protection.
For a quick run through the general skills required for a person trained in self-protection, he or she should:
- be socially aware of their surroundings
- be able to de-escalate or talk their way out of a situation
- recognize aggressive body language
- know when to run away
- have the physical and mental ability to handle violence when needed
- have the legal knowledge to act within their rights so that they protect themselves in the eyes of the law
This brings me back to the martial arts community as a whole. Most martial arts schools will focus on the ability to handle physical violence, while overlooking the legal and psychological skills. This is kind of like having one piece of a puzzle, while advertising they sell the whole puzzle.
The other realization we must come to is the fact that a martial art is a cultural or regional expression of fighting. To put this in a more Western context, let me pose a question: would someone go to a high school wrestling coach and ask them to teach them how to defend themselves? Probably not, but I wonder why?
Many of the same reasons the martial arts schools in our community list for their validity can be applied to wrestling. Wrestling has been around for thousands of years—even longer than many Asian martial arts. In ancient Greece, soldiers often were trained in wrestling, including great generals and conquerors such as Alexander the Great. You can find plenty of videos on YouTube of someone being suplexed or wrestled to the ground in a street fight. I am sure that many coaches have a cabinet full of trophies to prove they are skilled. So why not go to the wrestling coach?
The truth is that many martial arts instructors are no different from a high school wrestling coach. The training they provide is often in the context of a sport and/or history. Sport is easy to discern and is the reason you would not go to the wrestling coach in the first place, because everyone understands that wrestling is a sport. However, for many westerners, the martial arts are considered to be a sport with the side benefit of being able to defend yourself. If you accept wrestling as a sport with little to no value when it comes to protecting yourself, then you must accept this same understanding in regards to many martial arts schools, as well. History is harder to understand in a modern context, but historical examples and anecdotes are often the go-to reason for why martial arts are effective. Because a martial art is a cultural or regional expression of fighting, these cultural and historical influences run so deep that they become the filters that all the information is conveyed through in that art.
For example, a karate gi—or “uniform”—serves no purpose other than being a rugged type of clothing that’s less likely to tear during the rigors of training than street clothes. That does not mean it is the only option available to use as training clothing, but, if someone walks into many traditional karate schools, and says they do not want to train in a gi, they would quickly be shown the door. The reason being that wearing one is a tradition in that school, and, because of this tradition, that is the way someone must train there. Strangely enough, with a five-second Google search, you quickly learn that the karate gi has only been around for about a hundred years, which seems odd to hold such “traditional” import when you compare it to the much older roots of Eastern Martial Arts in general.
Many martial arts schools do a great job of making these skewed lines of comparison seem like justifiable facts, however. In the case of its history, yes, Eastern Martial Arts have been around for over a thousand years, but that fact alone does not justify why these arts are useful for self-protection. Let us say that I am a historian in battlefield tactics used during the civil war. I can break down the strategies used by the generals of the time, and present clear rational facts about the period. Maybe I even enjoy performing in reenactments and do my best to make the battles historically accurate. Does that qualify me to advise the U.S pentagon on matters of war in the modern era?
To many martial artists, this would be an outrageous comparison, however it is still true. Being fluent in the historical context of a martial art does not mean you automatically have the skills necessary to deal with the problems of today.
Along with the history of their martial art, many instructors will cite their lineage as a qualification, which is the idea that because they can trace back their training to a historical individual, this somehow validates them. However, having a famous master renowned for his fighting and defense prowess in your art’s past does not mean that you have the same prowess yourself. To try and put this in another context, let us say an architect has a mediocre body of work, but they advertise that their work is exemplary based solely on the reputation of the school they graduated from. Their body of work should reflect that they are the best, not the school they attended. It is the same for self-protection. While naming a historical figure may be a great marketing strategy, the skills and training that an instructor provides are what matters, not the historical origins of the art or an important figure in their school’s history.
Let us now shift our focus slightly to the idea that tournament trophies and medals are representative of the necessary qualifications to teach self-protection. Trophies and medals are acquired through sports competitions that represent a controlled environment for fighting. However, I am sure we can all agree that protecting oneself from harm is neither a game nor a sport. So, the simple fact that an instructor is an accomplished sport competitor does not qualify them as an expert on self-protection. What it does qualify them for is providing instruction in that sport, no different than the wrestling coach.
Now in the case of certifications and other training-based recognitions, this can get a little tricky. Some martial arts instructors understand that martial arts and self-protection are not the same thing, so they seek additional training to fill in the gaps, which is great. The way they show that they have received this training is through a certificate of some sort. Unfortunately, not all training is created equal nor held to the same standards. Here in the U.S, an individual does not have to possess any state or federal license to open a school or provide course material for self-protection.
So, a person may go to a martial arts convention where two classes are being held on understanding the cues of body language. One is a two-hour class taught by someone who read a book and watched a couple of YouTube clips, while the other is a six-hour course taught by someone who has a Ph.D. in Social Dynamics and has worked for law enforcement. Both are being taught at the same convention, but the quality of each is very different indeed. So how can we verify that the training an instructor receives and is teaching in their schools is reliable? Well, to quote an often-misquoted cliché: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If an instructor can provide a logical argument supported by facts for what he knows and demonstrate his knowledge in an observable and reasonable way, then that matters far more than what he claims to know or posts on his website.
When it comes to anecdotal reasoning such as, “well, it worked for me this one time,” this is nothing more than an excuse. Usually, this is about a very specific technique that worked in a very specific situation which is discussed when someone challenges the instructor about the validity of their methods. The problem with this logic is that anything can work under the right circumstances. Let us say an individual was attacked and they managed to fight off their attacker with a cellphone. Does that make the individual a master of a martial art involving cellphones? Should they cash in to provide a training course to teach others the new martial art of iPhone-Do? This is an absurd and extreme example, but it follows the same line of thinking. Just because something works once does not mean it is the most efficient or practical method for completing the task. Protecting oneself is a task that requires proven and reliable skills that can be used in many different situations.
So, with all of these problems regarding self-defense, a newcomer might assume that the martial arts are garbage and that all they teach is useless. If that’s the case, then what should an individual do if they want to learn how to actually defend themselves??
Well, before we jump off the deep end, we need to clarify a few points. The first being that the martial arts are not garbage; in fact, far from it. The martial arts can provide many physical and mental health benefits, along with a source of enjoyment, and even a sense of community and purpose. Moreover, many of them really do attempt to teach verifiable skills for self-protection, but what is often lacking is context. The proper context in training is essential as this makes a clear indication for it’s intended purpose. Just as a sound bite or misquoted phrase in the media can change the outlook of a story, so too can misrepresentation of purpose. This is an important distinction that many fail to make.
Remember that a person’s ability to fight is a part of the skill set of self-protection, but the context of a combat sporting event is very different than a carjacking. Both situations require a person to handle and process a level of violence, but one is a controlled environment with an authority figure who can stop the fight if anything goes wrong, whereas the other is not. And, obviously, responding to a carjacking would require more skills and a greater mental capacity to process violence. Just because a martial arts school may teach only a single piece of the puzzle doesn’t mean you don’t need that piece.
As I mentioned before, some martial arts instructors really do understand what is required for self-protection and they make sure that the training they provide is accurate and reliable to the needs of the individual. However, one hurdle which can be frustrating for people trying to learn self-protection is the fact that many martial arts instructors do not always separate what can be used for self-protection and what are the sporting or ceremonial parts of the martial art. It is all compiled into one curriculum with elements of self-protection being only one piece of what is being taught, which can mean a significant investment of time. Right or wrong, the black belt (or its equivalent) is the standard for being capable or proficient in a martial art and, just as I mentioned with a certificate, not all black belts are created equal. On average for a school that is credible, it can take anywhere from five to ten years to earn a black belt. That is an incredible amount of time for someone to invest if all they require, or desire, is the skills to protect themselves in day to day life.
This brings us around to one last confusing idea, which is the notion that if you train in a martial art then you do not need to train with modern weapons. While many schools do teach weapons, they are mostly the weapons of a specific culture or region from a period in history. A person would be hard-pressed to find a martial arts school that also provides a concealed carried course or even just a general course on firearms, despite a firearm being a valid tool for self-protection.
To some, including firearms training would seem like a logical step to take. If an instructor is going to advertise self-protection: why not offer firearms courses? While this is a valid and logical question, to keep us from falling too far down the rabbit hole, let us remember not everyone requires the same level of training.
A law enforcement officer should be trained in the use of firearms as their social and work environment require it. However, in the case of the soccer mom living in the suburbs, it becomes more of an option than a requirement. Yes, having the ability to use a firearm is a valid skill, but what is the actual risk that the soccer mom will need it? More times than not, her actual need for this is fairly low—and can actually be a danger without proper training.
There are many misconceptions when it comes to firearms, but to keep us from getting too long-winded I’m only going to address what is relevant to self-protection. The reason a firearm is merely an option instead of necessity is in part due to risk but also the fact that a firearm is a tool. It is a tool with a specific purpose and function no different than a hammer or screwdriver. Like any tool, it requires training in its operation, but also specifically to firearms, it requires training in the context of self-protection. Buying a firearm and then shooting a paper target at the range is one thing. Knowing how to respond when someone grabs that firearm is completely different. To give a level of context, it is not much different than someone claiming they can play the game of baseball from a batting cage but they have never set foot on the field.
This is important because the decision to own and carry a firearm is not something to be taken lightly. Just because the media portrays everyone getting shot at the local Starbucks does not make it so. The ability to respond in a situation with lethal force is a heavy responsibility that must be respected.
Another thing we must understand is that a large percentage of the clientele that make up most martial arts schools are children. Teaching a child to shoot for recreation or hunting is one thing, while teaching a child to protect themselves with a firearm is another.
Since no two people are the same, the training they require is different. I think we can all agree that a child does not have the maturity to deal with a situation in the same manner as an adult, but that does not mean they do not need skills to protect themselves. It just means they need skills that are appropriate for the problems they face. Certainly, a schoolyard fight does not need to be met with lethal force. When a martial arts school has a clientele that is primarily children, it would make good business sense not to provide firearms classes, but why then try to convince adults that weapons are unnecessary?
This black-and-white way of thinking is truly dangerous. The idea that if someone trains in martial arts then weapons are no longer a factor is crazy. Many schools offer disarm or defense courses for knives and firearms as a way to promote the idea that a person should not carry a weapon. Why carry a gun when I can show you how to disarm someone in two seconds? Besides being completely false, this is also extremely dangerous. If this was seriously the case, then why not train law enforcement or the military in only martial arts. If martial arts alone can replace the need for owning a weapon, why isn’t everyone a martial arts master?
The context of weapons is also why it is important to have a basic understanding of the law regarding self-defense. Now, this does not mean the instructor, or the students, need to be walking around with law degrees, nor would it be expected for them to defend themselves in a court of law. That’s what lawyers are for. However, having some basic knowledge in terms of what local self-defense statues consist of goes a long way. A common misconception when it comes to self-defense law is the idea that if a person feels threatened then they are protected. Just because someone feels the perception of a threat does not mean they can automatically respond with lethal force. It is dependent upon the situation and what can be considered reasonable force given that situation. In the U.S., every state is different for what the law requires for a claim of self-defense. So, utilizing resources such as local police departments is always a smart move.
But think about it; if a law enforcement officer discharges their weapon and kills someone, they are held accountable for their actions under the law. So why, as a civilian, would someone get a pass and not be held accountable to the law? Granted, a law enforcement officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian, as they should be. However, as a civilian, we are still held to a standard of reasonable force given a situation. Part of understanding the skill of handling violence is the knowledge of when to respond and with what is the appropriate amount of force.
This is a key factor that many instructors will overlook. Unfortunately, many instructors and the industry as a whole likes to only think in terms of extremes. Self-protection is more than life or death. The ability to protect oneself is a situational spectrum that can range from little to no violence escalating to severe. It can be a situation as simple as a disagreement at a grocery store where someone is just having a bad day. If I only ever train mentally and physically looking for extreme violence around every corner, then that is how I will respond no matter the situation.
Whether someone is forced to protect themselves with a weapon or unarmed, we are still held accountable to the law. This lack of accurate responsible instruction often leads to serious consequences. Numerous stories can be found about martial artists that have landed themselves in prison because they reacted in a situation with an inappropriate amount of force. Remember self-protection is more than someone’s ability to fight. It is a set of skills to help someone avoid or resolve violent situations.
Understanding what self-protection is and the skills necessary to enact it is no easy feat, especially in an industry where everyone claims to teach self-protection, but few deliver. As a consumer, we must be vigilant and make sure we are asking the right questions, so that we can ensure we are receiving the services we require. These questions must be met with facts, not marketing schemes meant to sell you some “ultimate” self-defense product. We must not have blind faith in anyone just because they claim to be an expert. Just as a person does not fully trust a stockbroker with their money or a doctor with their health without getting a second opinion, we must question and research any person who claims to provide self-protection. Just because someone is a martial artist doesn’t make them an expert in what is required for self-protection.
Editor’s Note: For more thoughts on the reality of protecting yourself, you can check out articles by our other Martial Journal writers here!
- Time to Learn: Why Is This Taking So Long? - February 15, 2021
- Post-COVID 19: Backyard Schools and Online Training - May 22, 2020
- Barriers to Evolution: Karate’s Struggle to become a Sport - May 11, 2020
Nicely done!