Rus Articles Journal

Martial arts: whether “the fast way“ is possible?

Everyone practicing martial arts led own reasons to occupations. One begin to train for the sake of maintenance of physical shape and arrangement of health, others see a way to self-improvement in martial arts, for the third it just a hobby, an opportunity interestingly and to spend time with advantage. And still very many were brought into section by desire to learn to stand for itself, to find confidence - in other words, to learn to fight.

At the same time not a secret that going in for martial arts quite often meet insuperable difficulties with real collision with aggressive-minded elements. Simply ogrebat in banal household collisions or during attack of hooligans. In principle, it is normal: you never know, situations develop differently, and not always possession of hand-to-hand fight can help. But the matter is that ability going in for the so-called traditional martial arts (TMA) to resist to conditional “street mugger“ seriously it is discussed among adherents of single combats.

It is simple to be convinced of it: for example, having glanced on corresponding the Internet - resources. And it if to ponder, a nonsense! Of course, people who fighters will not be made by no training meet. But when inability of adherents of “fighting systems“ to effectively resist to attack becomes mass, necessarily will reflect: can be, matter in the system of preparation, in features of a technique?

Such situation is frequent: someone comes to section to learn to fight (and the emphasis in advertizing of section was placed on it!) and after a while finds out that instead he studies karate, wushu, aikido... I speak about “traditional“ systems - in large part combat and applied sports the situation is significantly better.

But we will return to “traditional“ systems of single combats. Let`s ask a question: why training in fight in them is often substituted for training in technology of this or that single combat? Matter in the approach. That there is a certain technique of training developed in this system urged to create first of all at the pupil style motive stereotypes. That is to learn will fight - but not simply, namely according to the movement manner accepted at this school.

In practice it is often accompanied by withdrawal pains of already available stereotypes, that is actually the pupil is retrained to move, imposing the movement manner provided by this system.

Thus it turns out that, coming to study to fight, we have to reconstruct before a movement manner, available, natural to us, - in other words, to seize equipment. And it, certainly, is correct. On the one hand.

With another it turns out that the equipment often studies in itself, in a separation from real practical tasks, substituting for itself training actually in fight. Not therefore whether process of training in a number of “traditional“ schools is so dragged out? In my opinion, the declared terms of training of the fighter in 3-5 years look somehow somewhat oddly. What the martial art for which adherent for development of skills of a banal fight years are required is? Notice: we do not speak about possession of martial art at the masterful level. For a start it is that after months (and it is possible, and the first years) training of people it is helpless before the ordinary street hooligan.

In combat sports the situation is noticeably better. Why? Probably, because trainers accurately realize the purpose: to teach the fighter to fight as soon as possible - let and by rules, but in real interaction with the opponent.

Training in martial art for self-defense has to (at the initial stage) to give to the pupil:

- necessary minimum of physical training;

- the put blow;

- possession of a minimum protective the technician;

- understanding of tactical tasks in fight;

- existence of the fulfilled tactical schemes (in other words, algorithms of actions in fight);

- psychological readiness for fight.

In my opinion, at normally physically developed person of an urgent need in additional physical training is not present. Despite hobby for it of most of instructors. In principle, their physical data allow to strike to most of people effective blows and to be protected from them. Especially for a limited period you will not develop special force, and here it is possible to impart the minimum technical skills. Besides, the correct training of equipment in itself not bad develops “physics“ - and at the same time and coordination, what is in my opinion more important.

Much more important the put blow.

Protective technicians have to be not numerous, simplest and convenient. As a rule, for beginners protection by supports and otbiva are optimum. From them are also selected 4 - 5 most suitable, closing the main sectors of a body.

In parallel with development of “a technical minimum“ we learn to put the received skills into practice. It is very conditionally possible to allocate two main stages of counteraction of physical aggression: suppression of fight and conducting fight (actually fight). In what difference? Ability to conduct a battle assumes ability to be guided in a fight, to maneuver, be protected from blows and to put them on the moving and attacking opponent. The person owning these skills actually, is also called a fighter. It is what it is necessary to aspire to - but it is given, unfortunately, not everyone. It is necessary to stop aggression right at the beginning, having attacked most in the slightest attempt of the opponent to make active action.

It is necessary to understand that about any protection in this case the speech does not go: we preventivno attack. Technically it is much simpler, than to conduct a battle. There we are forced to react to active actions of the opponent (in other words, to be protected from his attacks), an initiative and the choice of options of actions completely in your hands here. Naturally, in an amicable way it is worth seizing both that and another - but now the speech about training “from scratch“ and statement of necessary skills during limited time. Besides, at everyone engaged there are favourite, individual schemes of actions, combinations, a line of action. The scheme of actions, convenient for us, we will also learn to realize this, applying it to “standard“ fighting situations. And it is necessary to do it from the first trainings, without allocating the long preparatory period for physical training and polishing of basic equipment.

The major principle of the “accelerated“ training - minimization of equipment. That is very limited number of tactical schemes and technical elements is attached to the greatest possible number of situations. It allows to minimize in a fighting situation uncertainty at the choice of options of actions. Of course, at more advanced stage similar stereotype most likely will prevent, but it is necessary to reach this stage still...

Let`s recognize from the fact that engaged has to leave already from the first occupation with certain, let minimum, knowledge base. In other words, it is necessary to teach fight, but not to prepare for its studying. Push-ups, an extension, coordination exercises and so forth - fine things, here only absolutely senseless in the short term. It will not be possible to give physical training, serious, significant for fight, for a short time all the same. But quite really to put certain practical skills. Only it is necessary that:

1. Trained constantly realized as for what it does.

2. The way to the end result was as much as possible direct (a minimum of the bringing exercises and a nearness maximum to real conditions).

An important point - degree of compliance of equipment to “standard“. From the point of view of the majority of classical schools, the technician who is engaged has to correspond to “sample“, equipment of the instructor as much as possible. If deviations are also allowed, then only at the “advanced“ grade levels, after detailed development of equipment. And it is correct - but only from the point of view of long-term and systematic training. If the purpose - to learn to be protected, but not to correspond to an ideal of this or that school - it is necessary to use natural qualities of the trainee as much as possible. So - not to retrain, not to break already available (even if imperfect) motive base, and to correct, do it to more rational, imposing concrete fighting receptions on natural to the movement which is trained a manner and ways of reaction.

Yes, most likely, such approach will not bring the pupil to masterful level (though who knows?), but will give the chance to quickly learn to put the gained knowledge and skills into practice.