Pet peeve #326
2004-04-09 06:32 pmIt's a stupid pet peeve, but here it is:
Martial arts that advertise themselves as "practical self defense", yet require students to wear white loose fitting uniforms. Basically pajamas. How often are people attacked in their pajamas? What are you gonna do if you're confronted in a non-pajama wearing sitution? "Oooh, I'd kick his ass if my jeans weren't so tight." If you're gonna train for practical self-defense, it seems to me you should be training in street clothes.
Martial arts that advertise themselves as "practical self defense", yet require students to wear white loose fitting uniforms. Basically pajamas. How often are people attacked in their pajamas? What are you gonna do if you're confronted in a non-pajama wearing sitution? "Oooh, I'd kick his ass if my jeans weren't so tight." If you're gonna train for practical self-defense, it seems to me you should be training in street clothes.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 11:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 11:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 02:29 am (UTC)"Yes sir, I'll change out my flannels. But if I get mugged on the way home, I'm holding you responsible."
no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 11:08 pm (UTC)Also, this is the old applied vs practical debate. Why learn differential equations, when you can just ask Mathematica for the solution? For the versatility, obviously. Martial arts is more about learning how to use your body to its full extent rather than about a set of ways to hit someone.
Thirdly, take your question and apply it to other cultures with even more restrictive fashions; say 19th century Europe. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
Fourthly, go get some of those Balinese pants. Muy comfortable.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-11 09:19 am (UTC)Martial arts is more about learning how to use your body to its full extent rather than about a set of ways to hit someone.
O.K, but then they shouldn't advertise their services as being useful for practical self defense.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-11 05:05 pm (UTC)I totally agree with you there.
...but these Balinese pants are *really* comfy. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 11:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 11:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 11:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 02:27 am (UTC)Companies that automatically renew subscriptions by default. I don't mind if it is an option, but I should be required to check the box to select it. It should not be on by default. Companie do it, hoping that people will remain subscribed out of inertia. But I think mostly it just pisses people off. And what does it say about the value of your service, if you have to rely on people's laziness to keep them as subscribers?
no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 02:22 am (UTC)The use of the word "social justice". What the hell does that mean? How is it different than just plain old "justice"? Nobody really explains, but from the context in which it's used it seems to mean "Your ancestors might have been really mean to my ancestors. Therefore, you owe me money." And that seems antithetical to real justice.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 11:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 01:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 02:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 02:46 am (UTC)Of course, that begs the question, for self defense courses, me trying to be "practical" is likely to offend others. "Seriously, sensei, I need to try this move naked."
And then there's the firearms classes.... hot brass is likely to sting on the delicates...
no subject
Date: 2004-04-11 09:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 02:50 pm (UTC)(I was going to make a joke about "training for practical economics," but it wouldn't go anywhere)
I actually made the same presumption you did; I showed up to the first class (lo these 42 months ago) in jeans. The instructor suggested I might work out more effectively in sweatpants or exercise pants. Never made that mistake again.
To answer your question: it's a convention of working out. No, you're not likely to be attacked in loose, flowing, breathable, triple-heavy-woven cottons. You're also not likely to be attacked while wearing a cup, or while wearing workout shoes that provide excellent traction without restricting movement. These are safety considerations, that make it easier for you to focus on executing a technique properly and worrying less about "what if I get hurt."
And jiu-jitsu, to its credit, doesn't stress techniques that require a lot of intense physicality. You'll never see someone get kicked above the waist in my class (unless they were already lying on the ground). Half of the instructors are in what I could charitably describe as "cab-driver shape." The other half are 6'5", 275 lb. musclemen in a 5'10" frame. It works with any body type. In that vein, I would not sell tae kwon do as "practical self defense" (though I would not pick a fight with a TKD black belt, even for money).
Sensei prides himself on teaching techniques that "could be done in an Armani suit." Joint locks, arm bars, throws which require minimal projection. I've seen them. Granted, he's been doing this about as long as I've been alive, so his control and execution are effortless, but it is possible.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-10 10:40 pm (UTC)Similarly, if you train in loose flowing robes, you may get used to performing moves that would be difficult to perform in street clothes. Although the training may have value even if you're wearing unrealistic clothing, I would prefer to see more self-defense instructors emphasize realistic situations in realistic clothing.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-11 01:01 am (UTC)So, in other words, jiu-jitsu is still a martial art first and foremost.
No nonsense Self-Defense
Date: 2004-06-10 10:25 am (UTC)(http://www.selfdefenseforums.com) is a good place to check out for no-nonsense, no-bullshit techniques and info. For folks that want, ahem, '
practical, er, feel-good self defense' the stuff offered there is a little bit rough. If your priority is to home alive, the group there can help you do that.