Loyalty to a martial art isn't a bad thing unless the practitioner believes it is the absolute only way to fight. That said, Mick Coup isn't lying. When a martial artist fails to expand their outlook because of their loyalty to their system (meaning master, mainly), that's where they end up screwing themselves through self-imposed limitations.
This "Reality self defence" game is very much about horses for courses... Personally i like the way mick gets the point across.. Hes blunt, to the point and yeah he drops the f bomb... And what? This is about real training for the real world. Maybe not for everyone but you wont find a better instructor.
Its like great jazz artists or boxers....they learn & master the fundamentals THEN because of that mastery they can start to improvise and create new methods
I have a video of him teaching some combat tactics. It was good stuff but the seller had a disclaimer because he claimed to be form SAS and they found out that was untrue.
Even he started somewhere. Who taught him? That being said, exploration is imperative to move forward in your journey. If you don’t learn from the past it will repeat itself. Peace I don’t disagree with the theory. Humans don’t learn without someone teaching them.
Although I like Coup, his whole statement falls apart here. If WW2 combatives ( taught to all allied forces ) then why was it continued after ww2 in some degree. If the 'arm doesn't bend a certain way' then, obviously certain techniques still work. Their application may be flawed but the technique still works. A jab in the eye, is still a jab in the eye. A strike to the bridge of the nose is still a strike to the bridge of the nose. Does it matter whether or not it's a palm strike or a punch - not really. It matters how much force is applied. If all traditional martial systems are antiquated then why is there a reassurance in wrestling ? Judo ? Jiu-Jitsu ? Boxing ? All of them far older then any WW2 combative. Could it be that people have been taught poorly ? Most likely. Most martial systems went to the way side because of the popularity of modern weapons. But ancient systems can teach you a lot about fighting. You just have to understand that ( as mentioned ) new things are always developing. You may not fight with a bow and arrow, but it teaches you range and trajectory, plenty useful for distance shooting. Even popular edged weapon systems takes their lead from older systems like Kali, which takes its lead from Chinese Boxing. This goes on and on through all systems. No one successful martial system has ever been developed in isolation. There is still some merit to learning an older traditional system for educational purposes and develop older antiquated techniques for modern application. But this only has value if you approach it with the understanding that most martial systems have been shedded of any real value because of marketing to a general public. Try to convince a mom of three to sign the child up for karate classes if the classes taught Aki-jitsu from ancient Japan...pre Edo period. Or sign a kid up for wrestling, when they're teaching Spartan wrestling techniques from 680BC. There was once value in hand to hand combat; those older systems just need to find the original intent. Then redevelop the same technique with real 'stakes'. Even now, the 'new' jiu jitsu is almost entirely directed toward 'sport' not street. Its all about intension. If you are trying to learn a practical self defence tool or not. It's life journey.
kodaspaws And you missed the point. Although I could spend pages on talking with you about >effectivity< of the stuff you mentioned, I just would fall down the same hole as you. Mick is talking about >efficiency< and that's a very different thing. Techniques can get more efficient and first and foremost training gets more efficient every damn moment since the moment someone decided to do something better than some other guy. Its about bare output and the time and resources you spent on achieving it. If you want to be the philosophical 'the-journey-is-the-goal-guy', so be it and there are many aspects of life where this fits but not this when-shit-hits-the-fan-stuff which should be the definition of self defense. You are talking about history, lifestyle and art which is missing the point.
I think you missed MY point, or maybe I didn't lay it out properly. My point was to illustrate the new resurgence of older forms based in their original intent in opposition to Coup's point about futility in older forms or methods. The object is to find the details, because the details matter. I've been in the shit/fan situations, and I always find that I forgot a detail that could've ended things more quickly. I understand the instinct to 'round off' the corners and look for the opening to a quick end, but sometimes with experienced people, that is just the fake to lure you in. You see the opening, forget the details and wined up in a position worse than before. The details matter, and although I agree to a point with Coup over 'cutting off the gristle' I disagree with dismissing certain methods as being antiquated. There is still a lot of value there. Catch-As-Catch Can wrestling for an example, is very old, was ignored for YEARS because people believed it to be antiquated and now people are studying it like crazy because it has proven to be very effective. Mainly because it never modified itself to adapt to a 'safe space' public market. It's always been brutal it never changed. I think you'll see that ' the guy who did it better ' philosophy falls apart on various levels, not because of 'evolution' but because of 'scenario'. The Middle Ages was violent as hell compared to today. Even the ww2 combatives weren't developed IN ww2, they were developed pre-ww2 in Hong Kong- very violent - in opposition to the 'gentlemen ages'. Training method is derived from necessity. And 'the guy who did it better' could have done it better because he was just stronger and faster. That doesn't make the technique any less effective.
kodaspaws It's not about old vs new. It's about evidence-based efficient methods to do the task. If there is something that's 200 years old and works better than everything else, it should be used. But when does that happen? Some techniques could be as old as humanity itself but I am very sure modern training methodologies and facilities will get you there more >efficient
So Jesse Owens could compete with usain bolt? I'm not so sure mate. Improvements in diet and nutrition as well as knowledge about strength and conditioning have undoubtedly improved athletes performance
Dear Funker Tactical, up to this moment I had not said anything about the main topic of this video. I only had said that "We do not run faster than before", and now I should add that: We are not stronger than before, and so on.
