Review: ‘The Pavement Arena Part 1′ by Peter Consterdine and Geoff Thompson

Consterdine, Peter and Thompson, Geoff. The Pavement Arena Part One: ‘Ultimate Self Defence’. Legend Video Productions. 1993.

Review: The Pavement Arena Part 1: ‘Ultimate Self Defence’:
by Josh Nixon, ESP

This review is part of a series. This is part one, part two can be found here, part three can be found here, part four can be found here and part five (sort of – it follows on from part four but isn’t part of the Pavement Arena series) can be found here.

This video begins by making a very important point; that martial arts, self-defence and self-protection are not synonymous. Self-defence being reactive in nature and self-protection being instead proactive, this distinction is highly important to make clear and this video begins by doing so which immediately sets the tone of a well-thought-out methodology.

For many, this video and the resultant series was their first introduction to the difference between traditional martial arts training and efficient self-protection training for modern violence. This video includes sections on:

      • Distance Control
    • Mental Disarmament
    • Lineups
    • The Knockout
    • Pre-emptive Strikes
    • Power Kicking
    • Close Impact Targeting
    • Fear Control
    • Threat Awareness
    • Aggression & Response

(Information from http://www.peterconsterdine.com/store.htm, 30.12.2012)

Don’t be put off by the fact that they’re wearing Karate clothing in some of this. It’s not a traditional martial arts video. Some martial arts concepts are mentioned, such as Zanshin, but they are applicable to the subject matter of the video and the series on the whole. The importance of an understanding of relaxation and biomechanics in striking to generate effective power is emphasised throughout, and Peter Consterdine’s concept of the ‘double hip’ striking method is introduced.

What stands out is that it’s not one of those videos where the masters tell you how to do things and you see others doing it, or a voiceover with footage of training, but they talk you through it in a natural and easily followed manner while they show you themselves. Everything is explained thoroughly and logically, again in a well-thought-out way, and the language used is very accessible for anyone to understand.

Nearer the end, the three-part understanding of threat awareness, threat evaluation and threat avoidance is introduced, which touches on the personal security aspect of self-protection which is expanded on in the next video; The Pavement Arena Part 2: The Protection Pyramid.

This video is available on DVD or for digital download (much cheaper, understandably) from http://www.peterconsterdine.com/store.htm. Further information and a download link can also be found at http://www.peterconsterdine.com/arena1.htm.

Martial Art? Combat Sport? Self-Defence? Self-Protection? What’s the difference? Why does it matter?

By Josh Nixon, ESP

Please note: This article is now outdated. It is merely retained here for archive purposes, so the changing nature of things here can be seen by all. Consider the following just my older thoughts on the matter, from which the current ones have come.

Here is the updated version of things: http://evolutionaryselfprotection.wikia.com/wiki/Self-Protection

In discussions of different training systems, it becomes immediately apparent after a quick Google or a sift through YouTube that the terms used in the title of this article are used more or less interchangeably by a great many people. This may seem unimportant, but it is becoming a big issue in the martial arts community today. In an attempt to help with this problem, and also to clarify my use of these terms online and offline, I thought it would be useful to produce a short list of these terms, and how I would define them, with some examples of common traits. Note that the following is merely my personal use of these terms, and other peoples’ usage of them will vary, as they are of course completely free to do so.

Martial Art: A martial art is exactly what the name suggests – an art. An art is a method of expression through application of creativity, and is typically concerned with aesthetics. As such, martial arts are often concerned with aesthetics, historical traditions, cultural customs and philosophy. These systems will often focus most of their training on one aspect of fighting, though not always. Martial arts can be traditional or modern, and different systems are often mixed into hybrid systems, usually in order to address what the instructors feel is a shortcoming of their original system. These are often termed Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), though this term is now used more for combat sports systems so many adopt the alternative term Hybrid Martial Arts (HMA) to avoid confusion. Martial arts can be thought of as a method of self-perfection rather than necessarily self-protection, though of course all martial arts training will have some real combative merit, and will often be extremely potent systems with which to protect oneself, so they should be respected as such.

Combat Sport: A combat sport is, again, exactly what the name suggests. If a system focuses on competition then it is a combat sport. These systems are often characterised by points-based sparring, where points may be awarded according to damage dealt, submission, knockout, etc or on aesthetic grounds, for example. Tournaments are often held on a regular basis, and the more well-known ones are the ones you see on TV and online. If training is focussed solely on fitness with any combative merits being considered secondary then that system could also be considered a combat sport.

Self-Defence: Self-Defence is where this topic gets confused on a regular basis, and arguably where it matters a little more pressingly. Self-Defence is a term used for reactive systems that are geared towards dealing with a combative situation by reacting to a physical attack. This includes Reality-Based Self-Defence (RBSD) systems. These systems are not concerned with aesthetics, historical traditions, cultural customs or philosophy.

Self-Protection: Self-Protection is a term used for systems that, in addition to the reactive methods of Self-Defence, incorporate proactive methods such as pre-emptive striking, and a great emphasis on awareness, evaluation, avoidance, evasion and communicative, noncombative strategies such as verbal de-escalation. An understanding of psychology thus often features prominently. As a result, self-protection systems are concerned heavily with how to stop a situation from becoming physically combative in the first place so that in a sense the physical combatives are secondary in focus. However, these physical combatives will often take up a large portion of the training time in sessions. These systems are also not concerned with aesthetics, historical traditions, cultural customs or philosophy.

So why does it matter? It matters because any confusion between these terms can lead to extreme differences of expectation and reality in training. For example, a traditional martial arts class marketing themselves as a combat sport might not be delivering what the students who have seen their posters are looking for, if they rarely hold tournaments or are not very competitive in their training. Similarly, a combat sport class focussed on UFC-style cagefighting could accidentally mislead prospective students by marketing themselves as a martial arts class, as people seeking a martial arts class may be looking for the tradition, philosophy and artistic values that a sports-based class would simply not be concerned with. This becomes more concerning when martial arts are marketed as self-defence or self-protection, however, as confidence in a martial arts technique trained from a perspective which is concerned with aesthetics can often be extremely dangerous in a real combative situation, or even fatal.

This article is not a criticism of any system, style, art or form, but rather a comment on the terminology used to denote them, and an appreciation of the effects that the confusion of these terms can have. Remember though: don’t judge a class necessarily by what it categorises itself as, because at the moment there is almost an interchangeability in many of these terms. Now that these terms have been clarified however, at least if nothing more our ESP-related discourse will be clear and unambiguous.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,139 other followers

%d bloggers like this: