I wrote this thread after rolling my eyes at the BBJ effective in Streetfight thread and thinking about all the other "insert ma here" effective in fight threads. I think one of the odd things to me is the propensity of posters to see effective and ineffective in all-or-nothing / black and white structures. In an effort to propose that martial arts (doesn't matter which art) are neither totally effective or totally ineffective I wanted to position the marketing strategy of SWOT analysis as a better tool for evaluating martial art theories/styles as effective or ineffective based on margin instead of "all or none". SWOT analysis is used in business theory to assess market climates and develop corporate strategy to maximize profits and gain market share. The idea behind SWOT is to qualify where the company is strong, weak has potential for strength and has a potential for someone's else strength to threaten their market share. I will put some links at the bottom that can help but the quick gig on it is S = strengths: Areas where company has an advantage or good position. W = Weaknesses: Areas where company is disadvantage or has a poor position. O = Opportunities: Areas where company has the potential to gain market shares market strength. T = Areas where companies current market share/ market strength is compromised To put this to a question for discussion: If we substitute market share /business success with ability to survive an assault while minimizing damage to ourselves/and loved ones while inflicting damage or finding and escape program is SWOT a workable tool for measuring the combat/self defense validity of various martial arts programs? footnotes: http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/swot/ http://www.marketingteacher.com/lesson-store/lesson-swot.html http://www.rapidbi.com/created/SWOTanalysis.html
That is a good point for this and other questions on effectiveness of any martial art with any model. Epistemology of a self defense structure is highly speculative and by the variations of opinions subjective. In terms of data...there isn't much. If you read the "what have you done to defend yourself" and similar threads most people have 1-2 examples if that and entire martial arts schools would many times be lucky to drum up a dozen examples between of them of out-side school physical altercations. The problem with any model or methodology of constructing a self defense paradigm is not much data. In terms of variables ---they would be opinions of what is a SWOT of each program presented. I made this thread after being annoyed at the "is BBJ effective" and all the "wing chun sucks" threads. So let me use those two arts as loose examples with the idea that what I put in the SWOT is subjective based on limited knowledge If I put up a SWOT for BBJ, taking what was in the BBJ thread Effective thread: S= Strong ground skills. Experience in grappling tournaments. MMA experience common among members. W= Lack of strategy for multiple opponents. Lack of weapons defense. Lack of training on concussive techniques / strategy. O= Integrate striking in program. Integrate weapon offense and defense into program. T = Training starts with two opponents in equal setting---not congruent to assaults in street. Forcing or initiating knife fight to ground weak strategy WC S= Concussive sets. Lots of sparring Weapon offense and defense in program W = No or little grappling. Lack of prep against multiple opponents. Diminished utilization of footwork O = Integrate footwork into program. Integrate grappling T = Trapping centric art hard to integrate with grappling program. Center line theory hard to apply against multiple opponents. So now what I have is premises aligned with each of the SWOT for each art. Some people will find them valid and some will find them invalid. For instance "Center line theory hard to apply against multiple opponents" Someone reading that might say "Rob that is incorrect because xyz" Or they may look at the BBJ W=Lack of strategy for multiple opponents. and say Rob that is wrong because XYZ Maybe instead someone will use the notion that there is not art good for multiple opponents and therefore the topic is not applicable. The SWOT is subjective but by framing the analysis using SWOT the questions of "Is BBJ effective" and "Is Wing Chun any good" become open ended dialogs where not only is the art looked at in pieces instead of just as whole but "what makes a system a productive self defense option" gets answered piece by piece as ideas of value are positioned in the SWOT sections and than chewed on by other members. In short a thread like BBJ Effective currently look like "BBJ sucks" or "BBJ rules" (which is what those threads look like to me when I read them ) but with SWOT could be moved to where is it proficient, lacking, ways to improve or challenges to improvement while from assessing ingredients to what makes a self defense plan/program viable on a generic level.
Personally I think thats a good idea, though I think it's more helpful in deciding what you can do to improve your training and prepare yourself for a real confrontation better, than help you decide whether a particular martial art is good or not. All martial art's have strengths and weaknesses. you can't really judge though how helpful that martial art's strong point would be in a real confrontation and how badly it's weak points would limit you in a real fight. all in all, a good idea though. Much better than the usual "my style rules! your style sucks" style arguments that usually take place in certain threads.
