Martial arts are, generally speaking, drawn into two camps. Both are related but present completely different philosophies when it comes to self-defence. One camp emphasises practical street defence methods that can be used both on the matt and off. The other promotes self-realisation with less emphasis on the practicality of methods taught.

This is due to the fact that there are two primary schools of thought and technical training. Both of these evolved out of Japan or, to be more accurate, Okinawa. The Jutsu (combat) schools emphasised using techniques that would only work in 'real' situtuations. Let me relate this to a modern art. In Tae Kwon Do sparring it is quite common to see fighters holding their legs up and flapping out a great many techniques. This is not practical for the streets as the supporting leg can quite easily be swept or the knee kicked and shattered. Jutsu schools would not teach this, nor would they teach sparring as this would mean that certain techniques would have to be excluded. An example of a Jutsu art is Ninjutsu.

The other philosophy that evolved originated when Karate (as it is now called) was taken to Japan. Do (Way) is concerned mainly with inner-harmony and well-being rather than fighting and 'practical' techniques. An example of the Do school of thought is Aikido.

It must be remembered that the Jutsu arts embrace the philosophy and techniques of the samurai whereas the Do arts began to surface only after the Japanese feudal system was brought to an end.

It can be said that the Justu schools have three main aims in their teaching. These aims are combat practicality, disciple and  morality. Do schools teach morals, discipline and aesthetic form.

This can cause some confusion if an instructor in a Do school tries to teach practical methods whilst still allowing his students to spar using impractical methods. If his students have been drilled in sparring techniques more that street fighting techniques then it is more than likely that they will revert to these when faced with danger.

With most styles, the emphasis placed on these two philosophies depends upon the convictions and personal experience of the instructor.

Instructors who promote teaching only practical methods are such notables as Ed Parker, Rick Clark, Vince Morris, Phil Cawood, Geoff Thompson, Pat O'Malley & John Harvey (of Black Eagle fame) and Kevin O'Hagan. Most of these men learnt that practicality matters the hard way. Phil Cawood and Geoff Thompson for example have both 'worked the doors'. All of the above understand the reality of the world's rising crime and violence rate and accordingly teach their students to fight their hardest when forced to and without hesitation.

During the great exodus of martial arts to the West in the 1950s and 60s many of the original instructors were servicemen and Asian immigrants. By bringing the arts out of Japan and into the public eye they also opened themselves up to the possibility of having to prove that their styles worked. Having to fight people just because you practiced one style rather than another or because (in the eyes of the antagonist) you fancied yourself can not have been nice. These men paved the way for other martial artists however. By fighting their challengers they proved that the arts were worth studying. Most instructors can now open a school without having to worry about  being challenged (although their have been notable incidents, such as Steelwire Praying Mantis vs Challenger).

These men view their styles much in the same way as the samurai would have. Only teach what works and, if you have to use it, do not hesitate to put down those who threaten to hurt you.

Those who teach Do styles are on the opposite side of the coin. They usually teach their students to avoid conflict and to use violence only as a last resort without teaching them how to read and recognise the signals that their protaganists are giving out. They will also usually teach defence methods that rely on the co-operation of their training partner or that rely on a one-punch/ strike finish. Do styles will also teach techniques repetitively, often punching into the air rather than against a pad. Kata (defence against imaginary opponents) arealso heavily emphasised but students are limited to strict definitions of techniques with no scope for out of the box thinking or practical applications for the techniques that they are practicing. In a DO style, Kata are divorced from self-defence.

Students in Do styles are also taught that it is best  to 'win by losing'. That is, walk away from an incident where, had they fought the antagonist, they would have won.

Another notable difference in the two schools is that some of the jutsu schools have done away with the Japanese/ Chinese/ Korean terminology and use only english to teach whilst the Do schools will still teach in the language of origin.

Despite the differences there is a middle ground. This more than competently displayed in the Kenpo creed of honour.

"I come to you only with karate, empty hands. I have no weapons. But should I be forced to defend myself, my principles or my honour, should it be a matter of life or death, or right or wrong, then here are my weapons, karate, my empty hands."