Boxing for self-defence?

Michael O Leary

Hi guys,

A lot of people feel that boxing skills are one of the most important, if not invaluable skills needed for self-defence. I don't necessarily disagree but I just wanted to play around with a few thoughts.

It has been recognised that the hand skills in Thai-Boxing are not as comprehensive/good as those in western boxing. During a Thai-Boxing class we were told that there is not as much bobbing and weaving in Thai. This is due to the addition of knees, elbows, legs in Thai-Boxing and rather than going for a body punch in Thai, instead a roundhouse kick to the ribs would be more damaging.

It is also worth noting that the nature of punching in western boxing changed with the inclusion of gloves. This method of punching with the horizontal fist was not really suitable when punching bare knuckle where instead a vertical fist was used.

And then I read from posts by MMA practitioners that there is not as many hand combinations in MMA as there is in Thai due to the inclusion and risk of takedowns/submissions.

So it seems that there is a process of chipping away at striking skills from prize fighting to western boxing to Muay Thai/Boxing to MMA and this is reflected by the inclusion of gloves in modern boxing, leg, knee, elbows strikes and clinch work in Muay Thai/Boxing and grappling takedowns and submissions in MMA.

So here is a question? If the nature of striking skills in boxing changes with the inclusion of these elements, how much will it change with the inclusion of other elements/variables such as weapons, multiple attackers? And what if an attacker does not engage in standing toe to toe with you and pace himself for a fight using strategy (feints etc) but launches an all out attack?

To be successful in this specific environment, would you have to adapt your boxing skills so much that they lost any resemblance to western boxing and therefore is boxing the really suitable for self-defence?

I would welcome any comments?


Regards,

Michael
www.iewto.org

Roper

Hi Michael,

Ostensibly, you have a point, but only if we approach the argument from a "traditional" martial arts viewpoint, where all the emphasis is on techniques- which way to hold your fist, what to strike with first etc. etc.

When we approach the argument from the point of view of those interested in training methods as opposed to techniques, then all of the arguments that go along with how many punches are thrown, worrying about take downs etc. is just talk. Boxing teaches you how to hit hard, hit fast. But more that this, boxing's training methods give you the timing required to deliver punches in real time. I wouldn't be confident that most of the so called "self defence" arts give you that timing.

Environments ony dictate what tactics you will use.

mark.leonard

I think everything you say is pretty true with respect to reduction of hand combinations etc as you add more skills to the mix.

I think its worth realising that training for an unknown random environment with so many random variables like number of opponents, area, weapons etc is a waste of time pure and simple.
From that vantage Boxing, MMA and every other functional art is just as likely or unlikely to be useful for self defence as not. I guess what I am saying is that any answer we arrive at through this debate may or may not be relevant.

To that end I feel that any question on self defence is akin to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Martial Arts training is in a mixed state of being useful or useless in a self defence scenario, the appearance of an attacker forces the myriad variables to become constant and we can then assess in a concrete scenario which state your training holds for that particular encounter. This state will not be true of another encounter you may have or an encounter someone else may have.

TKD SC

Hi Michael,

Interesting points. What I'm going to say is prob quite obvious but sure I've nothing else to do at the moment!

In short, I suggest boxing on its own is not "the best" (don't like using those words, but..) for self defence, in that it has limitations re: kicking, throws / takedowns, ground work / submissions. Which sort of fits in with your thread of importance of hand combos as you move from boxing to thai to mma.

After saying that, boxing on its own is still "one of the best" and def would stand to anyone for a SD encounter or indeed any contest against another MAist (would prob ko alot of ma'ists! ).
A good plan would be to probably do some cross training in boxing either way for SD as it clearly has a lot to offer / the "best" to offer on punching and avoiding being punched, which either way is gonna be a big part of a SD encounter. I'm not sure if you're point about a sd encounter where an attacker doesnt engage in feints etc and just launches an all out attack - I don't think this would worry a good boxer too much though vs how they would react and use their skills.

So, yes, I do agree that it is great for sd, but would be good to know the other skills of throws / ground etc also. Then again, chance and luck will prob play a big part in any sd encounter. And if as you say weapons and multiple opponents are thrown in then f**k!!!

Thanks,

Simon

Colm_OReilly

Allow me to add to this.

Michael - great post, thought out, and I see where you're leading to.

There are fundamentals of human movement and fundamentals of striking that are thought and developed through training striking - be in Muay Thai, Boxing, MMA Striking, etc.

After the fundamentals are learnt, fighters undergo a degree of specialisation for their chosen discipline. Through specialisatin, certain abilities are lost in order to get better.

Now, one could argue that MMA - given it's proximity to a "real fight" (granted, it's always one on one) would best equip someone to a self defence scenario. This is of course if they practice in a broad sense, rather than specialising on one tactic (subs, dirty boxing, sprawl n brawl)

Equally, since MMA strikers are specialising, you could argue that they are specialising to the degree where they lose the ability to adapt to a different ruleset/environment (such as one is presented in a self defence/street fight scenario). However, going on anecdotal evidence and my own observations, I haven't seen an MMA fighter/trainee who has specialised so much they can't do a round of thai boxing (obviously to a much lower proficiency level than a pure thai boxer) or boxing. Indeed, most mma practitioners will spend the vast majority of their training time in isolation training (stand up, clinch, or ground) and only spend a fraction (20% or so) in mixed training.

To look at it from another way, I can see someone who has good hands in Thai Boxing, applying themselves quite well to western boxing. Or someone with MMA striking, developing quicker in Thai Boxing. By extension of this, I imagine someone who's training smart in any striking range, will have an advantage in a self defence scenario.

I don't believe the degree of specialisation for striking in any of these modalities will negatively impact their ability to strike in an unfamiliar situation.

Colm
-History rewards the generalist, and punishes the specialist

paxo

Michael O Leary wrote:

Hi guys,

A lot of people feel that boxing skills are one of the most important, if not invaluable skills needed for self-defence. I don't necessarily disagree but I just wanted to play around with a few thoughts.

It has been recognised that the hand skills in Thai-Boxing are not as comprehensive/good as those in western boxing. During a Thai-Boxing class we were told that there is not as much bobbing and weaving in Thai. This is due to the addition of knees, elbows, legs in Thai-Boxing and rather than going for a body punch in Thai, instead a roundhouse kick to the ribs would be more damaging.

It is also worth noting that the nature of punching in western boxing changed with the inclusion of gloves. This method of punching with the horizontal fist was not really suitable when punching bare knuckle where instead a vertical fist was used.

And then I read from posts by MMA practitioners that there is not as many hand combinations in MMA as there is in Thai due to the inclusion and risk of takedowns/submissions.

So it seems that there is a process of chipping away at striking skills from prize fighting to western boxing to Muay Thai/Boxing to MMA and this is reflected by the inclusion of gloves in modern boxing, leg, knee, elbows strikes and clinch work in Muay Thai/Boxing and grappling takedowns and submissions in MMA.

So here is a question? If the nature of striking skills in boxing changes with the inclusion of these elements, how much will it change with the inclusion of other elements/variables such as weapons, multiple attackers? And what if an attacker does not engage in standing toe to toe with you and pace himself for a fight using strategy (feints etc) but launches an all out attack?

To be successful in this specific environment, would you have to adapt your boxing skills so much that they lost any resemblance to western boxing and therefore is boxing the really suitable for self-defence?

I would welcome any comments?


Regards,

Michael
www.iewto.org

Michael
I think that you have raised some good points
I regard to thai boxing a fighter cannot afford to bob and weave a la Tyson or Frazier as he runs the very real risk of being hit by a knee or kick

The introduction of gloves in boxing allows for greated defencive ability to catch punches and an increased focus on head shots, particulary hooks

As you stated the risk in MMA is that by throwing too many punches a fighter risks being taken down and submitted. This risk is increased by boxing training that conditions fighter to break clean from a clinch

In terms of boxing for self defence the advantages as I see them are. You learn to hit hard , you learn to avoid punches, you are in good condition, you learn controlled aggression and you learn to get hit and keep fighting. You get to fight against different styles ie boxers, infighters etc.And importantly you spar and fight against resisting opponents. If you also include all the banned techniques eg rabbit punches, low blows, head buts, holding and hitting etc it is an effective system
Disadvantages as it's a sporting based system multiple attackers and weapons are not considered
Regards
Paxo

cowzerp

considering most scummers that start fights in the street attacking by throwing whirlwind punches-the easiest thing to do is beat him to the punch and hit him hard and fast, a good boxer more than likely wont get hit in this situation due to reflexes and been more composed due to being use'd to real sparring (where your opponent is trying to knock you out) against skilled opponents, then the scummers are actually like beginner boxers, also the punch technique is exact same on the street or in the ring-boxing gloves are shaped like a hand only bigger so its all the same..also boxing includes clinch and elbows and headbutts as pointed out(all illegal but used) and more than likely a boxer will be the most used to taking shots out of all the fighting systems meaning they can take more punishment..Boxing=great self defense.

Khannie

Great post Michael.

cowzerp wrote:

Boxing=great self defense.

Agree with this completely, though I see where Michael's coming from.

On the thai thing: It's worth noting that kicks score more highly in thai than punches do. I'm sure this has a bearing on the lower boxing skill level.

cowzerp

Khannie wrote:

On the thai thing: It's worth noting that kicks score more highly in thai than punches do. I'm sure this has a bearing on the lower boxing skill level.

Definetly has a bearing-plus thai boxers have less time to train boxing like boxers due to there added weapons (knees, kicks etc..) and the thai boxing stance is more for kicking than punching also-:cool:

Roper

These Thai boxers can't punch at all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCQpgvaB-s&mode=related&search=

Khannie

Hehe. If ever someone was worthy of the legendary status bestowed on them....Dekkers....holy ****....what a man.

I actually meant thai boxers from thailand. I think you'll find a higher standard of boxing in well trained farangs than well trained thai's (but still lower than boxers). All you need look at for (at least some) evidence of this is earlier buakaw fights. He's all kicks, some knees, some elbows and f*ck all punches. He has come on in leaps and bounds in the last while.

Of course I'm generalising, but you get my drift.

johnathan woss

Good points michael but I think they apply more to say an mma fight that a street fight.
As said already how many scumbags that attack you are going to be skilled fighters ?
And regarding multiple attackers; boxing is possibly the best thing for self defence as the footwork gives you the best chance of staying away and then running at the first opportunity !

nij

In a self-defence situation, I'd say a boxer stands the best chance. The best way to end the fight is to close in quickly and punch out the other guy. Also, boxing is not only about punching - I've sparred once or twice with guys who box, and the hardest part was actually lands a hit on them! Also, boxers don't dilute their training with other activities like grappling or kicking.

Muay Thai guys seem to do too much standing around, and wouldn't be prepared for a frenzied attack by a lunatic (who would though?..lol) Punching isn't up to scratch either.

As for kicking, well, realistically you'd never use anything other than a low kick in a real fight, and I've never seen anyone with sufficient 'high kick' ability for use in a real situation.

So again, even in the modern world of MMA, I still think boxing is king for self defence. Hard and fast!

joeythelips

I think the theroy that thais dont like punching is not through,there are so many of the bugers they come in different styles height and shape,checkout anuwat the guy is a machine of a puncher would make a great pro boxer.
I think thai boxers as n thais not europeans are big punchers they dont let of combos like a boxer would,but if one landed its lights out,
In the gym i trained in the bags were really rock solid,i was putting everything into these punches and was barely moving the bag,these guys were hitting the bag and the thuding sound and the dint which was left in the bag was unbeliveable,for such small guys.also purses in pro boxing in thailand are lot better than thaiboxing im lead to belive.just for the record thais through a hell of a lot of body shots,even when training on bag alot of the punches are aimed around mid riff area.

joeythelips

sorry music is annoying.check out the fight scene 3mins 18secs into the highlight animal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPHLOvgBPsI&mode=related&search=

cowzerp

joeythelips wrote:

I think the theroy that thais dont like punching is not through,there are so many of the bugers they come in different styles height and shape,checkout anuwat the guy is a machine of a puncher would make a great pro boxer.
.

some thais have made pro boxers and more will but the fact is boxing is not scored well in thai boxing, the punching is the least valued part of thai boxing and the most neglected imo-the stance thai boxers choose does not make for great boxing either, most of the power is lost in that stance-that does not mean that some thai's like the boxing end of it and specialise more so in it.

Michael O Leary

Hi all,:)

Thanks for the points raised. Interesting and they gave me food for thought.

Roper wrote:

When we approach the argument from the point of view of those interested in training methods as opposed to techniques, then all of the arguments that go along with how many punches are thrown, worrying about take downs etc. is just talk. Boxing teaches you how to hit hard, hit fast. But more that this, boxing's training methods give you the timing required to deliver punches in real time. I wouldn't be confident that most of the so called "self defence" arts give you that timing.

Environments ony dictate what tactics you will use.

Hi Roper,

I would largely agree with you in that you cannot rely on techniques alone but that the training method is important also. You said the environments dictate what tactics you will use. I agree. So I would suggest that if you are in a boxing ring you would pace yourself for multiple rounds and that your tactics might involve feinting and that you don't have to worry about the consequences about getting into the clinch as you know the referree will pull you apart. Boxing will not teach you what to do if you get into the clinch and certaintly not if you are on the ground. It will teach you on set of "self-defence" skills but is this enough and how much time would you waste on feinting and the associated footwork skills in the face of an all-out attack?

mark.leonard wrote:

I feel that any question on self defence is akin to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Martial Arts training is in a mixed state of being useful or useless in a self defence scenario, the appearance of an attacker forces the myriad variables to become constant and we can then assess in a concrete scenario which state your training holds for that particular encounter. This state will not be true of another encounter you may have or an encounter someone else may have.

Hi Mark,:)

That is an interesting point however it seems a little defeatist. I would argue that if you focus on techniques then you are right, trying to match the correct technique to the specific situation is very difficult. I would focus on teaching principles rather than techniques as once you understand the principle than you are better able to adapt to a situation. (Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life) or something like that.

However it can be difficult to teach a principle by itself as it is an abstract concept. This is where techniques come in as they are a tangible example of how an abstract principles works. So in conclusion, teach the technique but highlight the principle behind it and then superimpose the lot onto the training method and while you are never guaranteed 100% success in a "self-defence" situation you will certaintly have a greater chance of success.

__________

mark.leonard wrote:

I think its worth realising that training for an unknown random environment with so many random variables like number of opponents, area, weapons etc is a waste of time pure and simple. From that vantage Boxing, MMA and every other functional art is just as likely or unlikely to be useful for self defence as not.

Hope you don't mind me asking but I noticed on a previous post you also said that training for self-defence was useless and could not be done. However on your website you state,
"Learning to protect yourself is only one of the many benefits of our Adult beginners class!"
and
"We teach ultimate fighting techniques that anyone can learn to defend themselves."

If you don't believe training for self-defence is achievable then why do you advertise it?

cowzerp

Michael O Leary wrote:

Hi Roper,
Boxing will not teach you what to do if you get into the clinch and certaintly not if you are on the ground. It will teach you on set of "self-defence" skills but is this enough and how much time would you waste on feinting and the associated footwork skills in the face of an all-out attack?

Why do people have an obsession with boxers not working in the clinch? boxing is allowed in the clinch unless the ref say's break, i always done as much damage as possible when the fight came to clinch, also you use feinting and footwork as a waste of time? the feinting probably would not be used against an untrained fighter and the footwork will make an untrained mugger look like a fool while you pummell his head off, footwork is probably a boxers biggest strenght and can be used in any situation-even irish dancing!

mark.leonard

Michael O Leary wrote:

That is an interesting point however it seems a little defeatist. I would argue that if you focus on techniques then you are right, trying to match the correct technique to the specific situation is very difficult. I would focus on teaching principles rather than techniques as once you understand the principle than you are better able to adapt to a situation. (Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life) or something like that.

However it can be difficult to teach a principle by itself as it is an abstract concept. This is where techniques come in as they are a tangible example of how an abstract principles works. So in conclusion, teach the technique but highlight the principle behind it and then superimpose the lot onto the training method and while you are never guaranteed 100% success in a "self-defence" situation you will certaintly have a greater chance of success.

let me give you an example of what I mean that might clear this up - many years ago now when I was a pure Taekwondoka, I was jumped going home from a club. It was the middle of winter and the street was covered in ice, which made any kind of kicking impossible without winding up on the the ground against multiple attackers. All the training I had done, and it was extensive, against learning to kick resisting opponents was rendered moot by one random variable in a whole system of myriad variables. I may as well never have practiced kicking at all given the use it was to me at that specific point in time. There were other occasions when my kicking was useful however when variables positioned to make the environment favorable for that form of attack. In any future occasion I had no way to know whether my training would or would not be useful because I wouldn't know the circumstances of when I would need it, see what I mean?

To elaborate further, now I train MMA constantly with guys who are all at a high level and far far superior to any random street ruffian. So my training is now useful to me, right? Maybe. What if I broke my arm and had it in a cast when I got jumped and couldn't clinch or strike effectively, not as useful now is it? So what was the point of training for self defence if at the hour of reckoning it turns out to be useless? The answer, and the point I was trying to make, was training for self defence is not a good way to allot your time based on the return being in so much jeopardy to the environment. I train because I enjoy it, and that investment makes me a good return every time I set foot on the mat, and I think most of the people training in functional arts will realise this to be the case for them also if they look deep enough into it.

A good number of us start training to learn to defend ourselves, there is nothing wrong with that. The real reason is we are afraid, nothing wrong with that either. Most people who stay the course however don't stay for self defence, which leads me to your next point.

Michael O Leary wrote:

Hope you don't mind me asking but I noticed on a previous post you also said that training for self-defence was useless and could not be done. However on your website you state,
"Learning to protect yourself is only one of the many benefits of our Adult beginners class!"
and
"We teach ultimate fighting techniques that anyone can learn to defend themselves."
If you don't believe training for self-defence is achievable then why do you advertise it?

I never said that you can't train for self defence only that it could be a waste of time. The ad you quoted encapsulates it quite nicely I think
"...is only one of the many benefits...." to the untrained, fearful reader he interprets that to mean that you are learning to defend yourself and you might get fit also; my interpretation is you are learning to defend yourself as a by-product of keeping your mind and body healthy, to me it is a happy side effect that in some circumstance the training you have done may help you out, and by far a secondary concern to enjoying the pursuit.

Preaching to students about the wicked world out there and how we must be ever watchful for that attacker waiting around every corner, only reinforces paranoia and reverses any mental health benefits that should accrue from training. Far better I believe to encourage people training to train for the joy of it, test them every session against their partners or in competition and watch as their confidence improves with every struggle whether they win or lose. After months or years of facing their own fallibility on a daily basis, people who train this way have a confidence that shines through; they will not look like the soft targets that street predators prey on, and the best method of self defence has been achieved - don't get attacked in the first place! Now all you have to get them to do is not go into dark streets, walk home alone or otherwise compromise their safety needlessly and all should be well. Let's face it staying out of somewhere you might get attacked is far better self defence than all the training in the world!

So yes, I do advertise that my course has a self defence benefit, and I believe it does, given certain set of circumstances, and that it doesn't, given another set of circumstances. You are quoting my marketing as well don't forget, and I think I can be forgiven for taking some license with how I pitch my courses benefits. People who worry about self defence however are exactly the type of people who benefit the most from the kind of training we do at the gym, however they may not get exactly what they signed up for, but staying the course can provide them with the ability to close the gaps they were trying to fill in the first place, by a route they didn't know existed.

Khannie

Great post.

Michael O Leary

mark.leonard wrote:

let me give you an example of what I mean that might clear this up - many years ago now when I was a pure Taekwondoka, I was jumped going home from a club. It was the middle of winter and the street was covered in ice, which made any kind of kicking impossible without winding up on the the ground against multiple attackers. All the training I had done, and it was extensive, against learning to kick resisting opponents was rendered moot by one random variable in a whole system of myriad variables. I may as well never have practiced kicking at all given the use it was to me at that specific point in time. There were other occasions when my kicking was useful however when variables positioned to make the environment favorable for that form of attack. In any future occasion I had no way to know whether my training would or would not be useful because I wouldn't know the circumstances of when I would need it, see what I mean?

To elaborate further, now I train MMA constantly with guys who are all at a high level and far far superior to any random street ruffian. So my training is now useful to me, right? Maybe. What if I broke my arm and had it in a cast when I got jumped and couldn't clinch or strike effectively, not as useful now is it? So what was the point of training for self defence if at the hour of reckoning it turns out to be useless? The answer, and the point I was trying to make, was training for self defence is not a good way to allot your time based on the return being in so much jeopardy to the environment. I train because I enjoy it, and that investment makes me a good return every time I set foot on the mat, and I think most of the people training in functional arts will realise this to be the case for them also if they look deep enough into it.

A good number of us start training to learn to defend ourselves, there is nothing wrong with that. The real reason is we are afraid, nothing wrong with that either. Most people who stay the course however don't stay for self defence, which leads me to your next point.



I never said that you can't train for self defence only that it could be a waste of time. The ad you quoted encapsulates it quite nicely I think
"...is only one of the many benefits...." to the untrained, fearful reader he interprets that to mean that you are learning to defend yourself and you might get fit also; my interpretation is you are learning to defend yourself as a by-product of keeping your mind and body healthy, to me it is a happy side effect that in some circumstance the training you have done may help you out, and by far a secondary concern to enjoying the pursuit.

Preaching to students about the wicked world out there and how we must be ever watchful for that attacker waiting around every corner, only reinforces paranoia and reverses any mental health benefits that should accrue from training. Far better I believe to encourage people training to train for the joy of it, test them every session against their partners or in competition and watch as their confidence improves with every struggle whether they win or lose. After months or years of facing their own fallibility on a daily basis, people who train this way have a confidence that shines through; they will not look like the soft targets that street predators prey on, and the best method of self defence has been achieved - don't get attacked in the first place! Now all you have to get them to do is not go into dark streets, walk home alone or otherwise compromise their safety needlessly and all should be well. Let's face it staying out of somewhere you might get attacked is far better self defence than all the training in the world!

So yes, I do advertise that my course has a self defence benefit, and I believe it does, given certain set of circumstances, and that it doesn't, given another set of circumstances. You are quoting my marketing as well don't forget, and I think I can be forgiven for taking some license with how I pitch my courses benefits. People who worry about self defence however are exactly the type of people who benefit the most from the kind of training we do at the gym, however they may not get exactly what they signed up for, but staying the course can provide them with the ability to close the gaps they were trying to fill in the first place, by a route they didn't know existed.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for taking the time to reply in such a clear manner. I agree with most of what you said but would put one or two points forward.

I agree with you that most people come to martial arts looking for some type of self-defence and that is ok. So you are saying that you "can" learn self-defence skills but it "could" be a waste of time because it might not work on the night due to different variables?

Possibly, but statistically you are more likely to be successful in an altercation by learning self-defence skills with the risk that some variables might render some abilities useless rather than the risk of being defeated due to not learning them in the first place. I feel that the 80/20% rule applies where 20% of fighting skills will look after 80% of your self-defence needs.

I agree that most people stay with their martial art because they enjoy it and that if you train for self-defence only then it could be a waste of time. I train and teach Wing Tsun because I enjoy it. Wing Tsun is designed for effective self-defence. It doesn't mean that every time I train in Wing Tsun I do so because I am worried about getting attacked by the big, bad world. If I talk about self-defence it is only to put the practise of Wing Tsun into context and to explain why grappling on the ground is not emphasised in Wing Tsun. Based on me enjoying Wing Tsun, my investment/return ratio is very positive indeed.

I agree with you also about preaching about the wicked world to your students, paranoia, etc. Thing is, how many school with a self-defence angle actually do this? I certaintly don't. I feel that it is a small minority and we are all being tarred with the same brush. Again it is comparing the best in what you do against the worst in what someone else does and that is how bigotry works.

In conclusion I feel there is a big difference in saying training for self-defence "can" be a waste of time and "is" a waste of time. I also feel that there is a fine line between artistic licence and false advertising in marketing but I have to say that I agree with 90% of what you wrote and how you wrote it.

Thanks for taking the time.

Regards,:)

Michael
www.iewto.org

Tim_Murphy

Excellent post Mark, agree 100%.

Possibly, but statistically you are more likely to be successful in an altercation by learning self-defence skills with the risk that some variables might render some abilities useless rather than the risk of being defeated due to not learning them in the first place.

What statistics are these Michael? Could you point me towards them?

Thing is, how many school with a self-defence angle actually do this?

I'd imagine it depends on much they really push the self defence angle. I saw a poster for a course recently which said "Fear Less" across the top. Less being the important word. If you weren't really in fear at all you wouldn't need to do the course.