# Anecdotal vs. empirical



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 16, 2017)

This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.

The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.

That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 16, 2017)

Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize? I've seen pages of arguments on unrelated threads over how to define self-defense, where it distracts from the actual purpose of the thread. If that could be defined, and stickied on the self defense forum, I feel like that would resolve a lot of the arguments and tangential topics that occur.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 16, 2017)

Despite what some people on here may think, the world is built on trust. We are social animals and therefore have to trust each other to a certain degree. If you had to give scientific evidence that something you say is true all the time, nothing would ever get done. Just look at your average marketing pitch, where it's common to say that the product is "amazing" or "the best". Imagine if the sales team for that product had to provide a study paper as to why their product is so good. Would anyone actually bother to read it? The answer is they wouldn't, because it takes far too long, so instead we rely on trust.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize?


Probably not, as the problem you have is most MA train to fight, so they don't like to accept the idea that what they are training for is not the best way to train for other scenario.   

If you agree to go out side and fight someone in the pub car park you are not defending yourself, as SD is defending your self from non consensual criminal violence.  If you consent, it's a fight, which can get you arrested.  So the law is a useful yardstick.

However, like I said, when someone is only trained for a consensual fight with a skilled martial artist, they assume, through either ignorance of the realities of criminal violence, or arrogance that if they can deal with a skilled fighter a mere criminal should pose no threat; that they can handle SD, so when they are told what they are doing is not the best way to train for SD they deny it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 16, 2017)

There's also the problem that not everything works for everyone. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean it's true for everyone. There is no 'one right way' which everyone should be doing which often comes from strict teaching and grading of techniques. People have to adapt, to make it work for them. Often here someone puts up a video and people criticise, they say 'you should have done this' instead but it's not necessarily right for that person. Offering suggestions can help but people never take into account different sizes, strengths height etc when telling people they are wrong to do what they did or telling them they must do it another way.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.
> 
> The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.
> 
> That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.


No martial art on earth is 100% provable to be efficacious when deployed in your physical defence.  

No martial art technique is 100% provable to be efficacious on all people in all situations who would be physically aggressive towards you. 

Some level of uncertainty is inevitable.  However, the question might be: what level of uncertainty are you comfortable with? When, for you, is proof enough proof enough?  Is different for each individual of course.  For me, the more need I have for physical defence, the more proof I want that what I believe I know is of any actual use.  

So then the higher the degree of proof you require in the efficaciousness of your physical defensive abilities, the greater the requirement to practice in the situations and with the kinds of people in which you will need those physical defensive abilities.  Again, your degree of proof requirement will dictate how closely those situations and people need to resemble the actual ones you will encounter, and how exhaustively that practice need be.  I envision it as a scale spanned by liking a video, believing online hype or hearing some high ranker at a demo at one end through structured competition and randori in your training place to trying dumb stuff with your pals through to putting yourself in the exact situation at the other end of the scale. How valid each of those proofs are depend what you need or where you need to be..


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.
> 
> The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.
> 
> That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.



The biggest problem you have is the vast majority of MA are male, and their only experience of violence is consensual fighting, either in the ring, in the dojo or in the street. To many of them therefore, the only situation they can understand is men fighting each other, to them that, and only that, is SD. 

If you can't even get them to accept that sending your Gran to the nearest MMA club is not what she needs to learn to stop a thief stealing her handbag, how can you hope to have people accept what can and cannot work for SD.

MA will often not make the effort to understand how muggers chose their victims, and therefore learn what to do, and what not to do to avoid being selected as a victim.  Instead they will wait until they have been selected as a victim, and then talk about how they would "fight" a mugger if they turned around after taking money out of cash machines and found someone standing heir holding a knife.

How many times to we see people posting videos of SD techniques, which consist entirely of people defending punches, grabs, weapons etc, and totally ignoring everything that has happened that has lead up to the point where a punch was thrown. Why, because they don't have the SD skills to deal with that, they on,y have fighting skills, so that is all they can understand.

The other problem you have is that with training, or sporting contests, people can see what works, either in their own training or on TV.  They therefore think that what works for a consensual fight works for SD.  You cannot therefore explain to them that a triangle choke is not ideal for SD.  They know it works, they done it in training, and they've seen it on TV.  It's only when they take a mugger to the ground and his accomplice, who they didn't notice was stood nearby (because they have no Threat Awareness and Evaluation skills) stomps their head flat, that they realise it is not a good technique for SD.  And if you do tell them, they don't hear, "a triangle choke is great for the ring, but not idea for SD" that isn't what they hear.  What they hear is - triangle chokes don't work under any circumstances, and your chosen martial art is ****.  They then react on that basis, completely missing the point.

Even when you do have video evidence of consensual fighting skills failing for SD (Miquelon Falcoa & Kaue Mena as the most famous example) people who only have consensual fighting skills, will dismiss it it as evidence that consensual fighting skills are not the best fit for SD, because  they are unable or unwilling to understand how and why others skills are more appropriate. So if you can't get them to accept other skills may be more appropriate, how can you hope to get them to agree on what does and does not work?

On others points, take Aikido for example, it is constantly put forward that Aikido does not work for SD.  Yet if you ask people if they honestly and truly believe that no one ever has been able to use aikido to defend themselves in the entire history of the art, they will admit that yes probably some people may have been able to do it in certain circumstances, but will then continue us to insist that it does not work for SD based purely on the fact it does not work for scoring pointless in a consensual fight/ sporting contest, and conveniently ignoring the fact that it is not designed for scoring points in a sporting contest.  Because to them if it's not a fight, it's not SD.

So, the issue you have, in short, is that because most male MA only have fighting skills, and their only experience of violence is consensual sport fighting or consensual pub brawls, they will only ever accept the view point that if it doesn't not work for a counsel or sport fight, then it doesn not work for SD.  And no amount of real (let alone anecdotal) evidence will ever change their mind.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.
> 
> The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.
> 
> That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.



Why not just make up your own martial art based on that information?

People complain about being a judo expert from books and you tube. But we can be a self defence expert based on pretty much the same thing.

Having no data on what works and what doesn't for self defence is incredibly convenient for the people who teach it. It means you can't counter whatever they think is true.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> If you can't even get them to accept that sending your Gran to the nearest MMA club is not what she needs to learn to stop a thief stealing her handbag, how can you hope to have people accept what can and cannot work for SD.



And yet all styles work.

Hmmmmmmmm............


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Despite what some people on here may think, the world is built on trust. We are social animals and therefore have to trust each other to a certain degree. If you had to give scientific evidence that something you say is true all the time, nothing would ever get done. Just look at your average marketing pitch, where it's common to say that the product is "amazing" or "the best". Imagine if the sales team for that product had to provide a study paper as to why their product is so good. Would anyone actually bother to read it? The answer is they wouldn't, because it takes far too long, so instead we rely on trust.



And marketing use that trust to lie to us.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And yet all styles work.
> 
> Hmmmmmmmm............


You don't need MA to avoid being mugged, you have simultaneously missed the point and proven my point at the same time.  You are only able to see SD in terms of fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> You don't need MA to avoid being mugged, you have simultaneously my missed the point and proven my point at the same time.  You are only able to see SD in terms of fighting.


 
Your point keeps shifting. 

Self defence isn't just avoiding  being mugged. Which by the way I have been pretty successful at.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Self defence isn't just avoiding  being mugged.


I never said it was.  This is the other problem which is rife on MT among a handful of posters, someone writes one thing, and then certain people read it as something different.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> I never said it was.  This is the other problem which is rife on MT among a handful of posters, someone writes one thing, and then certain people read it as something different.



That was your only example of self defence in your post.

I don't think anybody has said self defence is only about fighting. Where did you get that impression from?

And of course if all styles worked. Then it wouldn't matter what you did for self defence. Would it?


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> That was your only example of self defence in your post.


It was _one _example, again point missed.


drop bear said:


> I don't think anybody has said self defence is only about fighting. Where did you get that impression from?


I can't imagine, I mean it's not like when talking about a SD situation which doesn't involve fighting, people reply with "And yet all styles work" is it?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.



i do not think this thinking really explains the problem, and this thinking in itself is the reason for the problem.   the problem is not the complexity of fighting or the ability to quantify it, the real problem is within the confines and capabilities of ones mind and thinking capacity.  think of a bulls eye with a center circle and an outer circle.  the center is the area of knowledge we fully understand and can articulate.  the outer circle is the area of knowledge we know but can not fully articulate. we see it but its low resolution images.  outside this, is the area we have no knowledge of at all and in this outer sphere we tend to draw from our own imagination or we have to take others thoughts and ideas as the truth.
in conversations here online, those three areas get mixed into one.  people write stuff as fact when they are really talking out of their butts.  there is a lot of verbal ego building and protection going on.  people have the habit of arguing in order to keep their own inner narrative from having holes poked into it.    a person will use imagination as fact and others not knowing the facts will not except true facts because it does not match the narrative they hold in their heads and to admit they are outside their own realm of articulated knowledge or to accept facts that contradict their imaginative view point would be a blow to their core being.

the only reason the conversations or arguments are even taking place is because the circle of known articulated knowledge is not large enough to encompass the topic.
it is my belief that, as a MA practitioner i am in constant pursuit of making that center circle larger and in a higher resolution.  its not fighting that cant be quantified or understood or even empirically tested and studied, its the individuals capacity to understand ,to study it and to devise the correct methodology to test and quantify.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.
> 
> The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.
> 
> That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.



Here's the thing, from where I sit. Classical MA is the boy that has been crying wolf since the 70s, at least. The entire culture has been rampant with a sort of BS that more closely resembles religion than science, and has thus far been quite resistant to the intrusion of a scientific approach. 

In other words, the collective 'we' have been taking people's word for it for FAR too long. Caveat emptor.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 16, 2017)

Martial D said:


> and has thus far been quite resistant to the intrusion of a scientific approach.
> 
> In other words, the collective 'we' have been taking people's word for it for FAR too long. Caveat emptor.


Yeah, really scientific LOL
Don't teach Judo if you don't know Judo

And crying wolf since the 70s?  You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Yeah, really scientific LOL
> Don't teach Judo if you don't know Judo
> 
> And crying wolf since the 70s?  You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?


Some.

Many got exposed as BS, long ago. Yet believers still believe. Much like other religions.


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Yeah, really scientific LOL
> Don't teach Judo if you don't know Judo
> 
> And crying wolf since the 70s?  You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?


just to add that fighting with no training at all has proved to be quite successful in a lot of situations


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 16, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Many got exposed as BS, long ago.


In what way?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2017)

Martial D said:


> In other words, the collective 'we' have been taking people's word for it for FAR too long.


very true.  we are active participants in our own deception.  Martial-D there is a reason for this.  many people prefer BS to reality.  in ones imagination you can be the hero, in reality one must accept our own short comings and failures.



Paul_D said:


> crying wolf since the 70s? You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?


 you have to admit there is a lot of " chi- ball ,death" touch" garbage out there.  in the over arching view of martial arts there has been a growing amount of garbage over the years. it was MMA that made a paradigm shift that woke a lot of people up.
let me rephrase that...martial arts grew and evolved to the point where a paradigm shift happened,  and MMA was born out of that evolution.  the shift gave birth to MMA , not the other way around


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 16, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> very true.  we are active participants in our own deception.  Martial-D there is a reason for this.  many people prefer BS to reality.  in ones imagination you can be the hero, in reality one must accept our own short comings and failures.
> 
> you have to admit there is a lot of " chi- ball ,death" touch" garbage out there.  in the over arching view of martial arts there has been a growing amount of garbage over the years. it was MMA that made a paradigm shift that woke a lot of people up.


Ah yes, but then we know all of that is bollocks.  But even the stuff that isn't bollocks is touted as being useless and proved "fake" by MMA.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> In what way?


Check out the first three UFC events from the 90s. Back then everyone believed they had 'the real sh#t', until it was actually tested. Keep in mind there wasn't really any rules at that time.

That's just one example of course, and one that the MA religionists already have stock counters to, such as.

'my style is too deadly for the Cage'

'MMA is a sport, real ma is for the street'

'my style handles multiple attackers and armed assailants, but mma doesn't'

'in real fights there is eye gouging, therefore for some reason I can eye gouge in a real fight but mma guys can't'

Etc. None of it holds any real water.


----------



## Buka (Jul 16, 2017)

Avoiding trouble and recognizing potential problems is key in self defense. As is the physicality of engaging and ending an attack should one occur

Also, a standing triangle choke, which was referenced earlier in this thread, can be quite useful in self defense if one has experience with it. Even more so when the person you're applying it to has others with him. Just saying.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Ah yes, but then we know all of that is bollocks


i would say we dont.  at least not in the general sense.  maybe you and i know it,  but many of these chi masters have students, so obviously they dont know it. i know of a modern kyosho kenpo chi master type that has made quite a good living doing seminars teaching, what you call bollocks.



Paul_D said:


> But even the stuff that isn't bollocks is touted as being useless and proved "fake" by MMA.


i think that brings us back to the OP's original thought.  that being the need to clarify and codify meanings to the words we use in order to make sure we are arguing about the same thing.  i personally feel the MMA mantra of  " it doesnt work in the ring"  is a misunderstood framework being applied in a self validating way.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> It was _one _example, again point missed.
> 
> I can't imagine, I mean it's not like when talking about a SD situation which doesn't involve fighting, people reply with "And yet all styles work" is it?



No where did anybody say or argue or even imply that self defense is all about fighting.

Except for the actual legal definition of course. Where it is all about fighting. But nobody uses that.

And then we can discuss your argument that all styles don't work for self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize? I've seen pages of arguments on unrelated threads over how to define self-defense, where it distracts from the actual purpose of the thread. If that could be defined, and stickied on the self defense forum, I feel like that would resolve a lot of the arguments and tangential topics that occur.



Nah. Self defense has to be undefined otherwise we would start to be able to gain empirical evidence.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> very true.  we are active participants in our own deception.  Martial-D there is a reason for this.  many people prefer BS to reality.  in ones imagination you can be the hero, in reality one must accept our own short comings and failures.
> 
> you have to admit there is a lot of " chi- ball ,death" touch" garbage out there.  in the over arching view of martial arts there has been a growing amount of garbage over the years. it was MMA that made a paradigm shift that woke a lot of people up.
> let me rephrase that...martial arts grew and evolved to the point where a paradigm shift happened,  and MMA was born out of that evolution.  the shift gave birth to MMA , not the other way around



There are a lot of systems in place that allowed martial BS to flourish.

MMA did not invent realism. But it did remove the isolation of martial arts training. And a lot of the ego from martial arts status.

So traditionally cross style competition was either frowned upon or seen as a serious insult.

So I walk in to you dojo,spit on the floor, fight your instructor for sheep stations. Then go back to doing the same old thing. 

I would look for styles and artists I could beat to validate my method.

MMA looks for artists and styles that can beat them to improve their method.

And that is the shift.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There are a lot of systems in place that allowed martial BS to flourish.
> 
> MMA did not invent realism. But it did remove the isolation of martial arts training. And a lot of the ego from martial arts status.
> 
> ...


There were plenty of "challenge matches" inside dojos, and they didn't stop until very recently.  They're still common in some circles, such as BJJ.  The only thing I think that's changed is the way they're handled nowadays.

My teacher is Tadashi Nakamura's student.  My teacher witnessed several challenges in Nakamura's dojo up until the early 90s or so.  One he tells about more frequently than others is when he and about 4 or 5 other guys had to grab Nakamura to keep him from throwing the challenger through a 2nd floor window.

Shigeru Oyama spoke of many challenges and him having to go into Kyokushin dojos in his early US days to prove himself and Kyokushin.  One of his first ones was a judo school where guys lined up to fight him, and several ambulances were called during the couple hours he spent beating them up.  

In the 70s and 80s it was reportedly somewhat common for people to challenge other dojos in hopes of embarrassing the CI and taking his students.  The Gracies reportedly issued challenges to many dojos to get people to convert to their BJJ.  This was before the UFC.  

MA weren't that isolated.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 16, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> very true.  we are active participants in our own deception.  Martial-D there is a reason for this.  many people prefer BS to reality.  in ones imagination you can be the hero, in reality one must accept our own short comings and failures.
> 
> you have to admit there is a lot of " chi- ball ,death" touch" garbage out there.  in the over arching view of martial arts there has been a growing amount of garbage over the years. it was MMA that made a paradigm shift that woke a lot of people up.
> let me rephrase that...martial arts grew and evolved to the point where a paradigm shift happened,  and MMA was born out of that evolution.  the shift gave birth to MMA , not the other way around


Ya know, i really think the chi-ball, death-touch stuff is in a tiny minority.  It gets some publicity mostly because the claims are so fantastic, but it's a very very small number of people making the claims, and at large, the martial community does not give it much or any credence.  

We live in an age where information is very easily spread around.  It's easy for people to see these things, even when it is rare. I don't necessarily agree that they are spreading.  The population at large is well enough educated and appropriately skeptical to know a fish when they smell one.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> There were plenty of "challenge matches" inside dojos, and they didn't stop until very recently.  They're still common in some circles, such as BJJ.  The only thing I think that's changed is the way they're handled nowadays.
> 
> My teacher is Tadashi Nakamura's student.  My teacher witnessed several challenges in Nakamura's dojo up until the early 90s or so.  One he tells about more frequently than others is when he and about 4 or 5 other guys had to grab Nakamura to keep him from throwing the challenger through a 2nd floor window.
> 
> ...



Challenge matches are not collaboration. And are still isolationist.That is the difference I was trying to express.

I have seen coaches from five different clubs fly across the county to put 1 guy in the UFC.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Ya know, i really think the chi-ball, death-touch stuff is in a tiny minority.  It gets some publicity mostly because the claims are so fantastic, but it's a very very small number of people making the claims, and at large, the martial community does not give it much or any credence.
> 
> We live in an age where information is very easily spread around.  It's easy for people to see these things, even when it is rare. I don't necessarily agree that they are spreading.  The population at large is well enough educated and appropriately skeptical to know a fish when they smell one.



The training is the same. If you fake eye gouge me and I let go. If you throw me and I collapse for you.

Then you may as well be training chi balls.

Sorta. I mean OK there is a progression. But the progression needs to be heavier resistance. Not just more fluid compliance.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Challenge matches are not collaboration. And are still isolationist.That is the difference I was trying to express.
> 
> I have seen coaches from five different clubs fly across the county to put 1 guy in the UFC.





drop bear said:


> The training is the same. If you fake eye gouge me and I let go. If you throw me and I collapse for you.
> 
> Then you may as well be training chi balls.
> 
> Sorta. I mean OK there is a progression. But the progression needs to be heavier resistance. Not just more fluid compliance.




I get what you're saying on both posts.

But there inherently are things "too dangerous to train."  How do you realistically eye gouge (your example) in practice?  I've got better things to do than lose any eye.  I've been eye gouged in wrestling and an actual fight.  Really sucked both times, and it easily got me to let go.  In fact, both times were worse and more effective than any time I've had me boys grabbed in wrestling (there were a few).  Maybe the eye gouge guys did something special, but I'll put faith in the technique working, as it worked against me.  It didn't end the encounter either time, but it got me to break my grip long enough. 

How do you propose kicking someone's knees in practice?  I've seen countless knees blown out in sports from contact.  I don't need that

Knife hand across the throat or back of the neck?  I've been hit in the throat, and I've seen it done (intentionally in a fight and unintentionally in sports).  It'll definitely stop someone.  Not a death blow per se, but if you're looking for that second or so to get away and it's there, it's a viable option.

Some things really are too dangerous to practice with resistance.  Not the setup of them, but the techniques themselves.  This is the very essence of why grapplers tap - both parties know the technique will cause real injury and don't follow through.  Same as a roundhouse to the outside of the knee, a knife hand to the throat or back of the neck, etc.

The resistance in training techniques like that should be in resisting the opening; the person doing it shouldn't actually hit it. 

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page though.  Too many people think they can do it without developing the setup, timing, power, etc.  Throwing roundhouse kicks knee height in the air isn't going to do it.  Throwing them hard against a heavy bag is a great start.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.
> 
> The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.
> 
> That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.


The issue isn't using LEO to draw reasonable conclusions about what can work.  There are, however, a couple of issues.  First, people tend to cherry pick.  Some endorse LEO, but refuse to acknowledge other sources, such as bouncing or competitions.   And vice versa.

The second issue is that people who endorse one source tend to conflate that source with civilian self defense as a direct link. What LEO does and what will work or is even relevant to a non-cop are not the same.  Similarly, there are issues with mma.  So, while some things cops know can be relevant and helpful, very little of what cops do crosses over.

And we can do empirical studies, but interestingly, the few that do exist are largely ignored.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize? I've seen pages of arguments on unrelated threads over how to define self-defense, where it distracts from the actual purpose of the thread. If that could be defined, and stickied on the self defense forum, I feel like that would resolve a lot of the arguments and tangential topics that occur.


No one is interested in that.   Once you define it, folks will have nothing to argue about.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Yeah, really scientific LOL
> Don't teach Judo if you don't know Judo
> 
> And crying wolf since the 70s?  You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?


Lol.   Prove it.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Ya know, i really think the chi-ball, death-touch stuff is in a tiny minority.


yes its a minority. i didnt mean that chi ball throwing was growing more popular.  i just used that as an example on the extreme. more common are unqualified teachers making stuff up as they go and making wild claims.  but like drop bear said its kinda the same thing.



Flying Crane said:


> We live in an age where information is very easily spread around. It's easy for people to see these things, even when it is rare. ....... The population at large is well enough educated and appropriately skeptical to know a fish when they smell one.


 
i disagree with the premise.  yes we live in a youtube/ google age of information, that is inconsequential. people are not being fooled into bad martial arts, they are choosing it on their accord.  like i said earlier , we are deluding ourselves.  most people really dont want to put in the effort to learn to fight. they would rather buy into some mumbo jumbo that is easy to do and no one can call them out on it as BS. because " well you would die if i showed you"    they want to be the archetype hero that get the girl but they dont want to actually have to slay the dragon.
its not about information,  science has been around a long time now and people are quite sophisticated, yet people still believe there is a man that lives in the sky that if you dont worship him correctly he will send you to hell, to burn in fire for eternity.  oh and btw ,,,the world is flat, man never landed on the moon and sasquatch  is real....look it up on youtube.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize? I've seen pages of arguments on unrelated threads over how to define self-defense, where it distracts from the actual purpose of the thread. If that could be defined, and stickied on the self defense forum, I feel like that would resolve a lot of the arguments and tangential topics that occur.


This isn't really an issue, so long as those discussing at any given time agree to use a specific definition. Paul D and I, for instance, include different material within the scope of "self-defense", but we're capable of discussing it sanely, because we can temporarily adopt each other's definition to discuss what was posted. So, for instance, when Paul posts something about "self-defense", I know he's including what I call "self-protection" (target hardening, de-escalation, etc.), so when I reply to his post, I don't reply as if he meant what I mean when I use the term.

Problems begin when people refuse to accept each others' definition in replying. If I refused to use Paul's definition when replying to him when disagreeing about some point, my arguments would all be strawmen, since they'd be based upon the premise that he uses my definition of SD.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> There's also the problem that not everything works for everyone. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean it's true for everyone. There is no 'one right way' which everyone should be doing which often comes from strict teaching and grading of techniques. People have to adapt, to make it work for them. Often here someone puts up a video and people criticise, they say 'you should have done this' instead but it's not necessarily right for that person. Offering suggestions can help but people never take into account different sizes, strengths height etc when telling people they are wrong to do what they did or telling them they must do it another way.


This is a good point. There are things I do, which I don't teach to others, because I've seen very good martial artists find them problematic. They work for me, but not because they're particularly good in some cases - more because they happen to fit me quite well, or I have some strength that covers the inherent weakness. And I've seen the same from others - things that worked well for them, but which expose a gap I shouldn't be exposing.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I get what you're saying on both posts.
> 
> But there inherently are things "too dangerous to train."  How do you realistically eye gouge (your example) in practice?  I've got better things to do than lose any eye.  I've been eye gouged in wrestling and an actual fight.  Really sucked both times, and it easily got me to let go.  In fact, both times were worse and more effective than any time I've had me boys grabbed in wrestling (there were a few).  Maybe the eye gouge guys did something special, but I'll put faith in the technique working, as it worked against me.  It didn't end the encounter either time, but it got me to break my grip long enough.
> 
> ...



You train throwing a similar technique you can use.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This isn't really an issue, so long as those discussing at any given time agree to use a specific definition. Paul D and I, for instance, include different material within the scope of "self-defense", but we're capable of discussing it sanely, because we can temporarily adopt each other's definition to discuss what was posted. So, for instance, when Paul posts something about "self-defense", I know he's including what I call "self-protection" (target hardening, de-escalation, etc.), so when I reply to his post, I don't reply as if he meant what I mean when I use the term.
> 
> Problems begin when people refuse to accept each others' definition in replying. If I refused to use Paul's definition when replying to him when disagreeing about some point, my arguments would all be strawmen, since they'd be based upon the premise that he uses my definition of SD.


I disagree.  Not that you can discuss things sanely with Paul D (who seems like a reasonable fellow most times).  That a shared understanding of the term can be reached.  I don't see that ever happening around here beyond a very, very micro level understanding within the context of a single thread, and even then the shared understanding lasts only a few posts before things careen off in another direction. 

Some people think Self Defense is all fighting.  Some people think it's not fighting at all.  Some think it's what LEOs do.  Some think it's what MMA fighters do.  Some think it's what Bouncers do.  Some think it's everything that happens before physical altercation.  Some think it's everything that happens once things get physical.  It's literally anything you want it to be.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

Steve said:


> The issue isn't using LEO to draw reasonable conclusions about what can work.  There are, however, a couple of issues.  First, people tend to cherry pick.  Some endorse LEO, but refuse to acknowledge other sources, such as bouncing or competitions.   And vice versa.
> 
> The second issue is that people who endorse one source tend to conflate that source with civilian self defense as a direct link. What LEO does and what will work or is even relevant to a non-cop are not the same.  Similarly, there are issues with mma.  So, while some things cops know can be relevant and helpful, very little of what cops do crosses over.
> 
> And we can do empirical studies, but interestingly, the few that do exist are largely ignored.



Or in simple terms an appeal to authority.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2017)

Steve said:


> I disagree.  Not that you can discuss things sanely with Paul D (who seems like a reasonable fellow most times).  That a shared understanding of the term can be reached.  I don't see that ever happening around here beyond a very, very micro level understanding within the context of a single thread, and even then the shared understanding lasts only a few posts before things careen off in another direction.
> 
> Some people think Self Defense is all fighting.  Some people think it's not fighting at all.  Some think it's what LEOs do.  Some think it's what MMA fighters do.  Some think it's what Bouncers do.  Some think it's everything that happens before physical altercation.  Some think it's everything that happens once things get physical.  It's literally anything you want it to be.


When in reality, the action of it is contained in the title. Any and all things done in a dangerous situation that leads to you being able to walk(or run) away from it.

Seems simple to me.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

Martial D said:


> When in reality, the action of it is contained in the title. Any and all things done in a dangerous situation that leads to you being able to walk(or run) away from it.
> 
> Seems simple to me.



So crocodile awareness is self defense?


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So crocodile awareness is self defense?


LOL

I guess 'a dangerous situation involving one or more hostile human beings' then. Escaping an avalanche isn't really SD either...


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2017)

Martial D said:


> LOL
> 
> I guess 'a dangerous situation involving one or more hostile human beings' then. Escaping an avalanche isn't really SD either...


 Not as simple as one might think, after all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Nah. Self defense has to be undefined otherwise we would start to be able to gain empirical evidence.


The difficulty in gathering empirical evidence has little to do with definitions - that can be dealt with at any point, for the sake of data gathering. The problem is - and always will be - the sheer number of uncontrollable confounding variables. The only way to deal with uncontrollable variables is to have a large enough sample size to control for them in the analysis. We will simply never have a large enough sample to control for all the variables involved - there probably aren't enough incidents in the entirety of history (assuming we had objective information about every single one) to control for even half of them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There are a lot of systems in place that allowed martial BS to flourish.
> 
> MMA did not invent realism. But it did remove the isolation of martial arts training. And a lot of the ego from martial arts status.
> 
> ...


Interesting assumptions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2017)

Steve said:


> And we can do empirical studies, but interestingly, the few that do exist are largely ignored.


Empirical studies of technique effectiveness for SD? I'd be interested in seeing that? Or are you talking about the studies regarding the non-physical things that reduce the chances of being a victim?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2017)

Steve said:


> I disagree.  Not that you can discuss things sanely with Paul D (who seems like a reasonable fellow most times).  That a shared understanding of the term can be reached.  I don't see that ever happening around here beyond a very, very micro level understanding within the context of a single thread, and even then the shared understanding lasts only a few posts before things careen off in another direction.
> 
> Some people think Self Defense is all fighting.  Some people think it's not fighting at all.  Some think it's what LEOs do.  Some think it's what MMA fighters do.  Some think it's what Bouncers do.  Some think it's everything that happens before physical altercation.  Some think it's everything that happens once things get physical.  It's literally anything you want it to be.


A shared understanding can be reached. Some refuse to do so, even for the length of a discussion, but it does happen. I've had some pretty significant discussions with folks who used a different definition than I do, and we just agreed on one for the purpose of the discussion - usually whichever was used first in that discussion. Or we pick another term to use that means roughly the same thing to both of us.

There are certainly those who like to argue enough that they will refuse to settle on a definition with someone - often arguing from semantics, rather than having a point (e.g., arguing that a statement about "self-defense" is incorrect, simply because they don't agree with the definition of SD used, and even supplied, within the statement). But those folks will tend to do that with other topics, as well, so that's not unique to SD.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So crocodile awareness is self defense?


By some folks' definition, that actually does fit. And if that's the definition they start with (something like, "Anything that helps you avoid danger and improves your chances of going home uninjured"), then I'm okay with that.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Empirical studies of technique effectiveness for SD? I'd be interested in seeing that? Or are you talking about the studies regarding the non-physical things that reduce the chances of being a victim?


Come on, man.   I've shared at least one link with you before.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> A shared understanding can be reached. Some refuse to do so, even for the length of a discussion, but it does happen. I've had some pretty significant discussions with folks who used a different definition than I do, and we just agreed on one for the purpose of the discussion - usually whichever was used first in that discussion. Or we pick another term to use that means roughly the same thing to both of us.
> 
> There are certainly those who like to argue enough that they will refuse to settle on a definition with someone - often arguing from semantics, rather than having a point (e.g., arguing that a statement about "self-defense" is incorrect, simply because they don't agree with the definition of SD used, and even supplied, within the statement). But those folks will tend to do that with other topics, as well, so that's not unique to SD.


Okay.  And we have seen examples of what I'm referring to in this very thread.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 17, 2017)

Martial D said:


> LOL
> 
> I guess 'a dangerous situation involving one or more hostile human beings' then. Escaping an avalanche isn't really SD either...



Maybe not, but there is an overlap of skills. Knowledge of your surroundings, awareness of potential threats and learning how to minimize risks are all skills needed for self-protection, whether from animals, people or mother nature.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Come on, man.   I've shared at least one link with you before.


Unless my brain is completely giving out, you're talking about the non-physical stuff (the part I collect in the term "self-protection"). That's why I asked that the way I did. I had read the OP as discussing the physical side, though there's a strong chance that's just my read, as I look back at it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Okay.  And we have seen examples of what I'm referring to in this very thread.


Agreed. If we nitpick any definition, it won't matter which one we choose to work from. Any definition will include too much or exclude too much - probably both. But that doesn't mean folks can't agree on a working definition. Some just won't, and will prefer to pick at whatever is proposed.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 17, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Check out the first three UFC events from the 90s. Back then everyone believed they had 'the real sh#t', until it was actually tested. Keep in mind there wasn't really any rules at that time.


Well yes there were, rules written to favour ground fighters, such as no rounds so the fighters didn’t have to stand back up again.



Martial D said:


> 'my style handles multiple attackers but mma doesn't'
> 
> Etc. None of it holds any real water.


True, but I think this one holds of water, in the examples I gave.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Lol.   Prove it.


Where of you think the techniques which work in MMA came from?  Was judo was like the WWE until people took their gi off and did it in a cage?


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No where did anybody say or argue or even imply that self defense is all about fighting.


We were discussing a non fighting scenario, and you started talking about it fighting styles.  Every time we talk about SD, you only ever talk about it in terms of men getting into fights with each other, because that is all you understand.  Now you don't see how that implies SD is all about fighting.  If you don't even understand your own posts what chance do you have with other peoples?


drop bear said:


> And then we can discuss your argument that all styles don't work for self defense.


I never made that argument.  Do you struggle with English? As I am typing one thing but you are reading something completely different.

I thought just argued for the sake of it, but I see now you genuinely are mentally subnormal.  You struggle to grasp basic English, and don't even understand your own posts.  Trying to discuss anything with you is like trying to wrestle a pig, I just end up covered in **** and the pig ends up happy.  

You are back on ignore where you belong.  I don't have the time or the crayons to keep explaining your own posts to you let alone everyone else's.  It's not my job to be the Idiot Whisperer.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So crocodile awareness is self defense?


Let's say crocodiles are a protected species, and there's a harsh penalty for killing them.  If I killed one because it was attacking me, and could realistically prove it was either me or the crocodile, would it be accurate to say I killed it/acted in self defense?

If a venomous spider that was protected was crawling up my arm and I squashed it, couldn't I realistically claim SD as well?

Perhaps for the "self defense defense definition purists" out there, we should include living things in the definition 

I think this is getting pretty stupid.

The problem is there's a select few who continually derail threads over their definition of self defense.  

And there are times when "consensual fighting" IS self defense.  Think about high school where there's a bully who won't leave you alone, no matter what you've tried - ignoring, running, telling authorities, etc.  If you don't take a stand and fight, it'll just continue.  By "consentually fighting" him after school, you're potentially putting an end to the cycle.  You're defending your dignity, emotions, pride (if you feel this fits and somehow that's wrong to do), and physical safety now and in this scenario in the long term.  Sorry, there's nothing consentual about that fight even though you agreed to fight at a predetermined time or place, even if you're the one who set the time and place.

Now take that school-aged kid scenario and apply it to adults in the bar, recreational setting, etc., where there's a guy who won't leave you or someone close to you alone, and it keeps happening and won't stop no matter what you do.

IMO people need to stop derailing every thread they see someone say "self defense."  It gets QUITE old.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jul 17, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> If a venomous spider that was protected was crawling up my arm and I squashed it, couldn't I realistically claim SD as well?


If a venomous spider was crawling up my arm it wouldn't be protected for long.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Let's say crocodiles are a protected species, and there's a harsh penalty for killing them.  If I killed one because it was attacking me, and could realistically prove it was either me or the crocodile, would it be accurate to say I killed it/acted in self defense?
> 
> If a venomous spider that was protected was crawling up my arm and I squashed it, couldn't I realistically claim SD as well?
> 
> ...


yes agree entirely, the concept of self defence should be wide enough to include defending your dignity , but no so wide as to include locking your front door at night, somewhere in the middle there is a sensible discussion waiting to get out


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 17, 2017)

if everyone would just use the same terminology as i do ...we would all get along damit.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Where of you think the techniques which work in MMA came from?  Was judo was like the WWE until people took their gi off and did it in a cage?


People fighting, which isn't self defense.  Right?


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes agree entirely, the concept of self defence should be wide enough to include defending your dignity , but no so wide as to include locking your front door at night, somewhere in the middle there is a sensible discussion waiting to get out


So then why do people lock their doors?

To protect their property and themselves.  That's not paranoia nor any other mental condition; it's just common sense.  Protecting yourself from potential harm IS self defense.  No different than getting a guard dog, alarm, nor any other deterrent.  Yes, some people go to the extreme.  Ever see one of those doomsday preppers shows? 

On another note...
Why is it called "common sense?"  Common sense doesn't seem too common nowadays.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> if everyone would just use the same terminology as i do ...we would all get along damit.


Sorry, Hoshin. I couldn't resist the urge to "disagree" with that.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> So then why do people lock their doors?
> 
> To protect their property and themselves.  That's not paranoia nor any other mental condition; it's just common sense.  Protecting yourself from potential harm IS self defense.  No different than getting a guard dog, alarm, nor any other deterrent.  Yes, some people go to the extreme.  Ever see one of those doomsday preppers shows?
> 
> ...


but then we are just resurrecting the silly debate we have both been critic a critic of.
I look at it this way , if I paid for a,self,defence course and all they told me was lock your door,don't go out at night and get an alarm system I would be very peeved , as that might indeed keep me safer, but it wasn't at all what I had in mind when I paid my money and the nice crime prevention officer will pop round and tell me that for nothing. There are multiple ways of reducing your likely hood of being a victim of crime or the,consequences of that crime, that don't dealt fit in to the concept of being able to defend yourself


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> but then we are just resurrecting the silly debate we have both been critic a critic of.
> I look at it this way , if I paid for a,self,defence course and all they told me was lock your door,don't go out at night and get an alarm system I would be very peeved , as that might indeed keep me safer, but it wasn't at all what I had in mind when I paid my money and the nice crime prevention officer will pop round and tell me that for nothing


It would depend how the course was marketed. If I market a course as being about physical self-defense (how to deal with an attacker physically), then that stuff doesn't belong in there, nor does target hardening, etc. If I market it as being about how to avoid being a victim, then those things definitely belong in there - some would argue they should be in there to the exclusion of physical technique. There are things I teach in a "self-defense" course, which I never had to be told, but which seem to turn on lightbulbs for some attendees. So, though they feel too "common sense" to me, I teach them anyway.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It would depend how the course was marketed. If I market a course as being about physical self-defense (how to deal with an attacker physically), then that stuff doesn't belong in there, nor does target hardening, etc. If I market it as being about how to avoid being a victim, then those things definitely belong in there - some would argue they should be in there to the exclusion of physical technique. There are things I teach in a "self-defense" course, which I never had to be told, but which seem to turn on lightbulbs for some attendees. So, though they feel too "common sense" to me, I teach them anyway.


I've put an edit to my last post to that effect.

I don't flash wads of cash about in public and generaly don't carry much on me anyway, that's a really good crime prevention tip, but its not by any,stretch self defence


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Come on, man.   I've shared at least one link with you before.


I don't recall seeing them, and would also be interested. Any chance you can relink them, if you still have them?


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Not as simple as one might think, after all.


Naw it is. There are 'self defense' programs that specialize in defending against dogs, so why not Crocs.

I change my vote, croc awareness is sd too


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Unless my brain is completely giving out, you're talking about the non-physical stuff (the part I collect in the term "self-protection"). That's why I asked that the way I did. I had read the OP as discussing the physical side, though there's a strong chance that's just my read, as I look back at it.


I was referring to self-defense as a whole, which (in my mind) is both the physical and non-physical aspects.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

as an side, as an urban game, I photocopied a twenty pound note and went round town folding it invitingly in my hand, putting it down on pavement side tables, it took two hours before someone snatched it from my hand and ran off, I wish I could have,seen their face when they stopped to look at it


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This isn't really an issue, so long as those discussing at any given time agree to use a specific definition. Paul D and I, for instance, include different material within the scope of "self-defense", but we're capable of discussing it sanely, because we can temporarily adopt each other's definition to discuss what was posted. So, for instance, when Paul posts something about "self-defense", I know he's including what I call "self-protection" (target hardening, de-escalation, etc.), so when I reply to his post, I don't reply as if he meant what I mean when I use the term.
> 
> Problems begin when people refuse to accept each others' definition in replying. If I refused to use Paul's definition when replying to him when disagreeing about some point, my arguments would all be strawmen, since they'd be based upon the premise that he uses my definition of SD.


Your second paragraph is exactly why there's the issue. If you have one definition and I have another, how do we choose which definition to use? Or are we both trying to refer to the other persons definition while also talking about our own? It just opens up the door for confusion.

Also, this thread shows that it's not malicious. Your take, my take and Steve's take on SD were all different, which played a part in your debate. I assumed I had been clear with mine (reading over it again it's very clear I was not), and I doubt either you or Steve have the intent of "strawman arguments".


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It would depend how the course was marketed. If I market a course as being about physical self-defense (how to deal with an attacker physically), then that stuff doesn't belong in there, nor does target hardening, etc. If I market it as being about how to avoid being a victim, then those things definitely belong in there - some would argue they should be in there to the exclusion of physical technique. There are things I teach in a "self-defense" course, which I never had to be told, but which seem to turn on lightbulbs for some attendees. So, though they feel too "common sense" to me, I teach them anyway.



My mother took a self defense course given by a local police department.  It was offered for free through her employer at the time.

According to her, they discussed a lot of things that should be common sense, but apparently aren't.  They gave a lot of statistics of circumstances around crimes, such as how often an unknown intruder go into the house through the unlocked front door, times when someone was sitting in the victim's unlocked car waiting for them, etc.  She said they even talked about the best place to put your bed in the room and why.  They also quoted the statistic of houses with a sign saying they have an alarm (like the "Protected by ADT") in front of their house get broken into significantly less.  Same for houses with dogs.  

That stuff was only part of the course.  

It's not paranoia, for the most part it's just common sense.  Yet, common sense isn't the most common thing out there.  She said most people were rolling their eyes and bored with that part.  That doesn't mean it wasn't necessary or ineffective.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> My mother took a self defense course given by a local police department.  It was offered for free through her employer at the time.
> 
> According to her, they discussed a lot of things that should be common sense, but apparently aren't.  They gave a lot of statistics of circumstances around crimes, such as how often an unknown intruder go into the house through the unlocked front door, times when someone was sitting in the victim's unlocked car waiting for them, etc.  She said they even talked about the best place to put your bed in the room and why.  They also quoted the statistic of houses with a sign saying they have an alarm (like the "Protected by ADT") in front of their house get broken into significantly less.  Same for houses with dogs.
> 
> ...





JR 137 said:


> My mother took a self defense course given by a local police department.  It was offered for free through her employer at the time.
> 
> According to her, they discussed a lot of things that should be common sense, but apparently aren't.  They gave a lot of statistics of circumstances around crimes, such as how often an unknown intruder go into the house through the unlocked front door, times when someone was sitting in the victim's unlocked car waiting for them, etc.  She said they even talked about the best place to put your bed in the room and why.  They also quoted the statistic of houses with a sign saying they have an alarm (like the "Protected by ADT") in front of their house get broken into significantly less.  Same for houses with dogs.
> 
> ...


I.

there a line there to cross between good sense and being paranoid, I suggest that positioning you bed in compliance with crime reports has crossed that line


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

Time is short, but I have two quick points, and a question.

First, defining Self Defense is often opportunistic, and shaped by our experiences in the past, and the position we're promoting.  It's backwards. 

Second, most people cannot even pick a single definition and stick with it, me included.  Context matters.  I tend to think of self defense as being things you can do to reduce real risk.  But self defense is actually not any action at all.  It's a justification for breaking a law... a legal defense.  Self defense isn't what you do in the moment.  It's what you tell the judge after the fact. 

The question is this:  What would you think if you saw someone dismiss empirical evidence in favor of anecdotal evidence?


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Time is short, but I have two quick points, and a question.
> 
> First, defining Self Defense is often opportunistic, and shaped by our experiences in the past, and the position we're promoting.  It's backwards.
> 
> ...


you sort of answered you own question before asking it

people view are based on their experience and logic, there isn't any real evidence to any of them, you can disagree based on yuor experience and logic, but nothing can be proved either way, which is why this constant asking for evidence is pointless.

my style works for self defence for me, I know that I've used it such, I have no actual evidence of that, no one filmed it. But even if they had it wouldnt mean it would work the next time or for somebody else.
posting a you tube vid of someone else using your style effectively in a ring an octagon or the street, proves absolutely nothing about your ability to use it tomorrow against an unknown attacker in an un known location


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 17, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> yes its a minority. i didnt mean that chi ball throwing was growing more popular.  i just used that as an example on the extreme. more common are unqualified teachers making stuff up as they go and making wild claims.  but like drop bear said its kinda the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those of us who have been doing this stuff for a while have certainly met such folks.  I don't think this really describes many people, tho.  I think they are a definite minority, and most people are more realistic.  Again, the ease of access for information makes a small thing seem much more common.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> you sort of answered you own question before asking it
> 
> people view are based on their experience and logic, there isn't any real evidence to any of them, you can disagree based on yuor experience and logic, but nothing can be proved either way, which is why this constant asking for evidence is pointless.
> 
> ...


I didn't ask about your anecdotal evidence vs my anecdotal evidence.  I asked, "What would you think if you saw someone *dismiss* *empirical* evidence in favor of *anecdotal* evidence?"


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Those of us who have been doing this stuff for a while have certainly met such folks.  I don't think this really describes many people, tho.  I think they are a definite minority, and most people are more realistic.  Again, the ease of access for information makes a small thing seem much more common.


This is faulty logic.  Ease of access might make small things seem much more common.  It is just as possible that ease of access exposes larger trends that were previously believed to be unrelated.  And everything in between.   In other words, ease of access to information is neutral.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> I didn't ask about your anecdotal evidence vs my anecdotal evidence.  I asked, "What would you think if you saw someone *dismiss* *empirical* evidence in favor of *anecdotal* evidence?"


and what I'm saying is no one has provide any empirical evidence that's worth a grain of dirt. All any body is doing is apply logic and giving an unsupportable point of view


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

Here is the study I'm referring to:  Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women.  It is specific, data driven and measurable.

It was discussed at length in this thread:  Study: Women trained in self-defense less likely to be sexually assaulted...

This also came up in this thread: Fundamental pillars of self-defense? at around page 20 or so... it's a lengthy thread.

My views on self defense have not changed much since this thread.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Here is the study I'm referring to:  Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women.  It is specific, data driven and measurable.
> 
> It was discussed at length in this thread:  Study: Women trained in self-defense less likely to be sexually assaulted...
> 
> ...


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Here is the study I'm referring to:  Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women.  It is specific, data driven and measurable.
> 
> It was discussed at length in this thread:  Study: Women trained in self-defense less likely to be sexually assaulted...
> 
> ...


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> I.
> 
> there a line there to cross between good sense and being paranoid, I suggest that positioning you bed in compliance with crime reports has crossed that line


She didn't move her bed.

But if you've previously been a victim of forced entry and rape, would you consider it paranoia to move it?  I'm sure someone who's attended that class at some point was previously in that situation.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> She didn't move her bed.
> 
> But if you've previously been a victim of forced entry and rape, would you consider it paranoia to move it?  I'm sure someone who's attended that class at some point was previously in that situation.


yes I would, but then people who have been through that have a reason to be paranoid,


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Here is the study I'm referring to:  Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women.  It is specific, data driven and measurable.
> 
> It was discussed at length in this thread:  Study: Women trained in self-defense less likely to be sexually assaulted...
> 
> ...


so what point are you trying to establish with that data,set


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> so what point are you trying to establish with that data,set


That there is a way to approach the topic of self defense empirically.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> I didn't ask about your anecdotal evidence vs my anecdotal evidence.  I asked, "What would you think if you saw someone *dismiss* *empirical* evidence in favor of *anecdotal* evidence?"


Personally I would write off further interaction with said individual as...likely unproductive.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Personally I would write off further interaction with said individual as...likely unproductive.


or in your case than I won't let you win a debate


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> That there is a way to approach the topic of self defense empirically.


well there is in very restricted circumstances, . It a far more challenging to apply it across a larger population and range of possible attacks. Have you such a study in mind? Or is it just that one?


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> well there is in very restricted circumstances, . It a far more challenging to apply it across a larger population and range of possible attacks. Have you such a study in mind? Or is it just that one?


I think it provides a very good example of how self defense can be approached empirically.  And in fact, I think it suggests that attempts to draw conclusions across a larger population and range of possible attacks are exactly the problem.  it's like saying chemotherapy works for cancer, and then concluding that everyone who goes to the doctor regardless of malady should be treated with chemotherapy.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think it provides a very good example of how self defense can be approached empirically.  And in fact, I think it suggests that attempts to draw conclusions across a larger population and range of possible attacks are exactly the problem.  it's like saying chemotherapy works for cancer, and then concluding that everyone who goes to the doctor regardless of malady should be treated with chemotherapy.


yes it a good example of a study with a VERY limited scope, that therefore can't be just applied to areas out side that scope.
as you seem to indicate that you dont know of any studies with a larger scope, I'm wondering what empiric value that study has to anyone who isn't female, a first year student and lives in Canada, perhaps you could explain?


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes it a good example of a study with a VERY limited scope, that therefore can't be just applied to areas out side that scope.
> as you seem to indicate that you dont know of any studies with a larger scope, I'm wondering what empiric value that study has to anyone who isn't female, a first year student and lives in Canada, perhaps you could explain?


I believe I have already explained this very thing.  Try this.  The things you are identifying and seem to be suggesting are weaknesses in this, try flipping that and viewing them as assets or strengths.  Then reconsider your questions from that perspective.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> I believe I have already explained this very thing.  Try this.  The things you are identifying and seem to be suggesting are weaknesses in this, try flipping that and viewing them as assets or strengths.  Then reconsider your questions from that perspective.


but the extremely limited scope is a weakness, please explain how this can be viewed as a strength


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> but the extremely limited scope is a weakness, please explain how this can be viewed as a strength


I can't spoon feed you everything.  You need to do some of the work for yourself.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> I can't spoon feed you everything.  You need to do some of the work for yourself.


your just taking in riddles trying to wevel yourself out of the corner your in.

you posted that to prove the importance of empirical evidence, but it doesn't seem to so that at,all, so I'm wondering what your point is


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> I've put an edit to my last post to that effect.
> 
> I don't flash wads of cash about in public and generaly don't carry much on me anyway, that's a really good crime prevention tip, but its not by any,stretch self defence


It isn't, by my definition, but it certainly fits within the same category as having your keys in your hand when you approach your car, which some would consider part of the self-defense arena.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Your second paragraph is exactly why there's the issue. If you have one definition and I have another, how do we choose which definition to use? Or are we both trying to refer to the other persons definition while also talking about our own? It just opens up the door for confusion.
> 
> Also, this thread shows that it's not malicious. Your take, my take and Steve's take on SD were all different, which played a part in your debate. I assumed I had been clear with mine (reading over it again it's very clear I was not), and I doubt either you or Steve have the intent of "strawman arguments".


As with any conversation, we have to choose something. We can't discuss "engineering" without agreeing what falls within that area (do industrial engineering, software engineering, etc.?).

Generally, one of two approaches is pretty successful, unless the definition of the term is the actual point of discussion. If you posted first, I usually try to work with your definition, noting that mine is different (to avoid confusion in other threads/discussions). Or, you and I take hold of whichever best facilitates the discussion (most expansive or most restrictive). That requires some cooperation, though. Some folks will simply not cooperate. There's plenty @Steve and I disagree on, but we usually manage to agree on the usage of terms in any given discussion (again, unless the usage of terms is what's under debate).

Of course, if I want to be difficult, I can simply keep using my definition to show flaws in your statements (which there will be, since your statements were made with a different definition). So, if you are talking about Jeeps (uppercase, the brand) and their properties, I could keep insinuating statements about other vehicles commonly included in the "jeep" (lowercase, casual usage, not the brand) category. Every error I point out would be factually correct, but inappropriate to your actual statements. This is one of the most infuriating types of strawman arguments (and something I see on MT from time to time).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Time is short, but I have two quick points, and a question.
> 
> First, defining Self Defense is often opportunistic, and shaped by our experiences in the past, and the position we're promoting.  It's backwards.
> 
> ...


If the empirical evidence is sound, it should carry more weight than anecdotal. If the empirical evidence is flawed or insufficient, the anecdotal evidence (if there's a significant amount of it) may be of similar weight.

At the very least, the anecdotal evidence should be used to challenge conclusions from empirical evidence, to make sure we aren't either shopping for statistics, or ignoring less-likely-but-not-improbable outcomes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think it provides a very good example of how self defense can be approached empirically.  And in fact, I think it suggests that attempts to draw conclusions across a larger population and range of possible attacks are exactly the problem.  it's like saying chemotherapy works for cancer, and then concluding that everyone who goes to the doctor regardless of malady should be treated with chemotherapy.


I'd put even a finer point on that, Steve. It's like saying chemotherapy works for lymphoma, and concluding that everyone who has cancer should be treated with chemotherapy.

We'd need to study subsets of violence and population (like the study you cited). I suspect there would be techniques for prevention and defense that would cross several (all?) subsets, and many that would not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes it a good example of a study with a VERY limited scope, that therefore can't be just applied to areas out side that scope.
> as you seem to indicate that you dont know of any studies with a larger scope, I'm wondering what empiric value that study has to anyone who isn't female, a first year student and lives in Canada, perhaps you could explain?


Those results are likely to apply in similar populations. So, in many (all?) areas of North America, perhaps parts of Europe, where culture isn't drastically different (especially as pertains to women). Age may be a factor, and there are specific risks faced by college students, so some subset of the effective techniques probably don't have the same efficacy everywhere outside that specific population - though they probably do apply to similar populations. I'm not sure we can draw a lot of wide-ranging conclusions regarding men from that study. I'm not sure the drivers of sexual assault with male victims are even the same (not a topic I've ever studied).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> but the extremely limited scope is a weakness, please explain how this can be viewed as a strength


The limited scope is what eliminates confounding variables. Most scientific studies have very limited scope of population/demographics for just that reason.


----------



## Buka (Jul 17, 2017)

I think opinion is based on personal experience with the subject matter, information, whether the information is sound, and how someone interprets and utilizes the information. But that's just my opinion. 

I believe there are other factors involved as well. I was taught not to lead with a rear hand uppercut if you're not close. Too easily countered. Yet, I've seen people get away with using a lead uppercut, and I've done so myself a few times. Had I not been taught that, I would have probably figured it out for myself against really good strikers as I'm sure I would have gotten cracked a lot. But then there's this - what if I had never fought nor trained with really good strikers? Maybe I'd be getting away with far-away lead uppercuts all the time. And maybe, in my little world, that would have been peachy swell.

Now I'm confused. Both anecdotally and empirically.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If the empirical evidence is sound, it should carry more weight than anecdotal. If the empirical evidence is flawed or insufficient, the anecdotal evidence (if there's a significant amount of it) may be of similar weight.
> 
> At the very least, the anecdotal evidence should be used to challenge conclusions from empirical evidence, to make sure we aren't either shopping for statistics, or ignoring less-likely-but-not-improbable outcomes.



I have seen this play out though. And anecdotal only counts when it supports your position.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

Buka said:


> I think opinion is based on personal experience with the subject matter, information, whether the information is sound, and how someone interprets and utilizes the information. But that's just my opinion.
> 
> I believe there are other factors involved as well. I was taught not to lead with a rear hand uppercut if you're not close. Too easily countered. Yet, I've seen people get away with using a lead uppercut, and I've done so myself a few times. Had I not been taught that, I would have probably figured it out for myself against really good strikers as I'm sure I would have gotten cracked a lot. But then there's this - what if I had never fought nor trained with really good strikers? Maybe I'd be getting away with far-away lead uppercuts all the time. And maybe, in my little world, that would have been peachy swell.
> 
> Now I'm confused. Both anecdotally and empirically.



Or that single hand guard pass that was all the rage for a while.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> your just taking in riddles trying to wevel yourself out of the corner your in.
> 
> you posted that to prove the importance of empirical evidence, but it doesn't seem to so that at,all, so I'm wondering what your point is


Solve the riddle, then.  You're a clever guy.  I'm sure you can do it.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> As with any conversation, we have to choose something. We can't discuss "engineering" without agreeing what falls within that area (do industrial engineering, software engineering, etc.?).
> 
> Generally, one of two approaches is pretty successful, unless the definition of the term is the actual point of discussion. If you posted first, I usually try to work with your definition, noting that mine is different (to avoid confusion in other threads/discussions). Or, you and I take hold of whichever best facilitates the discussion (most expansive or most restrictive). That requires some cooperation, though. Some folks will simply not cooperate. There's plenty @Steve and I disagree on, but we usually manage to agree on the usage of terms in any given discussion (again, unless the usage of terms is what's under debate).
> 
> Of course, if I want to be difficult, I can simply keep using my definition to show flaws in your statements (which there will be, since your statements were made with a different definition). So, if you are talking about Jeeps (uppercase, the brand) and their properties, I could keep insinuating statements about other vehicles commonly included in the "jeep" (lowercase, casual usage, not the brand) category. Every error I point out would be factually correct, but inappropriate to your actual statements. This is one of the most infuriating types of strawman arguments (and something I see on MT from time to time).


For the record, I don't believe @gpseymour disagree on many things at all.  A few things, perhaps, but nothing major.  And I appreciate that you almost always come around in the end.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Those results are likely to apply in similar populations. So, in many (all?) areas of North America, perhaps parts of Europe, where culture isn't drastically different (especially as pertains to women). Age may be a factor, and there are specific risks faced by college students, so some subset of the effective techniques probably don't have the same efficacy everywhere outside that specific population - though they probably do apply to similar populations. I'm not sure we can draw a lot of wide-ranging conclusions regarding men from that study. I'm not sure the drivers of sexual assault with male victims are even the same (not a topic I've ever studied).


the biggest problem with that study, is that they have divieded the population in half, trained one half and not the other, then compared the rapes/ assialts that happened, what not clear, is if training one half made. The other half more vulrable, ie the name number of rapes occurred, but were more in one half of the population, making the training seem more valuable, if the whole group was trained, then it may be that the number of rapes would still be at the same level.as all would be the same level of vulrability  . You would also have to look at the selection for each group, as there may be bias there

you need to look at the stats for previous years. And then the,stats for a following year where all have been trained to reach any meaning full conclusion


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It isn't, by my definition, but it certainly fits within the same category as having your keys in your hand when you approach your car, which some would consider part of the self-defense arena.


I do that as I can't open the,door with out them, if I wanted a weapon is go for something a bit better than key


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'd put even a finer point on that, Steve. It's like saying chemotherapy works for lymphoma, and concluding that everyone who has cancer should be treated with chemotherapy.
> 
> We'd need to study subsets of violence and population (like the study you cited). I suspect there would be techniques for prevention and defense that would cross several (all?) subsets, and many that would not.


I don't think it's even that specific, and by putting a finer point on it, you're being overly generous to self defense training on the whole. 

And so, one would be reasonably skeptical of a doctor who insisted on treating every patient, regardless of diagnosis, the same way.   I would approach these self defense guys with the same level of skepticism.  "You have cancer.  Bloodletting is just the thing."   "Oh, you have a broken leg.  Let's set that with a stick, and then I'll let some of your blood to allow any unhealthy humors dissipate from your body."  "Oh, you have chronic headaches?  You guessed it." 

Being a little less flippant, try this variation of the analogy.  If I go to a doctor with a sore back, he will probably give me a cortisone shot, or a prescription for muscle relaxants.  If I go to a chiropractor, he will probably crack my back and maybe send me to a massage.  If I go to an acupuncturist, I will probably get some needles in my eyelids.  In the same way, if I go to a martial arts dojo, the best form of self defense will happen to be what that person teaches.

When in reality, the best form of self defense for that person might not have anything to do with martial arts. 

Interestingly, there was a lot of anecdotal support for those guys (I mean the bloodletters), as well.  I mean, not everyone who went to the doctor to lose a bunch of their blood ended up dead.  Some even recovered fully. 

To your point about things that might apply to a broad cross section, I would agree to an extent.   I shared my opinions in the "Pillars of Self Defense" thread.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> the biggest problem with that study, is that they have *divieded the population in half, trained one half and not the other*, then compared the rapes/ assialts that happened, what not clear, is if training one half made. The other half more vulrable, ie the name number of rapes occurred, but were more in one half of the population, making the training seem more valuable, if the whole group was trained, then it may be that the number of rapes would still be at the same level.as all would be the same level of vulrability  . You would also have to look at the selection for each group, as there may be bias there
> 
> you need to look at the stats for previous years. And then the,stats for a following year where all have been trained to reach any meaning full conclusion


That bolded part, which you say is a "problem" is exactly the part that makes the results "empirical."  Come on, jobo. 

And they did look at stats for previous years, and following years, and also had a control group.  You skimmed the summary and didn't actually read the full report.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> the biggest problem with that study, is that they have divieded the population in half, trained one half and not the other, then compared the rapes/ assialts that happened, what not clear, is if training one half made. The other half more vulrable, ie the name number of rapes occurred, but were more in one half of the population, making the training seem more valuable, if the whole group was trained, then it may be that the number of rapes would still be at the same level.as all would be the same level of vulrability  . You would also have to look at the selection for each group, as there may be bias there
> 
> you need to look at the stats for previous years. And then the,stats for a following year where all have been trained to reach any meaning full conclusion


The trained half is the experimental group, and the untrained half is the control group.  If there's no control group, there's no valid study.

It's like Motrin relieves headache symptoms in 45 minutes.  If a group is given a placebo and their headaches go away just as fast, if not sooner, it's safe to say Motrin had no effect.  So long as there's sufficient sample sizes of both groups.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> That bolded part, which you say is a "problem" is exactly the part that makes the results "empirical."  Come on, jobo.
> 
> And they did look at stats for previous years, and following years, and also had a control group.  You skimmed the summary and didn't actually read the full report.


the study group and the control group are interlinked, if the training works then the number of sexual assualys go up in the control group, you can't really have a study where that happens, that doesn't happen with headaches


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have seen this play out though. And anecdotal only counts when it supports your position.


The nature of anecdotal evidence is that it's never comprehensive, and can only be used as evidence in support of or contrary to a supposition or claim. It never proves, except in disproving absolutes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> the biggest problem with that study, is that they have divieded the population in half, trained one half and not the other, then compared the rapes/ assialts that happened, what not clear, is if training one half made. The other half more vulrable, ie the name number of rapes occurred, but were more in one half of the population, making the training seem more valuable, if the whole group was trained, then it may be that the number of rapes would still be at the same level.as all would be the same level of vulrability  . You would also have to look at the selection for each group, as there may be bias there
> 
> you need to look at the stats for previous years. And then the,stats for a following year where all have been trained to reach any meaning full conclusion


And even that won't be conclusive. That's the nature of studies.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> the study group and the control group are interlinked, if the training works then the number of sexual assualys go up in the control group, you can't really have a study where that happens, that doesn't happen with headaches


I have a headache.    I think you're messing with me, jobo.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And even that won't be conclusive. That's the nature of studies.


yes your right and this one is particularly dodgy, that's why I'm still wondering what Steve was trying to show with it


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The nature of anecdotal evidence is that it's never comprehensive, and can only be used as evidence in support of or contrary to a supposition or claim. It never proves, except in disproving absolutes.


Agree to an extent.  As I alluded to above, there is a meaningful and important distinction between the following two statements:

"I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, AND I also survived a mugging." 
"Because I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, I survived a mugging."

The first one may be demonstrably true, based on anecdotal evidence.  The second one is entirely speculative and not supported in any way by the anecdotal evidence. 

In the same way, one could evaluate the following two statements:

"My doctor drained 2 gallons of my blood, AND I recovered from my illness."
"Because my doctor drained 2 gallons of my blood, I recovered from my illness."


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes your right and this one is particularly dodgy, that's why I'm still wondering what Steve was trying to show with it


It's a riddle.  I still believe you can figure it out, if you try your hardest.  I believe in you, jobo.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> It's a riddle.  I still believe you can figure it out, if you try your hardest.  I believe in you, jobo.


thanks but I gave up two hours ago, it  will have to remain unsolved


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Agree to an extent.  As I alluded to above, there is a meaningful and important distinction between the following two statements:
> 
> "I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, AND I also survived a mugging."
> "Because I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, I survived a mugging."
> ...


no but I,survived a mugging when I caught the mugger by surprise with a spinning axe kick, is quite good,

but the whole thing is meaningless, what worked for me might not work for you, so it in no way validates if a style is good against beibg mugged


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> no but I,survived a mugging when I caught the mugger by surprise with a spinning axe kick, is quite good,
> 
> but the whole thing is meaningless, what worked for me might not work for you, so it in no way validates if a style is good against beibg mugged


The point is that you may not actually know what worked.  Its a correlation causation thing.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> The point is that you may not actually know what worked.  Its a correlation causation thing.


no you may not, but if you used a,skill your spent months perfecting, its quite reasonable to give credit to that technique, . if it resulted in the mugger  falling to the ground screaming in pain, then its a fair chance it worked and adverted the mugging. That really is empirical evidence


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> no you may not, but if you used a,skill your spent months perfecting, its quite reasonable to give credit to that technique, . if it resulted in the mugger  falling to the ground screaming in pain, then its a fair chance it worked and adverted the mugging. That really is empirical evidence














The point I am trying to express here is evidence should be repeatable.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> The point I am trying to express here is evidence should be repeatable.


ideally, but unless the same mugger attacks you in the same place and falls for the same trick that's not possible in this scenario..
if may work better or worse with a different mugger so you will never get an exact repeat


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> ideally, but unless the same mugger attacks you in the same place and falls for the same trick that's not possible in this scenario..
> if may work better or worse with a different mugger so you will never get an exact repeat



Which is why anecdotal stories of the street are pretty crap. And I will mostly settle for what I can do in the gym.

Back to the lab. As we say.

Now there are some tricks and traps I do that are purely street. And that is because I used them a lot. But I still like to separate what I have found works from what I can repeat in an environment you can observe.

Like my gun disarm. I haven't disarmed a gun. But I have disarmed a ton of glasses. And can repeat it with fake guns. Now there is still uncertanty. But it is the best i can give on that topic.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Which is why anecdotal stories of the street are pretty crap. And I will mostly settle for what I can do in the gym.
> 
> Back to the lab. As we say.
> 
> Now there are some tricks and traps I do that are purely street. And that is because I used them a lot. But I still like to separate what I have found works from what I can repeat in an environment you can observe.


yes but i have empiric evidence of my techneque, you have empiric evidence of yours, when we,swop stories on the internet they are both just anecdotes


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> I do that as I can't open the,door with out them, if I wanted a weapon is go for something a bit better than key


That's not about having a weapon - it's about being able to keep your head on a swivel, rather than looking for your keys - and to be able to get in your car quickly if there's a threat. You don't need them on approach (walking through the car park), but it's a good idea to have them out early. This is somewhat less an issue for most men (because our keys are easier to find and retrieve than in a woman's purse).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes your right and this one is particularly dodgy, that's why I'm still wondering what Steve was trying to show with it


Actually, there's nothing "dodgy" about this one. It's about as solid as a study of that type can be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Agree to an extent.  As I alluded to above, there is a meaningful and important distinction between the following two statements:
> 
> "I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, AND I also survived a mugging."
> "Because I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, I survived a mugging."
> ...


Agreed. This is why we have to be skeptical in how we use the kinds of evidence that are available surrounding physical self-defense. There are problems with all of it, so we have to be careful in using all of it, and be careful not to avoid chunks of it that might disagree with our personal notions.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, there's nothing "dodgy" about this one. It's about as solid as a study of that type can be.


as solid as it can be is,still distinctly dodgy if your trying to make,any conclusions from it


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

Have we raised the issue of vested intrest yet?

Self defense instructors, bouncers, leos all have a personal advantage to being seen as a hard man.

And the harder you are perceived the more likely you are to be seen as credible. 

Talking a good game is as good as having a good game.

Sgt Paul Cale: Camo' ain't a qualification - Identifying authentic military combatives - Blitz Martial Arts Magazine


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's not about having a weapon - it's about being able to keep your head on a swivel, rather than looking for your keys - and to be able to get in your car quickly if there's a threat. You don't need them on approach (walking through the car park), but it's a good idea to have them out early. This is somewhat less an issue for most men (because our keys are easier to find and retrieve than in a woman's purse).


to be honest I just wander round in my own little world, the head on a swivel thing is reserved for if I've parked in a very very dodgy place, it must be really horrible living in the states, I live in one of the toughest cities in the uk and I'm seldom worried for my safety, though a guy got attacked with an axe not 400 yard from my door, but I think it was a revenge thing


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes but i have empiric evidence of my techneque, you have empiric evidence of yours, when we swap stories on the internet they are both just anecdotes



Yeah I do make a conscious effort not to beat people around the head with my street experience.

(unless they really start getting irritating)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> no you may not, but if you used a,skill your spent months perfecting, its quite reasonable to give credit to that technique, . if it resulted in the mugger  falling to the ground screaming in pain, then its a fair chance it worked and adverted the mugging. That really is empirical evidence


Except you don't actually know the outcome without that training. Just because you used it, that doesn't mean it actually caused the non-mugging. We can make some educated inferences, but that's all they really are.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> to be honest I just wander round in my own little world, the head on a swivel thing is reserved for if I've parked in a very very dodgy place



You know what techniques to use if you have parked in a dodgy spot?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes but i have empiric evidence of my techneque, you have empiric evidence of yours, when we,swop stories on the internet they are both just anecdotes


Your use of the axe kick on a mugger isn't actually empirical evidence. It's anecdotal (not measured or controlled). I'd argue it's extremely useful input when we have so many uncontrollable variables, but it's not empirical.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I do make a conscious effort not to beat people around the head with my street experience.
> 
> (unless they really start getting irritating)


do you want to swap street experiences, mine,stated when I was four and I'm 58 now, could take a while,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> to be honest I just wander round in my own little world, the head on a swivel thing is reserved for if I've parked in a very very dodgy place, it must be really horrible living in the states, I live in one of the toughest cities in the uk and I'm seldom worried for my safety, though a guy got attacked with an axe not 400 yard from my door, but I think it was a revenge thing


You're making some strange assumptions about the states. There are dangers everywhere in the world. I've never had someone get attacked with an axe within 1,000 yards of any house I've ever lived in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> do you want to swap street experiences, mine,stated when I was four and I'm 58 now, could take a while,


It's not really a pissing match.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Except you don't actually know the outcome without that training. Just because you used it, that doesn't mean it actually caused the non-mugging. We can make some educated inferences, but that's all they really are.


if I punch some one and they fall over, that more than an educated guess that the punch caused the falling over, if I poke them in the eye and they run round screaming my eye, my eye, its safe to say the poke in. The eye did that,


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Your use of the axe kick on a mugger isn't actually empirical evidence. It's anecdotal (not measured or controlled). I'd argue it's extremely useful input when we have so many uncontrollable variables, but it's not empirical.



Where as flying kicks come up a bit on the street. I did a thread about the difference between perception and reality.  Gave examples and everything. But because it did not conform with belief. The evidence got met with resistance.

flying kicks for the streets.

Pretty funny thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> if I punch some one and they fall over, that more than an educated guess that the punch caused the falling over, if I poke them in the eye and they run round screaming my eye, my eye, its safe to say the pole in. The eye did that,


Again, you don't know what the outcome was without that. You know the punch caused the falling over, but you don't know it caused the non-mugging.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You're making some strange assumptions about the states. There are dangers everywhere in the world. I've never had someone get attacked with an axe within 1,000 yards of any house I've ever lived in.


I'm guessing you live in the,suburbs , I'm an inner,city sort of lad, can't sleep unless I can hear,sirens


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Again, you don't know what the outcome was without that. You know the punch caused the falling over, but you don't know it caused the non-mugging.


if the guy is on the floor, the non mugging occurs a) because he is on the floor and b) because I have now kicked him several times, that's cause and effect


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Where as flying kicks come up a bit on the street. I did a thread about the difference between perception and reality.  Gave examples and everything. But because it did not conform with belief. The evidence got met with resistance.
> 
> flying kicks for the streets.
> 
> Pretty funny thread.


Actually, that's a pretty good example, DB. I didn't read the whole thread - just your OP and the first few replies. We could argue a few different points off the evidence. What we can't argue is that a flying kick is never useful for SD (as I said earlier, anecdotal evidence is good for disproving absolutes). Someone could argue that flying kicks are universally useful for SD (probably an overstatement of the evidence). Someone else could argue that flying kicks are quite useful when chosen for the appropriate situation by someone with adequate competence (a more likely reason they worked in those situations, and actually balances with people arguing they aren't a good choice).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> if the guy is on the floor, the non mugging occurs a) because he is on the floor and b) because I have now kicked him several times, that's cause and effect


Still the same problem. You don't know what would have happened without the training. You might have been able to fight him off, anyway. 

You're looking for the effect of the punch, rather than looking for the cause of the non-mugging. That's backwards.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You're making some strange assumptions about the states. There are dangers everywhere in the world. I've never had someone get attacked with an axe within 1,000 yards of any house I've ever lived in.


I got a real telling off when I was there, as i went off wandering round Hollywood on my own,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> I'm guessing you live in the,suburbs , I'm an inner,city sort of lad, can't sleep unless I can hear,sirens


Way out past the suburbs. If you know the term "redneck", that describes most of the people who've lived near me. Far more axes, guns, knives per capita than in US cities.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> I got a real telling off when I was there, as i went off wandering round Hollywood on my own,


I've wandered a few places that city dwellers wouldn't approve of. Some they were right about. There are some scary places in the US. Not so different from some of the scary places in Europe, except there are almost certainly more guns.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Still the same problem. You don't know what would have happened without the training. You might have been able to fight him off, anyway.
> 
> You're looking for the effect of the punch, rather than looking for the cause of the non-mugging. That's backwards.


 i might, but I have training and I used it to good effect, that proves the training has value, its impossible to know what would have happened with out it


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, that's a pretty good example, DB. I didn't read the whole thread - just your OP and the first few replies. We could argue a few different points off the evidence. What we can't argue is that a flying kick is never useful for SD (as I said earlier, anecdotal evidence is good for disproving absolutes). Someone could argue that flying kicks are universally useful for SD (probably an overstatement of the evidence). Someone else could argue that flying kicks are quite useful when chosen for the appropriate situation by someone with adequate competence (a more likely reason they worked in those situations, and actually balances with people arguing they aren't a good choice).








Yeah. You need to nut out why they work. And then nut out how likley it is that the situation will present itself that will make that technique work. For flying kicks it is almost purely street. So it is hard to recreate in the gym.

In training you are probably not going to get many situations where you may be running. Gyms are to small. 

But if running is part of your self defence. Running attacks probably should exist as well.

So we have this kind of sort of mix between hypothetical. Ancecdotal and empirical. Not to mention overcoming dogma and peoples preconceptions.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> i might, but I have training and I used it to good effect, that proves the training has value, its impossible to know what would have happened with out it



Why do you think the kick worked?


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 17, 2017)

To the OP, the issue with finding more than general empirical evidence, such as the psychological dynamics of the offender and victim, the pre-attack cues, general tactics of a street robbery etc. is because there are simply way to many variables to consider in terms of the attack itself.  Environment, training, health, age, even the clothing worn by attacker and defender matter.  Now would it be possible to comb through a butt ton of police reports of a specific "typical" city and look at all of that but there are two problems with that.  First, it would cost money and the chances of getting a grant to pay for skilled researchers to study "the efficacy of martial arts based self defense training in street attacks" is slim to none.  Second I don't know of any officer who actually asked a person who was a victim "do you have self-defense, martial arts training" so it likely wouldn't be in a report unless the victim volunteered the information.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Way out past the suburbs. If you know the term "redneck", that describes most of the people who've lived near me. Far more axes, guns, knives per capita than in US cities.


i bet p


drop bear said:


> Why do you think the kick worked?


mostly because I was capable of doing such a kick


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> i might, but I have training and I used it to good effect, that proves the training has value, its impossible to know what would have happened with out it


That last part is the point Steve was making earlier.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. You need to nut out why they work. And then nut out how likley it is that the situation will present itself that will make that technique work. For flying kicks it is almost purely street. So it is hard to recreate in the gym.
> 
> In training you are probably not going to get many situations where you may be running. Gyms are to small.
> 
> ...


I don't see much empirical in that process. It's logical, and using anecdotal evidence to support it. Where running exists, flying kicks become more likely to be useful. Similar to my comments about overextension (which also happens when people are trying to catch you, incidentally) and aiki.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> To the OP, the issue with finding more than general empirical evidence, such as the psychological dynamics of the offender and victim, the pre-attack cues, general tactics of a street robbery etc. is because there are simply way to many variables to consider in terms of the attack itself.  Environment, training, health, age, even the clothing worn by attacker and defender matter.  Now would it be possible to comb through a butt ton of police reports of a specific "typical" city and look at all of that but there are two problems with that.  First, it would cost money and the chances of getting a grant to pay for skilled researchers to study "the efficacy of martial arts based self defense training in street attacks" is slim to none.  Second I don't know of any officer who actually asked a person who was a victim "do you have self-defense, martial arts training" so it likely wouldn't be in a report unless the victim volunteered the information.


And then we add in all the variables around that MA training: focus, calendar time, average time per week, intensity, age started, experience of the instructor, etc. Given the number of assaults/attempted assaults that occur (and ignoring how many of them never involve a police officer, at all), there simply wouldn't be a large enough "population" in the study to control all those variables. It would have to come down to something very simple - has training (more than 6 months) or not.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That last part is the point Steve was making earlier.


there,are reasonable conclusion to be made

if I spend 10years learning surgery, then successfully remove an,appendix, then its impossible to know that I couldn't have,done that with no training at all, but a reasonable conclusion is the training helped a great deal.

we can apply the,same conclusion to a physical encounter where the winner had spent time training to win a physical encounter, .


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> there,are reasonable conclusion to be made
> 
> if I spend 10years learning surgery, then successfully remove an,appendix, then its impossible to know that I couldn't have,done that with no training at all, but a reasonable conclusion is the training helped a great deal.
> 
> we can apply the,same conclusion to a physical encounter where the winner had spent time training to win a physical encounter, .


You're missing my point. Using your appendix example, we can reasonably conclude that the training made you capable of safely removing that appendix. We cannot (with just that information) conclude that the training saved the person's life. We'd need (and have, in that area) a lot more information about what happens if the appendix isn't removed, things are cut improperly, etc. With a mugging, there are a lot more variables. There are untrained people who fight off muggers, so we can't say with any certainty (from a scientific viewpoint) that your training is why you beat the mugger, even though we know it's what you used. We just don't know if it was necessary.

This, of course, doesn't invalidate the training, but it is something we have to keep in mind when reviewing anecdotal evidence. I know people who say their ability to take falls has saved them from broken bones when they slipped and fell on ice. It's possible, but unlikely in a global sense. I've fallen many times on ice in my lifetime, and never even come close to breaking a bone, as have many untrained people. Now, in some specific situations it may be logically clear that the fall they took was particularly dangerous and prone to breaking bones. The same may be true of an individual incident of dealing with a mugger - perhaps with yours. The subject may have had very good cues that the mugger was going to get violent, and when fighting them off, could tell they had fighting skills. Logically, they can reasonably conclude their training was key.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You're missing my point. Using your appendix example, we can reasonably conclude that the training made you capable of safely removing that appendix. We cannot (with just that information) conclude that the training saved the person's life. We'd need (and have, in that area) a lot more information about what happens if the appendix isn't removed, things are cut improperly, etc. With a mugging, there are a lot more variables. There are untrained people who fight off muggers, so we can't say with any certainty (from a scientific viewpoint) that your training is why you beat the mugger, even though we know it's what you used. We just don't know if it was necessary.
> 
> This, of course, doesn't invalidate the training, but it is something we have to keep in mind when reviewing anecdotal evidence. I know people who say their ability to take falls has saved them from broken bones when they slipped and fell on ice. It's possible, but unlikely in a global sense. I've fallen many times on ice in my lifetime, and never even come close to breaking a bone, as have many untrained people. Now, in some specific situations it may be logically clear that the fall they took was particularly dangerous and prone to breaking bones. The same may be true of an individual incident of dealing with a mugger - perhaps with yours. The subject may have had very good cues that the mugger was going to get violent, and when fighting them off, could tell they had fighting skills. Logically, they can reasonably conclude their training was key.


there are untrained people that remove organs, ?

it is clearly quite a logical conclusion that working on my kick made the kick more powerful and that this extra power was a deciding factor , in the mugged falling over. I can't know that the mugged wouldn't get a migraine and just go home.
your getting a bit silly with this


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> People fighting, which isn't self defense.  Right?


No, SD and fighting are the same apparently, so perhaps you can explain how the SD skills Threat Awareness & Evaluation, verbal de-escalation and The Fence are fighting skills?

Or how a mugger holding a knife in your face, or a wife being strangled by her abusive husband, or a woman who has been dragged into an alley by her hair by a sexual predator isn't self defence anymore, because it's not a consensual fight, and only consensual fighting is SD.

Or explain how it is only SD if there are only two on you, and no weapons, and you are stood five feet apart throwing exploratory jabs to test weakness in your opponents response that could be exploited later in the fight, because consensual fighting and SD from non consensual criminal violence are the something aren't they?  So if it's not one, it can't be the other because they are the same.

Can you do that for me, smart ****?

No you cant, because they aren't the same clever ****.   Go **** yourself.  I'm sick of you and all the other lovely idiots on this board, and I'm done with MT.

Goodbye.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 18, 2017)

.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> there are untrained people that remove organs, ?


I said nothing about untrained people removing appendices. Actually, that was in your post.



> it is clearly quite a logical conclusion that working on my kick made the kick more powerful and that this extra power was a deciding factor , in the mugged falling over. I can't know that the mugged wouldn't get a migraine and just go home.
> your getting a bit silly with this



Yes. And I said that before. But that's looking at the "what made him fall over", not "did the training make a difference in the outcome". If you could have fought him off without the training (so, without that trained kick), then the training didn't materially change the outcome for you. And if he would have walked away (with or without your wallet) and left you unharmed, some would argue that the physical training wasn't necessary. We cannot draw conclusions of that nature from any individual incident, because there are always examples that show the contrary (skill failing, untrained people resisting successfully, and resistance not being necessary).

There's a difference between something being effective from a technical standpoint (your kick was apparently and demonstrably effective in that incident) and it changing the outcome (because we can't know what the outcome would have been without it). It might have saved your life, or it might have produced the same outcome you'd have gotten with a solid push.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I said nothing about untrained people removing appendices. Actually, that was in your post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no the out come was the guy on the floor, so yes the kick is directly linked to the outcome


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No, SD is legal.  it is not "Legally breaking the law"
> 
> SD is exactly what you do in the moment, if someone cannot be deescalated verbally, and you cannot escape, you strike preemptively.  How you word your statement to the police will effect how the case is handled yes, but giving a statement to the police isn't the act of SD.


I think a lot of confusion happens around the difference between the act of self-defense and the legal defense, "self-defense". They are two separate things, but the common terminology confuses the point.

When one is attacked and fights back, one is defending oneself. Hence, it is self-defense.

When questioned by the police or responding to a charge from the incident, one is making a claim of self-defense - the legal defense to the charge.

_(I'm not a lawyer or cop, so I've probably misused or even abused some terms in this post.)_


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> no the out come was the guy on the floor, so yes the kick is directly linked to the outcome


That's his outcome, not yours. You're still focused on that side of it. And we still don't know if a solid (untrained) push would have gotten both of you the same outcome.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's his outcome, not yours. You're still focused on that side of it. And we still don't know if a solid (untrained) push would have gotten both of you the same outcome.


no that's the outcome of MY kick, that's my outcome


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> no that's the outcome of MY kick, that's my outcome


So, you don't care if you go home or not, just whether he does?


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No, SD and fighting are the same apparently, so perhaps you can explain how the SD skills Threat Awareness & Evaluation, verbal de-escalation and The Fence are fighting skills?
> 
> Or how a mugger holding a knife in your face, or a wife being strangled by her abusive husband, or a woman who has been dragged into an alley by her hair by a sexual predator isn't self defence anymore, because it's not a consensual fight, and only consensual fighting is SD.
> 
> ...


Quite a temper tantrum.  I understand your position, but I'm pretty sure you've never taken the time to understand mine.  Once you have, Ill gladly accept your apology.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 18, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No, SD and fighting are the same apparently, so perhaps you can explain how the SD skills Threat Awareness & Evaluation, verbal de-escalation and The Fence are fighting skills?
> 
> Or how a mugger holding a knife in your face, or a wife being strangled by her abusive husband, or a woman who has been dragged into an alley by her hair by a sexual predator isn't self defence anymore, because it's not a consensual fight, and only consensual fighting is SD.
> 
> ...


Rage much?

Think of it this way;if SD is a tool belt, fighting is the hammer. You won't always need your hammer for every task, but you wouldn't want to be without one on a job site.

Is fighting self defense? Sometimes. Is running self defense? Sometimes. How about talking people down? Yup, that too.

You walk around a corner and see two people throwing hands. Are you witnessing a fight or self defense? Certainly the prior, but maybe the latter too.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

Okay.  Serious answer now. 





Paul_D said:


> No, SD and fighting are the same apparently, so perhaps you can explain how the SD skills Threat Awareness & Evaluation, verbal de-escalation and The Fence are fighting skills?


It depends on your definition of Self Defense.  I do think these skills are contextual.  They are also helpful for some people and likely not all that helpful to others, particularly for those people who will not have opportunity to really develop skill beyond training.





> Or how a mugger holding a knife in your face, or a wife being strangled by her abusive husband, or a woman who has been dragged into an alley by her hair by a sexual predator isn't self defence anymore, because it's not a consensual fight, and only consensual fighting is SD.


Depends on your definition of Self Defense.  I, personally, would agree that these are all self defense situations.  However, I have been saying consistently that they are all very different, and there is very little overlap between these situations.  Self defense training needs for a wife in an abusive relationship is going to be profoundly different than for a guy walking around in bad parts of town, or a woman who is being dragged into an alley by her hair. 

My point earlier in this thread, which I really don't think you have taken the time to read, is that self defense training can be very effective, if it is specific and well designed.   In other words, a self defense class designed for cops isn't going to be very useful for a line cook or a web designer.  But if time is taken to design a program based on a specific, identified need, it can be very helpful.  And if done with a control group, along with reliable data and measurable outcomes, it can be improved over time to become more helpful. 

And, based on what I've seen, I think the physical training, whether it's Ameri-to-de or BJJ or MMA or whatever it is that you do, is the least important component.  There is as much evidence that Parkour or Tae Bo are as helpful as MMA.  





> Or explain how it is only SD if there are only two on you, and no weapons, and you are stood five feet apart throwing exploratory jabs to test weakness in your opponents response that could be exploited later in the fight, because consensual fighting and SD from non consensual criminal violence are the something aren't they?  So if it's not one, it can't be the other because they are the same.


This is like your fantasy.  In years on this forum, the only person I can recall who says this is you. 


> Can you do that for me, smart ****?


Well, I did my best. 





> No you cant,


 Doh!





> because they aren't the same clever ****.


Well, okay.  





> Go **** yourself.


Ummm...  





> I'm sick of you and all the other lovely idiots on this board, and I'm done with MT
> 
> Goodbye.


Well, alrighty then.  If you do happen to get this far, I will only point out one thing which might help, and this is just speaking for myself.  I think I have consistently agreed, for the most part, with your definition of self defense.  When I post comments like the one that apparently provoked this temper tantrum, it's not because I disagree with you.  It's because you are saying something I believe is obvious to everyone on this forum, but you say it like it's some pearl of wisdom only you truly understand. 

It's not that people don't understand your definition.  They just don't agree with it entirely.  You have created a false dichotomy where two people fighting is never self defense.  And that's fine if it's your definition.  However, most people think all of the things you state above are SD, AND ALSO have a less exclusive definition that covers some things you insist are not SD.  For example, some of the lovely idiots around here would agree that if you get into a consensual fight outside a bar, it's not self defense.  They might, however, say that when that other person pulls out a knife, it is now a self defense situation.  Other people would include the entire fight as a self defense situation.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

Paul_D said:
			
		

> No, SD is legal. it is not "Legally breaking the law"
> 
> SD is exactly what you do in the moment, if someone cannot be deescalated verbally, and you cannot escape, you strike preemptively. How you word your statement to the police will effect how the case is handled yes, but giving a statement to the police isn't the act of SD.


Not the only definition used frequently on this forum.  

Self defense is a legal justification for an action that would otherwise be illegal.  And you put "legally breaking the law" in quotes, but I'm not sure whom you're quoting.   I'm pretty sure I didn't write that.

When you kill a person, you have killed a person.  Your legal justification for doing so will determine whether it was self defense or murder.  If the judge believes your justification for your action, you haven't broken the law at all.  That doesn't mean you haven't killed someone. And because the judge believed you (I say "Judge" as a shorthand for the entire legal process, FYI), you will not be accountable for the act of killing a person for the rest of your life. 

It's like having sex.  Taking the morning after pill doesn't mean you didn't have sex.  You had sex.  Nothing will change that.  You are just not going to be accountable for it for the rest of your life.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> When you kill a person, you have killed a person.  Your legal justification for doing so will determine whether it was self defense or murder.  If the judge believes your justification for your action, you haven't broken the law at all.  That doesn't mean you haven't killed someone. And because the judge believed you (I say "Judge" as a shorthand for the entire legal process, FYI), you will not be accountable for the act of killing a person for the rest of your life.


That is a good point and too often I think given no airspace thank you for mentioning! Yes dealing emotionally with seriously harming another person is in my experience as difficult as dealing emotionally with being seriously harmed by another person.. Taking a life is understood by most and but emotional dysfunction can also occur after what are ostensibly much lower level of physical harm.. I think it is often unspoken or seem to me some time like spoiling the fun of online fantasy fighting talk maybe??



Steve said:


> It's like having sex.  Taking the morning after pill doesn't mean you didn't have sex.  You had sex.  Nothing will change that.  You are just not going to be accountable for it for the rest of your life.


Did you notice any effects of taking morning after pill?? I would worry it would seriously mess with ya manly mojo j/k  actually back in the day morning after contraception precipitate depression too which never make the emotional job of having to take one easier.. so.. is maybe akin to your point about the "Judge" ruling on the act you depict.. emergency contraception is like the "Judge" and possibly for the best to plan ahead to avoid need for judicial interventions in first place.. #besafe


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

Jenna said:


> That is a good point and too often I think given no airspace thank you for mentioning! Yes dealing emotionally with seriously harming another person is in my experience as difficult as dealing emotionally with being seriously harmed by another person.. Taking a life is understood by most and but emotional dysfunction can also occur after what are ostensibly much lower level of physical harm.. I think it is often unspoken or seem to me some time like spoiling the fun of online fantasy fighting talk maybe??
> 
> 
> Did you notice any effects of taking morning after pill?? I would worry it would seriously mess with ya manly mojo j/k  actually back in the day morning after contraception precipitate depression too which never make the emotional job of having to take one easier.. so.. is maybe akin to your point about the "Judge" ruling on the act you depict.. emergency contraception is like the "Judge" and possibly for the best to plan ahead to avoid need for judicial interventions in first place.. #besafe


Yes.  In both situations, as you note, there are other possible repercussions.  You might not go to jail, which is a huge concern.  But there can be lasting effects from having been involved in any kind of altercation, particularly if you have had to take someone's life in self defense.

Similarly, emergency contraception might manage any unplanned pregnancy, but it won't help you with other potential ramifications of your actions, from potential STDs to any emotional fallout caused by your actions. 

George Zimmerman is the unfortunate poster child for what can happen, even when you've been legally cleared.  Whether he was justified or not, he was found legally innocent of the charges, and yet his life is pretty much wrecked anyway.

Thanks, Jenna!


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, you don't care if you go home or not, just whether he does?


not relevant, if I kick a ball a ball into a goal its a goal,that has no bearing on if either I or the goal keeper go home later


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> not relevant, if I kick a ball a ball into a goal its a goal,that has no bearing on if either I or the goal keeper go home later


It is relevant if the ball has poison spikes on it, and you kicked it at the goalie with the intent to kill or maim him.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> It is relevant if the ball has poison spikes .


 do you think that's likely?


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> do you think that's likely?


Is that relevant?


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> Is that relevant?


well yea, you just made a,daft comment, I have no idea what your trying to convey with it, perhaps if you presented a Cogent point, we would has something to discuss. Or you could make some point,about juggling rattle snakes in the same vein as the one above


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> well yea, you just made a,daft comment, I have no idea what your trying to convey with it, perhaps if you presented a Cogent point, we would has something to discuss. Or you could make some point,about juggling rattle snakes in the same vein as the one above


jobo, I actually enjoy your posts, but (and I say this with love) you wouldn't recognize a cogent point if it kicked a spiked, poison ball in your goal.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> jobo, I actually enjoy your posts, but (and I say this with love) you wouldn't recognize a cogent point if it kicked a spiked, poison ball in your goal.


well we will never know as the chances of one being made by you orca fair few others is slight to none

but seriously I have no idea what point you were trying to make with you spikey football analogy


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> do you want to swap street experiences, mine,stated when I was four and I'm 58 now, could take a while,



I fought a dragon once. A real fire breathing dragon.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I fought a dragon once. A real fire breathing dragon.


I got in a fight once whilst carry a fridge


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't see much empirical in that process. It's logical, and using anecdotal evidence to support it. Where running exists, flying kicks become more likely to be useful. Similar to my comments about overextension (which also happens when people are trying to catch you, incidentally) and aiki.



I did find about ten examples of the move working before I came up with a theory. That moves from anecdotal I think. And I have observed the kick anecdotally.

So. I saw the kick pulled off. Reserved my judgement. Went to you tube. Found the kick repeated. Looked for the common traits. Came up with a hypothesis.

I haven't tested it back in resisted training. So it is still a concept. I train things that I am likley to pull off in training.

And it is a move for a specific situation where other moves may not be as safe.(logical)

If someone overextends in training and you can whip out aiki without getting your face punched in. You have a viable defence.

My issue with training over extended punch style defences is anecdotally they don't work as well as flying kicks. There are not as many examples on you tube of them working (empirical). I have personally tried them and they are low percentage. And there is almost always a safer move to do.(not logical). You do not account for speed that provides that aiki. and you do not account for complexity under stress.

I do not suggest that my sparring partner changes his system to something I can deal with so I can deal with it. (Laboratory testing)

I am happy to be persuaded by evidence.

If i was serious about adding flying kicks to my arsenal it would have to be trained in a manner I can do it unscripted. Because then that evidence would be empirical.

I could start throwing flying kicks in sparring to see what happens. You could if you wanted get someone put some gloves on and tell them to knock your head off.

I at least accept flying kicks are a mental exercise.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> I got in a fight once whilst carry a fridge



I shot a man in reno.


Just to watch him die.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I shot a man in reno.
> 
> 
> Just to watch him die.


still in folsom prison are you?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> Quite a temper tantrum.  I understand your position, but I'm pretty sure you've never taken the time to understand mine.  Once you have, Ill gladly accept your apology.



And we can. Because ring craft is threat awarness. Distance timing and creating positions.






In MMA how do you stop getting taken down?

You apply street of course.

And it is not just theoretical. You get a practical experience.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I shot a man in reno.
> 
> 
> Just to watch him die.


I hear the train a comin.   Comin round the bend.   And I ain't seen the sunshine til... I don't know when.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> not relevant, if I kick a ball a ball into a goal its a goal,that has no bearing on if either I or the goal keeper go home later


False equivalency.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> I have no idea what point you were trying to make with you spikey football analogy


Of that, I have no doubt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I did find about ten examples of the move working before I came up with a theory. That moves from anecdotal I think. And I have observed the kick anecdotally.
> 
> So. I saw the kick pulled off. Reserved my judgement. Went to you tube. Found the kick repeated. Looked for the common traits. Came up with a hypothesis.
> 
> ...


As usual, when "aiki" is brought up, you argue against something you make clear (in your very argument) you don't quite comprehend.

As for the first part of your post, you make good points. There's an approach that falls short of statistical relevance, but works for logical deduction. That's where anecdotal evidence helps contribute. 10 anecdotes doesn't cease to be anecdotal evidence. 1 video doesn't cease to be video evidence and turn into anecdotal evidence. Both are useful, if used appropriately. Ignoring either (or misusing them) can lead to false conclusions.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> As usual, when "aiki" is brought up, you argue against something you make clear (in your very argument) you don't quite comprehend.
> 
> As for the first part of your post, you make good points. There's an approach that falls short of statistical relevance, but works for logical deduction. That's where anecdotal evidence helps contribute. 10 anecdotes doesn't cease to be anecdotal evidence. 1 video doesn't cease to be video evidence and turn into anecdotal evidence. Both are useful, if used appropriately. Ignoring either (or misusing them) can lead to false conclusions.



I don't do aiki and for the most part think it is science fiction.

I do like the concept of good technique which is easier to understand and more practically demonstrated.

The street is difficult to get feedback from and peoples understanding of it is generally 2nd or 3rd hand.

I mean we can see the misunderstandings when I talk Aikido and you talk MMA. If we consider that about normal. Imagine how wrong everyone is about the street.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I don't do aiki and for the most part think it is science fiction.
> 
> I do like the concept of good technique which is easier to understand and more practically demonstrated.
> 
> ...


I try not to talk MMA much. It's not something I know well. I can speak to small bits of it, based upon what I've heard from those who are more involved.

Aiki is hard to describe, true enough. I consider it an advanced concept, not a necessary one in its full expression - though it can be coached in its basic form from day one (and is, in many arts, IMO). It's something worth having, but it doesn't fit everyone's personality.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I try not to talk MMA much. It's not something I know well. I can speak to small bits of it, based upon what I've heard from those who are more involved.
> 
> Aiki is hard to describe, true enough. I consider it an advanced concept, not a necessary one in its full expression - though it can be coached in its basic form from day one (and is, in many arts, IMO). It's something worth having, but it doesn't fit everyone's personality.



The point being my third party concept of Aiki. Is pretty much everyones concept of street.

Exept we have every man and his dog trying to sell me that they are some sort of expert. So not only do we get third party concepts. But we also have to wade through a mountain of BS.

A martial arts instructor has a vested intrest in appearing like some sort of badass. Combine that with a subject nobody knows and we definitely get guys who take it too far.



Now there are obvious and extreme examples. But on this topic we will have a range of outright liars to absolute honesty. And everyone inbetween.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

Steve said:


> Yes.  In both situations, as you note, there are other possible repercussions.  You might not go to jail, which is a huge concern.  But there can be lasting effects from having been involved in any kind of altercation, particularly if you have had to take someone's life in self defense.
> 
> Similarly, emergency contraception might manage any unplanned pregnancy, but it won't help you with other potential ramifications of your actions, from potential STDs to any emotional fallout caused by your actions.
> 
> ...


All true yes! not so much airplay given over to discussion of these realities of either situation.. when my son was at school sex ed was given a perfunctory check-box treatment like now you know what can happen promise you will all go do it safely pffft.. ramifications to kids mean little at times..

Though I think it is a very apt analogue to defence.. Is good.. I like that you thought of that.. Like for teaching SD qualifications in counselling are hardly necessary yet courses do not have space nor, I imagine, would it play well advertising after the afternoon groin strike and clavicle grab section the handling of emotional issues after a physical altercation.. no mileage I imagine.. I am glad you raise the issue though x


----------

