# Fundamental pillars of self-defense?



## Brian King

Fundamental pillars of self-defense?

In the thread “Is grappling better for female self-defense than striking?” the idea of  a fundamental pillar of self-defense” came up. Warning – while interesting, it is a long thread with a lot of- this is better than this, you know nothings, I knows all, type of posts. The talk of ‘fundamental pillars’ did start me wondering what different people would include as fundamental pillars of self-defense training. I imagine that the answers might depend on the culture lived in, the type of attacks experienced, capabilities and limitations of those training, length of time available for the training, and a host of other variables. I searched and found the thread “self-Defense???” interesting but different than a discussion on what folks expect or teach as specific pillars of self-defense.

For the start of this exploration (thread drift happens and can be interesting) let’s assumes that the prospective student is married, with small children, and limited training time – say once or twice a week for a year. The kind of attack that she may face, could be assault in a parking garage, road rage, work place violence, domestic abuse, violent robbery, wrong place wrong time violence, and home invasion. Or we can assume that she might be single, so we could add date rape violence, bar/night club violence, woman on woman violence to the list. Attacks against the elderly are brutal as well, and in some areas becoming common place, so we could add healthcare/ nursing home violence to the possible list above.

This video, taken with a nanny cam captures the violence that is common of assaults against women by men. They are violent and brutal. With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ for the women described above? Warning, video is violent.

https://youtu.be/qU0EJS3cJIc

Along with the suggested pillars, how about some reasoning of why, and how to train them?

Now, everyone reading this thread can agree that there can be more than one way to solve a problem. For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula, depends entirely on context. Let’s try to discuss the messages and not so much the messengers although a little background on the posters experiences if they want, might help to add context?

Thank you

Brian King


----------



## Flying Crane

I suspect that most people are going to recommend whatever system it is that they train in.


----------



## Drose427

Flying Crane said:


> I suspect that most people are going to recommend whatever system it is that they train in.



Well we know one person will at least


----------



## Brian King

Thanks folks,
Rather than specific system, I am hoping for specific pillars. Even more than just a list of this and that I am also hoping for a brief discussion on how folks train those specific pillars. Hoping to avoid the get a gun - 45 vs 9mm, TMA vs MMA, Predator vs Alien discussions.

More along - awareness - bring using reflections and listening to gut feelings into the training (how), chokes - bring using clothing as weapons into the training (how) etc...

So, what specific self-defense pillars would you think fit into training the profiles above?

Thanks again
Brian King


----------



## K-man

Well for a start I am going to suggest that no matter what training you do, you won't be safe in every situation.

Seeing the thread is about self defence, what could she have done differently. The guy kicked the deadlocked door in so that wasn't a failing. Could she have turned her home into a fortress? Maybe, but who wants to live that way. 

Why did the attacker target that property? We don't know. Was it a random attack? Again we don't know. In Australia, most home invasion type crimes aren't random and of course I am not speaking for the U.S.

One thing we have with our alarm system are police assist devices that you can wear if you want. That may have helped in this instance but you still have the response time to survive which of course new brings us to the situation seen in the video.

Having stated the obvious I will step back and watch for a while before adding to the thread.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Here are a few fundamental pillars of self-defense as I see it*: avoidance, awareness, strategy and tactics specific to violence in your area and violence in general, verbal and non-verbal de-escalation techniques, understanding human behavior in regards to criminal behavior in your area, training in weapons/tools, kicking, hand strikes, trapping hands and joint manipulation, grappling.   Heavy dose of Scenario Based Training where the person training learns to deal with adrenaline. Attribute training so that you can implement your physical skills:  such as but not limited to strength training, aerobic training (with air), anaerobic training (without air), stretching, plus a lot more.  Specific things for attribute training ie. weight lifting, kettle bells, Bulgarian bag, running, sprints, swimming, bicycling, hiking, kayaking, etc.  All in all a very fit lifestyle. 

*If you pose a very specific course for the woman above* who only can train a couple of times a week and for only a year then obviously you have to get them consciously thinking about their personal protection so that they will raise their awareness and avoid areas that may be potentially dangerous for them.  Help them learn to strategically reduce their victim profile and tactics they can employ for verbal and non-verbal de-escalation.  Then a goal to improve their fitness while training heavily how to strike with their hands, elbows and knees. (skip kicks because they take quite a bit longer to develop though if they had longer then you could add it in)  Basic functional grappling with emphasis on sprawl, guard with sweeps and getting back up as quickly as possible and getting out of there.  *Heavy and I mean heavy edged weapons training and firearms training*.  If you are good with a tool and can deploy it efficiently you have an extreme advantage!  We are a tool wielding species so take advantage of that!

I had to type this quickly so I know I have forgotten to mention a few things.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Great topic Brian!


----------



## Steve

I recommend an appropriate handgun, sufficient time at the range to be competent, and some additional training in use of force laws for your area.  a year, two times per week sounds about right.

I don't think 45 vs 9mm matters much, as long as it's a handgun you're comfortable and confident using.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Well we know one person will at least



Well we both know Karate wouldn't have helped her in that situation. 

JK

Anyways, I understand why she decided to do what she did, but I don't agree with it. She placed herself at the mercy of that animal, and he could have very well killed her and her child. Would a martial art have helped her? I believe so, but frankly the martial arts most beneficial to women tend to not be very popular among women.

I'm not a huge fan of guns personally, and while she could have used the gun in this situation, the gun could have very easily been turned against her. Additionally, many people don't keep loaded guns in the household for a variety of safety reasons, so she wouldn't have had the time to use it anyway.


----------



## Brian King

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Here are a few fundamental pillars of self-defense as I see it*: avoidance, awareness, strategy and tactics specific to violence in your area and violence in general, verbal and non-verbal de-escalation techniques, understanding human behavior in regards to criminal behavior in your area, training in weapons/tools, kicking, hand strikes, trapping hands and joint manipulation, grappling.   Heavy dose of Scenario Based Training where the person training learns to deal with adrenaline. Attribute training so that you can implement your physical skills:  such as but not limited to strength training, aerobic training (with air), anaerobic training (without air), stretching, plus a lot more.  Specific things for attribute training ie. weight lifting, kettle bells, Bulgarian bag, running, sprints, swimming, bicycling, hiking, kayaking, etc.  All in all a very fit lifestyle.
> 
> *If you pose a very specific course for the woman above* who only can train a couple of times a week and for only a year then obviously you have to get them consciously thinking about their personal protection so that they will raise their awareness and avoid areas that may be potentially dangerous for them.  Help them learn to strategically reduce their victim profile and tactics they can employ for verbal and non-verbal de-escalation.  Then a goal to improve their fitness while training heavily how to strike with their hands, elbows and knees. (skip kicks because they take quite a bit longer to develop though if they had longer then you could add it in)  Basic functional grappling with emphasis on sprawl, guard with sweeps and getting back up as quickly as possible and getting out of there.  *Heavy and I mean heavy edged weapons training and firearms training*.  If you are good with a tool and can deploy it efficiently you have an extreme advantage!  We are a tool wielding species so take advantage of that!
> 
> I had to type this quickly so I know I have forgotten to mention a few things.



Thanks Brian for posting your thoughts. For a ‘quick’ post you covered a lot of great material. You wrote that “obviously you have to get them consciously thinking about their personal protection so that they will raise their awareness and avoid areas that may be potentially dangerous for them.” With your system and those that you have studied- is their concern about feeding fear and possibly developing ‘paranoia’ rather than ‘common sense’ awareness and avoidance? 

I agree that weapon use should be explored. Do you have in your experience, methods that you use to get the common lady described above comfortable with the thought of using a weapon for defense?

Do you use the scenario based training to work on the strategy and tactics specific to general violence and violence in a specific area or is it more of a lecture based/ discussion area of study?

Not related to this thread, but, did you see the summary in the latest Force Science of the study titled “Police arrest and self-defence skills: Performance under anxiety of officers with and without additional experience in martial arts.” It looks like an interesting study with police volunteers taking part, some with and some without martial arts training. The study (summary- I have not read the actual study) seems to show benefit of even leisure time training of once a week. It seems to break it down by length of study, style, and frequency of study. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Steve said:


> I recommend an appropriate handgun, sufficient time at the range to be competent, and some additional training in use of force laws for your area.  a year, two times per week sounds about right.
> 
> I don't think 45 vs 9mm matters much, as long as it's a handgun you're comfortable and confident using.



Thanks Steve.
Glad to see that you would recommend use of force laws to go with the firearm training. Not a very sexy part of 'lethal' training but VERY beneficial it seems to me on many levels. So with one of the pillars being legal firearms use, would you also recommend some sort of trauma care training? 

If you read Grossman's book "On Killing" it would seem that the actual act of pulling the trigger on a human is not as easy as some make out and even for many soldiers it requires specific training to condition and ready the person to take a life. For many people a gun can easily become a talisman, a shield that they can use to ward off evil doers and danger causing them to be 'braver' than situations may warrant. Do you have any ideas or experiences in addressing these type of training issues with the firearm pillar of self-defense training?

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Hanzou said:


> Well we both know Karate wouldn't have helped her in that situation.
> 
> JK
> 
> Anyways, I understand why she decided to do what she did, but I don't agree with it. She placed herself at the mercy of that animal, and he could have very well killed her and her child. Would a martial art have helped her? I believe so, but frankly the martial arts most beneficial to women tend to not be very popular among women.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of guns personally, and while she could have used the gun in this situation, the gun could have very easily been turned against her. Additionally, many people don't keep loaded guns in the household for a variety of safety reasons, so she wouldn't have had the time to use it anyway.



Thank you for posting Hanzou.
You wrote "would a martial art have helped her? I believe so..._snip_.
 Would you care to expand on that? In what way would a martial art have helped her in your opinion? 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Dirty Dog

One of the things I consider important to self defense is an honest self apprasal to answer the question "What are you willing to do to survive?"
I've known people who believed that they were absolutely unwilling to kill someone, even in self defense. They may well change their minds if they were in such a situation, but that is their view.
If you're convinced that you could never bring yourself to kill, even in self defense, it's probably not worthwhile to devote much time to training techniques that are intended to have a high lethality.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian King said:


> Thank you for posting Hanzou.
> You wrote "would a martial art have helped her? I believe so..._snip_.
> Would you care to expand on that? In what way would a martial art have helped her in your opinion?
> 
> Regards
> Brian King



She would have been able to defend herself. Especially if she was proficient in Bjj (combative over sport) or MMA. Again, I understand that she didn't want that guy to hurt her child, but she placed her life completely in his hands. He could have killed or raped her or worse. If she were a Machado, Relson, or Rickson brown or black belt, I simply don't see that happening to her.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> I recommend an appropriate handgun, sufficient time at the range to be competent, and some additional training in use of force laws for your area.  a year, two times per week sounds about right.
> 
> I don't think 45 vs 9mm matters much, as long as it's a handgun you're comfortable and confident using.


 
Actually, it's not true that 45 vs 9mm doesn't matter much. It actually doesn't matter AT ALL.



Hanzou said:


> I'm not a huge fan of guns personally, and while she could have used the gun in this situation, the gun could have very easily been turned against her. Additionally, many people don't keep loaded guns in the household for a variety of safety reasons, so she wouldn't have had the time to use it anyway.


 
Loaded guns in the home are not the least bit unsafe. 
People who are too lazy or ignorant to control access to their loaded guns are unsafe.


----------



## Buka

BTW, they caught the guy. Shawn Curtis, serial home invader, convicted of a dozen felonies since 1988.

Sorry to stray off topic, just wanted you guys to know.


----------



## Drose427

Brian King said:


> Fundamental pillars of self-defense?
> 
> In the thread “Is grappling better for female self-defense than striking?” the idea of  a fundamental pillar of self-defense” came up. Warning – while interesting, it is a long thread with a lot of- this is better than this, you know nothings, I knows all, type of posts. The talk of ‘fundamental pillars’ did start me wondering what different people would include as fundamental pillars of self-defense training. I imagine that the answers might depend on the culture lived in, the type of attacks experienced, capabilities and limitations of those training, length of time available for the training, and a host of other variables. I searched and found the thread “self-Defense???” interesting but different than a discussion on what folks expect or teach as specific pillars of self-defense.
> 
> For the start of this exploration (thread drift happens and can be interesting) let’s assumes that the prospective student is married, with small children, and limited training time – say once or twice a week for a year. The kind of attack that she may face, could be assault in a parking garage, road rage, work place violence, domestic abuse, violent robbery, wrong place wrong time violence, and home invasion. Or we can assume that she might be single, so we could add date rape violence, bar/night club violence, woman on woman violence to the list. Attacks against the elderly are brutal as well, and in some areas becoming common place, so we could add healthcare/ nursing home violence to the possible list above.
> 
> This video, taken with a nanny cam captures the violence that is common of assaults against women by men. They are violent and brutal. With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ for the women described above? Warning, video is violent.
> 
> https://youtu.be/qU0EJS3cJIc
> 
> Along with the suggested pillars, how about some reasoning of why, and how to train them?
> 
> Now, everyone reading this thread can agree that there can be more than one way to solve a problem. For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula, depends entirely on context. Let’s try to discuss the messages and not so much the messengers although a little background on the posters experiences if they want, might help to add context?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Brian King



For me, its 2 part (3 if you can legally own a firearm)

The first is things like awareness, in that thread (or a different) I brouhght up the similarities of being aware of your surroundings for SD and driving your car.

Our brains are wired to do it already.

But, anyone with a brain or experience will you sometimes that fails, for a variety of reasons.

Then it moves on to firearms training, and most importantly KEEPING IT WITH YOU.

it doesnt do a thing if its 300 feet away.

Finally, physical methods.

1 striking style

+

1 grappling style

where you choose to focus is preference as long as youre competent with both.

Then we go to The physical aspect.


Hanzou said:


> Well we both know Karate wouldn't have helped her in that situation.
> 
> JK
> 
> Anyways, I understand why she decided to do what she did, but I don't agree with it. She placed herself at the mercy of that animal, and he could have very well killed her and her child. Would a martial art have helped her? I believe so, but frankly the martial arts most beneficial to women tend to not be very popular among women.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of guns personally, and while she could have used the gun in this situation, the gun could have very easily been turned against her. Additionally, many people don't keep loaded guns in the household for a variety of safety reasons, so she wouldn't have had the time to use it anyway.



Actually the very beginning of the attack would have been right in the wheel house of any striking style.


----------



## Jenna

Brian King said:


> Fundamental pillars of self-defense?
> 
> In the thread “Is grappling better for female self-defense than striking?” the idea of  a fundamental pillar of self-defense” came up. Warning – while interesting, it is a long thread with a lot of- this is better than this, you know nothings, I knows all, type of posts. The talk of ‘fundamental pillars’ did start me wondering what different people would include as fundamental pillars of self-defense training. I imagine that the answers might depend on the culture lived in, the type of attacks experienced, capabilities and limitations of those training, length of time available for the training, and a host of other variables. I searched and found the thread “self-Defense???” interesting but different than a discussion on what folks expect or teach as specific pillars of self-defense.
> 
> For the start of this exploration (thread drift happens and can be interesting) let’s assumes that the prospective student is married, with small children, and limited training time – say once or twice a week for a year. The kind of attack that she may face, could be assault in a parking garage, road rage, work place violence, domestic abuse, violent robbery, wrong place wrong time violence, and home invasion. Or we can assume that she might be single, so we could add date rape violence, bar/night club violence, woman on woman violence to the list. Attacks against the elderly are brutal as well, and in some areas becoming common place, so we could add healthcare/ nursing home violence to the possible list above.
> 
> This video, taken with a nanny cam captures the violence that is common of assaults against women by men. They are violent and brutal. With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ for the women described above? Warning, video is violent.
> 
> https://youtu.be/qU0EJS3cJIc
> 
> Along with the suggested pillars, how about some reasoning of why, and how to train them?
> 
> Now, everyone reading this thread can agree that there can be more than one way to solve a problem. For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula, depends entirely on context. Let’s try to discuss the messages and not so much the messengers although a little background on the posters experiences if they want, might help to add context?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Brian King


In my experience Brian there is zero that compares to being aware.. I am conscious most all of the time wherever I am some where unfamiliar of the following things..

> How do I make myself appear to be one of the least easy target for someone with ill intent?? How I look and how I act.. and that does not mean I must dress in combat gear.. I am happy if it is sunny and I am dressed for a top up tan that I am still sending out message.. if you come at me or who I am with it is a lot of trouble on you.. too much trouble so pick on some one else first who is easier to target.. who have their purse hung over one shoulder or on their arm or is walking about lost in their phone..

> Who is there here anyway, who does not just look like they are getting on with their business -or- also who is there that might help if some thing happen.. for me this is a facial / bodily and non verbally communicated thing..

> What can I use.. what can be a weapon, what can I pick up, what do I have on me and what have I to hand for example in London where there are strict limits to every day legal carry items, it was suggested to me that a better way to make use of my bunch of keys was to make them into a key whip with paracord..

My art is my very very very very last resort.. unlike that thread you are mentioning Brian, when it come to my safety, if I have to use my art for serious -which you know I have- then I am in a bad bad place already.. and it is only if I come out the other side that I will be able to appraise where I had failed in all of the above awarenesses..

I recognise, accept and concede where my art is imperfect.. I have always try to address this by focus training on what I admit is deficient in my Aikido to handle what I must face outside of my front door.. I do not see failure in my art much less my self.. I see areas that need work and I am happy to admit that here.. it is only a forum.. who cares.. I am not trying to prove I am best or my art is best.. it is good enough and good enough is good enough and if I have to use it any way then I have been lacking and dumb - or dumber than usual! 

Hope this make sense and is some thing like what you are looking for.. Wishes Jxxx


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Brian King said:


> Thanks Brian for posting your thoughts. For a ‘quick’ post you covered a lot of great material. You wrote that “obviously you have to get them consciously thinking about their personal protection so that they will raise their awareness and avoid areas that may be potentially dangerous for them.” With your system and those that you have studied- is their concern about feeding fear and possibly developing ‘paranoia’ rather than ‘common sense’ awareness and avoidance?
> 
> No I have never experienced anyone getting paranoid through our training.  Just aware with more common sense.  However, I am also very selective in what students I take on.
> 
> I agree that weapon use should be explored. Do you have in your experience, methods that you use to get the common lady described above comfortable with the thought of using a weapon for defense?
> 
> Since what I teach fundamentally address tools right from the get go in every training session people adjust quickly and become comfortable with the thought of utilizing tools for surviving in a self-defense situation.  I have one specific drill that I teach that is simple and effective with an edge weapon.  Best of all it takes about five minutes to get good at it.  It was taught to me by Rich Parson from here on MartialTalk.  All you need is a knife on you or the ability to get to one.  If your in your home and can get to the kitchen and reach a knife your chances have just improved dramatically.  Basically you keep the knife between you and them and you make them go through it.
> 
> Here is a video of the drill:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you use the scenario based training to work on the strategy and tactics specific to general violence and violence in a specific area or is it more of a lecture based/ discussion area of study?
> 
> Scenario Based Training is a very important part of IRT it helps people get comfortable with managing their fears and adrenaline.  We utilize the predator suit so that participants can go all out when they decided to act. (I have attached a picture)  With Scenario Based Training there is a lot of variation so that the participants never quite know what is going to happen.  Will they be attacked or will they not be attacked.  We also work in use of force laws, awareness, avoidance into it as well.  It is a link in personal protection that I believe is very effective in preparing people for violence.
> 
> At the bottom is a link to the Predator Body Armour image:
> 
> 
> Not related to this thread, but, did you see the summary in the latest Force Science of the study titled “Police arrest and self-defence skills: Performance under anxiety of officers with and without additional experience in martial arts.” It looks like an interesting study with police volunteers taking part, some with and some without martial arts training. The study (summary- I have not read the actual study) seems to show benefit of even leisure time training of once a week. It seems to break it down by length of study, style, and frequency of study.
> 
> I have not read it yet but I am looking forward to it!
> 
> Regards
> Brian King


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Actually the very beginning of the attack would have been right in the wheel house of any striking style.



Do you really think given the size difference and close quarters that striking would have been effective in that case? I mean what would she have done? A spinning wheel kick to his head? The guy had a significant size advantage and looked pretty good with his hands.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hanzou said:


> Do you really think given the size difference and close quarters that striking would have been effective in that case? I mean what would she have done? A spinning wheel kick to his head? The guy had a significant size advantage and looked pretty good with his hands.



I'm not sure she would have had the opportunity to grapple well with him either.  Just being realistic.  However, if she had a tool on her or had been able to get to one?


----------



## drop bear

Planning as a pillar concept.

I get a lot of my sd tips from backpacker guides. They are generally the ones running around most exposed in the silliest environments. So if you are backpacking in say brazil. You don't go out alone at night. You stay away from certain areas. Lean the risks and just not be there to defend.

If I am going to physical a guy. I make sure he is on his own and that I have numbers. That innocent people are not going to get caught up and that the environment suits the purpose that I put it to.

As self defence planning is important to create as many advantages as you can to avoid drama. Or deal with it should it be unavoidable.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I'm not sure she would have had the opportunity to grapple well with him either.  Just being realistic.  However, if she had a tool on her or had been able to get to one?



She had an opportunity for an immediate takedown at the beginning, open guard to triangle or arm bar on the couch, and a few opportunities for sweeps while on the floor.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*She had a small opportunity* I would agree to do that or to strike or to retreat and get a tool.  All of those options appear available for a second or so. 

However Hanzou, this is a thread the OP started to talk about the fundamental pillars of self-defense.  While I am in agreement with you that grappling is one fundamental pillar it is not the only option. 

Please if you wish to participate talk about your ideas on the "Fundamental Pillars Of Self Defense".

Thanks,


----------



## elder999

Style doesn't matter.......

Technique doesn't matter.....

We've all heard of the "martial artist, " "karate instructor, " "kung fu master," that froze when confronted with sudden violence, and failed to defend themselves.....

Freezing matters-it shouldn't be an option, but it is.....

What really matters-the real "pillar of self defense" is-for the umpteenth time-*mindset*. Most people are disinclined to use violence against their fellow men, even when confronted with malicious and violent intent. It's not that it's not within their nature-it's simply that they have not ever had a reason to go there, and usually aren't trained to: the will to kill, the inclination perpetrate violence on a human being, is something that doesn't arise from motivation-the violent actions and intent of others-for everyone. Mindset-the will to use violence, and the ability to channel one's emotions into that violence, are of paramount importance: the retraining of the "flinch reflex," the ability to manage adrenalization, these are far more important than grapplling, or striking,or cutting with a knife, or hitting with a stick,  or firing a gun.

The primary "pillar" of self-defense training, then, is training that develops the ability to control and channel fear, and the will and ability to *act* violently, and immediately......the secondary pillar is the one we should depend upon, and that is situational awareness....the tertiary one would fall under strategy, and consists primarily of not only being aware, but avoiding situations (or locales) with violent potential......


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Absolutely Elder999, Mindset matters and training that brings forth the ability to channel fear and the will and ability to act is crucial!


----------



## RTKDCMB

Brian King said:


> For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula,


Neither, these are simple math operations, math formulas require variables.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Well we both know Karate wouldn't have helped her in that situation.



Sure it would have.



Hanzou said:


> Do you really think given the size difference and close quarters that striking would have been effective in that case?



It didn't start out in such close quarters, he started being threatening from about 2 meters away. There are a number of things she could have done before getting into the grappling or ground fighting stage..



Hanzou said:


> I mean what would she have done? A spinning wheel kick to his head?



Only someone who has little experience in striking or is purposely trying to mock striking styles would make such a suggestion. Which are you?



Hanzou said:


> looked pretty good with his hands



Not really, he didn't look like anything more than your common unskilled street thug.


----------



## Brian King

Dirty Dog said:


> One of the things I consider important to self defense is an honest self apprasal to answer the question "What are you willing to do to survive?"
> I've known people who believed that they were absolutely unwilling to kill someone, even in self defense. They may well change their minds if they were in such a situation, but that is their view.
> If you're convinced that you could never bring yourself to kill, even in self defense, it's probably not worthwhile to devote much time to training techniques that are intended to have a high lethality.



I am interested that you think this DD. "Know yourself" is one of the main ideas of the martial art I study. Poznai Sebia was what it was known by at one time. Directly translated it can mean either 'know yourself' or 'discover yourself.' I am wondering by what means do you and the students use to discover yourselves and how do you develop that awareness/ability to honestly answer that question "What are you willing to do to survive?" I believe that you are a veteran DD? If so then you know that much of the training that our militaries do are very deliberate, conditioning the warrior to be able to pull the trigger. Even with the training there are many times that soldiers do not fire or aim low or high in an instinctive repulsion to killing. There are exceptions, crew served weapons, distance from the kill, ability to dehumanize the target etc. For some martial artists the way around this reluctance is to dehumanize the 'enemy.' For others it is to try to channel 'momma bear'. Is there a methodology that you have observed in your or others training that you think addresses this reluctance found amongst so many humans?

Not trying to put words in your mouth DD but want to make sure that I understand your stated 'pillar' by putting it into my own words. Know yourself and how far you are willing to go in the use of force continuum and rather than using limited time training possible lethal techniques that are psychologically less likely to be used, to rather study other aspects of self-defense perhaps to even study alternative techniques or strategies in lieu of the possibly lethal techniques. Is this getting close to the idea?

Thanks for posting, sir!
Regards
Brian King


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> She had an opportunity for an immediate takedown at the beginning, open guard to triangle or arm bar on the couch, and a few opportunities for sweeps while on the floor.



Anybody who is allowed to punch and grapple does both  because punching sets up grappling opportunities and grappling sets up punching opportunities.

A really simple concept for takedowns is you really only hit them after you punch or as a counter to their punch.


----------



## Brian King

Buka said:


> BTW, they caught the guy. Shawn Curtis, serial home invader, convicted of a dozen felonies since 1988.
> 
> Sorry to stray off topic, just wanted you guys to know.



I remember when they caught him - there is video I believe of him in custody. A real POS. I believe that the video of the attack going viral lead directly to his arrest and I am assuming conviction. Great that they had the video to use. Thanks for the reminder sir.

Tying on to the subject, perhaps a pillar could be something to do with the physical 'clean up' at the scene at the conclusion of the physical confrontation. Rendering first aid, collection of witnesses and evidence, and the realization that it isn't over until it is, etc. What do you think?

Thanks for posting Buka!
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

One thing that I teach is making every witness, (if there are any) your witness.  Meaning that your actions ie. hands up, verbal: I'm leaving, Stop, etc. show the people around that you are not the aggressor.  This I believe is crucial for good personal protection skills.  You want anyone around to testify that you were the victim and that the other person was attacking you.  This if there is time before the attack can be done relatively quickly.  If there are cctv just having your hands up and slight backing away can show that you were not the aggressor.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

The above will help not only with the potential criminal case but also with a potential civil case.


----------



## Brian King

Drose427 said:


> For me, its 2 part (3 if you can legally own a firearm)
> 
> The first is things like awareness, in that thread (or a different) I brouhght up the similarities of being aware of your surroundings for SD and driving your car.
> 
> Our brains are wired to do it already.
> 
> But, anyone with a brain or experience will you sometimes that fails, for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Then it moves on to firearms training, and most importantly KEEPING IT WITH YOU.
> 
> it doesnt do a thing if its 300 feet away.
> 
> Finally, physical methods.
> 
> 1 striking style
> 
> +
> 
> 1 grappling style
> 
> where you choose to focus is preference as long as youre competent with both.
> 
> Then we go to The physical aspect.
> 
> 
> Actually the very beginning of the attack would have been right in the wheel house of any striking style.



Thanks for posting Drose 427.
I like the analogy of tying awareness to a skill that many have, driving. Of course, driving is a learned skill that takes much coaching, practice and finally experience. Being a professional driver, one of the things that we do is to be aware of the unusual. We are looking for the unusual, the breaks in normalcy, and disruptions in patterns without getting hyperaware of every vehicle and circumstance. Drose427 - do you have a methodology for harnessing the brains ability to be aware to bringing that awareness to consciousness prior to self-defense circumstances?

If I understand your post- in my own words-  A person needs to harness their instinctive and neurological wiring to become aware of self-defense needs before that need arises. If the need turns to physical it is best to have a striking and grappling experience depending on personal preferences, abilities, and limitations. Finally, if a person trains the use of weapons they should have those tools within reach. Am I getting close to understanding your thoughts on this?

Thanks for posting
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> It didn't start out in such close quarters, he started being threatening from about 2 meters away. There are a number of things she could have done before getting into the grappling or ground fighting stage..
> 
> Only someone who has little experience in striking or is purposely trying to mock striking styles would make such a suggestion. Which are you?



What would you suggest? A kick to the groin? Punching? Knife hand attacks? Given that size and strength difference, it's doubtful that her standing strikes would have been very effective.



> Not really, he didn't look like anything more than your common unskilled street thug.



Put that untrained guy in your typical TKD or Karate McDojo (where soccer moms like this unfortunate woman would no doubt have taken MA lessons) and put him up against the head instructor. My money would be on the street thug.


----------



## Brian King

People, mostly those that if they have any training is training based on fear (without actually addressing the base fear) or one that ignores that fear altogether often get into arguments about which is better, this style or that style, they overly worry in my opinion about which calibre of hand gun is best and which hand gun is best. This is also often the basis for those that get stuck in endless 'debate' this technique or that technique, this style or that. They are often in search of a talisman and need to defend their chosen talisman against any possible threat because simply should their talisman get even slightly tarnished it leaves them unprotected. It matters not if their chosen talisman is a certain make of handgun, a certain custom knife or edge weapon, a certain style, or even a certain instructor. They get stuck defending their talisman even when 'it' is not under attack. I believe that this is because something in the conversation is bringing their fear/anger towards the conscious, and rather than address that base, they bury it in unneeded, non-productive, mundane repetitive arguments. 

While some find playing the what if, they should have second guessing game useful, it really doesn't serve any productive value at all, and in fact I believe is a harmful waste of time. It is always shallow self serving conjecture. One might take lessons from a situation or attack and address what they might do differently, or how they might address the situation, but, this is totally different from saying that someone else should have or could have. Doing the later robs the person of a real learning opportunity be merely re-enforcing their own biases. If a person wasn't actually there, they do not know. They have a guess, maybe an educated guess at best, but still it is a guess. Other than as an obvious signal to others of a personal weakness, these type of arguments can serve no purpose. Let's try to keep discussing what people see as pillars of self-defense rather than she should have or could have or this style is best. If a person feels the absolute need to play the could have would have game, please start another thread, or join one of the half dozen or so threads that have turned into such...discussions.

Thank you.
Brian King


----------



## MJS

Brian King said:


> Fundamental pillars of self-defense?
> 
> In the thread “Is grappling better for female self-defense than striking?” the idea of  a fundamental pillar of self-defense” came up. Warning – while interesting, it is a long thread with a lot of- this is better than this, you know nothings, I knows all, type of posts. The talk of ‘fundamental pillars’ did start me wondering what different people would include as fundamental pillars of self-defense training. I imagine that the answers might depend on the culture lived in, the type of attacks experienced, capabilities and limitations of those training, length of time available for the training, and a host of other variables. I searched and found the thread “self-Defense???” interesting but different than a discussion on what folks expect or teach as specific pillars of self-defense.
> 
> For the start of this exploration (thread drift happens and can be interesting) let’s assumes that the prospective student is married, with small children, and limited training time – say once or twice a week for a year. The kind of attack that she may face, could be assault in a parking garage, road rage, work place violence, domestic abuse, violent robbery, wrong place wrong time violence, and home invasion. Or we can assume that she might be single, so we could add date rape violence, bar/night club violence, woman on woman violence to the list. Attacks against the elderly are brutal as well, and in some areas becoming common place, so we could add healthcare/ nursing home violence to the possible list above.
> 
> This video, taken with a nanny cam captures the violence that is common of assaults against women by men. They are violent and brutal. With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ for the women described above? Warning, video is violent.
> 
> https://youtu.be/qU0EJS3cJIc
> 
> Along with the suggested pillars, how about some reasoning of why, and how to train them?
> 
> Now, everyone reading this thread can agree that there can be more than one way to solve a problem. For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula, depends entirely on context. Let’s try to discuss the messages and not so much the messengers although a little background on the posters experiences if they want, might help to add context?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Brian King



Nice topic.  I didn't read through that other thread.  However, I would say that while some arts are probably better suited for SD than others, I'd also say a lot of it comes down to how things are trained.  Nothing says that you have to be chained to the methods found only in your school.  In other words, go cross train.

For the scenario you describe above, I would focus on training in something that is simple, easy to learn, doesn't require tons of practice to be able to recall it.  Krav Maga comes to mind.  Yes, I know...some KM schools are a joke, but that can be said of any art.  My point is: That is something that's simple and to the point.  No kata, no fancy kicks, tone of stances, etc, like you'd see in other TMAs.  There are some solid Jujitsu schools around that are more RBSD influenced, that would also be a good option.  Bottom line is...there really isn't any quick fix.  This is why I'm leery of some women's SD courses, because if the students think that after a few 8hr sessons, that they're going to be 100% competent, they're going to be in for a rude awakening.  Plus, some of these courses, don't focus on key things, ie: scenario training, adrenal stress training, and actually having an inst. pad up, and attack the student, in a fashion that they'd get attacked on the street, so the student can actually apply the things that she's learned.  Having some experience on the ground is also a plus.  Some basic BJJ techs, can be a huge plus.  

Of course, good old fashioned common sense is important.  We've talked about awareness countless times, no sense in rehashing all the points here, but to touch on a few, things such as: being aware of your surroundings, taking precautions around your home, avoiding bad areas/establishments, etc. 

Like I said, nothing is ever going to be 100%.  But I think that if you apply some of the things that have been mentioned already in this thread, your odds of success, just went up.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

To go along with getting every witness to be yours it is important to note that in a personal protection situation their is pe-conflict, conflict and post-conflict phases.  It is important to not only be knowledgeable about them but also good at them.  Awareness, avoidance, verbal and non-verbal de-escalation techiques, etc. would fall into that pre-conflict stage.  In the conflict stage having skills that allowed you to work with weapons/tools, kicking, hand strikes, trapping, joint manipulation and grappling etc.  Post conflict you have the police showing up and a potential criminal investigation based on the circumtances, the potential civil lawsuit, etc.  Personally,  I want to be functional in every phase.


----------



## K-man

Brian King said:


> Not related to this thread, but, did you see the summary in the latest Force Science of the study titled “Police arrest and self-defence skills: Performance under anxiety of officers with and without additional experience in martial arts.” It looks like an interesting study with police volunteers taking part, some with and some without martial arts training. The study (summary- I have not read the actual study) seems to show benefit of even leisure time training of once a week. It seems to break it down by length of study, style, and frequency of study.


Actually Brian, I think that study is very relevant to this topic. I didn't comment earlier on training for SD because I was interested in others thoughts. The study you refer to, and again, I have only seen a summary, concluded that, even with additional martial art training, under high anxiety their performance was still diminished.



> Officers with additional experience in kickboxing or karate/jiu-jitsu (training several times per week), or krav maga (training once a week) and officers with no additional experience performed several arrest and self-defence skills under low and high anxiety. Results showed that officers with additional experience (also those who trained once a week) performed better under high anxiety than officers with no additional experience. Still, the additional experience did not prevent these participants from performing worse under high anxiety compared to low anxiety.



Now the reason I waited was the video made me stop and think about a time many years back when a guy in a full on rage attacked me and I didn't exactly freeze but went totally into all out defence mode. I saw the exact same response in this video. It is possibly the same as the Australian lady we were talking about in the other thread.

It is so easy to say "oh yes, but these martial arts wouldn't help but this one would be great and she had this opportunity etc." To me it is all BS I'm afraid. We are talking self defence here, not a lifetime of martial art training.

When someone is really attacked with intent by someone possibly high on drugs they will really be under extreme duress and most will be overwhelmed. Even the police in the study, under controlled circumstances, suffered a decrease in performance under extreme anxiety and these are guys exposed to violence regularly.

We are talking about Self Defence. By the time you are fighting, your basic self defence has failed and you are now in survival mode. Again coming back to the Australian girl. She was surprised but eventually was able to fight her way out of it. She was previously a champion junior fighter, she was a karate blackbelt and she had trained to escape from a similar scenario. Most people have nowhere near that level of experience, so to say the average person is going to apply a leg choke is absolute nonsense. That requires a lot of dedicated training and most people you instruct in self defence aren't prepared to devote that time.

I'll add some more later.


----------



## Brian King

Jenna said:


> In my experience Brian there is zero that compares to being aware.. I am conscious most all of the time wherever I am some where unfamiliar of the following things..
> 
> > How do I make myself appear to be one of the least easy target for someone with ill intent?? How I look and how I act.. and that does not mean I must dress in combat gear.. I am happy if it is sunny and I am dressed for a top up tan that I am still sending out message.. if you come at me or who I am with it is a lot of trouble on you.. too much trouble so pick on some one else first who is easier to target.. who have their purse hung over one shoulder or on their arm or is walking about lost in their phone..
> 
> > Who is there here anyway, who does not just look like they are getting on with their business -or- also who is there that might help if some thing happen.. for me this is a facial / bodily and non verbally communicated thing..
> 
> > What can I use.. what can be a weapon, what can I pick up, what do I have on me and what have I to hand for example in London where there are strict limits to every day legal carry items, it was suggested to me that a better way to make use of my bunch of keys was to make them into a key whip with paracord..
> 
> My art is my very very very very last resort.. unlike that thread you are mentioning Brian, when it come to my safety, if I have to use my art for serious -which you know I have- then I am in a bad bad place already.. and it is only if I come out the other side that I will be able to appraise where I had failed in all of the above awarenesses..
> 
> I recognise, accept and concede where my art is imperfect.. I have always try to address this by focus training on what I admit is deficient in my Aikido to handle what I must face outside of my front door.. I do not see failure in my art much less my self.. I see areas that need work and I am happy to admit that here.. it is only a forum.. who cares.. I am not trying to prove I am best or my art is best.. it is good enough and good enough is good enough and if I have to use it any way then I have been lacking and dumb - or dumber than usual!
> 
> Hope this make sense and is some thing like what you are looking for.. Wishes Jxxx



WONDERFUL post Jenna, thank you! Very well thought out and based on real experience and lessons learned. 

The using paracord on a key chain is a useful idea. Are you good at braiding the paracord? Many clips on youtube but I still am not very good at it. Lots of uses in addition to make shift flexible weapon or even a sling (think David vs Goliath), for example it can also become a temporary sling (think arm sling of breaks and fractures) or even turniqet should the need arise after use. Outdoors, it can be used to trap food, secure shelter, even fire starter, trail marker. Lots of uses for 'self-defense' with just a little imagination and practice. Did you know that it can be used to friction burn thru duct tape and wire ties? If you braid a loop on the 'free end' you can use that loop to 'tie' your keys to your clothing, and it gives a method of holding onto the flexible weapon while in use. Not so much around the wrist as should it be grabbed it can be used to pull you close, but around the knuckles, then should it be grabbed and used to pull you have the option of letting go by simply opening your fingers. When thinking about using the keys have you given thought of targeting and strategy? I had a chess professor (nickname as we played chess at every visit to his knife shop) who was a very large 'first person' and an internationally known custom knife maker. One of his preferred edged weapons targets was to slice along the forehead above the eyes just below the hair line. His reasoning and experience was that face wounds bleed a lot and wounds above the eyes bleed into the eyes which can be painful and disconcerting to an attacker. There is tension in our scalp facia that helps to hold our skin in place. The cut he said released that tension/friction pulling the hair line back while pulling the forehead skin down, it could depending on the cut cause the forehead skin to flap down over the eyes, again disconcerting. It also marks the attacker well for later identification. Keys can be alternated in direction on the key ring to help facilitate cutting.

-I like your thought process about not looking like a victim and encouraging different selection. There was a study (the interview is available on video but I have not seen it in many years and have forgotten the name)where video of a street scene was taken, then the people in the scene were interviewed to find out their backgrounds and such. The film was then taken to a prison and prisoners convicted of violent crimes were shown that video and asked who would they rob. The selections were almost universal on who they would and who they would not attack. Based on body language and non verbal. They did not have access to the interviews. The people selected if I remember right were often prior victims of crime, had avoidance and scared look, etc. the person they all declined to attack turned out to be a decorated Vietnam veteran who had killed up close. While the selection was non verbal, violent attackers often do an interview prior to an attack. Simply being aware often it seems wards off 'their' attention

-Who is here and who belongs work. Have you read much about the Israeli profiling at airports and borders. The US secret service also does a lot of work on profiling and noticing the unusual. It is too difficult to see everything and everyone so they look for the unusual (and familiar as in they know what the criminals look like when both they are up to something and when they are trying to look innocent)
I was once at training inside of an airliner, and it was noted that the two most dangerous times was during the initial takeover by hostiles and during the takeover of the military/law enforcement. The most dangerous seat in these situations was along the aisles as the gunfights often went length wise of the aircraft. It was advised to look for 'shields' large folks that could absorb some of the damage. LOL I had lots of friends then for some reason LOL Finding helpful folks does not always mean that they want to or are able to, so thinking about how to get that help can be a useful exercise and also a self defense pillar perhaps?

So if I can paraphrase the pillars above in my words. Awareness is key and deliberate observation is the tool. Seeing who belongs and who doesn't, being aware of what tools are near for both use of and defense of, being aware of what signals are being sent by others and self. Being trained physically is important, having that knowledge inside helps to send the proper signals, and as a back up should all avoidance prove unsuccessful. Does that get to the gist of it? 

Thank you for participating in the thread. Your thoughts are very valuable and seem right on.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## K-man

MJS said:


> I would say that while some arts are probably better suited for SD than others, I'd also say a lot of it comes down to how things are trained.  Nothing says that you have to be chained to the methods found only in your school.  In other words, go cross train.


I would agree but now we are really talking about martial artists seeking to improve their skill set, not the average person wanting to learn 'self defence'. No one that I have seen wanting self defence lessons would even think of cross training.




MJS said:


> For the scenario you describe above, I would focus on training in something that is simple, easy to learn, doesn't require tons of practice to be able to recall it.  Krav Maga comes to mind.  Yes, I know...some KM schools are a joke, but that can be said of any art.  My point is: That is something that's simple and to the point.


Even Krav has its problems. I have found that people learning Krav don't have the same devotion to training that you find with students from more traditional styles. Many want everything in the first two weeks then they're off. It is frustrating from a teaching point of view.



MJS said:


> Bottom line is...there really isn't any quick fix.


And therein is the total truth.




MJS said:


> This is why I'm leery of some women's SD courses, because if the students think that after a few 8hr sessons, that they're going to be 100% competent, they're going to be in for a rude awakening.  Plus, some of these courses, don't focus on key things, ie: scenario training, adrenal stress training, and actually having an inst. pad up, and attack the student, in a fashion that they'd get attacked on the street, so the student can actually apply the things that she's learned.  Having some experience on the ground is also a plus.  Some basic BJJ techs, can be a huge plus.


I would agree but you do here occasionally where someone (normally female) has survived an attack and had given credit to the SD training. In those cases it is normally something as simple as a knee to the groin.



MJS said:


> Of course, good old fashioned common sense is important.  We've talked about awareness countless times, no sense in rehashing all the points here, but to touch on a few, things such as: being aware of your surroundings, taking precautions around your home, avoiding bad areas/establishments, etc.


They are the fundamental pillars of self defence. Rehashing them is good if it gets the message across.



MJS said:


> Like I said, nothing is ever going to be 100%.  But I think that if you apply some of the things that have been mentioned already in this thread, your odds of success, just went up.


Spot on!


----------



## PhotonGuy

The fundamental pillars of self defense are whatever works.


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> The fundamental pillars of self defense are whatever works.


So that's your answer to someone asking you to teach them SD?


----------



## Brian King

Thanks for posting the video Brian. Wonderful drill. I am a big believer in letting the tool (and the attacker) do the work. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## PhotonGuy

K-man said:


> So that's your answer to someone asking you to teach them SD?



If somebody asked me to teach them SD, if they wanted something effective they could learn quickly which is usually what people look for in SD classes I would tell them to find somebody who specializes in SD training.


----------



## Brian King

drop bear said:


> Planning as a pillar concept.
> 
> I get a lot of my sd tips from backpacker guides. They are generally the ones running around most exposed in the silliest environments. So if you are backpacking in say brazil. You don't go out alone at night. You stay away from certain areas. Lean the risks and just not be there to defend.
> 
> If I am going to physical a guy. I make sure he is on his own and that I have numbers. That innocent people are not going to get caught up and that the environment suits the purpose that I put it to.
> 
> As self defence planning is important to create as many advantages as you can to avoid drama. Or deal with it should it be unavoidable.



Thanks drop bear. In the military there is a quick saying, the '6' P's. Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. It is great to have plan and using back packer guides is a brilliant method of gathering intelligence.  

If I can paraphrase your pillar in my own words to see if I have it. Gather intelligence prior to needing it. Avoid dangerous/unsafe areas and situations. Do not get physical with groups of attackers. Do not get physical with an individual attacker unless the environment suits and innocent people are protected. Create and take advantage of as many advantages as possible and if possible avoid drama.  How did I do? Do I understand the pillar you were articulating?

Thanks for posting
Brian King


----------



## Drose427

Brian King said:


> Thanks for posting Drose 427.
> I like the analogy of tying awareness to a skill that many have, driving. Of course, driving is a learned skill that takes much coaching, practice and finally experience. Being a professional driver, one of the things that we do is to be aware of the unusual. We are looking for the unusual, the breaks in normalcy, and disruptions in patterns without getting hyperaware of every vehicle and circumstance. Drose427 - do you have a methodology for harnessing the brains ability to be aware to bringing that awareness to consciousness prior to self-defense circumstances?
> 
> If I understand your post- in my own words-  A person needs to harness their instinctive and neurological wiring to become aware of self-defense needs before that need arises. If the need turns to physical it is best to have a striking and grappling experience depending on personal preferences, abilities, and limitations. Finally, if a person trains the use of weapons they should have those tools within reach. Am I getting close to understanding your thoughts on this?
> 
> Thanks for posting
> Regards
> Brian King



I break  it down as learning to drive (when you would mumble under breathe everything to watch, darted your eyes all over, etc. lol) and tell them to simply try that exact method and mindset, but instead of watching for redlights, look for people.

Instead of watching following distance, keep track of how close/far you are from bystanders.

Just like with driving, it takes time to get the hang of. Its not that its hard, we just arent used to it.

I absolutely hate this example because fight science had some laughable inaacuracies, but one episode they did a drill where a person walked through this course filled with potential threats and had to keep an eye out for all of them.

A "Crucible" like that every now and then is a great way to measure how well you're balancing all that out without putting yourself in serious danger.

 and Your understand of my thoughts are dead on bud!


----------



## Hanshi

I never teach students to use a "style" or even a martial art.  I teach them to use approaches that don't require years to develop the skill.  I make sure they understand that complicated moves and fine motor skills will leave them so use basic concepts and principles.  When attacked,  no one is in the "proper" mindset and they WILL be at a disadvantage.  However, 95% of what I do recommend to them does come from martial arts.

Specifically, weapons first.  Always be armed even if it is nothing more than a ballpoint pen, I tell them; but a knife or gun is best.  Since most do not carry guns or knives the emphasis is on "environmental weapons", items to be naturally found on or around them.  I, myself carry knives, rarely a gun; and since I need a cane to walk that becomes my primary weapon. 

Secondly, I teach them that there is no such thing as self defense.  Reason being that defense is a response to a prior advantage directed at them; you can't punch backing up, so to speak.  What I prepare them to do is at the moment it appears an attack is forthcoming YOU become the aggressor.  I think most people know when something bad is about to come down so it makes no sense to politely give the thug first dibs.  In such situations you must EXPLODE into a violent and loud attack with everything and anything you know or have with you.  Any attacker should not be left in a condition to regain his feet for at least a good while.  The results of your initial action, they are instructed, will determine what your next move will be; be it to quickly leave the area or stay around.  Always, I tell them, always call the police asap.  Often the police don't like the idea of people protecting themselves but this fascist attitude is their problem, not yours.

Basically these are my pillars of self protection.  There's more, of course, but this is the basic outline.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> What would you suggest? A kick to the groin? Punching? Knife hand attacks? Given that size and strength difference, it's doubtful that her standing strikes would have been very effective.
> 
> 
> 
> Put that untrained guy in your typical TKD or Karate McDojo (where soccer moms like this unfortunate woman would no doubt have taken MA lessons) and put him up against the head instructor. My money would be on the street thug.



Why would you assume shed be going to a Mcdojo? XD

Og yeah, because anything other than BJJ or MT is a "Mcdojo" XD


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Why would you assume shed be going to a Mcdojo? XD



Because (unfortunately) those are the type of MA schools women flock towards. The schools full of nonsense like 10 year old black belts, and multiple board breaking.



> Og yeah, because anything other than BJJ or MT is a "Mcdojo" XD



You said that, not me.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> . The schools full of *nonsense* like 10 year old black belts, and* multiple board break*ing.



_Tameshiwari , _done properly, isn't nonsense.It isn't nonsense at all....


----------



## Drose427

elder999 said:


> _Tameshiwari , _done properly, isn't nonsense.It isn't nonsense at all....




Well to be fair, many places use demo stuff.

A lot of places dont, I've never even seen what demo stuff looks like.

All our stuff comes from the local hardware store, 

Pine (hopefully not too green cause those Mothers dont like ot Break XD)
Cement slabs/cinderblocks
etc.

No idea where the BB's get the big ol' Ice Blocks


----------



## Brian King

elder999 said:


> Style doesn't matter.......
> 
> Technique doesn't matter.....
> 
> We've all heard of the "martial artist, " "karate instructor, " "kung fu master," that froze when confronted with sudden violence, and failed to defend themselves.....
> 
> Freezing matters-it shouldn't be an option, but it is.....
> 
> What really matters-the real "pillar of self defense" is-for the umpteenth time-*mindset*. Most people are disinclined to use violence against their fellow men, even when confronted with malicious and violent intent. It's not that it's not within their nature-it's simply that they have not ever had a reason to go there, and usually aren't trained to: the will to kill, the inclination perpetrate violence on a human being, is something that doesn't arise from motivation-the violent actions and intent of others-for everyone. Mindset-the will to use violence, and the ability to channel one's emotions into that violence, are of paramount importance: the retraining of the "flinch reflex," the ability to manage adrenalization, these are far more important than grapplling, or striking,or cutting with a knife, or hitting with a stick,  or firing a gun.
> 
> The primary "pillar" of self-defense training, then, is training that develops the ability to control and channel fear, and the will and ability to *act* violently, and immediately......the secondary pillar is the one we should depend upon, and that is situational awareness....the tertiary one would fall under strategy, and consists primarily of not only being aware, but avoiding situations (or locales) with violent potential......



Thanks Elder999 for posting and sharing of your experience. I was hoping that you would. 
I can appreciate the order of the three pillars you described above.  Is there a methodology/drill that you have found that helps an average Jane to develop the mindset that violence is a tool that can be used? What is the primary way that you have observed success in retraining the flinch reflex?

Although I can not add any clarity or depth to your pillars I hope you do not mind if I repeat them back in my own words to see if I have the gist of it. 

Self-defense should have in addition to the methodology to develop situational awareness, the ability to harness that awareness and to make it common sense and natural to avoid those places and situations that if not avoided might result in a self-defense situation. That self-defense begins with study of the self. Learning to understand how fear affects our bodies systems, learning to understand and recognize when we are succumbing to the fight, flight, or freeze response and how to escape that response so as to be able to do whatever whichever action might be needed to survive the immediate encounter. Is that close?

Thanks again for posting sir. 
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

RTKDCMB said:


> Neither, these are simple math operations, math formulas require variables.



Wouldn't the variables then give you context? And simple is relative...never have been good at any math and have to work very hard at it. To be truthful, had not thought about the difference between a math operation and a math formula, heck, never heard the difference described before. Thanks for taking the time to post the correction.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Brian R. VanCise said:


> One thing that I teach is making every witness, (if there are any) your witness.  Meaning that your actions ie. hands up, verbal: I'm leaving, Stop, etc. show the people around that you are not the aggressor.  This I believe is crucial for good personal protection skills.  You want anyone around to testify that you were the victim and that the other person was attacking you.  This if there is time before the attack can be done relatively quickly.  If there are cctv just having your hands up and slight backing away can show that you were not the aggressor.



Thank you Brian. With proliferation of the cell phone video there is now a decent chance that 'monkey dance' violence will be recorded. Even random attacks (think knock out game) many that are into attacking random people also enjoy having their friends record the attack. Always good to identify yourself as the victim. This also goes for when calling 911. Hello police, I just shot and killed a man is different that Hello police, I was just violently attacked and was forced to shoot a man. We are located at and I am wearing ... Letting them know who the good guy is might not save a person from cuffing and possible roughly, it might save them from a shooting. In a lethal encounter all of our actions will be examined and criticized. The actions prior, during, and after a situation. 

To paraphrase you post sir, the situation does not only involve you and the attacker, but, also involves any bystanders and witnesses (including any recording devices) and these people and devices will publicly and legally share a perception of the situation that could be either beneficial or detrimental to a persons potential criminal and or civil cases. Is that about right?

Thanks for your posting! Good stuff as usual.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

K-man said:


> Actually Brian, I think that study is very relevant to this topic. I didn't comment earlier on training for SD because I was interested in others thoughts. The study you refer to, and again, I have only seen a summary, concluded that, even with additional martial art training, under high anxiety their performance was still diminished.
> 
> 
> 
> Now the reason I waited was the video made me stop and think about a time many years back when a guy in a full on rage attacked me and I didn't exactly freeze but went totally into all out defence mode. I saw the exact same response in this video. It is possibly the same as the Australian lady we were talking about in the other thread.
> 
> It is so easy to say "oh yes, but these martial arts wouldn't help but this one would be great and she had this opportunity etc." To me it is all BS I'm afraid. We are talking self defence here, not a lifetime of martial art training.
> 
> When someone is really attacked with intent by someone possibly high on drugs they will really be under extreme duress and most will be overwhelmed. Even the police in the study, under controlled circumstances, suffered a decrease in performance under extreme anxiety and these are guys exposed to violence regularly.
> 
> We are talking about Self Defence. By the time you are fighting, your basic self defence has failed and you are now in survival mode. Again coming back to the Australian girl. She was surprised but eventually was able to fight her way out of it. She was previously a champion junior fighter, she was a karate blackbelt and she had trained to escape from a similar scenario. Most people have nowhere near that level of experience, so to say the average person is going to apply a leg choke is absolute nonsense. That requires a lot of dedicated training and most people you instruct in self defence aren't prepared to devote that time.
> 
> I'll add some more later.



Thanks for coming back to the thread K-man. I agree that the study can have some relevance to the topic but without reading the actual study it is difficult to take it other than hmmm interesting. Not sure if they had the subjects wired or if it was a self evaluation. Anytime that a person is in a high anxiety state there will be some effect (just before, during and even after) The tidbit I gleaned from the summary was that even a limited number of hours and length of time of training, with a variety of martial arts and subjects,  had a real beneficial and measurable effect. I thought that this was interesting.

Thanks again
Regards
Brian King


----------



## PhotonGuy

Brian King said:


> Thanks drop bear. In the military there is a quick saying, the '6' P's. Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. It is great to have plan and using back packer guides is a brilliant method of gathering intelligence.


That is a good saying and prior planning I believe makes up a big part of what self defense is all about. However, you also have to be able to improvise. With self defense, and I would think in the military its like this too especially if you're going into war that its much like a game of Chess. To be good at Chess you have to have prior planning as planning and strategy is what Chess is all about, but what happens all too often, especially if you're opponent is a good opponent, is that they will do something to stop your plan. You might plan top gain a position on your opponent to give yourself an advantage and ultimately win, but your opponent might move his pieces to stop your plan in which case you have to come up with a new plan. That's why you've got to be flexible and able to change your plans at a moment's notice, as well as having good prior planning.


----------



## elder999

Brian King said:


> Thanks Elder999 for posting and sharing of your experience. I was hoping that you would.
> I can appreciate the order of the three pillars you described above.  Is there a methodology/drill that you have found that helps an average Jane to develop the mindset that violence is a tool that can be used? What is the primary way that you have observed success in retraining the flinch reflex?


 
A little busy now, but the short answer is that once they reach a certain level of training, I do my level best to scare the crap out of them on  a regular basis. More to follow....


----------



## drop bear

As far as physical self defence or fighting. A simple base set of techniques really are important. Ones you can apply scared surprised or concussed. Dumb mechanical, he punches I block stuff. Then layered on top the same sort of follow the rules concepts. Hands up,punch straight that sort of mess.

From that basic core you can then free your mind a bit and. Apply fighting concepts. Like using his momentum or adjusting his technique to compensate for his defence.

Then once that is handled you can start playing to a game. Using environment and improvising. Also doing cheeky stuff like say ringing the cops. Or working an escape plan.

So you are applying some automation and some creativity. And kind of switching between them.


----------



## drop bear

The hurty people mindset is different to the person. Some are trying to impress. Some are competitive,some fear loosing. It really is whatever gets you lover the line.

Trying to create a mindset is hard for self defence due to the speed in which you have to do it. I just use logical triggers then act then the mindset follows along.


----------



## drop bear

elder999 said:


> _Tameshiwari , _done properly, isn't nonsense.It isn't nonsense at all....




Especially when Australians do it.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> Especially when Australians do it.


 


_Spacers_.......


----------



## Buka

I haven't been ducking the question of the fundamental pillars.....I'm still thinking about them.

So, I'm slow. What can I say?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> What would you suggest? A kick to the groin? Punching? Knife hand attacks?



What would you suggest a double leg take down or perhaps hang on to one of his legs for a few minutes until she can wrestle him to the ground? A side kick to the side of the knee after moving aside would be a good start, following up with a knife hand strike to a vulnerable area like the side of the neck or base of the skull (whichever presents itself) is a good follow up.



Hanzou said:


> Given that size and strength difference, it's *doubtful *that her standing strikes would have been very effective.



Not when they are taught properly.



Hanzou said:


> Put that untrained guy in your typical TKD or Karate McDojo (where soccer moms like this unfortunate woman would no doubt have taken MA lessons)



From a McDojo (or in the case of TKD a McDojang) sure but a good school and she has a good chance



Hanzou said:


> and put him up against the head instructor. My money would be on the street thug.



Make that a good school and you would lose your money.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Because (unfortunately) those are the type of MA schools women flock towards.



Some.



Hanzou said:


> The schools full of nonsense like 10 year old black belts, and multiple board breaking.



And what makes it nonsense?


----------



## RTKDCMB

One of the fundamental pillars would be a good core of basic techniques trained diligently and with purpose.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> What would you suggest a double leg take down or perhaps hang on to one of his legs for a few minutes until she can wrestle him to the ground?



I wouldn't recommend a DLT, no. However, I would recommend a clinch takedown of some sort. Either forward, side, rear, or from a clinch to a modified Kouchi Gake like so;






http://share.gifyoutube.com/vpP9zR.gif



> A side kick to the side of the knee after moving aside would be a good start, following up with a knife hand strike to a vulnerable area like the side of the neck or base of the skull (whichever presents itself) is a good follow up.



I would actually support attempting a stamping kick to the knee or leg, since we teach the same thing in Bjj. Nothing wrong with that. However the difference is that we go in for the clinch regardless because there's a high chance that its not going to dislocate the knee, or cause much damage whatsoever. So your "Judo chop" follow-up would be a fruitless endeavor. In all honesty, it would probably be a fruitless endeavor regardless. A choke would be a better finisher.



> Not when they are taught properly.



From a McDojo (or in the case of TKD a McDojang) sure but a good school and she has a good chance[/quote]

Speaking of good schools, there's actually a Renzo Gracie academy about 10 miles from her home. Of course she would have probably attended one of the many TKD schools instead.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Speaking of good schools, there's actually a Renzo Gracie academy about 10 miles from her home. Of course she would have probably attended one of the many TKD schools instead.



"Renzo Gracie?" Take note of what people have said in this thread in terms of winding up on the right side of the law, and note that this "gentleman," Mr. Renzo Gracie, live tweeted a "mugging" he "defended" himself against by _chasing down and assaulting two people._

No, I'd call lots of BJJ schools good schools, but I'd never use the phrase "speaking of good schools," and the name, "Renzo Gracie" in the same sentence. *Ever.*


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> Style doesn't matter.......
> 
> Technique doesn't matter.....
> 
> We've all heard of the "martial artist, " "karate instructor, " "kung fu master," that froze when confronted with sudden violence, and failed to defend themselves.....
> 
> Freezing matters-it shouldn't be an option, but it is.....
> 
> What really matters-the real "pillar of self defense" is-for the umpteenth time-*mindset*. Most people are disinclined to use violence against their fellow men, even when confronted with malicious and violent intent. It's not that it's not within their nature-it's simply that they have not ever had a reason to go there, and usually aren't trained to: the will to kill, the inclination perpetrate violence on a human being, is something that doesn't arise from motivation-the violent actions and intent of others-for everyone. Mindset-the will to use violence, and the ability to channel one's emotions into that violence, are of paramount importance: the retraining of the "flinch reflex," the ability to manage adrenalization, these are far more important than grapplling, or striking,or cutting with a knife, or hitting with a stick,  or firing a gun.
> 
> The primary "pillar" of self-defense training, then, is training that develops the ability to control and channel fear, and the will and ability to *act* violently, and immediately......the secondary pillar is the one we should depend upon, and that is situational awareness....the tertiary one would fall under strategy, and consists primarily of not only being aware, but avoiding situations (or locales) with violent potential......


Is the mind of humility relevant at all? I mean acceptance of limitation that the limitation might be overcome? what do you think? Jx


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> Is the mind of humility relevant at all? I mean acceptance of limitation that the limitation might be overcome? what do you think? Jx



Humility might be just what some need to get through the aftermath.....it really has n_ext to no place at all _in the encounter itself.


----------



## Drose427

elder999 said:


> "Renzo Gracie?" Take note of what people have said in this thread in terms of winding up on the right side of the law, and note that this "gentleman," Mr. Renzo Gracie, live tweeted a "mugging" he "defended" himself against by _chasing down and assaulting two people._
> 
> No, I'd call lots of BJJ schools good schools, but I'd never use the phrase "speaking of good schools," and the name, "Renzo Gracie" in the same sentence. *Ever.*



Didnt he get into a heap of trouble for assaulting a bouncer too?


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> "Renzo Gracie?" Take note of what people have said in this thread in terms of winding up on the right side of the law, and note that this "gentleman," Mr. Renzo Gracie, live tweeted a "mugging" he "defended" himself against by _chasing down and assaulting two people._
> 
> No, I'd call lots of BJJ schools good schools, but I'd never use the phrase "speaking of good schools," and the name, "Renzo Gracie" in the same sentence. *Ever.*



Renzo produces some excellent students, so yeah I'd consider his schools very good. Definitely could have helped that woman in the video.

As for his little vigilante adventure, I found it hilarious. ::shrug::


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Renzo produces some excellent students, so yeah I'd consider his schools very good. Definitely could have helped that woman in the video.
> 
> As for his little vigilante adventure, I found it hilarious. ::shrug::



You found _assault _hilarious?


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> You found _assault _hilarious?



I find the beat down of two would-be criminals to be hilarious.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> I find the beat down of two would-be criminals to be hilarious.



Yeah...according to renzo...

Although he was in so much danger he could live tweet it XD

He also beat a downed guy, and chased a dude across town to choke him out and beat him after he lost consciousness..\

Thats pretty obviously Felony Assualt...


----------



## K-man

Buka said:


> So, I'm slow. What can I say?


Happens to all of us as we get older.


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> Humility might be just what some need to get through the aftermath.....it really has n_ext to no place at all _in the encounter itself.


Yes Sir agreed and understood.  

I see people -MA people- unwilling to admit the short comings of their art or of their selves in the practice of that art for whatever reason.. I worry for those people.  So right now before any encounter happens from the safety of our places and as a pillar of defence would you say humility in this way is at all useful?? I mean so our limitations might be conceded in order to be surmounted?

Jx


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Yeah...according to renzo...
> 
> Although he was in so much danger he could live tweet it XD
> 
> He also beat a downed guy, and chased a dude across town to choke him out and beat him after he lost consciousness..\
> 
> Thats pretty obviously Felony Assualt...



Yet he wasn't charged, so clearly the cops believed his side of the story too.

What does any of this have to do with his excellent school in NJ again?


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Yet he wasn't charged, so clearly the cops believed his side of the story too.
> 
> What does any of this have to do with his excellent school in NJ again?



I dont believe the cops were ever involved XD

Why would you take SD classes from a criminal?

He was also charged with assault in another incident as well


----------



## Jenna

Brian King said:


> WONDERFUL post Jenna, thank you! Very well thought out and based on real experience and lessons learned.
> 
> The using paracord on a key chain is a useful idea. Are you good at braiding the paracord? Many clips on youtube but I still am not very good at it. Lots of uses in addition to make shift flexible weapon or even a sling (think David vs Goliath), for example it can also become a temporary sling (think arm sling of breaks and fractures) or even turniqet should the need arise after use. Outdoors, it can be used to trap food, secure shelter, even fire starter, trail marker. Lots of uses for 'self-defense' with just a little imagination and practice. Did you know that it can be used to friction burn thru duct tape and wire ties? If you braid a loop on the 'free end' you can use that loop to 'tie' your keys to your clothing, and it gives a method of holding onto the flexible weapon while in use. Not so much around the wrist as should it be grabbed it can be used to pull you close, but around the knuckles, then should it be grabbed and used to pull you have the option of letting go by simply opening your fingers. When thinking about using the keys have you given thought of targeting and strategy? I had a chess professor (nickname as we played chess at every visit to his knife shop) who was a very large 'first person' and an internationally known custom knife maker. One of his preferred edged weapons targets was to slice along the forehead above the eyes just below the hair line. His reasoning and experience was that face wounds bleed a lot and wounds above the eyes bleed into the eyes which can be painful and disconcerting to an attacker. There is tension in our scalp facia that helps to hold our skin in place. The cut he said released that tension/friction pulling the hair line back while pulling the forehead skin down, it could depending on the cut cause the forehead skin to flap down over the eyes, again disconcerting. It also marks the attacker well for later identification. Keys can be alternated in direction on the key ring to help facilitate cutting.
> 
> -I like your thought process about not looking like a victim and encouraging different selection. There was a study (the interview is available on video but I have not seen it in many years and have forgotten the name)where video of a street scene was taken, then the people in the scene were interviewed to find out their backgrounds and such. The film was then taken to a prison and prisoners convicted of violent crimes were shown that video and asked who would they rob. The selections were almost universal on who they would and who they would not attack. Based on body language and non verbal. They did not have access to the interviews. The people selected if I remember right were often prior victims of crime, had avoidance and scared look, etc. the person they all declined to attack turned out to be a decorated Vietnam veteran who had killed up close. While the selection was non verbal, violent attackers often do an interview prior to an attack. Simply being aware often it seems wards off 'their' attention
> 
> -Who is here and who belongs work. Have you read much about the Israeli profiling at airports and borders. The US secret service also does a lot of work on profiling and noticing the unusual. It is too difficult to see everything and everyone so they look for the unusual (and familiar as in they know what the criminals look like when both they are up to something and when they are trying to look innocent)
> I was once at training inside of an airliner, and it was noted that the two most dangerous times was during the initial takeover by hostiles and during the takeover of the military/law enforcement. The most dangerous seat in these situations was along the aisles as the gunfights often went length wise of the aircraft. It was advised to look for 'shields' large folks that could absorb some of the damage. LOL I had lots of friends then for some reason LOL Finding helpful folks does not always mean that they want to or are able to, so thinking about how to get that help can be a useful exercise and also a self defense pillar perhaps?
> 
> So if I can paraphrase the pillars above in my words. Awareness is key and deliberate observation is the tool. Seeing who belongs and who doesn't, being aware of what tools are near for both use of and defense of, being aware of what signals are being sent by others and self. Being trained physically is important, having that knowledge inside helps to send the proper signals, and as a back up should all avoidance prove unsuccessful. Does that get to the gist of it?
> 
> Thank you for participating in the thread. Your thoughts are very valuable and seem right on.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King


I like very much Brian that you think of pillars it is consolidatory and there is strength in the consolidation of two or more amid the majority that is factionalised or subscribing to the "me vs the world" mentality.. x

Yes you have this paraphrasing exactly accurate.. I now use cord to make a monkey fist which I can quickly form around a pebble or stone on the ground since they took my shiny BB off me lol.. And I think disconcerting is understating how it would feel to have your forehead flapping around over your eyes.. wow.. you have some awesome encounters, experiences and acquaintances.. hope I am around to read your autobiog!! 

Also a pillar maybe should be equally applicable across genders here since you were talking of female targets yes?  To say she *must* be capable of this or that.. is this how she MUST be?? What if she is genetically not so disposed to act or she is socially conditioned to be otherwise.. MUST she become some thing else? I have encountered women where this is too much of an ask.. You know there is the "warrior gene" which is expressed differently in men than women.. also certain people are predisposed to psychopathy (whether or not it is manifest) by that I mean they can have greater facility for ruthlessness in their defence etc.. Perhaps this is not relevant to pillars.. I just think some times it is nice for people to be black and white about how things must be.. I think it is sometimes too enamoured of the orthodox.. What do you think??

Jxxx


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> I dont believe the cops were ever involved XD
> 
> Why would you take SD classes from a criminal?
> 
> He was also charged with assault in another incident as well



I'm sure if there's evidence of an assault beamed to the Twitter feeds of millions of people, the cops would have investigated right?

LoL @ him being "a criminal" for getting into a fight with a bouncer and snapping the bouncer's arm. How ridiculous. I'm also pretty sure that he doesn't teach the SD classes.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> I'm sure if there's evidence of an assault beamed to the Twitter feeds of millions of people, the cops would have investigated right?
> 
> LoL @ him being "a criminal" for getting into a fight with a bouncer and snapping the bouncer's arm. How ridiculous. I'm also pretty sure that he doesn't teach the SD classes.



Investigattion and Charging are two different things here bub.

Im sure the cops did investigate, but all the evidence Magically disappeared XD

The whole story sounds insanely fabricated and here people even break down the inaccuracies
Renzo Gracie s fabricated mugger story - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums

and yeah......he assaulted a bouncer....thats a violent crime.....making him a criminal.....I know you've got this whole Gracie Idolatry going on, but hes a criminal.

it doesnt matter if hes teaching SD or not, people will train in whatever they want for SD.

Hes a belligerent borderline psychopath,

Thats a bad trait to be teaching anything XD

Edit: Misdemeanor in New York


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Investigattion and Charging are two different things here bub.
> 
> Im sure the cops did investigate, but all the evidence Magically disappeared XD



The "evidence" was all over Twitter. Did the two "angels" he supposedly assault disappear as well?



> The whole story sounds insanely fabricated and here people even break down the inaccuracies
> Renzo Gracie s fabricated mugger story - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums




That entire thread can be summed up in the first post:



> Well this was the most pointless thread of the day. Congratulations on wasting X amount of hours of your life that you will never get back.
> [Reply]







> and yeah......he assaulted a bouncer....thats a violent crime.....making him a criminal.....I know you've got this whole Gracie Idolatry going on, but hes a criminal.



Idolatry? I simply said he has a great school in Newark NJ, 10 miles from where the woman in the OP got attacked. You and Elder are the ones going crazy because the guy beat up a couple of thugs and tweeted about it. Who cares?



> Hes a belligerent borderline psychopath,
> 
> Thats a bad trait to be teaching anything XD



LoL! See what I mean?


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> The "evidence" was all over Twitter. Did the two "angels" he supposedly assault disappear as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That entire thread can be summed up in the first post:
> 
> 
> 
> Idolatry? I simply said he has a great school in Newark NJ, 10 miles from where the woman in the OP got attacked. You and Elder are the ones going crazy because the guy beat up a couple of thugs and tweeted about it. Who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> LoL! See what I mean?



What evidence on twitter? lol

Pics that dont add up (some are day some are noight)

Scraping on his hand that doesnt look like post fight cuts XD

Our point was the entire thing reeks  of Bull XD

And if it wasnt,it is aggravated assault XD

Unless now its legal to chase someone across town, choke them out, and beat them after their unconscious XD


----------



## Steve

Alright.  I have a question that came up having read two posts in two different threads.  Rather than continue to derail that over there, I'm bringing my question to this thread.  In the Safest States thread, Tgace did a nice job of explaining how self defense laws tend to work, at least in NY.   


Tgace said:


> If during the course of a "bar fight"...while everyone is on the pavement and still swinging.. you decide to stand up and stomp on the guys head to win the fight. That's going to probably land you in trouble....
> 
> If it's deemed reasonable to punch you in a given situation, the damage resulting from that (single) punch isn't really the legal issue in terms of Article 35 in NY.
> 
> There is nothing in NY law that supports what you "heard". You would have to show me the incident/case being referred to to get a better answer.


He actually explains it pretty fully over the course of a few threads, but I'm not going to quote them all here.  I think the point comes across.  The measure is, what would a reasonable person do in the same situation? 

In another thread, K-man goes through a progression of techniques. Emphasis is mine. 


K-man said:


> Can I just clarify. Many of the styles teach a sequence of moves that you might perform in a particular scenario. The simplest of these might be 360 defence of Krav and the other end, the bunkai of a kata like Suparenpei.
> 
> _So, the first move in Krav to defend against a downward slash with a weapon is 'bursting' or a simultaneous strike to the wrist and neck. If you connect it's *game over*. If it fails, you overhook the arm and drive the knee repeatedly into the lower abdomen. If that connects it's likely game over but if it fails and we need more we start hitting the back of the neck, assuming he has bent over from the knees. Strikes to the back of the neck or skull with the forearm are likely to knock him down but if they haven't I'll give him a knee in the face. He is a real tough sucker if he hasn't gone down by now but I'm up to the arm lock and disarm at this point. If that fails I'll take him to the ground and kick to the back of the neck.
> 
> Against an untrained attacker just how long will he remain a threat? The chances of getting all the way through to the stomp are practically zero.
> 
> Similar with karate bunkai. You do the first technique and hopefully it is *game over*. If not you go to the second and so forth. It is only after a failed technique that you proceed._
> 
> Aikido is the same. Something as simple as kote gaeshi is only performed in theory if the punch to the head, inherent in the technique has failed.
> 
> What I am saying, in a very roundabout way, is that the 'finishing' technique of a stomp is the last technique in a a sequence of techniques.  Hopefully the conflict has resolved well before that, even though the sequence is practised to its conclusion.


In this thread, a common theme is about mindset being critical in self defense.  The language above is pretty typical.  I'm really not trying to pick on K-man, and am not suggesting that there is wrong or right here.  I do think there's an interesting insight into the training mindset of many "self defense" oriented martial arts.  The rhetoric says one thing, but the training actually teaches something else.  "I do this, and it's likely to be "game over" for the bad guy.  But if not, I do this... and then it's game over.  But if it's not, I do this."  There's a mentality being taught here, along with an overt strategy that stops when the bad guy is... what?  Because "game over" speaks to a degree of finality in my mind.

And, I'm not trying to suggest that people are idiotic robots who can't apply discretion in the heat of the moment.  I'm just struck by the incongruity between stopping when the bad guy is "game over" and what we're discussing as likely to lead to criminal liability.  The two sound a lot alike, to my untrained ear.   As described, each technique is designed to take the bad guy out.  Punches to the throat, elbows to the back of the head and neck, stomping on the ground.  Add other techniques intended to kill or maim (eye gouges, etc), and there's a disconnect here.  Isn't there?


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> I
> LoL @ him being "a criminal" for getting into a fight with a bouncer and snapping the bouncer's arm.How ridiculous



Depends on where, and it depends on the lawyers just how ridiculous it is-people have gone to jail for less, and with far more justification.



Hanzou said:


> I'm also pretty sure that he doesn't teach the SD classes.



So, take a look at the title of the thread, and  consider mention of Renzo Gracie off-topic thread drift, since-despite what  you've stated-training with Renzo Gracie  would be-by the evidence of his actions, and _by your own admission_-of no benefit in a self-defense situation.....


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> In another thread, K-man goes through a progression of techniques. Emphasis is mine.
> 
> In this thread, a common theme is about mindset being critical in self defense.  The language above is pretty typical.  I'm really not trying to pick on K-man, and am not suggesting that there is wrong or right here.  I do think there's an interesting insight into the training mindset of many "self defense" oriented martial arts.  The rhetoric says one thing, but the training actually teaches something else.  "I do this, and it's likely to be "game over" for the bad guy.  But if not, I do this... and then it's game over.  But if it's not, I do this."  There's a mentality being taught here, along with an overt strategy that stops when the bad guy is... what?  Because "game over" speaks to a degree of finality in my mind.
> 
> And, I'm not trying to suggest that people are idiotic robots who can't apply discretion in the heat of the moment.  I'm just struck by the incongruity between stopping when the bad guy is "game over" and what we're discussing as likely to lead to criminal liability.  The two sound a lot alike, to my untrained ear.   As described, each technique is designed to take the bad guy out.  Punches to the throat, elbows to the back of the head and neck, stomping on the ground.  Add other techniques intended to kill or maim (eye gouges, etc), and there's a disconnect here.  Isn't there?


Actually the 360 defence is designed to be simple. There is one 'enter and trap' for a high attack from either side and one 'enter and trap' for a low attack. Those two moves cover the bulk of attacks you are likely to encounter and a lot of the defence against other attacks, such as handgun, end up in the same positions.

Why do you have such difficulty in understanding that we are not training a sport style system and that this system is designed to kill or maim if necessary? You, and others of like mind, keep trying to equate what you do to what I do and one of the others is even more strident in proclaiming that what he does is better than everything. Well that's just not right your can't compare apples with hammers and you can't compare BJJ to Krav, at least in the way you guys are trying to.

If you would like a similar flow diagram for MMA it might be kick to the knee, big punch combination, catch and take down, choke, arm bar. (And please don't tell me it's not what you would do because I don't care. It is purely hypothetical.) So I kick the knee and the the knee collapses. Does your MMA fighter continue fighting and start landing big punches while his opponent is writhing on the ground or has he enough brain left after his brain damaging training to know that the fight is over? But let's say that the kick to the knee doesn't have an effect and the fighter starts punching and knocks the guy out. Are you really suggesting that your MMA guy is now going to jump on him and apply a choke? So now the guy doesn't get knocked out and he is taken to the ground where the MMA fighter has the opportunity for a choke. The opponent passes out, fight over. Are you now seriously suggesting that the MMA guy will grab his arm and apply an arm bar?

What you are saying is either the MMA guys have a brain and the rest of us don't or that the MMA guys don't have a brain either and need a referee to tell them when the fight is over.

Personally I don't see any disconnect. I just see people trying to say that their style of martial art is better than all others. Worse than that, it seems that there are two ways of going about it. One is, "your style is piss weak so it won't work" and now, "your style is over the top and trying to hurt people like that is ridiculous".

We don't need any of that BS. We are all trying to enjoy the martial art or arts that we train. Get a life, let's just discuss things without bagging other styles of training.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Depends on where, and it depends on the lawyers just how ridiculous it is-people have gone to jail for less, and with far more justification.



And it still wouldn't make him a criminal.



> So, take a look at the title of the thread, and  consider mention of Renzo Gracie off-topic thread drift, since-despite what  you've stated-training with Renzo Gracie  would be-by the evidence of his actions, and _by your own admission_-of no benefit in a self-defense situation.....



It's quite evident that training at Renzos academy would be a huge benefit for self defense by virtue of the fact that the academy in NJ produces excellent jujitsu practicioners, and the fact that jujitsu skills would have highly benefitted that female victim in the OP.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Actually it is designed to be simple. The is one enter and trap for a high attack from either side and one enter and trap for a low attack. Those two moves cover the bulk of attacks you are likely to encounter an a lot of the defence against other attacks, such as handgun, end up in the same positions.
> 
> *Why do you have such difficulty in understanding* that we are not training a sport style system and that this system is designed to kill or maim if necessary? You, and others of like mind, keep trying to equate what you do to what I do and one of the others is even more strident in proclaiming that what he does is better than everything. Well that's just not right your can't compare apples with hammers and *you can't compare BJJ to Krav, at least in the way you guys are trying to.*


Thanks, K-man.  I guess i'm just dumb but I don't think you are quite getting my point.  I'm not comparing anything to BJJ, so if you think I am, you're completely off base.  





> If you would like a similar flow diagram for MMA it might be kick to the knee, big punch combination, catch and take down, choke, arm bar. (*And please don't tell me it's not what you would do because I don't care.* It is purely hypothetical.) So I kick the knee and the the knee collapses. Does your MMA fighter continue fighting and start landing big punches while his opponent is writhing on the ground or has he enough brain left after his brain damaging training to know that the fight is over? But let's say that the kick to the knee doesn't have an effect and the fighter starts punching and knocks the guy out. Are you really suggesting that your MMA guy is now going to jump on him and apply a choke? So now the guy doesn't get knocked out and he is taken to the ground where the MMA fighter has the opportunity for a choke. The opponent passes out, fight over. _*Are you now seriously suggesting that the MMA guy will grab his arm and apply an arm bar?*_


I don't think I even mentioned MMA, K-man, and I can assure you I didn't have it in mind.  Seriously, I highlighted the language you're using that really is unnecessarily confrontational.  I'm just not going to allow you to drag me into the mud with you right now.  But I'd be happy to have a discussion with you, if you're mature enough to do so.  





> What you are saying is either the MMA guys have a brain and the rest of us don't or that the MMA guys don't have a brain either and need a referee to tell them when the fight is over.


Once again, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that at all.  
Nope... I went back and checked.  I didn't say that at all.  I am trying to have a discussion about the disconnect between the self defense mindset discussed several times in this thread and the legality of self defense.  Your post in direct contrast to Tgace's post in another thread just got me thinking about it.  I'm not attacking you, K-man, and I would appreciate it if you'd reciprocate for once. 





> Personally I don't see any disconnect. I just see people trying to say that their style of martial art is better than all others. Worse than that, it seems that there are two ways of going about it. One is, "your style is piss weak so it won't work" and now, "your style is over the top and trying to hurt people like that is ridiculous".


Look, if you can't get past your own pettiness here and have a discussion, just kindly recuse yourself.  Be a grown up.  





> We don't need any of that BS. We are all trying to enjoy the martial art or arts that we train. *Get a life*, let's just discuss things without bagging other styles of training.


Zing... says the guy who's just spent who knows how long bagging on me, on BJJ, and on MMA in a rant that is completely unrelated to my post.  Take your own advice, k-man and stop trying to derail the thread.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hanzou said:


> And it still wouldn't make him a criminal.
> 
> It's quite evident that training at Renzos academy would be a huge benefit for self defense by virtue of the fact that the academy in NJ produces excellent jujitsu practicioners, and the fact that jujitsu skills would have highly benefitted that female victim in the OP.



*Yes and maybe no*.  At Renzo's academy you may learn many good techniques which could equate to really good training for personal protection. (maybe not)  Yet, if we look at Renzo's history and issues in confrontations he may not be a very good teacher to go to for self-defense knowledge purposes.  He may not have the ability to pass on mental knowledge for self-defense based of his "physical" interactions in the past. ie. bar fights, heck he stomped a guy in the cage after a fight, etc.  He was by all accounts not able to control himself what makes you think he has the legal knowledge to help his students?  Or the ability to pass on making mature judgements?

Renzo Igor and Gregor Gracie Arrested for Alleged Gang Assault in New York City MMAWeekly.com

*Now in general really serious self-defense practitioner's* try to stay out of areas where people are getting really drunk and doing drugs. (ie. night clubs) They also try to not be out too late as after midnight nothing really good ever happens.  Just ask your local law enforcement officer or a bouncer.  It always goes down hill when it gets later in the evening and a lot of drunk, testosterone fueled men are left by themselves as the couples, single women, etc. have either hooked up or left.  At the end of the night all you have are some drunk guys and a few gals who usually cause as much trouble as the guy's. (ie. they get off on seeing the fight)

I trained with Renzo once and liked him from an teacher point of view in Brazilian Jiujitsu and he would be a good person to learn from for BJJ and MMA.  Probably not who I would go to for self-defense skill sets which comprise a lot more than just physical skill sets.  Even though he is older I do not think he has the maturity or knowledge that I would want in that department!


----------



## ballen0351

Im late to the party here but in an attempt to get back on the topic here is my opinion


Brian King said:


> For the start of this exploration (thread drift happens and can be interesting) let’s assumes that the prospective student is married, with small children, and limited training time – say once or twice a week for a year. The kind of attack that she may face, could be assault in a parking garage, road rage, work place violence, domestic abuse, violent robbery, wrong place wrong time violence, and home invasion. Or we can assume that she might be single, so we could add date rape violence, bar/night club violence, woman on woman violence to the list. Attacks against the elderly are brutal as well, and in some areas becoming common place, so we could add healthcare/ nursing home violence to the possible list above.


Ive given alot of thought to this over the last few weeks.  I started a new Police Department and had to spend 3 weeks at the police academy.  While I was there a new hire class was finishing up there 7 months of training and were about to head out on the street.  This class had a record number of females in the class.  I was looking at them and several of them were very tiny.  One of the woman is 5'00 and 105 pounds.  Ive done this job for 15 years and have been in several very violent physical confrontations.  Looking at her it is of my opinion no amount of training no matter what style will make her win on the street in most fights so she will need to use other aspects of self defense. She will need to rely heavily on her mind and her tools (taser, OC Spray, gun).  Thats not a sexist thing ive know several excellent female officers thats physics.   Even the best techniques with the best leverage take some strength to accomplish.  Add stress to the equation and technique gets worse.  Thats not just for female officers small male officers have the same limitations but on average I generally see smaller females then males.  So to take this to a self defense topic smaller people like woman, elderly, teens, smaller males, etc should look more towards tools to help them defend themselves, Im a bigger guy and I carry a gun 90+% of the time.  I dont think any pillar that focus on physical resistance regardless of style is effective for alot of people.  


> This video, taken with a nanny cam captures the violence that is common of assaults against women by men. They are violent and brutal. With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ for the women described above? Warning, video is violent.


The fear, stress, and surprise of this attack in my opinion there is no amount of training she could of had short of a professional fighter that would have changed this outcome. 1st many people dont train for an attack in your own house, we are supposed to be safe in our house.  Speaking to victims THIS is the worst part of victimization.  We let our guards down at home, we feel safe at home so an attack at home can be totally overwhelming. 2nd her child was present so thats an added stress she needed to worry about, 3rd the size difference is a major factor, and 4th the mindset HE is a predator and has that mindset to attack and has no problem hurting people most normal people dont think that way and  dont want to hurt anyone.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Yes and maybe no*.  At Renzo's academy you may learn many good techniques which could equate to really good training for personal protection. (maybe not)  Yet, if we look at Renzo's history and issues in confrontations he may not be a very good teacher to go to for self-defense knowledge purposes.  He may not have the ability to pass on mental knowledge for self-defense based of his "physical" interactions in the past. ie. bar fights, heck he stomped a guy in the cage after a fight, etc.  He was by all accounts not able to control himself what makes you think he has the legal knowledge to help his students?  Or the ability to pass on making mature judgements?
> 
> Renzo Igor and Gregor Gracie Arrested for Alleged Gang Assault in New York City MMAWeekly.com
> 
> *Now in general really serious self-defense practitioner's* try to stay out of areas where people are getting really drunk and doing drugs. (ie. night clubs) They also try to not be out too late as after midnight nothing really good ever happens.  Just ask your local law enforcement officer or a bouncer.  It always goes down hill when it gets later in the evening and a lot of drunk, testosterone fueled men are left by themselves as the couples, single women, etc. have either hooked up or left.  At the end of the night all you have are some drunk guys and a few gals who usually cause as much trouble as the guy's. (ie. they get off on seeing the fight)
> 
> I trained with Renzo once and liked him from an teacher point of view in Brazilian Jiujitsu and he would be a good person to learn from for BJJ and MMA.  Probably not who I would go to for self-defense skill sets which comprise a lot more than just physical skill sets.  Even though he is older I do not think he has the maturity or knowledge that I would want in that department!



I'm still failing to see how any of that has any relevance towards this woman being able stop this criminal from beating the crap out of her. Despite the fact that Renzo is a crazy SoB, that doesn't change the fact that his schools are some of the best around, and it's highly doubtful that a Renzo Gracie purple to black belt would have gotten victimized like that woman in the OP.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*It has a lot to do with self-defense and who you choose to learn from*.  Someone who cannot control their own ego, violent tendencies, etc. or someone who understands the laws and trains for self-defense and personal protection.  The woman in the video maybe could have benefitted from training with a serious self-defense and personal protection instructor and particularly one that would have emphasized to her to have a force multiplier ie. tool, knife, handgun, etc.  A good instructor would have taught her to have tools on her and if for some reason she was in her house, etc. and someone broke in to get a force multiplier. ie. kitchen knives, firearm in a panic room, etc.  If and only if she couldn't get to a force multiplier then engage in her physical skill sets.   In the uneven terrain of her living room if she was unable to get to her kitchen knives, etc. I am not sure if grappling would have worked well for her based on what we see in that video.  Could it?  Sure?  However, we will never know.  I sit here writing this with three force multipliers on me in my living room.  Most of the people I know that are serious about self-defense and personal protections skills typically have force multipliers on them regularly.

However, Hanzou this thread is not just about that woman and or her situation only but what people think are the "pillars of self defense".  What could be good for a woman, person, etc. with limited training time, etc.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hanzou said:


> t's highly doubtful that a Renzo Gracie purple to black belt would have gotten victimized like that woman in the OP.



*Maybe, maybe not.*  A medium to light weight woman who engaged grappling and attempted to deal with this man in an uneven terrain living room may have succeeded or may have been killed by the man after pissing him off.  He is a powerful big dude.  We will simply never know what would happen in that scenario and all you are doing here is Monday morning quarterbacking which after a while gets old.  While many posters here are engaging in positive feedback and putting up positive information.

*I would however encourage you to state what you think* would be good pillars of defense and how you would go about helping someone to not be victimized.  That could of course include BJJ training but I'm sure you are starting to realize that there should be more! * I look forward to your positive feedback!!!*


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> I'm still failing*.*.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Steve in reference to your post* regarding some times a disconnect between training and reality there definitely is that out there.  Many systems are more geared towards combatives with very few systems geared towards straight personal protection or self-defense.  IRT as I teach it definitely is a combatives system.  It is geared towards combat between people that has the potential for life and death.  When I am teaching military officers or enlisted men who come to me to knowing that they will be in country soon and not happy necessarily with what they have received from the military in empty hands and blade work I teach them exactly what they need to know from a battlefield perspective.  Particularly killed or be killed with the blade.  I must also take into account his weapon location's and where he places them on his body.  This is of course different than when I am teaching a law enforcement officer who has to operate within departmental guidelines and use of force continuum as well as the laws in his respective state.   Yet there is also crossover if it is a lethal confrontation.  He or she may need the exact same skills that the military person needs.  I also have to account for where he places his tools in what I am teaching him and this is very important when grappling and everything else as well.  It would be really terrible to teach someone a guard pass that actually brings their firearm on their belt right to the criminals hands.  Similarly some things apply when teaching everyday citizens.  They need to know their local laws, guidelines for utilizing force and an understanding of what personal protection is all about as well as legal implication and what self-defense really is. (ie. a legal term)  Yet, if there is extreme violence with lethal weapons and or situations are introduced (ie. pounding a head on concrete, etc.) then there is also crossover.  When you get into the realm of personal protection there area shades of grey.

Some good reading material on this is:

*Rory Milller - Facing Violence*

*Marc MacYoung - Self Defense: What you need to know, when you need to know it*


----------



## jks9199

We're talking about the pillars of self defense. In context, a pillar is a foundation or key element, without which the structure cannot stand. Self defense, in this context, I would define as being protection oneself from physical assault and violent crime. You can expand it to include emotional/psychological crime, as well, but if we aren't careful as we expand it we'll end up with something that's gone from already pretty darn wide to something that's unworkable.


We also need to put a caveat in place: dealing with violence is really like the old story of the blind men and the elephant. For those unfamiliar with the story – a group of men, blind from birth, are led to an elephant. Each approaches it, and examines what comes in reach. So... one describes it as being like a snake, another a tree trunk, the third like a bridge over his head, and so on, with each describing what they encountered. Do any of them really understand “elephant?” No – only that little bit they came into contact with. Violence and self protection are much the same; I'm familiar with imposing force on people, and protecting myself in one sort of situation as a cop. But it's not the same as Jenna's experience as a woman, or even Tez's experience as a female cop in another country. It's not even the same as ballen's experience, not too far from where I am. My direct knowledge of the subject is limited to my direct experience, which is shaped by who I am (physically and psychologically), my profession, where I live and work, who I associate with, where I grew up, and so on. My mediated knowledge (stuff I've learned from research and reading and talking to others) is wider – but it's not the same as direct experience. (I'm sure I'm not the first to use the blind men and the elephant in this context.)


So... what are the pillars of self defense, in my opinion? Let's start with *awareness* – actually knowing, realistically, with what's going on around you, and what's likely to happen. This is an active skill, requiring practice and work. From awareness, we can move to *avoidance* – taking steps to prevent being the victim, including things like not looking like a target or traveling to places where we're likely to be victims, and, being aware of an imminent problem, taking steps before any actual or direct contact is made to prevent it. It might be as simple as taking a different cab than the Uber driver who gives you a sketchy feeling, or crossing the street – or just recognizing that you're a stranger in a strange land, and had best get yourself back to the right side of the tracks, and doing it. Once avoidance is impossible or has failed – we move into *conflict management and de-escalation*. Can we talk our way out of trouble? If a buy the guy who's girl I just unknowingly hit on a drink – can we avoid the whole Monkey Dance and ensuing fight? What can I do to prevent or avoid violence. (Sometimes, the answer is nothing!) Finally, we get into *physical skills*. At this point, we need to address things like recovering from an ambush, handling a freeze, and just plain how to deal with the attack. _“No one system has a monopoly on truth”_ – some may be better suited to giving you useful skills rapidly, but all of them have something good to offer. And something bad to avoid... Then, when everything is over and done with – we have to deal with the *aftermath*, the ramifications and consequences. This ranges from self-care for injuries, to dealing with the cops, and has to include dealing with the mental and emotional fall out of a violent encounter.


Think about it... each of those areas is worth a post – probably a thread! – all it's own.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't recommend a DLT, no. However, I would recommend a clinch takedown of some sort. Either forward, side, rear, or from a clinch to a modified Kouchi Gake like so;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://share.gifyoutube.com/vpP9zR.gif



That might work but if it doesn't she would have been crushed. I certainly would not recommend it. A small woman purposely grabbing such a large guy is not likely to end well for her unless she has a significant amount of training. More than likely the guy would just smash her



Hanzou said:


> there's a high chance that its not going to dislocate the knee, or *cause much damage whatsoever*.



Unless it is taught properly.



Hanzou said:


> So your "Judo chop" follow-up would be a fruitless endeavor.



Seriously? A 'Judo chop', that's what your going with?

A knife hand strike just like I suggested is a very powerful and effective strike when trained properly, hardly fruitless.



Hanzou said:


> Speaking of good schools, there's actually a Renzo Gracie academy about 10 miles from her home. Of course she would have probably attended one of the many TKD schools instead.



There is more to a good school than just quality teaching by an experienced instructor. The character of the instructor is important also, especially if he/she is teaching self defense. Attacking two people because you think they might attack you and then going looking for them after the fact just to choke them out several times to punish them is not a sign of good character. I don't know ,much about the schools in other countries but I could recommend one in mine.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> That might work but if it doesn't she would have been crushed. I certainly would not recommend it. A small woman purposely grabbing such a large guy is not likely to end well for her unless she has a significant amount of training. More than likely the guy would just smash her



Except for the fact that she would be significantly trained, and have plenty of experience performing that technique against a wide variety of people.



> Unless it is taught properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? A 'Judo chop', that's what your going with?
> 
> A knife hand strike just like I suggested is a very powerful and effective strike when trained properly, hardly fruitless.



Just curious; How many times have you actually dislocated your classmate's knee with a side kick? How many times have you slammed your bladed hand into your classmate's neck after you dislocated their knee?

If the answer is none (and it IS none because you guys don't even spar) then you've never actually done that technique. You have a hypothesis of what you believe will happen if you're in the position to do X and he's doing Y. You have no concept of the various effects that your attack would have depending on body type, weight, height, power, etc. 

On the other hand, I've actually done minor inner hooks on people hundreds of times. I've done modifications, I've done proper technique, I've done combinations if the person doesn't fall the way I want them to, I've even done them in MMA gyms where the guy is punching and kicking me. I've done them against big guys, little guys, women, young, old, etc. 

That's the difference. There's hypothesis and theory, and there's application. If you've never really applied the technique, you can't speak to its effectiveness. You simply have a model of what its supposed to look like.



> There is more to a good school than just quality teaching by an experienced instructor. The character of the instructor is important also, especially if he/she is teaching self defense. Attacking two people because you think they might attack you and then going looking for them after the fact just to choke them out several times to punish them is not a sign of good character.



Well as I stated before, Renzo's school produces excellent practitioners and instructors, so if she was looking for a good jiujitsu school, I wouldn't hesitate to point her in that direction.


----------



## Buka

I reread the OP again. Picked up something I missed. The question was "With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ *for the women described above*?"

I'm not really sure. I think it would help to actually know or train her. However, I listed what I think the pillars are in general. (Probably isn't germain to the conversation, but I'll post them anyway)

1. Combative, contact training against a variety of resisting opponents. From all standing distances, (far, in-close, standing grapple) and all aspects of ground fighting, including strikes.

2. Communicative skills.

3. Honest knowledge of self - weaknesses, habits etc.

4. Awareness. Including, but not limited to: body language, both his and yours, escape routes, threat accessment, landscaping etc,

5. Common sense when it comes to self defense. ie - if you find yourself in a fair fight, realization that your tactics suck.

6 Physicality or physical fitness. An out of shape YOU is not the same as a fit YOU. One is a strong pillar, the other a weakened or broken one - that cannot defend, NOR run.

7. Knowledge of physiology- tunnel vision, adrenaline, affects of alchohol/drugs etc.

8. Knowledge of basic self defense laws in your geographic area, knowledge of police procedure in response to same, your attorney (or your dad's, friend's etc) on speed dial.

9. Heart.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Except for the fact that she would be significantly trained, and have plenty of experience performing that technique against a wide variety of people.
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious; How many times have you actually dislocated your classmate's knee with a side kick? How many times have you slammed your bladed hand into your classmate's neck after you dislocated their knee?
> 
> If the answer is none (and it IS none because you guys don't even spar) then you've never actually done that technique. You have a hypothesis of what you believe will happen if you're in the position to do X and he's doing Y. You have no concept of the various effects that your attack would have depending on body type, weight, height, power, etc.
> 
> On the other hand, I've actually done minor inner hooks on people hundreds of times. I've done modifications, I've done proper technique, I've done combinations if the person doesn't fall the way I want them to, I've even done them in MMA gyms where the guy is punching and kicking me. I've done them against big guys, little guys, women, young, old, etc.
> 
> That's the difference. There's hypothesis and theory, and there's application. If you've never really applied the technique, you can't speak to its effectiveness. You simply have a model of what its supposed to look like.
> 
> 
> 
> Well as I stated before, Renzo's school produces excellent practitioners and instructors, so if she was looking for a good jiujitsu school, I wouldn't hesitate to point her in that direction.



Does anybody spar according to you? XD

I see you say "You dont even spar" to people every now and then and they usuallyu DO...

RTKD actually put a video on antoher thread of his school sparring XD


----------



## Brian King

PhotonGuy said:


> That is a good saying and prior planning I believe makes up a big part of what self defense is all about. However, you also have to be able to improvise. With self defense, and I would think in the military its like this too especially if you're going into war that its much like a game of Chess. To be good at Chess you have to have prior planning as planning and strategy is what Chess is all about, but what happens all too often, especially if you're opponent is a good opponent, is that they will do something to stop your plan. You might plan top gain a position on your opponent to give yourself an advantage and ultimately win, but your opponent might move his pieces to stop your plan in which case you have to come up with a new plan. That's why you've got to be flexible and able to change your plans at a moment's notice, as well as having good prior planning.



Thanks PhotonGuy.
While I do believe in the 6 P's, I agree that it is god to be able to adjust any time needed. There is that ol joke... "How do you know GOD has a sense of humor?" ....Answer. "You make a plan."  Or as I believe Mike Tyson said..."Everybody has pan, until they get punched in the mouth."

Thanks for posting 
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

ballen0351 said:


> Im late to the party here but in an attempt to get back on the topic here is my opinion
> 
> Ive given alot of thought to this over the last few weeks.  I started a new Police Department and had to spend 3 weeks at the police academy.  While I was there a new hire class was finishing up there 7 months of training and were about to head out on the street.  This class had a record number of females in the class.  I was looking at them and several of them were very tiny.  One of the woman is 5'00 and 105 pounds.  Ive done this job for 15 years and have been in several very violent physical confrontations.  Looking at her it is of my opinion no amount of training no matter what style will make her win on the street in most fights so she will need to use other aspects of self defense. She will need to rely heavily on her mind and her tools (taser, OC Spray, gun).  Thats not a sexist thing ive know several excellent female officers thats physics.   Even the best techniques with the best leverage take some strength to accomplish.  Add stress to the equation and technique gets worse.  Thats not just for female officers small male officers have the same limitations but on average I generally see smaller females then males.  So to take this to a self defense topic smaller people like woman, elderly, teens, smaller males, etc should look more towards tools to help them defend themselves, Im a bigger guy and I carry a gun 90+% of the time.  I dont think any pillar that focus on physical resistance regardless of style is effective for alot of people.
> 
> The fear, stress, and surprise of this attack in my opinion there is no amount of training she could of had short of a professional fighter that would have changed this outcome. 1st many people dont train for an attack in your own house, we are supposed to be safe in our house.  Speaking to victims THIS is the worst part of victimization.  We let our guards down at home, we feel safe at home so an attack at home can be totally overwhelming. 2nd her child was present so thats an added stress she needed to worry about, 3rd the size difference is a major factor, and 4th the mindset HE is a predator and has that mindset to attack and has no problem hurting people most normal people dont think that way and  dont want to hurt anyone.



Hey, congrats on the new job Ballen0351! Must have been interesting attending the academy again after so many years. Thanks for taking the time to post. 

If I can paraphrase your 'pillar' to make sure I understand it.- Tool use should not only be encouraged but should be the primary priority of the training as an equalizer to size, age, speed, strength, numbers, and mindset disadvantages. 

Regarding the fear, stress, and surprise of the kind of attack shown in the video, do you think that there is training that can help a person better respond and deal with all aspects of this type of circumstance including the victimization that interpersonal violence often begets? 

Thanks again for posting
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> Does anybody spar according to you? XD
> 
> I see you say "You dont even spar" to people every now and then and they usuallyu DO...
> 
> RTKD actually put a video on antoher thread of his school sparring XD



Irrelevant because the original point stands; If you've never dislocated someone's knee, or disabled someone with a neck strike you can't say you've actually done those techniques. Much less say that you could pull them off in a bad situation.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Irrelevant because the original point stands; If you've never dislocated someone's knee, or disabled someone with a neck strike you can't say you've actually done those techniques. Much less say that you could pull them off in a bad situation.



In another thread Brian posted a video of a neck strrke ko-ing a guy......

True, we dont dislocate knees.

But we do:

Break ribs,

Rock each other ( I've seen more than a handfulk of guys Koe-d

Do takedowns in sparring 

Your point also works 2 ways.

Even tony agreed there are more BJJ classes that dont hgave their guys defend punched than those that do.

Your point applies here tto bub.

Working guard against someone grappling is  pretty different than trying to do it against someone dropping bombs on your face.


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> In another thread Brian posted a video of a neck strrke ko-ing a guy......



Yeah, a lucky backhand slap that knocked the guy out. Even a dead clock is right twice a day. It's hard to believe that you can reliably pull off a move that you've never actually done before.



> True, we dont dislocate knees.
> 
> But we do:
> 
> Break ribs,
> 
> Rock each other ( I've seen more than a handfulk of guys Koe-d



So you guys consistently break each other's ribs, and KO each other in every class? That's pretty hardcore.



> Your point also works 2 ways.
> 
> Even tony agreed there are more BJJ classes that dont hgave their guys defend punched than those that do.
> 
> Your point applies here tto bub.
> 
> Working guard against someone grappling is  pretty different than trying to do it against someone dropping bombs on your face.



If your Bjj school isn't offering grappling training with someone striking you, you need to find a Bjj or MMA school that does. I'm pretty sure that Renzo's school, which was in driving distance of this victim's house, does offer such training,


----------



## ballen0351

Brian King said:


> Hey, congrats on the new job Ballen0351! Must have been interesting attending the academy again after so many years. Thanks for taking the time to post.


It was fun I got to do all the fun things new hires do (drivers training, firearms, Defensive tactics) with out all the yelling and push ups.


> If I can paraphrase your 'pillar' to make sure I understand it.- Tool use should not only be encouraged but should be the primary priority of the training as an equalizer to size, age, speed, strength, numbers, and mindset disadvantages.


I dont know if you can have 1 set of pillars for all people unless you go very broad like awareness, avoidance,etc.  What works for me and Id consider MY pillar wouldn't work for my wife for example.  So Im not sure there are pillars you can use across the board without getting to broad.  So a my self defense pillars are to always be armed, my mindset is always prepared, No matter where I go I look for exits, cover and concealment. If Im with my family Im even more guarded and would be less inclined to intervene in a situation.


> Regarding the fear, stress, and surprise of the kind of attack shown in the video, do you think that there is training that can help a person better respond and deal with all aspects of this type of circumstance including the victimization that interpersonal violence often begets?


Perhaps but I think in my opinion her biggest problem was she was in her own home with her kid. I dont know if there is anything you can do to prepare yourself for that since for most that's the ultimate nightmare.  Even still the best training is no guarantee your going to react as you train. I have seen officers freeze in a serious stressful situation.  When I was on Swat I watched a guy fresh out of Swat school on his first raid totally forget to take out his weapon his brain locked he just held on to my vest followed me when we were secure I looked at him and he never had his weapon out.  I asked him and he said he had no idea everything was just so fast and he couldn't get his mind to function.
So I think stress training can help but its no guarantee since even the hardest training is still not real.  We never know how we will react when it gets real


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Irrelevant because the original point stands; If you've never dislocated someone's knee, or disabled someone with a neck strike you can't say you've actually done those techniques. Much less say that you could pull them off in a bad situation.



You are so _precious!!_

I mean, you do know that people all over the world who have never shot anyone, go out and shoot people-from  cops to terrorists to soldiers-they train to shoot, then they shoot.....you do know that all those people to whom you're referring-who've disclocated whatever, knocked out whomever, *stabbed* whomever, had never done any of those things until they did them, but likely had _trained_ to do them before they did?

I, for instance, never stabbed anyone before I trained to, never started up a nuclear reactor until I did-but had trained to first, had never shot a deer with an arrow without putting countless arrows into targets, never had broken an arm (and, yes, I've broken an arm) without training to do so without breaking one, never knocked anyone out (and yes, I've knocked a few people out, in "the ring" and out of it) without training to do so without doing so.

I never ran a marathon, until I did.
I never climbed a mountain, until I did.
I never sailed across an ocean, until I did.
I never dismantled a nuclear device, until I did.

I really could have died doing any of those things, but I didn't, because of training.......and, in the case of sailing across an ocean, maybe saying the right prayers.....

Some people are just so thick and blinded by what they *think* that they "know." It boggles the mind.....


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> You are so _precious!!_
> 
> I mean, you do know that people all over the world who have never shot anyone, go out and shoot people-from  cops to terrorists to soldiers-they train to shoot, then they shoot.....you do know that all those people to whom you're referring-who've disclocated whatever, knocked out whomever, *stabbed* whomever, had never done any of those things until they did them, but likely had _trained_ to do them before they did?



Yeah, but those people eventually did it, that's the point.

For example, you can train to run the marathon, but until you actually do it, you can't really say that you ran the marathon. You can't even honestly say that you're capable of running the marathon until you've done it. 

To say that you're capable of kicking a person's kee out when you've never done it before is wishful thinking at best, sheer dellusuion at worst.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but those people eventually did it, that's the point.
> 
> For example, you can train to run the marathon, but until you actually do it, you can't really say that you ran the marathon. You can't even honestly say that you're capable of running the marathon until you've done it.
> 
> To say that you're capable of kicking a person's kee out when you've never done it before is wishful thinking at best, sheer dellusuion at worst.



Nah. It's a matter of _physics._

If I can deliver a kick of (X) amount of force, and it exceeds what is required to break a knee, then I'm capable taking a person's knee out, whether I've done it before or not is immaterial. 

That people's knees are different (my knee might require (X) amount of force, while you're might require (X)+1 amount of force) and the factors that go into generating that force: speed, mass, etc., are variable from kicker to kicker, is a factor, but an immaterial one: if I can deliver a kick of sufficient force-greater than that required for any human knee- I can take out a knee....that being said, if one watches muay thai, they will see knees survive a variety of kicks, delivered by people who kick for a living (though no front kicks or side kicks to the knee are permitted)-while the knee is a legitimate target for self-defense, "taking the knee out" is not necessarily a likely goal.

In any case, if I can deliver a kick that generates a force greater than 3558 newtons, or roughly about 800 lbs. of pressure (less than a good punch, really) to the knee at the precise structural moment that the patella is vulnerable (i.e., when the knee is locked and straight, or in an equivalent-and rare-posture) I can "take out a knee." Period. Full stop. Don't have to do it, to know that I can......etc., etc., etc., yet another example of things you might _think_ that you know, when *you don't.*


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Nah. It's a matter of _physics._
> 
> If I can deliver a kick of (X) amount of force, and it exceeds what is required to break a knee, then I'm capable taking a person's knee out, whether I've done it before or not is immaterial.
> 
> That people's knees are different (my knee might require (X) amount of force, while you're might require (X)+1 amount of force) and the factors that go into generating that force: speed, mass, etc., are variable from kicker to kicker, is a factor, but an immaterial one: if I can deliver a kick of sufficient force-greater than that required for any human knee- I can take out a knee....that being said, if one watches muay thai, they will see knees survive a variety of kicks, delivered by people who kick for a living (though no front kicks or side kicks to the knee are permitted)-while the knee is a legitimate target for self-defense, "taking the knee out" is not necessarily a likely goal.
> 
> In any case, if I can deliver a kick that generates a force greater than 3558 newtons, or roughly about 800 lbs. of pressure (less than a good punch, really) to the knee at the precise structural moment that the patella is vulnerable (i.e., when the knee is locked and straight, or in an equivalent-and rare-posture) I can "take out a knee." Period. Full stop. Don't have to do it, to know that I can......etc., etc., etc., yet another example of things you might _think_ that you know, when *you don't.*



Where did I say it wasn't possible to kick someone's knee out if you've never done it before? I said that until you've actually done it, you can't honestly say that you can do it when the chips are down and you need that technique to save you from a big bad coming to harm you.

You've never actually kicked out a knee before. You don't know the amount of force you specifically need to dislocate that specific knee. You don't know the distance or timing necessary, and you lack the actual experience of doing it. It's like saying that landing a plane in a simulator is the same as actually landing a plane in the real world with passengers. If you've kicked out dozens of knees in your time, that's a different story, but if you're just doing one-step drills in the training hall, then you've never _really_ kicked someone's knee out, so you can't really say that you CAN kick someone's knee out.

This is why Jigaro Kano relegated dangerous strikes to kata and focused training on perfecting techniques you could actually do in class. I CAN perform kouchi Gake on someone because I've done it to people countless times in class and out of class under a variety of circumstances. I can do that because kouchi Gake is a relatively safe technique to perform on people. On the other hand, I can't go around kicking people's knees out to perfect my technique.


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> You are so _precious!!_
> 
> I mean, you do know that people all over the world who have never shot anyone, go out and shoot people-from  cops to terrorists to soldiers-they train to shoot, then they shoot.....you do know that all those people to whom you're referring-who've disclocated whatever, knocked out whomever, *stabbed* whomever, had never done any of those things until they did them, but likely had _trained_ to do them before they did?
> 
> I, for instance, never stabbed anyone before I trained to, never started up a nuclear reactor until I did-but had trained to first, had never shot a deer with an arrow without putting countless arrows into targets, never had broken an arm (and, yes, I've broken an arm) without training to do so without breaking one, never knocked anyone out (and yes, I've knocked a few people out, in "the ring" and out of it) without training to do so without doing so.
> 
> I never ran a marathon, until I did.
> I never climbed a mountain, until I did.
> I never sailed across an ocean, until I did.
> I never dismantled a nuclear device, until I did.
> 
> I really could have died doing any of those things, but I didn't, because of training.......and, in the case of sailing across an ocean, maybe saying the right prayers.....
> 
> Some people are just so thick and blinded by what they *think* that they "know." It boggles the mind.....


just for what it's worth, this has come up before.   I think that regarding the point above, it's important to distinguish between learning to do something and being qualified to teach something.   

I have real concerns about people claiming practical expertise in things that they have never actually done.  

Would you learn to climb a mountain from someone who's never done it?  Would you learn to sail from someone who's never been in a real boat?  I wouldn't.  But many people who learn "self defense" are actually learning to fight from people who have never done it.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:
			
		

> Where did I say it wasn't possible to kick someone's knee out if you've never done it before? I said that until you've actually done it, you can't honestly say that you can do it when the chips are down and you need that technique to save you from a big bad coming to harm you.
> You've never actually kicked out a knee before. You don't know the amount of force you specifically need to dislocate that specific knee. You don't know the distance or timing necessary, and you lack the actual experience of doing it. It's like saying that landing a plane in a simulator is the same as actually landing a plane in the real world with passengers. If you've kicked out dozens of knees in your time, that's a different story, but if you're just doing one-step drills in the training hall, then you've never _really_ kicked someone's knee out, so you can't really say that you CAN kick someone's knee out.



You shouldn't even go there, son..

It's likely that before you were born, and long before the world knew who Royce and Rorion Gracie were, I'd kicked out _at least_ three knees, just for the pleasure of watching the people who belonged to them scream and crawl on the floor.....*seriously.*....

.....before I *stompe*d on them, and, sometimes, took their wallets....

I _knew_ I could take out a knee-and, you're going to *hate* this- because I'd kicked out equivalent boards and pavers for the force required.Long before I'd "kicked out a knee," I *knew* I could kick out a knee, and did it-more than once-purely for the pleasure of it-as far as "self-defense" goes, it was, likely, completely unnecessary, no matter how "justified."

In any case, like I said, it's _physics_: we knew we could land a man on the moon and bring him home, before we launched Apollo 11. Human bodies just aren't that different.



			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> This is why Jigaro Kano relegated dangerous strikes to kata and focused training on perfecting techniques you could actually do in class. I CAN perform kouchi Gake on someone because I've done it to people countless times in class and out of class under a variety of circumstances. I can do that because kouchi Gake is a relatively safe technique to perform on people. On the other hand, I can't go around kicking people's knees out to perfect my technique.



Nope. Kano Jigoro never really intended to relegate strikes to kata-it just worked out that way before he died-he died trying to work it out, and, during WWII, judo shiai included strikes.....you're just *wrong* about this, like so many other things....more to the point, I know I can strike someone in the throat and watch them choke, not because I have (and *I have*) but because of physics, and human anatomy.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> just for what it's worth, this has come up before.   I think that regarding the point above, it's important to distinguish between learning to do something and being qualified to teach something.
> 
> I have real concerns about people claiming practical expertise in things that they have never actually done.
> 
> Would you learn to climb a mountain from someone who's never done it?  Would you learn to sail from someone who's never been in a real boat?



All somewhat valid....sometimes...in some situations...I learned to rappel from a man who'd never been on Everest (and, it turns out, you don't really need to know how to rappel to climb Everest...) I learned celestial navigation from a man (my father) who'd never sailed across the Atlantic, never sailed much in the Pacific-aside from coastal Hawaii, and never sailed the Southern Ocean, the Caribbean, or the South China Sea-all things I've done, and navigated, using the methods he taught me.




Steve said:


> .  But many people who learn "self defense" are actually learning to fight from people who have never done it.



And you know, I regularly seek out trained and experienced* killers* for training, but I've known more than a few trainers who'd never killed anyone, and trained killers themselves (and were, perhaps, _trained killers _without even knowing it themselves...)


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> All somewhat valid....sometimes...in some situations...I learned to rappel from a man who'd never been on Everest (and, it turns out, you don't really need to know how to rappel to climb Everest...) I learned celestial navigation from a man (my father) who'd never sailed across the Atlantic, never sailed much in the Pacific-aside from coastal Hawaii, and never sailed the Southern Ocean, the Caribbean, or the South China Sea-all things I've done, and navigated, using the methods he taught me.


yeah.  There's a dinstinctikn to be drawn when it comes to academic pursuits.   But the rappelling...  That guy may or may not have climbed Mount Everest.   But he'd rappelled. 



> And you know, I regularly seek out trained and experienced* killers* for training, but I've known more than a few trainers who'd never killed anyone, and trained killers themselves (and were, perhaps, _trained killers _without even knowing it themselves...)


this is kind of what I was getting at earlier.   I appreciate the responses here regarding the pillars of self defense.  When we get down to what people. Are actually training seems more like how to kill than how to defend.   At least, that's my impression when I read people's descriptions of their training.  Which leads me to questions like, is this consistent with the rhetoric of self defense training?  Or on a practical level, is this person qualified to teach others how to kill?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> just for what it's worth, this has come up before.   I think that regarding the point above, it's important to distinguish between learning to do something and being qualified to teach something.
> 
> I have real concerns about people claiming practical expertise in things that they have never actually done.
> 
> Would you learn to climb a mountain from someone who's never done it?  Would you learn to sail from someone who's never been in a real boat?  I wouldn't.  But many people who learn "self defense" are actually learning to fight from people who have never done it.



While there is SOME truth to what you say, it's far from universal.

I've never performed a thoracotomy with a pocket knife. But I have absolutely no doubt that I _could_.

I've never dislocated a shoulder. Or a knee. But I know how, and I've reduced plenty. I have no doubt that I could dislocate either, if I chose to.

The techniques aren't even all that different. There is a method of reducing an anterior shoulder dislocation which can also be used to cause a posterior dislocation. Exactly the same technique, other than the intent, really. I learned to use it to dislocate the shoulder years before I learned to reduce a dislocation.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Or on a practical level, is this person qualified to teach others how to kill?



On a practical level , ,look to the New York City, Atienza kali case.

A trained killer might not even know that he's a trained killer, training other killers. Just sayin'.....


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> While there is SOME truth to what you say, it's far from universal.
> 
> I've never performed a thoracotomy with a pocket knife. But I have absolutely no doubt that I _could_.
> 
> I've never dislocated a shoulder. Or a knee. But I know how, and I've reduced plenty. I have no doubt that I could dislocate either, if I chose to.
> 
> The techniques aren't even all that different. There is a method of reducing an anterior shoulder dislocation which can also be used to cause a posterior dislocation. Exactly the same technique, other than the intent, really. I learned to use it to dislocate the shoulder years before I learned to reduce a dislocation.


DD I think you're responding to hanzou.   I am no saying you couldn't do it.  I'm saying may you wouldn't be the right guy to teach it if you haven't done it.   But even this isn't universal.   While you may or may not be able to perform a specific technique, I would say that unless you had worked professionally as a nurse, you wouldn't be qualified to teach others to do the job.  We've discussed this in the past.   

Relevant to this thread, I still think there's a disconnect between what peop,e actually describe as their training mentality and self defense tactics and what they say is an appropriate self defense strategy.   The


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> On a practical level , ,look to the New York City, Atienza kali case.
> 
> A trained killer might not even know that he's a trained killer, training other killers. Just sayin'.....


Not familiar with it.   I'll look it up.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Not familiar with it.   I'll look it up.



When I was a callow lad in my 20's, there was no "Atienza kali," and their dad taught Pekiti tirsia....the Atienza fellas are not much older than my own kid, but one of Alain's students wound up killing a bouncer-I say justifiably, but he got screwed by his lawyer. In any case, Alain and his student were victims of their training:

Alain Atienza's dad trained him to kill. Alain trained Isaias Umali to kill.They were victims of their training: *killers*, but, _having never killed_, they just didn't know it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/nyregion/26cigarette.html?_r=0


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> You shouldn't even go there, son..
> 
> It's likely that before you were born, and long before the world knew who Royce and Rorion Gracie were, I'd kicked out _at least_ three knees, just for the pleasure of watching the people who belonged to them scream and crawl on the floor.....*seriously.*....
> 
> .....before I *stompe*d on them, and, sometimes, took their wallets....



Wow, you can't tell the difference between me using a general example, and speaking about you specifically. Amazing!



> In any case, like I said, it's _physics_: we knew we could land a man on the moon and bring him home, before we launched Apollo 11. Human bodies just aren't that different.



Yeah, but were we better at landing men on the moon the first time we did it, or the third time we did it?



> Nope. Kano Jigoro never really intended to relegate strikes to kata-it just worked out that way before he died-he died trying to work it out, and, during WWII, judo shiai included strikes.....you're just *wrong* about this, like so many other things....more to the point, I know I can strike someone in the throat and watch them choke, not because I have (and *I have*) but because of physics, and human anatomy.





> The striking techniques of judo are never practiced outside of kata as forceful or improper technique could lead to serious injuries or death.



Atemi-Waza

Oh who to believe.......


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but were we better at landing men on the moon the first time we did it, or the third time we did it?



How about this: *no.*

As in, _*No*, we weren't better at alanding men on the moon the first time we did it, or the third time we did it._
Think about it.....







Hanzou said:


> Atemi-Waza
> 
> Oh who to believe.......



Look up the Dai Nippon Butokukai, WWII, and judo....I'll wait-take your time.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> How about this: *no.*
> 
> As in, _*No*, we weren't better at alanding men on the moon the first time we did it, or the third time we did it._
> Think about it.....



So we learned nothing about landing on the moon between Apollo 11-17? Interesting.



> Look up the Dai Nippon Butokukai, WWII, and judo....I'll wait-take your time.



It would be a waste of time, since it's not relevant. The relevant point is that an individual who can perform a technique safely, can do that technique over and over again and become proficient at it. You simply can't say the same for dangerous or crippling techniques like knee dislocations from a stamping kick.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> So we learned nothing about landing on the moon between Apollo 11-17? Interesting.



Well, no, no we didn't-we basically did the same thing over and over again, on different parts of the moon, and sometimes with a car.

Apparently, we left the keys in the car, 'cause we're the only ones going back...






Hanzou said:


> It would be a waste of time, since it's not relevant. The relevant point is that an individual who can perform a technique safely, can do that technique over and over again and become proficient at it. You simply can't say the same for dangerous or crippling techniques like knee dislocations from a stamping kick.



But it is relevant, because-as I've pointed out repeatedly since your arrival on planet Martialtalk-it happens every day: cops and civilians shoot people, *to death*, without ever having shot anyone. Untrained civilians disarm armed robbers. Martial artists kick the asses off of assailants.....etc., etc., etc.....you're just wrong, actually-it's kind of amusing. Point is, you can practice a technique to proficiency without executing it to completion. ....write that down:_proficiency without execution to completion_ true of every killing technique anyone in any martial art ever learned....

....or did you think samurai actually cut each other's heads off for practice?


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> But it is relevant, because-as I've pointed out repeatedly since your arrival on planet Martialtalk-it happens every day: cops and civilians shoot people, *to death*, without ever having shot anyone. Untrained civilians disarm armed robbers. Martial artists kick the asses off of assailants.....etc., etc., etc.....you're just wrong, actually-it's kind of amusing. Point is, you can practice a technique to proficiency without executing it to completion. ....write that down:_proficiency without execution to completion_ true of every killing technique anyone in any martial art ever learned....



That's quite a load of crap. That's like saying a Bjj practitioner who never rolls, and only does solo drills would be as proficient as a practitioner who rolls consistently. Or it would be like saying a Judoka who does nothing but kata would be as proficient in throwing someone as a Judoka that is actually participating in randori and actually throwing people.

When the time comes to fight with their abilities, its highly doubtful that they'd be able to execute them properly. Much less be able to execute them as well as their peers who have actually executed their techniques against live opponents. To suggest otherwise is utter and complete nonsense.


----------



## Chrisoro

Hanzou said:


> That's quite a load of crap. That's like saying a Bjj practitioner who never rolls, and only does solo drills would be as proficient as a practitioner who rolls consistently.



No need for strawmen. I think what he is saying is more like saying a BJJ practitioner who never rolls, but only train partner drills in a controlled and safe fashion, would still likely be able to dislocate an elbow with an armbar in a self defense situation, despite never doing so in practice. Ofcourse, he wouldn't be as proficient as if he also sparred, but while sparring is definately a very good tool for increasing proficiency, especially against trained opponents fighting the same way as you do, it's not the only way to gain some proficiency, nor is it a requirement to be able to use your techniques in the real world.

I won my first two SW matches (in the beginners division, but still) about ten years ago, after only a little more than three months of Judo, and with practically no ne-waza randori prior to this, as they didn't want the whitebelts to focus on the ground game at all. Yet, the small amount of drilling I did with a pal after regular training of basic ground techniques, from some BJJ basics instructional video, let me win both of my first two matches by submissions I never learned anywhere else than from video. Is it probable that I would have done a lot better if I had rolled a lot during those three months! Of course. But did the lack of any ground sparring at all make it impossible for me to apply the techniques I had been drilling from video instruction, against resisting opponents in a competition setting? No.


----------



## Hanzou

Chrisoro said:


> No need for strawmen. I think what he is saying is more like saying a BJJ practitioner who never rolls, but only train partner drills in a controlled and safe fashion, would still likely be able to dislocate an elbow with an armbar in a self defense situation, despite never doing so in practice. Ofcourse, he wouldn't be as proficient as if he also sparred, but while sparring is definately a very good tool for increasing proficiency, especially against trained opponents fighting the same way as you do, it's not the only way to gain some proficiency, nor is it a requirement to be able to use your techniques in the real world.
> 
> I won my first two SW matches (in the beginners division, but still) about ten years ago, after only a little more than three months of Judo, and with practically no ne-waza randori prior to this, as they didn't want the whitebelts to focus on the ground game at all. Yet, the small amount of drilling I did with a pal after regular training of basic ground techniques, from some BJJ basics instructional video, let me win both of my first two matches by submissions I never learned anywhere else than from video. Is it probable that I would have done a lot better if I had rolled a lot during those three months! Of course. But did the lack of any ground sparring at all make it impossible for me to apply the techniques I had been drilling from video instruction, against resisting opponents in a competition setting? No.



Well this argument sprung from an argument between RTKDCMB and myself about this woman fighting back. RTKD suggested that she could use a stamping kick followed up by a knife hand to the throat. I suggested a takedown followed by a variety of possibilities. We then proceeded to point out the flaws in each other's approaches, and one of the flaws I pointed out in his approach is that (considering this woman is suddenly some sort of Karate master) she would have never actually kicked out a knee, or severely struck someone in the neck with a knife hand. Thus, she would be in a worst position than if she had taken a Bjj/MMA program where she actually performed takedowns and finishers against larger opponents.

I have no issue believing that through a high amount of repetition you can eventually become proficient. However, actually doing the act makes you MORE proficient than the person who has never done the act before. In that woman's situation, being proficient through experience and repetition would have been better than (possibly) being proficient through repetition alone.


----------



## Tgace

IMO, SD is 95% lifestyle and 5% physically fighting. How you live, where you live, who you hang with and what you do will always be your primary risk factors.

Sure ANYONE can be attacked ANYWHERE. Just like anyone can be struck by lightening anywhere...but if you decide to erect a steel flagpole on a hilltop while thunderheads are approaching...well.....


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Except for the fact that she would be significantly trained, and have plenty of experience performing that technique against a wide variety of people.



So she would be significantly rained if she did BJJ but not in a striking art?



Hanzou said:


> Just curious; How many times have you actually dislocated your classmate's knee with a side kick? How many times have you slammed your bladed hand into your classmate's neck after you dislocated their knee?



I don't need too that's why we train. There are a many things that people in my art have never done fulll contact on an attacker before but still managed to do it when it was required. I had never kneed someone in the ribs from a half kneeling position before (I had never even practiced it from that position before) but I did it, breaking several of his ribs, but I did it when I needed to.



Hanzou said:


> because you guys don't even spar



I must have been sleep walking all those years.



Hanzou said:


> then you've never actually done that technique. You have a hypothesis of what you believe will happen if you're in the position to do X and he's doing Y. You have no concept of the various effects that your attack would have depending on body type, weight, height, power, etc.



Which is why WE DO SPAR.



Hanzou said:


> On the other hand, I've actually done minor inner hooks on people hundreds of times. I've done modifications, I've done proper technique, I've done combinations if the person doesn't fall the way I want them to, I've even done them in MMA gyms where the guy is punching and kicking me. I've done them against big guys, little guys, women, young, old, etc.



And you have done all of those on violent attackers in the street?



Hanzou said:


> That's the difference. There's hypothesis and theory, and there's application. If you've never really applied the technique, you can't speak to its effectiveness. You simply have a model of what its supposed to look like.



Yes I can because I have intelligence and years of experience performing many techniques.



Hanzou said:


> considering this woman is suddenly some sort of Karate master



Or some sort of BJJ or MMA expert.



Hanzou said:


> she would have never actually kicked out a knee, or severely struck someone in the neck with a knife hand.



Unless she was trained properly. I suspect you have never been on the receiving end of a proper knifehand on a pad.



Hanzou said:


> I have no issue believing that through a high amount of repetition you can eventually become proficient. However, actually doing the act makes you MORE proficient than the person who has never done the act before. In that woman's situation, being proficient through experience and repetition would have been better than (possibly) being proficient through repetition alone.



You have no idea how we actually train, you have a hypothesis only.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> So she would be significantly rained if she did BJJ but not in a striking art?



Given the TKD/Karate schools in her area versus the Bjj/MMA schools in her area, yes.




> I don't need too that's why we train. There are a many things that people in my art have never done fulll contact on an attacker before but still managed to do it when it was required. I had never kneed someone in the ribs from a half kneeling position before (I had never even practiced it from that position before) but I did it, breaking several of his ribs, but I did it when I needed to.



Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.



> I must have been sleep walking all those years.
> 
> Which is why WE DO SPAR.



My mistake. I remember you discussing that the philosophy of your school was no-contact sparring.




> And you have done all of those on violent attackers in the street?



I have, more than I care to think about. But again, anecdotal evidence means nothing. We should look at the people who perform the art and using their abilities in a SD situation.




> Unless she was trained properly. I suspect you have never been on the receiving end of a proper knifehand on a pad.



I've been on the receiving in of plenty of karate black belt techniques. Few impress me.



> You have no idea how we actually train, you have a hypothesis only.



You're in Australia, so I'll agree with that. I'm talking about an American woman dealing with how TMA/Karate/TKD are generally taught in America.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Given the TKD/Karate schools in her area versus the Bjj/MMA schools in her area, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake. I remember you discussing that the philosophy of your school was no-contact sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have, more than I care to think about. But again, anecdotal evidence means nothing. We should look at the people who perform the art and using their abilities in a SD situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on the receiving in of plenty of karate black belt techniques. Few impress me.
> 
> 
> 
> You're in Australia, so I'll agree with that. I'm talking about an American woman dealing with how TMA/Karate/TKD are generally taught in America.



And youre such an expert of TMA's XD

Must be why you had to have bunkai explained to you, Thought newaza was all but cut out of judo (when kano still regularly taught it and his second treated it as one of the most important parts), assume KArate styles took anything from kickboxing,  been shown a million different clips and articles of people using TMAS in SD etc.

At one point Hanzou, you need to stop putting your foot in your mouth and attacking anything that isnt MMA/BJJ and just admit you dont know jack about TMA'S XD


----------



## Hanzou

Drose427 said:


> And youre such an expert of TMA's XD
> 
> Must be why you had to have bunkai explained to you,



Mostly because its BS. I just wanted to hear what you guys believed it was.



> Thought newaza was all but cut out of judo (when kano still regularly taught it and his second treated it as one of the most important parts),



Judo isn't a TMA, and I never said that newaza was all but cut out of Judo. 



> assume KArate styles took anything from kickboxing,



Didn't Elder even admit that Kyokushin took techniques from Muay Thai?

Oh, and Kyokushin isn't a TMA either.



> At one point Hanzou, you need to stop putting your foot in your mouth and attacking anything that isnt MMA/BJJ and just admit you dont know jack about TMA'S XD



Well based on your post above, your main gripe about my posts has nothing to do with TMAs in the first place.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Mostly because its BS. I just wanted to hear what you guys believed it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Judo isn't a TMA, and I never said that newaza was all but cut out of Judo.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Elder even admit that Kyokushin took techniques from Muay Thai?
> 
> Oh, and Kyokushin isn't a TMA either.
> 
> 
> 
> Well based on your post above, your main gripe about my posts has nothing to do with TMAs in the first place.




lol.

Thats why you didnt even know bunkai wasnt kata?

Judo _is_ a TMA...

Not sure how you think it isnt XD

And no, Elder didnt say that but youre not known for paying attention XD

If you go back and look, he said Japanese Kickboxing (not kyokushin, but hey again, you dont pay much attention to what we explain to you) took the leg as a TARGET. But were still blatantly doing karate XD

And You've always said anytime someone bring up Judo that Kano never liked it and just ignored it XD

Apparently according to you nothings a TMA XD

Either way I didnt say TMA's I said Karate Styles, which they still didnt take anything from Kickboxing XD


----------



## Jenna

This was a good thread with informative posts for some one like me who could do with it.. Surely yall have thoughts or some thing more useful, helpful or beneficial to contribute to the "pillars of Self Defence" idea than this? Not aimed anywhere in particular and but I do not know who is benefitting from this ***** in the middle of what was a decent thread???


----------



## Steve

Drose427 said:


> lol.
> 
> Thats why you didnt even know bunkai wasnt kata?
> 
> Judo _is_ a TMA...
> 
> Not sure how you think it isnt XD
> 
> And no, Elder didnt say that but youre not known for paying attention XD
> 
> If you go back and look, he said Japanese Kickboxing (not kyokushin, but hey again, you dont pay much attention to what we explain to you) took the leg as a TARGET. But were still blatantly doing karate XD
> 
> And You've always said anytime someone bring up Judo that Kano never liked it and just ignored it XD
> 
> Apparently according to you nothings a TMA XD
> 
> Either way I didnt say TMA's I said Karate Styles, which they still didnt take anything from Kickboxing XD


 What is this XD that you add to every line?  I don't get it.

To both you and Hanzou, regarding TMA, is BJJ a TMA? You guys are arguing about what is and isn't a TMA, which is a topic that has come up several times in the past around here.   Just curious what you guys are using as a measure for whether a style is or isn't a TMA.


----------



## Drose427

Steve said:


> What is this XD that you add to every line?  I don't get it.
> 
> To both you and Hanzou, regarding TMA, is BJJ a TMA? You guys are arguing about what is and isn't a TMA, which is a topic that has come up several times in the past around here.   Just curious what you guys are using as a measure for whether a style is or isn't a TMA.



its the non animated equivalent of laughing face 

and I have zero Idea what his criteria is, frankly hes not mmaking sense

In a nutshell, for me its an art with some sort of tradition. Be it how the class functions, culture thats kept, curriculum (nit all tmas have kata)

I regard BJJ as a TMA. If you find a traditional BJJ school, you can still find remnants of the Judo/Jujutsu ( Bowing, gi, respect, chain of command, etc.) While many schools are more laid back, thats the school and not the style


----------



## Steve

Drose427 said:


> its the non animated equivalent of laughing face
> 
> and I have zero Idea what his criteria is, frankly hes not mmaking sense
> 
> In a nutshell, for me its an art with some sort of tradition. Be it how the class functions, culture thats kept, curriculum (nit all tmas have kata)
> 
> I regard BJJ as a TMA. If you find a traditional BJJ school, you can still find remnants of the Judo/Jujutsu ( Bowing, gi, respect, chain of command, etc.) While many schools are more laid back, thats the school and not the style


That makes sense and I appreciate the explanation.  As I said, there have been many discussions just about this topic.  I recommend you take a gander at this thread and consider adding your two cents.  For what it's worth, I reread my contribution to that thread and my opinion hasn't changed a bit over the years. I still think I'm right.  XD  

Regarding the topic here, do you have thoughts on the fundamental pillars of self defense?  Sounds like you have an interesting and varied background in wrestling and also some TMA.


----------



## Drose427

Steve said:


> That makes sense and I appreciate the explanation.  As I said, there have been many discussions just about this topic.  I recommend you take a gander at this thread and consider adding your two cents.  For what it's worth, I reread my contribution to that thread and my opinion hasn't changed a bit over the years. I still think I'm right.  XD
> 
> Regarding the topic here, do you have thoughts on the fundamental pillars of self defense?  Sounds like you have an interesting and varied background in wrestling and also some TMA.



I'll take a look at those!

And I posted my thoughts on them around page one or two if you cared to take a look!


----------



## Steve

I'll go back and look.


----------



## Hanzou

A traditional martial art is an art that doesn't change after its inception, and adheres to tradition over innovation and improvement. Traditional arts also tend to contain a more complete curriculum, TMAs almost always contain striking, grappling, and traditional weapon training.

Modern martial arts are arts that tend to be eclectic, and are constantly changed to fit the conditions of a modern context. Most of the time they tend to focus on one major aspect, and are often sports. Kendo, Judo, and Karatedo being prime examples.

The sticky point is that there are arts that started off modern, and immediately picked up traditional habits. Or there are arts that like to pretend they are traditional, when in fact they're modern. For some reason, people believe that sport= less effective.


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Is the mind of humility relevant at all? I mean acceptance of limitation that the limitation might be overcome? what do you think? Jx



Yes.

I know a few street fighters. And if you engage in enough violence eventually you are going to get bashed. 

The better street fighters I have met are philosophical about it. 

I think it frees your mind from doubt a bit and allows you to act a bit more.


----------



## drop bear

elder999 said:


> Nah. It's a matter of _physics._
> 
> If I can deliver a kick of (X) amount of force, and it exceeds what is required to break a knee, then I'm capable taking a person's knee out, whether I've done it before or not is immaterial.
> 
> That people's knees are different (my knee might require (X) amount of force, while you're might require (X)+1 amount of force) and the factors that go into generating that force: speed, mass, etc., are variable from kicker to kicker, is a factor, but an immaterial one: if I can deliver a kick of sufficient force-greater than that required for any human knee- I can take out a knee....that being said, if one watches muay thai, they will see knees survive a variety of kicks, delivered by people who kick for a living (though no front kicks or side kicks to the knee are permitted)-while the knee is a legitimate target for self-defense, "taking the knee out" is not necessarily a likely goal.
> 
> In any case, if I can deliver a kick that generates a force greater than 3558 newtons, or roughly about 800 lbs. of pressure (less than a good punch, really) to the knee at the precise structural moment that the patella is vulnerable (i.e., when the knee is locked and straight, or in an equivalent-and rare-posture) I can "take out a knee." Period. Full stop. Don't have to do it, to know that I can......etc., etc., etc., yet another example of things you might _think_ that you know, when *you don't.*



Knee kicks hurt like the dickens but are almost never taken out.  We allow front kicks and side kicks. And even a good round kick to the knee will mess it up.

I don't know the math. But people are kicking as hard as they can. So whatever that is in newton to what a knee can take is something you can work out.

I don't really rate the science. Normally it only ever factors in half the variables. And is time better spent kicking people.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Knee kicks hurt like the dickens but are almost never taken out.  We allow front kicks and side kicks. And even a good round kick to the knee will mess it up.
> 
> I don't know the math. But people are kicking as hard as they can. So whatever that is in newton to what a knee can take is something you can work out.
> 
> I don't really rate the science. Normally it only ever factors in half the variables. And is time better spent kicking people.


So which pillar does this fall under?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> So which pillar does this fall under?



The pillar of better basics done well.  Your core fighting process should be proven, effective and tested through alive training.  And not rationalised.

You are better of using a known technique that may be less effective than relying on a super technique you are not sure of. 

Once that is sorted out. Then you can go crazy making stuff up on the fly.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> The pillar of better basics done well.  Your core fighting process should be proven, effective and tested through alive training.  And not rationalised.
> 
> You are better of using a known technique that may be less effective than relying on a super technique you are not sure of.
> 
> Once that is sorted out. Then you can go crazy making stuff up on the fly.


so kicking someone in the knee is a super technique that were not sure of?  Seems very basic to me


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> so kicking someone in the knee is a super technique that were not sure of?  Seems very basic to me



Kicking someone in the knee is a basic technique. Kicking someone's knee out because science. Is a super technique we are not sure of.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Kicking someone in the knee is a basic technique. Kicking someone's knee out because science. Is a super technique we are not sure of.


YOU are not sure of there is a difference


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> YOU are not sure of there is a difference



No. That is the basic premis of my pillar. If you have kicked a dozen peoples knees out. Then knee kicking is a viable high percentage move.

Proven,effective and tested through alive training.

If you haven't then it is a unproven concept. And all the faulty science in the world wont justify it.


----------



## drop bear

And just quickly regarding science we generally do not look at strikes in terms of force. It is kind of sort of looked at in terms of pressure.

Difference Between Force and Pressure

But even then not really. So when someone states that it takes X amount of newtons to break a knee with no source and only half the story. You really are not getting the full truth.

It is like clinical testing done on a beauty product. It is not real science.


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> No. That is the basic premis of my pillar. If you have kicked a dozen peoples knees out. Then knee kicking is a viable high percentage move.
> 
> Proven,effective and tested through alive training.
> 
> If you haven't then it is a unproven concept. And all the faulty science in the world wont justify it.



The scientifc formulas an math are solid.

If it takes x force to shatter a knee from kicking it in the from the side, and you can generate X force on Ice or Cement, you have the power and tech to shattter a knee.


Its the variables

You cant kick out a bent knee from the front, itd have to be straight to hyper-extend

You have to get your side kick dead on to the side of the knee, from the back, you'll just buckle it. The knee will bend naturally instead of shattering.


----------



## Brian King

Buka said:


> I reread the OP again. Picked up something I missed. The question was "With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ *for the women described above*?"



Thanks Buka, what I was trying to do by linking the video was to give focus on the type of "self-defense" I had in mind when asking peoples opinion on 'pillars of self-defense' of the type of assaults that are common to women. There are so many different types of violence in our world and folks experience many of them but I doubt that they have experienced all of them. I thought that the visual and audio of the video would help to focus the discussion to start on a particular type of violence, one that far too many women have to face. 
*
"for the women described above?" *What I was trying to do was to limit the childish hypotheticals, she should have, if she would have done this, type of wasted band width. I was hoping (which happened for the most part) to keep the discussion more general rather than focusing on this one particular house wife. Looking below at me quoting my self...umm...anyway, the blued text is the 'type of 'women' I was trying to focus the discussion toward. Women rather than woman. 



Brian King said:


> For the start of this exploration (thread drift happens and can be interesting) let’s assumes that the prospective student is married, with small children, and limited training time – say once or twice a week for a year. The kind of attack that she may face, could be assault in a parking garage, road rage, work place violence, domestic abuse, violent robbery, wrong place wrong time violence, and home invasion. Or we can assume that she might be single, so we could add date rape violence, bar/night club violence, woman on woman violence to the list. Attacks against the elderly are brutal as well, and in some areas becoming common place, so we could add healthcare/ nursing home violence to the possible list above.
> 
> This video, taken with a nanny cam captures the violence that is common of assaults against women by men. They are violent and brutal. With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ for the women described above? Warning, video is violent.



Loved your 'pillars' 
On pillar #9 Heart. What do you mean by this? Would you be willing to expand that thought?

Thanks for posting sir
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

ballen0351 said:


> It was fun I got to do all the fun things new hires do (drivers training, firearms, Defensive tactics) with out all the yelling and push ups.
> 
> I dont know if you can have 1 set of pillars for all people unless you go very broad like awareness, avoidance,etc.  What works for me and Id consider MY pillar wouldn't work for my wife for example.  So Im not sure there are pillars you can use across the board without getting to broad.  So a my self defense pillars are to always be armed, my mindset is always prepared, No matter where I go I look for exits, cover and concealment. If Im with my family Im even more guarded and would be less inclined to intervene in a situation.
> 
> Perhaps but I think in my opinion her biggest problem was she was in her own home with her kid. I dont know if there is anything you can do to prepare yourself for that since for most that's the ultimate nightmare.  Even still the best training is no guarantee your going to react as you train. I have seen officers freeze in a serious stressful situation.  When I was on Swat I watched a guy fresh out of Swat school on his first raid totally forget to take out his weapon his brain locked he just held on to my vest followed me when we were secure I looked at him and he never had his weapon out.  I asked him and he said he had no idea everything was just so fast and he couldn't get his mind to function.
> So I think stress training can help but its no guarantee since even the hardest training is still not real.  We never know how we will react when it gets real



So perhaps you would say that the primary 'pillar' is to know yourself and to seek the best training to allow one to address identified weaknesses and to build on their own individual strengths? To approach 'cookie cutter' self defense programs and advice' cautiously as they are often very broad and by design shallow? Knowing yourself also means to know which situations to intervene and get involved with so as to not recklessly and perhaps needlessly endanger yourself, family, and others? Did I get near the ten ring? 

Thanks for sharing sir
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

jks9199 said:


> We're talking about the pillars of self defense. In context, a pillar is a foundation or key element, without which the structure cannot stand. Self defense, in this context, I would define as being protection oneself from physical assault and violent crime. You can expand it to include emotional/psychological crime, as well, but if we aren't careful as we expand it we'll end up with something that's gone from already pretty darn wide to something that's unworkable.
> 
> 
> We also need to put a caveat in place: dealing with violence is really like the old story of the blind men and the elephant. For those unfamiliar with the story – a group of men, blind from birth, are led to an elephant. Each approaches it, and examines what comes in reach. So... one describes it as being like a snake, another a tree trunk, the third like a bridge over his head, and so on, with each describing what they encountered. Do any of them really understand “elephant?” No – only that little bit they came into contact with. Violence and self protection are much the same; I'm familiar with imposing force on people, and protecting myself in one sort of situation as a cop. But it's not the same as Jenna's experience as a woman, or even Tez's experience as a female cop in another country. It's not even the same as ballen's experience, not too far from where I am. My direct knowledge of the subject is limited to my direct experience, which is shaped by who I am (physically and psychologically), my profession, where I live and work, who I associate with, where I grew up, and so on. My mediated knowledge (stuff I've learned from research and reading and talking to others) is wider – but it's not the same as direct experience. (I'm sure I'm not the first to use the blind men and the elephant in this context.)
> 
> 
> So... what are the pillars of self defense, in my opinion? Let's start with *awareness* – actually knowing, realistically, with what's going on around you, and what's likely to happen. This is an active skill, requiring practice and work. From awareness, we can move to *avoidance* – taking steps to prevent being the victim, including things like not looking like a target or traveling to places where we're likely to be victims, and, being aware of an imminent problem, taking steps before any actual or direct contact is made to prevent it. It might be as simple as taking a different cab than the Uber driver who gives you a sketchy feeling, or crossing the street – or just recognizing that you're a stranger in a strange land, and had best get yourself back to the right side of the tracks, and doing it. Once avoidance is impossible or has failed – we move into *conflict management and de-escalation*. Can we talk our way out of trouble? If a buy the guy who's girl I just unknowingly hit on a drink – can we avoid the whole Monkey Dance and ensuing fight? What can I do to prevent or avoid violence. (Sometimes, the answer is nothing!) Finally, we get into *physical skills*. At this point, we need to address things like recovering from an ambush, handling a freeze, and just plain how to deal with the attack. _“No one system has a monopoly on truth”_ – some may be better suited to giving you useful skills rapidly, but all of them have something good to offer. And something bad to avoid... Then, when everything is over and done with – we have to deal with the *aftermath*, the ramifications and consequences. This ranges from self-care for injuries, to dealing with the cops, and has to include dealing with the mental and emotional fall out of a violent encounter.
> 
> 
> Think about it... each of those areas is worth a post – probably a thread! – all it's own.



Wow, wonderful well thought out and written post JKS9199. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your thoughts. 

If you could expand a bit, above you wrote that awareness requires practice and work. Can you give a couple of examples or experiences?
You also wrote a bit about the aftermath, the ramifications and consequences. I do think that this subject is more than worthy of a separate thread, but until that happens, can you take some time and expand a bit on this. I think people are often not aware of the possible costs of violence and the effects it can have not only on those involved, but witnesses, family members, co workers, etc. Huge subject, but would love to read some of your thoughts. 

Thanks for the time and again, excellent post. Thank you.
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Tgace said:


> IMO, SD is 95% lifestyle and 5% physically fighting. How you live, where you live, who you hang with and what you do will always be your primary risk factors.
> 
> Sure ANYONE can be attacked ANYWHERE. Just like anyone can be struck by lightening anywhere...but if you decide to erect a steel flagpole on a hilltop while thunderheads are approaching...well.....



Thanks Tgace, concise wise post. Perhaps this pillar could be 'don't break the 4 S rule'  and live your life by being a good normal person. 

Thanks again for posting
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Jenna said:


> Is the mind of humility relevant at all? I mean acceptance of limitation that the limitation might be overcome? what do you think? Jx





elder999 said:


> Humility might be just what some need to get through the aftermath.....it really has n_ext to no place at all _in the encounter itself.





drop bear said:


> Yes.
> 
> I know a few street fighters. And if you engage in enough violence eventually you are going to get bashed.
> 
> The better street fighters I have met are philosophical about it.
> 
> I think it frees your mind from doubt a bit and allows you to act a bit more.



Thanks folks, very interesting question Jenna, might be well worth a thread of its own, I would eagerly read it. 
Interesting thoughts by all, Jenna, Elder999 and by Drop Bear. Thank you all for posting. Can you expand the thoughts a bit?

Thanks again and thank you in advance,
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Buka

Brian King said:


> On pillar #9 Heart. What do you mean by this? Would you be willing to expand that thought?



A fighter can have all the skills in the world, but no heart. When pressed enough, the fighter will break.
A fighter can have tremendous heart, but no skill. Having heart will help - it will keep you going, probably to the hospital where you might be admired for taking a beating for as long as you did. But a decently skilled person with heart - tough to beat.

I don't know if some folks are born with it, if it just comes naturally to them, yeah, maybe. But it can be developed through hard work and pushing oneself through limitations, constantly. "Constantly" is key - at least in the context of "I pushed myself once, boy, was I tired". Sammy Davis Jr once described what a professional was. He said, "A professional is someone who does a good job even when he doesn't feel like it." I think that touches upon it, obviously in a much softer context, but I think the basic idea is similar.

I think it's as much phycological as it is physical. (and not physiological at all) It can be developed. But it takes time.
For instance - going to class is easy when you feel like going to class. Not going is so much easier when you don't feel like going, or when you're tired, depressed, busy, have little time, have other things on your mind etc. I think it's easy, (fun even) to spar with someone your used to and comfortable with. It's another thing entirely to spar with someone you're not comfortable with. And I don't mean someone necessarilly more skilled than you, I mean the ones you just don't like sparring with for whatever reason. But guess what? You ain't going to be comfortable defending yourself, either, against anybody. Defending yourself is not a comfortable thing, no matter how good you are, or how good you think you are. And that has nothing to do with your skill level and everything to do with heart.

Say you do pushups as part of your training (be it in the arts or whatever), if the goal was to do as many as you could - it's not the number that counts, it's when you decide you've done them all. If I dropped fifty K on the floor in front of you, could you have done one more? If a loved ones health depended on you doing one more, could you have done one more? You would have to honestly answer "no" if you actually were doing as many as you could. Things like this, pushing your limits consistantly in fitness or anything else (consistantly being key) develops your "heart", your will, your grit, your resolve, your mettle, your pluck, your spirit.

Some will say that has nothing to do with defending yourself sucessfully. I say it has everything to do with defending yourself sucessfully. In fact, it has everything to do with with everything IMO.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> A traditional martial art is an art that doesn't change after its inception, and adheres to tradition over innovation and improvement.


So we've established that you don't know what a traditional art is.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> So we've established that you don't know what a traditional art is.


 While I don't agree with everything Hanzou says, to be fair, I don't think anyone knows what a traditional art is.  My point of referencing the other thread is to suggest that everyone has a different, personal definition.  There is certainly overlap, but your definition is going to depend on a lot of things that are largely subjective.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Steve said:


> While I don't agree with everything Hanzou says, to be fair, I don't think anyone knows what a traditional art is.  My point of referencing the other thread is to suggest that everyone has a different, personal definition.  There is certainly overlap, but your definition is going to depend on a lot of things that are largely subjective.



Agree to a point, the problem with defining traditional arts is at least part of that definition is subject to the culture that the art comes from.

However stating  "A traditional martial art is an art that doesn't change after its inception, and adheres to tradition over innovation and improvement." shows a complete lack of understanding of traditional arts, their history and development and is just plain wrong even across cultures.

Traditional arts tend to change greatly after their inception, and they tend to adhere to function and usefulness over tradition and innovation and improvement happens and happened constantly throughout their history and anyone who actually studied these arts and their history would know this and therefore would not make such statements since it shows a very limited knowledge of the topic being discussed


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> My mistake. I remember you discussing that the philosophy of your school was no-contact sparring.



Do you not consider non-contact sparring to be sparring?



Hanzou said:


> Given the TKD/Karate schools in her area versus the Bjj/MMA schools in her area, yes.



And what do you know of the schools in her area?



Hanzou said:


> Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.



I have already explained to you how evidence works. I have still provided more evidence than you have. All evidence is anecdotal to you if you have not seen it with your own eyes in person or on video.



Hanzou said:


> I've been on the receiving in of plenty of karate black belt techniques. Few impress me.



I have seen a few students from other martial arts including kickboxing and few impress me. You have never been on the receiving end of any of our black belts so there is really nothing you can compare it to.



Hanzou said:


> We should look at the people who perform the art and using their abilities in a SD situation.



Which I have done, whether you choose to accept it or not.



Hanzou said:


> You're in Australia, so I'll agree with that. I'm talking about an American woman dealing with how TMA/Karate/TKD are generally taught in America.



I don't know enough about how it is taught in the USA to comment with any authority.

Back to your theory comment. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable (must be able to show its ineffectiveness) If I state that my martial art is effective against aliens from the Andromeda galaxy then without ever being able to produce one it could not be falsified. All the evidence that I have seen so far shows my art is effective for self defense, it has not been falsified so far.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> While I don't agree with everything Hanzou says, to be fair, I don't think anyone knows what a traditional art is.  My point of referencing the other thread is to suggest that everyone has a different, personal definition.  There is certainly overlap, but your definition is going to depend on a lot of things that are largely subjective.


True, but to suggest that a traditional is one that never changes is flat out wrong.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Do you not consider non-contact sparring to be sparring?



Nope.



> And what do you know of the schools in her area?



Look up Millburn NJ TKD and/or Karate. The websites of various schools should tell the tale.





> I have already explained to you how evidence works. I have still provided more evidence than you have. All evidence is anecdotal to you if you have not seen it with your own eyes in person or on video.



Well exactly. I can say I took down 10 knife-wielding crazies with my baby finger while I sat at a table eating ramen noodles. There's no way for you to prove that I'm lying. Having video evidence is one of the best ways to verify someone's claim, especially when an ocean separates two parties.




> I have seen a few students from other martial arts including kickboxing and few impress me. You have never been on the receiving end of any of our black belts so there is really nothing you can compare it to.



Cool.



> Back to your theory comment. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable (must be able to show its ineffectiveness) If I state that my martial art is effective against aliens from the Andromeda galaxy then without ever being able to produce one it could not be falsified. All the evidence that I have seen so far shows my art is effective for self defense, it has not been falsified so far.



That's all fine and good, but to say that you're going to have a practitioner be able to dislocate someone's knee in a dangerous situation without ever actually dislocating someone's knee before, is a pretty tall order.

Meanwhile;


----------



## jks9199

RTKDCMB said:


> So we've established that you don't know what a traditional art is.





Steve said:


> While I don't agree with everything Hanzou says, to be fair, I don't think anyone knows what a traditional art is.  My point of referencing the other thread is to suggest that everyone has a different, personal definition.  There is certainly overlap, but your definition is going to depend on a lot of things that are largely subjective.



I think it's perhaps more fair to say that he has a more idiosyncratic definition than many people use -- but he also has a clearer definition than many people.  That said, guys...  Kind of off topic.  Maybe starting another thread (yet another time...) or reviving an existing thread about the definitions would be a good idea?


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> I think it's perhaps more fair to say that he has a more idiosyncratic definition than many people use -- but he also has a clearer definition than many people.  That said, guys...  Kind of off topic.  Maybe starting another thread (yet another time...) or reviving an existing thread about the definitions would be a good idea?


Agreed and exactly why i shared the link to the other thread.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Nope.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion even when it's wrong.



Hanzou said:


> Look up Millburn NJ TKD and/or Karate. The websites of various schools should tell the tale.



Doesn't answer my question.



Hanzou said:


> Well exactly. I can say I took down 10 knife-wielding crazies with my baby finger while I sat at a table eating ramen noodles. There's no way for you to prove that I'm lying.



As with all claims they have to be evaluated on whether they are reasonable or highly unlikely with a bit of common sense. There would be no way to determine if you are lying about your finger prowess but that kind of claim seems very unlikely. A claim that I could break someone's knee with a side kick is far more likely given my training, experience, skill and physical condition is far more likely to be true. Your claim in this comment is an example of a false analogy, taking it to an absurdity.



Hanzou said:


> Having video evidence is one of the best ways to verify someone's claim, especially when an ocean separates two parties.



Video evidence is still very limiting unless you are planning to follow many students around with a video camera every where they go just in case they get into a self defense situation.

There is a disparity between having videos of combat sports (many are televised or public events) than noncompetitive self defense arts because most assaults (fights) in the 'street' go unrecorded and unnoticed by the general public. When it comes to self dense skills absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.




Hanzou said:


> That's all fine and good, but to say that you're going to have a practitioner be able to dislocate someone's knee in a dangerous situation without ever actually dislocating someone's knee before, is a pretty tall order.



Not as tall as you might think.



Hanzou said:


> Meanwhile;



I am sure there is a point in there somewhere.


----------



## RTKDCMB

jks9199 said:


> Maybe starting another thread (yet another time...) or reviving an existing thread about the definitions would be a good idea?


May be there could be a section devoted to definitions somewhere?


----------



## Zero

Hanzou said:


> That's all fine and good, but to say that you're going to have a practitioner be able to dislocate someone's knee in a dangerous situation without ever actually dislocating someone's knee before, is a pretty tall order.


Not too sure about that one, numerous H2H techs were trained in WWII, not used to "lethal effect", nor debilitating effect nor anywhere near so (it's not too great for the war effort and you run out of volunteers quite quick) in training and then put into real, lethal effect in combat.  Sure not nearly as many times as some would have you believe but there are documented accounts of troops killing enemies with H2H techs.

On a much more simple level, the first time I knocked out an opponent in a tournament was the first time I had ever done so with a high kick, I had never knocked anyone out with a kick before in training.  So if I can knock someone out, why can't a grappler go through their tech to breakage when only having applied in controlled manner previously in training?

Or are you really saying you have gone to max on all of your bjj techs on your training partners (and due to this trail of discarded, broken human beings, you now know you can put your moves to full effect in da hood)?


----------



## Zero

Anyway, this thread by Brian is a great one.  It got me thinking of the "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by TE Lawrence.  A damn good and fascinating martial read (but I have not been able to get through all volumes) and a great addition alongside the likes of the Art of War, etc.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Not too sure about that one, numerous H2H techs were trained in WWII, not used to "lethal effect", nor debilitating effect nor anywhere near so (it's not too great for the war effort and you run out of volunteers quite quick) in training and then put into real, lethal effect in combat.  Sure not nearly as many times as some would have you believe but there are documented accounts of troops killing enemies with H2H techs.
> 
> On a much more simple level, the first time I knocked out an opponent in a tournament was the first time I had ever done so with a high kick, I had never knocked anyone out with a kick before in training.  So if I can knock someone out, why can't a grappler go through their tech to breakage when only having applied in controlled manner previously in training?
> 
> Or are you really saying you have gone to max on all of your bjj techs on your training partners (and due to this trail of discarded, broken human beings, you now know you can put your moves to full effect in da hood)?



Submissions are a different dynamic in that you can hold a person in a sub for real in exactly the same way you would do at training. 

If a person can fight through the pain and immobilisation of your submission you will know about it in advance. Unlike a potentially bone breaking strike. Which will be guess work.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Brian King said:


> Fundamental pillars of self-defense?
> 
> In the thread “Is grappling better for female self-defense than striking?” the idea of  a fundamental pillar of self-defense” came up. Warning – while interesting, it is a long thread with a lot of- this is better than this, you know nothings, I knows all, type of posts. The talk of ‘fundamental pillars’ did start me wondering what different people would include as fundamental pillars of self-defense training. I imagine that the answers might depend on the culture lived in, the type of attacks experienced, capabilities and limitations of those training, length of time available for the training, and a host of other variables. I searched and found the thread “self-Defense???” interesting but different than a discussion on what folks expect or teach as specific pillars of self-defense.
> 
> For the start of this exploration (thread drift happens and can be interesting) let’s assumes that the prospective student is married, with small children, and limited training time – say once or twice a week for a year. The kind of attack that she may face, could be assault in a parking garage, road rage, work place violence, domestic abuse, violent robbery, wrong place wrong time violence, and home invasion. Or we can assume that she might be single, so we could add date rape violence, bar/night club violence, woman on woman violence to the list. Attacks against the elderly are brutal as well, and in some areas becoming common place, so we could add healthcare/ nursing home violence to the possible list above.
> 
> This video, taken with a nanny cam captures the violence that is common of assaults against women by men. They are violent and brutal. With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ for the women described above? Warning, video is violent.
> 
> https://youtu.be/qU0EJS3cJIc
> 
> Along with the suggested pillars, how about some reasoning of why, and how to train them?
> 
> Now, everyone reading this thread can agree that there can be more than one way to solve a problem. For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula, depends entirely on context. Let’s try to discuss the messages and not so much the messengers although a little background on the posters experiences if they want, might help to add context?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Brian King



Brian R. VanCise covers it pretty well so I really can't add much there. However I would look at many of those as the foundation on which the pillars sit. But I am not in anyway disputing what Brian said, it is simply my opinion. And those things on which they sit are equally important



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Here are a few fundamental pillars of self-defense as I see it*: avoidance, awareness, strategy and tactics specific to violence in your area and violence in general, verbal and non-verbal de-escalation techniques, understanding human behavior in regards to criminal behavior in your area, training in weapons/tools, kicking, hand strikes, trapping hands and joint manipulation, grappling.   Heavy dose of Scenario Based Training where the person training learns to deal with adrenaline. Attribute training so that you can implement your physical skills:  such as but not limited to strength training, aerobic training (with air), anaerobic training (without air), stretching, plus a lot more.  Specific things for attribute training ie. weight lifting, kettle bells, Bulgarian bag, running, sprints, swimming, bicycling, hiking, kayaking, etc.  All in all a very fit lifestyle.
> 
> *If you pose a very specific course for the woman above* who only can train a couple of times a week and for only a year then obviously you have to get them consciously thinking about their personal protection so that they will raise their awareness and avoid areas that may be potentially dangerous for them.  Help them learn to strategically reduce their victim profile and tactics they can employ for verbal and non-verbal de-escalation.  Then a goal to improve their fitness while training heavily how to strike with their hands, elbows and knees. (skip kicks because they take quite a bit longer to develop though if they had longer then you could add it in)  Basic functional grappling with emphasis on sprawl, guard with sweeps and getting back up as quickly as possible and getting out of there.  *Heavy and I mean heavy edged weapons training and firearms training*.  If you are good with a tool and can deploy it efficiently you have an extreme advantage!  We are a tool wielding species so take advantage of that!
> 
> I had to type this quickly so I know I have forgotten to mention a few things.





Flying Crane said:


> I suspect that most people are going to recommend whatever system it is that they train in.



Now to recommend what you find in CMA. it is fairly short
1) kicking and punching
2) Shuaijiao
3) Qinna

Those are the fundamental things (could call them pillars I guess) found in all CMA styles to varying degrees since all are necessary for proper SD



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Great topic Brian!



Yes it was but sadly there are those that got involved that are more interested in the "mine is bigger than yours" discussion and "bashing all arts they no nothing about"...you know...trolls....


----------



## drop bear

Otherwise I don't know how good your google fu is but I have never seen a video of a knee being broken from a kick. I have seen limbs broken from submissions. And in a deliberate and methodical manner.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> Otherwise I don't know how good your google fu is but I have never seen a video of a knee being broken from a kick. I have seen limbs broken from submissions. And in a deliberate and methodical manner.



Well, that's because the knee isn't a legal target in MMA, or most ring _contests_...here ya go, though:






and for an anatomical education:


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Submissions are a different dynamic in that you can hold a person in a sub for real in exactly the same way you would do at training.
> 
> If a person can fight through the pain and immobilisation of your submission you will know about it in advance. Unlike a potentially bone breaking strike. Which will be guess work.



Uhh, I think we are agreeing here?  I have many years submission experience so this submission stuff and its dynamics ain't new to me.

My point is, and was, that, if you can do a submission tech right in class, you can take it all the way in reality to a break/tear/choke-out.  And so, Hanzou's concern that a dislocation in real life is not much of a possibility for someone that has not already dislocated someone's limb previously does not stack up in my view.

Are we friends and agreeing here or are we totally out of sorts on this one?


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Uhh, I think we are agreeing here?  I have many years submission experience so this submission stuff and its dynamics ain't new to me.
> 
> My point is, and was, that, if you can do a submission tech right in class, you can take it all the way in reality to a break/tear/choke-out.  And so, Hanzou's concern that a dislocation in real life is not much of a possibility for someone that has not already dislocated someone's limb previously does not stack up in my view.
> 
> Are we friends and agreeing here or are we totally out of sorts on this one?



Probably half and half. Getting a limb to the point of immobilisation and having your partner screaming is a lot better argument for saying you could break it than lightly tapping it with a strike.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Otherwise I don't know how good your google fu is but I have never seen a video of a knee being broken from a kick. I have seen limbs broken from submissions. And in a deliberate and methodical manner.


Jebus, you're kidding right?  You think the knee is a hard target for strikes?  Straight on it is a killer hard surface but from the side it is incredibly vulnerable to staving in/folding from a shin attack or foot strike (side or heel).  It is also vulnerable from a stomp coming down from on top into the knee - this has been done to me under control in sparing from a very skilled fighter so I know so, but I have never done this myself, although have "trained it".  I have finished fights with knee attacks and have been injured myself - and couldn't fight for three months - from a shin attack to side of my knee by a Japanese fella at an invitational.


----------



## drop bear

elder999 said:


> Well, that's because the knee isn't a legal target in MMA, or most ring _contests_...here ya go, though:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and for an anatomical education:



Sorry where is the knee not a legal target in mma?

Nice vid by the way.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Probably half and half. Getting a limb to the point of immobilisation and having your partner screaming is a lot better argument for saying you could break it than lightly tapping it with a strike.


Ah, no I think we are agreeing, you just don't want to be friends!  I am only arguing against Hanzou from his view as to submission = break, etc without previous experience in actually breaking.  My point was that if I can do this with striking, clearly this could be done with submission.

Although, breaking bones aside with strikes, I see no real difference in training subs and taking to break point if needed (you always have to get your submission on ok, don't assume this is just going to happen) and training strikes and taking that to KOs in tournament or street.  My clubs, particularly my old goju club where I earned my stripes, don't do your "lightly tap" thing...


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Jebus, you're kidding right?  You think the knee is a hard target for strikes?  Straight on it is a killer hard surface but from the side it is incredibly vulnerable to staving in/folding from a shin attack or foot strike (side or heel).  It is also vulnerable from a stomp coming down from on top into the knee - this has been done to me under control in sparing from a very skilled fighter so I know so, but I have never done this myself, although have "trained it".  I have finished fights with knee attacks and have been injured myself - and couldn't fight for three months - from a shin attack to side of my knee by a Japanese fella at an invitational.



Round kicks to the knee are a common strike.

Have you broken a guys knee or not?

It was a bit unclear in that post.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Ah, no I think we are agreeing, you just don't want to be friends!  I am only arguing against Hanzou from his view as to submission = break, etc without previous experience in actually breaking.  My point was that if I can do this with striking, clearly this could be done with submission.
> 
> Although, breaking bones aside with strikes, I see no real difference in training subs and taking to break point if needed (you always have to get your submission on ok, don't assume this is just going to happen) and training strikes and taking that to KOs in tournament or street.  My clubs, particularly my old goju club where I earned my stripes, don't do your "lightly tap" thing...



Heavy strikes to limbs or punch people in the head untill they fall over?

Because again here we could say heavy strikes will work in training like they work for reals.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> Otherwise I don't know how good your google fu is but I have never seen a video of a knee being broken from a kick. I have seen limbs broken from submissions. And in a deliberate and methodical manner.



Not sure how good yours is either since googlefu brings in a range from 15lbs to 30lbs of pressure to break a knee, but this all depends on the angle the knee is hit. The 15 to 30 number apperaees to be straight on from a front kick. Now 15 to 30 is quite a range and I am still looking for a site or source I consider reputable before I unequivocally state it is this many pounds of pressure. But I believe the average kick can deliver more that 15 to 30 pounds of pressure to the knee


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> Sorry where is the knee not a legal target in mma?



Yeah, my bad..I've actually seen a couple in MMA, now that I think about it....



drop bear said:


> Nice vid by the way.



Yeah, an oldie but a goodie....


----------



## Zero

DropBear:

Check out 4:23 and 5:00 below (Andy Hug, the late great, is a legend)





Check out  15:07





Respect


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> Not sure how good yours is either since googlefu brings in a range from 15lbs to 30lbs of pressure to break a knee, but this all depends on the angle the knee is hit. The 15 to 30 number apperaees to be straight on from a front kick. Now 15 to 30 is quite a range and I am still looking for a site or source I consider reputable before I unequivocally state it is this many pounds of pressure. But I believe the average kick can deliver more that 15 to 30 pounds of pressure to the knee



At least we have moved on from force.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> DropBear:
> 
> Check out 4:23 and 5:00 below (Andy Hug, the late great, is a legend)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out  15:07
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respect



I am running out of credit. Are these going to be oblique kicks or side kicks breaking knees in a high percentage manner or are they going to be round kick dropping someone as part of a cumulative process.

I have mentioned kicks to the knee hurt like the dickens.


----------



## Steve

Xue Sheng said:


> Not sure how good yours is either since googlefu brings in a range from 15lbs to 30lbs of pressure to break a knee, but this all depends on the angle the knee is hit. The 15 to 30 number apperaees to be straight on from a front kick. Now 15 to 30 is quite a range and I am still looking for a site or source I consider reputable before I unequivocally state it is this many pounds of pressure. But I believe the average kick can deliver more that 15 to 30 pounds of pressure to the knee


I think that there are two different things being said here. 

While it may be technically true that the knee will break if struck by a range of 15 to 30 lbs of pressure, it's also true that it's a lot harder to do this against someone than one might think.    As drop bear pointed out, knees are not off limits within MMA and are a common target, yet I can't think of a time when I've seen the knee buckle.  This doesn't mean it can't happen, but does suggest that it's not as easy to do as it may seem.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> At least we have moved on from force.



Not really. Pressure can be  the exertion of a _force_ divided by the area of the object the _force_ is exerted upon. Force is a vector quantity, in that it has magnitude as well as direction: mass times acceleration-that speaks of a relative  _ motion's _ ability to displace an object, or change its state of motion. A _force_ can cause a body to move, stop, or change direction-think of breaking as changing direction, or moving, or both.....

_Pressure_, on the other hand, is a scalar quantity-not having direction, in most instances, only magnitude. Thus, we can think of atmospheric pressure as exerting a downward force, but it's a constant  force depending upon altitude that causes it-that _area_ portion is the important part in the pressure thing: if we can exert the same force that results X newtons per square meter onto a smaller area we will have greater results-that is to say, more apparent pressure.

Thusly, when we speak of moving bodies, and the breaking of objects, we really speak almost exclusively of force, rather than pressure-though we may quantify the magnitude of a blow by "pressure" (most gyms typically lacking the equipment to measure _both_ acceleration and pressure), ultimately, when one speaks of the "pressure" required to break a bone, that pressure corresponds to a commensurate "force" with three variables, really:

_Just how fast can you hit?
What is the area of the target? *and*
How much equivalent mass can you deliver to the target?_

The "how fast," and the "mass" part give us force. The "area" gives us pressure. Generally, we have no control over the area of the target itself, only the weapon delivering it-we have almost all the control over mass and acceleration...or, *force*.

Short answer: without _force_ there *is no* _pressure_. 



Steve said:


> I
> 
> While it may be technically true that the knee will break if struck by a range of 15 to 30 lbs of pressure, it's also true that it's a lot harder to do this against someone than one might think.    As drop bear pointed out, knees are not off limits within MMA and are a common target, yet I can't think of a time when I've seen the knee buckle.  This doesn't mean it can't happen, but does suggest that it's not as easy to do as it may seem.



The ring is not "self-defense" which is what this thread is about,and you can't wear steel-toed boots in there, either....


----------



## Xue Sheng

Steve said:


> I think that there are two different things being said here.
> 
> While it may be technically true that the knee will break if struck by a range of 15 to 30 lbs of pressure, it's also true that it's a lot harder to do this against someone than one might think.    As drop bear pointed out, knees are not off limits within MMA and are a common target, yet I can't think of a time when I've seen the knee buckle.  This doesn't mean it can't happen, but does suggest that it's not as easy to do as it may seem.



That is a front kick straight to the knee, and to throw in a Taiji term, with intent to break. Depending on the angle of the kick the amount of pressure needed changes


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> I am running out of credit. Are these going to be oblique kicks or side kicks breaking knees in a high percentage manner or are they going to be round kick dropping someone as part of a cumulative process.



You have all the credit you want, I just topped you up.  I can take you down in the ring or on the street with one hit to your knee just as likely as you can get a hold on and submit me in the ring or in the street. Depends what you mean by "break" too, that's an interesting matter given the many components of the knee and different parts to be damaged, it's not just like "breaking" an arm. You can definitely fold a knee with a hit to side in one go so your opponent/assailent hits the ground.  I am often wearing work boots on the street and to and from work and if I catch you with them or my shin you will fold or lose a lot of mobility on that side, you might even just start crying there and then.  : (   
: )   : )



drop bear said:


> I have mentioned kicks to the knee hurt like the dickens.


 I missed that, good for you!


----------



## Zero

Steve said:


> I think that there are two different things being said here.
> 
> While it may be technically true that the knee will break if struck by a range of 15 to 30 lbs of pressure, it's also true that it's a lot harder to do this against someone than one might think.    As drop bear pointed out, knees are not off limits within MMA and are a common target, yet I can't think of a time when I've seen the knee buckle.  This doesn't mean it can't happen, but does suggest that it's not as easy to do as it may seem.


Start paying attention to a real man's sport like K1, you'll see numerous fellas go down with the one hit to the knee.  Sure, sometimes it is after several hits, sometimes just the one well timed and placed hit.  There is almost nothing sweeter than timing your shin impact as to exactly when your opponent places/transfers their weight on their lead leg, it's a beautiful, sickenning thing.  

I simply cannot believe you guys think an effective knee hit is a difficult thing, compared to any other option you may or may not have.


----------



## Steve

Zero said:


> Start paying attention to a real man's sport like K1, you'll see numerous fellas go down with the one hit to the knee.  Sure, sometimes it is after several hits, sometimes just the one well timed and placed hit.  There is almost nothing sweeter than timing your shin impact as to exactly when your opponent places/transfers their weight on their lead leg, it's a beautiful, sickenning thing.
> 
> I simply cannot believe you guys think an effective knee hit is a difficult thing, compared to any other option you may or may not have.


Zero, i don't think I'm saying anything too extreme here.  If anything, I'm trying to suggest that there is a healthy middle ground between the two extreme positions being discussed.  In other words, if there is a spectrum where on one end is "tap the knee at 15lbs and it shatters, easy peasy" and on the other is, "the knee is impossible to ever hit with enough force to break it, never ever" there is room in the middle to suggest that while 15 lbs of pressure might do it, getting that perfect shot is more difficult than it sounds.  AND, your chances of hitting it when you want/need to are much improved if you train with pressure and some amount of reasonable resistance.


----------



## Hanzou

Zero said:


> Uhh, I think we are agreeing here?  I have many years submission experience so this submission stuff and its dynamics ain't new to me.
> 
> My point is, and was, that, if you can do a submission tech right in class, you can take it all the way in reality to a break/tear/choke-out.  And so, Hanzou's concern that a dislocation in real life is not much of a possibility for someone that has not already dislocated someone's limb previously does not stack up in my view.
> 
> Are we friends and agreeing here or are we totally out of sorts on this one?



Except that I have done dislocations in class and tournaments. Not on purpose of course, but it has happened due to partners spazzing out, or trying to fight through an arm or leg lock. Further, those dislocations were done without much force on my part once the lock was secured. So yeah, I have actual experience dislocating and breaking limbs and joints.

Now, the issue is can you break a knee under severe pressure if you've never ever done it before. I believe that you can, but you have a higher chance of not pulling it off than crippling someone with a leg kick on your first and second try.


----------



## Buka

I can't think of many things worse than getting your knee messed up. It really sucks.


----------



## elder999

Buka said:


> I can't think of many things worse than getting your knee messed up. It really sucks.



Yer knee can reach its "engineering design basis usage life," of about 44....and you can just keep on living with knees that get worse, and worse-without being "messed up." It really, *really*, sucks.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Sorry, feelin' my knees today, just tellin' me and anyone who watches me walk or get up that I'm gettin' older....


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> That is a front kick straight to the knee, and to throw in a Taiji term, with intent to break. Depending on the angle of the kick the amount of pressure needed changes



So where are we getting these figures from? I mean if you are going for a knee break you probably want the science to be accurate and not dependent on angle.

And so leads me to another pillar. Have an escape route. From the small moments when the knee kick does not do what should have happened because science and you are now looking at a right cross coming back at you to knowing the fire exits in your local shopping center.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I can't think of many things worse than getting your knee messed up. It really sucks.



The broken shin thing is a lot creepier and will put you down a lot faster.

Ironically that can be a knee vs kick dynamic.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Start paying attention to a real man's sport like K1, you'll see numerous fellas go down with the one hit to the knee.  Sure, sometimes it is after several hits, sometimes just the one well timed and placed hit.  There is almost nothing sweeter than timing your shin impact as to exactly when your opponent places/transfers their weight on their lead leg, it's a beautiful, sickenning thing.
> 
> I simply cannot believe you guys think an effective knee hit is a difficult thing, compared to any other option you may or may not have.



I just spent 4 weeks training with a k1 fighter. Young ben here.





Notice we have moved off science to sometimes. I am more than happy to say knees will buckle under kicks sometimes rather than ever tell people they will buckle a knee due to x force times magic dogma.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> n ever tell people they will buckle a knee due to x force times magic dogma.



You do know what I do for a living, dontcha? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(And you should note, I never really ascribed any particular "X" value to knees......that's kinda variable, depending on position, mass of the person exerted on the knee,bone density, the condition of the knee, angles and motion....if, however, you can deliver a kick that exceeds *all* knees...well, people can't exactly build up their knees, can they?)


----------



## Brian King

So a pillar might be learn anatomy and do not rely on anything or anybody?

I know that the knee cap is an excellent target for sword or shovel, not as in smashing but rather in 'separating' just a little. Not a lot holding it in place. I think that a lot of SD folks target the knee as it is vulnerable, and even a poorly connected contact slows down the 'attacker' allowing maneuver and escape percentages to increase.

I second reading the 7 pillars book. Tragic life but well lived. 

Back to subject please?

Brian


----------



## drop bear

elder999 said:


> You do know what I do for a living, dontcha?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (And you should note, I never really ascribed any particular "X" value to knees......that's kinda variable, depending on position, mass of the person exerted on the knee,bone density, the condition of the knee, angles and motion....if, however, you can deliver a kick that exceeds *all* knees...well, people can't exactly build up their knees, can they?)



Hey the last time I guessed professional pole dancer ii got in trouble so I will just say no.

Physio,s think you can build up knees.


----------



## drop bear

Ok. Speaking of ben. One of his was hit with power. Make your strikes dangerous and respected. 

He has mentioned that he has tippy tapped his way to a draw where he could have achieved a victory.

Looking at the video the method has merit.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> I am running out of credit. Are these going to be oblique kicks or side kicks breaking knees in a high percentage manner or are they going to be round kick dropping someone as part of a cumulative process.
> 
> I have mentioned kicks to the knee hurt like the dickens.


If you freeze frame at 15.07 it is a thigh kick, not the knee.


----------



## Zero

elder999 said:


> Yer knee can reach its "engineering design basis usage life," of about 44....and you can just keep on living with knees that get worse, and worse-without being "messed up." It really, *really*, sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, feelin' my knees today, just tellin' me and anyone who watches me walk or get up that I'm gettin' older....



hey!  Do what my dad has done and get new artificial knee replacements, he was in a motor bike crash and damaged both knees very badly, hit by a car and sandwiched into the footpath.  he went from being a keen hiker and hunter to spending years with stuffed knees, he finally got both replaced at different times (about a year apart) and each took about 6 months recovery (the left 6 months, the right a bit more, it was tender until about 9 months).  he has not looked back since and is now totally active and going up those hills again.  look into it!


----------



## Zero

K-man said:


> If you freeze frame at 15.07 it is a thigh kick, not the knee.


You might be right K-man, I didn't freeze frame.  I'm Ice-Cold but I never Freeze Up.  I'm Zero.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> I just spent 4 weeks training with a k1 fighter. Young ben here.



What's your point?  Are you saying your four weeks has proven to you that you can't take someone down with one kick to the knee or that the knee cannot be "broken" (I prefer "folded/stuffed") with one kick to the side?

I have spent over twenty years in styles that have heavy focus on kicking, close to fifteen years where kicking to legs is a focus and competed nationally and in local karate, muay thai and kickboxing (and MMA) tournaments for close to ten years.  I have trained under a seven times national champion, who has fought in Asia and Thailand and I have also trained with the guy that trained with Peter Aerts (K1 legend) in London.



drop bear said:


> Notice we have moved off science to sometimes. I am more than happy to say knees will buckle under kicks sometimes rather than ever tell people they will buckle a knee due to x force times magic dogma.


Science is sometimes a sometimes thing my friend.  I don't know who told you on here that "if you kick any guy in the knee with Y x Z force it will break, every time ", if they did, they must have been yanking your chain.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Round kicks to the knee are a common strike.
> 
> Have you broken a guys knee or not?
> 
> It was a bit unclear in that post.


I have taken several guys out of fights with one round house to the side of knee. I guess I had buckled or torn or strained their ligaments but don't know if that equates to "break" for you. Also, I never went over to them or followed up and asked, "hey buddy, hey, did I break your knee in that fight?"  I am not a fkn lunatic.

But am the first to admit that I have won more fights with repeated hits to the same knee by attrition.  It's not me that has been going on about "breaking", as I said before, I find the definition/concept of "breaking" a knee quite difficult because of the various parts to the knee.   

I have had my own knee hurt badly with ligaments being damaged by one hit to the outside of my knee as I said before.  I couldn't fight after that for three months and it really took about a good year of rehab before it was solid again and I could fight with confidence and load it with weight etc such as with squats and deadlifts.


----------



## Zero

Hanzou said:


> Except that I have done dislocations in class and tournaments. Not on purpose of course, but it has happened due to partners spazzing out, or trying to fight through an arm or leg lock. Further, those dislocations were done without much force on my part once the lock was secured. So yeah, I have actual experience dislocating and breaking limbs and joints.
> 
> Now, the issue is can you break a knee under severe pressure if you've never ever done it before. I believe that you can, but you have a higher chance of not pulling it off than crippling someone with a leg kick on your first and second try.


Uhh, how many dislocations in class - or tournaments, that is - are we talking about?  Hey, bad injuries happen and it can be hard to avoid if your partner or opponent "has a spaz", whatever that means...but sounds like you may have a control issue. Don't get me wrong, I have hurt people in this situation too but I try to avoid it, not sure it sounds like you are... You say "partners" spazzing out.  That implies to me a class mate rather than a tournament opponent, I may be wrong.  Are you saying that in class, if some "partner" is trying to fight through a lock where damage is going to result and imminently, you continue to hold it or crank it up and so a dislocation or tear occurs?  Sounds pretty crazy to me!

What level and where are your tournaments being held were you are also doing these dislocations where opponents are seeking to work through a lock or arm bar?  From my experience as a judoka and from freestyle and mma fighting, if a guy is not tapping out and you have control, the ump normally comes in and breaks up and awards the point or fight to avoid a break.  You are either fighting in some **** back alley tournament or alternatively at the highest level where the ump (sometimes) is leaving it down to the opponent to tap or snap, where that thing is going on, form my experience.


----------



## Jenna

drop bear said:


> Yes.
> 
> I know a few street fighters. And if you engage in enough violence eventually you are going to get bashed.
> 
> The better street fighters I have met are philosophical about it.
> 
> I think it frees your mind from doubt a bit and allows you to act a bit more.


Agreed!  Can you say what is it about our MA practices that cause us to deny to ourselves the possibility you have noted.. that one day we might get beat -and- it MAY be the fault of our unacknowledged short comings?? Jxx


----------



## Jenna

Brian King said:


> Thanks folks, very interesting question Jenna, might be well worth a thread of its own, I would eagerly read it.
> Interesting thoughts by all, Jenna, Elder999 and by Drop Bear. Thank you all for posting. Can you expand the thoughts a bit?
> 
> Thanks again and thank you in advance,
> Regards
> Brian King


With further thought, I think the notion of humility would be less a pillar and more a "meta pillar" if that make any sense.. Given that there are specified pillars, humility I feel would be requisite in troubleshooting the potential failures by conceding and accepting limitations in 1. our art, 2. our practice of that art and 3. our personal physiology that they can be worked on, worked around or compensated for in some other way.. Jxxx


----------



## Hanzou

Zero said:


> Uhh, how many dislocations in class - or tournaments, that is - are we talking about?



6 total. 4 in class, 2 in tournaments, and quite a few near misses where muscles were pulled. This isn't including choke outs which is quite a bit higher.



> Hey, bad injuries happen and it can be hard to avoid if your partner or opponent "has a spaz", whatever that means...but sounds like you may have a control issue. Don't get me wrong, I have hurt people in this situation too but I try to avoid it, not sure it sounds like you are... You say "partners" spazzing out.  That implies to me a class mate rather than a tournament opponent, I may be wrong.  Are you saying that in class, if some "partner" is trying to fight through a lock where damage is going to result and imminently, you continue to hold it or crank it up and so a dislocation or tear occurs?  Sounds pretty crazy to me!



Actually both tournament breaks was from spazzing. I had the lock, and my opponents tried to get out of it, dislocating their own joints in the process. In class it tended to happen while rolling. When I was less experienced, I wouldn't release an arm bar or shoulder lock until I felt or heard a tap. A few guys were trying to tough it out and not submit, and they got hurt in the process. It's personally ever happened to me because I'm smart enough to tap when I know someone has a lock and is applying pressure. There's no reason to try to fight through a perfect lock, especially if we're just practicing in class.

Of course now that I'm more experienced, if I feel that someone isn't going to tap I release and simply transition to something else.



> What level and where are your tournaments being held were you are also doing these dislocations where opponents are seeking to work through a lock or arm bar?  From my experience as a judoka and from freestyle and mma fighting, if a guy is not tapping out and you have control, the ump normally comes in and breaks up and awards the point or fight to avoid a break.  You are either fighting in some **** back alley tournament or alternatively at the highest level where the ump (sometimes) is leaving it down to the opponent to tap or snap, where that thing is going on, form my experience.




Both occurred years ago when I was a white belt competing in local Bjj tournaments. I don't know how the rules in your sporting events work, but a ref isn't going to stop a match because they "think" someone has a lock on someone if the other guy is still fighting through the lock. Could you imagine the carp storm if a guy lost because the ref "thought" he was caught in an unescapable arm bar or leg lock?

BTW, Thanks for giving me yet another reason to not compete in Judo tournaments.

Check out the web, there's plenty of vids of people getting their limbs broken at Bjj/Grappling tournaments. No one does it on purpose, it's simply the nature of the sport.


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Agreed!  Can you say what is it about our MA practices that cause us to deny to ourselves the possibility you have noted.. that one day we might get beat -and- it MAY be the fault of our unacknowledged short comings?? Jxx



It is a dichotomy.
 you do martial arts precisely because you don't want to get beat up. So it is easy to build up this fear of loosing and loosing face. Or loosing and being crippled or killed.

Some of the training practices that enforce this life or death fight mode I think contributes to binding people into a bit of a knot.


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> So where are we getting these figures from? I mean if you are going for a knee break you probably want the science to be accurate and not dependent on angle.



If you read and or understood my first post on this you would already know and this question would not be necessary....


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> If you read and or understood my first post on this you would already know and this question would not be necessary....



Which could have been re posted with exactly the same effort as your above reply.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

The OP has asked to move back to topic so let's do that!


----------



## Xue Sheng

drop bear said:


> Which could have been re posted with exactly the same effort as your above reply.



 which could have been read by you in the first place and then there would have been no need for this silliness at all


----------



## Xue Sheng

Brian R. VanCise said:


> The OP has asked to move back to topic so let's do that!



Which was my goal way back at post #170, but there are those on MT these days that seem to take over every single post with their own agenda, silliness and condescension....you know...trolls


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> I have mentioned kicks to the knee hurt like the dickens.


How much does getting kicked in the dickens hurt?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> The broken shin thing is a lot creepier and will put you down a lot faster.


And hurts like hell.


----------



## Zero

Hanzou said:


> 6 total. 4 in class, 2 in tournaments, and quite a few near misses where muscles were pulled. This isn't including choke outs which is quite a bit higher.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually both tournament breaks was from spazzing. I had the lock, and my opponents tried to get out of it, dislocating their own joints in the process. In class it tended to happen while rolling. When I was less experienced, I wouldn't release an arm bar or shoulder lock until I felt or heard a tap. A few guys were trying to tough it out and not submit, and they got hurt in the process. It's personally ever happened to me because I'm smart enough to tap when I know someone has a lock and is applying pressure. There's no reason to try to fight through a perfect lock, especially if we're just practicing in class.
> 
> Of course now that I'm more experienced, if I feel that someone isn't going to tap I release and simply transition to something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both occurred years ago when I was a white belt competing in local Bjj tournaments. I don't know how the rules in your sporting events work, but a ref isn't going to stop a match because they "think" someone has a lock on someone if the other guy is still fighting through the lock. Could you imagine the carp storm if a guy lost because the ref "thought" he was caught in an unescapable arm bar or leg lock?
> 
> BTW, Thanks for giving me yet another reason to not compete in Judo tournaments.
> 
> Check out the web, there's plenty of vids of people getting their limbs broken at Bjj/Grappling tournaments. No one does it on purpose, it's simply the nature of the sport.



Maybe watch some UFC, it's what you guys seem to reference for being representative of reality, there are so so so many times, and going years back, when the ref has jumped in and stopped the fight on arm bars/locks or strike pummelling, ground and pounds etc.  Maybe you guys are so tough the ref never gets involved, huh?  Joke.


----------



## Zero

RTKDCMB said:


> How much does getting kicked in the dickens hurt?


I know a fella got kicked in the dickens once, now he goes round with only a "ens".


----------



## Zero

Hanzou said:


> BTW, Thanks for giving me yet another reason to not compete in Judo tournaments.


never expected you to, you're clearly too "deadly" for them.


----------



## Zero

Hanzou said:


> Of course now that I'm more experienced, if I feel that someone isn't going to tap I release and simply transition to something else.
> .


Thank god for that, I guess the ten or so cripples wished you'd only got to this level earlier...


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Maybe watch some UFC, it's what you guys seem to reference for being representative of reality, there are so so so many times, and going years back, when the ref has jumped in and stopped the fight on arm bars/locks or strike pummelling, ground and pounds etc.  Maybe you guys are so tough the ref never gets involved, huh?  Joke.



If you don't want to tap I am pretty sure the ref will let the other guy rip the arm/leg off. Once it is broken the fight will get stopped. Punching is different and will get stopped if you cant intelligently defend yourself.


----------



## drop bear




----------



## Hanzou

Zero said:


> Thank god for that, I guess the ten or so cripples wished you'd only got to this level earlier...



It's the other guy's responsibility to tap, not mine. If you're not tapping to a solid arm lock, its your fault that your arm got snapped. It's common sense.

The same applies to chokes. If you're too stubborn (or dumb) to tap to a choke that's putting you out, then enjoy your nap, because the other guy more than likely isn't going to release until you go limp.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> It's the other guy's responsibility to tap, not mine. If you're not tapping to a solid arm lock, its your fault that your arm got snapped. It's common sense.
> 
> The same applies to chokes. If you're too stubborn (or dumb) to tap to a choke that's putting you out, then enjoy your nap, because the other guy more than likely isn't going to release until you go limp.


No its your responsibility not to be a Dbag and recognize you got the hold you won there is no need to snap someone arm to prove a point.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> No its your responsibility not to be a Dbag and recognize you got the hold you won there is no need to snap someone arm to prove a point.


 Definitely true in training.  Not necessarily true in competition (although personally, I'd agree as I'm not a professional competitor and have a day job).


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> It's the other guy's responsibility to tap, not mine. If you're not tapping to a solid arm lock, its your fault that your arm got snapped. It's common sense.
> 
> The same applies to chokes. If you're too stubborn (or dumb) to tap to a choke that's putting you out, then enjoy your nap, because the other guy more than likely isn't going to release until you go limp.


 
I gotta say he's right-not in training, but in competition-it's even still permitted in judo as the _only_ way of intentionally injuring an opponent.

However:



ballen0351 said:


> No its your responsibility not to be a Dbag and recognize you got the hold you won there is no need to snap someone arm to prove a point.


 
Yeah...pretty much. People get out of armbars, though, the longer they're on......chokes? Not good, but not crippling-put the guy to sleep!


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> No its your responsibility not to be a Dbag and recognize you got the hold you won there is no need to snap someone arm to prove a point.



I'm not going to release an armbar in a competition if a guy isn't tapping, or the ref isn't stopping the match. That's stupid. If I'm in the training hall and the guy is trying to be an ego-maniac and not tapping, I'll release. However, if its a contest and both of us are trying to win, there's no way I'm releasing a lock on someone until they tap, or the ref stops the match.

Additionally there's been plenty of cases where the person doing the technique just can't tell, and people get their arm, shoulder, or knee dislocated. In the end, it is the person receiving the lock who has the responsibility of tapping if they're feeling pressure on their limb. If you decide to not tap, then you deal with the consequences.

Now if someone is tapping and the person continues to apply pressure, then yes, s/he is a d-bag, and will more than likely get kicked out of a gym or tournament.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> I'm not going to release an armbar in a competition if a guy isn't tapping, or the ref isn't stopping the match. That's stupid. If I'm in the training hall and the guy is trying to be an ego-maniac and not tapping, I'll release. However, if its a contest and both of us are trying to win, there's no way I'm releasing a lock on someone until they tap, or the ref stops the match.
> 
> Additionally there's been plenty of cases where the person doing the technique just can't tell, and people get their arm, shoulder, or knee dislocated. In the end, it is the person receiving the lock who has the responsibility of tapping if they're feeling pressure on their limb. If you decide to not tap, then you deal with the consequences.
> 
> Now if someone is tapping and the person continues to apply pressure, then yes, s/he is a d-bag, and will more than likely get kicked out of a gym or tournament.


 I'd say that as an upper belt, you have an obligation to protect the lower belts from themselves.  If you're rolling with a white belt and they don't tap because they're dumb, you won't break their arm and may end up just playing catch and release with them.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> I'd say that as an upper belt, you have an obligation to protect the lower belts from themselves.  If you're rolling with a white belt and they don't tap because they're dumb, you won't break their arm and may end up just playing catch and release with them.



Indeed. Though their spazzing gets dangerous sometimes, especially if they're very large. As I said, as I've gotten more experienced and stopped competing, I'm less concerned about getting submissions, and more into controlling tempo, and transitioning from weaker positions into dominant positions.


----------



## Hanzou

Zero said:


> never expected you to, you're clearly too "deadly" for them.



Not even close. I simply find the rules of competitive Judo to be over the top and unnecessary.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I'm not going to release an armbar in a competition if a guy isn't tapping, or the ref isn't stopping the match. That's stupid. If I'm in the training hall and the guy is trying to be an ego-maniac and not tapping, I'll release. However, if its a contest and both of us are trying to win, there's no way I'm releasing a lock on someone until they tap, or the ref stops the match.
> 
> Additionally there's been plenty of cases where the person doing the technique just can't tell, and people get their arm, shoulder, or knee dislocated. In the end, it is the person receiving the lock who has the responsibility of tapping if they're feeling pressure on their limb. If you decide to not tap, then you deal with the consequences.
> 
> Now if someone is tapping and the person continues to apply pressure, then yes, s/he is a d-bag, and will more than likely get kicked out of a gym or tournament.


Except by your own admission you have broken twice as many people in training and that's what I'm talking about. However even in a tournament your not a professional fighter so why injure another nonprofessional just because you can?  Not knowing your about to break is an accident that's not what you said you said if you got the lock in and they don't have the common sense to tap it's not your responsibility when you break them.  That's being a Dbag


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Except by your own admission you have broken twice as many people in training and that's what I'm talking about.



Yeah, because I've rolled in the training hall WAY more than in competition. I've only been in a few tournaments. I've been on the mats of various training halls for countless hours.



> However even in a tournament your not a professional fighter so why injure another nonprofessional just because you can?  Not knowing your about to break is an accident that's not what you said you said if you got the lock in and they don't have the common sense to tap it's not your responsibility when you break them.  That's being a Dbag



Again, I take *no* responsibility for someone not smart enough to tap out when they're caught in an lock in a competition. Applying joint/arm/leg/shoulder locks that can break people is well within the rules of the game.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, because I've rolled in the training hall WAY more than in competition. I've only been in a few tournaments. I've been on the mats of various training halls for countless hours.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I take *no* responsibility for someone not smart enough to tap out when they're caught in an lock in a competition. Applying joint/arm/leg/shoulder locks that can break people is well within the rules of the game.


I have no doubt you behave this way I'm def not SHOCKED


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Except by your own admission you have broken twice as many people in training and that's what I'm talking about. However even in a tournament your not a professional fighter so why injure another nonprofessional just because you can?  Not knowing your about to break is an accident that's not what you said you said if you got the lock in and they don't have the common sense to tap it's not your responsibility when you break them.  That's being a Dbag



Sorry. That is just competition. It can be a hard sport and you don't do it if you cant accept the risks.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I'd say that as an upper belt, you have an obligation to protect the lower belts from themselves.  If you're rolling with a white belt and they don't tap because they're dumb, you won't break their arm and may end up just *playing catch and release with them.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I call that "multi-tap," or "making them tap like a typewriter"..........._typewriter_, 'cause I'm *old*....


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

Brian King said:


> Fundamental pillars of self-defense?
> 
> In the thread “Is grappling better for female self-defense than striking?” the idea of  a fundamental pillar of self-defense” came up. Warning – while interesting, it is a long thread with a lot of- this is better than this, you know nothings, I knows all, type of posts. The talk of ‘fundamental pillars’ did start me wondering what different people would include as fundamental pillars of self-defense training. I imagine that the answers might depend on the culture lived in, the type of attacks experienced, capabilities and limitations of those training, length of time available for the training, and a host of other variables. I searched and found the thread “self-Defense???” interesting but different than a discussion on what folks expect or teach as specific pillars of self-defense.
> 
> For the start of this exploration (thread drift happens and can be interesting) let’s assumes that the prospective student is married, with small children, and limited training time – say once or twice a week for a year. The kind of attack that she may face, could be assault in a parking garage, road rage, work place violence, domestic abuse, violent robbery, wrong place wrong time violence, and home invasion. Or we can assume that she might be single, so we could add date rape violence, bar/night club violence, woman on woman violence to the list. Attacks against the elderly are brutal as well, and in some areas becoming common place, so we could add healthcare/ nursing home violence to the possible list above.
> 
> This video, taken with a nanny cam captures the violence that is common of assaults against women by men. They are violent and brutal. With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ for the women described above? Warning, video is violent.
> 
> https://youtu.be/qU0EJS3cJIc
> 
> Along with the suggested pillars, how about some reasoning of why, and how to train them?
> 
> Now, everyone reading this thread can agree that there can be more than one way to solve a problem. For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula, depends entirely on context. Let’s try to discuss the messages and not so much the messengers although a little background on the posters experiences if they want, might help to add context?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Brian King





Brian King said:


> Fundamental pillars of self-defense?
> 
> In the thread “Is grappling better for female self-defense than striking?” the idea of  a fundamental pillar of self-defense” came up. Warning – while interesting, it is a long thread with a lot of- this is better than this, you know nothings, I knows all, type of posts. The talk of ‘fundamental pillars’ did start me wondering what different people would include as fundamental pillars of self-defense training. I imagine that the answers might depend on the culture lived in, the type of attacks experienced, capabilities and limitations of those training, length of time available for the training, and a host of other variables. I searched and found the thread “self-Defense???” interesting but different than a discussion on what folks expect or teach as specific pillars of self-defense.
> 
> For the start of this exploration (thread drift happens and can be interesting) let’s assumes that the prospective student is married, with small children, and limited training time – say once or twice a week for a year. The kind of attack that she may face, could be assault in a parking garage, road rage, work place violence, domestic abuse, violent robbery, wrong place wrong time violence, and home invasion. Or we can assume that she might be single, so we could add date rape violence, bar/night club violence, woman on woman violence to the list. Attacks against the elderly are brutal as well, and in some areas becoming common place, so we could add healthcare/ nursing home violence to the possible list above.
> 
> This video, taken with a nanny cam captures the violence that is common of assaults against women by men. They are violent and brutal. With this video to start – what do you think should form the ‘fundamentals of self-defense training’ for the women described above? Warning, video is violent.
> 
> https://youtu.be/qU0EJS3cJIc
> 
> Along with the suggested pillars, how about some reasoning of why, and how to train them?
> 
> Now, everyone reading this thread can agree that there can be more than one way to solve a problem. For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula, depends entirely on context. Let’s try to discuss the messages and not so much the messengers although a little background on the posters experiences if they want, might help to add context?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Brian King


First thing that comes to my mind, so to instill in the female to keep her eyes focused on her attacker, no matter what and don't turn away from him. This way she's better off then in using what she knows for defense. I teach and many times when I up my attack, they close, or turn their eyes away or give me their backs.
Sifu


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> Is the mind of humility relevant at all? I mean acceptance of limitation that the limitation might be overcome? what do you think? Jx



You know what, Jenna? I've been composing a rather lengthy response to this thread-or a few of them, I haven't decided yet-and it occurs to me that humility _does_ have a place in this: in the lead up/interview/monkey dance/verbal part of a confrontation that leads to violence (usually among men, but the rules apply to women as well) one has to exercise a fair amount of humility to try to verbally de-escalate the situation, not the least of which is offering the assailant (potential assailant) a face-saving way out......

....more to the point, for myself, while I'm as flexible as ever, my joints aren't happy about it. While I'm almost as strong as I ever was, I'm not as strong. I'm not nearly as fast at all. While I have what seems to be about the same amount of stamina, it has to endure with a little extra weight.......I'm getting kinda old, and I am not the wild man I was in my 20s and 30s....I can't believe that was a time in my life when I would gladly-_madly_-have taken on 3 or evn four guys.......hell, I'm not even what I was at 44....I'm closer to a senior menu than I am to 23......and it's a good thing I learned to use a cane as a weapon, since sometimes I actually need one to get up and walk!


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> You know what, Jenna? I've been composing a rather lengthy response to this thread-or a few of them, I haven't decided yet-and it occurs to me that humility _does_ have a place in this: in the lead up/interview/monkey dance/verbal part of a confrontation that leads to violence (usually among men, but the rules apply to women as well) one has to exercise a fair amount of humility to try to verbally de-escalate the situation, not the least of which is offering the assailant (potential assailant) a face-saving way out......
> 
> ....more to the point, for myself, while I'm as flexible as ever, my joints aren't happy about it. While I'm almost as strong as I ever was, I'm not as strong. I'm not nearly as fast at all. While I have what seems to be about the same amount of stamina, it has to endure with a little extra weight.......I'm getting kinda old, and I am not the wild man I was in my 20s and 30s....I can't believe that was a time in my life when I would gladly-_madly_-have taken on 3 or evn four guys.......hell, I'm not even what I was at 44....I'm closer to a senior menu than I am to 23......and it's a good thing I learned to use a cane as a weapon, since sometimes I actually need one to get up and walk!


Yes! So true that humility and maturity would be needed to de-escalate.. I had not even thought of that aspect at all or seen it from the mens point of view.. thank you!  As you have described it, it sounds as if this has also required a deal of courage, yes?  I feel it shows a high degree of self-assurance to de-escalate when the option is in your hands to end a confrontation physically -and decisevely- In my world those are traits in high demand and but short supply.

As to our physical capabilities perhaps limitation is a chance to deploy our wit and experience to adapt rather than lament the loss of our 20yo selves? The cane is a brilliant example. I wonder are your techniques not more compact and efficient or less flamboyant now maybe?

If we have the humility to have accepted our weakness or limitations with some grace that they can be surmounted then perhaps we are even a step ahead of the person in front of us that want our phone or purse who have not looked at their own limitations?  I do not know.. I was able to stop a person from taking my things here at a station by telling to him that I knew he was a good guy trying his best and things were hard for him.. I do not know how that work and but I am in no place to fight any body at the minute so I must acknowledge am partisan in this argument.. Thank you for your reply I am always keen to read whoever is up for teaching or sharing  Jxxx


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> .
> 
> As to our physical capabilities perhaps limitation is a chance to deploy our wit and experience to adapt rather than lament the loss of our 20yo selves? The cane is a brilliant example. I wonder are your techniques not more compact and efficient or less flamboyant now maybe?
> Jxxx


 
As I've posted elsewhere, I'm a congenital klutz. I've never been "flamboyant" when it comes to martial arts, though I did try........efficient, perhaps....not always so "compact," either.....


----------



## elder999

Brian King said:


> Self-defense should have in addition to the methodology to develop situational awareness, the ability to harness that awareness and to make it common sense and natural to avoid those places and situations that if not avoided might result in a self-defense situation. That self-defense begins with study of the self. Learning to understand how fear affects our bodies systems, learning to understand and recognize when we are succumbing to the fight, flight, or freeze response and how to escape that response so as to be able to do whatever whichever action might be needed to survive the immediate encounter. Is that close?


 
Close enough! Some anecdotes:

After I left Japan, I went to Europe (eventually) and was accosted in Greece-it turned out to be a sad misunderstanding-they thought I was someone else, and attacked me, with what they thought of as justification, having mistaken me for the scumbag who disrespected them……I defended myself successfully, but I hadn’t practiced good situational awareness at all: I was being a tourist, and was, just as many people are, attacked from nowhere, with no prelude, interview or “monkey dance…”

Then I got mugged in Spain. This time, they tried to snatch my duffel and camera….I resisted, successfully, but I just about never saw them coming-and, these days, I’d have let them have it: there was nothing in that duffel worth dying for, nor was the camera…..

Months later-months that were occupied with college, and being a bouncer, and hanging around with a motorcycle club, and engaging in other youthful foolishness, I had my little incident on the subway……I actually was pretty aware, considering the lateness of the hour, and how I’d spent the hours preceding it, but I really shouldn’t have been on that particular platform, at that particular hour, dressed as I was and wearing a Rolex, of all things-I may as well have  had “vic” tattooed on my forehead…….even if I wasn’t one……(it’s worth pointing out here, that I can tell all of this story to a roomful of people, and say that I shouldn’t have been waiting to board the Brooklyn IRT at that hour, dressed as I was, and they’ll all nod their heads, but tell a woman that if she goes out in a short skirt, high-heels and a “tear here for boobs” top-that she’s inviting trouble, and it’s just not politically correct….oh well.)

So, situational awareness is something I’ve obviously had to work on: mom called me an ‘absent minded professor” for most of my childhood, and there’s some truth to it. While it can be considered the first foundational pillar of self defense: knowing where you are, who the people involved are, _fitting in and being unobtrusive-not standing out as a target_., avoiding places where trouble could happen…these should mostly be common sense.







Of course, I say that now,  as a 55 year old man-not as a teen or twenty-something who always wanted to be in the middle of “the action.” That all ended when I got married and had children of my own-priorities and the way you view the world will change….I say this because on another thread, people laughed off the exploits of Renzo Gracie-a man who is old enough (44?) and trained enough to behave better than he has….these are just some things to think on…I’ll talk about how I trained my situational awareness and observational skills, and how I train others, but maybe in a separate post…



Brian King said:


> .  Is there a methodology/drill that you have found that helps an average Jane to develop the mindset that violence is a tool that can be used?


 
What I want to talk about first, though, are the effects of adrenalin on the human body and perception, and methods for training for, controlling and channeling adrenalization and fear.

What happens when we’re startled, frightened or under stress? A part of the brain-the hypothalamus-initiates the secretion of stress hormones: cortisol, noradrenaline, and adrenaline. This is hard wired into us, and prepares us to face perceived danger: to either fight it, or flee from it-fight or flight.*It’s hard-wired into us.* The rest of our brain, the _thinking_ part, can sometimes make the hypothalamus think we need to do these things, when we don’t: got a big, important exam coming up? Your body could release those stress hormones, thinking you have to face down a sabre-toothed tiger or something….this can work to our advantage, as I’ll explain. Briefly though,  if “the _thinking_ part” can make the hypothalamus release these hormones, then we can think our way into releasing these hormones. What do *they* do?

Well, when these hormones are released, our respiratory and heart rates increase. Blood is shunted away  from our digestive tract and directed into our muscles and limbs-extra energy to fight or run. Our pupils dilate, and our sight sharpens (though this effect also can lead to tunnel vision) Our impulses-our reflexes-can quicken. Our perception of pain diminishes.

Those can be the plusses, if we need them to run or fight, but they can also be liabilities-especially if we’re not used to them, or don’t know how to deal with them.

The first way that I train dealing with being adrenalized is to deliberately simulate it as much as I can-once people have some semblance of technical ability with a self-defense movement or response, I’ll have them execute it right at the aerobic threshold, repeatedly, and over their anaerobic threshold eventually. While I’m a big fan of aerobic training and fitness, and , basically, training like a boxer, self-defense is actually an _aneaerobic_ activity-it’s a short burst, not a long-haul. By actually performing with a high heart rate and high-and generally insufficient-respiratory rate, we are simulating effects of adrenalization while executing movement.

Additionally, movements-already gross rather than fine responses-become even grosser, and focusing on efficacy-on *making* the movement work-becomes part of the focus: I’m not looking for the perfect execution of a throw or strike in terms of form-*I’m looking for the opponent to wind up on the floor: *self defense generally requires gross rather than fine motor control, in part because fine motor control goes out the window with adrenaline, and because simpler is….well,* simpler. *So, at this stage and with this type of training, we’re simulating working with the negative effects of adrenalization simply by operating with increased respiration and heart rate……

….and what you’ll often hear me saying to  the panting, gasping _tori_, after the tenth or eleventh repetition is _”Control your breathing!_-which I’ve heard lots of instructors say over the years, and is sometimes received as a meaningless instruction (_If I could *control* my breathing, do you think I’d be gasping like *this*??!!,_ they must be thinking….) Suffice to say, breath control is another element of dealing with adrenalization, as well as staying relaxed enough to do movements under stress-with me, it’s not an order, but a _reminder_, as my students and I spend a fair amount of time on breath control exercises-some of which are familiar to Asian martial arts practitioners, and some of which might be familiar to Systema practitioners like you, Brian-since I got them from one of my teachers, Mr. Joseph Greenstein, a famous vaudeville strongman known as the Mighty Atom, who trained under a Russian strongman…at least, I’ve  often wondered if they’d be similar…..

In any case, I think some sort of breath control is essential to dealing with and channeling adrenalization. There are lots of theories, exercises and disciplines around this, including meditation, and it’s been my observation that if followed diligently, they’re all kind of get you there, so I’m not going to get too detailed about how I do it: breath control, though, I think is key.

There are other factors to that I use in developing mindset that I'll post about separately, but breath control and stress training are the physical starting point.



Brian King said:


> What is the primary way that you have observed success in retraining the flinch reflex?


 
My granddad, who trained hunting dogs, had to train them to accept gunshots without starting, _and for a fired shot to mean it was time to get to work._ The flinch response in humans serves a protective purpose-to protect the eyes and ward off a threat. It’s a reflex-meaning we rreally *can’t* control it, and probably shouldn’t try to, but we *can* “reprogram,” or re-purpose it.. There are some differing opinions as to which direction this should take: Rory Miller and Tony Blauer basically both favor retraining it towards aggression, sometimes with a forward movement: I look to _kata_, and what’s natural, and ask, what’s wrong with moving back and making a warding motion, _especially if it’s the body’s natural response already?_

Otherwise, we don’t differ much: the way to retrain a reflex is, essentially, Pavlovian, with a negative feedback for undesired responses, and positive feedback for desired responses, until desired responses are all that’s occurred. That’s really all I’m going to say about that, except to remind people of the many times I’ve said that I couldn’t train children the way I was trained as a child without some parent wanting to sue me or put me in jail……and how I don’t train children, *yet*, and won’t _really_ use the methods that I use for retraining the flinch reflex with children when I start to……..


----------



## Jenna

@elder999, Re the question that @Brian King asked about a way to help an average Jane to develop the mindset that violence is a tool that can be used.. I would want to suggest that there is a neurological difference between how the male and female body deploy adrenaline and I have found to put it to its briefest that women are more inclined to PROTECT where men might be more amenable to retaliation with violence and why that might be of use here is I wonder perhaps to encourage that female SD student to view her use of physical force not for harm -even though that is the effect - and but for SELF-PROTECTION..

I know this might sound in your ears like a no brainer and but in my experience there is some times a disconnect between the use of physical means  and the association of this means with her own preservation.. I do not know about other women on the board.. every one is different and but for me it is some thing I still wrestle with though it is mitigated by using the art I use as it was conceived which has through the years left me thoroughly grounded in the notion that when I have to use it.. it is not about damaging him (usually is a him sorry) instead it is about protecting ME.. For me THIS is the shift in mindset needed.. If it seem like common sense like wth would she NOT think like that? well I am only offering just anecdote from talking with friends and from assisting women survivors in a professional capacity.. I do not train others SD so I cannot comment if that would even make any difference.. Jx


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> @elder999, Re the question that @Brian King asked about a way to help an average Jane to develop the mindset that violence is a tool that can be used.. I would want to suggest that there is a neurological difference between how the male and female body deploy adrenaline and I have found to put it to its briefest that women are more inclined to PROTECT where men might be more amenable to retaliation with violence and why that might be of use here is I wonder perhaps to encourage that female SD student to view her use of physical force not for harm -even though that is the effect - and but for SELF-PROTECTION..
> 
> I know this might sound in your ears like a no brainer and but in my experience there is some times a disconnect between the use of physical means  and the association of this means with her own preservation.. I do not know about other women on the board.. every one is different and but for me it is some thing I still wrestle with though it is mitigated by using the art I use as it was conceived which has through the years left me thoroughly grounded in the notion that when I have to use it.. it is not about damaging him (usually is a him sorry) instead it is about protecting ME.. For me THIS is the shift in mindset needed.. If it seem like common sense like wth would she NOT think like that? well I am only offering just anecdote from talking with friends and from assisting women survivors in a professional capacity.. I do not train others SD so I cannot comment if that would even make any difference.. Jx



Not a big as a divide as you think. Lets expand that and say people can be convinced to fight provided they feel they have the moral high ground.

Then you would look at soldiers and how the military convinces people it is ok to kill people. Suddenly people don't use violence because they think they are baddies but use it because they are goodies.


----------



## K-man

Jenna said:


> @elder999, Re the question that @Brian King asked about a way to help an average Jane to develop the mindset that violence is a tool that can be used.. I would want to suggest that there is a neurological difference between how the male and female body deploy adrenaline and I have found to put it to its briefest that women are more inclined to PROTECT where men might be more amenable to retaliation with violence and why that might be of use here is I wonder perhaps to encourage that female SD student to view her use of physical force not for harm -even though that is the effect - and but for SELF-PROTECTION..
> 
> I know this might sound in your ears like a no brainer and but in my experience there is some times a disconnect between the use of physical means  and the association of this means with her own preservation.. I do not know about other women on the board.. every one is different and but for me it is some thing I still wrestle with though it is mitigated by using the art I use as it was conceived which has through the years left me thoroughly grounded in the notion that when I have to use it.. it is not about damaging him (usually is a him sorry) instead it is about protecting ME.. For me THIS is the shift in mindset needed.. If it seem like common sense like wth would she NOT think like that? well I am only offering just anecdote from talking with friends and from assisting women survivors in a professional capacity.. I do not train others SD so I cannot comment if that would even make any difference.. Jx


I think that this is the fundamental difference between 'self defence' (avoiding trouble) and what many perceive as 'self defence' (fighting). 'Self protection' encompasses everything contained in 'self defence'.


----------



## Dirty Dog

K-man said:


> I think that this is the fundamental difference between 'self defence' (avoiding trouble) and what many perceive as 'self defence' (fighting). 'Self protection' encompasses everything contained in 'self defence'.



I would disagree with defining self defense as "avoiding trouble". While avoiding trouble is certainly an important part of self defense, fighting is another.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> I would disagree with defining self defense as "avoiding trouble". While avoiding trouble is certainly an important part of self defense, fighting is another.



The issue that we have is most people avoid trouble pretty effectively. And that someone who has either never been in a fight or in mabye one or two. Is not looking for further training in something they could be considered pretty good at.

We are generally not these kill monsters who cant walk down the street without violencing someone.

Most people want the ability to kick wholesale butt should they encounter unlikely event they meet a violent person and cannot avoid a fight.


----------



## K-man

Dirty Dog said:


> I would disagree with defining self defense as "avoiding trouble". While avoiding trouble is certainly an important part of self defense, fighting is another.


I would agree that fighting is a part of self defence, a small but important part, but I cannot see self defence in fighting. Fighting has the potential to be used in self defence. Fighting by itself does not equal self defence.


----------



## Hanzou

You don't need martial arts to learn how to "avoid trouble". Frankly if that's your goal, you're wasting your time and money.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> You don't need martial arts to learn how to "avoid trouble". Frankly if that's your goal, you're wasting your time and money.


I must have missed something. Who said, "You need martial arts to learn how to "avoid trouble"?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I must have missed something. Who said, "You need martial arts to learn how to "avoid trouble"?



You said that self defense is "avoiding trouble". Many people are taking MA to learn self defense, which is again in your opinion "avoiding trouble".

You're over emphasizing my use of "need" in my quote. I'm pointing out that if you believe that self defense is about avoiding trouble, martial arts isn't necessary to achieve that goal.


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> @elder999, Re the question that @Brian King asked about a way to help an average Jane to develop the mindset that violence is a tool that can be used.


 
Gettin' there.



Jenna said:


> I would want to suggest that there is a neurological difference between how the male and female body deploy adrenaline and I have found to put it to its briefest that women are more inclined to PROTECT where men might be more amenable to retaliation with violence and why that might be of use here is I wonder perhaps to encourage that female SD student to view her use of physical force not for harm -even though that is the effect - and but for SELF-PROTECTION..


 
Not so-much, I think...the motivations  and precursors are different, perhaps....

Most _human beings_ actually are naturally disinclined to use violence against their fellow-human beings, ample evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.As drop bear mentioned, the armed services use a pretty crude method of overcoming this natural disinclination: they typically_ dehumanize_ "the enemy," so it becomes "ok" to kill them. Human beings are fairly capable of making the same _decision_ about the "other," relegating them to non-human status, especially where self-protection/preservation/defense *and* the defense of others makes violence necessary......I've posted about my "relationship" with bears elsewhere, and one of the mottos of my dojo is "_Like a bear protecting her cubs_." The bear is an omnivore that is generally bashful, and generally doesn't resort to violence towards threats-if you see a bear in the woods, it will usually run away. Get near a mother and her cub, though......

Most people have at least a little she-bear in them. Mindset is about accessing that at will,



Jenna said:


> I know this might sound in your ears like a no brainer and but in my experience there is some times a disconnect between the use of physical means  and the association of this means with her own preservation.. I do not know about other women on the board.. every one is different and but for me it is some thing I still wrestle with though it is mitigated by using the art I use as it was conceived which has through the years left me thoroughly grounded in the notion that when I have to use it.. it is not about damaging him (usually is a him sorry) instead it is about protecting ME.. For me THIS is the shift in mindset needed.. If it seem like common sense like wth would she NOT think like that? well I am only offering just anecdote from talking with friends and from assisting women survivors in a professional capacity.. I do not train others SD so I cannot comment if that would even make any difference.. Jx


 
I hadn't thought to formulate a female-specific response for this, but I _do_ train women differently, because of some things related to what you've posted-all too often, women are emotionally hindered from responding or facing a threat. Let me think on it some, so I can articulate a response. Here's an anecdote, though-a sad one, about someone I'd known since I was 11 years old.

Beth Lochtefeld was a wonderful person, who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. She was also an aikidoka-and had actually traveled to Guam to train with  Minigishi Mutsuko sensei, who I think is the highest ranked aikidoka in the Aikikai, and who knew her-as lots  of people did-as "the crying girl."

They called her that because she'd get extremely emotional and start crying over even the relatively benign person to person confrontation of _uke_ v. _tori_.

Her ex wound up surprising her at home, and stabbing her 23 times. I'm still friends with her brothers, Peter and John, and happen to know that she actually put up one hell of fight......not enough, though-sad.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> You said that self defense is "avoiding trouble". Many people are taking MA to learn self defense, which is again in your opinion "avoiding trouble".
> 
> You're over emphasizing my use of "need" in my quote. I'm pointing out that if you believe that self defense is about avoiding trouble, martial arts isn't necessary to achieve that goal.


 

If you believe self-defense is being trained to use violence against an attacker, martial arts isn't necessary to achieve that goal.....just sayin'


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> If you believe self-defense is being trained to use violence against an attacker, martial arts isn't necessary to achieve that goal.....just sayin'



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't kicking someone's knee out, punching them in the face, or stomping their head "violence used against an attacker", and part of self defense training in many MAs?


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't kicking someone's knee out, punching them in the face, or stomping their head "violence used against an attacker", and part of self defense training in many MAs?


 Yep. But you can train to do those things without  training in *any* _martial art._


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Yep. But you can train to do those things without  training in *any* _martial art._



You could, but that wasn't really my point.


----------



## drop bear

elder999 said:


> Yep. But you can train to do those things without  training in *any* _martial art._



Some can. Here we may go the other end of the spectrum and look at why a baddie might benefit from martial arts. Either as an outlet to redirect violence more constructively or a way in which to temper violent outbursts.

In which case learning to not be a douchebag may take a more primary role.


----------



## BMhadoken

Jenna said:


> I have found to put it to its briefest that women are more inclined to PROTECT where men might be more amenable to retaliation with violence


I must nitpick on this point, and argue that both men and women are equally disposed toward vengeful or vindictive behavior. As evidence I submit every single one of my ex-girlfriends. Seriously though, It's actually been my own experience that my generation of women will become physically violent with a man more quickly than a man will with other men, often seemingly based on the assumption that as a woman they're immune to retaliation. Beyond that, it's been said and I would agree that women in general are put under more pressure not to act out, fight or make a scene, and it can get them in trouble when danger comes at them with more force than they're willing to match.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> Not a big as a divide as you think. Lets expand that and say people can be convinced to fight provided they feel they have the moral high ground.
> 
> Then you would look at soldiers and how the military convinces people it is ok to kill people. Suddenly people don't use violence because they think they are baddies but use it because they are goodies.


The magic word is "othering" -- though there is more to the process than that in military training.   See Grossman, MacYoung, and lots of other folks for different angles on this. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> Gettin' there.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so-much, I think...the motivations  and precursors are different, perhaps....
> 
> Most _human beings_ actually are naturally disinclined to use violence against their fellow-human beings, ample evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.As drop bear mentioned, the armed services use a pretty crude method of overcoming this natural disinclination: they typically_ dehumanize_ "the enemy," so it becomes "ok" to kill them. Human beings are fairly capable of making the same _decision_ about the "other," relegating them to non-human status, especially where self-protection/preservation/defense *and* the defense of others makes violence necessary......I've posted about my "relationship" with bears elsewhere, and one of the mottos of my dojo is "_Like a bear protecting her cubs_." The bear is an omnivore that is generally bashful, and generally doesn't resort to violence towards threats-if you see a bear in the woods, it will usually run away. Get near a mother and her cub, though......
> 
> Most people have at least a little she-bear in them. Mindset is about accessing that at will,
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't thought to formulate a female-specific response for this, but I _do_ train women differently, because of some things related to what you've posted-all too often, women are emotionally hindered from responding or facing a threat. Let me think on it some, so I can articulate a response. Here's an anecdote, though-a sad one, about someone I'd known since I was 11 years old.
> 
> Beth Lochtefeld was a wonderful person, who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. She was also an aikidoka-and had actually traveled to Guam to train with  Minigishi Mutsuko sensei, who I think is the highest ranked aikidoka in the Aikikai, and who knew her-as lots  of people did-as "the crying girl."
> 
> They called her that because she'd get extremely emotional and start crying over even the relatively benign person to person confrontation of _uke_ v. _tori_.
> 
> Her ex wound up surprising her at home, and stabbing her 23 times. I'm still friends with her brothers, Peter and John, and happen to know that she actually put up one hell of fight......not enough, though-sad.


Thank you for how you put your point and for your explanations and for that story, I am grateful you gave space to that thank you  And yes you are parallel with what I mean.. you are far better at articulating it than me.. 

What I want to say if my vocab would permit is that maybe using your example.. mother/cub.. only add also father/cub for comparison.. what I have seen is that both have an imperative to protect the cub though physiologically there is a differing reaction.. Still it is in cases where the woman is only protecting her self and not her young.. this disconnect as I see it is even more prevalent..

Like you have heard of "tend and befriend" yes? it is roughly in line with my point.. 

Tend and Befriend Psychology Today

"So while both sexes share the capacity for fight or flight, females seem to use it less."

Please I am not up for arguing with you only women survivors I have worked with there is frequently a startling lack of drive to protect their selves *physically*. Some times this is a self-esteem issue ok and so I acknowledge that this is a specific demographic and but I feel it is related to the physiological and neurological response to stress hormones as suggested in the research above and others like it.

Those women that are apt to fight, great, though physical confidence in women, when thinking of confrontation is rare in my experience. And those that do not even imagine their selves physically confident are more susceptible to being overcome in an attack due to this disconnect between what has to happen to defend and protect their selves and actually DOING that thing.. sooo I would try to encourage a mindset that espouses these two..

1. it is right and just to protect your self -this is not even the given you may imagine?
2. in an attack it is ACCEPTABLE to cause potentially serious physical harm to the attacker if it is in line with having to justifiably PROTECT your self..

Again I cannot argue that these would appear to be no brainers I am just relating my experience of this odd -when looking rationally- disconnect between the desire to protect oneself and the neurological response in women that does not seem to mandate the use of destructive force which is some times necessary to stave off attack in the same way as for men..

I hope this can make some sense Jx


----------



## Jenna

BMhadoken said:


> I must nitpick on this point, and argue that both men and women are equally disposed toward vengeful or vindictive behavior. As evidence I submit every single one of my ex-girlfriends. Seriously though, It's actually been my own experience that my generation of women will become physically violent with a man more quickly than a man will with other men, often seemingly based on the assumption that as a woman they're immune to retaliation. Beyond that, it's been said and I would agree that women in general are put under more pressure not to act out, fight or make a scene, and it can get them in trouble when danger comes at them with more force than they're willing to match.


it is ok to nitpick.. you are correct about vengefulness I would not disagree.. I think I mean some thing else other than retaliation with violence.. I cannot quite catch the word in English I mean.. sorry  I know what you are saying though and you have it right thank you Jxx


----------



## BMhadoken

Jenna said:


> it is ok to nitpick.. you are correct about vengefulness I would not disagree.. I think I mean some thing else other than retaliation with violence.. I cannot quite catch the word in English I mean.. sorry  I know what you are saying though and you have it right thank you Jxx



I think I'm getting what you're saying, at least a little. Women are less aggressive? Less willing to commit to a confrontation? Does that sound about right?

Obviously I can only speak from a western industrialized perspective, but that does seem to be an issue with woman all over, ignoring the more wild-tempered groups. I think a lot of it has to do with the way we've raised females and encouraged them to behave for much of our history. The ideal woman was quiet, submissive, and didn't cause trouble. The last few generations have started to resist that trend in a big way as we push for equal treatment of both sexes, but it still has great influence over the behavior of women.

Betrayed by the Angel

Link to a story describing my meaning. Resisting the urge to fight back, and then not fighting back with nearly enough force and commitment.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't kicking someone's knee out, punching them in the face, or stomping their head "violence used against an attacker", and part of self defense training in many MAs?


Not really. What you have stressed is the extreme end of a very small part of self defence. By the time you are doing those things your self defence skills have probably already failed you miserably. But you know that, don't you? It has been stated many times in the past.


----------



## Steve

I have a question for the group at large.   Approximately how much time is spent by you with your students teaching them things other than fighting skills?  We are talking about pillars of self defense, and the recurring theme seems to be that violence and fighting skills are a very small part of overall self defense.   But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Not really. What you have stressed is the extreme end of a very small part of self defence. By the time you are doing those things your self defence skills have probably already failed you miserably. But you know that, don't you? It has been stated many times in the past.



So in the schools where you teach you're not spending the vast majority of the time learning how to kick, punch, throw, etc?

EDIT: LoL! Wow Steve.


----------



## K-man

If you say so. You obviously know what I teach and you know my take on self defence. I'm out of this discussion until you demonstrate that you actually understand what self defence is.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> I have a question for the group at large.   Approximately how much time is spent by you with your students teaching them things other than fighting skills?  We are talking about pillars of self defense, and the recurring theme seems to be that violence and fighting skills are a very small part of overall self defense.   But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction.



Well...I guess the question would be "who is qualified" to do it?

IMO the "problem" with many MA schools is the "you don't have to go anywhere but here to get what you need" approach. IMO you either bring in "topic experts", send students for "graduate work" somewhere else or YOU (the instructor) need to get qualified training in what you want to teach others.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I have a question for the group at large.   Approximately how much time is spent by you with your students teaching them things other than fighting skills?  We are talking about pillars of self defense, and the recurring theme seems to be that violence and fighting skills are a very small part of overall self defense.   But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction.


 
The bulk of our time is spent with developing fighting skills. Aside from that though, there's a fair amount of discussion and instruction on things like cultural differences, psychological cues, and body language. We also do some exercises in observation, tracking and stalking to develop situational awareness.There's also some  role-play and psychodrama: simulated confrontations.....we also work on verbal de-escalation, as well as the legal side of things.

There's more to it than just fighting skills, and there's often *a lot* more to it before fighting skills are called for-navigating that, though, is not something everyone gets trained for......I mean, Renzo Gracie certainly wasn't-there's an example of someone who has spent the bulk of his training on fighting skills, but apparently hasn't learned (or retained? or accepted?) any instruction on how to conduct himself.



Tgace said:


> Well...I guess the question would be "who is qualified" to do it?
> IMO the "problem" with many MA schools is the "you don't have to go anywhere but here to get what you need" approach. IMO you either bring in "topic experts", send students for "graduate work" somewhere else or YOU (the instructor) need to get qualified training in what you want to teach others.


 
*A+*!

I'm certainly not the one to get too deep into meditation with, though we do some, it's very specific and directed-for people who want more, I have people I can send them to for more. Likewise a few martial aspects-either because they want or need something I don't have, or can use some polishing from someone better-there's a thread somewhere about students with disabilities-I sent a guy who spent a fair amount of time in a wheelchair (he could stand, just not for very long...) to someone whose _newaza_ *teaching* was better than mine-he could work with someone who was confined strictly to upper-body strength a little better, and customize things for someone who would likely be in a wheelchair when confronted a little better, I thought.....


----------



## Tgace

the warriors quest the things worth believing in


----------



## Buka

To me - self defense is all about fighting. How to, how not to, how to avoid it, how to triumph, how to survive, escape etc. The only things I teach physically have to do with, IMO, fighting or fitness. I don't teach Kata, because I don't know how. I don't teach Muay Thai, I don't know how. I don't teach boxing skills to competitively box, I teach boxing skills to fight. I teach basic grappling as was taught to me, and although I've competed in it a few times, I wouldn't have the first clue as how to teach it for competition.

But I teach a lot of young people (15-30 years old) so I teach things other than fighting. I find them to be impressionable, and in Karate schools, at least as I know them, they tend to listen to certain instructors. (yes, that can be good or bad) I am very opinionated about teaching and I am not a shy instructor. I teach the kids how to be gentleman and ladies, and sometimes I get a bit preachy. I teach them Martial ettiquette. I teach them what I expect of them. And I like to do that in front of their family. Been doing it long enough so they know exactly where I'm coming from. I teach young women to expect to be treated as ladies, and to not accept any other behavior from any suitor. I teach them to study how "their boyfriend" treats his mom or other membors of his family because he's going to treat you the very same way. I teach them about school and about work, I teach them about the law as I know it. (retired LEO)
By the way....I'm not refering to white belts who just joined up, but to the greater student body as a whole. I teach the young men to be responsible and openly threaten them if they are otherwise (so sue me if you don't like that, I don't care) The skills I teach them concerning battling others come with a price other than tuition. They are welcome to go elsewhere if they don't like that price.

The kids know they can call on me anytime, especially if they get in trouble, I'll come get them no questions asked, provide legal counsel and get them home safely - then rat them out in detail to their folks - and probably kick their asses myself at some point if it's necessary. It doesn't happen often, but it has happened. And what Tgace said is spot on. I love bringing in "topic experts" and have sent a considerable number of students on to other places. I loved bringing in guests to teach my students. Doctors, cops, EMT's (they might be the best), cornermen, chiropractors, knife fighters, professional athletes and even a few criminals. (how to pick a victim or a house to rob) And all manner of what I consider champion fighters. Many times unannounced. (go ahead, skip class - you won't miss anything.)







That's Billy Blanks and Joe Lewis with me. We just taught a beginners class. The kids pictured here didn't even know who they were - but soon found out. Shoulda seen the looks of the advaced class as _they_ strolled in. Never saw people run and change into uniform so God damn fast.

So, yeah, I teach things other than fighting skills. But for the physical aspect of Martial Arts, at least American Karate as I know it - it's all about fighting and the development of character.


----------



## Jenna

@Buka, awesome picture btw and so cool that you were working along with these two!  Can I ask please what year this might have been? Thank you Jxx


----------



## Jenna

BMhadoken said:


> I think I'm getting what you're saying, at least a little. Women are less aggressive? Less willing to commit to a confrontation? Does that sound about right?
> 
> Obviously I can only speak from a western industrialized perspective, but that does seem to be an issue with woman all over, ignoring the more wild-tempered groups. I think a lot of it has to do with the way we've raised females and encouraged them to behave for much of our history. The ideal woman was quiet, submissive, and didn't cause trouble. The last few generations have started to resist that trend in a big way as we push for equal treatment of both sexes, but it still has great influence over the behavior of women.
> 
> Betrayed by the Angel
> 
> Link to a story describing my meaning. Resisting the urge to fight back, and then not fighting back with nearly enough force and commitment.


Yes you have that as I mean it thank you. And the story is a traumatic event for her to communicate so frankly and openly.. hers is an attitude I have heard also, and not in short measure.. As parents or elders we have much to teach our impressionable young women about valuing their selves and as you and I I believe are both suggesting that an awareness is made that if physical violence is mandated that it is not incompatible with the idea of being and acting as a self-respecting woman.. Thank you for posting this story hers like many womens is one that should be heard and not hidden.. Jxx


----------



## BMhadoken

Jenna said:


> Yes you have that as I mean it thank you. And the story is a traumatic event for her to communicate so frankly and openly.. hers is an attitude I have heard also, and not in short measure.. As parents or elders we have much to teach our impressionable young women about valuing their selves and as you and I I believe are both suggesting that an awareness is made that if physical violence is mandated that it is not incompatible with the idea of being and acting as a self-respecting woman.. Thank you for posting this story hers like many womens is one that should be heard and not hidden.. Jxx



Yes, As so many others have said it comes down to mindset, and that's what we should be instilling in women today. No fighting system, nor the deadliest weapon, is of any value in the hands of someone who is unwilling to do harm.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I have a question for the group at large.   Approximately how much time is spent by you with your students teaching them things other than fighting skills?  We are talking about pillars of self defense, and the recurring theme seems to be that violence and fighting skills are a very small part of overall self defense.   But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction.



The kids get mabye ten seconds of "don't go around punching dudes"

Everybody else gets told they cant fight outside of the clb


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> The kids get mabye ten seconds of "don't go around punching dudes"
> 
> Everybody else gets told they cant fight outside of the clb



(hit post by accident.)

Outside of the club. Unless they really have to.

But it hasn't been a real problem either.


----------



## drop bear

Tgace said:


> Well...I guess the question would be "who is qualified" to do it?
> 
> IMO the "problem" with many MA schools is the "you don't have to go anywhere but here to get what you need" approach. IMO you either bring in "topic experts", send students for "graduate work" somewhere else or YOU (the instructor) need to get qualified training in what you want to teach others.



Yeah probably the largest degree of making stuff up as you go along you see in a class generally.


----------



## MaxRob

Once again Avoidance and deep awareness plays a  huge role ... Get out of there..., it is an essential in self defense to defeflect and regroup in certain situations or just get away as quickly as possible .
When it comes to direct conflict however good your arts are your adversary  may if knowledgable if allowed will find ways around you without engaging you until the  right moment comes. There are no rules out there.
Improvise any environmental weapon ,or if you have a serious weapon  concealed don't be afraid to use it ,and use it as a concealed means to achieve the element of surprise.
If you are in a dangerous living area arm yourself  conceal it and be ready to use it if in  danger.
Some we win some we loose, and it is better to get away with your life even if you need to run away.
Keeping fit and  practicing endurance running is part of self dfence.


----------



## aedrasteia

Steve said:


> I have a question for the group at large.   Approximately how much time is spent by you with your students teaching them things other than fighting skills?  We are talking about pillars of self defense, and the recurring theme seems to be that violence and fighting skills are a very small part of overall self defense.   But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction.




"_But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction"    _
From conventional MA-based instructors? sure. 

Not from me and most of the reality-based  teachers I know (99% women).  Erik Kondo is an exception: THE PROGRESSIVE BOUNDARY SETTING SYSTEM 

Rory Miller gets the dimensions of mental-emotional-psychological conditioning. But even he, as good as he
is and he is very good, does not address the reality of assaults toward girls/women from people 'inside the circle'.
Chiron Convergence

Less and less focus on techniques. More and more focus on consciously facing (and coping with)
what the women and girls already know: we are/have already been molested, assaulted, harassed, raped 
by family and friends/people we know; people who are already part of the 'circle of trust'. Stranger assault obsesses regular MA instructors, occurs sometimes and is the most discussed. But is the least frequent. You wouldn't know that by reading this thread, most MT threads or the classes offered by MAs.  

Girls/women bring all their personal experience (and experiences of the girls/women in their families and their friends) 
into the class.  It dominates everything that happens in the class. Creating an environment in the class where they/we can talk about reality and learn to change what happens in the future is my responsibility.

Girls/women, me and my students have been trained/socialized very very very differently. And especially
in even naming, much less stopping, behavior and intrusion/aggression from people inside the circle.

So I share 27 ways to recognize and interupt/stop/derail/deflect/change intrusive behavior.... 
Recognizing, Naming, Stopping the targeting and testing aggressors use (seldom involves physical strikes etc, but definitely includes physical skills).

Because it happens (happened) to me too.


----------



## drop bear

aedrasteia said:


> "_But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction"    _
> From conventional MA-based instructors? sure.
> 
> Not from me and most of the reality-based  teachers I know (99% women).  Erik Kondo is an exception: THE PROGRESSIVE BOUNDARY SETTING SYSTEM
> 
> Rory Miller gets the dimensions of mental-emotional-psychological conditioning. But even he, as good as he
> is and he is very good, does not address the reality of assaults toward girls/women from people 'inside the circle'.
> Chiron Convergence
> 
> Less and less focus on techniques. More and more focus on consciously facing (and coping with)
> what the women and girls already know: we are/have already been molested, assaulted, harassed, raped
> by family and friends/people we know; people who are already part of the 'circle of trust'. Stranger assault obsesses regular MA instructors, occurs sometimes and is the most discussed. But is the least frequent. You wouldn't know that by reading this thread, most MT threads or the classes offered by MAs.
> 
> Girls/women bring all their personal experience (and experiences of the girls/women in their families and their friends)
> into the class.  It dominates everything that happens in the class. Creating an environment in the class where they/we can talk about reality and learn to change what happens in the future is my responsibility.
> 
> Girls/women, me and my students have been trained/socialized very very very differently. And especially
> in even naming, much less stopping, behavior and intrusion/aggression from people inside the circle.
> 
> So I share 27 ways to recognize and interupt/stop/derail/deflect/change intrusive behavior....
> Recognizing, Naming, Stopping the targeting and testing aggressors use (seldom involves physical strikes etc, but definitely includes physical skills).
> 
> Because it happens (happened) to me too.



I wonder if it is the same methods I use to prevent getting alpha maled at work?

What is the breakdown of that?


----------



## Buka

Jenna said:


> @Buka, awesome picture btw and so cool that you were working along with these two!  Can I ask please what year this might have been? Thank you Jxx[/QUOTE
> 
> Sometime in the ninties. The years kind of run together now.


----------



## elder999

Buka said:


> Sometime in the ninties. The years kind of run together now.



Billy's geri-curls say more like 1988.....


----------



## Jenna

aedrasteia said:


> "_But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction"    _
> From conventional MA-based instructors? sure.
> 
> Not from me and most of the reality-based  teachers I know (99% women).  Erik Kondo is an exception: THE PROGRESSIVE BOUNDARY SETTING SYSTEM
> 
> Rory Miller gets the dimensions of mental-emotional-psychological conditioning. But even he, as good as he
> is and he is very good, does not address the reality of assaults toward girls/women from people 'inside the circle'.
> Chiron Convergence
> 
> Less and less focus on techniques. More and more focus on consciously facing (and coping with)
> what the women and girls already know: we are/have already been molested, assaulted, harassed, raped
> by family and friends/people we know; people who are already part of the 'circle of trust'. Stranger assault obsesses regular MA instructors, occurs sometimes and is the most discussed. But is the least frequent. You wouldn't know that by reading this thread, most MT threads or the classes offered by MAs.
> 
> Girls/women bring all their personal experience (and experiences of the girls/women in their families and their friends)
> into the class.  It dominates everything that happens in the class. Creating an environment in the class where they/we can talk about reality and learn to change what happens in the future is my responsibility.
> 
> Girls/women, me and my students have been trained/socialized very very very differently. And especially
> in even naming, much less stopping, behavior and intrusion/aggression from people inside the circle.
> 
> So I share 27 ways to recognize and interupt/stop/derail/deflect/change intrusive behavior....
> Recognizing, Naming, Stopping the targeting and testing aggressors use (seldom involves physical strikes etc, but definitely includes physical skills).
> 
> Because it happens (happened) to me too.


I am so so sorry to hear this has happened to you x.. the more women I speak with the more the horror of this almost accepted "normality of abuse" become apparent.. 

I understand how you mean that MA instructors might appear obsessed.. Do you think all of these aspects familial / acquaintance assault and the emotional and societal hurdles needing to be confronted by women for their own defence and protection do you think these ought to be dealt with by MA/SD instructors?

Can I ask please would an all encompassing SD protocol as is being sought here in this thread would that be EQUALLY applicable to any person in any situation from the forum fetishised bar / parking lot assault to the mosre insidious familial horrors that we deal with all of the time? Is such an all-encompassing SD protocol possible?? what do you think? 

I am not any bodys instructor and I do not know how to deal with these things comprehensively like this thread is seeking from an MA / SD perspective all I know is that from girls I have assisted post-trauma through their shame and grim tangle of affect and self-view that these abusers have gifted them  that if I subsequently recall a disclosure a part of me cannot help feel regret I was not around for her BEFORE to show how to adopt a level of physical fortitude and concomitant self-worth and esteem.. In all of that would teaching her some of my MA have been of any  worth whatsoever? I do not even know because we are all programmed to act and react differently and but me it has given me a change of mind from being resigned to the beatings of my father to identifying and making concrete my own personal space and understanding the inviolability of this space by any body..

This is a mind set change.. it is not a quick change.. I am only saying for me MA was a big part of it.. love,wishes Jx


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> I have a question for the group at large.   Approximately how much time is spent by you with your students teaching them things other than fighting skills?  We are talking about pillars of self defense, and the recurring theme seems to be that violence and fighting skills are a very small part of overall self defense.   But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction.



In my school, about 90-95% of it is fighting, and about 5-10% is discussion on various concepts.

The women's self defense class may work differently.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I have to say Buka I enjoyed the time I trained with Billy before a major tournament.  It was way back in the day but it sure was a lot of fun!


----------



## Zero

K-man said:


> If you say so. You obviously know what I teach and you know my take on self defence. I'm out of this discussion until you demonstrate that you actually understand what self defence is.


Huh, what, hey, where did you go?...Have gone to get the popcorn, again??!   : )


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> I wonder if it is the same methods I use to prevent getting alpha maled at work?
> 
> What is the breakdown of that?


maybe it's coz you are the alpha male, I sure  wish you would stop pushin' us other fellas around on MT


----------



## Steve

aedrasteia said:


> "_But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction"    _
> From conventional MA-based instructors? sure.
> 
> Not from me and most of the reality-based  teachers I know (99% women).  Erik Kondo is an exception: THE PROGRESSIVE BOUNDARY SETTING SYSTEM
> 
> Rory Miller gets the dimensions of mental-emotional-psychological conditioning. But even he, as good as he
> is and he is very good, does not address the reality of assaults toward girls/women from people 'inside the circle'.
> Chiron Convergence
> 
> Less and less focus on techniques. More and more focus on consciously facing (and coping with)
> what the women and girls already know: we are/have already been molested, assaulted, harassed, raped
> by family and friends/people we know; people who are already part of the 'circle of trust'. Stranger assault obsesses regular MA instructors, occurs sometimes and is the most discussed. But is the least frequent. You wouldn't know that by reading this thread, most MT threads or the classes offered by MAs.
> 
> Girls/women bring all their personal experience (and experiences of the girls/women in their families and their friends)
> into the class.  It dominates everything that happens in the class. Creating an environment in the class where they/we can talk about reality and learn to change what happens in the future is my responsibility.
> 
> Girls/women, me and my students have been trained/socialized very very very differently. And especially
> in even naming, much less stopping, behavior and intrusion/aggression from people inside the circle.
> 
> So I share 27 ways to recognize and interupt/stop/derail/deflect/change intrusive behavior....
> Recognizing, Naming, Stopping the targeting and testing aggressors use (seldom involves physical strikes etc, but definitely includes physical skills).
> 
> Because it happens (happened) to me too.


There is a lot of food for thought here.  Some of the things you're pointing out mesh well with the information shared by others.  But some of it stands out and makes a lot of sense. It seems that in some areas, particularly where you state that most of the real threat to women is from people they know and trust, there should be a fundamental shift in the nature of the instruction.  Even some of the more thorough, self defense training would be of limited help in the context you outline.  Thank you for sharing!


----------



## Buka

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I have to say Buka I enjoyed the time I trained with Billy before a major tournament.  It was way back in the day but it sure was a lot of fun!



He was interesting to train with, that's for sure. We were sparring partners for five years or so. Learned a lot from him. Hurt like hell sometimes, but you know how it is.


----------



## elder999

Buka said:


> He was interesting to train with, that's for sure. We were sparring partners for five years or so. Learned a lot from him. Hurt like hell sometimes, but you know how it is.


 He was pretty strong-quick, too!


----------



## Buka

He's the only guy I've ever seen do a pushup to a standing position without bending his waist. And sometimes he'd get into a pushup position, have me lie on his back, back to back (gripping the side of his gi pants) and do one hundred perfect pushups in ninety seconds. I only weigh 145, but still.


----------



## elder999

Buka said:


> He's the only guy I've ever seen do a pushup to a standing position without bending his waist. And sometimes he'd get into a pushup position, have me lie on his back, back to back (gripping the side of his gi pants) and do one hundred perfect pushups in ninety seconds. I only weigh 145, but still.


 
 He swept me once in a tournament....._with his arm_.....felt pretty stupid, sitting there on my *** after that one!


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> There is a lot of food for thought here.  Some of the things you're pointing out mesh well with the information shared by others.  But some of it stands out and makes a lot of sense. It seems that in some areas, particularly where you state that most of the real threat to women is from people they know and trust, there should be a fundamental shift in the nature of the instruction.  Even some of the more thorough, self defense training would be of limited help in the context you outline.  Thank you for sharing!


In my state, we are currently running a Royal Commission into domestic violence. I don't know if it is just that more people are choosing to report it but there has been an alarming rise in the past few years.

I think that there is huge scope in this area for self defence classes, not so much the fighting aspect but avoidance, de-escalation, where to call for help, etc.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> maybe it's coz you are the alpha male, I sure  wish you would stop pushin' us other fellas around on MT



Nobody is getting pushed. Nobody is the alpha male here.

And I have seen a few cases of dog pile the new guy. So nobody can claim to be the victim.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Nobody is getting pushed. Nobody is the alpha male here.
> 
> And I have seen a few cases of dog pile the new guy. So nobody can claim to be the victim.


Hey, I should have put some smiley faces on that one Dropbear was only kidding!!


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Hey, I should have put some smiley faces on that one Dropbear was only kidding!!



Lol. Fair enough. By the way my trick in pubs is not to get into that competition.


----------



## elder999

Briefly, because I'm waiting for a plane, I need to just put something out there on the "female question," and attempt to be as general about it as I can (so as not to make it too specific to my methods):

1) Adrenaline is hypothalamic: it is generated in our limbic system-it is, essentially, a function of the reptile brain.....all  mammals have it, and its disposition is indistinguishable from male to female in so-called lower life forms: the female lion or shark is no less violent or aggressive than males given the same sort of stimuli (the obvious exception being mating behaviors)...

2) Humans are distinguished by their higher brain functions: what we think and feel are stimulated by reactions to the activation of adrenaline, as are our reactions to it. The converse is equally true though-*and this is the important part*: _our thoughts and feelings can stimulate the activation of adrenaline_

3) If thought and emotion can stimulate the secretion of adrenaline, humans can be taught to trigger and control its secretion.

4) The key to dealing with the differences between the male and female brain (which is what you're really talking about, @Jenna , @aedrasteia ) is to tie that trigger to the desired response-reprogramming the brain to recognize (under certain circumstances) that it's *not* time to protect anything but oneself and one's loved ones.

5) Unfortunately, "one's loved ones," as you've already pointed out, all too often is one way of describing a woman's assailant: this can result to an emotional conflict that is* not* something anyone should have to 'train" for-though, having experienced it, a couple of my students have done just that.


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> 2) Humans are distinguished by their higher brain functions: what we think and feel are stimulated by reactions to the activation of adrenaline, as are our reactions to it. The converse is equally true though-*and this is the important part*: _our thoughts and feelings can stimulate the activation of adrenaline_


If this is true which seems highly valid and plausible then how would you say is best or most efficient ways to change, alter or adapt thoughts such that they create the appropriate -and necessary- response AND with the immediacy with which they would be needed?? That is a difficult one I think?? Jxx


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> If this is true which seems highly valid and plausible then how would you say is best or most efficient ways to change, alter or adapt thoughts such that they create the appropriate -and necessary- response AND with the immediacy with which they would be needed?? That is a difficult one I think?? Jxx


Briefly, because  I'm on the plane, and on the phone,  the key word is"trigger." It requires a conscious action, as does killing.

After you've found and can access that trigger, though,  it's like flipping a light switch.


----------



## oftheherd1

aedrasteia said:


> "_But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction"    _
> From conventional MA-based instructors? sure.
> 
> Not from me and most of the reality-based  teachers I know (99% women).  Erik Kondo is an exception: THE PROGRESSIVE BOUNDARY SETTING SYSTEM
> 
> Rory Miller gets the dimensions of mental-emotional-psychological conditioning. But even he, as good as he
> is and he is very good, does not address the reality of assaults toward girls/women from people 'inside the circle'.
> Chiron Convergence
> 
> Less and less focus on techniques. More and more focus on consciously facing (and coping with)
> what the women and girls already know: we are/have already been molested, assaulted, harassed, raped
> by family and friends/people we know; people who are already part of the 'circle of trust'. Stranger assault obsesses regular MA instructors, occurs sometimes and is the most discussed. But is the least frequent. You wouldn't know that by reading this thread, most MT threads or the classes offered by MAs.
> 
> Girls/women bring all their personal experience (and experiences of the girls/women in their families and their friends)
> into the class.  It dominates everything that happens in the class. Creating an environment in the class where they/we can talk about reality and learn to change what happens in the future is my responsibility.
> 
> Girls/women, me and my students have been trained/socialized very very very differently. And especially
> in even naming, much less stopping, behavior and intrusion/aggression from people inside the circle.
> 
> So I share 27 ways to recognize and interupt/stop/derail/deflect/change intrusive behavior....
> Recognizing, Naming, Stopping the targeting and testing aggressors use (seldom involves physical strikes etc, but definitely includes physical skills).
> 
> Because it happens (happened) to me too.



Good for you!  Do you think women have a better chance of relating to women students when talking about the secret, dirty side of, as you put it,the inner circle?  I know about that, and can provide opportunities for women or children to talk.  But that opportunity never presented itself in club/dojo when I taught (actually, if it had, I would probably have turned it over to one of two students I had who were Psychologists).  Also, as an investigator, that wasn't our main focus, although there were services we could encourage people to partake in.  And I did that as often as I thought necessary, even if obliquely; to keep them from fearing their 'secret' was known to everybody.  

But I always thought I might be treading on thin ice, that I my motives might be misunderstood, especially with women or girls, or that known or potential victims might react in ways, out of fear or embarrassment,  that might be to my detriment.  Probably another reason for sometimes acting obliquely.

But I would be interested in your opinion, and I think it might be useful to MT members.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Briefly, because  I'm on the plane, and on the phone,  the key word is"trigger." It requires a conscious action, as does killing.
> 
> After you've found and can access that trigger, though,  it's like flipping a light switch.



A thing that I believe has helped me is to always be aware; and when I see something that "could" go against me, to begin thinking of solutions.  I sometimes even meditate on techniques and made up situations where they might, or might not, be useful.  Don't get me wrong, I don't do any of that morbidly, but just as a way to have options for avoiding problems, or to act in my best interests if I do.  Most things in real life, don't even come close to being a problem, simply because there is no problem there.  But I don't think it wrong to be as ready as possible.

Another thing that helped me was early on, a decision as a soldier, and later, as a soldier policeman, that I might have to kill.  As a soldier, it was a matter of serving my country, protecting my buddies, and keeping myself alive.  I never saw a problem with that, rather considered it as right.  The only thing I feared as a policeman, was the potential paperwork.  But shooting and/or killing people under the correct (legal) circumstances was something I accommodated to early on.

I am guessing elder can suggest methods for training that would help.  My thought is to get people, men or women, to accept that certain situations require survival modes to kick in, along with a quick evaluation as to whether fight or flight is better.  I think a lot of people, perhaps women more than men but still both, have an aversion to injuring others, even when under attack.  Survival mode can help that.  Survival mode doesn't have to incur a panic mode, simply a realization that survival is at stake and certain reactions are required.

Elder - Is that correct from you point of view, or do you see other things needed?


----------



## aedrasteia

Steve said:


> But some of it stands out and makes a lot of sense. It seems that in some areas, particularly where you state that most of the real threat to women is from people they know and trust, there should be a fundamental shift in the nature of the instruction.  Even some of the more thorough, self defense training would be of limited help in the context you outline.  Thank you for sharing!



thanks Steve, I appreciate your POV.

Yes, a fundamental shift in the nature of SD4W instruction would be a huge improvement. There is no lack of information/data about threats to girls/women from friends/family/known aggressors.  The information is available and many MA based instructors pay lip service to that understanding. But this reality is absent from their instruction/classes and appear to be baffled or unable to take it in and make their instruction connect to women's lives. The focus-assumption is entirely on the 'stranger in an alley/street/parking lot'.

Why?


----------



## Brian King

Buka said:


> A fighter can have all the skills in the world, but no heart. When pressed enough, the fighter will break.
> A fighter can have tremendous heart, but no skill. Having heart will help - it will keep you going, probably to the hospital where you might be admired for taking a beating for as long as you did. But a decently skilled person with heart - tough to beat.
> 
> I don't know if some folks are born with it, if it just comes naturally to them, yeah, maybe. But it can be developed through hard work and pushing oneself through limitations, constantly. "Constantly" is key - at least in the context of "I pushed myself once, boy, was I tired". Sammy Davis Jr once described what a professional was. He said, "A professional is someone who does a good job even when he doesn't feel like it." I think that touches upon it, obviously in a much softer context, but I think the basic idea is similar.
> 
> I think it's as much phycological as it is physical. (and not physiological at all) It can be developed. But it takes time.
> For instance - going to class is easy when you feel like going to class. Not going is so much easier when you don't feel like going, or when you're tired, depressed, busy, have little time, have other things on your mind etc. I think it's easy, (fun even) to spar with someone your used to and comfortable with. It's another thing entirely to spar with someone you're not comfortable with. And I don't mean someone necessarilly more skilled than you, I mean the ones you just don't like sparring with for whatever reason. But guess what? You ain't going to be comfortable defending yourself, either, against anybody. Defending yourself is not a comfortable thing, no matter how good you are, or how good you think you are. And that has nothing to do with your skill level and everything to do with heart.
> 
> Say you do pushups as part of your training (be it in the arts or whatever), if the goal was to do as many as you could - it's not the number that counts, it's when you decide you've done them all. If I dropped fifty K on the floor in front of you, could you have done one more? If a loved ones health depended on you doing one more, could you have done one more? You would have to honestly answer "no" if you actually were doing as many as you could. Things like this, pushing your limits consistantly in fitness or anything else (consistantly being key) develops your "heart", your will, your grit, your resolve, your mettle, your pluck, your spirit.
> 
> Some will say that has nothing to do with defending yourself sucessfully. I say it has everything to do with defending yourself sucessfully. In fact, it has everything to do with with everything IMO.



Wonderful post Buka, thank you for sharing.
Some wisdom in creating heart...although might it better be described as discovering heart? 
Perhaps worthy of a thread of its own merit this conversation of heart. 
You have obviously given much consideration to the question of what is heart and how to develop it thru proper training. Then, as with all coins, there is the other side of the question. If heart can be developed and strengthened, can it also be weakened and destroyed?

In Systema some instructors have used the imagery of 'crack the egg shell but do not break the egg' while instructing and often spend a considerable amount of time working on recovering and cleansing with their students.

Buka (and others feel free in chiming in) you have seen heart strengthened and discovered in martial arts students thru the years. Have you also seen it weakened and lost? If so, are there cautions as well as the inspirations you posted above? Perhaps a kind of negative pillar?

I am really enjoying your insights and shared memories. Thanks again
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Hanzou said:


> Again, I take *no* responsibility for someone not smart enough to tap out when they're caught in an lock in a competition. Applying joint/arm/leg/shoulder locks that can break people is well within the rules of the game.



Thank you for your posting. You keyed 'no' in bold, so I understand that you feel you have no responsibility for some one not 'smart' enough to tap. I also understand that some activities that people chose to engage in can result in injuries and even death and that is a choice that needs to be made with eyes open. The chance of injury/death is obviously serious for the one being maimed but also I think it could also be an issue for the one doing the maiming? People go to training to learn and to practice. All have lives outside the training hall, work, family and hobbies other than martial arts, a serious injury interferes with all such aspects, no?

Our fellow students that we train with are humans, they have lives that can be dramatically effected with each interaction, either positively or negatively. Even minor injuries can easily cause hardships, a loss of employment, hardships at home, physical and psychological damage. Being 'not smart enough' to tap seems to me an issue of instruction and class discipline perhaps, but, not necessarily the fault of the student? Accidental injuries happen but purposeful injuries I think are rarer?

Hanzou, as someone who has purposely seriously injured multiple training partners in their past trainings and seemingly without any guilt or remorse, do you have any advice for the martial arts practitioner who is perhaps considering riskier harder training on how to psychologically prepare to purposely injure their training partner and deal with any issues that might possibly come about? The military has done much work on how to condition soldiers to kill and maim during wartime operations, I am wondering how you have prepared yourself to do the same during competitions and training mat times. 

Thank you
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

elder999 said:


> Close enough! Some anecdotes:
> 
> After I left Japan, I went to Europe (eventually) and was accosted in Greece-it turned out to be a sad misunderstanding-they thought I was someone else, and attacked me, with what they thought of as justification, having mistaken me for the scumbag who disrespected them……I defended myself successfully, but I hadn’t practiced good situational awareness at all: I was being a tourist, and was, just as many people are, attacked from nowhere, with no prelude, interview or “monkey dance…”
> 
> Then I got mugged in Spain. This time, they tried to snatch my duffel and camera….I resisted, successfully, but I just about never saw them coming-and, these days, I’d have let them have it: there was nothing in that duffel worth dying for, nor was the camera…..
> 
> I have heard this described as "being in Disney Land" (either Rory Millar or perhaps Kris Wilder perhaps?) and I like that description. If we are honest with ourselves there are many times when we can find ourselves in this mental condition. Out of the now or too much in the now LOL. I think that perhaps the trick is knowing when we are in this Disney Land condition, acknowledge it, and make it on purpose.
> 
> Months later-months that were occupied with college, and being a bouncer, and hanging around with a motorcycle club, and engaging in other youthful foolishness, I had my little incident on the subway……I actually was pretty aware, considering the lateness of the hour, and how I’d spent the hours preceding it, but I really shouldn’t have been on that particular platform, at that particular hour, dressed as I was and wearing a Rolex, of all things-I may as well have  had “vic” tattooed on my forehead…….even if I wasn’t one……(it’s worth pointing out here, that I can tell all of this story to a roomful of people, and say that I shouldn’t have been waiting to board the Brooklyn IRT at that hour, dressed as I was, and they’ll all nod their heads, but tell a woman that if she goes out in a short skirt, high-heels and a “tear here for boobs” top-that she’s inviting trouble, and it’s just not politically correct….oh well.)
> 
> So, situational awareness is something I’ve obviously had to work on: mom called me an ‘absent minded professor” for most of my childhood, and there’s some truth to it. While it can be considered the first foundational pillar of self defense: knowing where you are, who the people involved are, _fitting in and being unobtrusive-not standing out as a target_., avoiding places where trouble could happen…these should mostly be common sense.
> 
> Experience is what we get 30 seconds after we need it LOL if we are lucky.
> 
> View attachment 19326
> 
> Common sense is so rare that we now have to teach it and take classes for it...sigh
> 
> Of course, I say that now,  as a 55 year old man-not as a teen or twenty-something who always wanted to be in the middle of “the action.” That all ended when I got married and had children of my own-priorities and the way you view the world will change….I say this because on another thread, people laughed off the exploits of Renzo Gracie-a man who is old enough (44?) and trained enough to behave better than he has….these are just some things to think on…I’ll talk about how I trained my situational awareness and observational skills, and how I train others, but maybe in a separate post…
> 
> I look forward to reading that future post, sir.
> 
> 
> What I want to talk about first, though, are the effects of adrenalin on the human body and perception, and methods for training for, controlling and channeling adrenalization and fear.
> 
> GREAT topics, always.
> 
> What happens when we’re startled, frightened or under stress? A part of the brain-the hypothalamus-initiates the secretion of stress hormones: cortisol, noradrenaline, and adrenaline. This is hard wired into us, and prepares us to face perceived danger: to either fight it, or flee from it-fight or flight.*It’s hard-wired into us.* The rest of our brain, the _thinking_ part, can sometimes make the hypothalamus think we need to do these things, when we don’t: got a big, important exam coming up? Your body could release those stress hormones, thinking you have to face down a sabre-toothed tiger or something….this can work to our advantage, as I’ll explain. Briefly though,  if “the _thinking_ part” can make the hypothalamus release these hormones, then we can think our way into releasing these hormones. What do *they* do?
> 
> Well, when these hormones are released, our respiratory and heart rates increase. Blood is shunted away  from our digestive tract and directed into our muscles and limbs-extra energy to fight or run. Our pupils dilate, and our sight sharpens (though this effect also can lead to tunnel vision) Our impulses-our reflexes-can quicken. Our perception of pain diminishes.
> 
> Those can be the plusses, if we need them to run or fight, but they can also be liabilities-especially if we’re not used to them, or don’t know how to deal with them.
> 
> Funny how liabilities can often become positives and positives can become liabilities depending on experience and perceptions.
> 
> The first way that I train dealing with being adrenalized is to deliberately simulate it as much as I can-once people have some semblance of technical ability with a self-defense movement or response, I’ll have them execute it right at the aerobic threshold, repeatedly, and over their anaerobic threshold eventually. While I’m a big fan of aerobic training and fitness, and , basically, training like a boxer, self-defense is actually an _aneaerobic_ activity-it’s a short burst, not a long-haul. By actually performing with a high heart rate and high-and generally insufficient-respiratory rate, we are simulating effects of adrenalization while executing movement.
> 
> I have had the privilege of working and training with some 'cool customers'. Folks that do not seem to get excited or upset no matter the action around them. These are not cold people or psychotics, but they have become super aware of their own nervous systems and can feel when it is becoming aroused and once aware, they can nearly instantly (to me it seems, to them it takes too long...it is all relative, the difference between a finch and a hawk) return to a calm normal state. Their nervous systems work the same, but where I and most people have huge spikes and valleys like an emotional roller coaster as our nervous system becomes aroused and depressed (sympathetic and parasympathetic) since they can feel that very first moment due to their sensitivity and their ability to return to a normal state, where many have spikes and valleys they have more of straight line with just little bumps.
> 
> Additionally, movements-already gross rather than fine responses-become even grosser, and focusing on efficacy-on *making* the movement work-becomes part of the focus: I’m not looking for the perfect execution of a throw or strike in terms of form-*I’m looking for the opponent to wind up on the floor: *self defense generally requires gross rather than fine motor control, in part because fine motor control goes out the window with adrenaline, and because simpler is….well,* simpler. *So, at this stage and with this type of training, we’re simulating working with the negative effects of adrenalization simply by operating with increased respiration and heart rate……
> 
> ….and what you’ll often hear me saying to  the panting, gasping _tori_, after the tenth or eleventh repetition is _”Control your breathing!_-which I’ve heard lots of instructors say over the years, and is sometimes received as a meaningless instruction (_If I could *control* my breathing, do you think I’d be gasping like *this*??!!,_ they must be thinking….) Suffice to say, breath control is another element of dealing with adrenalization, as well as staying relaxed enough to do movements under stress-with me, it’s not an order, but a _reminder_, as my students and I spend a fair amount of time on breath control exercises-some of which are familiar to Asian martial arts practitioners, and some of which might be familiar to Systema practitioners like you, Brian-since I got them from one of my teachers, Mr. Joseph Greenstein, a famous vaudeville strongman known as the Mighty Atom, who trained under a Russian strongman…at least, I’ve  often wondered if they’d be similar…..
> 
> Looking forward to that conversation, sir. I am always amazed at how the principles I have learned while training in Systema get repeated and reenforced from totally unexpected and unrelated sources.
> 
> In any case, I think some sort of breath control is essential to dealing with and channeling adrenalization. There are lots of theories, exercises and disciplines around this, including meditation, and it’s been my observation that if followed diligently, they’re all kind of get you there, so I’m not going to get too detailed about how I do it: breath control, though, I think is key.
> 
> Agree totally. I often describe breathing as a bridge between all of our bodies systems. A bridge with on-ramps and exits that allow us to access and 'control' the ride.
> 
> There are other factors to that I use in developing mindset that I'll post about separately, but breath control and stress training are the physical starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> My granddad, who trained hunting dogs, had to train them to accept gunshots without starting, _and for a fired shot to mean it was time to get to work._ The flinch response in humans serves a protective purpose-to protect the eyes and ward off a threat. It’s a reflex-meaning we rreally *can’t* control it, and probably shouldn’t try to, but we *can* “reprogram,” or re-purpose it.. There are some differing opinions as to which direction this should take: Rory Miller and Tony Blauer basically both favor retraining it towards aggression, sometimes with a forward movement: I look to _kata_, and what’s natural, and ask, what’s wrong with moving back and making a warding motion, _especially if it’s the body’s natural response already?_
> 
> Otherwise, we don’t differ much: the way to retrain a reflex is, essentially, Pavlovian, with a negative feedback for undesired responses, and positive feedback for desired responses, until desired responses are all that’s occurred. That’s really all I’m going to say about that, except to remind people of the many times I’ve said that I couldn’t train children the way I was trained as a child without some parent wanting to sue me or put me in jail……and how I don’t train children, *yet*, and won’t _really_ use the methods that I use for retraining the flinch reflex with children when I start to……..



Thank you for posting Elder999 and I am looking forward to your further postings. I hope you do not mind my posting within the quote above. I am still learning the new board and system of posting.

I read that you are traveling. Safe flights and journey
Regards
Brian King


----------



## drop bear

Brian King said:


> Thank you for your posting. You keyed 'no' in bold, so I understand that you feel you have no responsibility for some one not 'smart' enough to tap. I also understand that some activities that people chose to engage in can result in injuries and even death and that is a choice that needs to be made with eyes open. The chance of injury/death is obviously serious for the one being maimed but also I think it could also be an issue for the one doing the maiming? People go to training to learn and to practice. All have lives outside the training hall, work, family and hobbies other than martial arts, a serious injury interferes with all such aspects, no?
> 
> Our fellow students that we train with are humans, they have lives that can be dramatically effected with each interaction, either positively or negatively. Even minor injuries can easily cause hardships, a loss of employment, hardships at home, physical and psychological damage. Being 'not smart enough' to tap seems to me an issue of instruction and class discipline perhaps, but, not necessarily the fault of the student? Accidental injuries happen but purposeful injuries I think are rarer?
> 
> Hanzou, as someone who has purposely seriously injured multiple training partners in their past trainings and seemingly without any guilt or remorse, do you have any advice for the martial arts practitioner who is perhaps considering riskier harder training on how to psychologically prepare to purposely injure their training partner and deal with any issues that might possibly come about? The military has done much work on how to condition soldiers to kill and maim during wartime operations, I am wondering how you have prepared yourself to do the same during competitions and training mat times.
> 
> Thank you
> Regards
> Brian King



By the way. Regarding this too dumb to tap. Generally you give them a bit of time to do it. And it becomes their choice to staunch it or not.


----------



## Brian King

Thanks drop bear. 
Sometimes people freeze, the pain perhaps, stuck in the OODA loop, or some other reason. For police work (military and civilian) training often consists of giving verbal cues to help 'guide' the interaction. In the case of too dumb to tap...do you ever ask out loud if they are going to tap or some other verbal cue?

Thanks for posting 
Brian King


----------



## BMhadoken

A teacher who knowingly and willingly breaks, tears or dislocates my arm in training will not be teaching me again. That, to me, is an unforgivable betrayal of the student/teacher relationship.


----------



## Buka

Brian King said:


> Buka (and others feel free in chiming in) you have seen heart strengthened and discovered in martial arts students thru the years. Have you also seen it weakened and lost? If so, are there cautions as well as the inspirations you posted above? Perhaps a kind of negative pillar?



That's one heck of a question, Brian. Yes, I have seen it weakened and lost. (so sad) Let me think on this some more. I'm hoping I won't remember any more than the couple that have come to mind.


----------



## drop bear

Brian King said:


> Thanks drop bear.
> Sometimes people freeze, the pain perhaps, stuck in the OODA loop, or some other reason. For police work (military and civilian) training often consists of giving verbal cues to help 'guide' the interaction. In the case of too dumb to tap...do you ever ask out loud if they are going to tap or some other verbal cue?
> 
> Thanks for posting
> Brian King



Sometimes. I have a sub that ties up both arms and a foot tap is too slow generally. 

But I also roll with some competitive guys who want to push that to get the escape. They just refuse to tap.

For me I will hand out the punish in striking rather than wrestling in the gym. Because that is where a one speed guy could hurt me unduly. And that took me a little while to get the mentality for that.

So we would go in for a light spar and one speed loads up and starts throwing bombs. And instead of trying to keep a light pace and be banged around. I will turn it up and put the guy down if I have to.


----------



## drop bear

Just on a safety aspect. We put guys in the ring. And I cant always spar them and ease of if they are in trouble. At some stage this guy will have to face someone who may want to rip his head off.  And he has to get used to that at a moderate level at least before he faces it for real or he really is going to get hurt.


----------



## BMhadoken

drop bear said:


> Just on a safety aspect. We put guys in the ring. And I cant always spar them and ease of if they are in trouble. At some stage this guy will have to face someone who may want to rip his head off.  And he has to get used to that at a moderate level at least before he faces it for real or he really is going to get hurt.


Sure, to actually condition someone to fight when their life's on the line you need to go hard. Simple pain is a useful tool if used appropriately. Causing someone real injury has absolutely no place in a training hall. 

If I'm letting you teach me, im putting my safety in your ostensibly more skilled hands in order to learn from you. If you cause me actual life-affecting injury, the only thing you've taught me is that I can't trust you.

"You" in the general sense, not you specifically.


----------



## drop bear

BMhadoken said:


> Sure, to actually condition someone to fight when their life's on the line you need to go hard. Simple pain is a useful tool if used appropriately. Causing someone real injury has absolutely no place in a training hall.
> 
> If I'm letting you teach me, im putting my safety in your ostensibly more skilled hands in order to learn from you. If you cause me actual life-affecting injury, the only thing you've taught me is that I can't trust you.
> 
> "You" in the general sense, not you specifically.



Fighting has risk. Fight training has risk. It is crap that people get injured. But it is not competition knitting either.

Safety is important but you cant send someone into a fight unless they have trained at a fight intensity. 

It is generally accepted that it is brought to a pretty fine line. Some of the onus is on the guy performing the attack. But there is also responsibility on the guy receiving to be able to protect himself. And to tap when he is in trouble. 

Or you quite simply can't go hard.


----------



## Brian King

drop bear said:


> Just on a safety aspect. We put guys in the ring. And I cant always spar them and ease of if they are in trouble. At some stage this guy will have to face someone who may want to rip his head off.  And he has to get used to that at a moderate level at least before he faces it for real or he really is going to get hurt.



Thanks drop bear. I think I would put those that are competing in the ring (especially professionally) in the same mental category as first responders and other action professionals? The situations that they willingly insert themselves into call for a bit of different outlook of training than basic self-defense type of training with a different intensity, focus, and danger level. A good training partner and/or instructor should know how to 'up the ante' in the training and just as importantly when to. I would also think that being aware of the all the different dangers (not merely the physical) of this type of training and how to cope with them should also be focused on by the training partners and instructors? A professional fighter training for a tournament that suffers an injury might not be able to make the fight, or making the fight might now have a weakness that a good opponent might become aware of, and then take advantage of. First responders, soldiers, and other action professions often have to go to work right after training,  having to do so while being injured prior to the job can put them and the public into higher risks. Professionals have to be able to keep the training going with a focus, intensity, and willingness to approach the edge, yet with the idea and goal of sustainability. A training injury could easily end their professional career or more.

Thanks for taking the time to post drop bear.
Regards
Brian King


----------



## drop bear

Brian King said:


> Thanks drop bear. I think I would put those that are competing in the ring (especially professionally) in the same mental category as first responders and other action professionals? The situations that they willingly insert themselves into call for a bit of different outlook of training than basic self-defense type of training with a different intensity, focus, and danger level. A good training partner and/or instructor should know how to 'up the ante' in the training and just as importantly when to. I would also think that being aware of the all the different dangers (not merely the physical) of this type of training and how to cope with them should also be focused on by the training partners and instructors? A professional fighter training for a tournament that suffers an injury might not be able to make the fight, or making the fight might now have a weakness that a good opponent might become aware of, and then take advantage of. First responders, soldiers, and other action professions often have to go to work right after training,  having to do so while being injured prior to the job can put them and the public into higher risks. Professionals have to be able to keep the training going with a focus, intensity, and willingness to approach the edge, yet with the idea and goal of sustainability. A training injury could easily end their professional career or more.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to post drop bear.
> Regards
> Brian King



Yeah. I saw a thing on the sas selection and a few of them got injured out.


----------



## jks9199

aedrasteia said:


> The focus-assumption is entirely on the 'stranger in an alley/street/parking lot'.
> 
> Why?


It's easier to address, and less frightening than admitting that many times,  our greatest threat is that which is closest to us, and supposed to be safe...


----------



## Brian King

Jenna said:


> @elder999, Re the question that @Brian King asked about a way to help an average Jane to develop the mindset that violence is a tool that can be used.. I would want to suggest that there is a neurological difference between how the male and female body deploy adrenaline and I have found to put it to its briefest that women are more inclined to PROTECT where men might be more amenable to retaliation with violence and why that might be of use here is I wonder perhaps to encourage that female SD student to view her use of physical force not for harm -even though that is the effect - and but for SELF-PROTECTION..
> 
> I know this might sound in your ears like a no brainer and but in my experience there is some times a disconnect between the use of physical means  and the association of this means with her own preservation.. I do not know about other women on the board.. every one is different and but for me it is some thing I still wrestle with though it is mitigated by using the art I use as it was conceived which has through the years left me thoroughly grounded in the notion that when I have to use it.. it is not about damaging him (usually is a him sorry) instead it is about protecting ME.. For me THIS is the shift in mindset needed.. If it seem like common sense like wth would she NOT think like that? well I am only offering just anecdote from talking with friends and from assisting women survivors in a professional capacity.. I do not train others SD so I cannot comment if that would even make any difference.. Jx



Great post Jenna, thanks for taking the time to share. It is not very PC to say, but (whispering) male and females are different. The neurological differences between students are many, even the chemicals (not only adrenaline is dumped into the blood stream) and amounts of each vary between students. The events that trigger the 'dump' can vary based on the person being triggered. Gender, culture, past experiences, training, age, health, and many other variables including perception and views of violence all interact to create the chemical and emotional biological roller coaster ride that exposure to and use of violence can engineer. One difference that should perhaps also be noticed is the difference between students on length of time it takes for the chemicals to dissipate. Gender also has a role in that I believe.

I like your point about making a distinction between protecting self rather than harming others. I think that besides helping to set boundaries it helps to give one 'permission' to harm. It is of more interest to me currently to study by what means people use to give themselves that permission than by what means they deploy to actually cause the 'harm'. Teaching someone the eye gouge is FAR different than giving them the tools to actually do it, if that makes sense? Have you read either of the books "On Killing" and the book "On Combat" by Lt. Col. Grossman? Interesting reads that I have read thru more than once and each time gained some insight. 

So perhaps a pillar might be something along the lines of, self defense training should help the student discover and develop a means to access the mindset of preservation and protection rather than the mindset of reaction and retribution?

Thanks for all of your insights Jenna and your honesty
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

elder999 said:


> Most _human beings_ actually are naturally disinclined to use violence against their fellow-human beings, ample evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.As drop bear mentioned, the armed services use a pretty crude method of overcoming this natural disinclination: they typically_ dehumanize_ "the enemy," so it becomes "ok" to kill them. Human beings are fairly capable of making the same _decision_ about the "other," relegating them to non-human status, especially where self-protection/preservation/defense *and* the defense of others makes violence necessary......
> 
> I've posted about my "relationship" with bears elsewhere, and one of the mottos of my dojo is "_Like a bear protecting her cubs_." The bear is an omnivore that is generally bashful, and generally doesn't resort to violence towards threats-if you see a bear in the woods, it will usually run away. Get near a mother and her cub, though......
> 
> Most people have at least a little she-bear in them. Mindset is about accessing that at will,



Thanks for posting Elder999.
i do not often disagree with you so finding a disagreement I have to post LOL. I disagree that the armed services use a "pretty crude method " of overcoming the disinclination of killing. The dehumanizing aspect is not so often used anymore in the US forces. The consequences of this type of conditioning do not work well with the type of conflicts our service members often are called to face. The military is always learning and has thousands of years of trying this and that in getting the rate of fire percentages up. The strategies and tactics now used help tremendously in getting the percentage higher. Disbursement of responsibility, distance from the kill, machinery between the kill and the killer, as examples. Also acknowledged and used is giving the enemy 'honor and recognition' so that by elevating the enemy it elevates the act of killing them. The type of targets used, the type of practice, the drilling have all changed. The difference in training can be seen in a bunch of modern conflicts, the British in the Falklands vs the Argentinians. the two armies trained differently and the rate of fire differences are dramatic, the U.S. vs the Iraqi army showed equal disparity. 

Just as many of the better more advanced militaries are moving away from 'dehumanizing the enemy-other' much of the thinking in self defense training is also migrating from the dehumanizing the 'attacker' type of mindset. I do not know if the competition fight games are also moving from it. You see a lot of bad mouthing and trash talking prior to the 'fight', which of course helps to belittle and dehumanize the opponent giving the trash talker emotional permission and ammunition to do 'battle'. 

I do like the use of she-bearisms type of visual accessing to help the student get an understanding of when violence might be justified. Many of the worlds cultures use animal action and behavior to help justify human interpersonal violence. It is interesting. Thank you again.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yet, Brian believe it or not the members in the military do "other" their opponents.  I regularly have students in country some where and even they would admit that "othering" is common and works effectively to dehumanize the opponents.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian King said:


> Thank you for your posting. You keyed 'no' in bold, so I understand that you feel you have no responsibility for some one not 'smart' enough to tap. I also understand that some activities that people chose to engage in can result in injuries and even death and that is a choice that needs to be made with eyes open. The chance of injury/death is obviously serious for the one being maimed but also I think it could also be an issue for the one doing the maiming? People go to training to learn and to practice. All have lives outside the training hall, work, family and hobbies other than martial arts, a serious injury interferes with all such aspects, no?
> 
> Our fellow students that we train with are humans, they have lives that can be dramatically effected with each interaction, either positively or negatively. Even minor injuries can easily cause hardships, a loss of employment, hardships at home, physical and psychological damage. Being 'not smart enough' to tap seems to me an issue of instruction and class discipline perhaps, but, not necessarily the fault of the student? Accidental injuries happen but purposeful injuries I think are rarer?
> 
> Hanzou, as someone who has purposely seriously injured multiple training partners in their past trainings and seemingly without any guilt or remorse, do you have any advice for the martial arts practitioner who is perhaps considering riskier harder training on how to psychologically prepare to purposely injure their training partner and deal with any issues that might possibly come about? The military has done much work on how to condition soldiers to kill and maim during wartime operations, I am wondering how you have prepared yourself to do the same during competitions and training mat times.
> 
> Thank you
> Regards
> Brian King



Yeah, for starters, I've never *purposely* injured a training partner. Let's stop that nonsense right there.

I've *accidentally* injured training partners or opponents too stubborn, stupid, or proud to submit to a submission. There's a difference there, and its a difference I've highlighted several times. Heck, I've highlighted that difference in the very post you quoted, so its baffling to me that you would still believe that I *purposely* injured training partners.

If you enter a training hall, or a competition with the mindset that you're invincible, or that people can't submit you, then you have a pretty high chance of being injured. If you enter a training hall or a competition with the mindset of a humble learner, and that we're fellow journeymen on a path towards becoming better, you have a lower chance of being injured. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Brian King

BMhadoken said:


> I must nitpick on this point, and argue that both men and women are equally disposed toward vengeful or vindictive behavior. As evidence I submit every single one of my ex-girlfriends. Seriously though, It's actually been my own experience that my generation of women will become physically violent with a man more quickly than a man will with other men, often seemingly based on the assumption that as a woman they're immune to retaliation. Beyond that, it's been said and I would agree that women in general are put under more pressure not to act out, fight or make a scene, and it can get them in trouble when danger comes at them with more force than they're willing to match.



Great post BMhadoken. I think that in addition to the "what are you going to do, shoot us?"* type of assumption of protection from violence based on such things as gender, cooperation, cultural expectations, there is also a lack of understanding what constitutes violence by many "victims". In many of the cases you are writing about I would be willing to bet that if interviewed the women would deny that they were violent at all. You can see this everyday on the road with road rage. When stationed in Germany as a soldier I would see now and then a German citizen getting into a heated 'discussion' with a GI. The German would get with-in inches of the GI, both yelling back and forth (monkey dance) and almost invariably the German would use his finger to point at the face of the GI to make some 'point' or another. It was never a good idea as the GI would then punch the German and feel very justified in doing so. Both were involved but both had different cultural expectations of the differences between argument and fight. 

Thanks for bringing the 'immunity from retaliation" into the conversation. An important aspect of training I think would be learning to recognize violent actions, both in others and in ourselves, and to react according to the current situation rather than expectations. 

*what are you going to do, shoot us" quote were the last spoken words of Nicole duFresne who was murdered in Manhattan. Nicole duFresne - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Dirty Dog

Hanzou said:


> Again, I take *no* responsibility for someone not smart enough to tap out when they're caught in an lock in a competition. Applying joint/arm/leg/shoulder locks that can break people is well within the rules of the game.



My oh my, aren't we the heartless, conscienceless bastard?
Injuries happen, certainly, but I think most of us accept a degree of responsibility for the safety of our training partners, as well as feeling regret when there are injuries.


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> My oh my, aren't we the heartless, conscienceless bastard?
> Injuries happen, certainly, but I think most of us accept a degree of responsibility for the safety of our training partners, as well as feeling regret when there are injuries.



This is becoming hilarious...

Someone I'm competing against in a *competition* is not a training partner.


----------



## Brian King

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yet, Brian believe it or not the members in the military do "other" their opponents.  I regularly have students in country some where and even they would admit that "othering" is common and works effectively to dehumanize the opponents.



Yes of course, Brian. Thanks for posting your students experiences, they match my own. Individual military members do "other". It is a simple method coping method that has been used for centuries. It is no longer emphasized in the training of recruits. It has been proven harmful to the mission. A soldier that over reacts or commits atrocities because 'it is only a gook' is not the rule of training. That some soldiers need this coping tool to deal with the emotional strain of killing is understandable. In fact is kind of commendable that as humans we have to go thru such lengths in order to pull the trigger. That said, the costs to the mission and to the individual member make this method of coping and training too expensive to purposely and willingly embrace. It is short term effectiveness at best and even that could be argued I think. 

Regards 
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, for starters, I've never *purposely* injured a training partner. Let's stop that nonsense right there.
> 
> I've *accidentally* injured training partners or opponents too stubborn, stupid, or proud to submit to a submission. There's a difference there, and its a difference I've highlighted several times. Heck, I've highlighted that difference in the very post you quoted, so its baffling to me that you would still believe that I *purposely* injured training partners.
> 
> If you enter a training hall, or a competition with the mindset that you're invincible, or that people can't submit you, then you have a pretty high chance of being injured. If you enter a training hall or a competition with the mindset of a humble learner, and that we're fellow journeymen on a path towards becoming better, you have a lower chance of being injured. It's as simple as that.



Ah, sorry Hanzou, I did not mean to upset you. I think that we have different ideas of what constitutes accidental and purposeful. From my perspective, if I do a take down and the opponent falls badly and is injured, it is likely accidental, if I am applying a lock that is designed to break, and a break happens, it is hardly accidental. If both people are slowly working on the lock, exploring it, testing it and their bounds, and an injury occurs it is still on purpose. If a limb gets injured while rolling and the lock was not intentional but incidental to the movement then it could perhaps be called an accident. If I am training with a live blade and get cut, is it an accident? I did not start the training with the idea to be cut but cut I am still. On purpose does not have to be necessary be a negative although the results and costs can be negative. 

Perhaps we can move away from the word purposely since it seems to upset you. You have accidentally injured many people while training and competing. It seems like the coping method that you are using is that they all were "too stubborn, stupid, or proud to submit to submission" What do you say if someone said that of the person applying the technique? That the person doing the submission was too stubborn, stupid, or proud to release the submission even though they knew it was on and solid and injured the 'other' person. Could there be merit to that observation at all? 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Hanzou

Brian King said:


> Ah, sorry Hanzou, I did not mean to upset you. I think that we have different ideas of what constitutes accidental and purposeful. From my perspective, if I do a take down and the opponent falls badly and is injured, it is likely accidental, if I am applying a lock that is designed to break, and a break happens, it is hardly accidental. If both people are slowly working on the lock, exploring it, testing it and their bounds, and an injury occurs it is still on purpose. If a limb gets injured while rolling and the lock was not intentional but incidental to the movement then it could perhaps be called an accident.



Except that the outcome is still accidental, because the intention in a competition or practice is to get a submission, not a break. However, breaks can and do occur. The expectation is to tap BEFORE serious injury occurs. If you're feeling pressure on a limb and you still don't tap, then you accept the consequences. If your partner isn't releasing the hold, or being overly forceful, that's a different matter entirely.



> Perhaps we can move away from the word purposely since it seems to upset you. You have accidentally injured many people while training and competing. It seems like the coping method that you are using is that they all were "too stubborn, stupid, or proud to submit to submission" What do you say if someone said that of the person applying the technique? That the person doing the submission was too stubborn, stupid, or proud to release the submission even though they knew it was on and solid and injured the 'other' person. Could there be merit to that observation at all?



In a competition? Nope. My job in a competition is to apply the proper techniques to win. In competition you don't release the submission until the ref breaks you up, the guy taps, or the guy goes limp.

If someone is *purposely* breaking limbs in a training hall, they're not going to be training for very long.


----------



## oftheherd1

I've been out of the US Army for some 26 years, so maybe I am out of touch.  As I recall when I was in basic, there was no mention of coping with killing.  We were taught use of weapons, cover, concealment, calling in supporting fire and such, as methods of killing before we were killed.  And nobody wanted to be killed.  That was the goal, kill before being killed.  I think however, that most in combat do have to deal with the idea of killing, as well as seeing friends killed, sometimes in very dehumanizing ways.  But it seemed to me most found some way to accommodate to that pretty quickly, and could leave what happened on the battlefield on the battlefield, at least outwardly.  I do wonder if the video games kids are exposed to these days may have changed any of that.  As to killing of prisoners or wounded, or mutilating bodies, that in my experience wasn't the norm for all soldiers, but that most would be pretty tolerant of such things with their peers; after all, they all had to be able to depend on each other.  I think a lot of that depended on the leadership, or lack of it.

Anyway, :"othering" as had been mentioned above, was never taught.  I think it just comes naturally as part of coping mechanisms.  You don't want to kill friends or non-threatening strangers.  But those 'others' who are trying to kill you are fair game to be dispatched any way, any where, and as quickly as possible, with no regard to what they might feel.  It's survival.  What I think is receiving around the bush treatment, is how do sane, nice people, learn when and how to switch in and out of survival mode that puts everything aside but survival?


----------



## oftheherd1

aedrasteia said:


> thanks Steve, I appreciate your POV.
> 
> Yes, a fundamental shift in the nature of SD4W instruction would be a huge improvement. There is no lack of information/data about threats to girls/women from friends/family/known aggressors.  The information is available and many MA based instructors pay lip service to that understanding. But this reality is absent from their instruction/classes and appear to be baffled or unable to take it in and make their instruction connect to women's lives. The focus-assumption is entirely on the 'stranger in an alley/street/parking lot'.
> 
> Why?



You bring up good points.  But I wonder if there is a disconnect.  MA are violent by nature.  They are quite often, in a SD setting, reactions to unexpected violent attack.  Elder keeps talking about the differences between men and woman, and I agree with him, modern thoughts to the contrary.  Is it right to expect the SD instructor to take on issues of family/friend sexual desires and dynamics?  If they have the training to do so, that would be OK.  But I doubt most have any insight into that at all.  If they don't, they may cause problems where none exist; they may put ideas into a person's mind that cause them to think things that aren't true.

Also, many attacks on women and girls, especially sexual, are by relatives or close friends.  Some are sufficiently subtle as not to be violent.  Do those victims deserve less instruction on how to avoid them?  Of course not.  I just don't think that is the role of the MA/SD instructor.  I don't want to see that type of instruction left out of people's survival training.  It is very important.  But to answer you question above, about should it be part of SD training by MA instructors, and should they even pay lip service to it, I don't think so.  BTW, acknowledging people need to defend themselves against family, or friends who wish to prey on them sexually, but not violently, is not lip service, but should be deferred to those expert in that field.  Telling them that if a friend or family member, or stranger attacks them, here are ways to defend yourself, that I think is proper to SD.

I would very much like to know your thoughts on that.  If you think I have not expressed myself well, or am wrong, please let me know.  I am willing to be convinced otherwise from what I have said, or just clarify if that is what is needed.  Remember, I am not against people, and primarily we think of women and children, being given instruction on how to avoid being victims of sexual predators,  I am very much for that.  I'm just not sure it is the role of the MA SD instructor.


----------



## BMhadoken

Brian King said:


> Thanks for bringing the 'immunity from retaliation" into the conversation. An important aspect of training I think would be learning to recognize violent actions, both in others and in ourselves, and to react according to the current situation rather than expectations.


Society tells us all violence is bad. I'm not a bad person. Consequently, "violence" becomes defined as any level of aggression beyond the one I'm comfortable using. If you ask me, the biggest factor in this disconnect is that first idea that "all violence is bad and if you use it you're a bad person."

This and the expectation of being above reproach are in no way gender-specific. I've nonetheless seen many "empowered and assertive" young women try to throw their weight around while still trying to claim the social protections granted by their femininity. I can't remember the source and google is for once of little help so take this with a large grain of salt, but I recall reading something at one point reporting that many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand. Again, no source, cannot confirm.

A big problem is that it's socially unacceptable to tell this particular group of women the things they need to accept in order to stay safe. Don't get blackout drunk in public and/or with strangers. In fact, don't get blackout drunk. Don't yell and cuss at someone if you aren't willing to bleed for it, and certainly don't slap them or otherwise physically attack them. Stay with your group, don't follow a stranger alone into an isolated area on the promise of a good time. And if you want to do risky or stupid things, for gods sake strap a knife in your shoe or something.

Dealing with the more insidious forms of abuse or violence a woman encounters at home or from people she knows is above my paygrade, but I would absolutely say they're the most worrying forms, because they're by far more common that attacks from strangers, and because the woman is over time trained to be accepting and not resist the ever-escalating abuse.



> Also, many attacks on women and girls, especially sexual, are by relatives or close friends. Some are sufficiently subtle as not to be violent. Do those victims deserve less instruction on how to avoid them? Of course not. I just don't think that is the role of the MA/SD instructor. I don't want to see that type of instruction left out of people's survival training. It is very important. But to answer you question above, about should it be part of SD training by MA instructors, and should they even pay lip service to it, I don't think so. BTW, acknowledging people need to defend themselves against family, or friends who wish to prey on them sexually, but not violently, is not lip service, but should be deferred to those expert in that field. Telling them that if a friend or family member, or stranger attacks them, here are ways to defend yourself, that I think is proper to SD.


I'm in agreement with you here that if an instructor doesn't have training or experience in dealing with these sorts of relationships, they shouldn't give their student potentially damaging advice. However, comma, I'd say a good self defense instructor could certainly keep a list of names and numbers for the woman to contact for the appropriate advice.


----------



## oftheherd1

BMhadoken said:


> ...
> This and the expectation of being above reproach are in no way gender-specific. I've nonetheless seen many "empowered and assertive" young women try to throw their weight around while still trying to claim the social protections granted by their femininity. I can't remember the source and google is for once of little help so take this with a large grain of salt, but I recall reading something at one point reporting that many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand. Again, no source, cannot confirm.
> ...
> 
> I'm in agreement with you here that if an instructor doesn't have training or experience in dealing with these sorts of relationships, they shouldn't give their student potentially damaging advice. However, comma, I'd say a good self defense instructor could certainly keep a list of names and numbers for the woman to contact for the appropriate advice.



I don't know where you may have seen statistics that most women who are attacked bring it on themselves by their own aggressive behavior.  Frankly, that sounds.like someone trying to shift the blame to the victim.  I can assure you in my experience, that is not the case.  If I think about it for a while, maybe I can remember an instance like that, but I can't now.  Women are usually sexually attacked by sexual predators.  Some are serial predators who are constantly on the lookout for a person to sexually attack, others might not normally do so, but do it on what they think is a low level, and infrequently, such as a date rape where the attacker and the victim may be less inhibited.  Some of men just tell themselves no is a coy yes.  None of that is acceptable.  Nor is shifting the blame.  No means just that, no.  And what kind of aggression would justify rape?


----------



## BMhadoken

oftheherd1 said:


> None of that is acceptable. Nor is shifting the blame. No means just that, no. And what kind of aggression would justify rape?


Justifies it to me, or to the guy doing the raping? He only needs to convince himself that he's not a bad guy. Even if he's doing a bad thing, he's doing it for, in his own mind, acceptable reasons. Or perhaps he just denies his own intentions even to himself, right up to the point he's got her panties around her ankles. I've known plenty of guys who would ambush a man and beat him straight into the ICU over a perceived insult, every one of them still believed they were decent folk. It's not much of a stretch.

If you leave your car unlocked with something valuable sitting in the front seat and someone steals it, yes, they're the ones responsible, blame them, and hold them accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. But you still should have locked your car up. If a girl gets blackout drunk, passes out and some guy takes advantage while she's unconscious, he's a pig and must be prosecuted. She still shouldn't have gotten blackout drunk.

I don't think it's victim-shaming to tell *people *(not just women) to conduct themselves with the knowledge that we're surrounded by imperfect and occasionally very awful people. If you insist on practicing high-risk behavior, you increase the chances of something bad happening. No it shouldn't be that way. But it is.

If you're accusing me of victim-blaming based on the other thing, well as I said I can't find a source and until I can, definitely don't take that as any kind of fact, because I won't be.


----------



## oftheherd1

[U]BMhadoken[/U] said:


> Justifies it to me, or to the guy doing the raping? He only needs to convince himself that he's not a bad guy. Even if he's doing a bad thing, he's doing it for, in his own mind, acceptable reasons. Or perhaps he just denies his own intentions even to himself, right up to the point he's got her panties around her ankles. I've known plenty of guys who would ambush a man and beat him straight into the ICU over a perceived insult, every one of them still believed they were decent folk. It's not much of a stretch.
> 
> *Please tell us.  You have explained what you think of the guy doing the raping justifying himself.  How about you?*
> 
> If you leave your car unlocked with something valuable sitting in the front seat and someone steals it, yes, they're the ones responsible, blame them, and hold them accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. But you still should have locked your car up. If a girl gets blackout drunk, passes out and some guy takes advantage while she's unconscious, he's a pig and must be prosecuted. She still shouldn't have gotten blackout drunk.
> 
> *No argument there, as long as it isn't used as an oblique way to blame the victim.  No matter how stupid I might be in my behavior, I have a right to be safe from physical harm or theft of property.  Why does the fact that there are bad guys take away from my right to be safe no matter?*
> 
> I don't think it's victim-shaming to tell *people *(not just women) to conduct themselves with the knowledge that we're surrounded by imperfect and occasionally very awful people. If you insist on practicing high-risk behavior, you increase the chances of something bad happening. No it shouldn't be that way. But it is.
> 
> *Not unless you are trying to tell them they are at fault and should be ashamed.*
> 
> If you're accusing me of victim-blaming based on the other thing, well as I said I can't find a source and until I can, definitely don't take that as any kind of fact, because I won't be.
> 
> *I'm not accusing you of anything.  I was commenting on the study, as you did*.



I am not trying to be confrontational.  But I don't agree with anything that attempts to lessen responsibility for an attacker, especially by trying to put blame on a victim.  You may feel the same way, but to me at least, you didn't express yourself quite that way.  I don't want to, nor do I mean to, say you really want to blame victims.  I just thought you expressed yourself in a way that was too easily interpreted that way.


----------



## Tgace

We certainty all have the "right" to be safe, but your "rights" mean nothing to a person attacking you. While nobody attacked bears responsibility for what another person decided to illegally do to them, I think we do a great disservice to people by avoiding addressing prevention because someone may interpret it as "blame". 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-man

BMhadoken said:


> This and the expectation of being above reproach are in no way gender-specific. I've nonetheless seen many "empowered and assertive" young women try to throw their weight around while still trying to claim the social protections granted by their femininity. I can't remember the source and google is for once of little help so take this with a large grain of salt, but I recall reading something at one point reporting that many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand. Again, no source, cannot confirm.


Wow! You are game! 

Let's look at your statement "many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand". I think we need to separate 'attacked' and 'sexually assaulted'. The 'attacked' bit as a result of those actions I can accept. That many women have been sexually assaulted for those reasons just doesn't compute. I can see that playing out in court ... "Well your Honour, she called me an arsehole so I raped her". Don't see much justification there.



BMhadoken said:


> A big problem is that it's socially unacceptable to tell this particular group of women the things they need to accept in order to stay safe. Don't get blackout drunk in public and/or with strangers. In fact, don't get blackout drunk. Don't yell and cuss at someone if you aren't willing to bleed for it, and certainly don't slap them or otherwise physically attack them. Stay with your group, don't follow a stranger alone into an isolated area on the promise of a good time. And if you want to do risky or stupid things, for gods sake strap a knife in your shoe or something.


It is also politically incorrect to voice the opinion that women should take sensible steps to avoid trouble but there are some women who insist, quite correctly, that they should be able to go anywhere or do anything they like and expect to be able to do it without any fear of being attacked. 

I could get to a pedestrian crossing, wait for a big truck to come along at 60 mph and step out in front of it. Guess what? It ain't going to stop and I would be 'dead' right. Even the Australian case we were discussing earlier was a you lady with headphones in jogging by herself in an unpopulated area. Sure, she should have been entitled to be safe but she wasn't.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> I am not trying to be confrontational.  But I don't agree with anything that attempts to lessen responsibility for an attacker, especially by trying to put blame on a victim.  You may feel the same way, but to me at least, you didn't express yourself quite that way.  I don't want to, nor do I mean to, say you really want to blame victims.  I just thought you expressed yourself in a way that was too easily interpreted that way.



It becomes a PC issue to suggest that a woman can take responsibility to lessen the chance they will be attacked. By training to fight or modifying their behaviour.

But it is their head on the block not society's. And although we would like to stop all attacks on women. It isn't going to happen.

So turning this around and making the victim responsible for their own safety a bit is just the more practical option.


----------



## BMhadoken

K-man said:


> I think we need to separate 'attacked' and 'sexually assaulted'. The 'attacked' bit as a result of those actions I can accept. That many women have been sexually assaulted for those reasons just doesn't compute. I can see that playing out in court ... "Well your Honour, she called me an arsehole so I raped her". Don't see much justification there.



I did separate them, intentionally, for partly that reason. Situations that escalate into sexual assault are slightly more complicated. Take two young college kids, add some liquid stupid. They're having a good time, maybe flirting a little, she thinks it's in good fun, he thinks its a go signal. Maybe they get alone in a room. He's trying to go further, she doesn't want to. Being young, drunk and inexperienced, he obliviously bowls through her attempts to let him down nice and easy. She gets angry, calls him a dog, maybe backhands him. And this is the exact point where things go really sour.

And that's just some dumb young buck who "didn't mean for things to get so out of control." How much easier to justify these attacks in the mind of someone who sees women as inherently property to be claimed?


----------



## Dirty Dog

K-man said:


> Wow! You are game!
> 
> Let's look at your statement "many women who were attacked or sexually assaulted by strangers had been rude, dismissive or verbally violent with their attacker beforehand". I think we need to separate 'attacked' and 'sexually assaulted'. The 'attacked' bit as a result of those actions I can accept. That many women have been sexually assaulted for those reasons just doesn't compute. I can see that playing out in court ... "Well your Honour, she called me an arsehole so I raped her". Don't see much justification there.



Sexual assaults are not about sex. They are about power. Just like most of the other assaults you mention.


----------



## Jenna

Brian King said:


> Great post Jenna, thanks for taking the time to share. It is not very PC to say, but (whispering) male and females are different. The neurological differences between students are many, even the chemicals (not only adrenaline is dumped into the blood stream) and amounts of each vary between students. The events that trigger the 'dump' can vary based on the person being triggered. Gender, culture, past experiences, training, age, health, and many other variables including perception and views of violence all interact to create the chemical and emotional biological roller coaster ride that exposure to and use of violence can engineer. One difference that should perhaps also be noticed is the difference between students on length of time it takes for the chemicals to dissipate. Gender also has a role in that I believe.
> 
> I like your point about making a distinction between protecting self rather than harming others. I think that besides helping to set boundaries it helps to give one 'permission' to harm. It is of more interest to me currently to study by what means people use to give themselves that permission than by what means they deploy to actually cause the 'harm'. Teaching someone the eye gouge is FAR different than giving them the tools to actually do it, if that makes sense? Have you read either of the books "On Killing" and the book "On Combat" by Lt. Col. Grossman? Interesting reads that I have read thru more than once and each time gained some insight.
> 
> So perhaps a pillar might be something along the lines of, self defense training should help the student discover and develop a means to access the mindset of preservation and protection rather than the mindset of reaction and retribution?
> 
> Thanks for all of your insights Jenna and your honesty
> Regards
> Brian King



I want to ask you some thing Brian how do you see the bigger -the biggest- picture of all of this when you step right back to the best place to observe it?  

In discussing the means by which we harm each other whether in offence or defence what is our conceit causing us to miss?

Jx


----------



## oftheherd1

BMhadoken said:


> I did separate them, intentionally, for partly that reason. Situations that escalate into sexual assault are slightly more complicated. Take two young college kids, add some liquid stupid. They're having a good time, maybe flirting a little, she thinks it's in good fun, he thinks its a go signal. Maybe they get alone in a room. He's trying to go further, she doesn't want to. Being young, drunk and inexperienced, he obliviously bowls through her attempts to let him down nice and easy. She gets angry, calls him a dog, maybe backhands him. And this is the exact point where things go really sour.
> 
> And that's just some dumb young buck who "didn't mean for things to get so out of control." How much easier to justify these attacks in the mind of someone who sees women as inherently property to be claimed?



I don't get your point.  I still don't see you defending the victim's right to refuse to have sex.  You have made her sort of complicit, up to a point, and then when she expresses her intent to not have sex (and she should be free to decide that at any point in your scenario), she becomes wrong by resisting the implied force with force of her own.  ???

May I suggest if you think rape is wrong, say so.  If you don't think rape is wrong, defend a man's right to rape plainly and vigorously.

I know that sounds strong, perhaps a little too strong.  But I'm still not sure which side of the fence you are on.

BTW, look at Dirty Dog's post below yours.  I agree with that.  You often hear it said that sex is just the tool in the quest for power and subjugation of the victim.  Do you agree with that and would it change how you express yourself in discussions of rape?



drop bear said:


> It becomes a PC issue to suggest that a woman can take responsibility to lessen the chance they will be attacked. By training to fight or modifying their behaviour.
> 
> But it is their head on the block not society's. And although we would like to stop all attacks on women. It isn't going to happen.
> 
> So turning this around and making the victim responsible for their own safety a bit is just the more practical option.



I am not a particularly PC person.  I normally try to be polite, but sometimes fail.  But I have never been the sort to agree with something I think is wrong just because it is popular.  So, should a woman avoid dangerous circumstances and behavior.  Yep, just as much as I or anyone else should.  But rape is an emotional issue for many reasons.  You may or may not agree with some of those reasons, but still, forced sex, on adults or children, should not be tolerated.  Any more that any other assault is tolerated.   How about we consider theft from an unlocked opened windowed car.  In either case if you aren't trying to justify the thief's or rapist's actions, where is there blame for the car owner, or a woman?  Not making good choices?  OK.  But I always seem to see blame used to lessen the responsibility of the criminal.  I don't agree with that.

So if you want to say a woman or car owner, given that there are in fact people who wish them harm, should therefore take some precautions, that would be prudent on the car owner's or woman's part.  But blaming the car owner or woman for the law breaker's actions, that doesn't float for me.

Now if it floats anyone's boat, I am willing to listen, and may make comments.  But I'm not into victim blame.


----------



## Tgace

If you choose to leave a laptop in your unlocked car, parked on the street overnight, and someone steals it, are you to "blame"? No. Nobody has the "right" to take your property, regardless of the wisdom of your decision.

Is it wise to leave your laptop in your unlocked car? Was it a decision you made?

If I'm teaching people at a crime prevention class to NOT leave a laptop in an unlocked car should I be concerned that a victim of such a crime is in the audience and may think I'm "blaming" them?

Should I not give that advice in the first place and instead train people that "stealing stuff from unlocked cars is wrong"?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BMhadoken

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't get your point. I still don't see you defending the victim's right to refuse to have sex. You have made her sort of complicit, up to a point, and then when she expresses her intent to not have sex (and she should be free to decide that at any point in your scenario), she becomes wrong by resisting the implied force with force of her own. ???



Since it apparently does need to be spelled out verbatim, something I find hard to believe, *yes a woman has a right to say no to sexual advances at any stage in the process. She also has a right to use effective physical force if he doesn't want to listen or let her leave.* Slapping a drunk horny idiot does not bring you closer to an effective resolution unless you use the brief moment of stunned surprise to run. Otherwise it just really pisses him off and brings things closer to a monkey-dance scenario, a scenario where this woman is almost certainly going to lose unless she can force-feed him his kneecaps in the next 5 seconds.


----------



## oftheherd1

BMhadoken said:


> Since it apparently does need to be spelled out verbatim, something I find hard to believe, *yes a woman has a right to say no to sexual advances at any stage in the process. She also has a right to use effective physical force if he doesn't want to listen or let her leave.* Slapping a drunk horny idiot does not bring you closer to an effective resolution unless you use the brief moment of stunned surprise to run. Otherwise it just really pisses him off and brings things closer to a monkey-dance scenario, a scenario where this woman is almost certainly going to lose unless she can force-feed him his kneecaps in the next 5 seconds.



Thanks for your clarification.  

Although I don't think every man would simply get angry and do what they wanted anyway, your point is well taken.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tgace said:


> If you choose to leave a laptop in your unlocked car, parked on the street overnight, and someone steals it, are you to "blame"? No. Nobody has the "right" to take your property, regardless of the wisdom of your decision.
> 
> Is it wise to leave your laptop in your unlocked car? Was it a decision you made?
> 
> *If I'm teaching people at a crime prevention class to NOT leave a laptop in an unlocked car should I be concerned that a victim of such a crime is in the audience and may think I'm "blaming" them?*
> 
> Should I not give that advice in the first place and instead train people that "stealing stuff from unlocked cars is wrong"?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I don't think so, unless you were doing something which in fact implies victims are to blame.  Would you do that?  I don't think you so.

As to your last sentence, if I understand your meaning, wouldn't it depend on the audience?  Anyway, I don't think blame has any place in a crime prevention scenario, just how to reduce risk.


----------



## Brian King

Jenna said:


> I want to ask you some thing Brian how do you see the bigger -the biggest- picture of all of this when you step right back to the best place to observe it?
> 
> In discussing the means by which we harm each other whether in offence or defence what is our conceit causing us to miss?
> 
> Jx


I am feeling dense - working on some plumbing and carpentry issues and failing at each attempt, with my frustrated muddled brain on over load, I am afraid I do not understand your question. Can you please try again Jenna?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I've *accidentally* injured training partners or opponents too stubborn, stupid, or proud to submit to a submission. There's a difference there, and its a difference I've highlighted several times..


NONSENSE You dont accidentally hurt people you feel are too stubborn or stupid to tap.  Your too stubborn or stupid to realize you won and let go, you have to prove how much of a tough guy you are and teach them a lesson for being to "Stupid" to tap


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> NONSENSE You dont accidentally hurt people you feel are too stubborn or stupid to tap.  Your too stubborn or stupid to realize you won and let go, you have to prove how much of a tough guy you are and teach them a lesson for being to "Stupid" to tap



You are trying for the tap. He is trying to prevent it. The point of tapping is so you know when to stop.

So the onus is on the person in the submission to opt out. Not the person doi g the submission.

And especially in competition. Because you are there to win. Not there to teach lessons. Not there to be a hero. Not there to be a friend.

One job. Win that fight.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't think so, unless you were doing something which in fact implies victims are to blame.  Would you do that?  I don't think you so.
> 
> As to your last sentence, if I understand your meaning, wouldn't it depend on the audience?  Anyway, I don't think blame has any place in a crime prevention scenario, just how to reduce risk.



Not so much blame as putting the responsibility on the victim. Self defence is about the victim taking responsibility for their own safety.

Because if the victim has no responsibility for their actions then there is no way for the victim to control their situation.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> NONSENSE You dont accidentally hurt people you feel are too stubborn or stupid to tap.  Your too stubborn or stupid to realize you won and let go, you have to prove how much of a tough guy you are and teach them a lesson for being to "Stupid" to tap



When I was a white belt, I rolled against a 4 stripe white belt. During the course of the roll, I tried to pressure his guard by stacking him. He gripped my arm, and performed a triangle choke. I was able to resist the choke and continue standing, and he then immediately went into an armbar.

Me being a *dumb* white belt, I didn't want to tap because I wanted to prove how awesome I was. However, after feeling a sharp pain in my elbow, I immediately tapped, and my arm hurt for weeks. Now, if I hadn't have tapped, that guy would have snapped my arm in two. The fact that my arm was in pain for weeks was entirely MY fault. 

Why? Because if I'm not tapping, it's telling my partner that their technique is ineffective. If their technique IS effective, and I'm not tapping, then I'm being stubborn/stupid/immature/etc. and I'm going to get hurt.


----------



## Brian King

aedrasteia said:


> "_But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction"    _
> From conventional MA-based instructors? sure.
> 
> Not from me and most of the reality-based  teachers I know (99% women).  Erik Kondo is an exception: THE PROGRESSIVE BOUNDARY SETTING SYSTEM
> 
> Rory Miller gets the dimensions of mental-emotional-psychological conditioning. But even he, as good as he
> is and he is very good, does not address the reality of assaults toward girls/women from people 'inside the circle'.
> Chiron Convergence
> 
> Less and less focus on techniques. More and more focus on consciously facing (and coping with)
> what the women and girls already know: we are/have already been molested, assaulted, harassed, raped
> by family and friends/people we know; people who are already part of the 'circle of trust'. Stranger assault obsesses regular MA instructors, occurs sometimes and is the most discussed. But is the least frequent. You wouldn't know that by reading this thread, most MT threads or the classes offered by MAs.
> 
> Girls/women bring all their personal experience (and experiences of the girls/women in their families and their friends)
> into the class.  It dominates everything that happens in the class. Creating an environment in the class where they/we can talk about reality and learn to change what happens in the future is my responsibility.
> 
> Girls/women, me and my students have been trained/socialized very very very differently. And especially
> in even naming, much less stopping, behavior and intrusion/aggression from people inside the circle.
> 
> So I share 27 ways to recognize and interupt/stop/derail/deflect/change intrusive behavior....
> Recognizing, Naming, Stopping the targeting and testing aggressors use (seldom involves physical strikes etc, but definitely includes physical skills).
> 
> Because it happens (happened) to me too.



Wonderful post aedrasteia!
That link to the " the progressive boundary setting system" looks very interesting and beneficial. I have read some of Dr Henry Cloud's books on boundaries. It is interesting how much we have to work on setting and maintaining boundaries in our personal and professional lives. I was only able to briefly look over some of the articles on that page. They look interesting and I liked the tone of them. I will be investigating further.

*You wrote*: "Girls/women bring all their personal experience (and experiences of the girls/women in their families and their friends) into the class. It dominates everything that happens in the class.

Something I try to always remember with all my martial interactions is that every student brings their own personal experiences to the interaction the same as I bring mine. Interestingly for many of us it is vague feelings and hints of memories sometimes just below the surface and other times long and deeply buried.  For others it is immediate, loud, and very clear. No matter what it is relevant in all the training and work.   Having witnessed these past and current emotions and trauma's being released by various students (men and women) during training has made me very aware how much care and awareness needs to be applied when training with folks, especially the type of drills, situations, and exercises that often can tap into these emotions. Being aware how many people have buried hurts, injuries and other strong emotions as a way to cope has changed the way that I teach and interact with students. For example, if I should need to touch a student to either correct or to demonstrate I first ask permission. After interaction I express gratitude. When doing ground work for correction and demo I am careful not to loom and to carefully observe the students reactions, breathing and tone and to adjust the work from those observations. If even a single student is expressing (verbally or physically) difficulties I will step back the work and then work forward again from a different line. What are some of the things that you do or you have seen other instructors do to make the work less threatening, more palatable, safer, and more effective to help people either after the crises or hopefully before entering crises.

*You also wrote:*
"So I share 27 ways to recognize and interupt/stop/derail/deflect/change intrusive behavior....
Recognizing, Naming, Stopping the targeting and testing aggressors use (seldom involves physical strikes etc, but definitely includes physical skills)."

Can you share those 27 ways either in this thread or even better start another? Aggressors seldom come right out attacking, they often interview, test, and groom the victim. If the possible victim can 'fail' this interviewing and testing stage they often will not have further criminal/abusive interaction from the attacker. What do you mean by "Naming"? Do you mean the ability to recognize and call out the behavior, by name?

Thanks again for the post and links.
Great stuff
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Steve said:


> I have a question for the group at large.   Approximately how much time is spent by you with your students teaching them things other than fighting skills?  We are talking about pillars of self defense, and the recurring theme seems to be that violence and fighting skills are a very small part of overall self defense.   But my impression is that this is the bulk of self defense instruction.



I can only speak from my own training which is based on the Systema that I have learned, teach and practice, Steve. I do not divide the training between "fighting skills" and other skills. All drills, all exercises, all work is designed to help the student learn about themselves at the core. All the drills and exercises should work the student on multiple levels depending only on the students experience and drive as too how deep the work can go. For a quick example, a simple drill- one student attacks the other with kicks. It is almost never specified what kick or which leg. The attacker gets to decide what attack to launch and the defender gets to defend how he or she wishes or even if. This kind of drill might be seen as a "fighting drill" by some, and they would I suppose be correct. But some students will be working on timing, learning to see the attacker form the attack in their head prior to their launching it. Some students will be working on fear and ego by letting the attack hit and absorbing the strike, some students will be concentrating on their (or the attackers) breathing and learning how to control and manipulate it. Some students will be working on being able to commit to an attack, some will be working on balance, some will be deliberately bringing forward different emotions while they are working (either attacking or defending) to explore how the different emotions might effect their (and their partners) work and abilities, One might be watching the wall clock in an attempt to be mindful and aware of every single second of the drill (not easy but interesting work),one might be doing math problems out loud while doing the work, Some might be working on cleansing the nervous system spikes, we often see eyes shut and working 'blind',  but no matter what all will be working with a playful goal of exploration. We teach that the focus should not just be merely on their own work and not even on just their and their partners work, but rather on all of the work happening around them, and they are often tested on this. It can be chaotic which of course is another lesson.  Is it a fight drill or a balance drill, timing work, absorption work, emotional exploration or can it be all of those and more depending on the student? Another example that can help demonstrate this concept is the push-up plank. It might be seen as a conditioning exercise and this would be correct. It is both a physical and mental exercise. It helps to physically and mentally condition the student. The plank can also teach the student several different ways to organize and let the body do the work. It helps to teach striking. It helps the student to explore breathing and working from structure, it can explore tendon work or working from the nervous system. It can teach muscle control and efficiency. It can teach the student methods of remaining or regaining calmness while they are under stress and physical load. It is not merely for muscle development. It works many different systems depending on the students perspectives, needs, and desires. 

To be honest Steve, it kind of puzzles me the preoccupation with the perception that a class must be a divided up by fighting or other. It is often the students perceptions that divid up the work and the instructors goal to widen and deepen those perceptions. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Steve

Brian King said:


> I can only speak from my own training which is based on the Systema that I have learned, teach and practice, Steve. I do not divide the training between "fighting skills" and other skills. All drills, all exercises, all work is designed to help the student learn about themselves at the core. All the drills and exercises should work the student on multiple levels depending only on the students experience and drive as too how deep the work can go. For a quick example, a simple drill- one student attacks the other with kicks. It is almost never specified what kick or which leg. The attacker gets to decide what attack to launch and the defender gets to defend how he or she wishes or even if. This kind of drill might be seen as a "fighting drill" by some, and they would I suppose be correct. But some students will be working on timing, learning to see the attacker form the attack in their head prior to their launching it. Some students will be working on fear and ego by letting the attack hit and absorbing the strike, some students will be concentrating on their (or the attackers) breathing and learning how to control and manipulate it. Some students will be working on being able to commit to an attack, some will be working on balance, some will be deliberately bringing forward different emotions while they are working (either attacking or defending) to explore how the different emotions might effect their (and their partners) work and abilities, One might be watching the wall clock in an attempt to be mindful and aware of every single second of the drill (not easy but interesting work),one might be doing math problems out loud while doing the work, Some might be working on cleansing the nervous system spikes, we often see eyes shut and working 'blind',  but no matter what all will be working with a playful goal of exploration. We teach that the focus should not just be merely on their own work and not even on just their and their partners work, but rather on all of the work happening around them, and they are often tested on this. It can be chaotic which of course is another lesson.  Is it a fight drill or a balance drill, timing work, absorption work, emotional exploration or can it be all of those and more depending on the student? Another example that can help demonstrate this concept is the push-up plank. It might be seen as a conditioning exercise and this would be correct. It is both a physical and mental exercise. It helps to physically and mentally condition the student. The plank can also teach the student several different ways to organize and let the body do the work. It helps to teach striking. It helps the student to explore breathing and working from structure, it can explore tendon work or working from the nervous system. It can teach muscle control and efficiency. It can teach the student methods of remaining or regaining calmness while they are under stress and physical load. It is not merely for muscle development. It works many different systems depending on the students perspectives, needs, and desires.
> 
> To be honest Steve, it kind of puzzles me the preoccupation with the perception that a class must be a divided up by fighting or other. It is often the students perceptions that divid up the work and the instructors goal to widen and deepen those perceptions.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King


Thank you for the thoughtful post, Brian.  In the end, after reading this thread and a few others, I'm honestly puzzled at any preoccupation with fighting at all.  It seems to me that any time spent training fighting techniques is a distraction from what you guys suggest is self defense.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> Thank you for the thoughtful post, Brian.  In the end, after reading this thread and a few others, I'm honestly puzzled at any preoccupation with fighting at all.  It seems to me that any time spent training fighting techniques is a distraction from what you guys suggest is self defense.



Seems a bit like false advertising really. People tend to equate self defense with fighting prowess. Essentially a person who could fight was well adept at defending themselves against someone doing them harm.

It seems rather bizarre to hear instructors say that the point isn't to fight at all. Well if that's the point, why are you teaching people how to kill someone for the vast majority of your class time? That's quite  the contradiction.

Of course it would be difficult to fill those training halls with people if you spent the entire lesson teaching about how to de-escalate a situation or turn the other cheek instead of teaching people how to smash windpipes. Right?


----------



## Brian King

Steve said:


> Thank you for the thoughtful post, Brian.  In the end, after reading this thread and a few others, I'm honestly puzzled at any preoccupation with fighting at all.  It seems to me that any time spent training fighting techniques is a distraction from what you guys suggest is self defense.



Steve, do you teach at your gym/dojo.. jeez, I am not sure what you BJJ/MMA types call your schools LOL. I do not know about your business/professional teaching, perhaps that is different. In martial arts, the difficulty in teaching a class or seminar is not what to teach but what not too teach. There is a limit of time and never enough of it. An instructor has to pick and chose what they think that the class (a class of individuals - each with their own expectations, experiences, and needs) needs and what they can help them to explore in the allotted time. a good instructor strives to meet those needs. Students have to be engaged and inspired to help them do the exploration necessary. Many have situations that they are currently dealing with and some of those are or are potentially violent. Not maybe some day, but now.  Steve, some of the 'physical techniques' can save their lives. It is a known. The 'other' work as you name can also save their lives but it is not always a known. The situation avoided is not always known or acknowledged. Steve, have you ever had a student call you in the middle of the night to thank you for a lesson you gave that ended up saving their life? Ever received a letter from a solder serving in a combat zone thanking you for the lessons which they have put to good use on the job (in this case an army sniper with a number of credited kills). I have yet to receive the call at 2AM from someone telling me that they avoided an alley, had a mugger decide against interviewing, had a robber ignore them on the public transit. These benefits are not measurable and often not even noticed. The lessons have to be sneaked in. The fighting helps to drive those lessons home and make them real. Rory Millar does a drill where the students demonstrate a defense dealing with some situation or another. After a number of participants go thru the exercise he asked them and everyone watching why none turned around and left thru the door? I was once up in Toronto attending a seminar. This exercise has two determined fellows with blades stabbing and slashing at all the other students. If the blade merely touched you at all you were out and had to stand against the wall. It was chaotic and violent. I stood besides Vladimir uninvited and acted like I was observing the drill even engaging him in light conversation. The attackers stormed on by me attacking several others. This went on for a minute or two then looked at Vlad, shrugged that I was bored and entered the fray to be almost immediately 'killed'. It was perhaps a fighting drill, but it also had many other lessons as I am sure that you can imagine. What was most interesting to me was that by my 'not getting involved' the attackers went on by and did not even notice me. This was an important lesson for me that came about in a fighting drill, but does not only have to do with fighting. 

Steve, perhaps your perception that fighting is about fighting is misguided? The confidence, the being able to express yourself physically, the knowing that you can take a punch or a fall and live, that a bruise isn't anything and that a rubbing some dirt in the cut will stop the bleeding are lessons that come from what I am assuming you are calling "fighting".  I was at a seminar that Ken Good was teaching to a bunch of law enforcement officers in Huntington Beach California I think. One officer had ended on the ground and four others were stomping him and hitting him with stiff training batons. While this was going on Ken looks over to the melee and asked the officer "does it hurt?" Gasping and grunting with the kicks and baton strike the officer replies positively (I believe there was a bit of cussing and a H double L yes it does) to which Ken calmly asked the officer, "if it hurts why don't you move?" The officer didn't understand at first. To his defense it is hard to think sometimes while being stumped and beat with sticks. Finally Ken yells "IF IT HURTS, MOVE." Finally it dawns on the officer and he fights and claws his way back onto his feet. A lesson that I am sure he remembers to this day.  George Ledyard Sensei says that "movement resolves conflict." For many this a reminder that when doing a throw and getting stuck to move, for some it is a reminder that if the hits/stomps/kicks hurt...to move. The "fighting" drills give immediate reinforcement to the idea that movement resolves conflict. The bruises are the pathway to beat the lesson into the soul. But it doesn't take very long for the student to realize that movement resolves conflict has more to do with life and not merely fighting. It can be applied on the highway. It can be applied during stressful work meetings. It can be applied to relationships. I don't mean to necessarily leave your loved one, but by adjusting a position a bit it gives yourself and others room to work. Even here on Martial talk, during heated keyboarding, movement resolves conflict, can go a long a ways in promoting better thread. 

The fighting is a tool that leads to exploration and understanding Steve. It is also a tool that might save the students life an hour or ten years after class. Do instructors get it right? Hopefully sometimes. Like all tools, it is not always used efficiently or productively. I have been known to use my electric drill as a hammer and have used an extension cord as a rope. It doesn't make the cord and drill wrong and it did get the job done. It is not an either/or thing Steve and I can see that not being either or drives you a bit crazy. It is ok, crazy is a big club and Teddy Roosevelt liked to carry a big club. It seems like when you do you art Steve, you put on your gi, and go to your club and practice your art. Finished you change clothes and go about your life. Your life and your training are separate. It is ok and there are thousand and thousands of people that train just that way. For others, the training and the living are the same and the lessons are intwined. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Steve

Brian, thanks again for your thoughts.  I'm not suggesting anything contrary to what you said.   I'm simply concluding from your posts and others that what you're describing isn't self defense training.   That doesn't mean it has no value.  It's just not self defense.  As you and others have well stated, self defense is more about lifestyle, wise choices, and one's approach to a situation.  Any physical component is something other than self defense.   Truly, I didn't really appreciate this distinction until I considered your opinions, and the educated opinions of others here.   

It's rare around here for someone to admit having changed their mind.  But in this case, I have.   Thank you.


----------



## Brian King

Hanzou wrote:
"Of course it would be difficult to fill those training halls with people if you spent the entire lesson teaching about how to de-escalate a situation or turn the other cheek instead of teaching people how to smash windpipes. Right?"

You're playing right? Otherwise it might be taken that you are implying dishonesty for financial gain. You are quoting Steve quoting me so you are implying that dishonesty directly to me. I can assume a few things from your post Hanzou, some of which might be true or not. I can assume that you are playing and merely trying to jab someone to get a reaction for your own giggles. I can assume that you have not taken the time to read the thread or are unable to understand the simple lessons in it. I can assume that you are purposely being ignorant trying to prove some point. I can clearly see that you have no problem accusing people of being dishonest and trying in your own sneaky snarky underhanded way of impugning    my reputation. Good luck with that LOL. Or, you could be playing. Yeah, I bet thats it. Thanks for posting.

Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Steve said:


> Brian, thanks again for your thoughts.  I'm not suggesting anything contrary to what you said.   I'm simply concluding from your posts and others that what you're describing isn't self defense training.   That doesn't mean it has no value.  It's just not self defense.  As you and others have well stated, self defense is more about lifestyle, wise choices, and one's approach to a situation.  Any physical component is something other than self defense.   Truly, I didn't really appreciate this distinction until I considered your opinions, and the educated opinions of others here.
> 
> It's rare around here for someone to admit having changed their mind.  But in this case, I have.   Thank you.



Thanks Steve. You will pardon me if I say it seems contrary to me. If one is calling something by one term and another says no it is not that... ummm seems contrary.  Now, I do not call my teaching self defense but I do see the obvious cross overs and am surprised that you are unable or unwilling to. Perhaps we are speaking around each other a bit? In your opinion, as someone who trains in a martial art, who either has been involved or knows others that have been involved in 'self-defense' situations, what do you consider should be a pillar of self defense? Please in your own words Steve describe what is self defense training. If you could describe self defense training course, what would it be? I think further up thread it was purple or brown belt in BJJ? Was that you?

Here is an exercise that might help us to communicate to each other.
Steve, you are now an instructor at say an open community college and have been asked to teach a self defense course for students at that college. It is a twice a week for 12 weeks course each class lasting 1.5 hours. There have been a number of violent assaults and robberies, a number of fights at the dorms, a couple of reported rapes (no arrests), and a few gay men have recently been beaten up (no arrests). Many of the crime suspects are considered non students but many are also students. All of the victims have either been students or university staff. Due to budget cuts campus security is a single mobile (driving) patrol but the university has put a few more lights on the pathways and cut down some bushes. They have made available emergency whistles for the students to purchase at a discount. 

Please describe your curriculum and testing methods for the above course. 

Thanks Steve
Regards
Brian King


----------



## oftheherd1

drop bear said:


> Not so much blame as putting the responsibility on the victim. Self defence is about the victim taking responsibility for their own safety.
> 
> Because if the victim has no responsibility for their actions then there is no way for the victim to control their situation.



Well, I think I understand what you mean.  I  think you mean a potential victim, as regards self defense, must be willing to take certain actions to enhance their survivability.  Of course, that is the self of self defense.  But not everyone wants to be involved in their own defense.  What right do we have to require them to do so? So I wonder if your choice of words, that is "putting the responsibility on the victim (not some potential victim)" doesn't sound like blaming the victim again?  As I said, I am sure you didn't mean that, and maybe I am reading things into your choice of words that I shouldn't be.  Apologies if I am.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian King said:


> Hanzou wrote:
> "Of course it would be difficult to fill those training halls with people if you spent the entire lesson teaching about how to de-escalate a situation or turn the other cheek instead of teaching people how to smash windpipes. Right?"
> 
> You're playing right? Otherwise it might be taken that you are implying dishonesty for financial gain. You are quoting Steve quoting me so you are implying that dishonesty directly to me. I can assume a few things from your post Hanzou, some of which might be true or not. I can assume that you are playing and merely trying to jab someone to get a reaction for your own giggles. I can assume that you have not taken the time to read the thread or are unable to understand the simple lessons in it. I can assume that you are purposely being ignorant trying to prove some point. I can clearly see that you have no problem accusing people of being dishonest and trying in your own sneaky snarky underhanded way of impugning    my reputation. Good luck with that LOL. Or, you could be playing. Yeah, I bet thats it. Thanks for posting.
> 
> Brian King



And all of those assumptions would be false Brian. Just like your assumptions surrounding my training methods earlier.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I think I understand what you mean.  I  think you mean a potential victim, as regards self defense, must be willing to take certain actions to enhance their survivability.  Of course, that is the self of self defense.  But not everyone wants to be involved in their own defense.  What right do we have to require them to do so? So I wonder if your choice of words, that is "putting the responsibility on the victim (not some potential victim)" doesn't sound like blaming the victim again?  As I said, I am sure you didn't mean that, and maybe I am reading things into your choice of words that I shouldn't be.  Apologies if I am.



Self defence is victim blaming. All of it. Because you are taking the victim and saying that their behaviour determines if they are a victim or not. Rather than the actions of the aggressor.

Saying the potential victim is still victim blaming.

So what you are saying is true.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> But not everyone wants to be involved in their own defense. What right do we have to require them to do so?



And this.
Nobody is requiring them to. It doesn't phase me if they learn self defence or not.


----------



## drop bear

Being able to mostly avoid violence is not self defence. That is called being a normal functional member of society.

Being able to handle a violence is.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Being able to mostly avoid violence is not self defence. That is called being a normal functional member of society.
> 
> Being able to handle a violence is.


Yes and no.  Being able to avoid violence at the hands of non normal members of society is self defense.  It's easy for 2 normal people to avoid violence because as you said that's normal behavior.  Avioding physical confrontation with crazy, intoxicated, or criminals is self defense


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Yes and no.  Being able to avoid violence at the hands of non normal members of society is self defense.  It's easy for 2 normal people to avoid violence because as you said that's normal behavior.  Avioding physical confrontation with crazy, intoxicated, or criminals is self defense



Yes. But if you want to play that game you also want to be able to fight or run. And some time spent learning to wholesale whoop *** becomes more relevant.

I feel the idea that self defence is not also fighting is more of a platitude than a solution.


----------



## drop bear

Brian King said:


> and that a rubbing some dirt in the cut will stop the bleeding



Sorry what?

Use some dunny paper or something.


----------



## Brian King

Hanzou said:


> And all of those assumptions would be false Brian. Just like your assumptions surrounding my training methods earlier.



You say so, yet, your posting seems to strongly suggest otherwise on all counts? Oh well, not my problem. Good luck to you and to anyone you happen to train with or be around. 

Perhaps as an exercise, you could address the same hypothetical as I gave to Steve. The one up thread about creating a self defense program for the university in question. What would be your curriculum and how would you test it? 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

drop bear said:


> Sorry what?
> 
> Use some dunny paper or something.



Ha, I had to look up dunny paper! Never heard TP called that. In the service I was an engineer...of sorts, had to spend a lot of time in the field. TP was prized and not to be wasted on something so menial as sopping up a bit blood.

Anyway, funny post and I learned a new name for TP, I call that a win.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## K-man

Brian King said:


> Ha, I had to look up dunny paper! Never heard TP called that. In the service I was an engineer...of sorts, had to spend a lot of time in the field. TP was prized and not to be wasted on something so menial as sopping up a bit blood.
> 
> Anyway, funny post and I learned a new name for TP, I call that a win.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King


Those of us who started shaving in the 60s or earlier often used the same DP to stem the bleeding from the more primative shaving gear we had available back then.


----------



## drop bear

Brian King said:


> You say so, yet, your posting seems to strongly suggest otherwise on all counts? Oh well, not my problem. Good luck to you and to anyone you happen to train with or be around.
> 
> Perhaps as an exercise, you could address the same hypothetical as I gave to Steve. The one up thread about creating a self defense program for the university in question. What would be your curriculum and how would you test it?
> 
> Regards
> Brian King



New thread for the hypothetical?

It is a big topic.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Those of us who started shaving in the 60s or earlier often used the same DP to stem the bleeding from the more primative shaving gear we had available back then.



It is a major component of our first aid kit.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian King said:


> You say so, yet, your posting seems to strongly suggest otherwise on all counts? Oh well, not my problem. Good luck to you and to anyone you happen to train with or be around.
> 
> Perhaps as an exercise, you could address the same hypothetical as I gave to Steve. The one up thread about creating a self defense program for the university in question. What would be your curriculum and how would you test it?
> 
> Regards
> Brian King



I would teach them Bjj. Probably something along these lines;
9 Rules for BJJ Self Defense - Grapplearts


----------



## elder999

I 'll have a little more time later to address some of the things I've brought up-I'm kinda delighted with this discussion and the way it has progressed-there are a few other things that I think might need some quick housekeeping on my part.

Way upthread,we had this post:


Hanshi said:


> I never teach students to use a "style" or even a martial art.  I teach them to use approaches that don't require years to develop the skill.  I make sure they understand that complicated moves and fine motor skills will leave them so use basic concepts and principles.  When attacked,  no one is in the "proper" mindset and they WILL be at a disadvantage.  However, 95% of what I do recommend to them does come from martial arts.
> 
> Specifically, weapons first.  Always be armed even if it is nothing more than a ballpoint pen, I tell them; but a knife or gun is best.  Since most do not carry guns or knives the emphasis is on "environmental weapons", items to be naturally found on or around them.  I, myself carry knives, rarely a gun; and since I need a cane to walk that becomes my primary weapon.
> 
> Secondly, I teach them that there is no such thing as self defense.  Reason being that defense is a response to a prior advantage directed at them; you can't punch backing up, so to speak.  What I prepare them to do is at the moment it appears an attack is forthcoming YOU become the aggressor.  I think most people know when something bad is about to come down so it makes no sense to politely give the thug first dibs.  In such situations you must EXPLODE into a violent and loud attack with everything and anything you know or have with you.  Any attacker should not be left in a condition to regain his feet for at least a good while.  The results of your initial action, they are instructed, will determine what your next move will be; be it to quickly leave the area or stay around.  Always, I tell them, always call the police asap.  Often the police don't like the idea of people protecting themselves but this fascist attitude is their problem, not yours.
> 
> Basically these are my pillars of self protection.  There's more, of course, but this is the basic outline.



The "practical"  parts of which were......._interesting_.....I just need to say that in the original actual event that led to this thread being started, the woman was ambushed and tackled. Most people who train weapons don't seem to include deploying a weapon from such a compromised position: I've trained with knives for....well, for a long time, now, and I had to seek out training on getting the knife out and using it in just this situation. Ditto-especially-firearms. In fact, I've had policemen who were more than a little helpless in this situation: I've taken them down and not only kept them from getting to their (Airsoft) pistol, I've controlled them with their duty belt, and often taken the pistol (don't usually like to scare the cops....)..then shown them how to fill in the gaps in their 6 months at the academy.....

As for the discenment and use of "environmental weapons," thatt could be a whole other thread...




Hanzou said:


> Seems a bit like false advertising really. People tend to equate self defense with fighting prowess. Essentially a person who could fight was well adept at defending themselves against someone doing them harm.
> 
> It seems rather bizarre to hear instructors say that the point isn't to fight at all. Well if that's the point, why are you teaching people how to kill someone for the vast majority of your class time? That's quite  the contradiction.
> 
> Of course it would be difficult to fill those training halls with people if you spent the entire lesson teaching about how to de-escalate a situation or turn the other cheek instead of teaching people how to smash windpipes. Right?




Here's a Japanese saying that predates judo, or "karate," never mind BJJ, and comes from a time when martial arts were *martial* arts:

_*"Arasoi no *_nai _*no *_ga bu _*no riso*_," which means, "_*Not *_to fight is the ideal of martial arts."

That was said by Katayama Hoki no Kami Hisayasu, who lived from 1575 to 1615, and founded the Hoki ryu.....

Of course, we're not really necessarily talking about "martial arts" here as much as we are "self-defense," a distinction that might also take up a whole other thread. In any case, while self defense teaching can and should be mostly the physical techniques of self-defense (as these are the very things that take the most to learn, not necessarily "what people are paying for") , proper training-to be properly "defensive" should, at the very least, include knowing when not to fight, something about de-escalation, and how and when _*to run away. *_


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Here's a Japanese saying that predates judo, or "karate," never mind BJJ, and comes from a time when martial arts were *martial* arts:
> 
> _*"Arasoi no *_nai _*no *_ga bu _*no riso*_," which means, "_*Not *_to fight is the ideal of martial arts."
> 
> That was said by Katayama Hoki no Kami Hisayasu, who lived from 1575 to 1615, and founded the Hoki ryu.....
> 
> Of course, we're not really necessarily talking about "martial arts" here as much as we are "self-defense," a distinction that might also take up a whole other thread. In any case, while self defense teaching can and should be mostly the physical techniques of self-defense (as these are the very things that take the most to learn, not necessarily "what people are paying for") , proper training-to be properly "defensive" should, at the very least, include knowing when not to fight, something about de-escalation, and how and when _*to run away. *_



Tell that to the woman in the video in the OP. She chose not to fight and got brutalized, risking the life of herself and her child. 

Look, I'm all for Samurai platitudes, but that guy (if we're talking about the same person) lived during the era of Japanese peace following the warring states period, and he was a sword instructor to the elite. Unlike Musashi, he never saw a battle or duel in his entire plushy life and lived well into his late 70s. I'm not seeing how he is any more of a martial artist than anyone living today.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Tell that to the woman in the video in the OP. She chose not to fight and got brutalized, risking the life of herself and her child.
> 
> Look, I'm all for Samurai platitudes, but that guy (if we're talking about the same person) lived during the era of Japanese peace following the warring states period, and he was a sword instructor to the elite. Unlike Musashi, he never saw a battle or duel in his entire plushy life and lived well into his late 70s. I'm not seeing how he is any more of a martial artist than anyone living today.



Same fellow-but not quite right : if we mark the end of the Sengoku, what you're calling the "warring states period," with the beginning of the Tokugawa shogunate, that occurred in 1603, when Katayama was 28. He'd have reached his majority at 15, and we can't really say he
never had a duel, because we don't really know....he was only a bit less than a decade older than Musashi, so who knows what occurred on his _musha shugyo?_

(oh, and I gave the wrong year for his death, for some reason-he died in 1650)

As for the rest, the things you're _not seeing_ rarely surprise me anymore.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Same fellow-but not quite right : if we mark the end of the Sengoku, what you're calling the "warring states period," with the beginning of the Tokugawa shogunate, that occurred in 1603, when Katayama was 28. He'd have reached his majority at 15, and we can't really say he
> never had a duel, because we don't really know....he was only a bit less than a decade older than Musashi, so who knows what occurred on his _musha shugyo?_
> 
> (oh, and I gave the wrong year for his death, for some reason-he died in 1650)
> 
> As for the rest, the things you're _not seeing_ rarely surprise me anymore.



I'm pretty sure that if this guy was an amazing duelist, his followers would have recorded it.

Anyway, I'm simply against these silly platitudes being regurgitated over and over again. Sure, its better not to fight than it is to engage in fighting, but sometimes you don't have a choice. The woman in the OP survived because her assailant didn't want to kill her, he just wanted to beat on her and then rob her house. I don't believe anyone should willfully put their lives in the hands of someone else.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Sure, its better not to fight than it is to engage in fighting, but sometimes you don't have a choice. The woman in the OP survived because her assailant didn't want to kill her, he just wanted to beat on her and then rob her house. I don't believe anyone should willfully put their lives in the hands of someone else.







Brian King said:


> Now, everyone reading this thread can agree that there can be more than one way to solve a problem. For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula, depends entirely on context. Let’s try to discuss the messages and not so much the messengers although a little background on the posters experiences if they want, might help to add context?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Brian King


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve said:


> .  *Any physical component is something other than self defense.*
> .



Steve, no one has said this.  Obviously in reading the thread this is what you have decided but it is you alone saying this.  Personal protection skills certainly involve a physical component.  *Self-defense is a legal term* where someone is claiming self-defense based off already being in a violent situation.  They are admitting to the guilt of being in a physical encounter but here is why they did it!   Personal protection training that also includes self-defense training has mental, physical and yes even spiritual components as executing training effectively in a moment while being attacked quite often draws off your unique spiritual  aspect.  However, the mental skill sets are very, very important where you or I and probably many others would disagree is your idea that it should be at the 80/20 rule. 

It would appear that you are trying to categorize training into a certain mold that fits your perception.

It would also seem that you are trying to create and argument to fit your reason for training and that Hanzou is attempting to take it to the next extreme. (ie. to justify what and why you do what you do in BJJ)  Which is not helpful to this thread or what the OP intended!  This thread is a discussion what are the fundamental pillars of self-defense.  Of which a heavy component will be non-physical yet there is also physical component to being able to protect yourself!  *This really isn't hard to understand!*

I would suggest some reading for both you and Hanzou to get better acquainted with personal protection and self-defense in general:

Rory Miller - Facing Violence
Marc MacYoung - Self Defense: What you need to Know, When you need to know it

I will leave you with the thought that you are trying to pigeon hole a broad area of knowledge into a little square.  So it is nice and tidy.   Which would be an incorrect thing to do!


----------



## Tgace

Its similar to warfare. While combat is where the issue is decided, a military victory is dependent on so many other things ( logistics, training, transportation, manufacturing, equipment, intelligence, etc) including all of the hundreds of support and administration jobs that the actual fighting is really a small fraction of the overall effort. But if you loose the fight all that other stuff is sort of irrelevant.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Brian King

Hanzou said:


> I would teach them Bjj. Probably something along these lines;
> 9 Rules for BJJ Self Defense - Grapplearts



I love Stephan's work. Have a few of his DVD's around somewhere. The thing is Stephan isn't here. You wrote that "probably something along these lines. Not sure what that means, you like 1-7 and not 2 and 4 is ok? See what I mean? For the sake of conversation how about rewriting the rules in your own words to take out the probably so folks are on the same page?

Regards
Brian King


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Steve, no one has said this.  Obviously in reading the thread this is what you have decided but it is you alone saying this.  Personal protection skills certainly involve a physical component.  *Self-defense is a legal term* where someone is claiming self-defense based off already being in a violent situation.  They are admitting to the guilt of being in a physical encounter but here is why they did it!   Personal protection training that also includes self-defense training has mental, physical and yes even spiritual components as executing training effectively in a moment while being attacked quite often draws off your unique spiritual  aspect.  However, the mental skill sets are very, very important where you or I and probably many others would disagree is your idea that it should be at the 80/20 rule.
> 
> It would appear that you are trying to categorize training into a certain mold that fits your perception.
> 
> It would also seem that you are trying to create and argument to fit your reason for training and that Hanzou is attempting to take it to the next extreme. (ie. to justify what and why you do what you do in BJJ)  Which is not helpful to this thread or what the OP intended!  This thread is a discussion what are the fundamental pillars of self-defense.  Of which a heavy component will be non-physical yet there is also physical component to being able to protect yourself!  *This really isn't hard to understand!*
> 
> I would suggest some reading for both you and Hanzou to get better acquainted with personal protection and self-defense in general:
> 
> Rory Miller - Facing Violence
> Marc MacYoung - Self Defense: What you need to Know, When you need to know it
> 
> I will leave you with the thought that you are trying to pigeon hole a broad area of knowledge into a little square.  So it is nice and tidy.   Which would be an incorrect thing to do!



Well the training and the fit would be two fold. If for example you did whatever martial arts but don't get attacked very often. Then the non physical aspect is already handled.

Training to avoid fights you are avoiding anyway especially from a guy who has avoided fights becomes a bit of a theoretical argument like me training to dodge falling planes. Then teaching others to do it.

If you are in a high violence environment then the avoiding fights training becomes more applicable. 

Now if you cant avoid fights you want to train to win them. And that would be the physical component applies. And so a method that focuses on majority physical technique is far more applicable.

So say Steve does not routinely fight and trains bjj for self defence. Then his self defence method is absolutely applicable. 

It is where people take ownership of the term self defence. By suggesting that they have the secret sauce that the schools like bjj don't have. That creates the issue.


----------



## Dr.Smith

Self defense is a pretty broad area of study. If your talking about defending yourself physically then its simple as 1+1=2, physical ability plus basic martial skill equals adequate self defense. It will never be anything other than that easy.


----------



## oftheherd1

drop bear said:


> Being able to mostly avoid violence is not self defence. That is called being a normal functional member of society.
> 
> Being able to handle a violence is.



So if a bully approaches me and begins an argument with an apparent attempt to monkey dance for a while, then attacks me, any attempts on my part to dissuade the bully without fighting are not defense, and therefore self defense?



Steve said:


> Thank you for the thoughtful post, Brian.  In the end, after reading this thread and a few others, I'm honestly puzzled at any preoccupation with fighting at all.  It seems to me that any time spent training fighting techniques is a distraction from what you guys suggest is self defense.



I don't recall reading that but maybe someone did say it and I missed it.  I know I didn't say it.

But I do find it interesting that you seem to find fighting the only self defense.  I understand how those of us who are MA are interested in effective fighting, and how we place a high value on effective fighting.  But wouldn't the action I take to prevent a fight be defensive, as in my hypothetical question for drop bear above?  I don't see how you can separate out what prevents a fight, from having as much value as the successful conclusion of a fight.




drop bear said:


> Self defence is victim blaming. All of it. Because you are taking the victim and saying that their behaviour determines if they are a victim or not. Rather than the actions of the aggressor.
> 
> Saying the potential victim is still victim blaming.
> 
> So what you are saying is true.



I guess I didn't understand you after all.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> So if a bully approaches me and begins an argument with an apparent attempt to monkey dance for a while, then attacks me, any attempts on my part to dissuade the bully without fighting are not defense, and therefore self defense?



Ok if you missed primary school. Here are some basic methods to deal with bullies.

Bullying at school helping your child Raising Children Network

A basic tool for being a functional member of society.


----------



## oftheherd1

drop bear said:


> Ok if you missed primary school. Here are some basic methods to deal with bullies.
> 
> Bullying at school helping your child Raising Children Network
> 
> A basic tool for being a functional member of society.



Innuendos aside, I am glad you have decided prevention of violence (which many bullies engage in) is better than responding to acts of violence. 

Congratulations and thanks!


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> Innuendos aside, I am glad you have decided prevention of violence (which many bullies engage in) is better than responding to acts of violence.
> 
> Congratulations and thanks!



Actually I don't. 

I am more in line with the don't tread on me idea when it comes to bullies.

The system works too slow and the damage of bullying can be too great. And bullying works better than the process of preventing it.
 So I will certainly consider just punching the bully in the face showing that he should possibly move his attentions somewhere else.

I also understand my actions are wrong and am willing to face the consequences of that.


----------



## oftheherd1

drop bear said:


> Actually I don't.
> 
> I am more in line with the don't tread on me idea when it comes to bullies.
> 
> The system works too slow and the damage of bullying can be too great. And bullying works better than the process of preventing it.
> So I will certainly consider just punching the bully in the face showing that he should possibly move his attentions somewhere else.
> 
> *I also understand my actions are wrong and am willing to face the consequences of that*.



For you I hope it never comes to that, but I am glad at least you have given it much thought, are willing to accept the consequences of committing an assault.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> For you I hope it never comes to that, but I am glad at least you have given it much thought, are willing to accept the consequences of committing an assault.



Life has consequences. But I wont be bullied. I don't like to see others bullied and I am in general favour of people who stand up to them.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> For you I hope it never comes to that, but I am glad at least you have given it much thought, are willing to accept the consequences of committing an assault.








As a case study. My sympathy for the kid who started that is zero.


----------



## oftheherd1

drop bear said:


> Life has consequences. But I wont be bullied. I don't like to see others bullied and I am in general favour of people who stand up to them.



Although I don't care to be bullied, I don't mind frustrating a bully by not sinking to his/her level.  Good verbal skills can often do that.  Even if I can only avoid fighting, given the society we live in, that is preferable to me over the time I would have to spend with the police and in court.  But good verbal skills will work more often than many people think.  Often, without fighting, a bully can be convinced you don't want to fight, but will do so if pushed beyond a certain limit.  Then they must worry about where that limit is.  Most bullies fear losing over every thing else.



drop bear said:


> As a case study. My sympathy for the kid who started that is zero.



As is mine.  I was interested in seeing a bigger kid interpose himself between the bully and the victim, and another person back up that person.  Curious dynamics.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> Although I don't care to be bullied, I don't mind frustrating a bully by not sinking to his/her level.  Good verbal skills can often do that.  Even if I can only avoid fighting, given the society we live in, that is preferable to me over the time I would have to spend with the police and in court.  But good verbal skills will work more often than many people think.  Often, without fighting, a bully can be convinced you don't want to fight, but will do so if pushed beyond a certain limit.  Then they must worry about where that limit is.  Most bullies fear losing over every thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> As is mine.  I was interested in seeing a bigger kid interpose himself between the bully and the victim, and another person back up that person.  Curious dynamics.



There is quite the drama unfolded over that.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> Although I don't care to be bullied, I don't mind frustrating a bully by not sinking to his/her level.  Good verbal skills can often do that.  Even if I can only avoid fighting, given the society we live in, that is preferable to me over the time I would have to spend with the police and in court.  But good verbal skills will work more often than many people think.  Often, without fighting, a bully can be convinced you don't want to fight, but will do so if pushed beyond a certain limit.  Then they must worry about where that limit is.  Most bullies fear losing over every thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> As is mine.  I was interested in seeing a bigger kid interpose himself between the bully and the victim, and another person back up that person.  Curious dynamics.



No Cookies dailytelegraph.com.au

Then the other kid came out and said he was the victim and people took sides it was quite an interesting read.

But here a year of torment one body slam eat the suspension and the problem is solved.


----------



## Dr.Smith

Again another entire thread of rubbish lols, I mean really your adults and you actually had to take time out to clarify rather or not a victim is at fault, that's absurd and nearly mentally I'll to read.  You don't even know what the topic is throughout most of this thread, then you post a boy Buddy slamming another boy, I think their forth graders and that's your self-defense sceniro model, are you kidding me.  It was caught on tape, all the other boy had  to do was turn the bully in and it would have been him suspended not the other way around.  And don't start barking about training, it has nothing to do with your testosterone induced mma  model for self-defense rant that I know you want to go off on.  This is the real world lols, not a jet Lee movie or an mma ludis. Wake up smell the coffee.


----------



## elder999

Dr.Smith said:


> Again another entire thread of rubbish lols, I mean really your adults and you actually had to take time out to clarify rather or not a victim is at fault, that's absurd and nearly mentally I'll to read.  You don't even know what the topic is throughout most of this thread, then you post a boy Buddy slamming another boy, I think their forth graders and that's your self-defense sceniro model, are you kidding me.  It was caught on tape, all the other boy had  to do was turn the bully in and it would have been him suspended not the other way around.  And don't start barking about training, it has nothing to do with your testosterone induced mma  model for self-defense rant that I know you want to go off on.  This is the real world lols, not a jet Lee movie or an mma ludis. Wake up smell the coffee.






THanks for such a _worthwhile contribution.... 

_


----------



## Steve

Brian King said:


> Thanks Steve. You will pardon me if I say it seems contrary to me. If one is calling something by one term and another says no it is not that... ummm seems contrary.  Now, I do not call my teaching self defense but I do see the obvious cross overs and am surprised that you are unable or unwilling to. Perhaps we are speaking around each other a bit? In your opinion, as someone who trains in a martial art, who either has been involved or knows others that have been involved in 'self-defense' situations, what do you consider should be a pillar of self defense? Please in your own words Steve describe what is self defense training. If you could describe self defense training course, what would it be? I think further up thread it was purple or brown belt in BJJ? Was that you?
> 
> Here is an exercise that might help us to communicate to each other.
> Steve, you are now an instructor at say an open community college and have been asked to teach a self defense course for students at that college. It is a twice a week for 12 weeks course each class lasting 1.5 hours. There have been a number of violent assaults and robberies, a number of fights at the dorms, a couple of reported rapes (no arrests), and a few gay men have recently been beaten up (no arrests). Many of the crime suspects are considered non students but many are also students. All of the victims have either been students or university staff. Due to budget cuts campus security is a single mobile (driving) patrol but the university has put a few more lights on the pathways and cut down some bushes. They have made available emergency whistles for the students to purchase at a discount.
> 
> Please describe your curriculum and testing methods for the above course.
> 
> Thanks Steve
> Regards
> Brian King


Based upon the diversity of opinions around what 'self defense' actually is, I think it would be a mistake to try and combine all of that into one class, Brian.  Addressing fights in the dorms isn't the same as protection from a serial rapist, which isn't anything at all like protecting oneself from being mugged.

Ideally, I would think each of the different needs would be addressed on their own.  From this thread, I don't think any martial arts component would be very helpful.  Any physical skills would take too long to learn well enough to rely upon under duress, and as has been stated in this thread, other things such as mindset, awareness, lifestyle and personal choices would have a much more direct impact upon personal safety than any cursory, martial arts instruction.

In situations where it's more about safety from random attacks, such as in the case of serial rapists or muggers (as opposed to lifestyle dangers, like drinking to excess and hanging out at frats or dorm parties without a wingman (ie, a buddy)), I'd probably bring in someone to talk about force multipliers, use of force laws and the like.  Pepper spray, a taser or even a gun.

In addition to what's taught in the class, I guess I'd encourage the students to stay fit and if they want to learn to fight, to enroll in whatever martial art they are interested in.  We've seen examples of pretty much every art working and not working.  Based on this thread and the many like it that have come before, my opinion is that the best martial art for you is the one you are interested in and will continue to train in.  And ultimately, for just about everyone who doesn't engage in risky behaviors or lifestyles, it will never matter.

The one exception (if we exclude people who are professionally at risk, such as bouncers, LEO and the like) is violence against women in the form of domestic abuse, date rape, molestation or the like.  I don't know if martial training would be of greater benefit.   But, sadlly, it's common.  My impressions from the conversations we've had around here, is that martial arts can be helfpul, but that there are many other things that are as important or more important for helping these women.  I'll defer to others on this.


Tgace said:


> Its similar to warfare. While combat is where the issue is decided, a military victory is dependent on so many other things ( logistics, training, transportation, manufacturing, equipment, intelligence, etc) including all of the hundreds of support and administration jobs that the actual fighting is really a small fraction of the overall effort. But if you loose the fight all that other stuff is sort of irrelevant.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


Tgace, great point.  I think an important note, however, is that warfare always involves combat.  Combat is a necessary part of battle, which is a component of warfare.   The salient point here is that combat is not a necessary part of self defense.  In fact, as has been said many times on this forum, successful self defense happens before any fighting, and often avoids the fight entirely.  Fighting is an adjunct to self defense.  It's what happens when your self defense training has failed. 


oftheherd1 said:


> So if a bully approaches me and begins an argument with an apparent attempt to monkey dance for a while, then attacks me, any attempts on my part to dissuade the bully without fighting are not defense, and therefore self defense?


I mentioned above about the varying situations that should all be handled seperately.  Bullying is another one.  And how one handles an adult bully is likely going to be different from an adolescent bully...  so even in this situation, there are variables that would necessitate an approach best suited for the situation.  And your scenario seems focused on physical bullying.  We're seeing less and less of that in schools around here.  Kids just don't fight like they used to.  Rather, what we see a lot of is psychological bullying, whether it's the smart kids picking on the "dumb" kids who have trouble, or cyber bullying or a multitude of other situations which don't neatly fit the old stereotype of a bully being a big, dumb jock picking on the socially awkward nerd.  no one size fits all here, and approaching it that way isn't likely to be effective.


> I don't recall reading that but maybe someone did say it and I missed it.  I know I didn't say it.
> 
> But I do find it interesting that you seem to find fighting the only self defense.  I understand how those of us who are MA are interested in effective fighting, and how we place a high value on effective fighting.  But wouldn't the action I take to prevent a fight be defensive, as in my hypothetical question for drop bear above?  I don't see how you can separate out what prevents a fight, from having as much value as the successful conclusion of a fight.


Quite the opposite.  I'm echoing what you are all saying, which is that fighting and fighting skills are not self defense.  The fighting is what happens when self defense skills have failed.  I think this was K-man who said it earlier in this thread, and it's something that has been said many times in other threads in the past.


----------



## Tgace

I disagree somewhat Steve. My military analogy wasn't meant to be stretched that far. My point is that warfare incorporates many disciplines besides fighting as should a good self-defense program. Of course warfare mandates combat, but preparing for fighting is part of "self-defense" training just like combat is part of military operations.

It's like shooting skills for Cops. Most cops wont ever shoot anyone, getting into a shoot means all other options have failed...and LE requires MANY various skills so why train so much for it?

Because, even though it's rare, if you can't do it when "the balloon goes up" you will probably be dead.

An average, untrained person looking for "self-defense" training is probably really just looking for fighting techniques. I think (at least personally) that a wholistic SD program has to cover the full spectrum.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> I disagree somewhat Steve. My military analogy wasn't meant to be stretched that far. My point is that warfare incorporates many disciplines besides fighting as should a good self-defense program. Of course warfare mandates combat, but preparing for fighting is part of "self-defense" training just like combat is part of military operations.
> 
> It's like shooting skills for Cops. Most cops wont ever shoot anyone, getting into a shoot means all other options have failed...and LE requires MANY various skills so why train so much for it?
> 
> Because, even though it's rare, if you can't do it when "the balloon goes up" you will probably be dead.
> 
> An average, untrained person looking for "self-defense" training is probably really just looking for fighting techniques. I think (at least personally) that a wholistic SD program has to cover the full spectrum.


Makes sense.  I would think that a holistic SD program would cover everything.  Kind of like the earthquake kit analogy.  I guess what I'm saying is that, based upon what I've read here, there are "pillars" that are essential, and then many... I don't know... secondary supports that are situational or even could be considered optional.  Fighting skills for most seem to be optional, based upon what has been said by many in this thread.  Handy, certainly, but not essential.

Or just to give two examples, which would be a more likely self defense scenario, someone being approached by a potential mugger or someone being flipped off in a potential road rage incident?  Statistically, people are driving all the time and just about everyone has been in a potential road rage situation more than once.  Most people have never been mugged.


----------



## oftheherd1

Steve said:


> ...
> Fighting is an adjunct to self defense.  It's what happens when your self defense training has failed.
> ...



I get your point, but I would have said fighting is one facet of SD, when the non-fighting facets fail.  Again, I get you (do I?).



Steve said:


> I mentioned above about the varying situations that should all be handled seperately.  Bullying is another one.  And how one handles an adult bully is likely going to be different from an adolescent bully...  so even in this situation, there are variables that would necessitate an approach best suited for the situation.  And your scenario seems focused on physical bullying.  We're seeing less and less of that in schools around here.  Kids just don't fight like they used to.  Rather, what we see a lot of is psychological bullying, whether it's the smart kids picking on the "dumb" kids who have trouble, or cyber bullying or a multitude of other situations which don't neatly fit the old stereotype of a bully being a big, dumb jock picking on the socially awkward nerd.  no one size fits all here, and approaching it that way isn't likely to be effective.



All points well taken.  We don't normally think of SD as a defense against something that isn't physical or has strong potential to be.  But you may be right that other forms of bullying should be part of SD training.  As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that should be part of a MA SD training without the MA instructor having training specific to that type of bullying.  Or as mentioned by someone else, perhaps bringing in someone who does have training and experience to instruct in that.
...


Steve said:


> Quite the opposite.  I'm echoing what you are all saying, which is that fighting and fighting skills are not self defense.  The fighting is what happens when self defense skills have failed.  I think this was K-man who said it earlier in this thread, and it's something that has been said many times in other threads in the past.



I don't recall ever saying that fighting and fighting skills are not self defense.  Perhaps you could refresh my memory?  If I said anything close it must have been in some special context.

It is a part of SD.  And teaching fighting skills is something MA should be particularly adept at.  But I think if the situation allows, other methods of preventing an attack should be tried.


----------



## Tgace

I think that the term "self defense" has the connotations of physically defending oneself. The other pillars are probably better called prevention, preparation and perhaps social/life engineering. 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tgace said:


> I disagree somewhat Steve. My military analogy wasn't meant to be stretched that far. My point is that warfare incorporates many disciplines besides fighting as should a good self-defense program. Of course warfare mandates combat, but preparing for fighting is part of "self-defense" training just like combat is part of military operations.
> 
> It's like shooting skills for Cops. Most cops wont ever shoot anyone, getting into a shoot means all other options have failed...and LE requires MANY various skills so why train so much for it?
> 
> Because, even though it's rare, if you can't do it when "the balloon goes up" you will probably be dead.
> 
> An average, untrained person looking for "self-defense" training is probably really just looking for fighting techniques. I think (at least personally) that a wholistic SD program has to cover the full spectrum.



Heard an interesting thing this past weekend on the topic of military vs. police. Military is trained to shoot first, police are trained to shoot last. Meaning the military's first option is to shoot but for the police it is the last option.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tgace said:


> I think that the term "self defense" has the connotations of physically defending oneself. The other pillars are probably better called prevention, preparation and perhaps social/life engineering.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk





Xue Sheng said:


> Heard an interesting thing this past weekend on the topic of military vs. police. Military is trained to shoot first, police are trained to shoot last. Meaning the military's first option is to shoot but for the police it is the last option.



As an aside to the thread, I understand what is trying to be said.  But really, the military is trained to shoot, the option when depends on training, circumstance, and orders.  There was a time in Vietnam when the orders were not to shoot even at exposed enemy troops unless they fired at us first.  Do you know how to spell frustration and anger?


----------



## Xue Sheng

oftheherd1 said:


> As an aside to the thread, I understand what is trying to be said.  But really, the military is trained to shoot, the option when depends on training, circumstance, and orders.  There was a time in Vietnam when the orders were not to shoot even at exposed enemy troops unless they fired at us first.  Do you know how to spell frustration and anger?



A friend of mine was an MP during Vietnam and he was not supposed to carry a loaded side arm. He could carry the gun and the bullets separately and only load the gun when necessary...yeah... he knew how spell frustration and anger... another friend was mine was a tunnel rat...but that is an entirely different story

Now so not to take this thread way off the tracks, I shall stop commenting along these lines in this thread


----------



## Buka

I think how each of us uses language causes confusion (probably stress and anger, too) I know I'm to blame for some of it around here, probably a lot of it. When I use the term "fighting" I mean all aspects of what "I" consider fighting. I mean self defense, sparring, competing, taking someone down and securing them (for arrest, removal, until authorities arrive) one step contact drills with resisitance, brawls, sucker punches, ambushes whatever. Anything that pits one person against another person(s) that concerns physical resistance/contact, to me, is fighting.

It's why I always say Martial Arts is based on fighting. (regardless if I'm right or wrong) I consider everything in grappling as fighting. I consider everything in striking as fighting. It's the way I use the language.

It's a hard habit to break, it's what I've always used and meant.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tgace said:


> I think that the term "self defense" has the connotations of physically defending oneself.


I think "self-defense" should also include "defense for your love ones", or even "defense for others (such as a stranger on the street)" and not just "defense for yourself". You can hit me any way you want to, but if you dare to hit my love one, I'll hit you that even your own mother won't be able to recognize you.


----------



## oftheherd1

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think "self-defense" should also include "defense for your love ones", or even "defense for others (such as a stranger on the street)" and not just "defense for yourself". You can hit me any way you want to, but if you dare to hit my love one, I'll hit you that even your own mother won't be able to recognize you.



Interesting idea that I want to think on.  Certainly the law normally allows one to take action in protecting family and sometimes others.  And such actions may lead to violence between you and the one requiring you to protect family or some other person.  Yeah, I think what you say works.  I guess thinking done.  ;-)


----------



## drop bear

Tgace said:


> I disagree somewhat Steve. My military analogy wasn't meant to be stretched that far. My point is that warfare incorporates many disciplines besides fighting as should a good self-defense program. Of course warfare mandates combat, but preparing for fighting is part of "self-defense" training just like combat is part of military operations.
> 
> It's like shooting skills for Cops. Most cops wont ever shoot anyone, getting into a shoot means all other options have failed...and LE requires MANY various skills so why train so much for it?
> 
> Because, even though it's rare, if you can't do it when "the balloon goes up" you will probably be dead.
> 
> An average, untrained person looking for "self-defense" training is probably really just looking for fighting techniques. I think (at least personally) that a wholistic SD program has to cover the full spectrum.



Ours don't by the way. 30 rounds a year or something silly.

And they still manage to hit bad guys.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I think how each of us uses language causes confusion (probably stress and anger, too) I know I'm to blame for some of it around here, probably a lot of it. When I use the term "fighting" I mean all aspects of what "I" consider fighting. I mean self defense, sparring, competing, taking someone down and securing them (for arrest, removal, until authorities arrive) one step contact drills with resisitance, brawls, sucker punches, ambushes whatever. Anything that pits one person against another person(s) that concerns physical resistance/contact, to me, is fighting.
> 
> It's why I always say Martial Arts is based on fighting. (regardless if I'm right or wrong) I consider everything in grappling as fighting. I consider everything in striking as fighting. It's the way I use the language.
> 
> It's a hard habit to break, it's what I've always used and meant.



Most people have a pretty simple idea behind self defence. Some people don't. I just went through this on the can you be an expert thread.

If you overcomplicate an issue you could present as an authority on it because nobody understands what you are on about.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> If you overcomplicate an issue you could present as an authority on it because nobody understands what you are on about.



What, Martial Artists overcomplicating an issue online? Who us?


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> I think that the term "self defense" has the connotations of physically defending oneself. The other pillars are probably better called prevention, preparation and perhaps social/life engineering.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


I think you're right.  "Self defense" does connote some things to most people.  But I also think it's an interesting to listen to the diversity of the definitions.  Some people consider self defense to be strictly physically defending oneself.  Others of you here add more to the mix.  for some, self defense is a simple concept.  For others, it is very, very complex.  For some, it's an afterthought, and for others it is a professional occupation. 

Who's right and who's wrong?  I don't know.  Maybe everyone's got part of the puzzle.

Was watching the American Ninja Warrior show just the other day.  My kids and I like to watch that show, and my 6 year old is convinced she's going to be on it.  But that's an aside.  Point is, on the show, there was a short bio of one of the contestants who stated that the American Ninja Warrior show saved her life.  See, she was assaulted outside her house, and because she was so fit and strong, she fought back.  Guy had a knife, came behind her, held it to her throat and said something like, "Stop fighting or your dead."  She "wrestled" with him (the term used on the show), until she got him to drop the knife.  He ended up taking her purse and running. 

Really, it just goes back to the earthquake kit analogy.  What did she have in her self defense "kit?"  She isn't a trained fighter, but her fitness level and her strength of will are what counted, more than learning some techniques.

But what techniques would have helped her, had this guy decided to stab her a dozen times and leave her there?  My opinion, neither BJJ, WC, Karate nor anything else would have stopped it. If that guy wanted to kill her, she'd be dead.  He had a knife to her throat.  "Self Defense" training wouldn't have helped her at all. 

What mattered was her fitness level and her willingness to fight back, because the impression I got from the story is that this guy didn't want to kill her.  He wanted to sexually assault her, and in the end, he failed for reasons other than her technical ability to perform "self defense" techniques.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Most people have a pretty simple idea behind self defence. Some people don't. I just went through this on the can you be an expert thread.
> 
> If you overcomplicate an issue you could present as an authority on it because nobody understands what you are on about.


 Drop Bear, it's hard to make a living doing something anyone can do.  You can't be a specialist if you're not special.  Right?


----------



## Jenna

Brian King said:


> I am feeling dense - working on some plumbing and carpentry issues and failing at each attempt, with my frustrated muddled brain on over load, I am afraid I do not understand your question. Can you please try again Jenna?


The apology is mine Brian as the question is too obtuse.. I think at this point it is a detraction from the direction of the thread though I still wonder enough to ask of you.. is it not our conceit to believe we have some right in defending our selves by necessarily inflicting hurt or damage on our attacker? we say it is not right for them to attack us and but it is ok for us to attack them -and name it defence.  Why? because the law make provision for it.. and thus we justify our action.. see I have killed him and but it is ok.. it is SD and perfectly legal and thus I am exonerated.. By what I believe, this is a conceit. Because your thinking Brian is less clouded than mine I would be interested to understand how you see it, Jx


----------



## Steve

Jenna said:


> The apology is mine Brian as the question is too obtuse.. I think at this point it is a detraction from the direction of the thread though I still wonder enough to ask of you.. is it not our conceit to believe we have some right in defending our selves by necessarily inflicting hurt or damage on our attacker? we say it is not right for them to attack us and but it is ok for us to attack them -and name it defence.  Why? because the law make provision for it.. and thus we justify our action.. see I have killed him and but it is ok.. it is SD and perfectly legal and thus I am exonerated.. By what I believe, this is a conceit. Because your thinking Brian is less clouded than mine I would be interested to understand how you see it, Jx


Jenna, I hear your points.  I've always appreciated non-violence and am a huge proponent of the teachings of Gandhi, in particular, on the topic.  But Gandhi was very clear in his writings to distinguish between the will to defend oneself and act with violence and the CHOICE to act with violence.

So, I would say that I appreciate your thoughts.  The key distinction would be one of intent.  When you are faced with a situation (any situation) where you have a choice to act with violence and do not, are you acting out of fear?  Lack of willingness or preparedness?  Or are you making a choice, because without conscious choice to eschew violence, it is an act of cowardice.  Or said another way, if you do not have the capacity for violence (mentally or physically), then you can't choose to be non-violent.  And it's only meaningful and moral if it's chosen, and not out of cowardice or a lack of conviction.


----------



## Jenna

Steve said:


> Jenna, I hear your points.  I've always appreciated non-violence and am a huge proponent of the teachings of Gandhi, in particular, on the topic.  But Gandhi was very clear in his writings to distinguish between the will to defend oneself and act with violence and the CHOICE to act with violence.
> 
> So, I would say that I appreciate your thoughts.  The key distinction would be one of intent.  When you are faced with a situation (any situation) where you have a choice to act with violence and do not, are you acting out of fear?  Lack of willingness or preparedness?  Or are you making a choice, because without conscious choice to eschew violence, it is an act of cowardice.  Or said another way, if you do not have the capacity for violence (mentally or physically), then you can't choose to be non-violent.  And it's only meaningful and moral if it's chosen, and not out of cowardice or a lack of conviction.


Yes this is exactly how I mean Steve to act or refuse to act with full aforethought and choice.. to choose a position of harm to none.  

In this thread is a discussion of how we defend our selves or defend others that we deem are in need of our help.  In many cases it is advocated the means of defending our selves in which we become the apportioner of harm.  The law provide us with mitigation.. we were minding our own business and were set upon and attacked and by this we acquire rights to harm our attacker to a level that is deemed appropriate, up to and including the death of our attacker if it is warranted by the severity. This we accept.  

I am not one to argue with the merit of it, I am asking what is the bigger picture?? That you name Gandi and you can name only but a few others like him in our entire history who can TRULY espouse the simple tenet of harm none shows that we all contain within us this same conceit that our right to survive can in some SD cases countermand the right of another to survive..

So my question it feels naive or contrary to the direction of the thread and but I only post here because the thread is about pillars only these pillars if they are constructed over the foundation that I must trust in the doctrine of "my right over their right" then I am happy have no good business posting any more here against the grain.. xx


----------



## Steve

Jenna said:


> Yes this is exactly how I mean Steve to act or refuse to act with full aforethought and choice.. to choose a position of harm to none.
> 
> In this thread is a discussion of how we defend our selves or defend others that we deem are in need of our help.  In many cases it is advocated the means of defending our selves in which we become the apportioner of harm.  The law provide us with mitigation.. we were minding our own business and were set upon and attacked and by this we acquire rights to harm our attacker to a level that is deemed appropriate, up to and including the death of our attacker if it is warranted by the severity. This we accept.
> 
> I am not one to argue with the merit of it, I am asking what is the bigger picture?? That you name Gandi and you can name only but a few others like him in our entire history who can TRULY espouse the simple tenet of harm none shows that we all contain within us this same conceit that our right to survive can in some SD cases countermand the right of another to survive..
> 
> So my question it feels naive or contrary to the direction of the thread and but I only post here because the thread is about pillars only these pillars if they are constructed over the foundation that I must trust in the doctrine of "my right over their right" then I am happy have no good business posting any more here against the grain.. xx


 I think this is a great idea for its own thread.  I think I see in your post a distinction between whether something is moral and whether it is lawful.  There are times when violence can be lawful, but not moral.  And times when violence could be considered moral, but not lawful.  And of course, examples where it can be both or neither.  The distinction between morality and lawfullness is an important one.  In this case, several have pointed out that "self defense" is a legal term, and so the conversation seems to be centered around legality and lawfullness, but I personally appreciate your points.


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Yes this is exactly how I mean Steve to act or refuse to act with full aforethought and choice.. to choose a position of harm to none.
> 
> In this thread is a discussion of how we defend our selves or defend others that we deem are in need of our help.  In many cases it is advocated the means of defending our selves in which we become the apportioner of harm.  The law provide us with mitigation.. we were minding our own business and were set upon and attacked and by this we acquire rights to harm our attacker to a level that is deemed appropriate, up to and including the death of our attacker if it is warranted by the severity. This we accept.
> 
> I am not one to argue with the merit of it, I am asking what is the bigger picture?? That you name Gandi and you can name only but a few others like him in our entire history who can TRULY espouse the simple tenet of harm none shows that we all contain within us this same conceit that our right to survive can in some SD cases countermand the right of another to survive..
> 
> So my question it feels naive or contrary to the direction of the thread and but I only post here because the thread is about pillars only these pillars if they are constructed over the foundation that I must trust in the doctrine of "my right over their right" then I am happy have no good business posting any more here against the grain.. xx



Our law and to a certain degree our morality focuses on intent. So the why is as important as what.

If I can morally resolve the why the what takes care of itself.


----------



## Jenna

Steve said:


> I think this is a great idea for its own thread.  I think I see in your post a distinction between whether something is moral and whether it is lawful.  There are times when violence can be lawful, but not moral.  And times when violence could be considered moral, but not lawful.  And of course, examples where it can be both or neither.  The distinction between morality and lawfullness is an important one.  In this case, several have pointed out that "self defense" is a legal term, and so the conversation seems to be centered around legality and lawfullness, but I personally appreciate your points.


What do you your self think Steve? since you refer to Gandhi, I wonder do you have insight into what defensive, or other, circumstance might exist where recourse to the law is not the most morally appropriate action? Thank you for your courtesy, Jx


----------



## Jenna

drop bear said:


> Our law and to a certain degree our morality focuses on intent. So the why is as important as what.
> 
> If I can morally resolve the why the what takes care of itself.


Yes agree.. and it is on this basis that most people operate their SD.. as I see it, not JUST SD and but how they interact with others.. For harming us, we see it as a matter of our attacker deserving every thing they get.. he deserved it.. and to assuage the guilt we may have over harming another or mistreating them we recite our doctrines.. what I did was moral, or justified in the eyes of the law, or as we hear much of recently.. it is written in my holy book (some where).. and this is where morality appears to us to become too much of a grey area or become impeachable.

Still that guilt over having hurt some one is there in us all -psychopathy aside- for some reason. It is a lesson we all carry within us before we even lift a finger against another, even in our own defence. Perhaps it is horror or anger that blind us to it. I do not know.. I am the farthest thing from an expert in philosophy or jurisprudence so I only offer personal opinion.. Jx


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Yes agree.. and it is on this basis that most people operate their SD.. as I see it, not JUST SD and but how they interact with others.. For harming us, we see it as a matter of our attacker deserving every thing they get.. he deserved it.. and to assuage the guilt we may have over harming another or mistreating them we recite our doctrines.. what I did was moral, or justified in the eyes of the law, or as we hear much of recently.. it is written in my holy book (some where).. and this is where morality appears to us to become too much of a grey area or become impeachable.
> 
> Still that guilt over having hurt some one is there in us all -psychopathy aside- for some reason. It is a lesson we all carry within us before we even lift a finger against another, even in our own defence. Perhaps it is horror or anger that blind us to it. I do not know.. I am the farthest thing from an expert in philosophy or jurisprudence so I only offer personal opinion.. Jx



Professional distance. Or being a sociopath they are kind of cousins.


----------



## elder999

Before moving on to more important things, there's this:



Hanzou said:


> I'm pretty sure that if this guy was an amazing duelist, his followers would have recorded it.



Why in the world are you sure "his followers would have recorded it?"

What makes you anyone would be privy to such a recording, if it existed?

What constitutes an "amazing duelist?" 



Hanzou said:


> Anyway, I'm simply against these silly platitudes being regurgitated over and over again. Sure, its b_*etter not to fight than it is to engage in fighting, but sometimes you don't have a choice.*_



They're not "silly platitudes."  Fighting ability is for when you don't have any choice but to do otherwise. Sometimes, as in that post, the choice is to take a beating, because you don't have the ability to fight-sometimes even for those with the training to do so.


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> Yes agree.. and it is on this basis that most people operate their SD.. as I see it, not JUST SD and but how they interact with others.. For harming us, we see it as a matter of our attacker deserving every thing they get.. he deserved it.. and to assuage the guilt we may have over harming another or mistreating them we recite our doctrines.. what I did was moral, or justified in the eyes of the law, or as we hear much of recently.. it is written in my holy book (some where).. and this is where morality appears to us to become too much of a grey area or become impeachable.
> 
> Still that guilt over having hurt some one is there in us all -psychopathy aside- for some reason. It is a lesson we all carry within us before we even lift a finger against another, even in our own defence. Perhaps it is horror or anger that blind us to it. I do not know.. I am the farthest thing from an expert in philosophy or jurisprudence so I only offer personal opinion.. Jx



Nope. No guilt for me-and, admitted sociopathic tendencies aside-I don't think there should be. If someone is going to attempt to injure me or a loved one, and I have no choice but to injure them instead, that's largely a consequence of their actions, not mine.

"*Deserved*" has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

elder999 said:


> Why in the world are you sure "his followers would have recorded it?"
> 
> What makes you anyone would be privy to such a recording, if it existed?
> 
> What constitutes an "amazing duelist?"



Hanzou knows nothing about MA history or the history of the countries of origin, nor does he care to, so the comment was not at all surprising.



elder999 said:


> What constitutes an "amazing duelist?"



The one that survived.


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> .. and I have no choice but to injure them instead,


You have a choice not to injure them in kind, or at all.  That may be a choice whose consequences you do not care for because it may take some thing precious from you.  Still, the choice does exist and always exists and nothing except you can force you to choose other wise, Jx


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Before moving on to more important things, there's this:
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the world are you sure "his followers would have recorded it?"
> 
> What makes you anyone would be privy to such a recording, if it existed?



The students of famous masters tend to record their teacher's accomplishments. I'm sure the students of Niten-Ryu love to talk about the great feats of their founder Miyamoto Musashi. Jeet Kune Do students love to talk about how awesome Bruce Lee was. Gracie Jiujitsu practitioners know all about the accomplishment of the Gracies.



> What constitutes an "amazing duelist?"



Someone who fought a lot and won/survived a lot.



> They're not "silly platitudes."  Fighting ability is for when you don't have any choice but to do otherwise. Sometimes, as in that post, the choice is to take a beating, because you don't have the ability to fight-sometimes even for those with the training to do so.



The purpose of getting trained is so that you never need to make that choice. If you *decide* to take a beating, you're putting your life in someone else's hands, because that beating has a very good chance of killing you. If you're willingly going to surrender your life to someone else, why train in the first place?

Additionally, what a terrible thing to say to a student. "Hey, go ahead and take that beating, because sometimes its better not to fight, than it is to fight! Let that perp do whatever he wants to do to you. Hey, you could be killed, but at least you lived up to the quote of a pampered 17th century kenjutsu instructor."


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> The students of famous masters tend to record their teacher's accomplishments. I'm sure the students of Niten-Ryu love to talk about the great feats of their founder Miyamoto Musashi. Jeet Kune Do students love to talk about how awesome Bruce Lee was. Gracie Jiujitsu practitioners know all about the accomplishment of the Gracies.



Old Chinese saying (and it really is an old Chinese saying)..... the nail the stands up gets hammered down. 

And comparing the 1600 in Japan to Rio de Janeiro in the early 1900 or the 1960s in America and believing that is how it was is in 1600s Japan is not all close to any sort of historical truth it is just a plain silly comparison


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> You have a choice not to injure them in kind, or at all.  That may be a choice whose consequences you do not care for because it may take some thing precious from you.  Still, the choice does exist and always exists and nothing except you can force you to choose other wise, Jx



For the purpose of clarity, I have to say that I teach no "killing" techniques. At least, I don't _call_ them that.

I call them _decisive_....in fact, I'll often use the same term for breaking someone's arm, versus simply immobilizing it. On the other hand, a choke, while pretty "decisive" doesn't exactly require killing or permanent damage to be effective-though you can _decide_ to do exactly those things.

That said, 35 years ago, I made a variety of choices: I chose to go to a party in Brooklyn. I chose to carry a pen with me, because carrying a gun or knife wasn't a viable or legal choice.  I chose to stay out later than I planned. I chose to not go have breakfast with those gals, and try to get home....'

Things that weren't a "choice" that night?

_Running _when those guys came onto the platform.
*Not *giving them my wallet and watch.
Letting that kid *stab *me _anyway_,  for some sort of gang ritual.

I certainly didn't get up that morning thinking, "_Ya know, I want to  stab a 17 year old boy to death tonight," _but I'll tell you one thing, I certainly wasn't about to *choose* to *allow* one to kill me, either. 

That's not a "choice" at all, and for me-at age 20, and that stage in my training, there was no other choice-there really could still be no other choice in tactics: there were three of them, and one of them was just there to kill somebody-in this unfortunate case, me. Three against one-Chuck Norris fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding-is a lethal threat, and justifies a lethal response. If you think you're going to feel bad about it, well, better to feel bad about it afterward than not feel anything at all, because you're *dead*. For myself, I've never felt bad about it-not even that morning: I was wolfing down pizza in the police station not two hours afterward.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> T
> The purpose of getting trained is so that you never need to make that choice. If you *decide* to take a beating, you're putting your life in someone else's hands, because that beating has a very good chance of killing you. If you're willingly going to surrender your life to someone else, why train in the first place?
> 
> Additionally, what a terrible thing to say to a student. "Hey, go ahead and take that beating, because sometimes its better not to fight, than it is to fight! Let that perp do whatever he wants to do to you. Hey, you could be killed, but at least you lived up to the quote of a pampered 17th century kenjutsu instructor."




Was the woman in the OP a martial arts student? She certainly was no student of _mine_, in any case....

...most of my students would have *shot* the guy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  "RFLMAO" smiley notwithstanding, that's perfectly serious. They'd likely have shot him: *I* would.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> And comparing the 1600 in Japan to Rio de Janeiro in the early 1900 or the 1960s in America and believing that is how it was is in 1600s Japan is not all close to any sort of historical truth it is just a plain silly comparison



Where did I say that? I said that the students of each respective style reveres their founder in some form or another, and tell many stories about their interesting to amazing exploits.


----------



## Hanzou

elder999 said:


> Was the woman in the OP a martial arts student? She certainly was no student of _mine_, in any case....



The point was, that if she was a martial arts student (depending on the style of course), she wouldn't have just laid there and taken that beating.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that? I said that the students of each respective style reveres their founder in some form or another, and tell many stories about their interesting to amazing exploits.



In _koryu_, it's most often only to each other....pretty sure that you won't find any dueling stories about *any* of the masters of the Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū*, *天真正伝香取神道流, including the founder, .just sayin'


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that? I said that the students of each respective style reveres their founder in some form or another, and tell many stories about their interesting to amazing exploits.



I seriously doubt I am the only one that read your post ,where you said,



Hanzou said:


> The students of famous masters tend to record their teacher's accomplishments. I'm sure the students of Niten-Ryu love to talk about the great feats of their founder Miyamoto Musashi. Jeet Kune Do students love to talk about how awesome Bruce Lee was. Gracie Jiujitsu practitioners know all about the accomplishment of the Gracies.



That thought by the use to Gracie, Brice Lee and Minamoto Mushashi you implying that since the students of the Gracies and Bruce Lee talked about it then the students of Mushashi did as well.

So to answer your question, You said it right there in the above post that I quoted from you.


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that? I said that the students of each respective style reveres their founder in some form or another, and tell many stories about their interesting to amazing exploits.





elder999 said:


> In _koryu_, it's most often only to each other....pretty sure that you won't find any dueling stories about *any* of the masters of the Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū*, *天真正伝香取神道流, including the founder, .just sayin'


Or, just as likely, the tales of "exploits" would include instruction or duels with _kami, tengu_ or the spirits  of warriors long past.....


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> I seriously doubt I am the only one that read your post ,where you said,
> 
> 
> 
> That thought by the use to Gracie, Brice Lee and Minamoto Mushashi you implying that since the students of the Gracies and Bruce Lee talked about it then the students of Mushashi did as well.
> 
> So to answer your question, You said it right there in the above post that I quoted from you.



Uh where am I comparing 17th century Japan to 20th century Brazil and America? I'm saying that martial arts students discuss the exploits of the founders of their style. That's it.

BTW, I'm curious what that (and whatever Elder is going on about) has to do with the topic of this discussion?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Uh where am I comparing 17th century Japan to 20th century Brazil and America? I'm saying that martial arts students discuss the exploits of the founders of their style. That's it.



Are you serious? I'm not making this up, you made the statement about students of Mushashi and then added in the same exact statement the Gracies and Bruce Lee and you don't think that is a comparison......apparently denial is not only a river in egypt



Hanzou said:


> BTW, I'm curious what that (and whatever Elder is going on about) has to do with the topic of this discussion?



I only responded to what you said, so you tell me. Don't like the way the post is going, then don't make silly statements comparing 17th century Japan to 20th century South American and America.to try and support your argument


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Are you serious? I'm not making this up, you made the statement about students of Mushashi and then added in the same exact statement the Gracies and Bruce Lee and you don't think that is a comparison......apparently denial is not only a river in egypt
> 
> I only responded to what you said, so you tell me. Don't like the way the post is going, then don't make silly statements comparing 17th century Japan to 20th century South American and America.to try and support your argument



I was comparing the *students* of the martial arts founded by Musashi, Lee, and the Gracies, not the eras in which those founders lived.

There are still people who practice Niten Ichi-Ryu you know.


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> I'll tell you one thing, I certainly wasn't about to *choose* to *allow* one to kill me, either.


Your tone suggests an adamance over this, and your adamance or vehemence points to some thing else within you.  Nevertheless this is our conceit.  We all have it.  Unless we have a mind of Gandhi or those few others.  Our conceit is that we have more right to survive than our attacker.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> I was comparing the *students* of the martial arts founded by Musashi, Lee, and the Gracies, not the eras in which those founders lived.
> 
> There are still people who practice Niten Ichi-Ryu you know.



Yes I am aware of that, are you aware of how what you post is interpreted?


----------



## elder999

Hanzou said:


> BTW, I'm curious what that (and whatever Elder is going on about) has to do with the topic of this discussion?



You disparaged the lack of documented "exploits" of what you perceived to be a "non-fighting" martial artist whom I quoted.

The point of my quote being that "martial arts" can consist of more than techniques for self-defense (or, in some cases , _offense_) and extend to those areas that would certainly be "not fighting."

Said disparagement on your part being based on a completely  faulty and *ignorant*  premise was pretty much the rest of what I was "going on about." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






Jenna said:


> Our conceit is that we have more right to survive than our attacker.



It's* not *a _conceit:_ in attacking, they relinquish any "right" to survival, and the rights of those they are attacking supersede theirs.

Of course, the will and ability of the attacked to exercise that right is the question....

_"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,” _-*Gandhi*, _Doctrine of the Sword

""If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."_*His Holiness, Tenzin Gyatso, 14th and likely last, Dalai Lama*, some lecture in Washington, give me a minute._.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

EDIT: The lecture was in Oregon, in May of 2001.

The point both men were making had more to do with the nature of the world, though, and how it is red in tooth and claw-a brutal place, where violence and brutality may not be "the" answer, but are sometimes "the *only* answer".

I'd add that the will and ability to "*choose*" to do violence to those who would do violence to us is a fundamental pillar of self defense.


----------



## elder999

Lastly, @Jenna , I'd point to this post, and point out that my "adamance" is hard earned, and has its basis in years of all manner of experience, and _on *these* shores_.

If someone breaks into my house, and I'm home-I'm not going to ask what they want, or lay still and hope they get it and go away-I am going to call the police, and then I'm probably going to shoot them. I'll neutralize a lethal threat-maybe they'll die, maybe they won't: I'm a good shot, and center of mass is relatively easy with a shotgun, but I'm going to shoot them center of mass. Maybe they'll die, maybe they won't......in the past, I'd warn them-these days, if they make it over the fence, past the dogs, and past the alarms-I'm going to assume they've come to take our most precious possessions-our *lives*- and I'm going to shoot them.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Jenna said:


> Our conceit is that we have more right to survive than our attacker.


But we do have more right to survive than our attacker. No one has the right to attack someone therefore we have the right to defend ourselves..


----------



## Buka

We do have more right to survive than an attacker, than _any_ attacker. I have never heard it called a conceit before. Interesting interpretation, maybe.

I look at it as a choice. Everybody has to be doing _something_ when they die. If they wish to be attacking - that was their choice. Shouldn't have chosen a predator. It pisses us off.


----------



## Jenna

If in defending your self you may inflict harm or damage upon your attacker in which case both you and he have damaged the other.  

Why do we believe we have more right to inflict harm and injury on another than they do on us.


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> If in defending your self you may inflict harm or damage upon your attacker in which case both you and he have damaged the other.



Other than any potential harm that comes from my attacker, how am I "damaged" in inflicting harm or damage? 

I'd posit that-for myself-if I inflict harm or damage and remain free of injury, I am undamaged.



Jenna said:


> Why do we believe we have more right to inflict harm and injury on another than they do on us.



No one is saying that. It's quite simple, though: the need for self-preservation overrides any considerations of not doing harm, and, by attacking us, the attacker relinquishes all such rights to not be harmed or injured.  

I don't _believe_ that; I *know* it for a *fact.*


----------



## elder999

Put another, simpler way: in attacking-in attempting to inflict harm or injury-one relinquishes all (presumptive) right not to be harmed or injured by others. In being attacked, one's right for self preservation and protection supersedes all (presumptive) constraints against harming or injuring our attacker.


----------



## Jenna

I will put this in first person for fear it sound like I am directing it any where in particular..

I am attacked and I fight back, and either by intention or by accident I maim or kill my attacker.. By his action he has forced me to make a choice: him or me.  In this case or any like it, I *always* choose me.  This would be my conceit to have believed and acted upon the notion that I have more right to survive than he.


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> This would be my conceit to have believed and acted upon the notion that I have more right to survive than he.




It's *not* a "conceit."

You *do* have more right to survive than he.

He *forfeited* his rights by attacking you, and infringing upon yours.

*Full stop.*


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> It's *not* a "conceit."
> 
> You *do* have more right to survive than he.
> 
> He *forfeited* his rights by attacking you, and infringing upon yours.
> 
> *Full stop.*


Yes.. also I am overzealous, I apologise.  I value your opinion and that of others .. I am sorry for driving a point.. I am in need of an answer for my self and am sorry for asking here out of turn.. Jx


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> Yes.. also I am overzealous, I apologise.  I value your opinion and that of others .. I am sorry for driving a point.. I am in need of an answer for my self and am sorry for asking here out of turn.. Jx



You're not "asking out of turn, "  Jenna ; you're _asking._

You may not _like_ the answer, but it's the one you're gonna get.....


----------



## Brian King

Jenna said:


> The apology is mine Brian as the question is too obtuse.. I think at this point it is a detraction from the direction of the thread though I still wonder enough to ask of you.. is it not our conceit to believe we have some right in defending our selves by necessarily inflicting hurt or damage on our attacker? we say it is not right for them to attack us and but it is ok for us to attack them -and name it defence.  Why? because the law make provision for it.. and thus we justify our action.. see I have killed him and but it is ok.. it is SD and perfectly legal and thus I am exonerated.. By what I believe, this is a conceit. Because your thinking Brian is less clouded than mine I would be interested to understand how you see it, Jx



Ah, thank you Jenna, for both the kind words and for the second chance at the question. I do not think it is necessarily a thread derail. It would seem to me that addressing the moral responsibilities goes hand in hand with the legalities, and those go hand in hand with teaching hand to hand LOL sorry, couldn’t resist. This would be especially true when aspects of tool use and other possible lethal force options are being explored. It is healthiest if this exploration is explored both physically and mentally prior to ever having the unfortunate need to perhaps utilize such options. It is one thing to talk about eye gauging, choking someone to unconsciousness and/or death, best targeting of the body for knife or bullet penetration, and quite another thing, to honestly be willing and able to do such things. 

We humans have been wrestling with this since the beginning. We as humans can be terribly effective at killing. Yet, even so we have not yet wiped ourselves out. To kill or even seriously wound another for most humans is not a natural act. Our soldiers have to be conditioned to do so and even then there is a high rate of failure to fire. Self-preservation is one of God’s gift to all creatures. 

We often hold beliefs and facts as true and too seldom pull them out for reexamination to see if we still believe the same or if the facts still hold truth. It is a great thought exploration to pull these beliefs out now and then, dust them off and explore them once again.

My opinion is based on my own life’s experiences, those people, places, and circumstances that I have interacted with. My opinion is also based on research, reading, discussing/arguing, and thinking. My opinion is also subject to change, although it does so rarely. 

So if I may paraphrase your question, to make sure I am replying correctly.

Your question seems to be. If all life is equally important and sacred, what gives us the right to injure or take a life in defense of our own? Isn’t it conceit then that allows us to assign more importance to our own life than to the other ‘human’ that is attacking us? Is that about right?



_“*conceit |*kənˈsēt|
noun
1 excessive pride in oneself:”_

Excessive is an interesting word in the definition of conceit. 

Do animals have conceit when they defend themselves? Is it the mules excessive pride that causes it to cave in the mountain lions skull with kick? After all the lioness was just trying to feed itself and her young? Was it the lions ‘pride’ that caused her to attack the mule in the first place? The obvious answer to the immediate above, is no, as mountain lions unlike African lions do not live in prides but are more solitary animals. LOL...sorry. 

I am reading human interaction, interpersonal conflict rather general than defense of the self. You do not seem to be asking by what right do we have of building shelter from the weather using lumber and other material, after all, do not trees have a right to live and our harvesting them to ease our hardships is not moral.  You have not written that a person drowning in the ocean should just swallow the water and sink after all the body could keep generations of life alive at the bottom of the sea. 

Interpersonal situations are different from the above. Violent interpersonal circumstances are rife with moral, philosophical, and physical questions and dangers. Even surviving violent interpersonal situations carry dangers. PTSD to name one. What makes them different is that we are self aware and it too easily in my opinion becomes personal when we are attacked by another human. No one takes a tornado personally. “I am going to kick the next tornado’s butt that tries to take my home, how could it even think to come into my neighborhood, doesn’t it know who I am?” said no one ever in response to a tornado. Yet, in interpersonal situations these type of thoughts are common and can often lead to dangers and unhealthy actions. Is it excessive pride/conceit that leads to these thoughts and actions. Maybe sometimes, but it doesn’t have to be. 

Philosophically, what currently works for me Jenna, is that I see us, humans, as made in God’s image. He breathed life/spirit into us and that this creation should be sacrosanct.  I am pro-life and at the same time pro-death penalty and do not see this as anyway hypocritical. I see human life as being so precious and valuable. For the death penalty- that for someone to ‘murder’ another is a crime so great that they then lose their own life for that crime. The murderer not only robs the victim of their precious life but they rob society as well of that precious life and all of its possibilities. I do see a difference between killing and murder, both can be deliberate but murder is also often premeditated and importantly with malice, only one is biblically moral, and here in the U.S. one is legal while the other is not. If attacked, I do not take pleasure in the work (although I do acknowledge the extreme pleasure of surviving) but I do not shirk from it either. It just is. It is like putting on a rain coat if it is raining. If it is really dumping the rain I might put on a rain coat and rain pants. It is not personal against the rain. If attacked, I will do whatever work is needed and that is determined by the attacking party. If they curse me I do not have to do much, if they throw a rock, I move so that it misses, I don’t necessarily pick up a rock and throw it back, mostly cause my skill at rock throwing has deteriorated as I age LOL. The attackers advantage is that they get to chose the when, who, how, and the how much. The defenders advantage besides legally and morally (no small things I think you would agree) is that the defender does not have to chose the when, who, or how much but can focus on the how. This clarity is a big advantage.

I see all things happening for a reason even if I do not know at the time (or ever) the reason. If someone attacks me with intent to do evil, it is for a reason. Why did our paths cross? If I see someone choking at a restaurant and I manage to dislodge the choking item, was I evil for doing so? If someone is sick and the doctor cures the illness, is the doctor evil? A person attacking another with malice and premeditation intending to do serious harm is in my opinion (and often in theirs as well) ‘sick’. Evil is real and it is a sickness and it is contagious. It might be that the person made the choice to attack knowing that a cure is on the way or perhaps they were guided? That cure might be the hospitalization and jail time that they need or it might be the morgue at the extreme, it could as easily be a hard look that reforms their current choices or perhaps me taking a beating. It is not that one life is more important than another, it is that one is ill and the other is the cure. We all have free will and as attackers they are exercising theirs. The difference between me in that circumstance and someone else might be our levels of training, life's experiences, and ability to survive the attack or another way of saying it is our levels of inoculation against the attack and the attacks contagion. The higher the level of my preparedness the higher my ability to end the circumstance well for all involved. No one injured or harmed, or both attacking party and myself in the morgue, it is not necessarily a best or worst case, it just is.  Our paths crossed for a reason, my job is to walk my path as long as God sees fit. This is my path, others are on their own paths.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Hanzou said:


> The purpose of getting trained is so that you never need to make that choice. If you *decide* to take a beating, you're putting your life in someone else's hands, because that beating has a very good chance of killing you. If you're willingly going to surrender your life to someone else, why train in the first place?
> 
> Additionally, what a terrible thing to say to a student. "Hey, go ahead and take that beating, because sometimes its better not to fight, than it is to fight! Let that perp do whatever he wants to do to you. Hey, you could be killed, but at least you lived up to the quote of a pampered 17th century kenjutsu instructor."



Heard this story once at a Systema seminar years ago. A Russian fellow left his apartment and while walking down the street was approached by a group of toughs. Belligerently they asked "Are you Ivan?" "No, I am not Ivan" he replied. They demanded once again "Are you Ivan?" He again replied, "No, I am not Ivan." They then commenced to beating him. Punching and kicking him while cursing Ivan. After they left, the Russian fellow picked himself up off the ground, and thought to himself. "Wow, lucky I am not Ivan!"

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King

Steve said:


> But what techniques would have helped her, had this guy decided to stab her a dozen times and leave her there? My opinion, neither BJJ, WC, Karate nor anything else would have stopped it. If that guy wanted to kill her, she'd be dead. He had a knife to her throat. "Self Defense" training wouldn't have helped her at all.
> 
> What mattered was her fitness level and her willingness to fight back, because the impression I got from the story is that this guy didn't want to kill her. He wanted to sexually assault her, and in the end, he failed for reasons other than her technical ability to perform "self defense" techniques.



She successfully defended herself, umm, this IS self defense. She might have been able to do things differently but with out being there or even hearing the story who can say. "Self Defense" doesn't mean you cannot or will not be injured, robbed, or assaulted. It might give the tools and perspective to better prevent those things from occurring or if occurring to survive the encounter. She sounds like a very lucky lady, favorable outcomes should not by themselves lead training thought. I wonder if she is seeking training now or is convinced that she can 'wrestle' knife from throat anytime. Is she looking around her house more, approaching her car or however her assailant was able to get behind her differently. Has she done some landscaping so evil cannot lurk in the greenery? If so, this is also self defense it would seem to me, 

This American Ninja Warrior show - is this like that show in Japan, big huge obstacle course that contestants compete on. Fantastic functional conditioning if it is that show. Good luck to your daughter to get on the show. Are you doing any training with her to help get her ready? There are local Parkour schools - have you looked into those at all for her?

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Steve

Brian King said:


> She successfully defended herself, umm, this IS self defense. She might have been able to do things differently but with out being there or even hearing the story who can say. "Self Defense" doesn't mean you cannot or will not be injured, robbed, or assaulted. It might give the tools and perspective to better prevent those things from occurring or if occurring to survive the encounter. She sounds like a very lucky lady, favorable outcomes should not by themselves lead training thought. I wonder if she is seeking training now or is convinced that she can 'wrestle' knife from throat anytime. Is she looking around her house more, approaching her car or however her assailant was able to get behind her differently. Has she done some landscaping so evil cannot lurk in the greenery? If so, this is also self defense it would seem to me,
> 
> This American Ninja Warrior show - is this like that show in Japan, big huge obstacle course that contestants compete on. Fantastic functional conditioning if it is that show. Good luck to your daughter to get on the show. Are you doing any training with her to help get her ready? There are local Parkour schools - have you looked into those at all for her?
> 
> Regards
> Brian King


Brian, I think younhave missed the point.   Perhaps you're missing the point on purpose to make one of your own.   Who knows, but it seems that way to me.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Jenna said:


> I will put this in first person for fear it sound like I am directing it any where in particular..
> 
> I am attacked and I fight back, and either by intention or by accident I maim or kill my attacker.. By his action he has forced me to make a choice: him or me.  In this case or any like it, I *always* choose me.  This would be my conceit to have believed and acted upon the notion that I have more right to survive than he.


You reap what you sow. If someone attacks someone then they accept responsibility for what happens to themselves. When someone attacks you and you do not defend yourself then you do not control the level of violence. If you do successfully defend yourself then you control the level of violence because you can stop using violence as soon as the threat is eliminated.The attacker might not. You might maim or kill my attacker unnecessarily, that is a risk, which is why violence should always be avoided whenever possible or prudent. There are also risks involved with not trying to hurt your attacker. Being able to defend yourself and not go too far is part of being a responsible martial artist, it is not about who has more rights.


----------



## Buka

Jenna said:


> I will put this in first person for fear it sound like I am directing it any where in particular..
> 
> I am attacked and I fight back, and either by intention or by accident I maim or kill my attacker.. By his action he has forced me to make a choice: him or me.  In this case or any like it, I *always* choose me.  This would be my conceit to have believed and acted upon the notion that I have more right to survive than he.



In the above scenario, the only choice that was made was his, to attack you. "Him or me" is not a choice. It is the hard-wired instinct of human survival. And, by the way....F' him.


----------



## drop bear

Sort of. I would say it would be a conceit to believe I fundamentally have more right to survive all things being equal. So if both of us were drowning. I save me.

And I mostly have that conceit.

But morally we have basic human rights. If someone tries to take a life the other person can kill to stop them. This is not because one life is more important than the other. But because there is just a reasonable response to these things. 

Murder becomes wrong but killing to prevent murder does not.


----------



## oftheherd1

Jenna said:


> If in defending your self you may inflict harm or damage upon your attacker in which case both you and he have damaged the other.
> 
> Why do we believe we have more right to inflict harm and injury on another than they do on us.



Why not?



Jenna said:


> I will put this in first person for fear it sound like I am directing it any where in particular..
> 
> I am attacked and I fight back, and either by intention or by accident I maim or kill my attacker.. By his action he has forced me to make a choice: him or me.  In this case or any like it, I *always* choose me.  This would be my conceit to have believed and acted upon the notion that I have more right to survive than he.



Let me ask this in another vein, since I have a wife who cannot work to support herself due to fibromyalgia.  If I want to stay alive to care for her, and am willing to fight an assailant to further that, is that conceit on my part, or compassion, or love, or both?  In such a case, is any harm I inflict on the assailant my responsibility, or his, since I only want to remain alive/capable to care for my wife?


----------



## Steve

Study Women trained in self-defense less likely to be sexually assaulted... MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

In the thread above, the article points to the effectiveness of a 12 hour, self defense program that seems to be proving effective.



> Unit 1 (Assess) focused on improving women’s assessment of the risk of sexual assault by male acquaintances and developing problem-solving strategies to reduce perpetrator advantages. Unit 2 (Acknowledge) assisted women to more quickly acknowledge the danger in situations that have turned coercive, explore ways to overcome emotional barriers to resisting the unwanted sexual behaviors of men who were known to them, and practice resisting verbal coercion. *Unit 3 (Act) offered instruction about and practice of effective options for resistance; this unit included 2 hours of self-defense training based on Wen-Do.**30** The unit focused on common sexual assault situations involving acquaintances and defense against attackers who were larger than the woman.* Unit 4 (Sexuality and Relationships) aimed to integrate content from the previous units into participants’ sexual lives by providing sexual information, including the slang and scientific terms for a wide range of possible sexual activities beyond intercourse and health and safer-sex practices, and a context to explore their sexual attitudes, values, and desires and to develop strategies for sexual communication.


Earlier, I mentioned that it has become clear from the discussion that the physical skills are being disproportionately emphasized, at least based upon the descriptions and impressions I get from you all.  This study is a perfect example of what I think is a very solid balance.

12 hours (not weeks, as the thread title suggests) broken out over 3 days of 4 hours each.  A grand totla of 2 hours is spent on physical skills.  That's about 8% of the time, with 92% spent on all of the things.  That makes way more sense to me.  Hopefully, it helps explain my earlier comments, which i don't think I was making veyr clear.


----------



## Jenna

RTKDCMB said:


> Being able to defend yourself and not go too far is part of being a responsible martial artist, it is not about who has more rights.


It is the “not go too far” I want to ask you RTKDCMB, not go too far to ensure what? If it is to ensure your safety or your survival then are you not operating on the principle that you have more rights because you are not considering what happen to your attacker? 




Brian King said:


> Self-preservation is one of God’s gift to all creatures.


Then if some one try to harm me that gift is being denied to me.. if I harm them in my defence I deny that gift to them.  These two are equal.  Show me where is God in that equation Brian.. all I can discern is ego.. what am I missing?




Buka said:


> In the above scenario, the only choice that was made was his, to attack you. "Him or me" is not a choice. It is the hard-wired instinct of human survival


..and what of our hard wired lizard brain programming to have sex? This is not also an instinct along with survival??? to say we act out of primal instinct is not a defence surely??




drop bear said:


> Sort of. I would say it would be a conceit to believe I fundamentally have more right to survive all things being equal. So if both of us were drowning. I save me.
> 
> And I mostly have that conceit.


Mostly like always?  Or mostly like there is some event, circumstance or situation might cause you to not possess that conceit?




drop bear said:


> Murder becomes wrong but killing to prevent murder does not.


Murder = killing with intent 
 killing to prevent murder = killing with intent
Can you say why these seem the same and yet you have said one is wrong and one is not?




oftheherd1 said:


> Let me ask this in another vein, since I have a wife who cannot work to support herself due to fibromyalgia.  If I want to stay alive to care for her, and am willing to fight an assailant to further that, is that conceit on my part, or compassion, or love, or both?  In such a case, is any harm I inflict on the assailant my responsibility, or his, since I only want to remain alive/capable to care for my wife?


I would rather fight your assailant on your behalf so you would not have to make that decision at all because you have enough already to worry over and so I cannot disagree with you because I am a compassionate person and I care.. yet why must I not care or have concern for the wife or children of your –or my- attacker?  Some where in this situation they begin to merit less worth than yours or mine when we are the attacked, why is that? We may have otherwise cared about them, why do we not care because they are the wife or child of our attacker and we have permanently maimed or even killed him that we can survive?  why do we not care?


----------



## Brian King

Jenna said:


> Then if some one try to harm me that gift is being denied to me.. if I harm them in my defence I deny that gift to them. These two are equal. Show me where is God in that equation Brian.. all I can discern is ego.. what am I missing?



Thanks Jenna,
They are not equal. What you may be missing is that one has malice and one has mercy. My understanding and preference is that we are called to be merciful not sacrificial. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## oftheherd1

Jenna said:


> Murder = killing with intent
> killing to prevent murder = killing with intent
> Can you say why these seem the same and yet you have said one is wrong and one is not?



You may have a point about intentionally killing to prevent murder, but wouldn't it depend on the circumstances?

What about the instances when a person responds instinctively, to the sudden, unexpected assault?  The technique, or its consequences, may cause a death that could not have been anticipated due to the instinctive unthinking reaction.  Is there an equality there?

How about a policeman who shoots someone about to stab a defenseless child, in order to stop the knife attack in motion?

How about the soldier who kills an enemy about to stab his combat buddy with a bayonet?




Jenna said:


> I would rather fight your assailant on your behalf so you would not have to make that decision at all because you have enough already to worry over and so I cannot disagree with you because I am a compassionate person and I care.. yet why must I not care or have concern for the wife or children of your –or my- attacker?  Some where in this situation they begin to merit less worth than yours or mine when we are the attacked, why is that? We may have otherwise cared about them, why do we not care because they are the wife or child of our attacker and we have permanently maimed or even killed him that we can survive?  why do we not care?



You are kind.  Thank you.  

In answer to the above, and actually I think, to a lot of your questions.  I don't think it is correct to say the wife of an assailant merits less concern, at least in the way I think you mean it.  Is that true for you?  Not by you comments in wanting to keep me from making a decision I may wish not to have to make.  So why ascribe to any of the rest here, any more lack of compassion?  

If an assailant attacks me in a way that I perceive to threaten my life, wouldn't you say the assailant is the one with conceit?  The assailant is the one who has decided he can accomplish his goals over my resistance.  If he is wrong, by the time he finds it out, he may be dead.  Is that not his conceit that harms his wife and children by his being taken from their lives.  And that whether he is just a general bad guy who likes to hurt others, or is desperate to provide food or medicine to his family.  Either way the bad choice is his, and if there is any conceit, that is his also.  And I may not know at the time of the attack that he even has a wife and children.  How can I factor that in to my response?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Jenna said:


> It is the “not go too far” I want to ask you RTKDCMB, not go too far to ensure what? If it is to ensure your safety or your survival then are you not operating on the principle that you have more rights because you are not considering what happen to your attacker?



Not going too far as in not continuing to beat my attacker after the threat is eliminated. Not stomping on the head of an already unconscious attacker would be an example. You have the right to defend yourself, no one has the right to attack you. The response must always be proportional to the threat, that way you are considering what will happen to your attacker.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Not going too far as in not continuing to beat my attacker after the threat is eliminated. Not stomping on the head of an already unconscious attacker would be an example. You have the right to defend yourself, no one has the right to attack you. The response must always be proportional to the threat, that way you are considering what will happen to your attacker.


I'd be interested in hearing a scenario where stomping on someone's head would be self defense.  I can't think of one.  But many people learn that technique in self defense class.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Jenna

Just to add something, actually restate it because it has already been said.

The attackers intent is to kill the victims intent is to survive. Now the intent to survive may be a primal instinct but the attacker intent to kill likely is not, that was a choice.

Now one can choose not to survive, not what I would recommend, but they can choose that and thereby disrupting that "primal instinct".... but to what end with the overall picture of humanity.....


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I'd be interested in hearing a scenario where stomping on someone's head would be self defense.  I can't think of one.  But many people learn that technique in self defense class.



When that person has a knife or club, and there's at least one other assailant-stomping on their head is neutralizing a lethal threat. Discussions afterward are for_ lawyers _to have with the defender.....of course, the defender has to be_ alive_ to have that discussion.

(and, hey @Steve -it should be obvious why I can think of any number of scenarios where stomping on someone's head *is* self defense. Be glad that you couldn't.)


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> When that person has a knife or club, and there's at least one other assailant-stomping on their head is neutralizing a lethal threat. Discussions afterward are for_ lawyers _to have with the defender.....of course, the defender has to be_ alive_ to have that discussion.
> 
> (and, hey @Steve -it should be obvious why I can think of any number of scenarios where stomping on someone's head *is* self defense. Be glad that you couldn't.)


  Well, I hear what you're saying, elder999.  But i'm not sure I understand.  If bad guy #1 is helpless, but he has a buddy, it's okay to kill him.  I'll have to mull that over for a while.  Doesn't compute right now.


----------



## Steve

Xue Sheng said:


> Jenna
> 
> Just to add something, actually restate it because it has already been said.
> 
> The attackers intent is to kill the victims intent is to survive. Now the intent to survive may be a primal instinct but the attacker intent to kill likely is not, that was a choice.
> 
> Now one can choose not to survive, not what I would recommend, but they can choose that and thereby disrupting that "primal instinct".... but to what end with the overall picture of humanity.....


 Is the attacker's intent necessarily to kill the victim?  I challenge that presumption.  Can be, for sure, but how did we go from discussing self defense to discussing what is surely a small subset of self defense, which is defense against a homocidal lunatic?


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> 12 hours (not weeks, as the thread title suggests) broken out over 3 days of 4 hours each.  A grand totla of 2 hours is spent on physical skills.  That's about 8% of the time, with 92% spent on all of the things.  That makes way more sense to me.  Hopefully, it helps explain my earlier comments, which i don't think I was making veyr clear.


Too late to edit this, but my public school math let me down.  Two out of 12 hours is actually closer to 16% than 8%.  I'm math challenged.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Steve said:


> Is the attacker's intent necessarily to kill the victim?  I challenge that presumption.  Can be, for sure, but how did we go from discussing self defense to discussing what is surely a small subset of self defense, which is defense against a homocidal lunatic?



Listen Mr. logic, I have had about enough or your reasoning 

There was no presumption, it was a bad generalization...the attacker chooses to attack the attacked responds, there is little or no choice at that moment, it is a fight or flight reflex. Also it then falls to the perception of the attacked, who had no choice in the matter. At that point you are dealing with a reflex and the intent of the attacker is not the issue it is the perception of the attacked. And you are still at the attacker chose to attack regardless of intent.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Well, I hear what you're saying, elder999.  But i'm not sure I understand.  If bad guy #1 is helpless, but he has a buddy, it's okay to kill him.  I'll have to mull that over for a while.  Doesn't compute right now.



A stomp on the head from me _might_ kill him. 

_*I *don't care_- he won't be getting up, and I've got to deal with his buddy(s) still..


----------



## Steve

Xue Sheng said:


> Listen Mr. logic, I have had about enough or your reasoning
> 
> There was no presumption, it was a bad generalization...the attacker chooses to attack the attacked responds, there is little or no choice at that moment, it is a fight or flight reflex. Also it then falls to the perception of the attacked, who had no choice in the matter. At that point you are dealing with a reflex and the intent of the attacker is not the issue it is the perception of the attacked. And you are still at the attacker chose to attack regardless of intent.


 I understand and apologize if it seemed that I was nitpicking.  Honestly, where I'm at right now is just having read through the sexual assault study posted in the other thread, and then going through the resources to read those articles (well, at least the ones that are free).  In those situations, it's not usually a serial killer scenario.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I.  In those situations, it's not usually a serial killer scenario.



However (getting back to the whole women's thing, that I'm still wrestling with expressing in this format) I teach women that sexual assault is a lethal threat, and should be treated as such.


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> However (getting back to the whole women's thing, that I'm still wrestling with expressing in this format) I teach women that sexual assault is a lethal threat, and should be treated as such.


Is that realistic?    I don't think that data supports this.  I'd like to see more. 

in contrast, the study mentioned above and in the other thread used the following criteria.  While damaging and very concerning, I do not get the impressino at all that the attacks were intended to be a lethal threat. 



> All experiences reported during 12 months of follow-up were classified into one of five sexual victimization categories: completed rape, attempted rape, coercion, attempted coercion, or nonconsensual sexual contact. The primary outcome was completed rape; other outcomes were prespecified as tertiary. (Secondary outcomes were psychological variables that were expected to mediate the effects of the intervention and are not included here.) Completed rape (oral, vaginal, or anal penetration) and nonconsensual sexual contact (nonpenetrative) were defined as nonconsensual sexual acts in which the perpetrator used threats, force, or drug or alcohol incapacitation. Coercion was considered to have occurred when perpetrators used pressure or manipulation (e.g., “threatening to end the relationship” or “continually verbally pressuring me”) to induce compliance in nonconsensual penetrative sexual acts. Attempted rape and attempted coercion were occasions in which the perpetrator tried to engage in the behavior but was not successful. For completed and attempted rapes, participants recorded the dates of occurrence.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Steve said:


> I understand and apologize if it seemed that I was nitpicking.  Honestly, where I'm at right now is just having read through the sexual assault study posted in the other thread, and then going through the resources to read those articles (well, at least the ones that are free).  In those situations, it's not usually a serial killer scenario.



No need for apology, I was the one that made the bad generalization.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Is that realistic?    I don't think that data supports this.  I'd like to see more.
> 
> in contrast, the study mentioned above and in the other thread used the following criteria.  While damaging and very concerning, I do not get the impressino at all that the attacks were intended to be a lethal threat.



How is a woman-even one with training-how is _anyone_ capable of assessing "intent" with any accuracy?

How is anyone? In my case, I thought the intent was simply to rob me, and I handed over my goods. I was *wrong*, and, _luckily_, equipped to respond to the *real* threat and intention appropriately.

I didn't say that "all rapists's intent is murder." I said that sexual assault is to be treated as a lethal threat, and it should be.It's game theory, @Steve : reply to the threat with an appropriate level of response, in this case, lethally or by response and removal from the situation-no one is going to question it on legal or moral grounds.Understand, I'm not talking about simple groping or inappropriate touching-I'm talking about a physical attempt to forcibly penetrate a female, in one way or another-*that's* a lethal threat, and should be responded to as such.

In my "home invasion" scenario, it could as easily be teens, or some homeless person looking to get warm (I actually had this person knock on my door, in the middle of nowhere where my home was at the time, and I gave them a coat), or a drunk, or a relative, or simply someone who wants to steal some stuff. Those are all circumstances and intentions that, with the exception of "relative"-that is, someone who isn't breaking in but belongs there-I'm going to address the same way: they're there to commit mayhem, and I'm gonna shoot them. I'll worry about their "intentions" when I try to go to sleep the night after I've shot them.

In most situations, the only thing the intended target of violence can assess is the *threat*, not the _intention._


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> How is a woman-even one with training-how is _anyone_ capable of assessing "intent" with any accuracy?
> 
> How is anyone? In my case, I thought the intent was simply to rob me, and I handed over my goods. I was *wrong*, and, _luckily_, equipped to respond to the *real* threat and intention appropriately.
> 
> I didn't say that "all rapists's intent is murder." I said that sexual assault is to be treated as a lethal threat, and it should be.It's game theory, @Steve : reply to the threat with an appropriate level of response, in this case, lethally or by response and removal from the situation-no one is going to question it on legal or moral grounds.Understand, I'm not talking about simple groping or inappropriate touching-I'm talking about a physical attempt to forcibly penetrate a female, in one way or another-*that's* a lethal threat, and should be responded to as such.
> 
> In most situations, the only thing the intended target of violence can assess is the *threat*, not the _intention._


 I don't know that data bears this out, Elder.  While I understand your rationale, I don't agree that every self defense situation is a response to a lethal threat.  I can agree that ANY self defense situation MAY escalate into a lethal threat, AND this is often (although not always) influenced by the victim's ability to deescalate and defuse threats using skills other than physical.

Simply put, self defense for women MAY be a response to a lethal threat.  But, most sexual assaults, according to every study I've ever read, are NOT intended to be lethal, and even most "successful" assaults are not lethal.  That's just not the end game for the bad guys.  The goal in most of these, statistically speaking, isn't to kill the victim.  And physically attempting to forcibly penetrate the female is despicable and vile, but not generally life threatening. 

And, further, this goes back to the disconnect that self defense courses may be undermining their efficacy by teaching to threats that are exaggarated or not realistic.  The actual threat is rape.  How can a female defend herself from that?    Going back to the earthquake kit analogy, this seems to me like preparing for an earthquake in Oklahoma instead of learning about tornados, whcih are the likely threat.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> I'd be interested in hearing a scenario where stomping on someone's head would be self defense. I can't think of one. But many people learn that technique in self defense class.





elder999 said:


> When that person has a knife or club, and there's at least one other assailant-stomping on their head is neutralizing a lethal threat. Discussions afterward are for_ lawyers _to have with the defender.....of course, the defender has to be_ alive_ to have that discussion.


I was actually teaching knife defences to some black belts a few hours ago and touched upon this very subject. I mentioned that for a head stomp you don't necessarily have to stomp your foot through someone's head with all your power and crush it like an egg for it to be a head stomp I have seen knife defense videos on YouTube where the defender has disabled the attacker and has him on the floor and then stripped the knife and proceeded to cut both femoral and brachial arteries, neck and throat. Basically how to go from self defense to murder in one easy lesson.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I don't know that data bears this out, Elder.  While I understand your rationale, I don't agree that every self defense situation is a response to a lethal threat.  I can agree that ANY self defense situation MAY escalate into a lethal threat, AND this is often (although not always) influenced by the victim's ability to deescalate and defuse threats using skills other than physical.



You need to read what I said again.



Steve said:


> Simply put, self defense for women MAY be a response to a lethal threat.



You need to read what I said again.



Steve said:


> But, most sexual assaults, according to every study I've ever read, are NOT intended to be lethal, and even most "successful" assaults are not lethal.  That's just not the end game for the bad guys.  The goal in most of these, statistically speaking, isn't to kill the victim.  And physically attempting to forcibly penetrate the female is despicable and vile, but not generally life threatening.



You need to *read* what I said again.



Steve said:


> And, further, this goes back to the disconnect that self defense courses may be undermining their efficacy by teaching to threats that are exaggarated or not realistic.  The actual threat is rape.  How can a female defend herself from that?    Going back to the earthquake kit analogy, this seems to me like preparing for an earthquake in Oklahoma instead of learning about tornados, whcih are the likely threat.



You need to read *what I said* _again._


----------



## Steve

Lol.  That's the old stand by around here.  "You don't agree with me because you don't understand me." 

How many different definitions does 'lethal' have?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> L
> How many different definitions does 'lethal' have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I dunno, but in my dojo, attempting  to forcibly sexually penetrate a female is one of them.


----------



## pgsmith

Hanzou said:


> The point was, that if she was a martial arts student (depending on the style of course), she wouldn't have just laid there and taken that beating.



  Absolutely clueless!



Jenna said:


> I will put this in first person for fear it sound like I am directing it any where in particular..
> 
> I am attacked and I fight back, and either by intention or by accident I maim or kill my attacker.. By his action he has forced me to make a choice: him or me.  In this case or any like it, I *always* choose me.  This would be my conceit to have believed and acted upon the notion that I have more right to survive than he.



Here's something for you to consider Jenna ... Is it possible that it is your conceit that makes you feel like you are NOT entitled to live where someone else isn't?  Every other creature on earth will vigorously defend its right to live with everything it has, and will not worry about any moral dilemma. Just because humans are capable of higher cognitive functions (OK, judging by some of the posts, not ALL humans  ) does not mean that responses generated by our lower cognitive functions are incorrect, or somehow "wrong". Conceit can go both ways.  Sometimes it's not about 'right', it's about ability.



Steve said:


> I don't know that data bears this out, Elder.  While I understand your rationale, I don't agree that every self defense situation is a response to a lethal threat.  I can agree that ANY self defense situation MAY escalate into a lethal threat, AND this is often (although not always) influenced by the victim's ability to deescalate and defuse threats using skills other than physical.
> 
> Simply put, self defense for women MAY be a response to a lethal threat.  But, most sexual assaults, according to every study I've ever read, are NOT intended to be lethal, and even most "successful" assaults are not lethal.  That's just not the end game for the bad guys.  The goal in most of these, statistically speaking, isn't to kill the victim.  And physically attempting to forcibly penetrate the female is despicable and vile, but not generally life threatening.
> 
> And, further, this goes back to the disconnect that self defense courses may be undermining their efficacy by teaching to threats that are exaggarated or not realistic.  The actual threat is rape.  How can a female defend herself from that?    Going back to the earthquake kit analogy, this seems to me like preparing for an earthquake in Oklahoma instead of learning about tornados, whcih are the likely threat.



  This is a good, rational argument. Unfortunately, it has very little to do with reality. It is the role of professional Law Enforcement personnel to judge intent and restrict the level of force used against those breaking the law. It is NOT the role of ordinary people going about their own business. It has been my experience that when confronted with violence that can't be de-escalated, the only way to stay alive is to assume that your attacker is trying to kill you. Doesn't matter what the reason for the violence is, you have to make that assumption. Anything else is playing Russian Roulette, and hoping that you didn't guess wrong. While "most" and "statistically speaking" are good words to use in an argument, they are terrible things to those that were not a part of the "most" or were in the statistical minority, and there's no way to tell which is which until afterwards.


----------



## Steve

pgsmith said:


> This is a good, rational argument. Unfortunately, it has very little to do with reality. It is the role of professional Law Enforcement personnel to judge intent and restrict the level of force used against those breaking the law. It is NOT the role of ordinary people going about their own business. It has been my experience that when confronted with violence that can't be de-escalated, the only way to stay alive is to assume that your attacker is trying to kill you. Doesn't matter what the reason for the violence is, you have to make that assumption. Anything else is playing Russian Roulette, and hoping that you didn't guess wrong. While "most" and "statistically speaking" are good words to use in an argument, they are terrible things to those that were not a part of the "most" or were in the statistical minority, and there's no way to tell which is which until afterwards.


I'm really craving some actual data here.  There's a lot of conjecture, but based upon what i've read about sexual assault, I don't see it borne out that serial murders are more or less of a threat than elsewhere in the country, which is to say that they ahppen but not very often at all.  Rape and sexual assault, conversely, are VERY serious concerns given that... what was the statistic... IIRC 4 out of 10 women were sexually assualted within their first year at college.

To be clear, I'm not saying that learning to be a lethal badass is a bad idea for anyone.  Knock yourself out.  What I am suggesting for discussion, and this is just my opinion, is that the "all attacks are presumed lethal" could be a red herring that distracts from actual, practical, self defense strategies.  Or said the other way around, focusing on what an ACTUAL attack is likely to look like is going to be more effectrive than trying a one size fits all, shotgun approach. 

In the article referenced above, the women received a total of 2 hours of training in a system called Wen-Do.  I looked them up.  this is a woman's self defense system created, taught and taken by women.  Nowhere on their philosophy page does it talk about being lethal or responding to lethal force; Philosophy  Rather they use words like "dominate" and "control."  They say that they are, among other things, "build[ing] on participants' prior knowledge and increase their self-confidence by teaching a variety of awareness, avoidance and verbal self-defence strategies, and simple, practical physical techniques that are designed to be effective even against a larger and stronger attacker."  Not killing assailants and letting the chips fall where they may.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I'm really craving some actual data here.  There's a lot of conjecture, but based upon what i've read about sexual assault, I don't see it borne out that serial murders are more or less of a threat than elsewhere in the country, which is to say that they ahppen but not very often at all.  Rape and sexual assault, conversely, are VERY serious concerns given that... what was the statistic... IIRC 4 out of 10 women were sexually assualted within their first year at college.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not saying that learning to be a lethal badass is a bad idea for anyone.  Knock yourself out.  What I am suggesting for discussion, and this is just my opinion, is that the "all attacks are presumed lethal" could be a red herring that distracts from actual, practical, self defense strategies.  Or said the other way around, focusing on what an ACTUAL attack is likely to look like is going to be more effectrive than trying a one size fits all, shotgun approach.
> 
> In the article referenced above, the women received a total of 2 hours of training in a system called Wen-Do.  I looked them up.  this is a woman's self defense system created, taught and taken by women.  Nowhere on their philosophy page does it talk about being lethal or responding to lethal force; Philosophy  Rather they use words like "dominate" and "control."  They say that they are, among other things, "build[ing] on participants' prior knowledge and increase their self-confidence by teaching a variety of awareness, avoidance and verbal self-defence strategies, and simple, practical physical techniques that are designed to be effective even against a larger and stronger attacker."  Not killing assailants and letting the chips fall where they may.



No where did I say that "all attacks are presumed lethal." I made that point about a specific type of attack-sexual assault. We treat it as a lethal threat-it may become one simply by virtue of the intended victim's resistance- simply because of the words that you use like "dominate" and "control, ' which are, after all, what the shrinks will tell us rape is largely about.

Doesn't really matter, any more than that "actual data" you're craving. (_Really_ Steve? Some guy's trying to shove a broomhandle or his penis in your anus, and you're going to stop just short of killing him to make him stop, because it's not a lethal threat, and it's not "_*justified by the data*_"?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) Fact is, if a woman is going to resist an actual rape, she can't stop short of lethality-she may have an opportunity to flee after injuring her assailant, and she should take it, but nothing at all should be off the table in this scenario, including stabbing, shooting or bashing his head in with a rock or pipe.

To be clear-there's often a variety of other "defenses' possible prior to the actual assault, including verbal de-escalation, or simply being aware and avoiding the situation (things to which the success _statistics_ of "Wen-do" can be directly attributed) but when it comes to the actual physical act, well_-try and *kill *the g_uy.Maybe he'll die, maybe he'll take your purse and run away. ...if you're a woman, trained or not, he's likely bigger and stronger than you, and likely has had practice at what he's trying to do. *Stop* him, by any means necessary.


----------



## Steve

I have a question.  What's the goal of self defense?  What does success look like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I have a question.  What's the goal of self defense?  What does success look like?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Waking up the next morning, relatively unscathed-either because you weren't involved in an incident at all, or because you prevailed.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I have a question.  What's the goal of self defense?  What does success look like?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



And I have a question. Do *you* know anyone who's survived being raped? Were they the same person afterward, in any way at all?


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> Waking up the next morning, relatively unscathed-either because you weren't involved in an incident at all, or because you prevailed.


I would agree with that (although I don't know for sure that we'd define "prevailed" in the same way.)

I understand that you guys are mocking me a bit for suggesting that using lethal force may not be the best tactic.  I get it.  But the question is, then, why discuss the legality of a situation at all in self defense class?  Many of the experts in this thread mention that this is part of the training.  I know that "use of force" training is a VERY good idea for anyone who owns a firearm.  If the reaction to an assault is independent of the context of the assault, then why do we discuss legality at all?  As you guys say, that's for the judge to decide.  Right?

Makes no sense to me.  It's part of that disconnect I keep mentioning.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm open to the idea that I'm just too dumb or ignorant or naive to know better.  But so far, I keep seeing assertions unsubstantiated by actual information.  And truly, what I have seen leads me in a different direction entirely.  That programs which are statistically shown to work do not emphasize physicality, and that the physical component does not emphasize killing or being killed.   And, again, if time is precious and choices are being made, the emphasis should be on those components of self defense that are most likely to have a positive effect.  Shouldn't it?

So, to relate this back to the purpose of this thread, it seems to me that a fundamental pillar of self defense should be context, because training for one context may be a red herring in another.


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> And I have a question. Do *you* know anyone who's survived being raped? Were they the same person afterward, in any way at all?


I do. Several.  And no, they were not.  AND (not but) I am 100% confident that killing the guy wouldn't have helped them at all, nor would knowing how to kill them.  They were all assaulted by people they knew and trusted, who used either chemical coercion or threats of influence.  In the words of Andy Sandberg in one of my favorite SNL shorts ever, "We gotta stop being figurative and start gettin' literal!"


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I  programs which are statistically shown to work do not emphasize physicality, and that the physical component does not emphasize killing or being killed.



I'd agree, for the most part-and point out that the "Statistically shown to work" part of that whole statement is largely made of women who were not sexually assaulted at all.




Steve said:


> ]So, to relate this back to the purpose of this thread, it seems to me that a fundamental pillar of self defense should be context, because training for one context may be a red herring in another.



Of course, context is part of situational awareness-getting "bunny hugged" at a party is not a lethal threat.Unwelcome flirting is not a lethal threat. Being bashed over the head, thrown to the ground and having a man jump on top of you *is*. Waking up in your own bed with a knife being held to your throat by a man pulling down his pants *is*. Being held against your will in a dorm room after you've said "no" *is*.

Is *that* contextual enough for you, Steve? 

I'm still waiting for you to tell me you wouldn't kill _*you*_r rapist, because rape isn't a lethal threat.....


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> I do. Several.  And no, they were not.  AND (not but) I am 100% confident that killing the guy wouldn't have helped them at all



You're 100% *wrong.* _Ask them._

.


----------



## pgsmith

Steve said:


> I'm really craving some actual data here.  There's a lot of conjecture, but based upon what i've read about sexual assault, I don't see it borne out that serial murders are more or less of a threat than elsewhere in the country, which is to say that they ahppen but not very often at all.  Rape and sexual assault, conversely, are VERY serious concerns given that... what was the statistic... IIRC 4 out of 10 women were sexually assualted within their first year at college.


  Sorry, no data. The only data I can offer you is the fact that I attended 2 funerals when I was younger, of guys that I used to hang with that were in the statistical minority of street fights that happened to be lethal.



Steve said:


> To be clear, I'm not saying that learning to be a lethal badass is a bad idea for anyone.  Knock yourself out.  What I am suggesting for discussion, and this is just my opinion, is that the "all attacks are presumed lethal" could be a red herring that distracts from actual, practical, self defense strategies.  Or said the other way around, focusing on what an ACTUAL attack is likely to look like is going to be more effectrive than trying a one size fits all, shotgun approach.


  You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. There IS no "one size fits all" for self defense situations. Every single situation is different, and will require different responses. However, what I am saying is that once you are forced to respond to a violent attack, you need to respond with everything you have as if your attacker is attempting to kill you, because that just may be true. There are a lot of different things that can be done and considered *before* the violence starts. However, once it has begun, you have to respond as overwhelmingly as possible. If you don't, there's a chance you'll end up dead.



Steve said:


> In the article referenced above, the women received a total of 2 hours of training in a system called Wen-Do.  I looked them up.  this is a woman's self defense system created, taught and taken by women.  Nowhere on their philosophy page does it talk about being lethal or responding to lethal force; Philosophy  Rather they use words like "dominate" and "control."  They say that they are, among other things, "build[ing] on participants' prior knowledge and increase their self-confidence by teaching a variety of awareness, avoidance and verbal self-defence strategies, and simple, practical physical techniques that are designed to be effective even against a larger and stronger attacker."  Not killing assailants and letting the chips fall where they may.


  That's true. Also, in a lot of situations that I've discussed with people that have been involved in fights, a simple practical technique is generally all that is needed in order to create enough separation to get away. But, it has been my experience that if you do not practice with the idea of killing your assailant, especially for women, they will hesitate and will not use the appropriate force when the situation calls for it.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey I will help out here Steve,

You throw bad guy to the ground after he attacked you.  Said bad guy on the ground reaches for and deploys a knife while on the ground while threatening to kill you.  Your now in a lethal situation where force proportionate to what is being brought against you would be reasonable.  You could apply lethal force even without the threat as said bad guy has already demonstrated that he wishes you harm and has now introduced a weapon capable of lethal consequences.


----------



## Hanzou

pgsmith said:


> Absolutely clueless!



Yeah, no woman I've ever trained with would just curl up into a little ball and let some psycho beat on them mercilessly. Especially when their child is potentially in danger.

I get the fact that he didn't kill her, but he could have. Letting an animal have their way with you is too much of a risk to take.


----------



## Steve

First, elder and pgsmith, I appreciate your posts.  Clearly, this is an emotional issue.  Pgsmith, I've had my share of funerals lately, and I'm very sorry to have evoked any painful memories.  I understand that my conclusions seem very naive to you guys.  I get it.  But I just see it as being practical.  What's the goal of any self defense training?  it's been a long thread, but I know someone brought up that there are no guarantees in self defense.  It's about stacking the odds in your favor.  I wish I could give credit to whomever said it.

According to elder, it's to "wake up" (that's the highest priority).  "Relatively unscathed"...  subjective, but I think that's pretty clear.  "Either because you weren't involved in an incident at all"...  this is the best kind of self defense.  "Or have prevailed."  I said before, this is the sticky part.  Prevailed...  what does that mean?

As we all SEEM to agree, assaults are not all the same.  But I think some are similar enough to create useful and realistic categories.  Sexual assault is the topic of the moment.  What does prevailing in a sexual assault look like?  I'd say it's not being raped.  That's success.  That's what prevailing looks like.  So, what if training with that intent, specifically, could more effectively stack the odds in your favor than other approaches?  What if the physicality of training with lethal intent actually distracts from the techniques and drills that more effectively stack the deck?

Horrific things can happen to anyone, but for most people, it's like worrying about being struck by lightning.  There are very practical things that we can do that actually improve our ability to assess and react to real world danger that don't involve curb stomping or killing people. 


Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey I will help out here Steve,
> 
> You throw bad guy to the ground after he attacked you.  Said bad guy on the ground reaches for and deploys a knife while on the ground while threatening to kill you.  Your now in a lethal situation where force proportionate to what is being brought against you would be reasonable.  You could apply lethal force even without the threat as said bad guy has already demonstrated that he wishes you harm and has now introduced a weapon capable of lethal consequences.


Brian, there have been so many different things stated, I'd just like to clarify what you're suggesting here.  Are you saying that i could kill the guy legally?  If so, don't you think it could be dicey, given that the guy is on the ground and I could run away?   It seems pretty dicey to me.  Sure, I understand that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.  But, isn't it better to "wake up relatively unscathed?"  Is judged by 12 unscathed?

Or are you speaking morally and not legally?  Would it be moral, given the interesting conversation that Jenna encouraged?


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> First, elder and pgsmith, I appreciate your posts.  Clearly, this is an emotional issue.  P




I'm still waiting for you to tell me you wouldn't kill _*you*_r rapist, because rape isn't a lethal threat..... questions of "morality and "legality" notwithstanding: would you take it up the *** forcibly if you knew that you'd live to wake up the next morning, "relatively unscathted."

Would you have "prevaoiled" in that situaiton? Would that look like  "success" to you?

I mean, _statistically,_ the "*data"* reflects that male on male rape doesn't typically result in murder....


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> I'm still waiting for you to tell me you wouldn't kill _*you*_r rapist, because rape isn't a lethal threat.....


Ah, I see.  Okay.  Whether I would kill the person or not is irrelevant.  Can't honestly say whether I would or not.  Maybe so, but if I did, I'm not sure I'd call it self defense, either. 

I think the more relevant point is that me taking rape prevention courses would largely be a waste of time.  I'm not really at risk.  As a middle aged, middle class, family guy who doesn't frequent bars or drink to excess, if I'm not in a category of least likely to be sexaully assaulted, I have to be close.  Doesn't mean I would never be raped, but it's not a realistic threat to me.   My time would be better spent doing something other than rape prevention.  And, to the point that I'm making, given a finite amount of time and money, wouldn't my resources be better spent learning skills that would actually stack the deck in a situation I'm likely to find myself, rather than one which is unlikely?

But, what I see here is... man, if I AM raped, won't I be glad I took those classes?


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Ah, I see.  Okay.  Whether I would kill the person or not is irrelevant.  Can't honestly say whether I would or not.  Maybe so, but if I did, I'm not sure I'd call it self defense, either.
> 
> I think the more relevant point is that me taking rape prevention courses would largely be a waste of time.  I'm not really at risk.  As a middle aged, middle class, family guy who doesn't frequent bars or drink to excess, if I'm not in a category of least likely to be sexaully assaulted, I have to be close.  Doesn't mean I would never be raped, but it's not a realistic threat to me.   My time would be better spent doing something other than rape prevention.  And, to the point that I'm making, given a finite amount of time and money, wouldn't my resources be better spent learning skills that would actually stack the deck in a situation I'm likely to find myself, rather than one which is unlikely?
> 
> But, what I see here is... man, if I AM raped, won't I be glad I took those classes?



You see, you've made a lot of assumptions, based upon "the data...."..

Male joggergang-raped - News - JamaicaObserver.com

Gang of 5 men rapes tortures male backpacker

and your "*non* answer" says *VOLUMES* about the validity of your position.  Really @Steve ? How is whether or not you'd kill the person "irrelevant," when it is the very essence of what we're discussing? More to the point, are you *actually saying* that middle aged, middle class women who don't frequent bars or drink to excess aren't in danger of being raped, and , more importantly, that those who do so are somehow placing themselves in danger, and somehow not morally justified in using lethal defense against rape because of it? _tsk-tsk..._


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> You see, you've made a lot of assumptions, based upon the data......
> 
> Male joggergang-raped - News - JamaicaObserver.com
> 
> Gang of 5 men rapes tortures male backpacker
> 
> and your "*non* answer" says *VOLUMES* about the validity of your position.


Alright, elder.  You win.  I lose.  You found an article from a few days ago and one from 2003 to support your position.  I guess I'm just crazytown.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve said:


> First, elder and pgsmith, I appreciate your posts.  Clearly, this is an emotional issue.  Pgsmith, I've had my share of funerals lately, and I'm very sorry to have evoked any painful memories.  I understand that my conclusions seem very naive to you guys.  I get it.  But I just see it as being practical.  What's the goal of any self defense training?  it's been a long thread, but I know someone brought up that there are no guarantees in self defense.  It's about stacking the odds in your favor.  I wish I could give credit to whomever said it.
> 
> According to elder, it's to "wake up" (that's the highest priority).  "Relatively unscathed"...  subjective, but I think that's pretty clear.  "Either because you weren't involved in an incident at all"...  this is the best kind of self defense.  "Or have prevailed."  I said before, this is the sticky part.  Prevailed...  what does that mean?
> 
> As we all SEEM to agree, assaults are not all the same.  But I think some are similar enough to create useful and realistic categories.  Sexual assault is the topic of the moment.  What does prevailing in a sexual assault look like?  I'd say it's not being raped.  That's success.  That's what prevailing looks like.  So, what if training with that intent, specifically, could more effectively stack the odds in your favor than other approaches?  What if the physicality of training with lethal intent actually distracts from the techniques and drills that more effectively stack the deck?
> 
> Horrific things can happen to anyone, but for most people, it's like worrying about being struck by lightning.  There are very practical things that we can do that actually improve our ability to assess and react to real world danger that don't involve curb stomping or killing people.
> Brian, there have been so many different things stated, I'd just like to clarify what you're suggesting here.  Are you saying that i could kill the guy legally?  If so, don't you think it could be dicey, given that the guy is on the ground and I could run away?   It seems pretty dicey to me.  Sure, I understand that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.  But, isn't it better to "wake up relatively unscathed?"  Is judged by 12 unscathed?
> 
> Or are you speaking morally and not legally?  Would it be moral, given the interesting conversation that Jenna encouraged?



Steve, guy is on the ground pulls a knife and just maybe you can't run?  Maybe your wife and kid's are with you or it is happening in your house.  Lots of situations could dictate that you can't out run your attacker.  As in they may be younger than you, faster, or you may be injured from their attack and unable to run and I could go on and on.  Bottom line is they brought a lethal weapon ie. knife into the conflict and created a situation where lethal force not only could be warranted but also could be justified.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Alright, elder.  You win.  I lose.  You found an article from a few days ago and one from 2003 to support your position.  I guess I'm just crazytown.



You know what crime is even more unreported than man on woman rape?

Man on man rape. Sorry, more less than valid argument on your part....

I mean, you seem to value "data" and "studies" more than most scientists I know...and I'm a scientist...here's the data :

"_Rape crisis counselors estimate that while only one in 50 raped women report the crime to the police, the rates of under-reporting among men are even higher (Brochman, 1991). U_"

I mean, it's a simple enough question, @Steve : you wake up in bed, and there's some 260 lbl. deviant there, and he's gonna slam something up your old Hershey highway until he's had enough......the question was never whether or not you'd kill him, but whether you'd be justified in using lethal force to keep him from having his way with you....(BTW-for those who are offended by my deliberately offensive and inflammatory language-it's called "woofing," is part and parcel of (some) proper self-defense training, and is intended to offend, intimidate and enflame...)

So, @Steve : do you _try_ to kill him to keep him from "having his way" with you, or do you just bend over and take it?


----------



## Steve

Well, shoot, elder.   What if I were kidnapped and found myself in a sex ring in some back country area of Taiwan being gang raped by a half dozen Taiwanese midget porn stars?   Because the likelihood of either is about the same.  How much time should I spend considering either scenario?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Well, shoot, elder.   What if I were kidnapped and found myself in a sex ring in some back country area of Taiwan being gang raped by a half dozen Taiwanese midget porn stars?   Because the likelihood of either is about the same.  How much time should I spend considering either scenario?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


*Just answer the question*....I mean, unless it makes you uncomfortable.....because, I don't know, _you think you'd *like* it or something.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

.....I mean, I spent the better part of my childhood being poked and prodded and having all manner of medical stuff stuck into me.....while I'd never ask for it-what, with its unwelcome associations with illness and impending death for me- it's okay with me if you like things like Taiwanese midget porn star penis forcibly violating  your anus....I don't judge...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*That is the thing about personal protection skills Steve*.  You may never need them, or you may need them in the next ten minutes.  You just never know.  If you look only at statistics your chances of having to use them are low but...... wait for it..... if you need them you need them now!  Look back through time and history and you can rest assured there are many people who wish they had them when some thing violent happened to them.  Think of it as insurance.  You may never use your insurance but if your house burns down you certainly will be happy that you had homeowners insurance!  *It would really, really suck if you didn't!!!
*
If you look through this thread you will see people with experience and training advocating:

Awareness, Avoidance, de-escalation skills both verbal and non-verbal, understanding human behavior and criminal behavior, understanding crime in your area, empty hand physical personal protection skills, weapon training both blunt, edged and firearms and a whole lot more. 




*
*


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Mostly like always? Or mostly like there is some event, circumstance or situation might cause you to not possess that conceit?



There would be circumstances where I would risk my life to save others. But it depends on the person.

The conceit is of course that I get to make the choice.


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Murder = killing with intent
> killing to prevent murder = killing with intent
> Can you say why these seem the same and yet you have said one is wrong and one is not?



The murderer has the choice though. If he does not attack nobody dies.  

The defender has to choose between killing or being killed. Which is an unfair choice to force upon someone. It is an unreasonable threat to face. Just being assaulted is an unreasonable threat to face. That is why the attacker is viewed with less empathy.

And to win fights you need to fight with bad intentions. And believe you have more right to win that fight than he does.

It is a fundamental pillar. Fight from the moral high ground. Or you wont be in the moment 100%

Murder is premeditated by the way. Not just intent.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Well, I hear what you're saying, elder999.  But i'm not sure I understand.  If bad guy #1 is helpless, but he has a buddy, it's okay to kill him.  I'll have to mull that over for a while.  Doesn't compute right now.



If the threat is still deadly and the situation is still live.

The stabby one I did a while back. Mate of mine got stabbed a few times and we are wrestling a pair of scissors off the guy and a third guy came in and kicked him in the head. Which did suck the fight out of the guy.

He still had the weapon. May have still got up if something really got pear shaped. The threat was still there.


----------



## drop bear

pgsmith said:


> You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. There IS no "one size fits all" for self defense situations. Every single situation is different, and will require different responses. However, what I am saying is that once you are forced to respond to a violent attack, you need to respond with everything you have as if your attacker is attempting to kill you, because that just may be true. There are a lot of different things that can be done and considered *before* the violence starts. However, once it has begun, you have to respond as overwhelmingly as possible. If you don't, there's a chance you'll end up dead.



Yeah see that is over cooking things. And not tactically sound generally either. Because it encourages in fighting or pocket fighting. Which is risky if you don't have a solid chin and better striking.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *That is the thing about personal protection skills Steve*.  You may never need them, or you may need them in the next ten minutes.  You just never know.  If you look only at statistics your chances of having to use them are low but...... wait for it..... if you need them you need them now!  Look back through time and history and you can rest assured there are many people who wish they had them when some thing violent happened to them.  Think of it as insurance.  You may never use your insurance but if your house burns down you certainly will be happy that you had homeowners insurance!  *It would really, really suck if you didn't!!!
> *
> If you look through this thread you will see people with experience and training advocating:
> 
> Awareness, Avoidance, de-escalation skills both verbal and non-verbal, understanding human behavior and criminal behavior, understanding crime in your area, empty hand physical personal protection skills, weapon training both blunt, edged and firearms and a whole lot more.


Brian, you can't learn everything, and if the goal is to learn practical self defense, then one should focus on self defense situations that one might actually encounter.   Stacking the odds, right?  I rate my chances of being gangraped in the manner elder outlined so eloquently described as being right about zilch.   It'sright up there with buying a fallout shelter. Could it happen?   Sure, and I bet if the bombs start to fall I'm really going to regret not building one.   But given limited resources, it makes a lot more sense to me to focus on situations that, I don't know, might happen.

For women, this is different than for a man.  For someone in one neighborhood, it will be different than for another.   For younger people, it may be different than for senior citizens.   For cops, it may be different than for a white collar business person.  

I don't pretend to know what would be most practical for each different person.   But I do believe that an emphasis on things that might actually occur Is a better us of ones time and money than to fret and wrong ones hands about things that could, maybe, possibly, in the very worst case, happen.  

Truth is, if it's your time, it's your time.   Being crushed by a semi or just drop dead from an aneurism or get stabbed in the back by some random crazy person.   But that's not stuff you can anticipate.   You just have to do your best, try to be healthy, drive defensively and live your life.   Reasonable precautions make perfect sense, but I think there's a point where one is so focused on mitigating risk it becomes unhealthy.

And so again, it just seems to me that the right self defense training for one group will be very different than for another, because the real world risks we all encounter are different.   A self defense class focusing on rape,prevention for me is pretty damned stupid.


----------



## Steve

Do


elder999 said:


> *Just answer the question*....I mean, unless it makes you uncomfortable.....because, I don't know, _you think you'd *like* it or something.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> .....I mean, I spent the better part of my childhood being poked and prodded and having all manner of medical stuff stuck into me.....while I'd never ask for it-what, with its unwelcome associations with illness and impending death for me- it's okay with me if you like things like Taiwanese midget porn star penis forcibly violating  your anus....I don't judge...


do yiu think I'm uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality?   Really the only part of this that's uncomfortable is that you're actually trying to make me uncomfortable instead of trying to have a discussion.   Downright embarrassing.    We could play "top that story" all day long, making up unlikely, horrific scenarios, but fiction it is, and fiction it will always be.   We may as well be talking about aliens probing random farmers For how useful and relevant it is to this thread.  .


----------



## jks9199

Steve said:


> Well, I hear what you're saying, elder999.  But i'm not sure I understand.  If bad guy #1 is helpless, but he has a buddy, it's okay to kill him.  I'll have to mull that over for a while.  Doesn't compute right now.


Is he helpless at the time his head is stomped?  Was there reasonable time to recognize the change in the situation and stop?  The Force Science Institute has actually done research into why police sometimes seem to shoot someone in the back... but the truth is that a person can turn, wing a shot, and turn and run faster than the cop can react.  In other words, by the time the cop has pulled the trigger -- the bad guy's back has turned, even though he was facing the cop when the cop started to shoot.


----------



## jks9199

elder999 said:


> I dunno, but in my dojo, attempting  to forcibly sexually penetrate a female is one of them.


In a legal sense, rape or forcible sodomy is grievous bodily harm, justifying the use of lethal force (that which is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death).


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Do
> 
> do yiu think I'm uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality?   Really the only part of this that's uncomfortable is that you're actually trying to make me uncomfortable instead of trying to have a discussion.   Downright embarrassing.    We could play "top that story" all day long, making up unlikely, horrific scenarios, but fiction it is, and fiction it will always be.   We may as well be talking about aliens probing random farmers For how useful and relevant it is to this thread.  .



*Just answer the question*.

Male rape and forcible sodomy have even less to do with "the idea of homosexuality," than male on female rape have to do with "sex."

And here:



jks9199 said:


> In a legal sense, rape or forcible sodomy is grievous bodily harm, justifying the use of lethal force (that which is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death).





jks9199 said:


> In a legal sense, rape or forcible sodomy is grievous bodily harm, justifying the use of lethal force (that which is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death).



*QFT *_*T*wice_, because....well, it's that true.So there's the legal justification: studies, and data and supporting information be damned.

As or the rest of what you have to say, the only part that's "_uncomfortabl_e" are your twisting mental gyrations and philosophical prevarication in avoidance of the answer to the question, which is t_he only real answe_r, and the only one you're capable of making, but that completely demolishes the underpinning of your entire specious argument.This is what you find "downright embarrassing," not the fact of me trying to make you uncomfortable (which I admitted I was several posts ago) but the fact that you cannot answer the question honestly without impeaching your position.

Rape is a lethal threat, and answerable with lethal force. Period. End of story. *Full stop.*

So, @Steve , _*again,*_ I'm going to ask you: some 265 pound deviant is going to put something up your poop-shoot that doesn't belong there-doesn't matter if it's his penis or a bathroom plunger, that's his....._intention_.

What are you gonna do to *stop* it?

What are you _willing _to do?

What's_* justified*_?

Put another way (in re: ridiculous, "fictional" scenarios) I currently work and live part time in the desert in southen Cal....ifornia, literally in the middle of nowhere, and where summer temps can reach 126 F. I drive a Jaguar, these days, that I named "Irene," for @Tez3 ....they get a bad rap for reliability, though they're not as reliable as any of the German cars or even Japanese cars that I own......for reliability, give me the Porsche.....in any case, I regularly maintain the car-at the *dealer*. Get new tires, freshen the brakes, get tune ups and oil changes, etc. 

I also keep 2 gallons of water in the trunk (along with some hiking equipment and energy bars), because....._middle of nowhere *desert*_....

I replace it every couple of months, and water the plants with it...because...._plastic tasting water!!_ (Hey, I'll survive, but i'd rather be comfortable in the "ficitonal" scenario I'm imagining...)

Of course, from the sound of things, you'd rather die of thirst than prepare for being stuck without water.....


----------



## drop bear

You guys do love your rape talk.




It is getting a bit weird.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> You guys do love your rape talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is getting a bit weird.



Be glad you're in Australia, and* shut up*, then.....


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> *Just answer the question*.


ive answered your question several times now, elder.  I can't help it if you aren't satisfied with the answer you got.   You seem to think pressing me will distract me from the point.  

And if yiu think that spending my time training to protect myself from gangs of game raping thugs is a worthwhile way to spend my time, I think you must have drinking that home made wine you mentioned in a previous thread.


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> Be glad you're in Australia, and* shut up*, then.....


drop bear, let me assure yiu that we don't have roaming bands of rapists running the streets throughout the country.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> ive answered your question several times now, elder.



Well. no @Steve , you haven't. You haven't answered it at all.



Steve said:


> I can't help it if you aren't satisfied with the answer you got



"It doesn't matter" isn't a  answer-especially to what is, essentially, a "yes or no" question.



Steve said:


> You seem to think pressing me will distract me from the point.



You seem to be missing the point altogether. 



Steve said:


> And if yiu think that spending my time training to protect myself from gangs of game raping thugs is a worthwhile way to spend my time, I think you must have drinking that home made wine you mentioned in a previous thread.



I make more than 800 gallons a year of that "homemade wine." It sells in some local restaurants for more than $30 a bottle. It's  won medals in competition.

And I'm medically restricted to 2 alcoholic beverages a day, because I'm on blood-thinners. No getting drunk -_sob!_-for me! (And I smoked a lamb shank for dinner-do you have any idea what kind of _torture_ it is to have my cooking skills and be restricted to *two* glasses of wine with dinner????!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )In any case:

*Don't *insult my "homemade" swill-it's _marvelous_...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






Steve said:


> And I notice that a few people agree with you. That's really alarming..



Yeah, that "alarming" feeling?

It's called being *wrong.*


----------



## Buka

Tough subject. Maybe we all need to chill a little bit before it gets under our skin.

I witnessed a gang rape when I was seven years old. It was across the street from my house, on a bridge at night, and I didn't know what was going on until several years later. But I knew it was the scariest thing I had ever seen. I was too frightened to wake my folks and tell them, I don't know why, I was just scared. 

Seven of my past students have been raped, at least that I know of. Five female and two male. My guess is there has been many more. Two of them while they were my students. In those two cases drugs and alchol were involved. Three of my close personal friends have been raped, one extremely violently. 

Nasty subject. May we all discuss it with some sort of decency. I don't even know if that's the right word. And I don't really know why rape rips the scab off more than murder does to me, but it does.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve,

It is kind of funny that you are trying to lecture people here that have vast amounts of personal protection skill sets, knowledge and some have taught this information *for decades*. (it is like someone lecturing a person whose system contains kata, on kata when they do not practice it)  Some of us have even had students use the skills for protection.   If you look through the thread it was not to long ago that you were advocating not even practicing physical skill sets for self defense or that they were optional.



Steve said:


> Fighting skills for most seem to be optional, based upon what has been said by many in this thread.  Handy, certainly, but not essential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian said: (damn the quote function  )
> 
> I would say that the only person who said physical personal protection skills are optional in this thread is you.
> 
> *I think we have brought you around that you need physical skill sets*.  We (I mean collectively) throughout the thread have all advocated awareness, avoidance, de-escalation techniques, etc.  Everyone here from Elder999, jks9199, myself, k-man, drop bear, etc. all know and value those skill sets.  They are essential and everyone I have met that understands this spends quite a bit of time on them. However, if they fail and you need physical personal protection skill sets you need them now.(regardless of statistics, what ifs, etc.)   Violence can and does happen and not to acknowledge this is like putting your head in the sand. (ie. like an ostrich)   Realistically taking a 2 to 3 hour course may not give you the physical skill sets that you need or the where withal to implement them when you need them. (though it is better than nothing)  *Physical martial skill sets require instruction and ongoing practice*.  They are perishable skills!  I am sure though that you already realize this from BJJ training. (or you should)
> 
> I, personally am a balanced martial practitioner.  I like many others on the thread spend time on the mental aspect as well as the physical aspect and because of this my spiritual side is also nourished.  I seek appropriate balance in all my training.   Nor do I advocate that everyone take my path because it is a hard, demanding road.  Though those that train with me will learn awareness, avoidance, de-escalation skills, etc.
> 
> *Now, I get it you train for fun, being in shape, etc*.  That is cool and a great reason to train.    I personally train, because like you I like enjoy it and it keeps me in shape, etc.   However, the foremost reason I train is for skills that 'god forbid" I ever have to use them again will be there for me.  In other words I train to be effective in a moment of violence.  Being in shape, having good comrades, having fun just happens naturally!
> 
> I would advise you to also do some reading on personal protection to broaden your horizon.
> 
> Check out:
> 
> Facing Violence by Rory Miller
> 
> and
> 
> Self-Defense: What you need to know, when you need it by Marc MacYoung
> 
> I can list more good reading but that is a start!
> 
> *Understand that both of these men also teach physical skill sets to their students so that they have them if they need them!    *Rory practices a form of karate and is an in-fighting specialist.  Marc and his wife teach Dango Jiro of which they are the founder's.
Click to expand...


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> drop bear, let me assure yiu that we don't have roaming bands of rapists running the streets throughout the country.


Not for lack of looking on @Steve 's part, I'll bet, @drop bear .....


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> And if yiu think that spending my time training to protect myself from gangs of game raping thugs is a worthwhile way to spend my time, I think you must have drinking that home made wine you mentioned in a previous thread.



If you're ever confronted by a gang of game raping thugs, I'd call the ASPCA ASAP...


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Steve,
> 
> It is kind of funny that you are trying to lecture people here that have vast amounts of personal protection skill sets, knowledge and some have taught this information *for decades*. (it is like someone lecturing a person whose system contains kata, on kata when they do not practice it)  Some of us have even had students use the skills for protection.   If you look through the thread it was not to long ago that you were advocating not even practicing physical skill sets for self defense or that they were optional.


If it appears I'm lecturing, that's a real shame and is not my intent.  I apologize for wasting your time, and wish yiu all the very best.


----------



## elder999

okay,....that was a little over the line...I'll go stand in the corner now....


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve said:


> If it appears I'm lecturing, that's a real shame and is not my intent.  I apologize for wasting your time, and wish yiu all the very best.



*Steve your passionate and that is great!*  I love what you do in BJJ and feel that you are trying to broaden your perspective and open to new ideas. (which is awesome)  Just understand that some of us have been where you are at decades ago.  We're good. (you and I)  No need not to participate!

Certainly it was not my intent to drive you away from the thread!


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> If it appears I'm lecturing, that's a real shame and is not my intent.  I apologize for wasting your time, and wish yiu all the very best.



Don't go away @Steve -it's not your position or "lecturing" that's a waste of time, it's your intellectual dishonest, which, in case you hadn't noticed, brings out the worst in me....."It doesn't matter" is an intellectually dishonest answer to a "yes or no" question. You wanna be part of the discussion?

.*Answer the question.*


----------



## Jenna

Buka said:


> Nasty subject. May we all discuss it with some sort of decency. I don't even know if that's the right word.


That was my feeling too.. when there is discussion on here people learn.. I know I do.. when there is argument I do not know what good come from it..



Buka said:


> And I don't really know why rape rips the scab off more than murder does to me, but it does.


because in murder, the victim does not suffer along with the surviving family..  in sexual abuses, the victim is to all intents murdered and but must confront existence in the land of the living, J


----------



## Jenna

@elder999, @RTKDCMB, @Buka, @Brian King, @drop bear, @oftheherd1, @Xue Sheng, @pgsmith
I am grateful for your discussion and courtesy about what is moral and what is right or justified.  I think it is our beliefs that differ and that is perfectly fine and as it should be though by way of expedient so this part of the conversation does not detract from the over all direction I would suggest a hypothetical if you are ok??

Imagine you are attacked or set upon and at that moment it feel like your physical integrity or perhaps your life is at risk.. you have been stabbed although in shock you have yet to feel it.. you can see blood.. it is your blood.. your attacker has a screwdriver.. you do not know what this is about or what has happened.. you do not merit or deserve this.  By their eyes and their face it cannot be more clear they have an intent to damage you or kill you.. At that moment do you care much what harm you do to that person as you do what is necessary to end the attack? By their unprovoked violent reaction have they relinquished their right to any compassion or care on your part? What do you feel towards your attacker at this moment? What do you feel for your attacker at that moment? Hate? Anger? Nothing at all? where is the compassion?

by some circumstance.. I do not know what that could be for you and but hypothetically yes? by some circumstance your attacker that has stabbed you is your loved one.. one who you would otherwise care greatly for.. What do you feel for your attacker in this case? is any thing different about how you would apportion physical pain on them to defend your self? If so, can you say what is your moral justification for that difference? Thank you Jx


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> @elder999, @RTKDCMB, @Buka, @Brian King, @drop bear, @oftheherd1, @Xue Sheng, @pgsmith
> I am grateful for your discussion and courtesy about what is moral and what is right or justified.  I think it is our beliefs that differ and that is perfectly fine and as it should be though by way of expedient so this part of the conversation does not detract from the over all direction I would suggest a hypothetical if you are ok??
> 
> Imagine you are attacked or set upon and at that moment it feel like your physical integrity or perhaps your life is at risk.. you have been stabbed although in shock you have yet to feel it.. you can see blood.. it is your blood.. your attacker has a screwdriver.. you do not know what this is about or what has happened.. you do not merit or deserve this.  By their eyes and their face it cannot be more clear they have an intent to damage you or kill you.. At that moment do you care much what harm you do to that person as you do what is necessary to end the attack? By their unprovoked violent reaction have they relinquished their right to any compassion or care on your part? What do you feel towards your attacker at this moment? What do you feel for your attacker at that moment? Hate? Anger? Nothing at all? where is the compassion?
> 
> by some circumstance.. I do not know what that could be for you and but hypothetically yes? by some circumstance your attacker that has stabbed you is your loved one.. one who you would otherwise care greatly for.. What do you feel for your attacker in this case? is any thing different about how you would apportion physical pain on them to defend your self? If so, can you say what is your moral justification for that difference? Thank you Jx


 

You know, Jenna-some people have a hard time with these "imaginary" scenarios.....none of us could actually say with any certainty what we'd actually do in such a situation-the unprovoked violence of a loved one might be so shocking that we froze, and let them stab us repeatedly. As for the rest of your rather philosophical question-*for myself*-what I "_feel_" in that moment is far less relevant than what I'd *do*, which is defend myself to the best of my ability.

It's likely that I have no time for compassion while I'm *bleeding, *and, if I do wind up killing my loved one? Well, likely I'd mourn the next morning when I woke up, and for the rest of my life-but you have to be *alive* to do that. Maybe compassion would come in the form of having spared them the pain of killing a loved one by taking it on myself, but I think my actions in the moment would be no different than if a stranger had perpetrated such an act


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> You know, Jenna-some people have a hard time with these "imaginary" scenarios.....


I can see that that would be the case.. it is not imaginary for me.. I dealt with both and was not happy with how it went either case.. it is why I am asking.. thank you


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> I can see that that would be the case.. it is not imaginary for me.. I dealt with both and was not happy with how it went either case.. it is why I am asking.. thank you


 
 "Happy."  has nothing to do with it, like "*deserved*" (see, @Steve ? Those things are "not relevant.")

Sorry that you had to go through that.

To be "happy" or "unhappy" you've got to be alive._ Unscathed_? Maybe not, in any outcome of that sort of scenario.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Okay let's try to get back on topic:

Fundamental Pillars of Defense

A while back I posted a video by one of our members tgace on threat indicators:






This video shows threat indicators that happen in a pre-conflict stage. (pre-conflict, conflict, post conflict)
These threat indicators shown in the video are unconscious indicators meaning that we as humans do them
without thinking.

What would be some conscious threat indicators in the pre-conflict stage?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Okay let's try to get back on topic:
> 
> Fundamental Pillars of Defense
> 
> A while back I posted a video by one of our members tgace on threat indicators:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This video shows threat indicators that happen in a pre-conflict stage. (pre-conflict, conflict, post conflict)
> These threat indicators shown in the video are unconscious indicators meaning that we as humans do them
> without thinking.
> 
> What would be some conscious threat indicators in the pre-conflict stage?



Great post Brian, thanks for posting that. It is also amazing to me that the first thing I thought of was my days in Hospital security in a hospital with mental health and detox units. Saw a lot of those, only the looking at target was generally the door in those cases.

I would have to agree that situational awareness is most definitely one of the Fundamental Pillars of Defense because there are occasions when you are aware, of all you see in that video, that you can disrupt it to de-escalate and avoid a confrontation all together


----------



## RTKDCMB

Jenna said:


> Imagine you are attacked or set upon and at that moment it feel like your physical integrity or perhaps your life is at risk.. you have been stabbed although in shock you have yet to feel it.. you can see blood.. it is your blood.. your attacker has a screwdriver.. you do not know what this is about or what has happened.. you do not merit or deserve this. By their eyes and their face it cannot be more clear they have an intent to damage you or kill you.. At that moment do you care much what harm you do to that person as you do what is necessary to end the attack?



Not as much as I care about how much harm will be done to me.



Jenna said:


> By their unprovoked violent reaction have they relinquished their right to any compassion or care on your part?



Pretty much. If my life is in danger my main concern is in my survival.



Jenna said:


> What do you feel for your attacker at that moment? Hate? Anger? Nothing at all? where is the compassion?



I doubt I would feel anything in the moment, but then without being in that moment I can not know for sure. As for compassion for my attacker, compassion is for those who deserve it, not someone trying to kill me.



Jenna said:


> I do not know what that could be for you and but hypothetically yes? by some circumstance your attacker that has stabbed you is your loved one.. one who you would otherwise care greatly for.. What do you feel for your attacker in this case?



If a loved one is trying to stab me to death then I am not feeling the love.



Jenna said:


> If so, can you say what is your moral justification for that difference?



Morals don't really enter into it, you have to be alive to have morals, survival comes first.


----------



## Jenna

@elder999, I appreciate your persistence -I choose to take from that that I am worth replying to even if it is not actually the reason - and but also for your patience and lastly for your courtesy thank you. And oh do not be too sorry because few of us are spared from harsh situations and I know that to be true of you also.. for me the harshest situations are a gift when I am open enough to receive the inherent lesson within. Thank you again, Jx.

@RTKDCMB, Thank you for your honesty and straightforwardness in what you have replied.  I am not trying to change your mind.. for what would be the point.. I only seek to understand a situation through the eyes of some one else and you have helped with that by your clarity and consistency and so thank you again Jx.


----------



## jks9199

I think prioritizing training time appropriately is another fundamental pillar of self defense, because we all have only 24 hours in a day, and we have many things that compete for our time. 

There's a model for training that I find useful.  When you look at training time, you have to consider the time you have available relative to the seriousness of the risk of incomplete or poor training.  There's stuff we do all the time, that we do passably well because of that, and we don't need to spend much training time on those things.  There's stuff that is very unlikely, and has a low consequence of failure to train.  We don't need to spend much time on that.  In the typical self defense arena -- I don't really worry to much about defenses against a sniper 5000 yds out... It's not likely to happen (and, truthfully, there's just not much I can do if one targets me!).  Secret Service worries about that a lot more in protecting the President...  Nor am I investing my training time on defending from an attacking toddler...  There's not much concern that the attack will do me harm if I don't succeed in stopping it.  Most of my training effort in self defense is spent on things that are possibly going to happen, if not often, and that have a significant impact if I fail to successfully defend myself.  Some of my time is spent on the stuff that is significantly unlikely, but has a major impact if I fail to do it properly.

How do I figure out what fits where?  I look at what goes on where I am.  I look at police records, at news coverage (hint: if it makes news, it's probably not real common), and so on.


----------



## marques

The civil law (reasonable force) and how to manage conflicts within. If not, it is not self self-defense, in a strict way.
In a broad sense we can add prevention, health, a decent lifestyle...


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> Brian, you can't learn everything, and if the goal is to learn practical self defense, then one should focus on self defense situations that one might actually encounter.   Stacking the odds, right?  I rate my chances of being gangraped in the manner elder outlined so eloquently described as being right about zilch.   It'sright up there with buying a fallout shelter. Could it happen?   Sure, and I bet if the bombs start to fall I'm really going to regret not building one.   But given limited resources, it makes a lot more sense to me to focus on situations that, I don't know, might happen.
> 
> For women, this is different than for a man.  For someone in one neighborhood, it will be different than for another.   For younger people, it may be different than for senior citizens.   For cops, it may be different than for a white collar business person.
> 
> I don't pretend to know what would be most practical for each different person.   But I do believe that an emphasis on things that might actually occur Is a better us of ones time and money than to fret and wrong ones hands about things that could, maybe, possibly, in the very worst case, happen.
> 
> Truth is, if it's your time, it's your time.   Being crushed by a semi or just drop dead from an aneurism or get stabbed in the back by some random crazy person.   But that's not stuff you can anticipate.   You just have to do your best, try to be healthy, drive defensively and live your life.   Reasonable precautions make perfect sense, but I think there's a point where one is so focused on mitigating risk it becomes unhealthy.
> 
> And so again, it just seems to me that the right self defense training for one group will be very different than for another, because the real world risks we all encounter are different.   A self defense class focusing on rape,prevention for me is pretty damned stupid.


In a nutshell, this remains my opinion.  

We can play the "what if" game all day long, but as I said above, you can't learn everything, and if the goal is to learn practical self defense, then one should focus on self defense situations that one might actually encounter.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Steve,
> 
> It is kind of funny that you are trying to lecture people here that have vast amounts of personal protection skill sets, knowledge and some have taught this information *for decades*. (it is like someone lecturing a person whose system contains kata, on kata when they do not practice it)  Some of us have even had students use the skills for protection.   If you look through the thread it was not to long ago that you were advocating not even practicing physical skill sets for self defense or that they were optional.


Brian, your position is clear.  Truly, I thought we were having a discussion, but if you feel lectured to, that's my fault and I apologize.   

You mention that I seem to have waffled on the physical component piece. To try and explain, the pervasive message in this thread and in any others, such as the current thread "Self Defense?" suggests to me that the least important component to self defense training is the martial arts/fighting part.   And the same criteria for validating the training in these skills is anecdotal evidence that they worked.  I provided an example in this thread of a person who had no fighting skills, but was fit and strong, and that worked.   Can we then conclude that training for the American Ninja Warrior competition is as effective as TKD or BJJ or shotokan karate for self defense training?  Maybe so.  It stands up to your "students use the skills for protection" test.   So, yeah, I do think that for many people, physical skills are optional.  Or at the very least, they're not essential.   And what you guys say in conjunction with actual, statistical data, does nothing to change my mind.


----------



## Tgace

Like many things, this conversation hinges on folks having a common definition. Some people define "self defense training" as some variant of Martial Arts training, while others look at it as a more comprehensive issue involving everything from home security to firearms training.... 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Like many things, this conversation hinges on folks having a common definition. Some people define "self defense training" as some variant of Martial Arts training, while others look at it as a more comprehensive issue involving everything from home security to firearms training....
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


Often as not, it's the same people saying both.  Get's pretty hard to hit that moving target from one thread to the next.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve,

*It seems to me that you are taking it to an extreme side*.  Stating that physical skills should be optional.  A side that almost no one would advocate.  Instead, a well rounded approach would include awareness, avoidance, de-escalation training, etc. and physical skills.  Then one would be prepared to deal with what could possibly come their way.  Unfortunately, if someone does not have physical personal protection skills and they need them then they are probably going to have a big problem.   Image a woman who is in a situation with an acquaintance and that acquaintance decides that they will rape her.  If de-escalation and or her verbal skills fail and she has not had any training or confidence in her physical skill sets she may do nothing or be ineffective.  The exact same could be said for a man as well.  If we look at the NEJM study that you liked, it had a physical skill component to it's training as well as awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, etc.  It was a short course but well rounded.   Even then at the end it mentioned that if the students wanted further physical skill sets to continue training with the instructor.

This world is unfortunately full of violence.  The chance that it happens to you *is small* if you use your common sense but it is still there and it can still happen.  To advocate not having physical skill sets to deal with a potential problem seems problematic on many levels.  Physical personal protection skills can easily be seen as the "least important" part of self-defense *that is, until you need them*.  Then they are of course the *most important*.  They are also the most difficult to achieve competency in as well.  Hence why people who wish to have skill sets to deal with violence should train.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Steve,
> 
> *It seems to me that you are taking it to an extreme side*.  Stating that physical skills should be optional.  A side that almost no one would advocate.  Instead, a well rounded approach would include awareness, avoidance, de-escalation training, etc. and physical skills.  Then one would be prepared to deal with what could possibly come their way.  Unfortunately, if someone does not have physical personal protection skills and they need them then they are probably going to have a big problem.   Image a woman who is in a situation with an acquaintance and that acquaintance decides that they will rape her.  If de-escalation and or her verbal skills fail and she has not had any training or confidence in her physical skill sets she may do nothing or be ineffective.  The exact same could be said for a man as well.  If we look at the NEJM study that you liked, it had a physical skill component to it's training as well as awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, etc.  It was a short course but well rounded.   Even then at the end it mentioned that if the students wanted further physical skill sets to continue training with the instructor.
> 
> This world is unfortunately full of violence.  The chance that it happens to you *is small* if you use your common sense but it is still there and it can still happen.  To advocate not having physical skill sets to deal with a potential problem seems problematic on many levels.  Physical personal protection skills can easily be seen as the "least important" part of self-defense *that is, until you need them*.  Then they are of course the *most important*.  They are also the most difficult to achieve competency in as well.  Hence why people who wish to have skill sets to deal with violence should train.


I understand, Brian.  Do you take issue with the quote below?



> You can't learn everything, and if the goal is to learn practical self defense, then one should focus on self defense situations that one might actually encounter. Stacking the odds, right?
> 
> For women, this is different than for a man. For someone in one neighborhood, it will be different than for another. For younger people, it may be different than for senior citizens. For cops, it may be different than for a white collar business person.
> 
> I don't pretend to know what would be most practical for each different person. But I do believe that an emphasis on things that might actually occur Is a better us of one's time and money than to fret and wring one's hands about things that could, maybe, possibly, in the very worst case, happen.


 
Can you explain to me how what I said above is functionally different than what is said below?


jks9199 said:


> I think prioritizing training time appropriately is another fundamental pillar of self defense, because we all have only 24 hours in a day, and we have many things that compete for our time.
> There's a model for training that I find useful. When you look at training time, you have to consider the time you have available relative to the seriousness of the risk of incomplete or poor training. There's stuff we do all the time, that we do passably well because of that, and we don't need to spend much training time on those things. There's stuff that is very unlikely, and has a low consequence of failure to train. We don't need to spend much time on that. In the typical self defense arena -- I don't really worry to much about defenses against a sniper 5000 yds out... It's not likely to happen (and, truthfully, there's just not much I can do if one targets me!). Secret Service worries about that a lot more in protecting the President... Nor am I investing my training time on defending from an attacking toddler... There's not much concern that the attack will do me harm if I don't succeed in stopping it. Most of my training effort in self defense is spent on things that are possibly going to happen, if not often, and that have a significant impact if I fail to successfully defend myself. Some of my time is spent on the stuff that is significantly unlikely, but has a major impact if I fail to do it properly.
> How do I figure out what fits where? I look at what goes on where I am. I look at police records, at news coverage (hint: if it makes news, it's probably not real common), and so on.


And is it too much of a stretch to take from the above two passages, mine and jks9199's, that practical self defense for some people might not need any (or at least very limited) martial training?  Or that for my demographic, what martial training I do receive would be fundamentally different than for a college coed?  Or that, based upon the significant body of opinions voiced in this thread and others like it, that even in programs where martial skills are taught, all of the "other stuff" you mentioned earlier would be the primary focus? 

The coed, assualt training mentioned earlier in the thread contained about 17% martial training and 83% everything else.  Did that seem out of sync to you?  Didn't to me, and it didn't seem to undermine the efficacy of the program or diminish the positive results.  My impression is that most self defense programs are mostly martial training.  Seems backwards to me, considering the balance between time and actual risk.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Steve,

*We can agree* absolutely that the non-physical skills are extremely important and need to be taught well for a comprehensive personal protection program.   I would say that in a personal protection program geared towards college age women that the 17% to 83% is somewhat off but doable. Given that most of them will not have the time or inclination to train long term a short but comprehensive program is definitely a plus for what they need.  Provided it has awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, threat indicators, etc. and of course a physical personal protection component.  Where many programs fail is that they gloss over the non-physical components of protection and that is a shame.  However, there are programs that do not gloss over this and have well rounded comprehensive approach as tgace mentioned above. 

Jks9199 and I are in complete agreement about prioritization of your training.  He, I am sure like I would agree that prioritizing your training and working on things that have a potential to happen are excellent measures of your time.  Yet, I think we would both agree that having a strong physical component to your personal protection in this prioritizing is important!  

We are actually blessed in this country because any one of us can look at crime data reports and see what has happened through the years.  This can give any one of us a clear picture of possibilities and how to plan, strategize our training to fit our needs.  We can see that many crimes could have been avoided by taking precautionary measures and that violence also can happen and from the reports it happened here and here and here.  A lot can be learned from the efforts of our LEO's and their compilation of data.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> The coed, assualt training mentioned earlier in the thread contained about 17% martial training and 83% everything else.  Did that seem out of sync to you?  Didn't to me, and it didn't seem to undermine the efficacy of the program or diminish the positive results.  My impression is that most self defense programs are mostly martial training.  Seems backwards to me, considering the balance between time and actual risk.



If you've got students for 12 hours, you really *must* focus on situational awareness and avoidance as the primary goal. There simply isn't time to provide more than the most rudimentary and cursory physical training.
If you've got them for 12 months, or 12 years, *then* you can focus on the physical.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> *We can agree* absolutely that the non-physical skills are extremely important and need to be taught well for a comprehensive personal protection program.   I would say that in a personal protection program geared towards college age women that the 17% to 83% is somewhat off but doable. Given that most of them will not have the time or inclination to train long term a short but comprehensive program is definitely a plus for what they need.  Provided it has awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, threat indicators, etc. and of course a physical personal protection component.  Where many programs fail is that they gloss over the non-physical components of protection and that is a shame.  However, there are programs that do not gloss over this and have well rounded comprehensive approach as tgace mentioned above.
> 
> Jks9199 and I are in complete agreement about prioritization of your training.  He, I am sure like I would agree that prioritizing your training and working on things that have a potential to happen are excellent measures of your time.  Yet, I think we would both agree that having a strong physical component to your personal protection in this prioritizing is important!
> 
> We are actually blessed in this country because any one of us can look at crime data reports and see what has happened through the years.  This can give any one of us a clear picture of possibilities and how to plan, strategize our training to fit our needs.  We can see that many crimes could have been avoided by taking precautionary measures and that violence also can happen and from the reports it happened here and here and here.  A lot can be learned from the efforts of our LEO's and their compilation of data.


Do you question the results of the study for that 12 hour self defense course suggesting that it helped to significantly reduce the number of successful assaults? 

Can you point to any actual data that even implies that a person who takes a martial art is less likely to be robbed or assaulted? 

The issue I have is what appears to me to be a tenuous leap from, this seems helpful to this IS helpful.  This makes me feel safer to this makes me safer.

I'm looking at crime stats for the entire metropolitan area of seattle, found on the FBI.gov website, for 2013.  Discounting any consideration of high risk behaviors, and just going off of raw stats, it looks like there is a violent crime rate (murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) of 323.5 per 100,000 people.  Even were I to engage in high risk behavior, say I am a homeless, mentally ill, self medicating drug addict, my chances of being murdered are 2.2 out of 100,000 (or 2.2/1000th of a percent).  My chances of being robbered are 112 per 100,000 (1/10th of a percent). 

There were a total of 78 murder/nonnegligent manslaughters in total for Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Everett, Kent, Renton, Auburn, Lakewood and Redmond.  I live in Kent/Covington, where there were a total of 2.  I don't believe it's a stretch to assume that most of these 78 murders were people who were involved in things they shouldn't have been or engaging in high risk behaviors.  Gangs, drugs.   Some were police officers killed in the line of duty (which is very sad!)  But when we get down to the nitty gritty, how many of the 78 homocides were innocent people just doing their thing, minding their business, not getting drunk in bars, or high or living on the streets or participating in gang activities?  I expect no more than a handful, and of the ones I recall from the news, were almost always random shootings. 

Once again, I'm not suggesting that it's a bad idea to learn how to physically defend oneself.  But, I have concluded that it's more about *feeling* safer than being safer, and that there are many OTHER things that will actually make you safer than learning martial skills.  All that other stuff, coupled with common sense and maybe a gun, a personal tase, pepper spray orsomething like that.  I know some will think, "Yeah, but Steve... even if it's 10 people, isn't that enough?"  And the answer is sure.  Of course... IF we had any evidence that martial ability is the key difference.  Based upon this thread and others like it, my opinion is that it's very unlikely that martial arts training is going to be the difference.  Could it happen?  Sure.  But it's more about the feeling of security than the reality of security. 

And again, just to be clear, it's all about context.   Some people live or work in areas where there is higher risk.  For some, the NATURE of the risk is different.  And so, for some, it makes sense to learn martial arts training along with other stuff.  Cops, bouncers, etc... makes perfect sense. 

But violence is not everywhere.  Most people live their entire lives free of violence.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> If you've got students for 12 hours, you really *must* focus on situational awareness and avoidance as the primary goal. There simply isn't time to provide more than the most rudimentary and cursory physical training.
> If you've got them for 12 months, or 12 years, *then* you can focus on the physical.


Do you think the training would have been more effective after 12 months or 12 years of martial arts training?  I don't get that impression.  I think that more training could be helpful, but you'd need to teach the right stuff that is connected to actual risk.  Maybe physical training is a part of that equation, but I dont believe that it's the missing component.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Steve,

I do not question the results of the study and feel that the particular study in question had a lot of the qualities that make up a good personal protection program.   Teaching people awareness, avoidance, de-escalation techniques, simple common sense and physical skill sets will make them more conscious of dangerous behavior, situations, etc. as well as more confident in their physical skill which will also in turn make them a harder target and in general less likely to be attacked.  That is great! 

Actually, if we look at the crime reports and data compiled we will find that violence does indeed happen everywhere.  You name a locale and I can probably find violence that happened there.  Depending of course on the place and or time and or activities it may be negligible to non-existent or it may be a much, much higher percentage.  There is a disconnect here in that I see firearms, tasers, pepper spray as tools for the modern martial practitioner and person looking for self-defense skills.  Ones to be practiced and trained just as one would also train an empty hand skill set or a de-escalation skill set.  Then again I believe in as tgace put it being comprehensive.  Including them as well as home security, dog, etc.


In regards to violence, we regularly see a news report either internet or paper or tv of someone who trained and utilized their skill.

Just like this one closer to you:
Aikido Used To Foil Robbery MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

or this one:
Martial Artists Foil Jewelry Store Heist CBS Los Angeles

or here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/miced-martial-arts-fighters-foil-robbery.html

or here:
Woman Killed Would-Be Rapist in Self-Defense - ABC News

there are a lot more those took about 2 seconds to find...

I can also find lots of links of regular everyday people killed who may or may not have fought back but I know you understand that this can be done and you can easily do it yourself.

A comprehensive program for personal protection will have all the items I have said before again and again.  Awarenss, avoidance, de-escalation, threat predictors, common sense, etc. plus a physical component. 

However, I will posit a question to you.  If a woman on a college campus finds herself in a dangerous situation with a potential rapist without the ability to leave wouldn't you want her to have had some physical skill training?
I would and a few students of mine in the past were able to extricate themselves because of their training.

Here are some statistics for college rape and rape in general:
Rape Statistics Statistic Brain

One In Four USA

Campus sexual assault - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

All of the above statistics are of course very, very underreported and on the first page it said up to 95%. (please think about that before we every down play violence)  What happens on College campuses is a tragedy as often even if reported the College or University will do every thing they can to bury the issue. (see this VICE report though just  preview please watch the full episode on HBO: 




As to violence to women in general.  Before we again talk about how it happens and treat it as a small statistic it is estimated that 1 in 4 women will be assaulted whether physically or attempted rape, etc.  That is 25% which is a pretty high number and why this is such an important topic.  It is also probably way underestimating based on people not reporting a vast majority of rapes.   Personally, In my own close familial group it is over 50% that have been assaulted.  Fortunately, with no lasting damage. (thank god)

With all the high profile rapes in India.  Women are training more and more:
After Delhi Rape Women Turn to Martial Arts - India Real Time - WSJ
From High School, to College and on.  They are turning to martial arts for skills both physical and mental.

The real point is that violence does happen.  I am not a fear oriented person and would not advise anyone to go around believing that some one is out to get them or it is going to happen. I personally live in a really nice area pretty free from violence but... it could still happen.  Good common sense and taking prudent steps should work most of the time.  Yet if you need to defend yourself you really are going to want those skills.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> I do not question the results of the study and feel that the particular study in question had a lot of the qualities that make up a good personal protection program.   Teaching people awareness, avoidance, de-escalation techniques, simple common sense and physical skill sets will make them more conscious of dangerous behavior, situations, etc. as well as more confident in their physical skill which will also in turn make them a harder target and in general less likely to be attacked.  That is great!
> 
> Actually, if we look at the crime reports and data compiled we will find that violence does indeed happen everywhere.  You name a locale and I can probably find violence that happened there.  Depending of course on the place and or time and or activities it may be negligible to non-existent or it may be a much, much higher percentage.  There is a disconnect here in that I see firearms, tasers, pepper spray as tools for the modern martial practitioner and person looking for self-defense skills.  Ones to be practiced and trained just as one would also train an empty hand skill set or a de-escalation skill set.  Then again I believe in as tgace put it being comprehensive.  Including them as well as home security, dog, etc.
> 
> 
> In regards to violence, we regularly see a news report either internet or paper or tv of someone who trained and utilized their skill.
> 
> Just like this one closer to you:
> Aikido Used To Foil Robbery MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community
> 
> or this one:
> Martial Artists Foil Jewelry Store Heist CBS Los Angeles
> 
> or here:
> Mixed martial arts fighters stop robbery of L.A. motel L.A. NOW Los Angeles Times
> 
> or here:
> Woman Killed Would-Be Rapist in Self-Defense - ABC News
> 
> there are a lot more those took about 2 seconds to find...
> 
> I can also find lots of links of regular everyday people killed who may or may not have fought back but I know you understand that this can be done and you can easily do it yourself.
> 
> A comprehensive program for personal protection will have all the items I have said before again and again.  Awarenss, avoidance, de-escalation, threat predictors, common sense, etc. plus a physical component.
> 
> However, I will posit a question to you.  If a woman on a college campus finds herself in a dangerous situation with a potential rapist without the ability to leave wouldn't you want her to have had some physical skill training?
> I would and a few students of mine in the past were able to extricate themselves because of their training.
> 
> Here are some statistics for college rape and rape in general:
> Rape Statistics Statistic Brain
> 
> One In Four USA
> 
> Campus sexual assault - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> All of the above statistics are of course very, very underreported and on the first page it said up to 95%. (please think about that before we every down play violence)  What happens on College campuses is a tragedy as often even if reported the College or University will do every thing they can to bury the issue. (see this VICE report though just  preview please watch the full episode on HBO:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to violence to women in general.  Before we again talk about how it happens and treat it as a small statistic it is estimated that 1 in 4 women will be assaulted whether physically or attempted rape, etc.  That is 25% which is a pretty high number and why this is such an important topic.  It is also probably way underestimating based on people not reporting a vast majority of rapes.   Personally, In my own close familial group it is over 50% that have been assaulted.  Fortunately, with no lasting damage. (thank god)
> 
> With all the high profile rapes in India.  Women are training more and more:
> After Delhi Rape Women Turn to Martial Arts - India Real Time - WSJ
> From High School, to College and on.  They are turning to martial arts for skills both physical and mental.
> 
> The real point is that violence does happen.  I am not a fear oriented person and would not advise anyone to go around believing that some one is out to get them or it is going to happen. I personally live in a really nice area pretty free from violence but... it could still happen.  Good common sense and taking prudent steps should work most of the time.  Yet if you need to defend yourself you really are going to want those skills.


So, here's the thing.  As jks9199 said, if you see it in the news, it's likely not all that common.  So, I've no doubt we can find some news articles, but it's in the stats that we actually see how common or rare these things actually are.  

Regarding the tools such as a taser or pepper spray, sure some training could be wise but how long would it take to become proficiently?  12 years?

Regarding the rape stats, we surely do have an issue.  The large concentration of young people.  The lack of adult supervision.  The peer environment.  The promotion of excessive drinking and partying.   It's a real issue.   And, it appears that 12 hours of instruction can make a significant difference.  While we do have some information suggesting that this curriculum was effective, I haven't seen any data to suggest that extensive martial training is more effective than, say, crossfit or parkour training in reducing the number of attempted or successful sexual assaults.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Yet, we have martial practitioner's that have defended themselves as document to that success*.  It is not just some articles as I could list more and more and more if I wanted to.  I cannot help it that you just throw away a few reports that I found in a couple of seconds while hardly even looking.  That is convenient to your argument. 

Statistics of crime reported is a good base measuring point on what is going on.  The problem is do you want to be a statistic?  Do you want your family to be a statistic?  Training in a comprehensive manner can give you, your family an edge.  I do get it that you train for fun, recreation, to be fit, etc.  There are a lot of people that train for other reasons and many people train to be more physically effective.  Some because they have experienced violence and some because they do not want to experience violence.  Some because it will help with their profession, etc. 

In regards to firearm training, pepper spray, tasers, etc. can be readily trained in a short time and be effective.  Yet, if you practice regularly and often as with any physical skill set then you will be better than someone with a short brief period of training.  I would argue that even less than 12 hours can make a difference in training that covers awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, threat indicators, etc. plus physical training.  Yet, if someone invests more time they will in turn be better at these skills than someone who invests minimal time.  I would give someone who has a lot more training under their belt a greater chance of success.  Though there are a lot of factors involved.

In regards to rape at Colleges and Universities the University or College has a stake in simply making it go away.  Watch the entire *VICE* program I recommended and you will see there is even more of a problem than simply young people, excessive drinking, lack of adult supervision, etc.  Anyone sending a young woman to College should have some concerns regarding this issue and how Colleges and Universities across this country are treating rape victims.  

We can go around and around Steve but really we are probably just wasting each others time here as this thread is going in a direction other than what the OP intended and we should probably get back on topic discussion what people feel are the Fundamental Pillars of Self Defense.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Yet, we have martial practitioner's that have defended themselves as document to that success*.  It is not just some articles as I could list more and more and more if I wanted to.  I cannot help it that you just throw away a few reports that I found in a couple of seconds while hardly even looking.  That is convenient to your argument.


and there are many others of people with zero martial arts training who also successfully defended themselves.   Finding the few who provide anecdotal support for your predisposed position is questionable.   Once again, learning martial arts is great, but I see no real evidence to suggest that it's preventing more crime than crossfit training.  





> Statistics of crime reported is a good base measuring point on what is going on.  The problem is do you want to be a statistic?  Do you want your family to be a statistic?  Training in a comprehensive manner can give you, your family an edge.  I do get it that you train for fun, recreation, to be fit, etc.  There are a lot of people that train for other reasons and many people train to be more physically effective.  Some because they have experienced violence and some because they do not want to experience violence.  Some because it will help with their profession, etc.


everyone is different.  Certainly, people with a professional interest in martial skills will want effective training.   And if it makes you feel safer, great.  For some people, some modest amount of martial training could be very helpful.   Some people are at greater risk of violence than others.   And shoot, it can fun.  

And to be clear, I'm not saying self defense training is a bad idea for anyone.   What I'm saying is that martial skill, for most, is a red herring.  It may actually be distracting you from training actual, useful self defense skills that might save your life.   Bang for the buck, given limited time and money, there are many other things that will likely keep you safer than martial arts.  





> In regards to firearm training, pepper spray, tasers, etc. can be readily trained in a short time and be effective.  Yet, if you practice regularly and often as with any physical skill set then you will be better than someone with a short brief period of training.  I would argue that even less than 12 hours can make a difference in training that covers awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, threat indicators, etc. plus physical training.  Yet, if someone invests more time they will in turn be better at these skills than someone who invests minimal time.  I would give someone who has a lot more training under their belt a greater chance of success.  Though there are a lot of factors involved.
> 
> In regards to rape at Colleges and Universities the University or College has a stake in simply making it go away.  Watch the entire *VICE* program I recommended and you will see there is even more of a problem than simply young people, excessive drinking, lack of adult supervision, etc.  Anyone sending a young woman to College should have some concerns regarding this issue and how Colleges and Universities across this country are treating rape victims.
> 
> We can go around and around Steve but really we are probably just wasting each others time here as this thread is going in a direction other than what the OP intended and we should probably get back on topic discussion what people feel are the Fundamental Pillars of Self Defense.


Yeah.  Okay.  Fwiw, I think we agree on the issue.  And I think that learning martial arts is useful, provided self defense isn't your primary goal.   Or said the other way, if one is strictly interested in self defense, a martial arts oriented program is probably not the most efficient path.


----------



## Jenna

Steve said:


> Or said the other way, if one is strictly interested in self defense, a martial arts oriented program is probably not the most efficient path.


is the most efficient path to SD out there already Steve would you say? if so, what is it?  if not, what might it be? Jx


----------



## Buka

In regards to this thread, here's my question - Does Martial training change anything about you? I don't mean taking a course, or spending a few months in a "working out phase", but actual training for a period of time. 

Think about what you've learned. Think about the various people you've been forced to deal/train with day in and day out. The strong people, the fast people, the agressive people, the experienced people. Do you know more about body language than you did before you started? Do you know more about the body, both yours and his, than you did before? Do you know how to get out of a headlock? Do you know how to read a room? Do you trust your instincts more than you did before you trained? Are you in better physical shape? Better mental shape? Can you see a punch coming better than you could before? Can you run for a longer time than before? Have you spent any nights in the dojo talking about crime and avoiding/defending crime? Can you deal with someone trying to push you into a doorway better than you could before? Can you size up a person more effectively than you could before? Do you have a better knowledge about weapons than you did before, any weapons? Do you know more about balance than you did before? His balance? Your balance? Can you create force better than you could before you trained? Do you understand more about position than you did before? Are you more experienced with bearhugs and armgrabs than you were before? Are you stronger than you used to be? Are you quicker? Can you control your breathing better than you used to? Do you have a better general knowledge of self defense law than you did? Is your physical endurance greater than it used to be? Do you think you could defend someone standing beside you better than you could before? Do you think you are a better judge of what practical self defense wisdom is than you were before you first trained? Can you control your temper better than you could before? Can you use your elbows and knees for things other than bending your limbs? Can you take advantage of being behind someone better than you could before? Do you recognize when you're being sized up better than you did before? Can you hit someone harder than you used to? Can you take someone down better? Are you more patient?

Remember those days/weeks when you were too damn tired to go train...but you went anyway. Remember those days at work where you were so sore, achey and bruised that you almost moaned yourself to sleep at your desk? Remember that month when your knee wouldn't stop hurting so you wrapped it tight, prayed and just kept going? Maybe Joe Smoe walking down the street picking a victim will pass you by....just because. Or maybe if he picks you - he's picking a person who's different than they used to be.

Maybe training in Martial arts isn't the most efficient path, maybe it's the most difficult one. Could be, I don't know. But we get to own that path. And it comes with a heavy toll. Both to us and especially to poor Joe Shmoe. I'd say may he rest in peace, but F him.


----------



## Tgace

Another $.02

I think some sort of unarmed technique is necessiary in a SD "program". But not necessiarly "martial arts". IMO I think the biggest hurdle the new SD student has to jump is simple aggressiveness and moving/striking with speed and power. Someone who can punch/kick/stab with a pen aggreesively who is given a few simple techniques would suffice as a base of unarmed techniques in a basic SD program.


----------



## Tgace

I also think that "some" MA schools who claim to provide SD training do their students a disservice if those students cant walk out of the school on the first day with some form of viable advice/technique to defend themselves.


----------



## Steve

Jenna said:


> is the most efficient path to SD out there already Steve would you say? if so, what is it?  if not, what might it be? Jx


I would say that there may or may not be great training out there.  We just don't know.

The thing is, if someone trains in a self defense program and survives an assault, the experts will say, "See, Steve.  I know that some of my students have used the skills they've learned.  The survived to tell me about it."  The implication is that they survived because they were prepared, and boy, aren't I the a-hole for questioning that.

But if someone who has not trained survives an assault, such as the woman I mentioned earlier who trained for American Ninja Warrior, these same guys would say (as they did in this thread), she survived because she was lucky.  Pure luck.  What else could it be?  She wasn't "trained."  This is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

Given what we can see statistically, only a small fraction of a percent of people are assaulted, and this is disregarding any analysis of risky behaviors.  And of those, only a very, very small percent are killed.  In other words, even if you are assaulted, your chances of being killed are miniscule.  It happens.  Sure. But it doesn't happen often.

So, how do we know that those people who "used their self defense training" survived because of it?  We don't.  Statistically, it's pretty likely that they would survive either way, trained or not.  Or as I said earlier, there's no data suggesting that someone who has trained in TKD, BJJ or anything else is *more* likely to avoid an assault or survive an assault than someone who trains in crossfit or parkour (or tae bo or cardio kickboxing classes).  Feeling safe vs being safe.

And what happens when a person who has self defense training IS killed?  Tragic as that may be, can we conclude that the training is inneffective or without merit?  No.  Of course not.  That would be the same faulty logic at work.  The likely response is to suggest, sadly, that this person was unlucky.  And the person who has no training who may be killed in an assault?  Well, that person was unprepared and/or untrained. 

Can you see the issue here?  How self serving this is?

Are these programs effective?  We don't know.  And from the emotional reaction we witnessed here to my use of the term "data," I don't think there's much interest in finding out.

Which is why I was so excited about the coed assault program and the study that surrounded it.  Here we have a program that was designed based upon a sincere effort to identify what *actually* makes women safer on college campuses.  Not makes them *feel* safer.  But what would make them less likely to be assaulted, and if assaulted, less likely for the assuault to be successful.  The result was a 12 hour program.

There was a structure in place for evaluating the effectiveness of the training.  In other words, there were standards.  They identified key metrics that they were interested in improving, and they did.  We can see evidence that the training directly impacted the incidence of assaults, among other things. 

And even here, you can see the reaction in this thread is to qualify the results.  "Well, it's good, but if there were more martial training, it would be better."  Really?  Where's the evidence of that?  Maybe it would be better, but we don't know that.  All we really know is that it would be longer.


----------



## jks9199

Buka said:


> In regards to this thread, here's my question - Does Martial training change anything about you? I don't mean taking a course, or spending a few months in a "working out phase", but actual training for a period of time.
> ...
> Maybe training in Martial arts isn't the most efficient path, maybe it's the most difficult one. Could be, I don't know. But we get to own that path. And it comes with a heavy toll. Both to us and especially to poor Joe Shmoe. I'd say may he rest in peace, but F him.


Excellent post.


----------



## pgsmith

Steve said:


> And even here, you can see the reaction in this thread is to qualify the results. "Well, it's good, but if there were more martial training, it would be better." Really? Where's the evidence of that? Maybe it would be better, but we don't know that. All we really know is that it would be longer.


  But you see Steve, this is a _martial arts forum_. Of course the resounding opinion here is going to be that anything is better with more martial training. It's what we do and what we believe in. It's like arguing on a Christian church forum that going to church isn't really necessary.


----------



## Steve

pgsmith said:


> But you see Steve, this is a _martial arts forum_. Of course the resounding opinion here is going to be that anything is better with more martial training. It's what we do and what we believe in. It's like arguing on a Christian church forum that going to church isn't really necessary.


LOL.  I think the comparison to religion is very apropros, Paul! 

For the record, martial arts training is fun and as Buka very eloquently wrote above, there are a gazillion great reasons to train.  But self defense training and martial arts training are not the same thing.  I don't think I'm too far off the reservation saying that.


----------



## Tgace

Basic training gave me some "self defense" training too I guess. Fitness, firearms, some unarmed fighting training (a little bit...but some), bayonet/pugil stick fighting, etc....

But the intent was to train me to work as part of a team in order to kill other people and break their stuff vs just protecting myself.

But it is a fairly history proven method of making people "capable" in a short period of time.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Steve,

Absolutely not off the reservation saying that martial arts training and self defense are different!  Yet there is crossover. 

*
If we look at statistics.  *The thing about statistics is quite often they can be statistically wrong or right or some where in between.  While I definitely believe that the NEJM study is probably pretty spot on I do wonder at trying to extrapolate it to far.  Instead it is one source and hopefully we will have a lot more in the future and or have some new ones shown to us soon.  Case in point regarding statistics there is a lot of grey area at times.  I personally know of several firearm studies statistically done at the University level that easily tie in with self-defense because while done on firearms a realistic program of personal protection would have firearm training or advocate firearm training for their participants. 

Here are two studies one lauded by firearm enthusiasts as justifying concealed carry and responsible firearm ownership as the way to go *and the other well picks it apart: and find almost the exact opposite:*

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...G=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=#search="gary kleck"
analysis: http://www.supertrap.com/ST_Downloads_files/GunStatistics1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/pdf/amjph00463-0112.pdf


People have used the above studies either as a mantra or decried it as being very flawed.  Both of the first two studies reportedly have money behind them from various interest groups so take that for what it is worth.  Personally, I feel that Kleck study is very flawed and does in no way match the reality of crime data that we have. (the numbers are really high)   However, even flawed there are some statistics within it that appear correct based upon the small data sample he had.

Unfortunately when I was in school for Criminal Justice oh so many years ago I had to read case studies like this a lot on different things.   So I have come to almost categorically hate them.  However it really made me appreciate the direct forwardness when I went through the Law Enforcement Academy!  Law enforcement has a long history around the world with layers upon layers of specific skills and techniques built over time.  They look at incidents as case studies as well as court rulings to determine policy actions and corrections.  People outside of the field can look and learn a lot from this field and the people who work within it!

Here is one study that Brian King mentioned earlier on police performance that does work and emphasizes regular continuous training.  I do not have the full study at hand but you can see a short synopsis here:
http://www.bioportfolio.com/resourc...rformance-under-anxiety-of-officers-with.html

Here is a army military study:
Hand-to-Hand Combat and the Use of Combatives Skills An Analysis of United States Army Post Combat Surveys from 2004-2008
Anyone interested in BJJ will find this one a good read.

Would love to see a study by the Marines but I am not aware of one.  The MCMAP (Marine Corp Martial Arts Program) is very, very different from the MACP. (Modern Army Combatives Program)  One is designed to keep and deal with the enemy at distance and one is designed to close with the enemy.

Those two studies advocate for continuous training for our police and military!


Through the course of this thread we have come I believe to the conclusion that a good, viable self defense or personal protection program would have training in Awareness, avoidance, verbal & non-verbal de-escalation skills, tactics, strategy, knowing your local laws regarding protecting yourself, understanding pre-conflict, conflict and post conflict situations, physical skills, post conflict skills to deal with the aftermath, etc.

jks9199 had a nice paragraph earlier on this:


jks9199 said:


> So... what are the pillars of self defense, in my opinion? Let's start with *awareness* – actually knowing, realistically, with what's going on around you, and what's likely to happen. This is an active skill, requiring practice and work. From awareness, we can move to *avoidance* – taking steps to prevent being the victim, including things like not looking like a target or traveling to places where we're likely to be victims, and, being aware of an imminent problem, taking steps before any actual or direct contact is made to prevent it. It might be as simple as taking a different cab than the Uber driver who gives you a sketchy feeling, or crossing the street – or just recognizing that you're a stranger in a strange land, and had best get yourself back to the right side of the tracks, and doing it. Once avoidance is impossible or has failed – we move into *conflict management and de-escalation*. Can we talk our way out of trouble? If a buy the guy who's girl I just unknowingly hit on a drink – can we avoid the whole Monkey Dance and ensuing fight? What can I do to prevent or avoid violence. (Sometimes, the answer is nothing!) Finally, we get into *physical skills*. At this point, we need to address things like recovering from an ambush, handling a freeze, and just plain how to deal with the attack. _“No one system has a monopoly on truth”_ – some may be better suited to giving you useful skills rapidly, but all of them have something good to offer. And something bad to avoid... Then, when everything is over and done with – we have to deal with the *aftermath*, the ramifications and consequences. This ranges from self-care for injuries, to dealing with the cops, and has to include dealing with the mental and emotional fall out of a violent encounter.



As you mentioned before you and I agree on most things!


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> Absolutely not off the reservation saying that martial arts training and self defense are different!  Yet there is crossover.


Brian, there is certainly crossover.  But picture a vin diagram.  In some cases, such as for a cop, a bouncer, a security guard or anyone who has a professional likelihood of encountering violence and that crossover area is going to be pretty large.  For some, there is a competitive interest in violence, such as MMA fighters.

For most people, the crossover _may_ still exist, but it is a sliver relative to the actual threat of violence, and is grossly exaggerated in training.  There are lots of great reasons to train in martial arts, not the least of which is just a simple desire to be more capable in a violent situation.  But if the sales pitch is based on the likelihood of being a victim, that's fear mongering.

Or maybe to be more clear, and I wish I had 10 minutes to actually create a couple of vin diagrams.  You guys, in all of the rhetoric, emphasize how important the "other stuff' is to self defense: deescalation, detection, awareness, common sense, communication, fitness... etc, etc.   Many of you have said that any actual, physical altercation is what happens when self defense skills have failed.   I agree.  Further, we can see looking at crime stats that actual violence against the average person is exceedingly rare.   It suggests that area of crossover in training should be modest and proportional. 

So, in the rhetoric, the crossover on a vin diagram of violence and self defense is small.  But in the training, it is completely reversed.  The "other stuff" gets shunted off to a sliver, and we essentially have two circles that lay almost entirely one on top of the other.  Grossly exaggarated.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> Brian, there is certainly crossover.  But picture a* vin *diagram..



That's *Venn*.

Venn diagram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Carry on........


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve,

I would say that many instructors claiming to teach self-defense give lip service to the "other stuff".  However, there are a lot of people that do not.  Also if you look at a few Reality Based guy's I would absolutely say they do "fear monger" and yet the majority do not that I have met.

As to violence in general happening to you that also can depend on where you live, how you live your life, what age or gender you are, etc.  For some groups there is a stronger likelihood than a "sliver".  Also for some groups as has been shown before in the thread there is a large under reporting of violence that happens to them.

Violence happens Steve, the chance that it happens can be low depending on where you fit in but... it does happen.  Some people, who have experienced it do not want to experience it again.  Other people never want to experience it.  Then there are people who work in and around violence who know they need skill sets to survive.  Many of those people seek out professional training to enhance their chances and that is exactly what they are looking for and if that is there goal then that is fine.


----------



## Steve

elder999 said:


> That's *Venn*.
> 
> Venn diagram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Carry on........


  thanks, buddy.  Would you believe me if I blame autocorrect?  Didn't think so.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> thanks, buddy.  Would you believe me if I blame autocorrect?  Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



But of course I would...*everyone's* heard of a "*Vin* diagram.


----------



## Dirty Dog

elder999 said:


> That's *Venn*.
> 
> Venn diagram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Carry on........



Maybe he meant a diagram drawn by Vin Diesel...

[Edit: Damn. I'm late to the party with that joke...]


----------



## Steve

You guys are SOOO funny! 

But maybe a venn (or vin) diagram isn't the best.  I was thinking it's really more like this. 



Real Life


Training
Chances of being in a situation where verbal skills, awareness, de-escalation techniques, “verbal judo,” emotional intelligence, education on high-risk choices/
behavior, sexuality or a host of other, non-martial arts related skills would be useful or contribute to keeping someone safe or reducing their risk of becoming "a statistic."
Time spent in a “self defense” course training to injure, maim or kill a bad guy in a physical altercation or attack. 
Time spent on this in "self defense" trainingRealistic chance of ever needing these skills
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## Steve

Given the several threads on this important topic that have appeared, I thought I would resurrect this one from a few months ago.  There are a lot of interesting perspectives on the subject of self defense.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Given the several threads on this important topic that have appeared, I thought I would resurrect this one from a few months ago.  There are a lot of interesting perspectives on the subject of self defense.



By the way have you ever thought of doing a body guard or cash in transit course?

Both are big on this prevention is better than the cure approach.


----------



## drop bear

Oh and I would have thought there would be more technical threads on this subject.


----------

