# Most Dangerous (as in Useless) Self-Defense Technique Taught?



## wingchun100 (Jan 20, 2017)

What would you say is the most useless technique taught in self-defense classes? One that you know would never work in reality?

For me, I would have to say telling rape victims to scream "fire" instead of "help." It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone screamed "fire," I would not run TOWARD it...I would run FURTHER AWAY from the sound of the voice yelling it, so as to not die a fiery death! That's just my opinion though.

So, how about it?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 20, 2017)

Air chokes. They work fine, but then you gotta go to prison.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 20, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> What would you say is the most useless technique taught in self-defense classes? One that you know would never work in reality?
> 
> For me, I would have to say telling rape victims to scream "fire" instead of "help." It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone screamed "fire," I would not run TOWARD it...I would run FURTHER AWAY from the sound of the voice yelling it, so as to not die a fiery death! That's just my opinion though.
> 
> So, how about it?


Screaming using the term 'fire' or 'help' isn't a technique however it is a tactic to attempt to draw attention and hopefully assistance. If you teach a specific manner to do a scream; using the diaphragm vs the throat, for example, would be a technique.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 20, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Screaming using the term 'fire' or 'help' isn't a technique however it is a tactic to attempt to draw attention and hopefully assistance. If you teach a specific manner to do a scream; using the diaphragm vs the throat, for example, would be a technique.


 
All right. Well, semantics aside...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 20, 2017)

I don't like the self-defense technique of telling women to put their hands up in front of them and yelling at an attacker to stay back or back off, as if they woman is trying to push the guy away.  Those commands can be given from a better defensive stance.  A woman that makes a fist, stands in a fighting stance, and gives a command to back off but has the look as if she wants to take me on would be more intimidating to me.  It would be more intimidating than a woman with outstretched arms like the woman in the middle (black outfit) screaming "Back off"  which is exactly what these women are screaming.   If we were to cut her out of the picture.  I would be able to use her on a "don't be a victim" ad and people would think that she was playing the part of the victim.  If women don't know how to fight then they need to be able to sell a bluff and look as if they are more dangerous than what they really are.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 20, 2017)

I don't like the self-defense technique of telling women to put their hands up in front of them and yelling at an attacker to stay back or back off, as if they woman is trying to push the guy away.  Those commands can be given from a better defensive stance.  A woman that makes a fist, stands in a fighting stance, and gives a command to back off but has the look as if she wants to take me on would be more intimidating to me.  It would be more intimidating than a woman with outstretched arms like the woman in the middle (black outfit) screaming "Back off"  which is exactly what these women are screaming.   If we were to cut her out of the picture.  I would be able to use her on a "don't be a victim" ad and people would think that she was playing the part of the victim.  If women don't know how to fight then they need to be able to sell a bluff and look as if they are more dangerous than what they really are.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 20, 2017)

First, I agree.

Second, I am glad I am not the only one the site is spazzing out on!


----------



## MI_martialist (Jan 20, 2017)

Self defense.


----------



## KenpoBoxer (Jan 20, 2017)

I don't think anything is useless since you never know what's going to happen. You may think you'll never use something that your being taught but when it comes to it you use it simply out of instinct


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

KenpoBoxer said:


> I don't think anything is useless since you never know what's going to happen. You may think you'll never use something that your being taught but when it comes to it you use it simply out of instinct


Well, I think there are some things that are poorly designed.  They may look god on paper, but would never work in the real world.  This stuff wasn't handed down by the gods, after all.  It was all created by people, who are prone to bad judgement at times.  Yes, even the revered founders of the systems that we practice.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

double post


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 20, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't like the self-defense technique of telling women to put their hands up in front of them and yelling at an attacker to stay back or back off, as if they woman is trying to push the guy away.  Those commands can be given from a better defensive stance.  A woman that makes a fist, stands in a fighting stance, and gives a command to back off but has the look as if she wants to take me on would be more intimidating to me.  It would be more intimidating than a woman with outstretched arms like the woman in the middle (black outfit) screaming "Back off"  which is exactly what these women are screaming.   If we were to cut her out of the picture.  I would be able to use her on a "don't be a victim" ad and people would think that she was playing the part of the victim.  If women don't know how to fight then they need to be able to sell a bluff and look as if they are more dangerous than what they really are.


I would take a guess you also think using the isosoles stance is useless as well when shooting a hand gun.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 20, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't like the self-defense technique of telling women to put their hands up in front of them and yelling at an attacker to stay back or back off, as if they woman is trying to push the guy away.  Those commands can be given from a better defensive stance.  A woman that makes a fist, stands in a fighting stance, and gives a command to back off but has the look as if she wants to take me on would be more intimidating to me.  It would be more intimidating than a woman with outstretched arms like the woman in the middle (black outfit) screaming "Back off"  which is exactly what these women are screaming.   If we were to cut her out of the picture.  I would be able to use her on a "don't be a victim" ad and people would think that she was playing the part of the victim.  If women don't know how to fight then they need to be able to sell a bluff and look as if they are more dangerous than what they really are.


I would take a guess you also think using the isosoles stance is useless as well when shooting a hand gun.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 20, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't like the self-defense technique of telling women to put their hands up in front of them and yelling at an attacker to stay back or back off, as if they woman is trying to push the guy away.  Those commands can be given from a better defensive stance.  A woman that makes a fist, stands in a fighting stance, and gives a command to back off but has the look as if she wants to take me on would be more intimidating to me.  It would be more intimidating than a woman with outstretched arms like the woman in the middle (black outfit) screaming "Back off"  which is exactly what these women are screaming.   If we were to cut her out of the picture.  I would be able to use her on a "don't be a victim" ad and people would think that she was playing the part of the victim.  If women don't know how to fight then they need to be able to sell a bluff and look as if they are more dangerous than what they really are.


I would take a guess you also think using the isosoles stance is useless as well when shooting a hand gun.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 20, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I would take a guess you also think using the isosoles stance is useless as well when shooting a hand gun.


2 different things.  Do you shoot a hand gun with both palms facing out looking like you are afraid?  If you don't know the difference then I can't help you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Self defense.


Care to elaborate?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> double post


Care to elaborate? 

EPIC DOUBLE POST - second one attached to the wrong post.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2017)

It would have to be all techniques (to many to list) that were taught in a self-defense/patient restraint class, taught by a nun, in a catholic hospital I once worked at.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2017)

Double post...move along...nothing to see here

Apparently IE is having a real hard time with MT today


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> It would have to be all techniques (to many to list) that were taught in a self-defense/patient restraint class, taught by a nun, in a catholic hospital I once worked at.


I don't know. Some of the nuns I knew were frightening (Catholic school). I wouldn't want them restraining me if I got out of hand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> Double post...move along...nothing to see here
> 
> Apparently IE is having a real hard time with MT today


Oh, it's not IE. I'm on Chrome, with the same issue. Clearly MT is having a case of "it's Friday, and my brain is having a weekend".


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't know. Some of the nuns I knew were frightening (Catholic school). I wouldn't want them restraining me if I got out of hand.



You would think that, I know I did, but that myth was dashed completely after that class. Apparently Nuns working at Catholic hospitals are not as skilled, or as terrifying, as Nuns at Catholic schools


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Oh, it's not IE. I'm on Chrome, with the same issue. Clearly MT is having a case of "it's Friday, and my brain is having a weekend".



Yet another Double post...move along...nothing to see here

Apparently Every Browser is having troubles with MT today


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Oh, it's not IE. I'm on Chrome, with the same issue. Clearly MT is having a case of "it's Friday, and my brain is having a weekend".



Agreed I have been switching back and froth to see what I posted and both are slow
Just tried a Mac using Safari, same thing


----------



## MI_martialist (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> EPIC DOUBLE POST - second one attached to the wrong post.



We simply have a fundamental disagreement on what self-defense is compared to personal protection is.  We also have a fundamental disagreement on the efficacy of "martial arts" training for personal protection.

One can look at the many other posts to see that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> EPIC DOUBLE POST - second one attached to the wrong post.


I have experienced some material that is part of a formal curriculum, that is overly complex and makes lots of unrealistic assumptions about what might be possible in the chaotic environment of personal conflict and violence.  If it was meant as fight choreography for an action movie well maybe ok then.  But not in a real fight.  

Some people suggest that this material is meant to explore possibilities and is not meant to be taken literally.  Maybe, maybe not.  The way they tend to be taught, from what I have seen, suggests otherwise.  And exploring possibilities should not include formalizing and systematically practicing that which is NOT a possibility.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

double post again


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 20, 2017)

Grab the live side of the blade.
Turn your back on your attacker.
Leave him on balance.


----------



## Buka (Jan 20, 2017)

A hammer fist to the top of the head.

A downward, two handed X block against a knife thrust.


----------



## Buka (Jan 20, 2017)

The only way I seem to NOT double post is to hit "post reply", then watch the little thingy show it's trying to do so, then close MT and reopen it.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 20, 2017)

Buka said:


> A hammer fist to the top of the head.


Actually that strike works quite well,,,but you need the hammer.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 20, 2017)

Buka said:


> A hammer fist to the top of the head.



I don't know...work pretty well for Fezzik


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> We simply have a fundamental disagreement on what self-defense is compared to personal protection is.  We also have a fundamental disagreement on the efficacy of "martial arts" training for personal protection.
> 
> One can look at the many other posts to see that.


So, you're claiming that training physical self-defense techniques is useless to the point of being dangerous? Care to back that claim with some evidence? In evidence counter to that assertion, there are many instances of people using their martial arts training to defend themselves effectively.

Now, you could debate whether time spent in MA training for SD is as effective as other self-protection training, and we'd have a different discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I have experienced some material that is part of a formal curriculum, that is overly complex and makes lots of unrealistic assumptions about what might be possible in the chaotic environment of personal conflict and violence.  If it was meant as fight choreography for an action movie well maybe ok then.  But not in a real fight.
> 
> Some people suggest that this material is meant to explore possibilities and is not meant to be taken literally.  Maybe, maybe not.  The way they tend to be taught, from what I have seen, suggests otherwise.  And exploring possibilities should not include formalizing and systematically practicing that which is NOT a possibility.


I'm not sure what sub-thread we're in anymore, thanks to the system glitches, but I like this thought.

I'm personally okay with some things being in the formal curriculum that are not directly possible, so long as it's done to facilitate learning of principles. I find this in some of the Classical forms in NGA. There's no way anyone would do some of those dance moves in a real altercation, but they do allow for the practice and examination of some principles in a controlled setting (static attack, complex response). I sometimes actually use these particular forms to discuss how *not *to do NGA in application.

Beyond those uses, however, I'm entirely with you. In fact, if I were starting from scratch (rather than evolving an existing art), I'd probably remove those from the list of Classical forms and create a separate group of forms specifically for that purpose.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Grab the live side of the blade.
> Turn your back on your attacker.
> Leave him on balance.


The leaving him on balance is probably because she's not trained, so I'll give the instructor a pass on that one. The back-turning appears to be from a poor choice of progression - I can't see how she'd get to that lock without it, unless that's a result of her not properly taking his structure (which might alter that position entirely). Grabbing the blade by the edge? In an extreme situation where I don't feel like I've another choice, I guess might try to pinch-hold it (grabbing the flats), knowing that there's a good chance I'll get messed up, but it certainly shouldn't be a go-to move.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what sub-thread we're in anymore, thanks to the system glitches, but I like this thought.
> 
> I'm personally okay with some things being in the formal curriculum that are not directly possible, so long as it's done to facilitate learning of principles. I find this in some of the Classical forms in NGA. There's no way anyone would do some of those dance moves in a real altercation, but they do allow for the practice and examination of some principles in a controlled setting (static attack, complex response). I sometimes actually use these particular forms to discuss how *not *to do NGA in application.
> 
> Beyond those uses, however, I'm entirely with you. In fact, if I were starting from scratch (rather than evolving an existing art), I'd probably remove those from the list of Classical forms and create a separate group of forms specifically for that purpose.


Well, there are certainly drills and exercises that build principles both in understanding and in physical skill, but they are not meant for direct application exactly as-is, and the way they are practiced makes it pretty easy to understand that.

The stuff I am talking about tends to be taught as a direct defensive response to an attack.  Some of the stuff has some good ideas.  Some of it has some very very bad ideas.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jan 20, 2017)




----------



## Charlemagne (Jan 20, 2017)




----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Buka said:


> The only way I seem to NOT double post is to hit "post reply", then watch the little thingy show it's trying to do so, then close MT and reopen it.


After I let the thingy finish, I just reload the MT page without closing it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> After I let the thingy finish, I just reload the MT page without closing it.


I just go back up to the top and hit "new posts"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I just go back up to the top and hit "new posts"


I just want to see the post and make sure it posted, so I stay on the same page. Otherwise, the same effect of forcing the MT system to reload.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I just go back up to the top and hit "new posts"


I just want to see the post and make sure it posted, so I stay on the same page. Otherwise, the same effect of forcing the MT system to reload.


Flying Crane said:


> Well, there are certainly drills and exercises that build principles both in understanding and in physical skill, but they are not meant for direct application exactly as-is, and the way they are practiced makes it pretty easy to understand that.
> 
> The stuff I am talking about tends to be taught as a direct defensive response to an attack.  Some of the stuff has some good ideas.  Some of it has some very very bad ideas.


That's where the issue lies: when the difference isn't clear to the learner.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I just want to see the post and make sure it posted, so I stay on the same page. Otherwise, the same effect of forcing the MT system to reload.
> 
> That's where the issue lies: when the difference isn't clear to the learner.


Honestly tho, I think often the difference isn't clear to the teachers.  They act like this stuff would work, like it is reasonable and makes sense.  And contrary to some of the claims, it is my opinion that there are often no real principles buried within there, that this could possibly teach effectively.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I just want to see the post and make sure it posted, so I stay on the same page. Otherwise, the same effect of forcing the MT system to reload.
> 
> That's where the issue lies: when the difference isn't clear to the learner.


Honestly tho, I think often the difference isn't clear to the teachers.  They act like this stuff would work, like it is reasonable and makes sense.  And contrary to some of the claims, it is my opinion that there are often no real principles buried within there, that this could possibly teach effectively.


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The leaving him on balance is probably because she's not trained


Possibly, although I think it's more likely because the technique isn't designed to unbalance the attacker as whoever came up with it is a clueless fuckwit.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 20, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> What would you say is the most useless technique taught in self-defense classes? One that you know would never work in reality?
> 
> For me, I would have to say telling rape victims to scream "fire" instead of "help." It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone screamed "fire," I would not run TOWARD it...I would run FURTHER AWAY from the sound of the voice yelling it, so as to not die a fiery death! That's just my opinion though.
> 
> So, how about it?



it's actually good sense, shout rape people don't want to get involved, shout fire and they want to see it, look at any building fire and there's a crowd. the police always have to come out for crowd control.



wingchun100 said:


> First, I agree.
> 
> Second, I am glad I am not the only one the site is spazzing out on!



I've mentioned this before but you probably haven't seen it, 'spazzing' is an offensive expression in the UK, it's not pleasant. Why is spastic so offensive in the UK? • /r/OutOfTheLoop


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

I'm gonna go on a bit of a rant.  In the past when I've pointed this out, people have often leaned toward defending the method and this material.  There is a reluctance to accept the idea that some things just show poor judgement as an idea.  That doesn't mean it's all crap.  But jeezuz, some of it sure is.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> After I let the thingy finish, I just reload the MT page without closing it.



First time I have really had problems.  The page seemed to have timed out without posting, which is why I posted a second time.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jan 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm gonna go on a bit of a rant.  In the past when I've pointed this out, people have often leaned toward defending the method and this material.  There is a reluctance to accept the idea that some things just show poor judgement as an idea.  That doesn't mean it's all crap.  But jeezuz, some of it sure is.



Exactly.  Some stuff just isn't that good, and neither are some arts.  There are too many people who want to make excuses for both.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> Exactly.  Some stuff just isn't that good, and neither are some arts.  There are too many people who want to make excuses for both.


and I can certainly understand the desire to defend it.  After all, it is something they have put a lot of time and effort into, and there is this concept that this stuff takes a lot of work and a long time in order to get good at it, so maybe they figure they are still in that process.  Yes, that is true.  It's not comfortable to have someone point out what might be kind of stupid about it.  So people jump to its defense, and that's ok, I get it.  But people do need to be able to step back and let the BS alarm go off, and take notice and don't ignore the alarm.

Some things are bad ideas and some of those bad ideas do manage to find a place in some of what we do.  I'm sure we could all find something in our own systems that we feel pretty "iffy" about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Honestly tho, I think often the difference isn't clear to the teachers.  They act like this stuff would work, like it is reasonable and makes sense.  And contrary to some of the claims, it is my opinion that there are often no real principles buried within there, that this could possibly teach effectively.


That comes from folks never testing. The techniques reasonably, or even having a good imagination to see what is likely to work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Double post. Again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Possibly, although I think it's more likely because the technique isn't designed to unbalance the attacker as whoever came up with it is a clueless fuckwit.


There are several easy opportunities to unbalance at the beginning of that. I'm not willing to assume the technique was designed to avoid them. I can't reasonably assess much about a technique as applied by a beginner.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Double double post post.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That comes from folks never testing. The techniques reasonably, or even having a good


Well, that can be the issue, or part of it.  I still see this even with people who are otherwise very good, skilled knowledgeable folks, people I wouldn't want to face off against.   It the bad material is part of a formal curriculum, a system they were taught, and there is a reluctance to delete anything from the system.  There can be reverence for the system itself, the idea that it cannot be altered.

Well, I believe otherwise.  Ok, alterations should be done carefully and thoughtfully and not by just anyone.  But they can and often should, be done.

Again, this stuff was not handed down by the gods.  It is not holy or sacred.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, that can be the issue, or part of it.  I still see this even with people who are otherwise very good, skilled knowledgeable folks, people I wouldn't want to face off against.   It the bad material is part of a formal curriculum, a system they were taught, and there is a reluctance to delete anything from the system.  There can be reverence for the system itself, the idea that it cannot be altered.
> 
> Well, I believe otherwise.  Ok, alterations should be done carefully and thoughtfully and not by just anyone.  But they can and often should, be done.
> 
> Again, this stuff was not handed down by the gods.  It is not holy or sacred.


Agreed, entirely. I was referring to your comment that some instructors seem to believe those bits are directly applicable. If they are competent at fighting, I don't see how they could be fooled by those bits. They might keep them out of reverence for the past, but they'll at least be aware of the lack of solid application.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, entirely. I was referring to your comment that some instructors seem to believe those bits are directly applicable. If they are competent at fighting, I don't see how they could be fooled by those bits. They might keep them out of reverence for the past, but they'll at least be aware of the lack of solid application.


Yeah, and I think they keep it out of reverence to a system, and also are reluctant to acknowledge that a few items in there are really kind of stupid.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 20, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Grab the live side of the blade.
> Turn your back on your attacker.
> Leave him on balance.


This clip is full of nonsense. The first mistake is the set up.  Starting the technique from knife on the neck like that is un realistic , it's stagnant  and devoid of any actual context.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, you're claiming that training physical self-defense techniques is useless to the point of being dangerous? Care to back that claim with some evidence? In evidence counter to that assertion, there are many instances of people using their martial arts training to defend themselves effectively.
> 
> Now, you could debate whether time spent in MA training for SD is as effective as other self-protection training, and we'd have a different discussion.


 - Correct!!


----------



## drop bear (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, entirely. I was referring to your comment that some instructors seem to believe those bits are directly applicable. If they are competent at fighting, I don't see how they could be fooled by those bits. They might keep them out of reverence for the past, but they'll at least be aware of the lack of solid application.



Some things work for a particular person. But are not generally considered a very sensible option. 

Fighting has a lot mote elements to it than just good technique. Otherwise everybody could become a champion fighter.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't know. Some of the nuns I knew were frightening (Catholic school). I wouldn't want them restraining me if I got out of hand.



Yeah, the Sisters of St Joseph, or as I liked to call them, "The Samurai nuns" could be brutal.  

That said, to the OP's point, I would say "kick him in the balls".  Once the hormone dump happens in a real fight the testicles shrink and even partially retract into the pelvic area.  They are also instinctively protected by the person and, to add onto it, there is actually a delay in the pain response.  The only real way to reliably cause pain via that contact point in a fight is to grab em and "use it like a handle", that can be quite effective in my experience.  

Striking to that general area does work, if you can hit, but (again just my experience) you should do an attack that is more "straight in" to the pelvic bone, the "up" into is harder to execute and, again just my opinion, less effective  The "straight in" attack will actually be quite effective on women as well due to all the nerves in that area.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 21, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Fighting has a lot mote elements to it than just good technique.


The old Chinese saying said, 

- "When 2 persons meet in dark valley, the one who has more courage will win."
- "courage > strength > good technique".


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 21, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, that can be the issue, or part of it.  I still see this even with people who are otherwise very good, skilled knowledgeable folks, people I wouldn't want to face off against.   It the bad material is part of a formal curriculum, a system they were taught, and there is a reluctance to delete anything from the system.  There can be reverence for the system itself, the idea that it cannot be altered.
> 
> Well, I believe otherwise.  Ok, alterations should be done carefully and thoughtfully and not by just anyone.  But they can and often should, be done.
> 
> Again, this stuff was not handed down by the gods.  It is not holy or sacred.


Yeah. There have been multiple times I have seen things in either forms or direct techniques that don't make sense to me, from people whom I know are good martial artists (including techniques in systems I practice). I ask for clarification of why you would do it, or what situations it would be better than x. Generally the answer is "I don't know", or a frank "It's not (useful/better), but it's part of the system, so I learned it." When it's in my system that's followed with "and you have to learn it too." Frustrates the living hell out of me that either myself or fellow martial artists are wasting time on things they/we don't understand or that are ineffective.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 21, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, that can be the issue, or part of it.  I still see this even with people who are otherwise very good, skilled knowledgeable folks, people I wouldn't want to face off against.   It the bad material is part of a formal curriculum, a system they were taught, and there is a reluctance to delete anything from the system.  There can be reverence for the system itself, the idea that it cannot be altered.
> 
> Well, I believe otherwise.  Ok, alterations should be done carefully and thoughtfully and not by just anyone.  But they can and often should, be done.
> 
> Again, this stuff was not handed down by the gods.  It is not holy or sacred.


Yeah. There have been multiple times I have seen things in either forms or direct techniques that don't make sense to me, from people whom I know are good martial artists (including techniques in systems I practice). I ask for clarification of why you would do it, or what situations it would be better than x. Generally the answer is "I don't know", or a frank "It's not (useful/better), but it's part of the system, so I learned it." When it's in my system that's followed with "and you have to learn it too." Frustrates the living hell out of me that either myself or fellow martial artists are wasting time on things they/we don't understand or that are ineffective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 21, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> This clip is full of nonsense. The first mistake is the set up.  Starting the technique from knife on the neck like that is un realistic , it's stagnant  and devoid of any actual context.


It's an attack I've been asked about by many students. I think they watch too many movies.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It's an attack I've been asked about by many students. I think they watch too many movies.


My issue is not that the knife on neck won't happen, it just that it doesn't happen in a vacuum.  You defense has to begin before that point in time. When training static like that you don't get a feel for what will actually be happening.  The attacker wasn't pushing in on her or pulling her, he was just standing there like a statue. Momentum will change everything. And in all probability render that specific technique unusable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 22, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> My issue is not that the knife on neck won't happen, it just that it doesn't happen in a vacuum.  You defense has to begin before that point in time. When training static like that you don't get a feel for what will actually be happening.  The attacker wasn't pushing in on her or pulling her, he was just standing there like a statue. Momentum will change everything. And in all probability render that specific technique unusable.


Well, with a beginner, for something like that you probably do have to go static. It's not a beginner move, so asking a beginner to do it requires removing some of the complications. You're right of course that it's really unlikely it would come as a static moment (unless you allow it to settle to that point by waiting long enough). My point was that it's a fairly unlikely attack in any case, so should probably only show up once in a blue moon in class, as a matter of applying principles in a more complex situation.


----------



## JP3 (Jan 22, 2017)

The oft-revered statement (heard it literally hundreds of times in class from novice-beginner female students), "I'll just kick 'em in the nuts."

Well.... let's see.  What is the single most commonly learned defensive skill known to the entire human male population, learned because of incidents, accidental and on purpose, at home, on school playgrounds, in gym class, walking down the street with other boys around -- or for that matter in school hallways?

Strike blurs towards groin. Hips immediately twist, knee crossing centerline. Strike thus blocked and foiled.

I'm not saying that groin strikes don't work, they certainly do. But... "I'll just kick 'em in the nuts..." No, you probably won't.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Well, with a beginner, for something like that you probably do have to go static. It's not a beginner move, so asking a beginner to do it requires removing some of the complications. You're right of course that it's really unlikely it would come as a static moment (unless you allow it to settle to that point by waiting long enough). My point was that it's a fairly unlikely attack in any case, so should probably only show up once in a blue moon in class, as a matter of applying principles in a more complex situation.


I agree that an assailant will almost never do that. The only instance I can rationalize a criminal doing that is to a women if he is trying to gain compliance in a rape situation.  In this video they are standing so to me the context would be he is trying to move the victim to crime scene #2.  Thus be moving closer to her and pushing or pulling her.  So to your point yes I understand removing aspects for beginners for training, but under a logical context the technique shown just doesn't seem to fit or be applicable......
Edit....ok I watched the full video again and in the second half he does say "I know you don't want to fight but come with me"
So I was wrong, he does have a context.  But it's just not realistically played out. This seems to be for tv show or something so I can't blame the guy for that.  All that being said I would have to actually try this for myself, it just looks to easy for the guy to pull the knife back and start stabbing.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It's an attack I've been asked about by many students. I think they watch too many movies.



It happens a fair bit if your aim with the knife isn't really to kill the guy but to gain a compliance of some kind.

And this could be for a lot of reasons. But say for example someone is stomping your friends head off and you are trying to get in there.  He has a friend with a knife in you neck keeping you out of it.

I mentioned a local one that went from a threaten to an attack.

Knife attack on two people

Now i did manage to chat to the victim and the attacker separately afterwards.

The attacker claimed he was just threatening the guy when he slipped. The victim was still munted a year after.


----------



## KangTsai (Jan 23, 2017)

JP3 said:


> The oft-revered statement (heard it literally hundreds of times in class from novice-beginner female students), "I'll just kick 'em in the nuts."
> 
> Well.... let's see.  What is the single most commonly learned defensive skill known to the entire human male population, learned because of incidents, accidental and on purpose, at home, on school playgrounds, in gym class, walking down the street with other boys around -- or for that matter in school hallways?
> 
> ...


I have a hip twist to spinning back kick drill just to prepare for one.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jan 23, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I have experienced some material that is part of a formal curriculum, that is overly complex and makes lots of unrealistic assumptions about what might be possible in the chaotic environment of personal conflict and violence.  If it was meant as fight choreography for an action movie well maybe ok then.  But not in a real fight.
> 
> Some people suggest that this material is meant to explore possibilities and is not meant to be taken literally.  Maybe, maybe not.  The way they tend to be taught, from what I have seen, suggests otherwise.  And exploring possibilities should not include formalizing and systematically practicing that which is NOT a possibility.



And don't forget that "self defense"  needs to be immediately accessible...not in a while, once we understand the possibilities...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> And don't forget that "self defense"  needs to be immediately accessible...not in a while, once we understand the possibilities...


So, the only valid self-defense techniques are those which can be used effectively upon first seeing them?


----------



## MI_martialist (Jan 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, the only valid self-defense techniques are those which can be used effectively upon first seeing them?



Did I say that?  No, I didn't.  But self-defense can be what ever the self-defense teacher wants it to be.  Personal Protection applications MUST be IMMEDIATELY applicable because the consequences are the gravest.  That does not mean that more "advanced" applications are not taught...but they are NEVER taught at first.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 23, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Did I say that?  No, I didn't.  But self-defense can be what ever the self-defense teacher wants it to be.  Personal Protection applications MUST be IMMEDIATELY applicable because the consequences are the gravest.  That does not mean that more "advanced" applications are not taught...but they are NEVER taught at first.


Well, there are no guarantees.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Did I say that?  No, I didn't.  But self-defense can be what ever the self-defense teacher wants it to be.  Personal Protection applications MUST be IMMEDIATELY applicable because the consequences are the gravest.  That does not mean that more "advanced" applications are not taught...but they are NEVER taught at first.


(Now you're reversion "self defense" and "personal protection"...)

Those are two different statements. Almost nothing is going to be ready to apply without some repetition. One class won't do it. So if it must be "IMMEDIATELY applicable", there's almost nothing to work with. A good punch is not "IMMEDIATELY applicable" until the person learns to punch well.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jan 24, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, there are no guarantees.



I agree that there are no guarantees, but with proper programming, one can significantly increase the chances of survival.  Even if one does not survive, one can and will fight!!


----------



## MI_martialist (Jan 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, the only valid self-defense techniques are those which can be used effectively upon first seeing them?



I will also add...why would one think that something would be applicable upon seeing it?  Especially something physical that needs to be experienced and felt?


----------



## MI_martialist (Jan 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> (Now you're reversion "self defense" and "personal protection"...)
> 
> Those are two different statements. Almost nothing is going to be ready to apply without some repetition. One class won't do it. So if it must be "IMMEDIATELY applicable", there's almost nothing to work with. A good punch is not "IMMEDIATELY applicable" until the person learns to punch well.



(Now you're reversion "self defense" and "personal protection"...) - I really don't know what this means.

Did I say somewhere that the person only does it 1 time?  It can be done multiple times during a session...but by the end of the session, if the trainee cannot act to protect what is personal, what really happened during the session?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> I will also add...why would one think that something would be applicable upon seeing it?  Especially something physical that needs to be experienced and felt?


You said it had to be immediately applicable. "Upon first seeing it" is an expression that refers to not needing a second exposure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> (Now you're reversion "self defense" and "personal protection"...) - I really don't know what this means.


Apparently, my iPad didn't like whatever typo I made with "reversing". My point was that "self defense" refers to defending - as in what happens during an attack. "Self protection" is a larger umbrella, including avoidance, etc. 



> Did I say somewhere that the person only does it 1 time?  It can be done multiple times during a session...but by the end of the session, if the trainee cannot act to protect what is personal, what really happened during the session?


I know of nothing that will be universally (or even close to universally) applicable after a single session. Someone could study a single punch (or block, or any other technique) for an hour, and a week later they will not have the reflexes and pattern recognition to use it. They won't even have the habit for it. Some may use it if the opportunity presents, but most at that point will still fall back on what their body would have done prior to that 1-hour session.

Repetition over time is necessary. The biggest part of being effective in a fight isn't actually the techniques, it's the pattern recognition that allows you to spot the opportunity for the technique. That requires retraining the brain, and that takes many more hours.


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 24, 2017)

Am I to take it that as no one else has posted any other techniques, I win?


----------



## MI_martialist (Jan 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Apparently, my iPad didn't like whatever typo I made with "reversing". My point was that "self defense" refers to defending - as in what happens during an attack. "Self protection" is a larger umbrella, including avoidance, etc.
> 
> 
> I know of nothing that will be universally (or even close to universally) applicable after a single session. Someone could study a single punch (or block, or any other technique) for an hour, and a week later they will not have the reflexes and pattern recognition to use it. They won't even have the habit for it. Some may use it if the opportunity presents, but most at that point will still fall back on what their body would have done prior to that 1-hour session.
> ...



Good thing I never said anything about rote memorization and learning techniques to puke back up, or not as it won't happen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Good thing I never said anything about rote memorization and learning techniques to puke back up, or not as it won't happen.


I'm not sure what your point is here.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what your point is here.


 
Seconded.


----------



## TieXiongJi (Jan 25, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Grab the live side of the blade.
> Turn your back on your attacker.
> Leave him on balance.


No problems here. Finally people are taking notice of the quality techniques coming out of Krav Maga.


----------



## JP3 (Jan 25, 2017)

KangTsai said:


> I have a hip twist to spinning back kick drill just to prepare for one.



You are mnean to girls, man...
I mean, they are just tryin' to kick 'em in the nuts, and there you go... teaching dudes how to slip hips, gain rotational torque, and release it in linear form directly into the soft abdomen of the (I'll remove sexist joke context above) ill-informed person attacking.  Mean trick.

But... I approve, I must say.


----------



## KangTsai (Jan 28, 2017)

JP3 said:


> You are mnean to girls, man...
> I mean, they are just tryin' to kick 'em in the nuts, and there you go... teaching dudes how to slip hips, gain rotational torque, and release it in linear form directly into the soft abdomen of the (I'll remove sexist joke context above) ill-informed person attacking.  Mean trick.
> 
> But... I approve, I must say.


Women make the street more dangerous because the groin shot's effectiveness is reduced significantly.


----------



## frank raud (Jan 28, 2017)

I took a Systema seminar at a multi-martial arts convention. It is the only seminar I have ever left the mat in the middle of the session.. They were teaching knife "defense". The instructor explained that because a knife was so small and easy to conceal, you most likely wouldn't see it before you were stabbed, so practicing blocking techniques was a waste of time. What he was demonstrating was once you were stabbed, to twist your body to prevent the blade from entering deeper into the body. Realize we were using wooden practice knives, so no one was actually having their body pierced by a blade, and of course you were doing it at slow speed "so you could understand the mechanics"


----------



## Balrog (Jan 28, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> You would think that, I know I did, but that myth was dashed completely after that class. Apparently Nuns working at Catholic hospitals are not as skilled, or as terrifying, as Nuns at Catholic schools


Hmmmm....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 28, 2017)

Balrog said:


> Hmmmm....



Obviously those are nuns who work as teachers in schools, not nuns who work in hospitals


----------



## JP3 (Jan 28, 2017)

Frank, I can see why you just walked off that mat.


----------



## Balrog (Jan 28, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> Obviously those are nuns who work as teachers in schools, not nuns who work in hospitals


Possibly.  But in any case, if they are given a ration of crap, they ain't having "nun" of it!


----------



## WingChunChick (Feb 3, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> What would you say is the most useless technique taught in self-defense classes? One that you know would never work in reality?
> 
> For me, I would have to say telling rape victims to scream "fire" instead of "help." It just doesn't make sense to me. If someone screamed "fire," I would not run TOWARD it...I would run FURTHER AWAY from the sound of the voice yelling it, so as to not die a fiery death! That's just my opinion though.
> 
> So, how about it?



It's just one of those things that shouldn't make sense yet in really it's true. if you're a woman it's a sad world, and shouting fire is far more effective trust me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2017)

WingChunChick said:


> It's just one of those things that shouldn't make sense yet in really it's true. if you're a woman it's a sad world, and shouting fire is far more effective trust me.


I guess it depends upon context. Inside a private portion of a building, it might be less useful than in a more public area.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 4, 2017)

This one:


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> This one:


I don't see the problem. Clearly, he's using The Force to stop the actual knife arm, so he can play with the other. Much safer on that side of the body.

What's not to like?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 4, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't see the problem. Clearly, he's using The Force to stop the actual knife arm, so he can play with the other. Much safer on that side of the body.
> 
> What's not to like?


The funny part is that he actually stabs himself performing the technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> The funny part is that he actually stabs himself performing the technique.


Well, he had to, didn't he? It was obvious the other guy wasn't going to get the job done.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 15, 2017)

No idea why I didn't post this sooner.  This one never gets old...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> No idea why I didn't post this sooner.  This one never gets old...


And he didn't even restomp the groin. Slacker.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> No idea why I didn't post this sooner.  This one never gets old...


That is shockingly close to some of the kenpo stuff I was referring to in my earlier posts.  So much so that I think there is crossover there.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 16, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> This one:


I'm gonna guess that this found a place in his curriculum because it worked against him, once upon a time.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And he didn't even restomp the groin. Slacker.



Ashida Kim has to be a strong influence on the creation of the Master Ken character.  Way too many similarities IMO.  Yes, I know the character is based on a lot of different people and situations "Master Ken" has come across (whatever his real name is), but I just see too much Ashida Kim in Master Ken for it to be coincidental.  And yes, that's a good thing.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Feb 16, 2017)

When teaching techniques for "self defense" what I think is useless is teaching things that a student lacks the attributes to apply effectively. So it is student dependent. If for example teaching a women's self defense class with 10 females, none of whom have real experience with violence/fighting and the instructor is teaching techniques that will require good timing, excellent balance, flexibility and tremendous accuracy and an ability to control range when the 10 female students lack all of the above, the methods shown are useless even if they would be excellent methods if only the students had the time to develop the attributes that would allow the methods shown to be successful.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 16, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> the methods shown are useless even if they would be excellent methods if only the students had the time to develop the attributes that would allow the methods shown to be successful.


Part of the reason for teaching self defence courses is to inspire the students to seek further training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> When teaching techniques for "self defense" what I think is useless is teaching things that a student lacks the attributes to apply effectively. So it is student dependent. If for example teaching a women's self defense class with 10 females, none of whom have real experience with violence/fighting and the instructor is teaching techniques that will require good timing, excellent balance, flexibility and tremendous accuracy and an ability to control range when the 10 female students lack all of the above, the methods shown are useless even if they would be excellent methods if only the students had the time to develop the attributes that would allow the methods shown to be successful.


Another example of this would be teaching vital striking points to people in a self-defense seminar who do not already know how to hit well. Better to teach them one easy striking method and get them practicing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> Part of the reason for teaching self defence courses is to inspire the students to seek further training.


Agreed, and that can be done without teaching them techniques they can't use. I typically demonstrate some movements that are more advanced versions of what they've been taught in the seminar.


----------



## Paul_D (Feb 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> No idea why I didn't post this sooner.  This one never gets old...


No matter what he chooses to call it, this is martial arts rather than self defence.

If we are posting the most useless martial arts techniques then we can't ignite Ed Parkers Leap Of Death, which also has Master Ken written all over it


----------



## Paul_D (Feb 19, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> When teaching techniques for "self defense" what I think is useless is teaching things that a student lacks the attributes to apply effectively. So it is student dependent. If for example teaching a women's self defense class with 10 females, none of whom have real experience with violence/fighting and the instructor is teaching techniques that will require good timing, excellent balance, flexibility and tremendous accuracy and an ability to control range when the 10 female students lack all of the above, the methods shown are useless even if they would be excellent methods if only the students had the time to develop the attributes that would allow the methods shown to be successful.


If you are teaching women fighting skills then I would say shouldn't be running a female self defence course, as you clearly haven't looked into the types of violence women we most at risk from.  Fighting in the street/ bars is typically not high on the list.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 19, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No matter what he chooses to call it, this is martial arts rather than self defence.
> 
> If we are posting the most useless martial arts techniques then we can't ignite Ed Parkers Leap Of Death, which also has Master Ken written all over it



This isn't self defense, martial arts, fighting, nor anything else remotely close to a synonym of any of those terms/concepts.

To call it anything other than asinine or a synonym of asinine is asinine.

Edit: Maybe pathetic, sad, delusional, tragically comical, etc. would fit well too.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> If you are teaching women fighting skills then I would say shouldn't be running a female self defence course, as you clearly haven't looked into the types of violence women we most at risk from.  Fighting in the street/ bars is typically not high on the list.



So you don't feel women should know how to fight?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> This isn't self defense, martial arts, fighting, nor anything else remotely close to a synonym of any of those terms/concepts.
> 
> To call it anything other than asinine or a synonym of asinine is asinine.
> 
> Edit: Maybe pathetic, sad, delusional, tragically comical, etc. would fit well too.



And yet people believe all styles are created equal.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And yet people believe all styles are created equal.



Well played.


----------



## marques (Feb 20, 2017)




----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 20, 2017)

marques said:


>


I've watched that video several times over the last couple of years. I never get tired of it. I think I actually read the book that first one comes from, though I don't remember the title. It was on my dad's bookshelf when I was growing up.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 20, 2017)

marques said:


>


I think this must be a joke.  He had to fight to keep from laughing when he said he would snap the base ball bat in half.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Feb 21, 2017)

Whats this about Leap of Death?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 21, 2017)

But what about pointed sticks


----------



## Steve (Feb 21, 2017)

We've shared the Jim Carey link many times.   But who remembers Sweet Tooth Jones.    Legit:


----------



## Paul_D (Feb 23, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> This isn't self defense, martial arts, fighting, nor anything else remotely close to a synonym of any of those terms/concepts.
> 
> To call it anything other than asinine or a synonym of asinine is asinine.
> 
> Edit: Maybe pathetic, sad, delusional, tragically comical, etc. would fit well too.


True dat


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 23, 2017)

People referenced Parker's Leap of Death, so I had to search it.  At least these guys made it entertaining...






Had it not been for "The Glow" and camel clutch references, it wouldn't have been as entertaining.

Iron Sheik would call anyone actually using leap of death a jabroni.  I'd fully concur.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 23, 2017)

Just because it feels appropriate for this thread...


----------



## Buka (Feb 25, 2017)

Couldn't find a clip for it, but one of my favorite Martial related scenes was from Entourage, when Johnny Drama, wearing his yellow belt, says "_I earned this belt. In fact I went as high as a green. I just like to wear the yellow cause it makes my eyes pop_."


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 25, 2017)

Buka said:


> Couldn't find a clip for it, but one of my favorite Martial related scenes was from Entourage, when Johnny Drama, wearing his yellow belt, says "_I earned this belt. In fact I went as high as a green. I just like to wear the yellow cause it makes my eyes pop_."



I love that show.  I've been looking for a replacement for it to no avail.  Californication was a great show too, kind of along the same lines.


----------



## Headhunter (Mar 2, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> People referenced Parker's Leap of Death, so I had to search it.  At least these guys made it entertaining...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That techique absolutely works. The takedown I've used when I worked security in a nightclub and sure you probably won't use the whole ending but the bit where you pin them and yank on the is a restraining move so they can't do anything


----------



## Headhunter (Mar 2, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> No idea why I didn't post this sooner.  This one never gets old...


Sure you're not going use that as a full technique what he's showing but it's showing a range of different strikes that you can use in a real situation


----------



## Headhunter (Mar 2, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No matter what he chooses to call it, this is martial arts rather than self defence.
> 
> If we are posting the most useless martial arts techniques then we can't ignite Ed Parkers Leap Of Death, which also has Master Ken written all over it


Hate to ruin your theory but that technique absolutely works as I've used it before when working in a nightclub


----------



## ewright909 (Mar 2, 2017)

Any type of choke holds.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 2, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> That techique absolutely works. The takedown I've used when I worked security in a nightclub and sure you probably won't use the whole ending but the bit where you pin them and yank on the is a restraining move so they can't do anything



I agree.  When I saw it I thought "what's bad about that?" then I started laughing at the part where you're supposed to jump on the kidneys.  As someone else said, it gets all Master Ken after that.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 2, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Sure you're not going use that as a full technique what he's showing but it's showing a range of different strikes that you can use in a real situation



A lot of those strikes can be effective.  But not to the extent he's pitching them as.  The block in the beginning won't break someone's arm, you're not going to rip off someone's ears, testicles, or face, you're not going to break someone's arm or scapula with a knife-hand strike, etc.

Can many of those things work individually?  Yes.  To the extent he portrays?  Not even close.  Putting them all together like that?  No way in hell.  Funny as hell?  Absolutely.

Like I said previously, Ashida Kim had to be a huge influence on the Master Ken character.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 2, 2017)

ewright909 said:


> Any type of choke holds.



Choke holds are useless?

Hopefully you thought dangerous and not "dangerous (as in useless)" as the thread title says.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 2, 2017)

ewright909 said:


> Any type of choke holds.


What do you find useless about a choke hold?


----------



## ewright909 (Mar 3, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Choke holds are useless?
> 
> Hopefully you thought dangerous and not "dangerous (as in useless)" as the thread title says.





gpseymour said:


> What do you find useless about a choke hold?



What I meant was that choke holds and head locks are very dangerous and can often win a fight. But if not done correctly it is an advantage to the person in the choke hold. For example, side headlock gives the the person being choked the advantage of having their arms are free and close to the legs of the attacker. They can sweep them. punch them or even kick them.

Besides, It will put you in prison. Even Police are banned from doing it.

So Yes they are dangerous and not useless. But if not done right it is bad for the choker. And Therefore it is useless to the Choker when, at times, the person being choked uses their move against them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2017)

ewright909 said:


> What I meant was that choke holds and head locks are very dangerous and can often win a fight. But if not done correctly it is an advantage to the person in the choke hold. For example, side headlock gives the the person being choked the advantage of having their arms are free and close to the legs of the attacker. They can sweep them. punch them or even kick them.
> 
> Besides, It will put you in prison. Even Police are banned from doing it.
> 
> So Yes they are dangerous and not useless. But if not done right it is bad for the choker. And Therefore it is useless to the Choker when, at times, the person being choked uses their move against them.


Okay, based on that, I don't see the "useless" part as applying to proper choke holds, but to poorly-taught ones. I've never seen the side headlock taught as a self-defense move (though it is taught as an attack to defend against). And that could be said of nearly any group of techniques: a poorly executed punch can be useless, as can a throw, as can a joint lock/break.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2017)

ewright909 said:


> it is useless to the Choker when, at times, the person being choked uses their move against them.


When you choke your opponent from behind, put all his weight on your back with his legs off the ground (or you can just drag his body backward), your opponent's arms cannot reach you.

When your feet is off the ground and your hands can't reach to your opponent, there will be no counters.










ewright909 said:


> For example, side headlock gives the the person being choked the advantage of having their arms are free and close to the legs of the attacker. They can sweep them. punch them or even kick them.


The requirement to execute a successful "head lock" is to be able to

- control your opponent's leading arm, and
- crash his spine side way.

If either one is not obtained, you should give up that "head lock" and switch to "over hook". 

In the following picture, he has controlled his opponent's leading left arm. He also bent his opponent's spine. His opponent only has one free right arm. It's very difficult to have any effective counter with one free arm when his body structure has been crashed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you choke your opponent from behind, put all his weight on your back with his legs off the ground (or you can just drag his body backward), your opponent's arms cannot reach you.
> 
> When your feet is off the ground and your hands can't reach to your opponent, there will be no counters.
> 
> ...


Nothing is entirely without counters. If someone had me in that first position, I'd probably look for an escape over my own head (an escape we train for one of our later techniques). It has risks, but beats staying in the position.


----------



## Steve (Mar 3, 2017)

There's actually a very simple takedown from that position that will land the headlockee in side control.

Edit.   This is very similar to what I wad taught.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2017)

Steve said:


> There's actually a very simple takedown from that position that will land the headlockee in side control.
> 
> Edit.   This is very similar to what I wad taught.


This is a good example that when you apply "head lock", you don't have a fully control on your opponent's leading arm and you give your opponent "2 free arms".

If you can have "3 points control" on your opponent's leading arm by controlling his 

- wrist (by your arm pit), 
- elbow (by your left hand), 
- upper arm (by your right hand), 

you will only give him one free arm and his counter can be limited.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is a good example that when you apply "head lock", you don't have a fully control on your opponent's leading arm and you give your opponent "2 free arms".
> 
> If you can have "3 points control" on your opponent's leading arm by controlling his
> 
> ...


I'll have to see if I can get a student to do this - I want to see if it limits my usual responses.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 3, 2017)

ewright909 said:


> So Yes they are dangerous and not useless. But if not done right it is bad for the choker. And Therefore it is useless to the Choker when, at times, the person being choked uses their move against them.



Anything done incorrectly will be potentially dangerous for the person doing it incorrectly.


----------



## Steve (Mar 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is a good example that when you apply "head lock", you don't have a fully control on your opponent's leading arm and you give your opponent "2 free arms".
> 
> If you can have "3 points control" on your opponent's leading arm by controlling his
> 
> ...


If you're holding him, he doesn't need to hold you.   When you're controlling his three points, he just needs to keep you from letting go as he falls to complete the takedown I referenced.

One of the many epiphanies I've had was when I realized that control goes both ways.  When you're controlling me, it also limits you.   In this case, if you're controlling my wrist and elbow, but it's where I want the, anyway, I'm good.   And in this case, I don't care if you're controlling my head.  All I need in order to complete my takedown is to keep one foot on the outside and block your far leg to pull you down to your back.   The  more control you exert on me, the more likely I am to succeed in my takedown.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2017)

Steve said:


> If you're holding him, he doesn't need to hold you.   When you're controlling his three points, he just needs to keep you from letting go as he falls to complete the takedown I referenced.
> 
> One of the many epiphanies I've had was when I realized that control goes both ways.  When you're controlling me, it also limits you.   In this case, if you're controlling my wrist and elbow, but it's where I want the, anyway, I'm good.   And in this case, I don't care if you're controlling my head.  All I need in order to complete my takedown is to keep one foot on the outside and block your far leg to pull you down to your back.   The  more control you exert on me, the more likely I am to succeed in my takedown.


This is what I was wanting to try out. This 3-point control is a 2-way street. They have control of my arm. I have a strong connection to their center. That connection is likely all I need to use exactly the kind of counter you posted.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2017)

Steve said:


> The  more control you exert on me, the more likely I am to succeed in my takedown.


If your throw doesn't hurt your opponent, you still get that side mount to start your ground game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your throw doesn't hurt your opponent, you still get that side mount to start your ground game.


That's a throw - not the same situation as the headlock hold. But the principle Steve referred to applies there, as well. The more securely you attach to me, the more ability I have to move your center. If you move mine first, you win. If not, I win.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's a throw - not the same situation as the headlock hold.


Why would anyone want to get a "head lock" and just standing there?

The only reason that you put a "head lock" on your opponent is to take him down. That "head lock" should be a "hay-maker" that you strike your fore arm on the back of your opponent's head. After you have almost knock him out half way, you then spin your body, and take him down.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why would anyone want to get a "head lock" and just standing there?
> 
> The only reason that you put a "head lock" on your opponent is to take him down. That "head lock" should be a "hay-maker" that you strike your fore arm on the back of your opponent's head. After you have almost knock him out half way, you then spin your body, and take him down.


You brought up the headlock in response to a post about chokes. A choke is not a throw.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You brought up the headlock in response to a post about chokes. A choke is not a throw.


But to use "head lock" to choke your opponent, you have to

- stand behind your opponent like a "back to back hip throw", or
- stand in front of him with a "reverse head lock" (guillotine), or
- be in front of him in the ground game with your back on the ground and his chest on the ground while his head is up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But to use "head lock" to choke your opponent, you have to
> 
> - stand behind your opponent like a "back to back hip throw", or
> - stand in front of him with a "reverse head lock" (guillotine), or
> - be in front of him in the ground game with your back on the ground and his chest on the ground while his head is up.


I'm missing your point. In response to someone's post about chokes, you posted information about the 3-point control of a headlock.


----------



## Steve (Mar 4, 2017)

I don't have 25 minutes to spare.   Can you be a bit more specific?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 4, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm missing your point. In response to someone's post about chokes, you posted information about the 3-point control of a headlock.


I believe the discussion was something like this:

- First someone said choke won't work. I then post a clip and said if you can use "head lock" to choke someone from behind, it will be difficult for him to get away (since his hands cannot reach you and his feet are off the ground). 
- Someone then posted a clip to show a "head lock" used with both of his opponent's arms are free. He then said that you can counter a "head lock" easily.
- I then posted a clip with 3 points control to show that if you can have full control on your opponent's leading arm, he will only have 1 free arm left to counter you.
- Someone then said that a tight "head lock" control will give your opponent a chance to pull/drag you back down.
- I then said that if you can throw him forward before he can drag you down backward, you will get side mount and you can start your ground game from there.

We did start from

choke -> head lock -> throw


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe the discussion was something like this:
> 
> - First someone said choke won't work. I then post a clip and said if you can use "head lock" to choke someone from behind, it will be difficult for him to get away (since his hands cannot reach you and his feet are off the ground).
> - Someone then posted a clip to show a "head lock" used with both of his opponent's arms are free. He then said that you can counter a "head lock" easily.
> ...


In the counter he showed, the other arm is only used to counter punches. Since the off-side arm of the "attacker" is being used to control an arm, there's no need to control it - it is controlling itself. I'm still not sure the control in that method prevents the counter from the video, since the arms aren't activating anything - they are simply attaching to the opponent. When we look at the throw, getting your center low enough to give you leverage is what will prevent that counter. The arm control is preventing other counters.


----------



## Paul_D (Mar 5, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Hate to ruin your theory but that technique absolutely works as I've used it before when working in a nightclub


So after he you got the guy on the ground, you jumped in the air, landed on his kidneys, smashed his face into the floor, then broke his neck, then neck broke his nose, then finally while he his lying helpless on the ground you kicked him in the head, all of which lead to his eventual (if not immediate) death, as the title of the technique implies?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2017)

ewright909 said:


> What I meant was that choke holds and head locks are very dangerous and can often win a fight. But if not done correctly it is an advantage to the person in the choke hold. For example, side headlock gives the the person being choked the advantage of having their arms are free and close to the legs of the attacker. They can sweep them. punch them or even kick them.
> 
> Besides, It will put you in prison. Even Police are banned from doing it.
> 
> So Yes they are dangerous and not useless. But if not done right it is bad for the choker. And Therefore it is useless to the Choker when, at times, the person being choked uses their move against them.



Bulldog choke.





Its a real thing.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2017)

Steve said:


> There's actually a very simple takedown from that position that will land the headlockee in side control.
> 
> Edit.   This is very similar to what I wad taught.




One of those weird differences between a training headlock and a proper headlock.

If you drag the person forwards they have nowhere to go but face down into the deck,


----------



## Headhunter (Mar 5, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> So after he you got the guy on the ground, you jumped in the air, landed on his kidneys, smashed his face into the floor, then broke his neck, then neck broke his nose, then finally while he his lying helpless on the ground you kicked him in the head, all of which lead to his eventual (if not immediate) death, as the title of the technique implies?


No but I used the exact same takedown pinned him with my legs and put him in the neck crank position to pin him. Those techniques are designed to give you options if you need them. It's no different to doing a jab, cross, hook, uppercut on the pads. If I knock the guy out with the cross does that mean there's no point training the combination


----------



## Paul_D (Mar 5, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> No


Hate to ruin your theory, but then you didn't do the leap of death.


----------



## Headhunter (Mar 5, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Hate to ruin your theory, but then you didn't do the leap of death.


I used more than half of the move and used the exact principles and theories of it which I wouldn't have done if I hadnt learnt the techique so yes I did and I managed to defend myself because of that techique and if I wanted to break his neck I could've done so the techique works


----------



## Paul_D (Mar 5, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> I used more than half of the move and used the exact principles and theories of it which I wouldn't have done if I hadnt learnt the techique so yes I did and I managed to defend myself because of that techique and if I wanted to break his neck I could've done so the techique works


I never said it didn't work, I said it was useless.

It is useless as you can never use it (in full) unless of course you like long periods of incarceration.  You did not do the leap, landing on the kidneys nor the did you do the neck break.  Therefore you did not do the leap of death.  You took the parts of the technique that wouldn't land you in jail, as any sensible person would,  if the leap and the death cannot be used (unless as mentioned you like prison) then it is useless.

Useless and ineffective are not the samething.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> In the counter he showed, the other arm is only used to counter punches. Since the off-side arm of the "attacker" is being used to control an arm, there's no need to control it - it is controlling itself. I'm still not sure the control in that method prevents the counter from the video, since the arms aren't activating anything - they are simply attaching to the opponent. When we look at the throw, getting your center low enough to give you leverage is what will prevent that counter. The arm control is preventing other counters.


The "3 points control" can only disable the arm. It's the spine bending that disable the counters. In order to do so, the "elbow joint" of your head lock should point straight down to the ground. In that clip, since he did not "crash his opponent's body structure", his opponent's left waist wrapping arm can still pull him back and down.

IMO, if

- your head lock cannot bend your opponent's spine side way, and
- your opponent's free arm wraps around your waist,

you have to

- change your head lock into over hook and apply pressure on his elbow joint,
- use your right leg to "spring" his left leg back into a bow-arrow stance.

If you want to use head lock,

- not only you need to develop a strong head lock,
- you also need to train many other skills such as over hook (head lock and over hook are twin brothers), elbow crack, leg spring, leg lift, leg twist, inner edge sweep, shin bite, front cut, outer twist, ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you drag the person forwards they have nowhere to go but face down into the deck,


Worst than that, it can be his chest touches the ground but his head is straight up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2017)

In wrestling, there is a major "contradiction".

An effective

1. throw assumes you have 100% control on your opponent's leading arm.
2. counter for throw assumes your leading arm is free.

If 1 is true then 2 is false. Also if 2 is true then 1 is false.

It's true that all technique has counters. But IMO, a 100% correct technique should not have counters. The reason is simple. If your technique can be countered, your technique may still have hole in some area.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 5, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In wrestling, there is a major "contradiction".
> 
> An effective
> 
> ...


I don't believe any technique is completely un-counterable. There is a point in every technique, however, where the time for counters has passed. The two situations you posit as opposites may simply be different points in the same timeline. If I go to throw you, you can counter me up until the moment where I have complete control of the necessary part of you (be it arm, leg, center, whatever). I don't think the leading arm is often a sufficient control point for preventing counters to many throws, since a shift of structure or center can be counter to many. This is in line with what you said about bending the spine (which destroys structure and prevents center shift).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> you can counter me up until the moment where I have complete control of the necessary part of you


Agree! Sometime, it's too later to counter (such as both of your feet are off the ground).


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 27, 2017)

Getting back to the original question in this thread...

It took me a little while to track this down, but this may be the worst "technique" I have ever seen seriously presented as self-defense instruction:


----------



## Paul_D (Mar 27, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Getting back to the original question in this thread...
> 
> It took me a little while to track this down, but this may be the worst "technique" I have ever seen seriously presented as self-defense instruction:


"Expert" yeah, of course he is


----------



## senseiblackbelt (Mar 30, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> Double post...move along...nothing to see here
> 
> Apparently IE is having a real hard time with MT today



Never knew people still used Internet Explorer. LOL.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 30, 2017)

senseiblackbelt said:


> Never knew people still used Internet Explorer. LOL.



Still big in enterprise, but Google is gaining ground


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 30, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Getting back to the original question in this thread...
> 
> It took me a little while to track this down, but this may be the worst "technique" I have ever seen seriously presented as self-defense instruction:


Wow. Yeah, that....um...


----------



## drop bear (Mar 31, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Getting back to the original question in this thread...
> 
> It took me a little while to track this down, but this may be the worst "technique" I have ever seen seriously presented as self-defense instruction:



It is on par with almost everything anti grappling


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 31, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It is on par with almost everything anti grappling


As with most of what I've seen labeled anti-grappling, it would work against the people who watch MMA and think they are learning how to fight.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 31, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It is on par with almost everything anti grappling


I'd say it's much worse.

Your typical "anti-grappling" (like the clip you posted) is just techniques which only work against an incompetent grappler. Sometimes they're even techniques which could work against a competent grappler if the person demonstrating just knew how to do them better.

In the clip I posted the "technique" isn't designed to _defeat_ an incompetent attacker - it's designed to _help out_ the incompetent attacker. "_You can't manage to choke me on your own? Why don't I give you a hand and choke myself out for you_."


----------

