# How much do you really need?



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2016)

in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)...  but anyway.

My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways.  I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter.  Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%.  And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.

I don't believe a highly developed or elaborate strategy is necessary.  A simple and straight forward approach, meant to end the encounter quickly, is what is needed.  A more elaborate strategy is appropriate for competition fighting, where the fight will last long enough for that kind of thing to play out.  A self-defense scenario won't last that long, and there isn't much room for an elaborate strategy.

These are my thoughts.  Feel free to comment.


----------



## marques (Oct 26, 2016)

A few thoughts.

You're doing well (avoiding physical conflict). When we are adults we can manage it quite easier managing our lifestyle. When we are kids... no so simple. 

My (first and foremost) organisation was giving the same importance to what never happens or not dangerous (as wrist grab) and to what is really common and quite dangerous (as a punch in my face - at least it was what I feared the most). Of course, the 'freedom times' as sparring were there to solve it partially. Just to say that I would like to keep the same (extense) programme/syllabus, but giving more emphasis to some parts, instead of learning only the '6 good techniques' (even if the 6 are enough).

In self-defence, the strategy should be simple. Yet, it should be a good one. We need options. And then things may become more complicated and the 'competition fighting' strategies may become useful. (Of course, not exactly the same, but relatively the same level of complexity.)

Finally, self-defence was my first motivation. Now it is not. I just like to train. It is a vice. So, if there is fine art, with good body mechanics and understanding of human body and mind, I am happy training regardless if it will be eventually useful or not. 

PS: I believe I saved my life (and more 2 lives going on the same vehicle) not by the self-defence training, but by a self-defence group lunch where we discussed safe driving and so on. It was all so new to me that I kept thinking about that for days (which is equivalent to real training if you visualise with enough intensity). And when I needed it I just did it, automatically. I would never react 'the good way' without that discussion and would be death (or without a leg...without 1 or 2 friends...). Hundreds of €€ and training hours may be justified in a second, or never (ignoring the heath and fitness benefits). This is why I say train if you like. Because otherwise, it may be a waste... or not! But most of the conflicts we can avoid as you do. To sum up, I used one simple technique, but the good one, out of many useless in that vital moment.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 26, 2016)

No matter what fancy, advanced techniques one learns, if one was programmed at first with basic, simple, easily accessible applications, that is where one will return...leave the learning and go back to the programming.

As for not having a choice but to fight...there is always a choice....one can choose to stand there and take it without fighting. Only one who is well versed in fighting and defeating an opponent truly has the freedom to choose to not fight...

Competition sparring really should not be used in a real protective situation...the only rule that exists is survival...and the conditioning from competition sparring does not help achieve that goal...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 26, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)...  but anyway.
> 
> My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways.  I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter.  Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%.  And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.
> 
> ...


The issue, for most of us, is that learning just a few techniques gets boring and we eventually move along. Having a more extensive "vocabulary" to learn, along with deeper physical principles, has kept me training and improving. It's all useful stuff, but some is more complex, so I keep finding more layers I can work on. That consistent practice means I'm always as ready as I can be to defend myself, rather than having several years of rust to dig through.

For my part, I've started moving as much of the simple stuff as possible to early teaching. This way, if a student quits after a few weeks, they are probably better prepared to defend themselves.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The issue, for most of us, is that learning just a few techniques gets boring and we eventually move along. Having a more extensive "vocabulary" to learn, along with deeper physical principles, has kept me training and improving. It's all useful stuff, but some is more complex, so I keep finding more layers I can work on. That consistent practice means I'm always as ready as I can be to defend myself, rather than having several years of rust to dig through.
> 
> For my part, I've started moving as much of the simple stuff as possible to early teaching. This way, if a student quits after a few weeks, they are probably better prepared to defend themselves.




I agree...especially with the simple stuff at first...natural before formal will allow a newer person to access what is needed without the whole thinking.

In the end, no matter how fancy a technique is...it all boils down to specific limited movements permutated in different ways to express application.  We need to focus on the core, core, core movement in all applications.


----------



## marques (Oct 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The issue, for most of us, is that learning just a few techniques gets boring and we eventually move along. Having a more extensive "vocabulary" to learn, along with deeper physical principles, has kept me training and improving. It's all useful stuff, but some is more complex, so I keep finding more layers I can work on. That consistent practice means I'm always as ready as I can be to defend myself, rather than having several years of rust to dig through.
> 
> For my part, I've started moving as much of the simple stuff as possible to early teaching. This way, if a student quits after a few weeks, they are probably better prepared to defend themselves.


Following that logic, and after my academic experience... when we learn complex things, we keep the basics. When we just learn the basics, we forget everything. 

Also, with more 'fun' you keep training, so ready to act effectively. If it is becoming boring and you quite... it may not work as you think when you need it.

'Complexity' may have uses that are not the direct applications...


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 26, 2016)

I kind of agree that basics will always be what you mainly use but I do think you shouldn't just rely on them either its best to get as many tools as you can. E.g even if I threw a jab a certain way it's always good to learn a couple different ways just in case that way fails or doesn't work for that situation


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 26, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> No matter what fancy, advanced techniques one learns, if one was programmed at first with basic, simple, easily accessible applications, that is where one will return...leave the learning and go back to the programming.
> 
> As for not having a choice but to fight...there is always a choice....one can choose to stand there and take it without fighting. Only one who is well versed in fighting and defeating an opponent truly has the freedom to choose to not fight...
> 
> Competition sparring really should not be used in a real protective situation...the only rule that exists is survival...and the conditioning from competition sparring does not help achieve that goal...


It does help achieve that goal. That conditioning includes reflexive blocking, often hitting to win, maintaining distance until ready to strike, and many other concepts that are useful in self-defense. Lumping together all competition training as useless for self-defense is an extreme over-statement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 26, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> I kind of agree that basics will always be what you mainly use but I do think you shouldn't just rely on them either its best to get as many tools as you can. E.g even if I threw a jab a certain way it's always good to learn a couple different ways just in case that way fails or doesn't work for that situation


I agree with this. The basics leave gaps, and more variations can help fill those gaps. In fact, some of the techniques I teach, I refer to as "gap fillers", because they wouldn't be what you reach for under most circumstances - they show up when the basic stuff fails or doesn't fit.

In addition to that, some of the deeper, more complex stuff actually lets us focus on principles that are masked by the simple stuff. There are techniques that will work absent some useful principles that should be there. And there are techniques that will absolutely fail without those same principles. We often use the latter to improve the former, by developing those principles.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I agree with this. The basics leave gaps, and more variations can help fill those gaps. In fact, some of the techniques I teach, I refer to as "gap fillers", because they wouldn't be what you reach for under most circumstances - they show up when the basic stuff fails or doesn't fit.
> 
> In addition to that, some of the deeper, more complex stuff actually lets us focus on principles that are masked by the simple stuff. There are techniques that will work absent some useful principles that should be there. And there are techniques that will absolutely fail without those same principles. We often use the latter to improve the former, by developing those principles.


I know my name is kickboxer but I have been getting more back into my kenpo background as well as kickboxing I love both equally for different and they compliment each other well but anyway in kenpo the higher flashier looking techniques have a lot of similiar stuff to the basics it's just rearranging them putting the same moves into different scenarios so they're not actually more complicated and are easier to learn than the early tecniques because you already know those moves


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 26, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> I know my name is kickboxer but I have been getting more back into my kenpo background as well as kickboxing I love both equally for different and they compliment each other well but anyway in kenpo the higher flashier looking techniques have a lot of similiar stuff to the basics it's just rearranging them putting the same moves into different scenarios so they're not actually more complicated and are easier to learn than the early tecniques because you already know those moves


There's a good bit of that in NGA, as well. Techniques are held for late in the curriculum, at which point they are fairly easy to learn - in fact, some students "discover" them before they are taught.


----------



## KangTsai (Oct 27, 2016)

More moves are just more options. That's not really detrimental is any way, is it?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 27, 2016)

The point is not to have an elaborate strategy; the point is to have a strategy...


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2016)

If there is a thin chance you may get in a fight at some point in your life. Training is probably not that high a priority.

If you absolutely are going to get into a fight. Then do as much training as you physically can.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)...  but anyway.
> 
> My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways.  I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter.  Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%.  And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.
> 
> ...



Great thread topic!
I have been thinking about this a lot in the last few years especially when I think about Krav Maga which in my understanding was developed to quickly teach the Israeli people how to defend themselves effectively.  I always wonder how they keep students (if they do) for any length of time.  Krav Maga is (in my opinion) supposed to be a quick and dirty Self-Defense system like our version of the military basic training (Modern Army Combatives) or whatever the military is teaching at boot camp nowadays. You don't often see this taught as a martial art to be studied for years, it is a program that you take and maybe every now and then you re-certify in it.   I wonder if systems like Krav Maga wouldn't be best if taught as a 8-10 week course.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If there is a thin chance you may get in a fight at some point in your life. Training is probably not that high a priority.
> 
> If you absolutely are going to get into a fight. Then do as much training as you physically can.


The approach most of us studying for self-defense take is simple: the priority only changes when you need it, and then it's too late. So, we make it a higher priority. Of course, as with sport, there's a lot more benefit we get from it (community, fitness, accomplishment, etc.), so we can enjoy it, even hoping we never actually need it again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> Great thread topic!
> I have been thinking about this a lot in the last few years especially when I think about Krav Maga which in my understanding was developed to quickly teach the Israeli people how to defend themselves effectively.  I always wonder how they keep students (if they do) for any length of time.  Krav Maga is (in my opinion) supposed to be a quick and dirty Self-Defense system like our version of the military basic training (Modern Army Combatives) or whatever the military is teaching at boot camp nowadays. You don't often see this taught as a martial art to be studied for years, it is a program that you take and maybe every now and then you re-certify in it.   I wonder if systems like Krav Maga wouldn't be best if taught as a 8-10 week course.


The issue would be that after 8-10 weeks, the motor habits would degrade quickly. The value of long-term MA study of any kind is largely in the building of durable "muscle memory" (mostly myelin sheathing of neurons and activation of neural pathways).

I've been working on a KM-inspired curriculum extracted from NGA. The idea would be to teach a few basic movements, never get into the Classical forms, and deliver it as a series of workshops. It would have reasonable value if the students followed up by coming to classes 2-3 times a month after completion, to keep honing their skills and building that muscle memory.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If there is a thin chance you may get in a fight at some point in your life. Training is probably not that high a priority.
> 
> If you absolutely are going to get into a fight. Then do as much training as you physically can.


I don't think anyone absolutely knows they're going to get in a fight people train because they enjoy it that's the main thing


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The issue would be that after 8-10 weeks, the motor habits would degrade quickly. The value of long-term MA study of any kind is largely in the building of durable "muscle memory" (mostly myelin sheathing of neurons and activation of neural pathways).
> 
> I've been working on a KM-inspired curriculum extracted from NGA. The idea would be to teach a few basic movements, never get into the Classical forms, and deliver it as a series of workshops. It would have reasonable value if the students followed up by coming to classes 2-3 times a month after completion, to keep honing their skills and building that muscle memory.


This is why I study KAPAP instead of Krav Maga, for me KAPAP goes further and is more about long term study and Krav Maga (in my opinion) was designed and should be a simple easy to remember course on self protection.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 27, 2016)

Since most people do NOT train in martial arts, you are right: usually simple is better. Every now and then you might have a self-defense scenario where the person is naturally a good fighter, but I think those are more rare than one might think. In a competition, you need to know more because your opponent knows more.


----------



## marques (Oct 27, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Since most people do NOT train in martial arts, you are right: usually simple is better. Every now and then you might have a self-defense scenario where the person is naturally a good fighter, but I think those are more rare than one might think. In a competition, you need to know more because your opponent knows more.


On the other hand, in self-defence, you don't know your opponent. Neither how many are hidden, if any. He (they) may be on drugs (and unresponsive to pain). You don't know which weapons are there, if any. Don't think it will be easy. Avoid. 

Stupid people fight (illegal ones). Bad people just hit/shoot/kill you when you are vulnerable...


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 27, 2016)

marques said:


> On the other hand, in self-defence, you don't know your opponent. Neither how many are hidden, if any. He (they) may be on drugs (and unresponsive to pain). You don't which weapons are there, if any. Don't think it will be easy. Avoid.
> 
> Stupid people fight (illegal ones). Bad people just hit/hoot/kill you when you are vulnerable...


 
Right. You should never underestimate the opponent, of course.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> More moves are just more options. That's not really detrimental is any way, is it?


It can be, but it depends.

The point I'm really making is that there are a lot more ways to use something than we sometimes realize.  Getting more mileage from less material can have advantages over having an extensive and vast curriculum with many options that run the risk of becoming too many options and can become cumbersome and problematic in various ways.  Just where that line may be is impossible to say in a general sense and probably varies from person to person, but is an issue.

But yes, it can be detrimental, but it depends.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)...  but anyway.
> 
> My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways.  I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter.  Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%.  And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.
> 
> ...



You are not alone in this thought, I agree and based on this quote

_"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times. -- Bruce Lee"_

I think that Bruce Lee would agree as well


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 27, 2016)

The only flaw in that logic is that one technique cannot be applied to every fight.

Say the one technique you learn is a front snap kick. Not complicated, right? But if your opponent (or opponents) is/are too close for kicks, then what? And what if there is no room to step out so you CAN be in kicking range?

Maybe...one technique per fighting range?


----------



## marques (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> The point I'm really making is that there are a lot more ways to use something than we sometimes realize.  Getting more mileage from less material can have advantages over having an extensive and vast curriculum with many options that run the risk of becoming too many options and can become cumbersome and problematic in various ways.


In my opinion (and experience), we can have a narrow offensive arsenal, but we need a wide defensive arsenal. We can see that on MMA. My instructor once said he had only one good offensive technique (even if it was not true) and everything else was for setting up.

More options take more time to be learned and take more time to be chosen quickly enough. That is quite clear.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The issue, for most of us, is that learning just a few techniques gets boring and we eventually move along. Having a more extensive "vocabulary" to learn, along with deeper physical principles, has kept me training and improving. It's all useful stuff, but some is more complex, so I keep finding more layers I can work on. That consistent practice means I'm always as ready as I can be to defend myself, rather than having several years of rust to dig through.
> 
> For my part, I've started moving as much of the simple stuff as possible to early teaching. This way, if a student quits after a few weeks, they are probably better prepared to defend themselves.



I heard this from my Sanda Shifu and I heard this from one of my xingyiquan shifus..... "training is boring". Meaning if you want to do it right, it is long hours of repetition. But with that said, in my quest to not be bored, I have trained Jujutsu, TKD, Taijiquan (Yang, Chen, dabbled in Wu and Sun), Baguazhang, JKD, Xingyiquan, Changquan, Wing Chun, Karate, Sanda and probably one or two more I can't remember. I also had a job once that required me to get into multiple confrontations and I was on many occasions able to talk the other guy out of doing what he wanted to do but at times I had no choice but to act and most of the time, qinna handled the situation, but I will admit that multiple jump kick with a spinning kick I could do at the time looked much cooler, however I never used it once in any of those confrontations. 

I also spent over 20 years of serious training of Yang style taijiquan only to realize that a long form, 2 fast forms, a staff form, 2 Jian forms, a Dao form, multiple push hand drills and a 2 person form was just way to complicated, and I came to this conclusion after I was given permission to teach Yang style and after a lucky encounter with a Dachengquan guy. 

If I were a younger man I would likely focus on JKD for a few years because my short time in it taught me volumes about many of the other arts I trained, especially Xingyiquan. JKD is uncomplicated and rather direct and I like that. But for those same reasons I like Xingyiquan, it is uncomplicated and rather direct, but can be painfully boring to train (literally painful at times). But if you train it right it works well on many levels from SD to health. My current thinking is that Dachengquan simplifies things even more, but can be even more boring to train. But again, done correctly the reward for that training are immense. 

What old age, injury, multiple arts, multiple confrontations and years in training MA have lead me to believe is that Flying Crane is absolutely correct. and again to quote Bruce Lee.... the goal should be "simply to simplify"


----------



## marques (Oct 27, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Maybe...one technique per fighting range?


I think it is more an intellectual exercise than anything else. 
Maybe for each range, a technique for the strong males and another for 'old ladies'? Or one for fat guys and another for tiny ones... One for big guys and another for short guys?  Because each one is special and deserves a special treatment.  And we will end up with the extensive programmes we already have...


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2016)

marques said:


> but we need a wide defensive arsenal. We can see that on MMA.



I don't agree, and I don't believe that what works well in MMA necessarily translates directly into other situations.  That is not to say that MMA training doesn't work for self defense.  I am not saying that at all.  But I am saying that MMA is not the yardstick against which to measure all things related to martial arts or fighting or self defense.


> More options take more time to be learned and take more time to be chosen quickly enough. That is quite clear.


Agreed on this part, and that can become too much to the point where it is a problem.  It can also spread out your training over too many options, so you never really get any good at any of it.  Too many things to practice, not enough hours in the day, days in the week.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> The only flaw in that logic is that one technique cannot be applied to every fight.
> 
> Say the one technique you learn is a front snap kick. Not complicated, right? But if your opponent (or opponents) is/are too close for kicks, then what? And what if there is no room to step out so you CAN be in kicking range?
> 
> Maybe...one technique per fighting range?


Depends on the technique, some may be more universally useful than others.  If you get really good at throwing fast, powerful punches, you can probably find that tremendously useful in a wide range of situations.  That alone might handle that initial 85% that I referenced.  Kicks by their very nature are less universally useful, even tho something like a front kick can have a lot of flexibility in when it is used.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 27, 2016)

marques said:


> I think it is more an intellectual exercise than anything else.
> Maybe for each range, a technique for the strong males and another for 'old ladies'? Or one for fat guys and another for tiny ones... One for big guys and another for short guys?  Because each one is special and deserves a special treatment.  And we will end up with the extensive programmes we already have...


 
Not if it were tailored to the practitioner.

Example: the techniques the old lady has will be different than the linebacker.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 27, 2016)

Krav Maga was intended for the military not the civilians, that came along a lot later.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Not if it were tailored to the practitioner.
> 
> Example: the techniques the old lady has will be different than the linebacker.


Why would the linebacker need different techs from the old lady?  If something works well for an old lady, then it ought to work even better for someone athletically inclined and much younger.

I would say that something that relies on strength and athleticism may be something that a linebacker can use, but an old lady could not.  But if an old lady can use it, certainly a linebacker could too and it suggests the technique is optimally efficient and useful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Why would the linebacker need different techs from the old lady?  If something works well for an old lady, then it ought to work even better for someone athletically inclined and much younger.
> 
> I would say that something that relies on strength and athleticism may be something that a linebacker can use, but an old lady could not.  But if an old lady can use it, certainly a linebacker could too and it suggests the technique is optimally efficient and useful.


The issue is that what's easiest to learn would work for the linebacker, but not for the frail old lady. So, if we teach only to the frail old lady, we leave out some of what is effective, but requires more athleticism. This is an error I see some instructors in the "aiki" arts make. They teach what they are currently working on, what they've found intriguing and motivating 20-30 years into the art, and they skip the stuff that made them effective in the first 3 years.

Something the old lady can use will have more inherent limitations, unless it can be "amped up" by simply adding strength and speed - something which doesn't actually add to the effectiveness of all techniques and can actually make some harder to do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Not if it were tailored to the practitioner.
> 
> Example: the techniques the old lady has will be different than the linebacker.


Don't forget that some day that linebacker will be an old...well, an old man, anyway. If he only learns "linebacker" techniques, he has to keep learning new stuff as he ages. Wait, that's what long-term students in martial arts do!

Damnit, now you've got me debating against my own earlier post, WC!!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Depends on the technique, some may be more universally useful than others.  If you get really good at throwing fast, powerful punches, you can probably find that tremendously useful in a wide range of situations.  That alone might handle that initial 85% that I referenced.  Kicks by their very nature are less universally useful, even tho something like a front kick can have a lot of flexibility in when it is used.


Even fast punches fall apart when your opponent charges, head-down. Or if their entry to the conflict is a hard shove, or a kick. They are useful, but for SD should be paired with a few other controlling techniques. And even with that said, there are different punches, so we can't just call "fast, powerful punches" a single technique. They'd need at least a short-range, a long-range, and a filler (elbow, cross, and jab, perhaps). We're already at 3 techniques without getting to the other bits I mentioned.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't agree, and I don't believe that what works well in MMA necessarily translates directly into other situations.  That is not to say that MMA training doesn't work for self defense.  I am not saying that at all.  But I am saying that MMA is not the yardstick against which to measure all things related to martial arts or fighting or self defense.
> 
> Agreed on this part, and that can become too much to the point where it is a problem.  It can also spread out your training over too many options, so you never really get any good at any of it.  Too many things to practice, not enough hours in the day, days in the week.


This is a good point. Some styles throw the whole damned curriculum in too fast, so folks don't get good at much of it for a long time. Perhaps the answer, even within a large curriculum, is to focus on one bit of the system for a sustained period and get good at it, then move on to the next bit. In the limited-curriculum SD systems, this could translate to revisiting the same work over and over, and simply adapting it to new scenarios, ranges, speeds, etc.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Why would the linebacker need different techs from the old lady?  If something works well for an old lady, then it ought to work even better for someone athletically inclined and much younger.
> 
> I would say that something that relies on strength and athleticism may be something that a linebacker can use, but an old lady could not.  But if an old lady can use it, certainly a linebacker could too and it suggests the technique is optimally efficient and useful.


 
I'm not saying the technique for the old lady wouldn't work for the linebacker. The comment was made that what I said about how one technique will not fit all situations would wind up leading us back to the wide, diversified curriculum that is already in place. I was pointing out that, since different practitioners will be different in terms of physique and other factors, you could just teach them techniques that would work for them as individuals. That doesn't mean that some people won't have the SAME curriculum.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Don't forget that some day that linebacker will be an old...well, an old man, anyway. If he only learns "linebacker" techniques, he has to keep learning new stuff as he ages. Wait, that's what long-term students in martial arts do!
> 
> Damnit, now you've got me debating against my own earlier post, WC!!


 
This is something that we all do as we are in the arts longer. My first Sifu used to be very proud of his footwork; he considered that to be his secret weapon. Then he sustained an injury to his left leg (tore an ACL, I believe). Suddenly, he couldn't even pivot to the left without being in pain, so he had to alter his approach.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> This is a good point. Some styles throw the whole damned curriculum in too fast, so folks don't get good at much of it for a long time. Perhaps the answer, even within a large curriculum, is to focus on one bit of the system for a sustained period and get good at it, then move on to the next bit. In the limited-curriculum SD systems, this could translate to revisiting the same work over and over, and simply adapting it to new scenarios, ranges, speeds, etc.


 
If you want to be able to open and sustain a school, then you have to balance what you know to be effetctive on the street with what you know to be effective at making sure people keep coming and paying. LOL Spend too long on the same thing, and people will get bored and quit. Saw it happen time and time again when my previous Sifu stuck strictly to teaching just forms during class. He stopped doing self-defense applications, and people didn't get to really hone their chops until he thought they were good enough to do chi sao.

Wanting to keep the art pure and develop a core group of people who were REALLY good wing chun practitioners was admirable. Unfortunately, it cost him students. People can get bored super fast standing around doing the stationary form of Sil Lum Tao super fast. In my opinion, it needs to be mixed up. So you need to find that balance. How long can we stay on punching combos long enough to get these people good at them, but not SO long that they get bored and stop coming to class?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Even fast punches fall apart when your opponent charges, head-down. Or if their entry to the conflict is a hard shove, or a kick. They are useful, but for SD should be paired with a few other controlling techniques. And even with that said, there are different punches, so we can't just call "fast, powerful punches" a single technique. They'd need at least a short-range, a long-range, and a filler (elbow, cross, and jab, perhaps). We're already at 3 techniques without getting to the other bits I mentioned.


I agree, my point was simply that some techs are arguable more universally applied than others.  That doesn't mean 100%, without fail.


----------



## marques (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't agree, and I don't believe that what works well in MMA necessarily translates directly into other situations.  That is not to say that MMA training doesn't work for self defense.  I am not saying that at all.  But I am saying that MMA is not the yardstick against which to measure all things related to martial arts or fighting or self defense.


Agree. 
MMA is miles away from self-defence, but it is the closest combat sport, right? The advantage of the MMA as an example is there are statistics and footages of everything. We can know the fighter and their training. We can support objectively what we say. If we had so good information about self-defence, that thread (and others as well) would be shorter...


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2016)

To answer the OP, I agree completely.  Complex, long term programs designed to teach people "self defense" is a placebo.  It's feeling safer as opposed to actually being safer.

I'm really glad to see some support for this perspective recently, as I have taken a lot of heat for suggesting it in years past. 

I think there is a huge disconnect between what people see in their minds as potential attackers and what actually occurs, in real life, when people are attacked.  I also think that there is often a huge disconnect between people who are fearful of being attacked and people who are at realistic risk of attack.

It's like a line from an SNL skit where one person asks, "How are we going to avoid being attacked by bears?"  The response was an incredulous, "We just stay away from bears!" 

There are people who are at high risk for assault, and there are some very practical things that can help.  Being able to eye gouge or curb stomp isn't really among those things.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 27, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> More moves are just more options. That's not really detrimental is any way, is it?


There was an experiment carried out (although I no longer have the link to it or can remember who performed it) with two groups.  One was taught one strangle defence and the other was taught two strangle defences. Needless to say when pressure tested the gorup that only new one defence reacted quicker.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2016)

marques said:


> Agree.
> MMA is miles away from self-defence, but it is the closest combat sport, right? The advantage of the MMA as an example is there are statistics and footages of everything. We can know the fighter and their training. We can support objectively what we say. If we had so good information about self-defence, that thread (and others as well) would be shorter...


Sure, but th parameters of the encounter are vastly different


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> To answer the OP, I agree completely.  Complex, long term programs designed to teach people "self defense" is a placebo.  It's feeling safer as opposed to actually being safer.
> 
> I'm really glad to see some support for this perspective recently, as I have taken a lot of heat for suggesting it in years past.
> 
> ...


That's all relevant and true, Steve, but we can't train based upon likelihood. Statistics don't provide insurance. I am probably far less than 10% likely to face another physical assault in my life. That doesn't mean I shouldn't train, though it probably does mean I shouldn't obsess about it. As for the value in long-term programs, I've already mentioned that. If someone practices something just long enough to be able to do it (some weeks or months), then stops practicing, the neural learning will be short-term. Practicing physical self-defense techniques long-term means they're always kept at the necessary "habitual" level. And studying those movements long-term, for most of us, means finding a way to keep it interesting even after we "get it." We all know the basics are the most valuable part, so we keep going back to those. But there's some value in the rest, and all that new learning and exploration is what keeps it interesting enough to keep visiting those basics to keep them working.

So, to me, a full MA system that is used for SD could be considered as having three parts: the emergency stuff (which should be taught first and requires very little coordination), the solid basics (most of what folks learn in the first year, and into the second), and the deep-dive stuff (gap fillers, learning to be more efficient, learning to not use strength so it continues to work as we age, some things that work really well but require better coordination and understanding, and the stuff that's mostly there to keep it interesting).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> There was an experiment carried out (although I no longer have the link to it or can remember who performed it) with two groups.  One was taught one strangle defence and the other was taught two strangle defences. Needless to say when pressure tested the gorup that only new one defence reacted quicker.


I'd like to see that study. There are a lot of variables to be considered to determine how we can use those results. Was it a 1-hour training, or several hours over several weeks? Were the two defenses to the same exact attack? Were they given multiple different attacks to defend? How similar were the results?

If you can find that study or remember anything more about it, I'd love to dig deeper into how it was conducted and what the exact results were.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 27, 2016)

marques said:


> but we need a wide defensive arsenal.


You only need a wide defensive arsenal if you allow the other person to attack first, or you are caught in code white (see Coppers Colour Codes) and don’t even realise there is going to be an attack until it has already begun.  If you are familiar with the rituals of non-consensual criminal violence, then once you have reached the point were leaving or verbal de-escalation are no longer options, you attack.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'd like to see that study. There are a lot of variables to be considered to determine how we can use those results. Was it a 1-hour training, or several hours over several weeks? Were the two defenses to the same exact attack? Were they given multiple different attacks to defend? How similar were the results?
> 
> If you can find that study or remember anything more about it, I'd love to dig deeper into how it was conducted and what the exact results were.


I can't remeber that much about it tbh, all that I can remeber is that as the group that only knew one defense didn't have to decide which defence to use, then they just were able to execauet the only one they did know faster.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's all relevant and true, Steve, but we can't train based upon likelihood. Statistics don't provide insurance. I am probably far less than 10% likely to face another physical assault in my life. That doesn't mean I shouldn't train, though it probably does mean I shouldn't obsess about it. As for the value in long-term programs, I've already mentioned that. If someone practices something just long enough to be able to do it (some weeks or months), then stops practicing, the neural learning will be short-term. Practicing physical self-defense techniques long-term means they're always kept at the necessary "habitual" level. And studying those movements long-term, for most of us, means finding a way to keep it interesting even after we "get it." We all know the basics are the most valuable part, so we keep going back to those. But there's some value in the rest, and all that new learning and exploration is what keeps it interesting enough to keep visitine basics to keep them working.
> 
> So, to me, a full MA system that is used for SD could be considered as having three parts: the emergency stuff (which should be taught first and requires very little coordination), the solid basics (most of what folks learn in the first year, and into the second), and the deep-dive stuff (gap fillers, learning to be more efficient, learning to not use strength so it continues to work as we age, some things that work really well but require better coordination and understanding, and the stuff that's mostly there to keep it interesting).


You use the word "shouldn't" several times.   I don't really like that word.  It is extremely subjective and not very helpful to discussion.  

But in short statistics are entirely important because it informs the degree of effort that is reasonable.   Insurance sales people might believe that everyone needs $500k life policies. That doesn't make it a wise expense for everyone.  

If you are a drug addicted transient, you are at high risk of assault.   If you are a 20 year old, female, college student, you are at realistic risk of sexual assault.  If you are cop or work in a social security office or in a homeless shelter.  And in these cases, training might help.   What training would actually help will vary and in most cases, physical training is going to be of limited use.

I have a lot going on today so this may not make a lot of sense.  I will try to clarify later if needed.


----------



## Buka (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'd like to see that study. There are a lot of variables to be considered to determine how we can use those results. Was it a 1-hour training, or several hours over several weeks? Were the two defenses to the same exact attack? Were they given multiple different attacks to defend? How similar were the results?
> 
> If you can find that study or remember anything more about it, I'd love to dig deeper into how it was conducted and what the exact results were.



Might be referring to the Hicks Law (which should be called the Hicks-Hyman Law)

Hick's law - Wikipedia


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> You use the word "shouldn't" several times.   I don't really like that word.  It is extremely subjective and not very helpful to discussion.
> 
> But in short statistics are entirely important because it informs the degree of effort that is reasonable.   Insurance sales people might believe that everyone needs $500k life policies. That doesn't make it a wise expense for everyone.
> 
> ...


I used shouldn't in a negative point - making much the same point you are with it, so I think we're good on that one.

As for the level of effort based on statistics, that's an academic choice beyond a certain point. If I decide there's a low chance of having a physical attack, and only put in 10% of the training effort required to be very good, I likely wasted that 10%. That's my point about long-term training's benefit. I could quite easily teach an about-average person to defend against the most likely kinds of attacks in just a few weeks and have them be able to repeat those defenses under reasonable stress. A year later, however, they wouldn't be able to repeat those under the same stress - nor likely even under no stress at all. That's the nature of physical learning; it decays over time and will be reduced to near absence if it wasn't highly engrained. Now, if we're talking about the difference between choosing casual training (like my many years of mostly 2-5 classes a week) versus choosing a more intense regimen, I'm entirely with you on that being a selection based on likelihood of an attack.

And that same goes for the usefulness of physical training, at all. There are a lot of factors involved - too many for any level of certainty. Everyone I know who practices martial arts cites it as a major source of their personal confidence and feeling of control. Confidence is a determiner in how we act, and confident actions tend to lead away from victimization, both in target selection and in avoidance of circumstances. Add the locus of control, and the effects become intensified. So, now we've likely reduced the likelihood of being attacked, but of course not to zero, so the actual physical skills are to help with that remaining chance. 

Of course, if the self-defense training is done right, it should also include some education on risk avoidance, threat awareness, etc. And those will have at least as great an effect on the chances of being a victim as the confidence gained will. I'm not aware of any study that has been done to try to measure that - nor am I confident a reliable study could be conducted - but I'd expect this last part to be the more effective part of the training, if we can measure a straight reduction in incidents.

Beyond that, of course, is the fact that folks enjoy their training. That's obviously a large part of why most of us train, though it has no direct bearing on self-defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Buka said:


> Might be referring to the Hicks Law (which should be called the Hicks-Hyman Law)
> 
> Hick's law - Wikipedia


That's certainly the same concept, though the experiment behind that is generally accepted as not fully valid for generalization. With defensive actions like the strangle defense, an experiment would need to account or control for length of training, types of attacks, decay time, etc. I'd expect a relatively new student to struggle with the choice (in fact, I perform that particular experiment nearly every class). Experience suggests that the effect is at least highly diminished with more training, and may be erased altogether when put in the context of choosing the appropriate response to variable attacks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> You only need a wide defensive arsenal if you allow the other person to attack first, or you are caught in code white (see Coppers Colour Codes) and don’t even realise there is going to be an attack until it has already begun.  If you are familiar with the rituals of non-consensual criminal violence, then once you have reached the point were leaving or verbal de-escalation are no longer options, you attack.


That's valid, though it assumes your initial attack is entirely successful. If they manage to counter you, your choice to attack doesn't negate the need to defend.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I used shouldn't in a negative point - making much the same point you are with it, so I think we're good on that one.
> 
> As for the level of effort based on statistics, that's an academic choice beyond a certain point. If I decide there's a low chance of having a physical attack, and only put in 10% of the training effort required to be very good, I likely wasted that 10%. That's my point about long-term training's benefit. I could quite easily teach an about-average person to defend against the most likely kinds of attacks in just a few weeks and have them be able to repeat those defenses under reasonable stress. A year later, however, they wouldn't be able to repeat those under the same stress - nor likely even under no stress at all. That's the nature of physical learning; it decays over time and will be reduced to near absence if it wasn't highly engrained. Now, if we're talking about the difference between choosing casual training (like my many years of mostly 2-5 classes a week) versus choosing a more intense regimen, I'm entirely with you on that being a selection based on likelihood of an attack.
> 
> ...


A two week course with annual refresher training doesn't sound unreasonable.  

And re confidence, just caution you not to confuse thr end with the means.   There are many ways to improve self confidence and esteem.  Many don't involve martial arts and may even not be physical at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> A two week course with annual refresher training doesn't sound unreasonable.
> 
> And re confidence, just caution you not to confuse thr end with the means.   There are many ways to improve self confidence and esteem.  Many don't involve martial arts and may even not be physical at all.


Agreed on that latter part. My point was just that the physical training includes that, which is probably the more important effect since it affects their chances of being attacked and impacts so much else in life.

As for the minimum schedule, the research I've seen would suggest a bit more frequency if I'm remembering correctly. I think a quarterly refresher, or just a couple of standard classes a month would work well with a short curriculum. That should keep muscle memory for a few simple techniques. It won't produce the same repeatability as consistent training, but there's a marginal return to training more often. So, if we're talking about just learning a few simple techniques to change the odds, something like that is probably meaningful. Could probably reduce the frequency in the long term if there was more frequency in the first year. That's sort of what I was aiming for with the other curriculum I've tinkered with: 8 classes, then a 2-4 a month for 6-12 months, then just visit one a month or so to stay in it. Of course, most anyone who comes back beyond that year probably wants to learn more and could transition to the full NGA curriculum.


----------



## Buka (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's certainly the same concept, though the experiment behind that is generally accepted as not fully valid for generalization. With defensive actions like the strangle defense, an experiment would need to account or control for length of training, types of attacks, decay time, etc. I'd expect a relatively new student to struggle with the choice (in fact, I perform that particular experiment nearly every class). Experience suggests that the effect is at least highly diminished with more training, and may be erased altogether when put in the context of choosing the appropriate response to variable attacks.



This could turn into a long conversation. 

The strangle defense - first would be to properly determine what that defense(s) is/are, for I've seen some that might work in dojo, but I wouldn't put any stock in.

As for the Hicks/Hyman law itself, I think it's valid - but length of training certainly comes into play - if that training is good training. But I think, at first, the length of training (short) hinders the initial response time, then, eventually, quickens it.

Experience erases "choosing" altogether. It is reactive as opposed to choice, but that reactive includes proactive at the same time - which makes them react to you (because their initial attack failed), not you to them.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed on that latter part. My point was just that the physical training includes that, which is probably the more important effect since it affects their chances of being attacked and impacts so much else in life.
> 
> As for the minimum schedule, the research I've seen would suggest a bit more frequency if I'm remembering correctly. I think a quarterly refresher, or just a couple of standard classes a month would work well with a short curriculum. That should keep muscle memory for a few simple techniques. It won't produce the same repeatability as consistent training, but there's a marginal return to training more often. So, if we're talking about just learning a few simple techniques to change the odds, something like that is probably meaningful. Could probably reduce the frequency in the long term if there was more frequency in the first year. That's sort of what I was aiming for with the other curriculum I've tinkered with: 8 classes, then a 2-4 a month for 6-12 months, then just visit one a month or so to stay in it. Of course, most anyone who comes back beyond that year probably wants to learn more and could transition to the full NGA curriculum.


Length of the training and timing between refresher courses really depends upon context.

To clarify what I think of when I envision a well thought out, well documented, effective, self defense training course, this is what I have in mind:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131#t=abstract

There is a specific group of people who are at high risk for assault:



> Young women attending university1,2 face a substantial risk of being sexually assaulted. The incidence of sexual assault is estimated to be between 20% and 25% over a period of 4 years and to be highest during the first 2 years.3,4



There is an assessment of what has been done in the past, what has worked and what has not:



> Workshops designed to help women resist sexual assault or reduce their risk have had inconsistent effects. Two studies showed short-term benefit, which in one study was limited to women who had had no previous victimization17,18; other studies showed no clear benefits at 2, 4, or 6 months, even with “booster” sessions (i.e., sessions that review or expand on content to maintain or improve effects).19-21 All but one study was conducted at a single site, two used group-level randomization,17,19 and the one with the longest follow-up had a high rate of attrition.21



There is a measurable outcome:



> The aim of the current trial was to assess whether a new, four-unit, small-group sexual assault resistance program,22 as compared with access to brochures on sexual assault, could reduce the 1-year incidence of completed rape among first-year female students at three universities.



If you take a look at the entire article, the program was eight hours long, broken up into four sections, with only one of those sessions teaching physical, martial arts type self defense.   The article also explains how they established a control group.  In the end, the program was successful.  Women were safer having taken the training, and ultimately, for every 22 women who attended the training, 1 rape was prevented, and the incidence of attempted rape was just over 3% for the group who attended the training vs over 9% in the control group.  I consider this significant and very successful.

If every self-defense program were as scientific and grounded in statistics as this, I would be very, very happy (and probably have a very different opinion of "self defense" training).


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't agree, and I don't believe that what works well in MMA necessarily translates directly into other situations.



If you make that statement you probably need to be specific.

So the mma rear naked choke with hooks in possibly doesnt translate into self defence as well as the standing or kneeling sleeper version. Yeah fair enough.

Some sort of generalized. I am not sure what MMA  guys actually do but sport has rules so it cant work on the streetz gets pretty silly.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Depends on the technique, some may be more universally useful than others.  If you get really good at throwing fast, powerful punches, you can probably find that tremendously useful in a wide range of situations.  That alone might handle that initial 85% that I referenced.  Kicks by their very nature are less universally useful, even tho something like a front kick can have a lot of flexibility in when it is used.



You are right. And are also generally the same things that get people through their first few ring fights.

If all you learned how to do was punch straight you would bash most streetfighters.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> You use the word "shouldn't" several times.   I don't really like that word.  It is extremely subjective and not very helpful to discussion.
> 
> But in short statistics are entirely important because it informs the degree of effort that is reasonable.   Insurance sales people might believe that everyone needs $500k life policies. That doesn't make it a wise expense for everyone.
> 
> ...



the crockwise rap approach.






As opposed to  carrying a gun or something.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 27, 2016)

A combination of striking and grappling. That's what you need.

If I could do it over again, I would only practice Gracie Jiujitsu and Boxing.

Being able to train at Greg Jackson's gym would be pretty sweet as well.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)...  but anyway.
> 
> My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways.  I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter.  Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%.  And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.
> 
> ...


Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but the amount of self-defense that is actually needed isn't a static one size fits all solution.  Things such as the environment that someone lives in, the type of people they hang around with, the job that they do and some other elements will help determine "how much is enough."

As a teenager I was at a higher risk for being in a fight and as an adult I'm at more risk for being in a really bad fight, but the possibility of that happening is much lower than me being in a fight as a teen.

Based on the fact that kids are being exposed to formal training these days.  A teen today probably needs more skill to fight than I needed as a kid.  When I was a kid, kids looked like kids, and there there weren't 6 feet mini-adults at the age of 12.  I also think that kids today are also more brutal as well.  Very few fights that I saw as a teenager were at the intensity level of some of these fights that I see on youtube and read in the news.  Back then a Win was determined when one person gives up.  Now a Win is determined by when the Winner gets tired of stomping your head into the concrete.

As for the simplicity of self-defense. I think it's only simple in the beginning when a person is learning. It's like driving. When we first learn how to drive, the skill sets we use are simple, but after 10 years of driving the skill sets actually gets very complex.  Self-defense is like this for me. It might have started out simple, but as an adult and many years of honing my skills (non-physical skills) my self-defense strategy is not only complex it changes in real time.  I may have one plan going into a bad area of time, but once I'm in that area, that plan shifts and changes as the danger cues change.  To be fair it actually changes more when I'm not in a bad area, because I could be in an almost care free mode one second, and stranger danger mode in the next second, all because some crazy looking guy with a shifty walk steps into my immediate environment.

I look at Self-defense like a tool box.  Do you only carry a screw driver and pliers in the tool box because you don't think you need a hammer and some nails?  I rarely use a hammer around my house but when I need one, I can't ever find one or it takes me 2 days to find it.  Someone may say that I should be better organized with my hammer, and I'll just say, why? I rarely use it (less than 2 times every 5 years).  Why bother?  Self-defense works just like this.  No one thinks they need it, until they do.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but the amount of self-defense that is actually needed isn't a static one size fits all solution.  Things such as the environment that someone lives in, the type of people they hang around with, the job that they do and some other elements will help determine "how much is enough."
> 
> As a teenager I was at a higher risk for being in a fight and as an adult I'm at more risk for being in a really bad fight, but the possibility of that happening is much lower than me being in a fight as a teen.
> 
> ...


Sure, but you probably don't need eight hammers.  And if assembling a set of shelves from IKEA is the extent of your home repairs, neither do you need an arc welder.

If you like those things, you can get them and learn to use them.  Nothing wrong with that.  But you may have very little true need for them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, but you probably don't need eight hammers.


If I had eight hammers then I'm pretty sure I would be able to find one when I need one. Let's put this on a more practical level.  My dad always had 3 or 4 hammers around the house so there's no difficulty in finding one at his place.

How many pens do you have in your home?  You only need one.  In my home I know I can find a pen in almost any room.  If I needed a pen I know I can find one without really looking for it.  If the pen I pick up doesn't work then I'm sure the pen next to it will.  Fighting techniques are like the pens. I have more than one way to stop a Bjj person from shooting in on me.  I don't have a one size fits all solution.  If my first technique fails, then I'm pretty sure the second one will produce better results.

I have one Jab, yet I have numerous combinations that utilize the jab either in the beginning of the combination, in the middle, or in the end.  If I throw a Jab one way, then it becomes easy to counter, so I create multiple techniques, and multiple uses of the jab (vertical, downward, horizontal, twisting, upward, short jab, hard jab, set up jab, range finder, etc).

In martial arts, having only one technique to use is a no win. If a person tries to fight me with only 2 or 3 basic techniques, then I'm going to open a super sized can of whoop butt on them.  I don't how good that person may be with those 2 or 3 basic techniques are, that's not enough "tools in the box" to fix me.

Let's take a look at boxing.  Excellent punching skills, the professional boxers are awesome at it.  Now put those same fighters against someone who kicks, or someone who wrestles.  Now that "tool box" isn't so great. Not only does their defensive ability lack the skill sets to defend against kicking and wrestling, they also don't have the offensive skill set that would have allowed boxing to take advantage of kicking and wrestling attacks.

In a self-defense context assuming that only 3 or 4 technique will save you (basic jab, yelling stop, basic kicking, or only having preventive measures) is dangerous.  



Flying Crane said:


> And if assembling a set of shelves from IKEA is the extent of your home repairs, neither do you need an arc welder.


  An arc welder is environmental and job based.  You will need one if your are in the environment where one becomes of use or where one meets a need.  Seems like the guy who made this hulk got a lot of mileage out of his welding equipment.   This goes back to what I was a saying that the amount of self-defense that is needed depends on the person and that there's no way to give a "one size fits all" amount of self-defense that's needed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> Length of the training and timing between refresher courses really depends upon context.
> 
> To clarify what I think of when I envision a well thought out, well documented, effective, self defense training course, this is what I have in mind:
> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131#t=abstract
> ...


I'm assuming this is the same study you and I discussed in the past, so I didn't read it. If I'm wrong, please let me know and I'll look back at it.

I agree with all of that. My only assertion is that adding physical training has specific benefits. I wouldn't recommend removing the education used in the study - I've actually been building more of that into my starter curriculum. The myriad benefits (ability to resist, development of self-esteem, etc.) from the physical training couple nicely with the educational components. I think the best personal protection approach involves both. If I had a very short time to teach nd had to choose one or the other, I'd prefer to teach the educational components. Give me some more time, and I'll add physical training. Make it long-term, and I'll add a lot of physical training and occasional revisits to the educational components.


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm assuming this is the same study you and I discussed in the past, so I didn't read it. If I'm wrong, please let me know and I'll look back at it.
> 
> I agree with all of that. My only assertion is that adding physical training has specific benefits. I wouldn't recommend removing the education used in the study - I've actually been building more of that into my starter curriculum. The myriad benefits (ability to resist, development of self-esteem, etc.) from the physical training couple nicely with the educational components. I think the best personal protection approach involves both. If I had a very short time to teach nd had to choose one or the other, I'd prefer to teach the educational components. Give me some more time, and I'll add physical training. Make it long-term, and I'll add a lot of physical training and occasional revisits to the educational components.


It is the same self defense program I've referenced before.   I wish I could find other examples of programs so well grounded in relevant statistics that identify an "at risk" group, and objective, measurable results.  To me, every self defense program should go through a similar exercise.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> It is the same self defense program I've referenced before.   I wish I could find other examples of programs so well grounded in relevant statistics that identify an "at risk" group, and objective, measurable results.  To me, every self defense program should go through a similar exercise.


I wish there were more measurements to work with, too. Unfortunately, most of us have too small a population to be able to draw any statistics, so we have to depend upon those few studies that exist.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's valid, though it assumes your initial attack is entirely successful. If they manage to counter you, your choice to attack doesn't negate the need to defend.


Criminal are not (for the most part) highly trained martial artists.  If they have time to notice your pre-emptive strike/sucker punch, identify it, defend it, and succesfully select and perform the appropriate coutner, then you must be telegaphing it horribly.

Work on that, and you probably aren't going to have to worry too much about being countered.  Never say never of course, you are always going to need _some_ defensive skills yes, but the suggestion was that we need a "_wide_ defensive arsenal", but if you are doing self protection properly you aren't going to be doing much defending.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Criminal are not (for the most part) highly trained martial artists.  If they have time to notice your pre-emptive strike/sucker punch, identify it, defend it, and succesfully select and perform the appropriate coutner, then you must be telegaphing it horribly.
> 
> Work on that, and you probably aren't going to have to worry too much about being countered.  Never say never of course, you are always going to need _some_ defensive skills yes, but the suggestion was that we need a "_wide_ defensive arsenal", but if you are doing self protection properly you aren't going to be doing much defending.


I suppose it depends more on how we define "wide defensive arsenal". My interpretation was having the ability to defend against and counter a broad range of attacks (punch, tackle, grab & punch, and so forth).


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I suppose it depends more on how we define "wide defensive arsenal". My interpretation was having the ability to defend against and counter a broad range of attacks (punch, tackle, grab & punch, and so forth).


I agree, and the idea behind the thread is, you ought to be able to defend against most of these things and fight back, using a pretty limited number of solid techniques.  That's how I see it, anyways.


----------



## Buka (Oct 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If all you learned how to do was punch straight you would bash most streetfighters.



Amen.


----------



## Buka (Oct 29, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> A combination of striking and grappling. That's what you need.
> 
> If I could do it over again, I would only practice Gracie Jiujitsu and Boxing.
> 
> Being able to train at Greg Jackson's gym would be pretty sweet as well.



If I could do it all over again I'm not sure I would.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 29, 2016)

Buka said:


> If I could do it all over again I'm not sure I would.


I would at least skip the days where I dislocated fingers and toes.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 29, 2016)

Buka said:


> If I could do it all over again I'm not sure I would.


The thing is, most of us need to take that long journey before we can understand that the journey doesn't need to be so long.

If I could go back in time, knowing what I know now, I would do it differently.  But if I did it differently, I wouldn't know what I know now.  There has got to be a time-traveler's paradox in there.


----------



## Buka (Oct 29, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> The thing is, most of us need to take that long journey before we can understand that the journey doesn't need to be so long.
> 
> If I could go back in time, knowing what I know now, I would do it differently.  But if I did it differently, I wouldn't know what I know now.  There has got to be a time-traveler's paradox in there.



Quoted it because I just wanted to read it again. That should be in a book or something. I'm going to write that down and take it to work tonight.


----------



## Buka (Oct 29, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I would at least skip the days where I dislocated fingers and toes.



Gotta' figure the number of fingers and toes injured by everyone on this forum over the years could overflow a witch's cauldron.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 29, 2016)

People here talking about what they'd do if they could do it all again you know what I'd do? Exactly the same thing as I've done now? Why? Nothing to do with self defence or me learning the best moves ever maybe I haven't and maybe I could've learnt more at other gyms or in other styles but you know why I wouldn't change it? Because I enjoy what I do plain and simple. I think some people get caught up In martial arts like its a job or something you have to do. Martial arts do train you in that stuff but if you're not enjoying it then what's the point I could be learning all these amazing perfect unbeatable self defence moves but if I hate it and am miserable because of it then what's the point. I train kenpo and kickboxing and that's all I'll ever train no matter what anyone says or whatever new styles come out. There's only one reason I'd quit what I'm doing and change it. That's if I wasn't having fun anymore.

I think people takes things to serious and get so uptight and defensive about their martial arts that's what causs arguments. People should just relax and have fun with what they do.


----------



## Buka (Oct 30, 2016)

I don't really know of anyone who didn't enjoy their Martial Art experience. Nobody of any length of time anyway. I think a long run, toll on the body gives a perspective that a younger man might not understand.

Perhaps statements about doing it all over again are rhetorical. Perhaps the ones about too serious, uptight and defensive are reflective.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 30, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'd like to see that study. There are a lot of variables to be considered to determine how we can use those results. Was it a 1-hour training, or several hours over several weeks? Were the two defenses to the same exact attack? Were they given multiple different attacks to defend? How similar were the results?
> 
> If you can find that study or remember anything more about it, I'd love to dig deeper into how it was conducted and what the exact results were.



It sounds like a faulty study based on the infamous "Hick's Law" that is always thrown out by RBSD folks.  That was based on binary computers making choices and the difference in milliseconds was not a significant difference.  It also did not take into play unconscious reaction that can be trained into a person.

On it's surface it sounds good, and for someone who doesn't train probably holds true.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 30, 2016)

I agree with Patrick McCarthy's theory about the Habitual Acts of Violence and kata.  The kata were designed to counter the most common types of street attacks by an untrained person.  Most of the traditional kata utilize the same tools over and over in different applications.  You are learning new tools, just new ways to use them.  Much easier.

I get tired of the MMA vs. TMA vs. Self-defense argument.  I come from a TMA background, I can't think of ONE technique in MMA that 1) isn't found in all the other TMA systems and 2) can't be used in a self-defense situation if the need arose.  Everyone throws out "environment" and "going to the ground" like every MMA fighter automatically goes to the ground to grapple and doesn't have other options to keep it standing or run away.  Please don't get me started on "weapons defenses" that aren't in MMA, because most of what is taught in any system sucks.

Think of Chuck Liddell, fabulous striker who knew enough of the ground/wrestling to avoid takedowns or if taken down get right back up on his feet to KO the other person.  How is this not "street applicable"?

On the flip side.  Just because an art is well represented in the ring/cage does not mean that it's basic techniques don't work.  That comes down to how the person is training those techniques.  For example, there are several throws in karate that are found in Judo and have been used in MMA.  There isn't anything magical about them and where they are found, it comes down to how they were trained.  

TMA/MMA comes down to your goals in training.  I have seen a couple MMA schools that train their stuff and then have "self-defense classes" where guess what?  They practice all the foul techniques that all these other guys say they would use; such as eye gouges, biting etc.  I would put my money on that any day.  Why?  Because they already have the awareness of distancing etc. and can apply their basic techniques on an uncooperative person.  If you can't land a jab or straight right, you ain't gonna land an eye jab.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 31, 2016)

punisher73 said:


> It sounds like a faulty study based on the infamous "Hick's Law" that is always thrown out by RBSD folks.  That was based on binary computers making choices and the difference in milliseconds was not a significant difference.  It also did not take into play unconscious reaction that can be trained into a person.
> 
> On it's surface it sounds good, and for someone who doesn't train probably holds true.


Hick's law would apply conceptually to humans with choices where the outcome is roughly equally likely, and there is overlap between available responses - where training hadn't ingrained the responses to an unconscious state and where pattern recognition didn't allow rapid pre-selection. Beyond that theoretical/academic point, I agree - I can't conceive of a well-designed study that would come to that conclusion. If one did, I'd definitely want to look at it to see if there were implications for training. The idea is so opposite to what we see with well-trained individuals. The "fastest" martial artists I know are too old to actually be the fastest, and have far more options even than I do - it's the speed of their selection that makes them seem faster.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 31, 2016)

punisher73 said:


> I agree with Patrick McCarthy's theory about the Habitual Acts of Violence and kata.  The kata were designed to counter the most common types of street attacks by an untrained person.  Most of the traditional kata utilize the same tools over and over in different applications.  You are learning new tools, just new ways to use them.  Much easier.
> 
> I get tired of the MMA vs. TMA vs. Self-defense argument.  I come from a TMA background, I can't think of ONE technique in MMA that 1) isn't found in all the other TMA systems and 2) can't be used in a self-defense situation if the need arose.  Everyone throws out "environment" and "going to the ground" like every MMA fighter automatically goes to the ground to grapple and doesn't have other options to keep it standing or run away.  Please don't get me started on "weapons defenses" that aren't in MMA, because most of what is taught in any system sucks.
> 
> ...


Agreed. My assertion about the MMA vs. SD training has always been that each has its advantage (in the context of  self-defense). If someone trains for MMA competition (getting the advantage of the high intensity) and then steps into a SD class based on the same background (gaining the advantage of training with intent for the context), they are probably getting most of the best of both worlds. SD classes are just context-oriented training using techniques from somewhere (in my case, from what most would classify as a TMA).


----------



## Steve (Oct 31, 2016)

How the techniques are trained... A simple statement but leaves a lot unsaid.  

Judo, BJJ, Sambo, MMA, wester boxing, savate, sanshou etc all consistently impart practical skills applicable under pressure.   If training is what distinguishes a technique in judo from a technique in karate, then....


----------



## drop bear (Oct 31, 2016)

Steve said:


> How the techniques are trained... A simple statement but leaves a lot unsaid.
> 
> Judo, BJJ, Sambo, MMA, wester boxing, savate, sanshou etc all consistently impart practical skills applicable under pressure.   If training is what distinguishes a technique in judo from a technique in karate, then....



Yeah you can train the same techniques and do it crap. At that point it is less likely to work.

For some reason as soon at it goes self defence the training changes and everything just goes to pot.

MMA clubs do it. I have a few ideas why.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2016)

Steve said:


> How the techniques are trained... A simple statement but leaves a lot unsaid.
> 
> Judo, BJJ, Sambo, MMA, wester boxing, savate, sanshou etc all consistently impart practical skills applicable under pressure.   If training is what distinguishes a technique in judo from a technique in karate, then....


It would be difficult, at best, to generalize "karate". Some schools never do any significant stress testing. Others spar well and relatively heavily (some protecting the head more than others, for instance) to stress-test the techniques.

The same can be said of SD schools - some stress test and others do not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah you can train the same techniques and do it crap. At that point it is less likely to work.
> 
> For some reason as soon at it goes self defence the training changes and everything just goes to pot.
> 
> MMA clubs do it. I have a few ideas why.


Ah, see that all the time in bars - someone grabs your shirt front and stares at you. Vicious attack, that.

Those had better be the teaching forms. We have those, too, and fairly quickly transition them into "okay, so here's how you use those movements when someone's actually attacking". That shirt grab would probably include a shove, a drag, or a punch (the most likely reasons someone would grab your shirt), but would never occur as just a grab. I'm not a fan of testing only a static version, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Steve (Nov 1, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It would be difficult, at best, to generalize "karate". Some schools never do any significant stress testing. Others spar well and relatively heavily (some protecting the head more than others, for instance) to stress-test the techniques.
> 
> The same can be said of SD schools - some stress test and others do not.


Karate is just the term punisher used, but of course, some styles of karate (eg kyokushin) train with contact and a culture that includes a well developed, competitive element (ie "sport").   The larger point I'm trying to make is that we consistently have discussions where everyone agrees that it's not the techniques, but how they're trained.  And consistently, the phrasing is something like, "I've seen the same techniques in {non-sport} as in {sport}.  It's not the techniques but how they're trained that matters."  Always, every single time, the implication is that some (or all) of the non-sport arts are doing it poorly.  Every single time.

In past threads, I've said something like, I don't know if I can kill a man with my chi, but I know I can choke a guy to unconscious in several ways with his own jacket.  I've done it, even when they don't want me to and are trained to stop me.  So, the response is, "Yeah?  We train the same techniques."  And then we'll see a demonstration from a traditional martial artist that shows the same technique.

But that's not saying the same thing, is it?  Fundamentally different, and the distinction is (IMO) very relevant to self defense, if by that you mean fighting skill.  out of politeness (I believe) we stop short of the conclusion, which is that sport arts do a much, much better job of consistently developing skill and building expertise. 

 Said another way, people learn what they are practicing.  If you practice kata, you are learning kata.  If you practice chi sao, you are becoming an expert in chi sao.  Can these drills help support development of technique?  Sure.  But at some point, you have to ACTUALLY do the technique... for real.  Otherwise, it's a crap shoot.  And this is why I roll my eyes whenever someone asserts they are training to gouge an eyeball.  Give me a break.  You're practicing something, but it ain't gouging eyeballs.  And when you need the skill, you will do what you practiced.  I hope, if that ever happens, you've practiced those choking techniques... for real... against well trained partners who are actively trying to keep you from being successful.  Because if you can catch a purple belt in a submission, you are probably in pretty good shape "on the street."

The response to points such as mine above tends to lead into context.  The idea being that in BJJ, we don't train with knives or something like that.  I would say that step one in adapting a skill to a new context is to first learn the skill.   I've really appreciated Tony Dismuke's posts on self defense.  As a BJJ black belt and someone who has trained a crap ton (technical term) in various striking arts including now, I believe, Wing Chun, he has a lot of insight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2016)

Steve said:


> Karate is just the term punisher used, but of course, some styles of karate (eg kyokushin) train with contact and a culture that includes a well developed, competitive element (ie "sport").   The larger point I'm trying to make is that we consistently have discussions where everyone agrees that it's not the techniques, but how they're trained.  And consistently, the phrasing is something like, "I've seen the same techniques in {non-sport} as in {sport}.  It's not the techniques but how they're trained that matters."  Always, every single time, the implication is that some (or all) of the non-sport arts are doing it poorly.  Every single time.
> 
> In past threads, I've said something like, I don't know if I can kill a man with my chi, but I know I can choke a guy to unconscious in several ways with his own jacket.  I've done it, even when they don't want me to and are trained to stop me.  So, the response is, "Yeah?  We train the same techniques."  And then we'll see a demonstration from a traditional martial artist that shows the same technique.
> 
> ...


I agree. There's one confounding variable to consider that throws a monkey wrench into it all: the intensity of the people training. If I used my highest-intensity training techniques all the time, I'd never be able to help the people I'm actually reaching for. That's the people who are afraid of getting hurt, who are out of shape, and who are willing to devote maybe a few hours a week.

Sport styles train harder, against skilled and athletically fit opponents, and with higher intensity. That's their main advantage - and it's a big one. Yes, they leave out some techniques (not useful/safe for competition), but their intensity and level of resistance more than makes up for that. But not everyone will train at that level. If someone came to me who was willing to train really hard several classes a week right from the start, and wanted to test their ability against someone trying to take their head off, I'd suggest they find an MMA gym. My program is designed to transfer real, workable self-defense to folks who aren't interested in that level of commitment, nor in the risks therein.

That's the biggest difference between sport-oriented training (and I'm speaking of sports that are fairly intense, not casual point sparring or light-contact sparring competitions). It's who they serve.

Now, if a SD program doesn't incorporate any reasonable intensity, doesn't do anything to help demand and build fitness, or doesn't train with reasonable resistance, then it has swung too far in that direction.


----------



## Steve (Nov 1, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I agree. There's one confounding variable to consider that throws a monkey wrench into it all: the intensity of the people training. If I used my highest-intensity training techniques all the time, I'd never be able to help the people I'm actually reaching for. That's the people who are afraid of getting hurt, who are out of shape, and who are willing to devote maybe a few hours a week.
> 
> Sport styles train harder, against skilled and athletically fit opponents, and with higher intensity. That's their main advantage - and it's a big one. Yes, they leave out some techniques (not useful/safe for competition), but their intensity and level of resistance more than makes up for that. But not everyone will train at that level. If someone came to me who was willing to train really hard several classes a week right from the start, and wanted to test their ability against someone trying to take their head off, I'd suggest they find an MMA gym. My program is designed to transfer real, workable self-defense to folks who aren't interested in that level of commitment, nor in the risks therein.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2016)

Steve said:


>


Agreed. But there are training techniques that can help people progress at a lower level of intensity. It's important they are not used in a vacuum - intensity has to be there part of the time. This is where I think things like forms can be helpful. It's also where light sparring helps, and any number of other reasonably effective training techniques.

In any case, this is why I don't like when people compare number of years of training (nor necessarily even the number of hours). There were years when my training was sparse (injuries, work travel, etc.). There were years where my training was was much more intense and time-consuming. If someone trains intensely for 10 hours a week, they should expect to see different results in a year than someone who trains (even intensely) for 3 hours a week. That's especially true if the former starts with a reasonably athletic body and the latter starts in poor condition.


----------



## Steve (Nov 1, 2016)

Okay, so to bring this back to the OP, my opinion is that there is a kind of hierarchy to what matters.  

1: don't voluntarily put yourself in danger by engaging in high risk behaviors.  

2:  use common sense.  This is where things like walking with your face buried in your phone and such comes into play.

3:   maintain a reasonable level of fitness.  

4:  do things that help you feel good about yourself, improve your self esteem and self confidence.  This might be martial arts.

I'd say any MA training is optional for most but those who are in high risk professions.  If you train for self defense, presume it's all snake oil, because most of it is, and you won't have the expertise to know the difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2016)

Steve said:


> Okay, so to bring this back to the OP, my opinion is that there is a kind of hierarchy to what matters.
> 
> 1: don't voluntarily put yourself in danger by engaging in high risk behaviors.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure that's in context with the OP, but all good points.


----------



## Steve (Nov 1, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure that's in context with the OP, but all good points.


How much do you really need?  In my opinion, none of it.  If you take care of items 1-4, any MA training is an unnecessary supplement.

The exception is if you are a member of a category of people who are at higher risk for some reason.  IE, if you are a coed on a college campus.  If you are a cop.  If you are a mall security guard.  If you go to a school with a lot of gang activity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2016)

Steve said:


> How much do you really need?  In my opinion, none of it.  If you take care of items 1-4, any MA training is an unnecessary supplement.
> 
> The exception is if you are a member of a category of people who are at higher risk for some reason.  IE, if you are a coed on a college campus.  If you are a cop.  If you are a mall security guard.  If you go to a school with a lot of gang activity.


As usual, Steve, we agree on all but the area where we disagree.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Hick's law would apply conceptually to humans with choices where the outcome is roughly equally likely, and there is overlap between available responses - where training hadn't ingrained the responses to an unconscious state and where pattern recognition didn't allow rapid pre-selection. Beyond that theoretical/academic point, I agree - I can't conceive of a well-designed study that would come to that conclusion. If one did, I'd definitely want to look at it to see if there were implications for training. The idea is so opposite to what we see with well-trained individuals. The "fastest" martial artists I know are too old to actually be the fastest, and have far more options even than I do - it's the speed of their selection that makes them seem faster.



Hock Hochheim's Force Necessary: Hick's Law  - The Confusion Explained

Here is an article that sums up what the "hick's law" study was and actually did and how it doesn't necessarily translate to what we are talking about.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 2, 2016)

Steve said:


> How the techniques are trained... A simple statement but leaves a lot unsaid.
> 
> Judo, BJJ, Sambo, MMA, wester boxing, savate, sanshou etc all consistently impart practical skills applicable under pressure.   If training is what distinguishes a technique in judo from a technique in karate, then....



I thought I was pretty clear about the training should be that you can apply your techniques against an uncooperative opponent like in a sport's setting.  For the record, I'm from a TMA background.  I am NOT saying that all TMA's do it wrong or don't train properly.  BUT, I do think that only doing preset "one steps" and never progressing past those is not the answer.  I don't think that pulling techniques out of the kata and ONLY training them cooperatively is the answer either.  On the other hand, I have visited a BJJ school that only did sports style grappling and only started from the knees.  They did NOT train in any takedown techniques and the students really had no clue how to safely close the gap and get the fight to the ground.  

We could spend pages and pages of "how to train" a technique in styles, but again to keep it short.  You must understand many of the concepts that you get from combat sports, such as distancing, timing, rhythm, etc.


----------



## Juany118 (Nov 2, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)...  but anyway.
> 
> My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways.  I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter.  Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%.  And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.
> 
> ...


I would agree in certain contexts and that is the problem.  In dealing with your stereotypical drunk testosterone junkie in a bar, if you are sober, absolutely but here are the issues do just a few techniques address...

1. The career criminal fresh from prison who had nothing better to do than lift weights and protect himself from other prisoners.

2. If the suspect is high on wet or K2

3. if the suspect has a knife.

I don't think so admittedly my career means I stress over all these scenarios and more.  Hell I am bringing my Kali sticks, knife and training ginunting to New Orleans on vacation tomorrow.  My wife and friends, we got a suite, will be laughing at me while I do my Wing Chun forms and Kali Drills in our room because I always think about these things.


----------



## Mattattack (Nov 3, 2016)

I like FlyingCrane's idea of maintaining a small core, and I appreciate it the more as I train.  I like learning lots of new stuff, but ultimately I try to focus on maintaining a small toolkit of go-to techniques (my Matt-Fu).  

In reading this I'm reminded of something from an Iain Abernathy podcast: criminals and attackers think more in terms of strategy and not tactics.  I.E. I'm going to surprise him and punch him in the face _as opposed to_ I'll lead with a jab then go downstairs with a cross to the plex...

I think the corollary is true: Martial Artists need to avoid getting too caught up in tactics and must keep strategy (environmental awareness, possible weapons, escape routes, et.) in mind.



Juany118 said:


> Hell I am bringing my Kali sticks, knife and training ginunting to New Orleans on vacation tomorrow.  My wife and friends, we got a suite, will be laughing at me while I do my Wing Chun forms and Kali Drills in our room because I always think about these things.



Enjoy!  To quote a French Quarter tour guide I once had: _Once you hit Bourbon street, take a right if you want to see the dive bars and seedy strip clubs, but be sure to take a left if you want to see the seedy strip clubs and dive bars._


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2016)

punisher73 said:


> I thought I was pretty clear about the training should be that you can apply your techniques against an uncooperative opponent like in a sport's setting.  For the record, I'm from a TMA background.  I am NOT saying that all TMA's do it wrong or don't train properly.  BUT, I do think that only doing preset "one steps" and never progressing past those is not the answer.  I don't think that pulling techniques out of the kata and ONLY training them cooperatively is the answer either.  On the other hand, I have visited a BJJ school that only did sports style grappling and only started from the knees.  They did NOT train in any takedown techniques and the students really had no clue how to safely close the gap and get the fight to the ground.
> 
> We could spend pages and pages of "how to train" a technique in styles, but again to keep it short.  You must understand many of the concepts that you get from combat sports, such as distancing, timing, rhythm, etc.



you will also need to train against somone good.


----------



## Juany118 (Nov 3, 2016)

Mattattack said:


> I like FlyingCrane's idea of maintaining a small core, and I appreciate it the more as I train.  I like learning lots of new stuff, but ultimately I try to focus on maintaining a small toolkit of go-to techniques (my Matt-Fu).
> 
> In reading this I'm reminded of something from an Iain Abernathy podcast: criminals and attackers think more in terms of strategy and not tactics.  I.E. I'm going to surprise him and punch him in the face _as opposed to_ I'll lead with a jab then go downstairs with a cross to the plex...
> 
> ...



Thanks, we will have the benefit of other friends who live in NOLA so will dodging the Dive bars and such and finding the interesting ones hiding around the locals go to.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 3, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Thanks, we will have the benefit of other friends who live in NOLA so will dodging the Dive bars and such and finding the interesting ones hiding around the locals go to.



Memory from the past, I remember some students getting a little bit cocky and the instructor telling them, if they thought they were that good, they could take a trip down to a certain local bar frequented by iron workers.  Then they could really check how good they were. LOL

Back in the day, it was not uncommon for MAists to go to dive bars as part of their training to test out their stuff.  Also, "dojo storming" was common as well.  Going in to other schools and challenging them.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 3, 2016)

Steve said:


> How much do you really need?  In my opinion, none of it.  If you take care of items 1-4, any MA training is an unnecessary supplement.
> 
> The exception is if you are a member of a category of people who are at higher risk for some reason.  IE, if you are a coed on a college campus.  If you are a cop.  If you are a mall security guard.  If you go to a school with a lot of gang activity.



Agreed.  I always think of the 80/20 rule (theory).  It states that 80% of your results will come from 20% of your techniques.  Also, that 80% of your training time should be spent honing/perfecting those 20% of the "go to" techniques.  The remaining 20% of your training time can be spent training the lower percentage techniques that are very scenario specific.


----------

