# Ok. My view on how training can be unethical.



## drop bear (Mar 10, 2020)

Another fine example of PPCT. 

So this is an example of a standing arm bar set up that won't work taught to people that are going to go out and have to fight people. 

And it it trained and sold in a manner that dishonestly represents a working technique. 

Now this will trap you in two ways.

Either you try this and get flogged. And the instructor still takes his pay check and goes home to his family.

Or you do something that works like punch him in the face back and get screwed in court because you didn't do the scissor arm block take down. 

Normally with some statement on how you were trained to competency on defensive tactic and so were able to safely restrain the guy but just chose not to. 

Now the really fun part of this is because you are not the qualified self defense instructor. You are not in a position to know that move doesn't work. Only the instructor is and everyone will just take  his word on it. 

(Sorry there is a third. You eat the punch and legally short the guy. And everyone but dead guy is happy.)

Of course training evidence based and with accountability would clean this up. One set of boxing gloves and a zero success rate would force people to reevaluate the harm they are causing. 

But there are too many excuses for this to happen.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 10, 2020)

I don't disagree with most of what you say. However, there would be no marital arts, MMA, boxing, or wrestling communities if everyone trained the way you describe. Very few people would/could do it. 
It just makes no sense.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 10, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Another fine example of PPCT.
> 
> So this is an example of a standing arm bar set up that won't work taught to people that are going to go out and have to fight people.
> 
> ...


If you somehow did manage to use that scissor arm block as they state-you might be in more trouble since (according to the dude in the video), you just broke the guys arm. Versus a much simpler, easier and more effective parry that does not involve unnecessarily breaking an arm.

Edit: I find the break more amusing, since I feel like breaking the arm might render the arm bar ineffective.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 10, 2020)

I agree that this "arm bar" take down will not work in an actual situation.  First of all, it's hard to intercept a punch with the correct timing to catch the elbow at just the right moment to hyper-extend for pain compliance.  These women are not being taught how to use their bodies for torque in powering the take down.  They are NOT being shown the foot work, pivot, weight drop and hip action necessary to execute this move.  These techniques are just as important as the scissoring action with the arms for this thing to work.

This is an example of trying to teach a martial art technique to someone who does not know martial arts.  It's the MA foundation that allows the body to fully come into play, especially against a stronger opponent.  These women are being deluded into thinking they have learned something useful.


----------



## Buka (Mar 10, 2020)

I was hired by law enforcement to design and teach a DT program. Which was a good thing. What wasn’t such a good thing - according to their charter I had to go through all the necessary steps, including taking the DT course from the guy I was replacing.

He taught reading....from...a....manual....in....
broken....speech...like...this. And that was one of his stronger points.

My God, I thought I had died and gone to fighter’s hell.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 10, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> it's hard to intercept a punch with the correct timing to catch the elbow at just the right moment to hyper-extend for pain compliance.


Agree with you 100% there. This is why I don't like the self-defense approach. All your moves are waiting for your opponent to punch you.

Why don't you start your standing arm bar when you move in while your opponent is still in on guard position?



isshinryuronin said:


> against a stronger opponent.


To make your technique to work on a strong opponent, you will need to borrow his force.

When you try to arm bar your opponent (straight his arm), when he resists (he tries to bend his arm), his resistance can help you to bend his arm with little effort.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 10, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you 100% there. This is why I don't like the self-defense approach. All your moves are waiting for your opponent to punch you.
> 
> Why don't you start your standing arm bar when you move in while your opponent is still in on guard position?
> 
> ...


You bring up an interesting, even philosophical point -  Does self defense start only after you wait until the attack is launched, or does it start when the opponent first displays his intention to hit you?  (This may deserve its own thread)
Does self defense need to be reactive, or can it be proactive?

There is a story of the old, street fighting, karate master, Motobu Choki.  About 100 years ago, Motobu was sitting in a bar with some friends when a guy walked in with a knife to challenge him, announcing he intended to kill him.  Motobu suggested they go outside to settle things so as not to damage his favorite drinking place.  Agreeing, the knife wielder turned to exit the bar.  As he did so, Motobu attacked with a flying side kick to the guy's back, seriously injuring him.

While there is a famous saying, "There is no first attack in karate," Motobu was of the mind that by drawing the knife and announcing his intention, the knife wielder essentially attacked first, so Motobu was justified in employing his proactive self defense.

Re: your second point, I previously stated that a good martial artist should certainly not only know a technique, but also how to handle resistance and probable reaction to that technique, as your video clip illustrates.  This entails a particular mental state in not getting too wrapped up in a particular technique. 

In your clip, the defender was not intent on the goal of an arm bar, but rather on the goal of subduing and taking down the attacker.  By having this broader strategic goal, he was able to easily switch tactics to handle the resistance and still accomplish his main goal.  This is an illustration of one of the "Eight Precepts of Quan Fa" (Appearing in the historical text, _Bubishi) _regarding changing direction.  Isshinryu founder, Shimabuku Tatsuo, incorporated this concept in his Isshinryu Code:  "The body should be able to change direction at any time."  This idea has both physical and spiritual application.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 10, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> If you somehow did manage to use that scissor arm block as they state-you might be in more trouble since (according to the dude in the video), you just broke the guys arm. Versus a much simpler, easier and more effective parry that does not involve unnecessarily breaking an arm.
> 
> Edit: I find the break more amusing, since I feel like breaking the arm might render the arm bar ineffective.



It does make the arm really hard to control when it breaks.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 11, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Does self defense need to be reactive, or can it be proactive?


My strategy is if someone attacks me, I'll jump back. I then jump back in and attack him. I don't like to deal with someone's attack. I prefer to let him to deal with my attack.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 11, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> While there is a famous saying, "There is no first attack in karate," Motobu was of the mind that by drawing the knife and announcing his intention, the knife wielder essentially attacked first, so Motobu was justified in employing his proactive self defense.



In British law you are allowed to strike first if you are in fear of your life or fear for the safety of others. Iain Abernethy disagrees with the 'there is no first attack' meaning one doesn't strike first he uses the same Motobu story to show this, plus in Wado we have a stance that indicates one does strike first if necessary, the last two words being the qualifier.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 11, 2020)

I worked for a company that stated on it's employment package that I couldn't hit people ever. This was because I was sufficiently trained to stop an attack without having to.

It was assumed that because security guards have received training they had the advantage in a confrontation.


----------



## _Simon_ (Mar 11, 2020)

I dunno. To me it's only unethical if it makes a "promise" or a "guarantee". No school I've ever trained at has ever done that.

To me it's a matter of percentages or likelihood of things working. And even so, sometimes the variables involved outweigh even any objective criteria of it being more "likely" of being effective.

Some people say tornado kicks aren't good in the slightest for self defense. I've seen a vid of it being used effectively, knocking people out cold (if that was the aim, and what we deem as "effective"). And chances are there are many situations in which it didn't work. Things can work in some situations (some admittedly rarely). Things won't work in some situations, no matter how much you force them.

I don't think there's ever a guarantee that a system/technique will always work. That's being dishonest (or perhaps deludingly convinced) and not grounded in reality.

I see little point in getting into a tirade against all martial arts that have various degrees of "effectiveness". Not really as black and white as that, and it's not as simple as to say that a system is nonsense because it doesn't undergo the rigorous method testing that some would say is needed.

I know you like to be very scientific, and objective about things, which can serve things really well. A great skill to have. But there becomes a point where you simply can't rely on that for everything. There are probabilities that even the scientific method can't account for.

But then, I don't train martial arts for self defence purposes, so what would I know [emoji14]


----------



## _Simon_ (Mar 11, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> In British law you are allowed to strike first if you are in fear of your life or fear for the safety of others. Iain Abernethy disagrees with the 'there is no first attack' meaning one doesn't strike first he uses the same Motobu story to show this, plus in Wado we have a stance that indicates one does strike first if necessary, the last two words being the qualifier.



Yep, I've always interpreted the phrase to mean "you don't initiate violence". Then of course it becomes very subjective as to what point you preemptively attack, as you can sense from body language when attack from someone may very well be imminent. A perceptive thing I guess.


----------



## wab25 (Mar 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Another fine example of PPCT.
> 
> So this is an example of a standing arm bar set up that won't work taught to people that are going to go out and have to fight people.
> 
> ...


I agree this is unethical training... but I see it unethical in a little different way.

First, the instructor is only able to successfully demonstrate the take down, on his chosen uke, and only when the chosen uke, knows how he is supposed to react. The instructor fails to successfully demonstrate the take down or any sort of control, whenever he tries the other students or even his chosen uke, when uke is not ready. Some of these students, he out weighs by 50 pounds or more... not only does he fail to take them down all the way, but he fails to control them. If you are unable to demonstrate a technique successfully, with willing ukes, who are your students, you need to fix your technique before trying to pass it on. (he fully demonstrates his lack of understanding about what he is doing, even with helpful uke...)

The second thing that is unethical, is that he is teaching take downs and throws to people who he has not taught to fall correctly. He is also teaching joint destructions to people who have no control and asking them to go harder and faster. The one gal clearly had her elbow hurt, because she didn't know how to go with and fall, and the guy applying it had zero control and the instructor was having them go faster and harder. I am all for going hard and fast... but you need to work people up to that, so they spend most of their time training and less of their time healing.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I worked for a company that stated on it's employment package that I couldn't hit people ever. This was because I was sufficiently trained to stop an attack without having to.
> 
> It was assumed that because security guards have received training they had the advantage in a confrontation.


That is a dangerous narrative to promote IMHO.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 11, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> You bring up an interesting, even philosophical point -  Does self defense start only after you wait until the attack is launched, or does it start when the opponent first displays his intention to hit you?  (This may deserve its own thread)
> Does self defense need to be reactive, or can it be proactive?
> 
> There is a story of the old, street fighting, karate master, Motobu Choki.  About 100 years ago, Motobu was sitting in a bar with some friends when a guy walked in with a knife to challenge him, announcing he intended to kill him.  Motobu suggested they go outside to settle things so as not to damage his favorite drinking place.  Agreeing, the knife wielder turned to exit the bar.  As he did so, Motobu attacked with a flying side kick to the guy's back, seriously injuring him.
> ...



Your post brings up an often discussed fact of martial arts over time. They have been talked about, broken down, dissected, and resected over and over. In this process, Situational Awareness was parsed out and developed as it own, valid offshoot. It is usually Not presented this way as it typically stands alone as it own thing. 
Your story gives a very good example of SA. Motobu immediately surmised that he was in an unfavorable situation and modified the outcome to his advantage. The 'Wholeness' of his training and ability were fully leveraged in the situation. 
I like to think most of us long time MA folks see this kind of thinking as a product of our training. No additional SA courses required. When too much emphasis is put on any one element (competition for example) this can happen.

I think much the same happens when teaching only self defense. To many of the component parts that make it work at a high(er) percentage get stripped away resulting in an ineffective method.  

Spiritual application gets a bad rap in today's society and I agree it does sound a little cheesy to say it out loud. None the less it is a real, tangible component of an effective training model. Of course, in todays society the term has been substituted with phrases like scientific method or such.

Paint a white horse grey and it is still a white horse.


----------



## Buka (Mar 11, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Paint a white horse grey and it is still a white horse.



And it probably pisses off the horse.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 11, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> In your clip, the defender was not intent on the goal of an arm bar, but rather on the goal of subduing and taking down the attacker.


When you make a move, your opponent can respond in 2 different ways:

- against you,
- yield into you.

When your opponent fight against you, you can borrow his resistance force, and take him down in the opposite direction.

Here is another example:


----------



## Danny T (Mar 11, 2020)

Buka said:


> I was hired by law enforcement to design and teach a DT program. Which was a good thing. What wasn’t such a good thing - according to their charter I had to go through all the necessary steps, including taking the DT course from the guy I was replacing.
> 
> He taught reading....from...a....manual....in....
> broken....speech...like...this. And that was one of his stronger points.
> ...


Oh Man!!! Could it be there are 2 instructors the same. When I first went through Monadnock instructor training my instructor did exactly the same. He...read...the...manual...verbatim...word...for...word...and...spoke...in...the...same...manner...as...he...de-mon-strat-ed...each...and...every....movement...and...position...!!!!!


----------



## jobo (Mar 12, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Another fine example of PPCT.
> 
> So this is an example of a standing arm bar set up that won't work taught to people that are going to go out and have to fight people.
> 
> ...


but the arm bar works, catching punches is tricky, but if i get good purchase on an arm, il put the guy down, if he doesn't weigh considerably more than me or just out strengths me

which is then the problem here, there are no techniques that can be taught two uncoordinated , 5 foot tall, 100lb females ( or males for that matter) , in a few hours that will help


if the security industry in an effort to be inclusive, is employing people with out the necessary attributes, then the problem lies with them. the same technique employed by some one weighing 250lbs with a home weight set has a much greater chance of success and if not, they can just snot them


----------



## Buka (Mar 12, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you make a move, your opponent can respond in 2 different ways:
> 
> - against you,
> - yield into you.
> ...



I've used that backwards, circular step a lot, just with a narrower stance so my feet don't tangle. I've had great success with it. I've also used it in the scenario you show in post #6 as well.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> which is then the problem here, there are no techniques that can be taught two uncoordinated , 5 foot tall, 100lb females ( or males for that matter) , in a few hours that will help



This is exactly to my earlier point that there is a difference between teaching self defense and situational awareness. The latter can be taught to the profile people you mentioned in a couple of hours. But as with any kind of learning, retention is based on repetition.
Quality self defense training takes much longer than SA.

The acronym for SA; common sense.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 12, 2020)

Buka said:


> circular step a lot, ...


That's my favor footwork.

- Move my back foot 1 feet.
- Move my front foot 3 inch.
- Both of my feet will line up with my opponent.

This way I can force my opponent to turn with me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you 100% there. This is why I don't like the self-defense approach. All your moves are waiting for your opponent to punch you.


This is a blanket generalization, and not accurate in my experience. I know of no SD-oriented system or instructor who doesn’t teach offense. Even Aikido has options for offense. Most SD-oriented drills simply assume a worst-case scenario, where you’ve missed the opportunity to take the first shot, either because of surprise, or an abundance of caution.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> This is a blanket generalization, and not accurate in my experience. I know of no SD-oriented system or instructor who doesn’t teach offense. Even Aikido has options for offense. Most SD-oriented drills simply assume a worst-case scenario, where you’ve missed the opportunity to take the first shot, either because of surprise, or an abundance of caution.




I've known a few offensive instructors in martial arts and other things.....


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 13, 2020)

drop bear said:


> *Another fine example of PPCT. *
> 
> So this is an example of a standing arm bar set up that won't work taught to people that are going to go out and have to fight people.
> 
> ...



First, I would point out that what he is teaching is *NOT* PPCT.  

PPCT is a specific name brand and approach (recently rebranded to HFRG-Human Factor Research Group).  I point this out because if you are actually using the PPCT model, you would not be doing what he is showing.  In PPCT, if taught PROPERLY, the response to someone wanting to strike is intermediate weapons.  So, in the scenario he is showing, your first option would be taser/OC/Baton.  The next option would be responding with punches/kicks/elbows/knees/forearm strikes.  The "straight armbar takedown" as it is shown and taught in PPCT is for LOWER LEVELS of resistance.  For example, the person has NOT shown that they want to fight and you are escorting them.  That is specifically what the technique is designed for.  You are escorting a person and are in the escort position with wrist/arm control already established.  The person starts to tighten up and resist the escort (important distinction that plays into the psychology of the situation--they are attempting to defeat your attempt at control, but are not trying to actively hurt you or fight you).  You knee them to distract and soften them up before doing the takedown.  IF taught properly, when it gets to that point, you are also taught that you still have two options when they START to resist.  Engage or Disengage with that person.  In PPCT, you are taught to ALWAYS use a level of force higher than what the other person is using to establish and maintain control of the situation.

I point that out because I agree with the rest of your premise.  DT should be taught properly and by someone who can do what they have said.  In my career, I have successfully used each of the joint locks taught in PPCT.  Why?  Because I understood what they were for and used them as designed.  If a person was actively resisting me, I used other techniques appropriate for the situation.  As a side note, that was one of my biggest pet peeves as a PPPCT instructor for our department (even taught in a couple academies).  People complaining that PPCT didn't work and then talking to them about the situation and finding out that they weren't actually using the system as designed.  In most cases, the person was actively fighting with them and they were trying to grab on to them and apply a pressure point.  Again, if that is what they were taught, they were taught WRONG because those are designed for lower levels of force.

An instructor should be able to apply their techniques that they are teaching AND they should be very clear on when that type of technique should be used.  Especially in DT for LEO/Corrections when those individuals are NOT going to be spending tons of time perfecting more complex approaches that a more experienced person could apply.  I also think that is one thing many TMA's lose focus of in their training.  They don't spend hours honing their basics (kihon) on a resisting person and then want to apply the more difficult applications without a proper foundation.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> This is a blanket generalization, and not accurate in my experience. I know of no SD-oriented system or instructor who doesn’t teach offense. Even Aikido has options for offense. Most SD-oriented drills simply assume a worst-case scenario, where you’ve missed the opportunity to take the first shot, either because of surprise, or an abundance of caution.


Agree. One of the things I stress the strongest in a SD class is if all other options have been exhausted and things escalate to where you have to strike, then you strike, strike, strike, strike, etc...


----------



## Buka (Mar 13, 2020)

Danny T said:


> Oh Man!!! Could it be there are 2 instructors the same. When I first went through Monadnock instructor training my instructor did exactly the same. He...read...the...manual...verbatim...word...for...word...and...spoke...in...the...same...manner...as...he...de-mon-strat-ed...each...and...every....movement...and...position...!!!!!



I laughed when I read that. I was trying to picture them teaching together.

But what isn't so humorous, I can't say the guy I described was the worst DT guy I ever met.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 21, 2020)

Buka said:


> I laughed when I read that. I was trying to picture them teaching together.
> 
> But what isn't so humorous, I can't say the guy I described was the worst DT guy I ever met.



Students wouldn't be looking their watches but rather their calendars.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I worked for a company that stated on it's employment package that I couldn't hit people ever.


You can get over being fired for breaking company rules, you can't get over being dead for not.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (May 13, 2020)

This was something I grappled with when I was first hired to teach self defense at my local YMCA. On the one hand, I've had lots of varied training, both from the military and various traditional and modern systems. Additionally, I did successfully defend myself and another from a pretty dangerous opponent once. On the other hand, though my one no-**** fight may be more than some martial artists will ever have, it did not test the majority of the techniques I know, which means much of what I teach is untested by me _in-vivo_. As such, while I'd like to believe that training in so many different venues for the better part of a decade has helped me figure out what's useful and what's not, there is the possibility that something I teach may not work as advertised in real life. I do my best to mitigate this possibility by representing my training and experience (or lack thereof in the latter case) to my students, and to encourage them to practice on their own and see what works and what doesn't.


----------



## Gweilo (May 16, 2020)

You have used this video before, to try to reinforce your arguement as to why a standing arm bar does not work, and the points you make for your side of the argument have merit, so I say again, as will others, it depends on your opinion, of what an arm bar is, and whether those that may use it, would apply it in your understanding of an armbar, the song circles in the sand comes to mind


----------

