# In order for something to work...?



## Paul_D (Jan 27, 2016)

In order for something to work in a live situating i.e. the battlefield, or “the street” (So we are not talking competition/points scoring here, just to clarify). It has to fill two criteria:

Number one; it has to be simple.

The more complicated something is:-
• the more chance there is it will go wrong
• the less likely you are to pull it off
• the less likely you will be able to respond with it subconsciously
• fine motor skills are decreased during adrenal stress, leaving us with gross motor skills, meaning intricate or movements become more difficult, if not impossible.

Number two; it has to be brutal.  An Indian burn isn’t going to pursued someone they no longer want to attack you.  However if they are unconscious they can no longer attack you, if their arm is broken they can no longer hit you with it, etc etc, you get the idea.

So I am interested to see others think, so let me know :-  what would you add to this list, what would you take away from this list?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 27, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> So I am interested to see others think, so let me know :-  what would you add to this list, what would you take away from this list?



I would take away all of it.  It's good advice, but it's not an absolute.

In order for a technique to work "on the street," it has to work.  That is all.

What does it mean for a technique to work?  I define it as something that ends the situation.   Typically this would mean removing the person performing the technique from danger.

For example:  A man raises his fist to me in the street, indicating he is about to punch me.  I kick him sharply in the shin, causing him to gasp in pain and bend over to grab his leg.  I walk away quickly.  I am in no danger.  Fight ended.  Was it simple?  Yes.  Was it 'brutal'?  Only in the sense that it cause the person attacking me to change his mind about his priorities.

For example:  A man throws a punch at me in the street.  I sidestep while brush-blocking his punch, lock my hand around his extended wrist, and step in, bending his elbow in the crook of mine.  I then reach over, grab his hand with my other hand, and complete the lock, leaving him uninjured but unable to do anything but stand on tippy toe and say "Yes sir" when I ask him questions and punctuate by tweaking his wrist.  Was it simple?  No.  Was it brutal?  Not particularly.  But although no permanent damage is done, he cannot do anything to me until I choose to let go, which I won't do until we have an agreement; and if he goes back on that agreement, he will see a different technique which will be brutal and which he will not like at all.

For example:  A man throws a punch at me in the street.  I block and counter punch, breaking his ribs with my power.  Then I front snap kick his pelvis, blasting through his gonads and breaking the pelvic bone.  He is dropped like a bad habit, and cannot stand or walk, so the confrontation is ended.  Is it simple?  About as simple as it gets.  Is it brutal?  I'd say so.

Which is 'better'?  Doesn't matter.  Use what works and go home.  It would be a mistake to assume that only the simplest and most brutal techniques work, but there's nothing wrong with them either.  Part of the reason many of us train is to get better at techniques which are more complex and which offer different outcomes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 27, 2016)

Additional thought.  If a person only wants to learn to defend themselves on the street, a rising block on the left and a good right cross might be the only things they need for MOST circumstances in the US, since most Americans are right-handed and throw haymakers.  However, it is good to have other options if that doesn't work.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 27, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would take away all of it. It's good advice, but it's not an absolute.


Agreed.


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 27, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Additional thought.  If a person only wants to learn to defend themselves on the street, a rising block on the left and a good right cross might be the only things they need for MOST circumstances in the US, since most Americans are right-handed and throw haymakers.  However, it is good to have other options if that doesn't work.


UK crime statistics show most injuries (n relation to violence) are left side facial trauma, for the same reason (people being right handed)


----------



## Buka (Jan 27, 2016)

This is an interesting topic. (to me) I gotta' think about this.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 27, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> what would you add to this list,


I would add "strategy".

If you can lead your opponent into an area that you are more familiar with than he does, that will be your advantage. You don't want to spar with a striker, or wrestle with a wrestler. To spar with a wrestler and wrestle with a striker should be your "strategy". In order to do so, you have to be good in both and you will need "cross training".

"Simple" is a 2 edges sword. A punch to the face is simple. But a simple kick to the chest can stop all punches (leg is longer than the arm). When you kick, if your opponent grab on your leg, you will be down.

So when you

- punch, you have to watch for your opponent's kick.
- kick, you have to watch for your opponent's leg catching and take down.

This makes a simple move no longer simple any more. A "simple" punch is more than just a punch, it can follow by a "pull" and set up a "clinch". A kick is more than just a kick, it can set up another kick, a punch, or just close the distance. In other words, a simple move can be just part of your entire "strategy". If you just keep swing your punches at your opponent's head (your opponent can be a better boxer than you) and hope one of your punches can knock him down, you are not fighting "effectively" IMO.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> In order for something to work in a live situating i.e. the battlefield, or “the street” (So we are not talking competition/points scoring here, just to clarify). It has to fill two criteria:
> 
> Number one; it has to be simple.
> 
> ...




Number 2 it has to be mechanical. So the body should have no choice but to comply with the move regardless of the intent of the person defending that move.

Me knocking someone over and sitting on them is hardly brutal. But they are also not going to get back up.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I would add "strategy".
> 
> If you can lead your opponent into an area that you are more familiar with than he does, that will be your advantage. You don't want to spar with a striker, or wrestle with a wrestler. To spar with a wrestler and wrestle with a striker should be your "strategy". In order to do so, you have to be good in both and you will need "cross training".




Lead your oponant to where your friends are.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Additional thought.  If a person only wants to learn to defend themselves on the street, a rising block on the left and a good right cross might be the only things they need for MOST circumstances in the US, since most Americans are right-handed and throw haymakers.  However, it is good to have other options if that doesn't work.



Left hook?

Then at least you are responding against the general expectations.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

Mabye want it to be a bit legal? Or at least look legal with a bit of creative explanation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Lead your oponant to where your friends are.


Or lead your opponent to your car where you have something in your glove compartment. When I was a kid, every time when there was a street fight, the moment that one side started to run toward a funeral home, the other side started to run toward the opposite direction. The local gang hided samurai swords inside coffin in that funeral home.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 27, 2016)

I like the premise here but I think the will to fight or intent is more important then the technique.  In essence you have to have the will and intent to do harm while removing that from your attacker. A wave of violence needs to be met by a larger wave of violence or you need to get the heck out of the way.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 27, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> the will to fight ...


Old saying said, "If you want to fight, you have to see blood". If you don't intend to see blood, you should not fight. The fighting is a serious matter. It's not just a game.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> I like the premise here but I think the will to fight or intent is more important then the technique.  In essence you have to have the will and intent to do harm while removing that from your attacker. A wave of violence needs to be met by a larger wave of violence or you need to get the heck out of the way.



Not so much. This intent to hurt is kind of a winning intent. Which means it is fine if you are laying the boot it but less useful when the boots are laid on you.

Then you may want a mechanically sound escape in your toolkit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Number 2 it has to be mechanical. So the body should have no choice but to comply with the move regardless of the intent of the person defending that move.
> 
> Me knocking someone over and sitting on them is hardly brutal. But they are also not going to get back up.


I agree, with the exception that psychological techniques can avoid physical techniques.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Not so much. This intent to hurt is kind of a winning intent. Which means it is fine if you are laying the boot it but less useful when the boots are laid on you.
> 
> Then you may want a mechanically sound escape in your toolkit.


Not really sure what you mean using the phrase "laying the boot"
But I will assume you mean being the guy doing the damage.
The will to fight goes beyond what I may have written, maybe I could have written more.
The will to fight is most important when your on the losing end of the fight. When you have multiple knife holes stabbed in your chest, " your not done till you're dead" .  For myself I am not going to just lie down and wait for the coroner.
In combat there is nothing more important than the will to fight.

Now I also mentioned if you can't fight you need to get out of the way of the wave of violence


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Number 2 it has to be mechanical. So the body should have no choice but to comply with the move regardless of the intent of the person defending that move.
> 
> Me knocking someone over and sitting on them is hardly brutal. But they are also not going to get back up.



I think I understand what you mean by being mechanical but if you are sitting on your attacker you have accomplished nothing.
How long can you sit on him?  I hope your cell phone is in your hand while you're sitting on him because if he gets up he is going to kill you.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 27, 2016)

Not all chokes are brutal, but those same chokes are very effective.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I agree, with the exception that psychological techniques can avoid physical techniques.



Yeah.  And even paifull stuff like that Chinese burn has a use.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> I think I understand what you mean by being mechanical but if you are sitting on your attacker you have accomplished nothing.
> How long can you sit on him?  I hope your cell phone is in your hand while you're sitting on him because if he gets up he is going to kill you.



Trying to kill someone from there is just illogical. If you have been put down sat on and they have the good grace to not be elbowing your face to pieces. Give up. And for gods sake dont threaten to kill them.

I have seen to many people receive the ground and pound of their life because the could not acknowledge that they have lost.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Trying to kill someone from there is just illogical. If you have been put down sat on and they have the good grace to not be elbowing your face to pieces. Give up. And for gods sake dont threaten to kill them.
> 
> I have seen to many people receive the ground and pound of their life because the could not acknowledge that they have lost.



Your choice of words is interesting to me. Why would you use the word "lost" as in someone lost the fight,,,when we are talking about violence and self defense?   Did I not understand the OP?  There is no winning or losing in self defense only survival maybe you could win the court case after...maybe.
Let's up the anti a bit and say the attacker just beat your wife unconscious and is coming at you with a knife with the intent to kill,  and your going to sit on him and hope he just  gives in?   He knows he is looking at many years in prison,  I don't think a little ground and pound is going to be what is most important on his mind.,
I'll prefer my intent thank you.


----------



## Buka (Jan 27, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Not all chokes are brutal, but those same chokes are very effective.



Is that a quote from someone, or just you?


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 27, 2016)

Buka said:


> Is that a quote from someone, or just you?



Just me.

I guess it does have a philosophical tinge to it. 

But yeah, some chokes are actually fairly gentle, and they put you right to sleep without you even realizing it.

To hell with Guillotines though! Also to hell with Guillotine night at the gym!!


----------



## Steve (Jan 27, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> Your choice of words is interesting to me. Why would you use the word "lost" as in someone lost the fight,,,when we are talking about violence and self defense?   Did I not understand the OP?  There is no winning or losing in self defense only survival maybe you could win the court case after...maybe.
> Let's up the anti a bit and say the attacker just beat your wife unconscious and is coming at you with a knife with the intent to kill,  and your going to sit on him and hope he just  gives in?   He knows he is looking at many years in prison,  I don't think a little ground and pound is going to be what is most important on his mind.,
> I'll prefer my intent thank you.


In the interest of keeping it real, homocides are a very small fraction of violent crimes (about 1.2% of all violent crime in 2013).   And of those homocides, most (a touch under 80%) are by gun. 

Statistically speaking per fbi.gov, even if you are one of the 350 or so per 100,000 who is a victim of violent crime, you are probably not in a fight such as is being discussed here, And even if you are, you probably aren't fighting for your life.


----------



## Buka (Jan 27, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Just me.
> 
> I guess it does have a philosophical tinge to it.
> 
> ...



That's a great saying. I've already stolen it.

To hell with guillotines? Bite your tongue, blasphemer!


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 27, 2016)

Buka said:


> That's a great saying. I've already stolen it.



I think my new avatar is rubbing off on me.



> To hell with guillotines? Bite your tongue, blasphemer!



The gi burns hurt like hell bro! Also big white belts get super spazzy with it and crank your neck when they first learn it.


----------



## Buka (Jan 27, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I think my new avatar is rubbing off on me.
> 
> 
> 
> The gi burns hurt like hell bro! Also big white belts get super spazzy with it and crank your neck when they first learn it.



Never play cards with a guy called Doc, never eat at a place called Mom's, never sleep with anyone crazier than you and never, ever roll or spar with a big, new white belt.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> Your choice of words is interesting to me. Why would you use the word "lost" as in someone lost the fight,,,when we are talking about violence and self defense?   Did I not understand the OP?  There is no winning or losing in self defense only survival maybe you could win the court case after...maybe.
> Let's up the anti a bit and say the attacker just beat your wife unconscious and is coming at you with a knife with the intent to kill,  and your going to sit on him and hope he just  gives in?   He knows he is looking at many years in prison,  I don't think a little ground and pound is going to be what is most important on his mind.,
> I'll prefer my intent thank you.



You have to be able to use force proportionally. If I feel I need to lay waste to someone I can from there.

Or I can hold him for the cops 

Or let him back up.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> In the interest of keeping it real, homocides are a very small fraction of violent crimes (about 1.2% of all violent crime in 2013).   And of those homocides, most (a touch under 80%) are by gun.
> 
> Statistically speaking per fbi.gov, even if you are one of the 350 or so per 100,000 who is a victim of violent crime, you are probably not in a fight such as is being discussed here, And even if you are, you probably aren't fighting for your life.



So what your saying is that it probably will never happen to you so you don't train for it and percentage wise it would be a waste of time.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 28, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> UK crime statistics show most injuries (n relation to violence) are left side facial trauma, for the same reason (people being right handed)



Can you provide a link to those stats please? I work in crime statistics and would like to see what the data is like and it's sources.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 28, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> In order for something to work in a live situating i.e. the battlefield, or “the street” (So we are not talking competition/points scoring here, just to clarify). It has to fill two criteria:
> 
> Number one; it has to be simple.
> 
> ...



As a set of personal choices or useful guidelines this is a good list. I would change the brutal bit as well though. Brutality must (by law) be directly proportional to the level of danger you feel you are in.

Also I would caveat simple with, "must be intensively trained!"

Having a cool mechanically effective kata application is great, but if you haven't put in the work, don't expect it to work (TM).


----------



## Steve (Jan 28, 2016)

Snip


----------



## Steve (Jan 28, 2016)

hoshin1600 said:


> So what your saying is that it probably will never happen to you so you don't train for it and percentage wise it would be a waste of time.


Kind of.  What I'm really saying is that it's all unlikely, so if you're trying to train for an unlikely, worst case situation, why presume your opponent is untrained?  Everyone Whois training fighting for self defense is making assumptions about what may o may not actually happen and what's realistic, but it's all very unlikely.  Just suggesting that the assumption that you are fighting for your life is probably not correct.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 28, 2016)

If a technique CAN work is a different discussion from if a technique is LIKELY to work.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 28, 2016)

I would replace the word 'brutal' with 'effective'.


----------



## Jenna (Jan 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Not all chokes are brutal, but those same chokes are very effective.


I think that is interesting point because of another implication.. for me in my art anyway, while there may in many techniques be an implicit "brutality" since that is the word @Paul_D used in op, that implicit brutality need not ALWAYS be called upon and can be ramped up or ramped down concomitant with the situation.. For me I like it best when every one walks away .. if I can also allow a person to save some face there is less likelihood they will seek a recompense, this was a too frequent occurrence where I used to live.. 

Interesting point though  x


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> Kind of.  What I'm really saying is that it's all unlikely, so if you're trying to train for an unlikely, worst case situation, why presume your opponent is untrained?  Everyone Whois training fighting for self defense is making assumptions about what may o may not actually happen and what's realistic, but it's all very unlikely.  Just suggesting that the assumption that you are fighting for your life is probably not correct.




The question is what is the difference between submitting someone and crippling them?


----------



## Buka (Jan 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The question is what is the difference between submitting someone and crippling them?



Dbear, I don't understand the question.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2016)

Buka said:


> Dbear, I don't understand the question.



But steve probably will.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The question is what is the difference between submitting someone and crippling them?



In grappling, applying just enough force to allow them tap/submit vs. applying the technique and going straight for the break.

In striking, hitting hard enough to back them up or knock them down without knocking them out cold and or stomping on a "beaten" opponent.

Using stuff with the sole intent of making your opponent lose his/her will to fight without causing too much harm beyond a psychological wake up call.  

Basically, a form of warning shots.

Not at all a difficult question IMO.  Now back to your  (as a whole) regularly scheduled ramblings  ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 29, 2016)

Buka said:


> Dbear, I don't understand the question.


I think Drop Bear's point was that submitting someone happens because they "give up" before you complete the break, etc. We use tapping out (as many dojos do) with locks and such, and teach the students how to finish it. In many cases, I show them that "in the street", I wouldn't wait for the person to submit, I'd just crack the wrist, etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 29, 2016)

Jenna said:


> I think that is interesting point because of another implication.. for me in my art anyway, while there may in many techniques be an implicit "brutality" since that is the word @Paul_D used in op, that implicit brutality need not ALWAYS be called upon and can be ramped up or ramped down concomitant with the situation.. For me I like it best when every one walks away .. if I can also allow a person to save some face there is less likelihood they will seek a recompense, this was a too frequent occurrence where I used to live..
> 
> Interesting point though  x


Agreed. I think it's useful to have a range of force within a given technique. If a cousin gets drunk and decides to "find out what I've got" at a family reunion, I don't want to break anything on him (well, on most of them). A pissed-off guy in a bar would probably be another matter. I'd like to use the same techniques in both places, so many of my techniques can be finished more than one way: an easy takedown, a hard takedown, a pin, a stomp, etc.


----------



## Buka (Jan 29, 2016)

I realize the difference, I'm pretty sure everybody does. I just don't understand why the question was asked.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2016)

Buka said:


> I realize the difference, I'm pretty sure everybody does. I just don't understand why the question was asked.



Because the difference between submitting someone and crippling them is not very much. So on the street someone tries to mug you you take him down and lock him up. Now you either hold him there or cripple him.

Life or death fight or a fight over not much. Same thing.


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 29, 2016)

DaveB said:


> Can you provide a link to those stats please? I work in crime statistics and would like to see what the data is like and it's sources.


I don't have them to hand, but you can find them on Iain Abernethy's forum, as he analysis them most years when they are released.


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 29, 2016)

Some great replies guys & gals, thank you very much.   Very very interesting


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Because the difference between submitting someone and crippling them is not very much. So on the street someone tries to mug you you take him down and lock him up. Now you either hold him there or cripple him.
> 
> Life or death fight or a fight over not much. Same thing.


I had choked someone on the street before. It was not self-defense but I tried to defend for someone else. When my opponent said, "Please don't kill me." I let go my choke and he ran away. The choke can end with the fight is over, nobody will get hurt, and everybody will live happy ever after.


----------



## Rayrob (Jan 29, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I had choked someone on the street before. It was not self-defense but I tried to defend for someone else. When my opponent said, "Please don't kill me." I let go my choke and he ran away. The choke can end with the fight is over, nobody will get hurt, and everybody will live happy ever after.


I had the oposite experience when a rather violent neanderthal neighbour decided to carry out a completely unprovoked attack on me. He was unaware that I had trained in a variety of martial arts over quite a few years. I knocked seven bells out of him. He begged me to stop and I did. He then went for round two. I never made the same mistake again. It's over when I say it's over, my call. Fortunately in this instance I came out unscathed but it could have ended up very differently.


----------



## JP3 (Jan 30, 2016)

I like simple, simple is easiest to remember and easiest to use.

But brutal?  Doesn't need to be brutal, as Bill pointed out.  Of course, the lack of a need to be brutal is skill-level based. Guys and gals who are approaching a half centry in an art, just about any art, can deal witht he guy who raises his hand on the street in any number of simple, quick and efficient ways, and I would wager that most of them are not brutal. But, someone who has only been doing judo for 6 months may not know those options even exist.... so they launch forward with a left rising block which turns into a grapple and blasts the guy with a simple osotagari and thus ruins his day witht he pavement cracking the back of his head/neck. Hopefully,t hey don't kill the guy. Simple? Sure. Brutal? About as brutal and devastating as it can get... but maybe that person's only real, reflex-trained option.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 31, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> In order for something to work in a live situating i.e. the battlefield, or “the street” (So we are not talking competition/points scoring here, just to clarify). It has to fill two criteria:



The list is missing "full powered strikes coming at your face" to test out it's effectiveness.


----------



## Paul_D (Feb 2, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> The list is missing "full powered strikes coming at your face" to test out it's effectiveness.


Why would you wait until someone starts hitting you before you defend yourself?

If you are familiar with the rituals of violence and can recognise predatory behaviour, or if an aggressive person is giving you all of the verbal and physical indicators, you don't wait.


----------



## FriedRice (Feb 2, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Why would you wait until someone starts hitting you before you defend yourself?
> 
> If you are familiar with the rituals of violence and can recognise predatory behaviour, or if an aggressive person is giving you all of the verbal and physical indicators, you don't wait.



You misunderstood what I meant...meaning that, your training should include your training partner throwing full power strikes and kicks in trying to KO you while you do the same, to test out your skills, aggression, ability to take damage, to continue while hurt, etc.


----------



## Paul_D (Feb 2, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> You misunderstood what I meant...meaning that, your training should include your training partner throwing full power strikes and kicks in trying to KO you while you do the same, to test out your skills, aggression, ability to take damage, to continue while hurt, etc.


Sorry, misunderstandings are far to easy with the written word. 

That would help yes, but I wouldn't say its a "must".  

If you are going to teach self defence to the elderly for example you're not going to bring in sparring partners to hit them full force in the face to try and knock them out as not everyone's self defence needs are the same.  They are less likely to end up in a "fight" than a 20 year old male out drinking on  a Saturday night. 

SD needs should be tailored to the types of violence most likely to be encountered by the individual.


----------



## FriedRice (Feb 2, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> That would help yes, but I wouldn't say its a "must".
> 
> If you are going to teach self defence to the elderly for example you're not going to bring in sparring partners to hit them full force in the face to try and knock them out as not everyone's self defence needs are the same.  They are less likely to end up in a "fight" than a 20 year old male out drinking on  a Saturday night.
> 
> SD needs should be tailored to the types of violence most likely to be encountered by the individual.



You're right, I should have said that it would be for the most advanced people but even then.... only if they want to go to that level. Because in general, most people won't go through that level of brutality in real life....and ending up more likely to get brutalized more in the gym. Self Defense for me personally is to train hard, but also carry as many legal weapons as possible, so that would be my 9mm, a really big folding knife and spray. 

And you're especially right about the proper programs tailored towards the elderly. Like some old lady with osteo setting in, is probably going to break a hip doing 50 burpees, let alone getting hit in the face at full power, even if she thinks she was tough some 30 years ago.


----------



## dmsaint (Feb 4, 2016)

I wouldn't study a martial art based on whether or not it works in combat...that would be the most irrelevant reason.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2016)

dmsaint said:


> I wouldn't study a martial art based on whether or not it works in combat...that would be the most irrelevant reason.


I don't think that would be the most irrelevant reason for some people. Of course, if by "combat" you mean war, I'll side with you on this one.


----------



## szorn (Feb 11, 2016)

There has been quite a bit discussed here from self-defense to sport applications. 

The thing to remember is that self-defense is different than martial arts. While martial arts in the typical sense offer numerous benefits, realistic self-defense isn't always one of them.  Even when self-defense is emphasized within an art it generally requires months to years to effectively develop an appropriate skill level for use in real situations. Having said that, it's important to note that many times potentially violent situations can be dealt with in a non-physical manner. This includes mind-set, awareness, escape, and de-escalation among other things. These are things that are often neglected in traditional and semi-traditional martial arts. Another thing often neglected in martial arts, as mentioned by Paul_D, is the adrenal response. Regardless of what we think we will do or how we train, if it doesn't take the adrenal response into consideration there is often a low rate of success for many of these techniques, tactics, and strategies. An adrenal response is something that we all experience. While the degree of intensity may vary from person to person due to numerous factors (including proper training) it unfortunately is not something that we can eliminate or ignore in our training. And until those preferred techniques are actually trained through the adrenal state, the likelihood of them working as intended is pretty low.

The discussion of control holds, locks, and chokes is pretty interesting. However, the question to ask is whether or not these skills would actually be applicable in the majority of "self-defense" situations. Remember, I previously mentioned awareness, escape, and de-escalation. These are things that generally should be tried prior to resorting to physical skills, unless the level of threat demands an immediate physical response (cornered or trapped by the assailant or ambushed). That being the case, what kind of legitimate situation would require the use of locks or control holds? If the intended victim believes that the level of threat is not high enough to warrant a high level response then obviously he/she could use more appropriate options such as de-escalation. Also, while a choke hold can be an appropriate response for a high level threat, especially a lethal threat but it's obviously not something that should be used for threats that could be effectively dealt with in a non-physical manner. Anytime force is used on the neck and throat it can be considered use of lethal force. It's also not a technique I would teach haphazardly under the heading of "self-defense". 

While I understand the reluctance by some to use the term "brutal" it does make sense from a mind-set perspective. That said, I have used the term "savagely" to assist students in understanding the appropriate mind-set for dealing with explosive violence. The term used is not as important as the mind-set it should convey.

Steve


----------



## Phobius (Feb 12, 2016)

Chokes are not dangerous, at least not the BJJ kind. Instead they are effective and will knock you out but in no way dangerous.

If anything should be done to not harm your opponent chokes would be my best bet. Saying otherwise and I have to ask, have you been choked out? I think many BJJ artists have had that experience as part of some ritual or other. None of them died.

Oh and not all submissions will cripple an opponent if continued. Some like chokes will not have that crippling effect so while they are in some cases the same to some extent, it is far from always.


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 12, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Chokes are not dangerous, at least not the BJJ kind. Instead they are effective and will knock you out but in no way dangerous.
> 
> If anything should be done to not harm your opponent chokes would be my best bet. Saying otherwise and I have to ask, have you been choked out? I think many BJJ artists have had that experience as part of some ritual or other. None of them died.
> .



Yeah, you have to really wonder where these beliefs are coming from. Depending on the tightness of a choke, you can put someone out in a matter of seconds, but you would have to hold a choke FAR past that point in order to do serious harm to them, or kill them. They also work regardless of size, so women can effectively choke out a much larger men That's what makes them great tools for self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Chokes are not dangerous, at least not the BJJ kind. Instead they are effective and will knock you out but in no way dangerous.
> 
> If anything should be done to not harm your opponent chokes would be my best bet. Saying otherwise and I have to ask, have you been choked out? I think many BJJ artists have had that experience as part of some ritual or other. None of them died.
> 
> Oh and not all submissions will cripple an opponent if continued. Some like chokes will not have that crippling effect so while they are in some cases the same to some extent, it is far from always.



It is considered a massive no no in self defence circles as it is an escalation of force.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 12, 2016)

That is just silly, it is not an escalation of force to have someone passed out. Violence ends at that point.

EDIT: Not saying you are silly, but that those considering a choke to be an escalation. It is a deescalation of an escalated situation. All violence ends at that point because the attacker is passed out. You just stand up and call the cops or walk away.


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 12, 2016)

Ryan Hall choked out a guy on video and came out just fine.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2016)

Phobius said:


> That is just silly, it is not an escalation of force to have someone passed out. Violence ends at that point.
> 
> EDIT: Not saying you are silly, but that those considering a choke to be an escalation. It is a deescalation of an escalated situation. All violence ends at that point because the attacker is passed out. You just stand up and call the cops or walk away.



OK. This is the foce continuum.






Rear naked chokes are seen as right at the top of that.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 12, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Rear naked chokes are seen as right at the top of that.



If an officer is at the scene of course you let go and turn a person over to them, but this is self defense we are discussing. A choke is as harmless as they come. Any other means of fighting are quite a bit more lethal, granted you do not move past a choke and over to pure strangling, which is not a choke in any way.

Force continuum is about resisting an arrest from an officer. That was not something anyone was discussing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 12, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It is considered a massive no no in self defence circles as it is an escalation of force.


If by "in self defence circles" you mean those who teach it, I'd have to argue that point. I've been around a lot of folks who teach self-defense, and have never heard anyone suggest that chokes are a bad idea, though there are some who do not seem to teach them. We do differentiate between blood chokes (what Hanzou and others are referring to) and airway chokes (what someone referred to as "strangling"), and the fact that one can be done with little risk, but the other may be permanent.

I teach chokes (both kinds) and how to defend against them.


----------



## DaveB (Feb 13, 2016)

The SD specialists I've known have taught chokes, but the issue isn't how controlled an attack you think it is, but how dangerous a jury believes it is. Once you start cutting off oxygen to the brain it's only your word that your intent was not to kill.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 13, 2016)

szorn said:


> There has been quite a bit discussed here from self-defense to sport applications.
> 
> The thing to remember is that self-defense is different than martial arts. While martial arts in the typical sense offer numerous benefits, realistic self-defense isn't always one of them.  Even when self-defense is emphasized within an art it generally requires months to years to effectively develop an appropriate skill level for use in real situations. Having said that, it's important to note that many times potentially violent situations can be dealt with in a non-physical manner. This includes mind-set, awareness, escape, and de-escalation among other things. These are things that are often neglected in traditional and semi-traditional martial arts. Another thing often neglected in martial arts, as mentioned by Paul_D, is the adrenal response. Regardless of what we think we will do or how we train, if it doesn't take the adrenal response into consideration there is often a low rate of success for many of these techniques, tactics, and strategies. An adrenal response is something that we all experience. While the degree of intensity may vary from person to person due to numerous factors (including proper training) it unfortunately is not something that we can eliminate or ignore in our training. And until those preferred techniques are actually trained through the adrenal state, the likelihood of them working as intended is pretty low.
> 
> ...


Steve, these terms you call to bear with your students: "brutal" or "savagely", to convey in their minds a way of defending, these two words to me depict to me a loss of control. I want to ask can you explain for me please how defending my self or deploying techniques in a brutal or savage way would amplify my defence or assist in my safety in that situation? Thank you


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 13, 2016)

DaveB said:


> The SD specialists I've known have taught chokes, but the issue isn't how controlled an attack you think it is, but how dangerous a jury believes it is. Once you start cutting off oxygen to the brain it's only your word that your intent was not to kill.



I seriously doubt a woman for example is going to prison for triangle choking some creep who attempted to rape her.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I seriously doubt a woman for example is going to prison for triangle choking some creep who attempted to rape her.



I doubt she would go to prison if she killed him.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2016)

DaveB said:


> The SD specialists I've known have taught chokes, but the issue isn't how controlled an attack you think it is, but how dangerous a jury believes it is. Once you start cutting off oxygen to the brain it's only your word that your intent was not to kill.


Yes. This is one of the realities we discuss in our program. There's a difference between surviving the moment and surviving the situation. Surviving the moment can allow for any response that keeps you alive. Surviving the situation means (when possible) avoiding responses that have a higher likelihood of putting you in jail.

"I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" is valid. Better yet to avoid both.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I seriously doubt a woman for example is going to prison for triangle choking some creep who attempted to rape her.


Possibly not. But a guy might go to jail for doing the same to a guy who attacked him in a bar.


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Possibly not. But a guy might go to jail for doing the same to a guy who attacked him in a bar.



If the guy is on top of him trying to turn his face into hamburger, the guy on the bottom attempting the choke should take his chances. Especially if he's on concrete or a similar surface.

Outside of talking your way out of something, a defensive choke is the most humane way of ending a physical altercation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> If the guy is on top of him trying to turn his face into hamburger, the guy on the bottom attempting the choke should take his chances. Especially if he's on concrete or a similar surface.
> 
> Outside of talking your way out of something, a defensive choke is the most humane way of ending a physical altercation.


Oh, I agree entirely. There's a point where you have to do whatever you have to do, especially when survival is potentially on the line. And yes, the choke can be the most humane way out. We just can't count on a jury to see it that way; they've watched too many movies where something that looks like that so easily breaks a guy's neck.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I agree entirely. There's a point where you have to do whatever you have to do, especially when survival is potentially on the line. And yes, the choke can be the most humane way out. We just can't count on a jury to see it that way; they've watched too many movies where something that looks like that so easily breaks a guy's neck.



Not all countries have jury members. So that means this topic needs to be discussed separately for each country of origin.


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I agree entirely. There's a point where you have to do whatever you have to do, especially when survival is potentially on the line. And yes, the choke can be the most humane way out. We just can't count on a jury to see it that way; they've watched too many movies where something that looks like that so easily breaks a guy's neck.



Not every choke resembles an RNC from behind a standing assailant though. For example, most people have no idea what a Triangle Choke looks like, and that particular choke would be applied from a clearly defensive position. Thus in front of a jury, it's pretty hard to be pinned as the aggressor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Not all countries have jury members. So that means this topic needs to be discussed separately for each country of origin.


Good point. I can only speak to the US justice system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Not every choke resembles an RNC from behind a standing assailant though. For example, most people have no idea what a Triangle Choke looks like, and that particular choke would be applied from a clearly defensive position. Thus in front of a jury, it's pretty hard to be pinned as the aggressor.


Quite true. This would be almost entirely the purview of arts with significant groundwork (like BJJ), since one must stay under the assailant to do it. Most won't spend enough time on the ground during practice to work on those types of chokes.

Mind you, it's a great solution if that's where you happen to be - nobody will choose that position, but any of us can potentially end up there.

An aside, Hanzou - remind me which BJJ style you train in. Are you training GJJ?


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Quite true. This would be almost entirely the purview of arts with significant groundwork (like BJJ), since one must stay under the assailant to do it. Most won't spend enough time on the ground during practice to work on those types of chokes.
> 
> Mind you, it's a great solution if that's where you happen to be - nobody will choose that position, but any of us can potentially end up there.



Yes, its probably one of the most practical chokes around, relatively easy to set up, and its very good to establish a fairly dominant position from the bottom. If you can't get the choke you can go for arm bars, wrist locks, sweeps, etc. from the initial set up. It's quite amazing to me that more martial arts don't incorporate it.



> An aside, Hanzou - remind me which BJJ style you train in. Are you training GJJ?



Yeah, Relson Gracie JJ currently. I've also trained under a Rickson Gracie brown belt for a time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Yes, its probably one of the most practical chokes around, relatively easy to set up, and its very good to establish a fairly dominant position from the bottom. If you can't get the choke you can go for arm bars, wrist locks, sweeps, etc. from the initial set up. It's quite amazing to me that more martial arts don't incorporate it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Relson Gracie JJ currently. I've also trained under a Rickson Gracie brown belt for a time.


How much of the chokes show up in the Combatives (first 36, as I recall)? I need a refresher on ground work (to get back to responses beyond escape), and was thinking of going through the combatives if my legs will let me.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> If the guy is on top of him trying to turn his face into hamburger, the guy on the bottom attempting the choke should take his chances. Especially if he's on concrete or a similar surface.
> 
> Outside of talking your way out of something, a defensive choke is the most humane way of ending a physical altercation.



I don't disagree.but a judge will. And you can't argue with a judge.


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> How much of the chokes show up in the Combatives (first 36, as I recall)? I need a refresher on ground work (to get back to responses beyond escape), and was thinking of going through the combatives if my legs will let me.



Mainly the major ones like Triangle, RNC, and Guillotine and their various applications. Depending on school focus you'll learn more "sporty" chokes as well. White belt curriculum is pretty old school Bjj with lots of standup mixed with ground work and focuses on things like closed guard, escaping head locks, escaping mount, escaping bear hugs, etc. That's Relson's system though. I'm not sure if his program follows the exact same program as the Torrance guys.

But yeah, if you're looking for more self defense based Bjj, Relson, Rickson, or Torrance affiliated schools are the way to go. My only gripe with Torrance is that they're getting weirder and weirder as time goes on, and frankly its kind of troubling.


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I don't disagree.but a judge will. And you can't argue with a judge.



Yeah, I'll happily deal with a judge over dealing with brain damage and crushed bones in my skull.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Mainly the major ones like Triangle, RNC, and Guillotine and their various applications. Depending on school focus you'll learn more "sporty" chokes as well. White belt curriculum is pretty old school Bjj with lots of standup mixed with ground work and focuses on things like closed guard, escaping head locks, escaping mount, escaping bear hugs, etc. That's Relson's system though. I'm not sure if his program follows the exact same program as the Torrance guys.
> 
> But yeah, if you're looking for more self defense based Bjj, Relson, Rickson, or Torrance affiliated schools are the way to go. My only gripe with Torrance is that they're getting weirder and weirder as time goes on, and frankly its kind of troubling.


Thanks.


----------



## Tonita Rervant (Feb 24, 2016)

It is more complex comparing in real time environment. And training make us ready for that. 

As far as brutality is concern, it should be quick. Otherwise, you can't control the situation.


----------

