# Are you really training for self defense?



## KPM

Good article here from Paul Rackemann!

Martial Arts - Is it really about Self-defence? - Rackemann Wing Chun


----------



## drop bear

Ok. Lets simplify the issue. If I can reliably do this.







How many self defence situations can I resolve?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Ok. Lets simplify the issue. If I can reliably do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many self defence situations can I resolve?


----------



## Flying Crane

Personally, I think the article is overthought.  

If you are getting quality training, then there ought to be some applicable self defense skills that you are developing.  However, nothing is perfect and nothing can prepare you for a genuine sneak attack or overwhelming odds.

In addition, self defense does not need to be your first or second or third or fourth reason or motivation for training.  And yet you can still be developing legitimate and useful self defense skills.

Personally, and I’ve said this before, I feel that those people who become very focused on self defense can cross the line to paranoia.  No thanks.


----------



## TMA17

The Sifu at the seminar I attended today teaches WC in a more pragmatic/practical way.  He also incorporates boxing punches into his training, more agility and even some Shaolin and Hungar moves.  He will tell you straight up that traditional arts can be dogmatic in their approach and teaching.  You have to make them work for you in some way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. Lets simplify the issue. If I can reliably do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many self defence situations can I resolve?


The gif didn't play for me, DB. What did it show?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Personally, I think the article is overthought.


And overstated. It focuses on the scenarios that are farthest from the most common training methods. It then asks whether different types of common training would address those. My answer, actually, in each case is, "Probably better than not having it." That even goes for the BJJ question with multiples. I'm not a fan of going to the ground, and I do think multiples present a special problem for an art that likes the ground. But a competent BJJ-er is significantly better prepared for those multiples than someone without that training.



> If you are getting quality training, then there ought to be some applicable self defense skills that you are developing.  However, nothing is perfect and nothing can prepare you for a genuine sneak attack or overwhelming odds.
> 
> In addition, self defense does not need to be your first or second or third or fourth reason or motivation for training.  And yet you can still be developing legitimate and useful self defense skills.
> 
> Personally, and I’ve said this before, I feel that those people who become very focused on self defense can cross the line to paranoia.  No thanks.


Agreed. Good training (and there's a wide continuum and variety of stuff that qualifies) will help. Some will help more than others in some situations (and it may be reversed in other situations). None of it can cover everything, and attempting to do so has a high likelihood of leading to that semi-paranoia you mention. There are decisions I don't bother to worry about in my life, because they would reduce the quality of my living it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The gif didn't play for me, DB. What did it show?



Little dude gave the big dude a sleeping pill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Little dude gave the big dude a sleeping pill.


Ah, then it goes to my point. Something will be different in different situations, but that one skill will potentially handle a number of them. The situation matters. I think the basic skills matter more.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*Are you really training for self defense? *

It depends on how good you can protect your head from been punched. IMO, there exist no skill that's more important than this.


----------



## geezer

I didn't really get that article. I do wing chun for fun. Same for escrima. Sure, I think they help me a bit with fitness and defensive skills, but I don't foresee ever using them for physical self-defense any more than the average HEMA guy plans to chop someone up with a sword.

If somebody with a gun wants to take my car, I'll toss 'em the keys. The cars insured.

If one or more guys with weapons wants my wallet, I'll give it to them. I've got a couple of extra wallets (old Christmas presents)  in my sock drawer at home.

If someone wants to hurt me or my loved ones and we can't get away ...well that's why I have access to guns, knives, and an effing big axe-handle by my bed. And yes I do practice with them, with the fervent desire never to have to use them.

Self defense begins with awareness, avoidance, de-escalation and escape, and I haven't been in a sketchy situation in many many years. I intend to keep it that way


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Are you really training for self defense? *
> 
> It depends on how good you can protect your head from been punched. IMO, there exist no skill that's more important than this.


Whether that's important or not really depends if they're trying to hit you.


----------



## KPM

I think one of the main points of that article is simply to be aware of WHY your are training!  I think it was addressed primarily to those people who THINK they are very "self defense" oriented but not truly preparing for situations they might find themselves in.  Or for a student to be aware if a teacher is promoting what he is doing as excellent for "self defense", but then not addressing things like situational awareness, etc.  He didn't say there was anything wrong with training just for the fitness or for enjoyment.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> I think one of the main points of that article is simply to be aware of WHY your are training!  I think it was addressed primarily to those people who THINK they are very "self defense" oriented but not truly preparing for situations they might find themselves in.  Or for a student to be aware if a teacher is promoting what he is doing as excellent for "self defense", but then not addressing things like situational awareness, etc.  He didn't say there was anything wrong with training just for the fitness or for enjoyment.



People think they they are training situational awareness or deescalation. But to be honest how does anybody know any of it works?

There is basically nobody with any real grounding in the subject and there is no real way of finding out if any of it works.

Now given all of that. Consider the instructor who knows that he is making up tactics on the spot. And is teaching it anyway.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> People think they they are training situational awareness or deescalation. But to be honest how does anybody know any of it works?
> 
> There is basically nobody with any real grounding in the subject and there is no real way of finding out if any of it works.
> 
> Now given all of that. Consider the instructor who knows that he is making up tactics on the spot. And is teaching it anyway.


With awareness, there’s some decent logic to be applied, I think (based upon crime statistics, etc.). With deescalation, there are professionals who use some of thes tactics on a regular basis (though some of the published material is for folks working with disturbed or impaired people). The issue, to me, is how it can be effectively practiced. You can’t practice with resistance.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> With awareness, there’s some decent logic to be applied, I think (based upon crime statistics, etc.). With deescalation, there are professionals who use some of thes tactics on a regular basis (though some of the published material is for folks working with disturbed or impaired people). The issue, to me, is how it can be effectively practiced. You can’t practice with resistance.



If they had an actual grounding in the subject. There is information on nuclear physics but that doesn't mean I can build a reactor any time soon.


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> With awareness, there’s some decent logic to be applied, I think (based upon crime statistics, etc.). With deescalation, there are professionals who use some of thes tactics on a regular basis (though some of the published material is for folks working with disturbed or impaired people). The issue, to me, is how it can be effectively practiced. You can’t practice with resistance.



I agree.  And even just setting up more realistic training scenarios helps.   Doing a light sparring session where the student has his back against a wall and has to defend against 2 or 3 people at once and get away......having a student walking thru a doorway into the gym and have to immediately defend himself against a surprise attack when he doesn't know where it will be coming from.....etc.   There are better ways to prepare for a "street scenario" that just always doing forms, 2 man drills, or competitive sparring.  And most certainly....people can practice being more "situationally aware".   When out in public you can learn to scan for possible trouble....recognize exits....recognize where to park in the most illuminated area of a parking lot, etc.   To say that there isn't a way to prepare to be safer "on the streets" is just wrong.


----------



## TMA17

You can definitely teach situational awareness and create scenarios that try and replicate reality on some level.  One of the senior students showed me some ways to handle an escalating situation by stepping off to the side a bit and how to place your hands in a non-threatening way but to also be ready.  Even just simply making it more of a habit to pay closer attention to your surroundings in public is a start.  

I imagine Krav Maga schools do a lot of multiple attacker/reality based training.  

Kali, Krav etc. are probably a good choice overall for real serious conflicts like this, especially involving weapons. I think with most MA schools, you’re at least gettting some better reflexes and coordination that can help you but it will certainly be limited in situations.  My .02


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If they had an actual grounding in the subject. There is information on nuclear physics but that doesn't mean I can build a reactor any time soon.


Agreed. I was addressing the question, “How does anybody know any of it works?” We have ways of knowing some of that. But there is a problem with “practicing” it in a dojo. Role playing is useful, but there’s no “live” feedback. It’s like training a single-leg, and never getting to resistance. For most of us, te best we can do is pass along the concepts we research -including info from folks who actually have to use it regularly.


----------



## CB Jones

Alot of Situational awareness and prevention is just about common sense and not being in such a hurry to ignore best practices.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Whether that's important or not really depends if they're trying to hit you.


If nobody is attacking you, who are you going to defend against? If you are surrounding by many opponents, as long as you can protect your head and not been knocked out, you have chance to get away.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> It’s like training a single-leg, and never getting to resistance.


If you have used your "single leg" to take down 100 guys, the chance that you can use it to take down the 101 guy will be high. The number won't lie. In orde to get that number, you have to test your skill on the mat. You will need a sport environment for that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If nobody is attacking you, who are you going to defend against? If you are surrounding by many opponents, as long as you can protect your head and not been knocked out, you have chance to get away.


I didn’t say anything about not attacking. Blocking a punch isn’t important if you’re being tackled.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have used your "single leg" to take down 100 guys, the chance that you can use it to take down the 101 guy will be high. The number won't lie. In orde to get that number, you have to test your skill on the mat. You will need a sport environment for that.


Or at least a temporary competitive environment in the training hall.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I didn’t say anything about not attacking. Blocking a punch isn’t important if you’re being tackled.


Of course you also need the ability to

- move your leading leg back fast.
- not let your opponent to get to your side door (blind side).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I just quote someone's opinion about SD in another forum which I agree with.

Self defense is the biggest fallacy in MA. When someone says self defense my internal logic persona wants to scream:_ is that really what happens? Is that scenario realistic? So you believe that self defense means that someone is squaring up with you and throwing punches like that? Where's the truck running people down? Where's the acid attack defense? Why are you wasting time with that archaic weapon? Where's a practical gun or knife disarm? What about a machete attack on a bridge? What do you do in a random mass shooting? What if there's an armed burglar on a bus? What about the legal aftermath?_


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I was addressing the question, “How does anybody know any of it works?” We have ways of knowing some of that. But there is a problem with “practicing” it in a dojo. Role playing is useful, but there’s no “live” feedback. It’s like training a single-leg, and never getting to resistance. For most of us, te best we can do is pass along the concepts we research -including info from folks who actually have to use it regularly.



I am sure somebody somewhere has actual grounding in it. People do resolve conflicts and avoid being ambushed. They are just not generally martial arts instructors.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am sure somebody somewhere has actual grounding in it. People do resolve conflicts and avoid being ambushed. They are just not generally martial arts instructors.


Agreed, most MA instructors don’t have that grounding. That’s why I overview the info, rather than spending a lot of time on it. Can’t pressure test it, so the best I can do is give them some rational information to get them started.


----------



## BigMotor

I think that I have a realistic plan to defend myself, and that is tough to do as a 62 year old man. I intend to really get rough, and I mean that just like it sounds. I made a 3 foot and a 4 foot long walking stick, and I intend to break some bones. If I am attacked, I expect it to be by an animal, and I will return the favor.
I have some training in TKD, but it is useless to me now, I am stiff and weak. So, I went to plan B, attack the attackers. Forgive me if I sound over-the-top.

Before you genuflect and give me a sermon, I once knocked a guy out by using 3 fingers, to choke him out. I am just placing that into my equation.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just quote someone's opinion about SD in another forum which I agree with.
> 
> Self defense is the biggest fallacy in MA. When someone says self defense my internal logic persona wants to scream:_ is that really what happens? Is that scenario realistic? So you believe that self defense means that someone is squaring up with you and throwing punches like that? Where's the truck running people down? Where's the acid attack defense? Why are you wasting time with that archaic weapon? Where's a practical gun or knife disarm? What about a machete attack on a bridge? What do you do in a random mass shooting? What if there's an armed burglar on a bus? What about the legal aftermath?_


Well, some people like to believe that they have a monopoly on understanding how violence manifests.  Wake up call: they don’t.

What is described in this quote is not untrue, but is by no means the full extent of violence and potential self defense situations that people may encounter.  In fact, I would argue that the need to defend against an acid attack, a machete attack on a bridge, a random mass shooting, or a truck running people down, is highly, highly unlikely in most parts of the world. Could it happen?  Sure.  Statistically, extremely unlikely.  Time is better spend working on other things that are far more likely.  And any quality martial arts training should result in some useful skills for such a more likely event.  Nothing is perfect.  But that doesn’t mean it is useless.  

The person quoted is missing a whole lot.


----------



## BigMotor

To Flying Crane:

KUNG FU WANG SAID: ↑
I just quote someone's opinion about SD in another forum which I agree with.

Self defense is the biggest fallacy in MA. When someone says self defense my internal logic persona wants to scream:_ is that really what happens? Is that scenario realistic? So you believe that self defense means that someone is squaring up with you and throwing punches like that? Where's the truck running people down? Where's the acid attack defense? Why are you wasting time with that archaic weapon? Where's a practical gun or knife disarm? What about a machete attack on a bridge? What do you do in a random mass shooting? What if there's an armed burglar on a bus? What about the legal aftermath?
_
He has a valid point, what would I do if someone tried to run me down, or came at me with a machete? It is something that I have considered,, and it would be kill or be killed. Once the attack presented itself, I would shift posture, from happy go lucky, into kill or die. However unlikely it might be, is irrelevant; it can happen, it has happened before, so there is historic precedence. Whether to prepare for it, is an individual choice, I have chosen to prepare.


----------



## Flying Crane

BigMotor said:


> To Flying Crane:
> 
> KUNG FU WANG SAID: ↑
> I just quote someone's opinion about SD in another forum which I agree with.
> 
> Self defense is the biggest fallacy in MA. When someone says self defense my internal logic persona wants to scream:_ is that really what happens? Is that scenario realistic? So you believe that self defense means that someone is squaring up with you and throwing punches like that? Where's the truck running people down? Where's the acid attack defense? Why are you wasting time with that archaic weapon? Where's a practical gun or knife disarm? What about a machete attack on a bridge? What do you do in a random mass shooting? What if there's an armed burglar on a bus? What about the legal aftermath?
> _
> He has a valid point, what would I do if someone tried to run me down, or came at me with a machete? It is something that I have considered,, and it would be kill or be killed. Once the attack presented itself, I would shift posture, from happy go lucky, into kill or die. However unlikely it might be, is irrelevant; it can happen, it has happened before, so there is historic precedence. Whether to prepare for it, is an individual choice, I have chosen to prepare.


Well, I suspect you have misunderstood my message, so I will give it another go.

Those extreme types of attacks as described have and do happen.  I never denied it.

However, they are extremely rare and unlikely.  Nevertheless, you are welcome to consider them and prepare accordingly as you see fit.

Another however:  there are plenty of scenarios that are much more likely, for which people routinely prepare in martial arts.  Contrary to the message of the individual quoted in the earlier post, one does not need to be preparing for the extreme but unlikely attacks that he described, in order to be training for self defense.  Self defense is not only about those unlikely and extreme scenarios.  Accepting his message is missing out on a whole lot of reality.

In the end, we all choose the level of paranoia to which we subscribe.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Well, I suspect you have misunderstood my message, so I will give it another go.
> 
> Those extreme types of attacks as described have and do happen.  I never denied it.
> 
> However, they are extremely rare and unlikely.  Nevertheless, you are welcome to consider them and prepare accordingly as you see fit.
> 
> Another however:  there are plenty of scenarios that are much more likely, for which people routinely prepare in martial arts.  Contrary to the message of the individual quoted in the earlier post, one does not need to be preparing for the extreme but unlikely attacks that he described, in order to be training for self defense.  Self defense is not only about those unlikely and extreme scenarios.  Accepting his message is missing out on a whole lot of reality.
> 
> In the end, we all choose the level of paranoia to which we subscribe.



Agreed, just because I do not train for being tied to railroad tracks or dodging on coming trucks or planes crashing into buildings does not mean I do not train doe self-defense you absolutely cannot train for every possibility, because SD could also mean; How do I defend myself against a stock market crash, or if the housing market crashes, how do I defend myself against gas shortages or blizzards or tornados or car crashes....there are infinite possibilities and you cannot train for them all and there are things you simply cannot train for...even if you train for gun defense have you trained for a guy in body armor with high powered weapons......

However all of this has lead me to here and I apologize, but I think the topic needs this


----------



## BigMotor

Flying Crane said:


> Well, I suspect you have misunderstood my message, so I will give it another go.
> 
> Those extreme types of attacks as described have and do happen.  I never denied it.
> 
> However, they are extremely rare and unlikely.  Nevertheless, you are welcome to consider them and prepare accordingly as you see fit.
> 
> Another however:  there are plenty of scenarios that are much more likely, for which people routinely prepare in martial arts.  Contrary to the message of the individual quoted in the earlier post, one does not need to be preparing for the extreme but unlikely attacks that he described, in order to be training for self defense.  Self defense is not only about those unlikely and extreme scenarios.  Accepting his message is missing out on a whole lot of reality.
> 
> In the end, we all choose the level of paranoia to which we subscribe.



Extremely rare? Missing out on reality? Are you insane? Do you keep up with things in life?
I suspect that you have never had to fend off 6 at a time, or had to dodge a car, that was trying to run you down.  I have, and things like that are not as rare as an armchair general presumes them to be. Your response is typical of such warriors, soft talk, and no fight. My reality has been one where violence was used as a lever, by thugs.

In closing, I am of the Bruce Lee line of thought, if it ain't good for fighting, dump it. You do not prove fighting ability by running away and hiding. Nor do you prove it by being foolhardy, there is a median, and I am close to that median. As far as what you have to say, I dismiss it as presumption. Can you make sense of what you see and read?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigMotor said:


> Extremely rare? Missing out on reality? Are you insane? Do you keep up with things in life?
> I suspect that you have never had to fend off 6 at a time, or had to dodge a car, that was trying to run you down.  I have, and things like that are not as rare as an armchair general presumes them to be. Your response is typical of such warriors, soft talk, and no fight. My reality has been one where violence was used as a lever, by thugs.
> 
> In closing, I am of the Bruce Lee line of thought, if it ain't good for fighting, dump it. You do not prove fighting ability by running away and hiding. Nor do you prove it by being foolhardy, there is a median, and I am close to that median. As far as what you have to say, I dismiss it as presumption. Can you make sense of what you see and read?


They are quite rare.  

Your response is needlessly antagonistic.


----------



## BigMotor

Turn me in. My antagonism is due to having lived through a few deadly encounters; which you obviously have not had to deal with. And then you have the temerity to softly lecture me, having never done a thing martially, you lecture me on martial qualities. It is ridiculous.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ATTENTION ALL USERS:
MartialTalk strives to be a friendly place. Being imperfect, that doesn't always happen, but it remains the goal. 
That being said, I'm going to strongly suggest that people in this thread take a step back, and dial it down a little. Re-read your posts before hitting the POST button. Remove the hostile and/or antagonistic parts before you post.
Do this, and we can have good conversations. Don't do this, and the staff ends up with no choice other than to issue warnings, suspend accounts, or ban people. And I presume nobody really wants that. 

Thank you.
Mark A. Cochran
Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigMotor said:


> Turn me in. My antagonism is due to having lived through a few deadly encounters; which you obviously have not had to deal with. And then you have the temerity to softly lecture me, having never done a thing martially, you lecture me on martial qualities. It is ridiculous.


I didn't lecture you. I was gently letting you know you were coming on very strong - more so than I assumed you intended.

And you know nothing about what I have or have not done martially.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> With awareness, there’s some decent logic to be applied, I think (based upon crime statistics, etc.). With deescalation, there are professionals who use some of thes tactics on a regular basis (though some of the published material is for folks working with disturbed or impaired people). The issue, to me, is how it can be effectively practiced. You can’t practice with resistance.


sure you can. Go be a dink to random people and when they are about to hit you, try to talk your way out of it.

*protip, at this point you might want so actual self defense skills(ie, being able to DEFEND YOURSELF from attacks) to fall back on, or you are liable to have a sore face or worse.


----------



## Martial D

As per the rest of this thread, it's getting pretty close to LARPing territory.

Not just for self defense, but in ANY situation where you are threatened/scared/under duress, here is a little secret for you all;

Those things you THINK you would do are rarely the things that will actually happen. Just lol at little old cane guy thinking he will break bones and choke people out. Just as likely you will freeze solid, or be quickly dispatched.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Martial D said:


> sure you can. Go be a dink to random people and when they are about to hit you, try to talk your way out of it.



I think it's safe to say that most people would agree that self defense skills include NOT 'being a dink to random people' to the point that they commit assault. Not being a dink to random people is, in my experience, amazingly effective at avoiding assaults.


----------



## Martial D

Dirty Dog said:


> I think it's safe to say that most people would agree that self defense skills include NOT 'being a dink to random people' to the point that they commit assault. Not being a dink to random people is, in my experience, amazingly effective at avoiding assaults.


If you read the post I quoted (ie, the context), you would realize I was responding to his comment about how to actually pressure test these completely theoretical ideas. Can you think of a better way?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> I think it's safe to say that most people would agree that self defense skills include NOT 'being a dink to random people' to the point that they commit assault. Not being a dink to random people is, in my experience, amazingly effective at avoiding assaults.


And an essential component in being able to de-escalate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> If you read the post I quoted (ie, the context), you would realize I was responding to his comment about how to actually pressure test these completely theoretical ideas. Can you think of a better way?


But even that isn't a good test. De-escalation is pretty likely to fail if you first escalate. It's much more likely to work if you start from neutral.


----------



## Flying Crane

BigMotor said:


> Extremely rare? Missing out on reality? Are you insane? Do you keep up with things in life?
> I suspect that you have never had to fend off 6 at a time, or had to dodge a car, that was trying to run you down.  I have, and things like that are not as rare as an armchair general presumes them to be. Your response is typical of such warriors, soft talk, and no fight. My reality has been one where violence was used as a lever, by thugs.
> 
> In closing, I am of the Bruce Lee line of thought, if it ain't good for fighting, dump it. You do not prove fighting ability by running away and hiding. Nor do you prove it by being foolhardy, there is a median, and I am close to that median. As far as what you have to say, I dismiss it as presumption. Can you make sense of what you see and read?


Ah.  Clearly you know best.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> But even that isn't a good test. De-escalation is pretty likely to fail if you first escalate. It's much more likely to work if you start from neutral.


Well sure, but the training should be harder than the thing you are training for right? Tell the next group of leather clad gentlemen on large American motorcycles they look like a gaggle of homosexuals.  If you can come back from that you can consider de-escalation tested.

Yes, for those Uber serious folk, I'm kidding, but only because the whole subject of training 'de-escalation' is a bit silly..unless of course you are one of the ones $collecting$ from the sale of this completely untestable "skill".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Well sure, but the training should be harder than the thing you are training for right? Tell the next group of leather clad gentlemen on large American motorcycles they look like a gaggle of homosexuals.  If you can come back from that you can consider de-escalation tested.
> 
> Yes, for those Uber serious folk, I'm kidding, but only because the whole subject of training 'de-escalation' is a bit silly..unless of course you are one of the ones $collecting$ from the sale of this completely untestable "skill".


Only doing that if I have Clyde with me.


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> ...Tell the next group of *leather clad gentlemen on large American motorcycles* they look like a gaggle of homosexuals...



You might _not_ get a negative response. Everything depends on context:


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> You might _not_ get a negative response. Everything depends on context:


Most of the *leather clad gentlemen on large American motorcycles* I've known (and I knew quite a few back in the days when I didn't own a car) would have been unoffended, at the worst. Some would laugh at the counter-stereotype, some would appreciate the irony, and some would just say, "Well, yeah." Generally speaking, most of the leather-clad folks I've known were more or less just people who thought leather looked cool on a motorcyle. They were right - I know, because I wore it, too.


----------



## Juany118

CB Jones said:


> Alot of Situational awareness and prevention is just about common sense and not being in such a hurry to ignore best practices.



Exactly.  Example... Prevention>common sense.  If you just HAVE to go to that hot new Gastropub or Club in a gentrified section that borders the "shady" neighborhood, don't park on the street in the Shady neighborhood just to save some bucks.  Part in the well lit and monitored parking lot/garage.  Yeah it costs you some money you could otherwise spend on a couple other drinks but that can be the difference between simply walking by other patrons of the businesses between your destination and the car OR walking through the neighborhood your head BETTER be on a swivel in.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> If you read the post I quoted (ie, the context), you would realize I was responding to his comment about how to actually pressure test these completely theoretical ideas. Can you think of a better way?



It's possible to train it, but tricky.  I believe de-escalation training would actually work in a seminar where most participants are actually strangers, or close to it.  I'll use a non-self defense example.

I am a certified crisis intervention specialists.  I don't work in Philly but have a friend who was one of their negotiators and was on the  Philly Joint Terrorism task force.  He asked me to be a role player, not only because of my training but we both used to share a hobby of amature Theater Acting.  For each group my scenario was to be a man prepared to jump from an office building.  I knew that my character's motivation was that I had lost my wife the year before and I just got a call my son had died in a car crash.  One negotiator, instead of taking their time and starting from neutral he went straight to "what would family think?  What would your wife think?  Do you have a kid?" I tried to be nice at first, a good partner, showing it was aggitatin me, that I was getting profoundly upset.  He kept pushing, so I jumped.  That scenario training may well not have worked the same way as people I work with because they know how I react to emotional stimuli.  That would give them an "edge" in reading me that you don't get in a typical self-defense situation.  So I think it's doable, if you set up realistic scenarios with strangers as role players who are good at what they do.

I also think people look at de-escalation too narrowly.  By this I mean a crime might still occur.  Example he maybe on the verge of shooting me but my remaining calm and saying "you want the keys to my car?  That's fine, here you go" is de-escalation, I didn't get shot.  Saying "yo man, I'm sorry I didn't mean to spill your drink, let me buy another round for you and your friends", same thing.  In either case I "gave up" something but really in self defense that is what de-escalation is about.  You will never get the guy intent on robbery to stop wanting to rob you just with words.  You won't get the "beer muscle" barfly who is now embarrassed and needs to regain status among his companions just with words. 

The other party is already prepared for violence to GET something.  They want your keys, they want to regain face.  If they don't get _something _they will use that violence to get it.  The trick is to be able to read what it is they are looking for and give it to them in one way or another.  Maybe with the robber you say "hey man I took the train, but here I got some cash in my wallet, or here, it's a [insert top of the line cell phone].  I can cancel my cards, the cash, if I am carrying more than my deductible, is covered by my home owners.  The cellphone, they don't have my thumbprint, will never figure out my goofy password and I can turn it into a brick as soon as I get to my computer...and it's insured too through my provider.  That, to me, is one of the tricks of de-escalation, understanding that dynamic and that, in the end, what did a really lose?  Some replaceable property that's likely ensured?  A little bit of pride?  I didn't get shot, seems a fair trade.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> It's possible to train it, but tricky.  I believe de-escalation training would actually work in a seminar where most participants are actually strangers, or close to it.  I'll use a non-self defense example.
> 
> I am a certified crisis intervention specialists.  I don't work in Philly but have a friend who was one of their negotiators and was on the  Philly Joint Terrorism task force.  He asked me to be a role player, not only because of my training but we both used to share a hobby of amature Theater Acting.  For each group my scenario was to be a man prepared to jump from an office building.  I knew that my character's motivation was that I had lost my wife the year before and I just got a call my son had died in a car crash.  One negotiator, instead of taking their time and starting from neutral he went straight to "what would family think?  What would your wife think?  Do you have a kid?" I tried to be nice at first, a good partner, showing it was aggitatin me, that I was getting profoundly upset.  He kept pushing, so I jumped.  That scenario training may well not have worked the same way as people I work with because they know how I react to emotional stimuli.  That would give them an "edge" in reading me that you don't get in a typical self-defense situation.  So I think it's doable, if you set up realistic scenarios with strangers as role players who are good at what they do.
> 
> I also think people look at de-escalation too narrowly.  By this I mean a crime might still occur.  Example he maybe on the verge of shooting me but my remaining calm and saying "you want the keys to my car?  That's fine, here you go" is de-escalation, I didn't get shot.  Saying "yo man, I'm sorry I didn't mean to spill your drink, let me buy another round for you and your friends", same thing.  In either case I "gave up" something but really in self defense that is what de-escalation is about.  You will never get the guy intent on robbery to stop wanting to rob you just with words.  You won't get the "beer muscle" barfly who is now embarrassed and needs to regain status among his companions just with words.
> 
> The other party is already prepared for violence to GET something.  They want your keys, they want to regain face.  If they don't get _something _they will use that violence to get it.  The trick is to be able to read what it is they are looking for and give it to them in one way or another.  Maybe with the robber you say "hey man I took the train, but here I got some cash in my wallet, or here, it's a [insert top of the line cell phone].  I can cancel my cards, the cash, if I am carrying more than my deductible, is covered by my home owners.  The cellphone, they don't have my thumbprint, will never figure out my goofy password and I can turn it into a brick as soon as I get to my computer...and it's insured too through my provider.  That, to me, is one of the tricks of de-escalation, understanding that dynamic and that, in the end, what did a really lose?  Some replaceable property that's likely ensured?  A little bit of pride?  I didn't get shot, seems a fair trade.


I agree with all of that, Juany. Some of that I've not considered inside the term "de-escalation" before, but I think it's better classified that way for the reasons you point out. Aside from folks who are in danger routinely (bouncers, LEO), however, there's still not much opportunity to practice with resistance. Role playing can be a close second to that, but only when the partner is able to react by playing the part well. Most folks don't have that understanding of how people actually react. They react how they think the person is supposed to react. I've seen this in role-playing in management training. In the role play their character gets upset on areas where my experience and research says most people are neutral. They accept statements people in that situation typically find inflammatory. And they get "talked down" too easily - like the words we're working with are magic. It's useful practice, but it's not really resisted practice. It's like scenario training exercises. It's useful, and necessary for some purposes, because we can't really get real resistance.


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> It's possible to train it, but tricky.  I believe de-escalation training would actually work in a seminar where most participants are actually strangers, or close to it.  I'll use a non-self defense example.
> 
> I am a certified crisis intervention specialists.  I don't work in Philly but have a friend who was one of their negotiators and was on the  Philly Joint Terrorism task force.  He asked me to be a role player, not only because of my training but we both used to share a hobby of amature Theater Acting.  For each group my scenario was to be a man prepared to jump from an office building.  I knew that my character's motivation was that I had lost my wife the year before and I just got a call my son had died in a car crash.  One negotiator, instead of taking their time and starting from neutral he went straight to "what would family think?  What would your wife think?  Do you have a kid?" I tried to be nice at first, a good partner, showing it was aggitatin me, that I was getting profoundly upset.  He kept pushing, so I jumped.  That scenario training may well not have worked the same way as people I work with because they know how I react to emotional stimuli.  That would give them an "edge" in reading me that you don't get in a typical self-defense situation.  So I think it's doable, if you set up realistic scenarios with strangers as role players who are good at what they do.
> 
> I also think people look at de-escalation too narrowly.  By this I mean a crime might still occur.  Example he maybe on the verge of shooting me but my remaining calm and saying "you want the keys to my car?  That's fine, here you go" is de-escalation, I didn't get shot.  Saying "yo man, I'm sorry I didn't mean to spill your drink, let me buy another round for you and your friends", same thing.  In either case I "gave up" something but really in self defense that is what de-escalation is about.  You will never get the guy intent on robbery to stop wanting to rob you just with words.  You won't get the "beer muscle" barfly who is now embarrassed and needs to regain status among his companions just with words.
> 
> The other party is already prepared for violence to GET something.  They want your keys, they want to regain face.  If they don't get _something _they will use that violence to get it.  The trick is to be able to read what it is they are looking for and give it to them in one way or another.  Maybe with the robber you say "hey man I took the train, but here I got some cash in my wallet, or here, it's a [insert top of the line cell phone].  I can cancel my cards, the cash, if I am carrying more than my deductible, is covered by my home owners.  The cellphone, they don't have my thumbprint, will never figure out my goofy password and I can turn it into a brick as soon as I get to my computer...and it's insured too through my provider.  That, to me, is one of the tricks of de-escalation, understanding that dynamic and that, in the end, what did a really lose?  Some replaceable property that's likely ensured?  A little bit of pride?  I didn't get shot, seems a fair trade.



By no means is this meant to belittle your training, but that is still cooperative drilling. The emotional content won't be real.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> By no means is this meant to belittle your training, but that is still cooperative drilling. The emotional content won't be real.



None taken because Of course it won't be "real" but if the "opponent" is familiar with how a person would emotionally react irl, and has the talent to portray it properly (so the "student" can learn to read cues) I don't think it is all that different than shoot house training where you learn how to properly clear corners and enter rooms, or else you catch a sim-round from the opponent, or sparring in hand to hand? 

Neither of THEM are real but pressure exists.  In the de-escalation training I would consider adding "be prepared to spar or take a simround to heighten the anxiety, but if structuree properly you will end up with a level of anxiety similar to sparring just in the "de-escalation" phase.

The HARD part here is having a role player that has the experience/knowledge of the Psychology of violent encounters and who has at some acting talent.  That's why I opened with "tricky."


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> None taken because Of course it won't be "real" but if the "opponent" is familiar with how a person would emotionally react irl, and has the talent to portray it properly (so the "student" can learn to read cues) I don't think it is all that different than shoot house training where you learn how to properly clear corners and enter rooms, or else you catch a sim-round from the opponent, or sparring in hand to hand?
> 
> Neither of THEM are real but pressure exists.  In the de-escalation training I would consider adding "be prepared to spar or take a simround to heighten the anxiety, but if structuree properly you will end up with a level of anxiety similar to sparring just in the "de-escalation" phase.
> 
> The HARD part here is having a role player that has the experience/knowledge of the Psychology of violent encounters and who has at some acting talent.  That's why I opened with "tricky."


Nobody knows how they would react in such an (unfamiliar) situation though, not even themselves.

Ever met a guy that "would do this that and that"(usually ending up with a flattened opponent), but then such a situation arises and they instead freeze or run? I sure have.

Fear and anger don't care about the realm of logic. It's two different worlds.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> But even that isn't a good test. De-escalation is pretty likely to fail if you first escalate. It's much more likely to work if you start from neutral.



You would be surprised.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You would be surprised.


Does your experience suggest otherwise?


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Does your experience suggest otherwise?


I've seen it go the other way plenty. Instead of talking the situation down, they escalate it themselves till the other guy gets scared and backs off.

Pretty standard dude bro power dynamic really.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I've seen it go the other way plenty. Instead of talking the situation down, they escalate it themselves till the other guy gets scared and backs off.
> 
> Pretty standard dude bro power dynamic really.


I agree, though that's not really the "other way" to what I was saying. That's not really de-escalation, so much as intimidation. Same end effect sometimes, though.


----------



## Marie_Flowers88

KPM said:


> Good article here from Paul Rackemann!
> 
> Martial Arts - Is it really about Self-defence? - Rackemann Wing Chun



I think there is more a lot than memorizing a stunt. While in a class, you really need to learn everything from basics to the advance but in the real-life situation, you can't even think what will you do or how can you tell what the attacker will do


----------



## Dirty Dog

Marie_Flowers88 said:


> I think there is more a lot than memorizing a stunt. While in a class, you really need to learn everything from basics to the advance but in the real-life situation, you can't even think what will you do or how can you tell what the attacker will do



I would disagree. If you're not thinking, then I'd say your training has not prepared you very well at all.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Nobody knows how they would react in such an (unfamiliar) situation though, not even themselves.
> 
> Ever met a guy that "would do this that and that"(usually ending up with a flattened opponent), but then such a situation arises and they instead freeze or run? I sure have.
> 
> Fear and anger don't care about the realm of logic. It's two different worlds.




That's my point though.  Sparring and shoot house do the same thing.  You learn how to react under pressure.  If you set up de-escalation training correctly you get a similar degree of pressure. Trying to read cues from the opponent, just like in sparring.  Trying to react to those cues appropriately, just like in sparring.  If you misread or react improperly now you are quick sparring or taking a painful sim round.

I have been IRL attacks more times than I care to count.  I get that NO training 100% prepares you for it.  However we accept that sparring, shoot houses, "war games" in the military, create adequate pressure to prepare someone as best we can in a controlled environment.  How is it that suddenly this well accepted process ceases to function in this circumstance?


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> That's my point though.  Sparring and shoot house do the same thing.  You learn how to react under pressure.  If you set up de-escalation training correctly you get a similar degree of pressure. Trying to read cues from the opponent, just like in sparring.  Trying to react to those cues appropriately, just like in sparring.  If you misread or react improperly now you are quick sparring or taking a painful sim round.
> 
> I have been IRL attacks more times than I care to count.  I get that NO training 100% prepares you for it.  However we accept that sparring, shoot houses, "war games" in the military, create adequate pressure to prepare someone as best we can in a controlled environment.  How is it that suddenly this well accepted process ceases to function in this circumstance?


Well sir, there is a big difference between these two things.

Sparring is a pressure test because those are actual kicks and punches flying at you. Sparring is pressure testing dealing with incoming blows and returning your own.

With ''de-escalation" you are dealing with raw human emotions, which you just can't simulate. Sure, you can get an actor to act mad and then act less mad after you say the sort of things the instructor tells you to say, but it's just acting. There is nothing concrete to deal with(like punches and kicks)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> That's my point though.  Sparring and shoot house do the same thing.  You learn how to react under pressure.  If you set up de-escalation training correctly you get a similar degree of pressure. Trying to read cues from the opponent, just like in sparring.  Trying to react to those cues appropriately, just like in sparring.  If you misread or react improperly now you are quick sparring or taking a painful sim round.
> 
> I have been IRL attacks more times than I care to count.  I get that NO training 100% prepares you for it.  However we accept that sparring, shoot houses, "war games" in the military, create adequate pressure to prepare someone as best we can in a controlled environment.  How is it that suddenly this well accepted process ceases to function in this circumstance?


There's not the same kind of feedback in role playing. A sim round hurts. Punches are at least uncomfortable, and your partner can put real pressure on you that activates stress chemical releases. Most folks won't have a real stress reaction in a role play for de-escalation. It's useful, but many folks - if they feel safe in the training space - won't feel pressure. And the feedback is artificial - it depends whether their partner thinks what was done would be effective or not. A sim round doesn't care, and a sparring partner knows if you were effective, because they either could hit you or couldn't.

Role play for de-escalation (and other "soft" skills) is useful, and one of the best tools we have. With the right partner, it can be a good simulation. With a really good partner, you might even be able to bring out some of the stress hormones for new folks.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Well sir, there is a big difference between these two things.
> 
> Sparring is a pressure test because those are actual kicks and punches flying at you. Sparring is pressure testing dealing with incoming blows and returning your own.
> 
> With ''de-escalation" you are dealing with raw human emotions, which you just can't simulate. Sure, you can get an actor to act mad and then act less mad after you say the sort of things the instructor tells you to say, but it's just acting. There is nothing concrete to deal with(like punches and kicks)





gpseymour said:


> There's not the same kind of feedback in role playing. A sim round hurts. Punches are at least uncomfortable, and your partner can put real pressure on you that activates stress chemical releases. Most folks won't have a real stress reaction in a role play for de-escalation. It's useful, but many folks - if they feel safe in the training space - won't feel pressure. And the feedback is artificial - it depends whether their partner thinks what was done would be effective or not. A sim round doesn't care, and a sparring partner knows if you were effective, because they either could hit you or couldn't.
> 
> Role play for de-escalation (and other "soft" skills) is useful, and one of the best tools we have. With the right partner, it can be a good simulation. With a really good partner, you might even be able to bring out some of the stress hormones for new folks.



I may be wrong but are you guys also understanding that there is another part that is important.  If they fail and it's "the bar fight scenario" they start getting hit and a short sparring session starts.  That why, if this was in a "class" setting I would not have this be part of a "newbie" class, I would at least want then to have some "hands on" experience.

If it's the robbery scenario they catch the SIM round, or hopefully catch the cues they fudged up and try to deal with the gun before they catch the Sim round.  So out of the gate you actually have an element of stress from "if I fudge this up I am going to feel it."

Now maybe I am over thinking it, but I am thinking more about shoot house training.  Picture the portion where someone is clearing corners and doorways, you never know behind which one, a bad guy MIGHT be.  Sometimes they only have a "good guy" to see how you react or no one at all.  So just knowing their MIGHT be a simround, around the next bend (no pun intended) does cause stress hormones to be released.

So I am picturing reading the cues similar to clearing a corner, if that makes sense?

Speak of...of @Martial D  most of the cues actually aren't "emotional" as we usually would think of them.  Emotion in the voice, overall facial expressions etc.  Most of them are actually body language that is well researched, and documented, in various journals and publications.  There is actually, usually, an almost predictable progression (at various speeds of course).

Yes you will have the "emotional stuff" voice deepening, The more threatened or aggressive an individual becomes, the lower, harsher and louder.  The better indicators aren't that though, they are the physical cues.  The jaws and lips will tense into a biting position, as well as quiver, and mouth will frown and tighten over the teeth, they will either go full on broad side you or take a boxers stance, even with a gun.  Their hands will often clench into a fist to the extent their knuckles will go white right before they act, this is one reason while when still in a "verbal" encounter they teach cops to make sure you are always watching the hands, even with Peripheral vision.  Faster eye blinking even.

There are a host of visual cues that are actually far more important than the yelling because that can simply be a symptom of braggadocio that is not indicative of an attack.  It's the visual cues that I would personally say are the most important ones.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> I have been IRL attacks more times than I care to count.  I get that NO training 100% prepares you for it.  However we accept that sparring, shoot houses, "war games" in the military, create adequate pressure to prepare someone as best we can in a controlled environment.  How is it that suddenly this well accepted process ceases to function in this circumstance?


This paragraph is a perfect summary of my concerns about self defense training in general. 
I agree with you that training in de-escalation is no different than any other kind of training.  I've been saying that for years.  People build skill in very predictable ways.   

But what do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone for?  Is the training designed to prepare someone for more training?  Unless you're using the skills, I think there's a very low ceiling.​
Do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone to create adequate pressure to prepare someone else to train someone else?   I know it sounds ridiculous, but this circular, incestuous training model is a very​ common martial arts/self defense training model. 

Isn't there a functional limit on how well prepared someone who has never actually done something can be to do that thing?  Is there a difference between someone who has adequately prepared for, but never done something for 10 years and someone with 3 months of adequate preparation and 9 years and 9 months of practical, on the job application?

In decades of teaching people to do things, the model that works best is a little training, a lot of application, a little more training, a lot more application.  Nothing beats doing when you're learning a skill, and training can't replace that.

All that to say, in reading through all of your posts, I agree with much of what you say, Juany118, but just think you both acknowledge and also discount the value your experience brings to your training.  You acknowledge that it makes you a better training partner/trainer.  But you seem to then discount how important your experience is to your own development.  It doesn't just make you a better training partner.  It's integral to your own skill development.  And further, no matter how good of a training partner you are, that other guy won't ever become proficient unless he or she applies the skill.  You can't gain experience through osmosis.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Well sir, there is a big difference between these two things.
> 
> Sparring is a pressure test because those are actual kicks and punches flying at you. Sparring is pressure testing dealing with incoming blows and returning your own.
> 
> With ''de-escalation" you are dealing with raw human emotions, which you just can't simulate. Sure, you can get an actor to act mad and then act less mad after you say the sort of things the instructor tells you to say, but it's just acting. There is nothing concrete to deal with(like punches and kicks)



Spring em.

Find yourself a pro MMA fighter. Get you guy to spar him. After he beats the guy up for five minutes get him to front the guy after class.

Dude will wet himself.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Three areas of self-defense.  

Avoidance

Pre-Physical Conflict 

Physical Conflict.   
The better you are at the first two the less you'll have to do the 3rd.  Unless you are a bouncer or a law enforcement professional.  Then  all of your efforts should be focused on 1 and 2.  Training for 3 is backup for when everything else fails.  When it fails then all of your efforts should be focused on the last  Physical Contact until an opportunity to return to 1 or 2 presents itself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I may be wrong but are you guys also understanding that there is another part that is important.  If they fail and it's "the bar fight scenario" they start getting hit and a short sparring session starts.  That why, if this was in a "class" setting I would not have this be part of a "newbie" class, I would at least want then to have some "hands on" experience.
> 
> If it's the robbery scenario they catch the SIM round, or hopefully catch the cues they fudged up and try to deal with the gun before they catch the Sim round.  So out of the gate you actually have an element of stress from "if I fudge this up I am going to feel it."
> 
> Now maybe I am over thinking it, but I am thinking more about shoot house training.  Picture the portion where someone is clearing corners and doorways, you never know behind which one, a bad guy MIGHT be.  Sometimes they only have a "good guy" to see how you react or no one at all.  So just knowing their MIGHT be a simround, around the next bend (no pun intended) does cause stress hormones to be released.
> 
> So I am picturing reading the cues similar to clearing a corner, if that makes sense?
> 
> Speak of...of @Martial D  most of the cues actually aren't "emotional" as we usually would think of them.  Emotion in the voice, overall facial expressions etc.  Most of them are actually body language that is well researched, and documented, in various journals and publications.  There is actually, usually, an almost predictable progression (at various speeds of course).
> 
> Yes you will have the "emotional stuff" voice deepening, The more threatened or aggressive an individual becomes, the lower, harsher and louder.  The better indicators aren't that though, they are the physical cues.  The jaws and lips will tense into a biting position, as well as quiver, and mouth will frown and tighten over the teeth, they will either go full on broad side you or take a boxers stance, even with a gun.  Their hands will often clench into a fist to the extent their knuckles will go white right before they act, this is one reason while when still in a "verbal" encounter they teach cops to make sure you are always watching the hands, even with Peripheral vision.  Faster eye blinking even.
> 
> There are a host of visual cues that are actually far more important than the yelling because that can simply be a symptom of braggadocio that is not indicative of an attack.  It's the visual cues that I would personally say are the most important ones.


Ah, I see what you mean. If they fail to de-escalate, they're now sparring. That's a nice way to add some stress to it, especially if the sparring will start with a sudden attack. There's still the question of whether the "resistance" is accurate, but it does bring the stress level up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> This paragraph is a perfect summary of my concerns about self defense training in general.
> I agree with you that training in de-escalation is no different than any other kind of training.  I've been saying that for years.  People build skill in very predictable ways.
> 
> But what do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone for?  Is the training designed to prepare someone for more training?  Unless you're using the skills, I think there's a very low ceiling.​
> Do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone to create adequate pressure to prepare someone else to train someone else?
> I know it sounds ridiculous, but this circular, incestuous training model is a very​common martial arts/self defense training model.
> 
> Isn't there a functional limit on how well prepared someone who has never actually done something can be to do that thing?  Is there a difference between someone who has adequately prepared for, but never done something for 10 years and someone with 3 months of adequate preparation and 9 years and 9 months of practical, on the job application?
> 
> In decades of teaching people to do things, the model that works best is a little training, a lot of application, a little more training, a lot more application.  Nothing beats doing when you're learning a skill, and training can't replace that.
> 
> All that to say, in reading through all of your posts, I agree with much of what you say, Juany118, but just think you both acknowledge and also discount the value your experience brings to your training.  You acknowledge that it makes you a better training partner/trainer.  But you seem to then discount how important your experience is to your own development.  It doesn't just make you a better training partner.  It's integral to your own skill development.  And further, no matter how good of a training partner you are, that other guy won't ever become proficient unless he or she applies the skill.  You can't gain experience through osmosis.


By that logic, we should never train anyone before they do something. We know - from experience and outcomes - that reasonable training improves the odds when someone needs the skills. Getting to practice the skill under the pressure of reality improves them even more, but that doesn't eliminate the benefit gained from training.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> This paragraph is a perfect summary of my concerns about self defense training in general.
> I agree with you that training in de-escalation is no different than any other kind of training.  I've been saying that for years.  People build skill in very predictable ways.
> 
> But what do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone for?  Is the training designed to prepare someone for more training?  Unless you're using the skills, I think there's a very low ceiling.​
> Do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone to create adequate pressure to prepare someone else to train someone else?
> I know it sounds ridiculous, but this circular, incestuous training model is a very​common martial arts/self defense training model.
> 
> Isn't there a functional limit on how well prepared someone who has never actually done something can be to do that thing?  Is there a difference between someone who has adequately prepared for, but never done something for 10 years and someone with 3 months of adequate preparation and 9 years and 9 months of practical, on the job application?
> 
> In decades of teaching people to do things, the model that works best is a little training, a lot of application, a little more training, a lot more application.  Nothing beats doing when you're learning a skill, and training can't replace that.
> 
> All that to say, in reading through all of your posts, I agree with much of what you say, Juany118, but just think you both acknowledge and also discount the value your experience brings to your training.  You acknowledge that it makes you a better training partner/trainer.  But you seem to then discount how important your experience is to your own development.  It doesn't just make you a better training partner.  It's integral to your own skill development.  And further, no matter how good of a training partner you are, that other guy won't ever become proficient unless he or she applies the skill.  You can't gain experience through osmosis.



I think you underestimate the value of the training to be honest.  Look at it like a volume dial.  A real life violent encounter is at Spinal Tap's 11 on a scale of 1-10.  The existence of the fear of pain/potential injury in sparring, or shoot house training, is (if done properly) can be realistically at around a 7-8 at the beginning  That is a hell of a lot better nothing on such a scale.

Why is this?  Biology.  The human body is wonderous at adapting to stress and the body is actually the biggest component belief it or not.  Fear and stress dump a butt ton of hormones and endorphins into our bodies, fight or flight.  It's not really like a gas pedal though where you can control from 0 to 100 mph in 1 mph increments.  It's more like an old battle ship all WWI/II.  "Stop" (asleep), "Slow" (normal crap), "Half" (fear not fully substantiated), "Full" (pressure testing, fear because you know you are at risk but also know there are some controls to minimize it), Flank (fear because you are at risk without controls).

Military and good LEO training are pretty much proof that training at "full" is adequate to be "combat effective" at "flank." Basically think of the following... (Projecting the art project I just did with my girlfriend's daughter with craft foam).

"Stop" is you can't cut crap.
"Half" is you are using a pair of big scissors.  You can cut the foam but it is FAR from a pretty shape.  Basically squares things with straight edges look nice.
"Full" is a razorblade box cutter.  You can make pretty shapes. Hearts, circles, ovals you can cut curves decently as well as straight edges, even blend them together.  Something that looks like a horse from a single sheet.
"Flank" Exacto knife.  You can cut TIGHT curves, and blend them into straight edges so you can use more of the foam to make what you want, be more efficient.  Say a bunch of horses, or ponies from "My Little Pony"(don't judge!!!!!!  She's only 4. )

In short you are a hell of lot better of having the box cutter than just the scissors or nothing it you want to make a pony from craft foam.  You can get the job done, just not as efficiently.  The efficiency comes with the experience.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> I think you underestimate the value of the training to be honest.  Look at it like a volume dial.  A real life violent encounter is at Spinal Tap's 11 on a scale of 1-10.  The existence of the fear of pain/potential injury in sparring, or shoot house training, is (if done properly) can be realistically at around a 7-8 at the beginning  That is a hell of a lot better nothing on such a scale.
> 
> Why is this?  Biology.  The human body is wonderous at adapting to stress and the body is actually the biggest component belief it or not.  Fear and stress dump a butt ton of hormones and endorphins into our bodies, fight or flight.  It's not really like a gas pedal though where you can control from 0 to 100 mph in 1 mph increments.  It's more like an old battle ship all WWI/II.  "Stop" (asleep), "Slow" (normal crap), "Half" (fear not fully substantiated), "Full" (pressure testing, fear because you know you are at risk but also know there are some controls to minimize it), Flank (fear because you are at risk without controls).
> 
> Military and good LEO training are pretty much proof that training at "full" is adequate to be "combat effective" at "flank." Basically think of the following... (Projecting the art project I just did with my girlfriend's daughter with craft foam).
> 
> "Stop" is you can't cut crap.
> "Half" is you are using a pair of big scissors.  You can cut the foam but it is FAR from a pretty shape.  Basically squares things with straight edges look nice.
> "Full" is a razorblade box cutter.  You can make pretty shapes. Hearts, circles, ovals you can cut curves decently as well as straight edges, even blend them together.  Something that looks like a horse from a single sheet.
> "Flank" Exacto knife.  You can cut TIGHT curves, and blend them into straight edges so you can use more of the foam to make what you want, be more efficient.  Say a bunch of horses, or ponies from "My Little Pony"(don't judge!!!!!!  She's only 4. )
> 
> In short you are a hell of lot better of having the box cutter than just the scissors or nothing it you want to make a pony from craft foam.  You can get the job done, just not as efficiently.  The efficiency comes with the experience.


i don’t know, man.  your entire post is through the lens of someone who uses the skills and works with people who use the skills.  I have no doubt that your training prepares cops to be more effective cops.   I don’t think it’s all that useful or practical to prepare office workers, school teachers or college coeds to be cops.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> By that logic, we should never train anyone before they do something. We know - from experience and outcomes - that reasonable training improves the odds when someone needs the skills. Getting to practice the skill under the pressure of reality improves them even more, but that doesn't eliminate the benefit gained from training.


I’m disappointed in you, man.  training is part of a natural cycle that includes doing what you train for.  Training is not doing.  That isn’t a controversial statement, and in any other context, it would be considered common sense.  Here, though....

And, we don’t know at all that reasonable training improves odds, in this context.  You believe it does.  You hope it does.  But statistics don’t exist.  It’s a lot of anecdotal confirmation on both sides.  But we see in every other human activity that training leads to performance.  I can’t think of another example Besides self defense training where training leads to more training in an endless loop.  Can you?

To be clear, I’m not saying there is no benefit to training.  I am saying that training alone, in a vacuum, is going to be of very limited benefit.   You might get to “big scissors” level (using juany’s analogy).  Don’t get me wrong.  If I collapse and someone with no experience who has taken a CPR class is around, I’ll take it.   Better than nothing.  But we have Good Samaritan laws for a reason.  If there’s an ER nurse around, I’ll take him or her over the CPR certified school teacher any time.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Does your experience suggest otherwise?



Go in agressive and then deescalate from a position of strength. So as an example (and this happened a bit.) People could get dragged out by some agro monster and then try to befrend him and pick a fight with me. At the same time.

It was kind of weird.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I’m disappointed in you, man.  training is part of a natural cycle that includes doing what you train for.  Training is not doing.  That isn’t a controversial statement, and in any other context, it would be considered common sense.  Here, though....
> 
> And, we don’t know at all that reasonable training improves odds, in this context.  You believe it does.  You hope it does.  But statistics don’t exist.  It’s a lot of anecdotal confirmation on both sides.  But we see in every other human activity that training leads to performance.  I can’t think of another example Besides self defense training where training leads to more training in an endless loop.  Can you?
> 
> To be clear, I’m not saying there is no benefit to training.  I am saying that training alone, in a vacuum, is going to be of very limited benefit.   You might get to “big scissors” level (using juany’s analogy).  Don’t get me wrong.  If I collapse and someone with no experience who has taken a CPR class is around, I’ll take it.   Better than nothing.  But we have Good Samaritan laws for a reason.  If there’s an ER nurse around, I’ll take him or her over the CPR certified school teacher any time.


Your argument is that we aren't "doing" what we train for. You've said before that the only real "doing" is either competition or actual self-defense/live work. But I "do" the techniques all the time. I "do" them against resisting opponents (partners) at times (similar to competition, except for the focus on scoring). Just as sim round training allows gun users to use guns and work with their tactics in a resistive environment, resisting partners allow the same for other training. It's not exactly the same as facing a person actually trying to hurt me, but that doesn't change the physics of a technique. It only changes my reactions. We have evidence from LEO and military that simulation training actually improves outcomes. that evidence is reasonably generalized to other training to prepare for stress situations. The anecdotal evidence doesn't provide much to contradict that generalization (the best use of anecdotal evidence, IMO, is to look for contradictions rather than support).

Are there differences unaccounted for? Of course. But it's not nearly as empty of supportive evidence as your statement suggests.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Go in agressive and then deescalate from a position of strength. So as an example (and this happened a bit.) People could get dragged out by some agro monster and then try to befrend him and pick a fight with me. At the same time.
> 
> It was kind of weird.


I see what you mean. I think that depends on the intimidation factor, which (while having a similar effect) isn't really de-escalation as most people use the term.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Your argument is that we aren't "doing" what we train for. You've said before that the only real "doing" is either competition or actual self-defense/live work. But I "do" the techniques all the time. I "do" them against resisting opponents (partners) at times (similar to competition, except for the focus on scoring). Just as sim round training allows gun users to use guns and work with their tactics in a resistive environment, resisting partners allow the same for other training. It's not exactly the same as facing a person actually trying to hurt me, but that doesn't change the physics of a technique. It only changes my reactions. We have evidence from LEO and military that simulation training actually improves outcomes. that evidence is reasonably generalized to other training to prepare for stress situations. The anecdotal evidence doesn't provide much to contradict that generalization (the best use of anecdotal evidence, IMO, is to look for contradictions rather than support).
> 
> Are there differences unaccounted for? Of course. But it's not nearly as empty of supportive evidence as your statement suggests.


Couple of quick things.  First, competition and "actual self defense/live work" aren't the same thing.  That's an important distinction.  What they have in common, is that they are both examples of application.  If you train for competition and then compete, you are applying skills in context, which leads to actual development of expertise.  Folks around here say often that applying skills in competition is not the same as applying them in "self defense."  And I agree.  But where I get really concerned here is that you seem to think that for self defense training, training is application.  That's just inherently flawed. 

We see in every other human activity that people build skills in a predictable manner.  You learn the skills and you apply the skills, and the ratio is really like the 20% rule... some training and a lot of applying.  

Training is very important, and good training, such as what Juany describes, is like gold.  It accelerates the learning process.  But think about it like this.  People learn to do things all the time without training.  People don't learn to do things without applying them. 

And the two aren't the same.    I  asked a question above, and you didn't answer it. I can’t think of another example besides self defense training where training leads to more training in an endless loop, and people expect results. Can you?    

A kid learns to ride a bike...  at some point, they've learned what they need to learn and just need experience.  Adults on the job learn a task and then are asked to do that task until they are ready to learn something more.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Couple of quick things.  First, competition and "actual self defense/live work" aren't the same thing.  That's an important distinction.  What they have in common, is that they are both examples of application.  If you train for competition and then compete, you are applying skills in context, which leads to actual development of expertise.  Folks around here say often that applying skills in competition is not the same as applying them in "self defense."  And I agree.  But where I get really concerned here is that you seem to think that for self defense training, training is application.  That's just inherently flawed.
> 
> We see in every other human activity that people build skills in a predictable manner.  You learn the skills and you apply the skills, and the ratio is really like the 20% rule... some training and a lot of applying.
> 
> Training is very important, and good training, such as what Juany describes, is like gold.  It accelerates the learning process.  But think about it like this.  People learn to do things all the time without training.  People don't learn to do things without applying them.
> 
> And the two aren't the same.    I  asked a question above, and you didn't answer it. I can’t think of another example besides self defense training where training leads to more training in an endless loop, and people expect results. Can you?
> 
> A kid learns to ride a bike...  at some point, they've learned what they need to learn and just need experience.  Adults on the job learn a task and then are asked to do that task until they are ready to learn something more.


As you and I have discussed before, there are significant exceptions to that. Flying is the best I know of. Regular flying is like my regular application of techniques against a resisting partner/opponent (or controlled competition). Self-defense application is like emergency maneuvers in flying. Pilots practice those things, but do not get to apply them unless something goes drastically wrong. And they often (not always) do a very good job with them because they trained them, and have applied the related skills over and over in regular flying.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> As you and I have discussed before, there are significant exceptions to that. Flying is the best I know of. Regular flying is like my regular application of techniques against a resisting partner/opponent (or controlled competition). Self-defense application is like emergency maneuvers in flying. Pilots practice those things, but do not get to apply them unless something goes drastically wrong. And they often (not always) do a very good job with them because they trained them, and have applied the related skills over and over in regular flying.


Pilots fly planes "for real" all the time.  What you do in training isn't the same as a pilot flying a plane.  what you do in training correlates more to a pilot practicing in a simulator.  Simulators are very good now, and experienced pilots use them to help train for all kinds of things.  But they also actually fly planes "for real." 

Think of it like a ladder.  Training gets you with one foot on the bottom rung.  in order to get to the next rung up, you have to take the step.  So, if the first rung is flying a plane, training can get you to the cusp, and then you have to take the step.  The next step might be flying solo (or whatever it might be).  Training gets you to the rung, and then you take the step.  You can't train something to the top of the ladder.  They have to take all of the intervening steps themselves. 

A simulator alone is great for preparing a person to fly a plane, and it might also be great for getting an experienced pilot prepared for an emergency.  But in both cases, it's getting someone from where they are on the ladder ready to take the next step.  You would take a person who has only ever trained in a simulator, but never logged any hours in a plane, and expect that person to perform well in an emergency.   

Once again, great training is really valuable, and I'm sure your training is top notch.  But it's still training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Pilots fly planes "for real" all the time.  What you do in training isn't the same as a pilot flying a plane.  what you do in training correlates more to a pilot practicing in a simulator.  Simulators are very good now, and experienced pilots use them to help train for all kinds of things.  But they also actually fly planes "for real."
> 
> Think of it like a ladder.  Training gets you with one foot on the bottom rung.  in order to get to the next rung up, you have to take the step.  So, if the first rung is flying a plane, training can get you to the cusp, and then you have to take the step.  The next step might be flying solo (or whatever it might be).  Training gets you to the rung, and then you take the step.  You can't train something to the top of the ladder.  They have to take all of the intervening steps themselves.
> 
> A simulator alone is great for preparing a person to fly a plane, and it might also be great for getting an experienced pilot prepared for an emergency.  But in both cases, it's getting someone from where they are on the ladder ready to take the next step.  You would take a person who has only ever trained in a simulator, but never logged any hours in a plane, and expect that person to perform well in an emergency.
> 
> Once again, great training is really valuable, and I'm sure your training is top notch.  But it's still training.


We're just going to disagree over what "application" means, Steve. The person I work with isn't a simulation, though the situation is. I'm applying the actual technique on an actual person, not a simulation. We see it differently, and I suspect we always will.


----------



## Buka

I think you both have great points. 
Training and application.....hmm, I look at it this way. Dating could be described as training for marriage.
That always works.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> We're just going to disagree over what "application" means, Steve. The person I work with isn't a simulation, though the situation is. I'm applying the actual technique on an actual person, not a simulation. We see it differently, and I suspect we always will.


You train managers right?  Ever do role play exercises in your training?  I do.  They're universally hated but are very helpful . But Is that application?   Id say no .  Its the same thing .


----------



## Juany118

.


Steve said:


> i don’t know, man.  your entire post is through the lens of someone who uses the skills and works with people who use the skills.  I have no doubt that your training prepares cops to be more effective cops.   I don’t think it’s all that useful or practical to prepare office workers, school teachers or college coeds to be cops.



First it requires regular practice BUT if it didn't work the first time a soldier was in a real fire fight he would be screwed.  Loading, reloading, aiming and properly discharging a firearm are all fine motor skills.  Fine motor skills are the first to degrade when fight or flight kicks in.  It's the training under pressure that makes it possible for them to be "combat effective" in their first deployment.

I think the perfect example of this is the Navy Seals actually.  You can have been "just" a Gunners Mate on a destroyer, which means you were never in a "fire fightf and then requested transfer to BUDs.  If you make it through you are then thrown into some of the most intense ground Operations any soldier will ever see.  If the training didn't work, that wouldn't work.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> You train managers right?  Ever do role play exercises in your training?  I do.  They're universally hated but are very helpful . But Is that application?   Id say no .  Its the same thing .



A self defence is made up of a lot of different things. So if I was a track star. And someone attacked me and I ran away. I should be fairly successful at it. If I was a muay Thai fighter and I head kicked the guy I should be successful at that as well.

Looking at self defence is never really looking at the whole thing. But more looking at the things you can do. And then winging it for the parts you can't do. Until you are back to what you know.

So as far as preparation goes. It will be about doing the things you can do. And exposing yourself to situations where you have to wing it. Which should close those gaps off a bit.

In the same way I could do kick boxing and BJJ and probably do alright in MMA to a certain degree.
Which for self defence is good enough.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I see what you mean. I think that depends on the intimidation factor, which (while having a similar effect) isn't really de-escalation as most people use the term.



What would you call it?


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> .
> 
> 
> First it requires regular practice BUT if it didn't work the first time a soldier was in a real fire fight he would be screwed.  Loading, reloading, aiming and properly discharging a firearm are all fine motor skills.  Fine motor skills are the first to degrade when fight or flight kicks in.  It's the training under pressure that makes it possible for them to be "combat effective" in their first deployment.
> 
> I think the perfect example of this is the Navy Seals actually.  You can have been "just" a Gunners Mate on a destroyer, which means you were never in a "fire fightf and then requested transfer to BUDs.  If you make it through you are then thrown into some of the most intense ground Operations any soldier will ever see.  If the training didn't work, that wouldn't work.


You're comparing an office worker, teacher, soccer mom or college coed to a Navy Seal?   What's the wash out rate for navy seals?   Are there Navy Seals who train and graduate from their training program with no intention of actually applying the skills?  Do any Navy Seals who teach at their school do so without any actual experience applying the skills in context? 

I think there are more reliable, effective ways to train people for self defense than navy seal training.   But don't get me wrong.  I have no doubt at all that the training they provide is top notch, and understand that the wash out rate is a necessary part.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> A self defence is made up of a lot of different things. So if I was a track star. And someone attacked me and I ran away. I should be fairly successful at it. If I was a muay Thai fighter and I head kicked the guy I should be successful at that as well.
> 
> Looking at self defence is never really looking at the whole thing. But more looking at the things you can do. And then winging it for the parts you can't do. Until you are back to what you know.
> 
> So as far as preparation goes. It will be about doing the things you can do. And exposing yourself to situations where you have to wing it. Which should close those gaps off a bit.
> 
> In the same way I could do kick boxing and BJJ and probably do alright in MMA to a certain degree.
> Which for self defence is good enough.


I agree with this.  There's always cross over, if you're actually developing the skills you think you're developing.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> You're comparing an office worker, teacher, soccer mom or college coed to a Navy Seal?   What's the wash out rate for navy seals?   Are there Navy Seals who train and graduate from their training program with no intention of actually applying the skills?  Do any Navy Seals who teach at their school do so without any actual experience applying the skills in context?
> 
> I think there are more reliable, effective ways to train people for self defense than navy seal training.   But don't get me wrong.  I have no doubt at all that the training they provide is top notch, and understand that the wash out rate is a necessary part.




No I am comparing training methods.  Your claim is that pressure testing doesn't prepare people.  The pressure testing that you get in the US Army is little different than you get in civilian martial arts training sparring.  Tbh in terms of unarmed combatives sparring in a MA club is HARDER, the really only go to the "sparring" level with firearms in war games and such.  So if military training works, so does sparring.  It really is that simple.


----------



## oftheherd1

Juany118 said:


> .
> 
> 
> First it requires regular practice BUT if it didn't work the first time a soldier was in a real fire fight he would be screwed.  Loading, reloading, aiming and properly discharging a firearm are all fine motor skills.  Fine motor skills are the first to degrade when fight or flight kicks in.  It's the training under pressure that makes it possible for them to be "combat effective" in their first deployment.
> 
> I think the perfect example of this is the Navy Seals actually.  You can have been "just" a Gunners Mate on a destroyer, which means you were never in a "fire fightf and then requested transfer to BUDs.  If you make it through you are then thrown into some of the most intense ground Operations any soldier will ever see.  If the training didn't work, that wouldn't work.



Interesting post as I see it, but maybe not as your intended.  You should teach martial arts and self defense, simultaneously imparting the fact that only the student can ensure they can use their instruction and that it may actually work.  Sometimes soldiers in their first combat do slow down their reactions.  Some freeze.  That usually goes away quickly as the desire to survive kicks in, but it sometimes happens. 

There is no doubt prior training helps with that a great deal.  Sometimes a soldier may become somewhat befuddled but the training unconsciously kicks in without the soldier realizing it.  Especially in short self defense courses, that should be dealt with so the students are prepared for the possibility they may be inclined to become befuddled or freeze.

Navy Seals, as much other military fighting skill, must be taught, 'pressure tested' as much as possible, then used in combat.  However, it would be uncommon (unfortunately not unheard of) for someone to be thrown into 'the most intense' fighting without others around to bolster their responses.  Something not likely to be true for even the martial artist, much less the self defense student.  So both need to know that and be taught to prepare for individual action.

But all that said, frankly Navy Seals get so much training, they are very much more likely to simply begin reacting without much thought.  Other elite military units are much the same.  That is one reason it is sometimes difficult to compare MA or self defense training with military training.  We MA seldom get the repeated intense training military elite get.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> No I am comparing training methods.  Your claim is that pressure testing doesn't prepare people.  The pressure testing that you get in the US Army is little different than you get in civilian martial arts training sparring.  Tbh in terms of unarmed combatives sparring in a MA club is HARDER, the really only go to the "sparring" level with firearms in war games and such.  So if military training works, so does sparring.  It really is that simple.


No, I didn't claim that pressure testing doesn't prepare people. I've said repeatedly that pressure testing (well, I said "good training" I think) is very effective at preparing people.  

I am claiming that pressure testing leads to application in every human activity except self defense training, and that the two aren't the same thing (but are often conflated because they are so directly related in human experience).  Pressure testing gets you to the rung on the ladder.  You have to then take a step.  You can't skip the application part of the cycle and just pressure test your way to the top of the ladder and declare yourself an expert.   You cannot train someone to an expert level in anything while excluding "real world" application (whatever that might look like).

Looking at the training a Navy Seal receives, they start with a little over a year of formal training.  if Wikipedia can be trusted,"All Navy SEALs must attend and graduate from their rating's 24-week "A" School known as Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) school, a basic parachutist course and then the 26-week SEAL Qualification Training program.[1]"

In this training, I presume they are applying the skills they are learning (i.e., they are actually diving underwater or jumping out of planes).  So, at a basic level, they are applying skills.  So far, so good.

Then, they go on to more training.  But the part that I think is particularly relevant is that, once they are outside of the formal schooling environment, they are assigned to a team and receive about 18 months more of what appears to be structured OJT.

The key here is that an office worker, school teacher or a lot of folks who are interested in self defense training won't ever get that OJT.   They don't even really get the benefit of the same quality of training because there is no corollary to diving or jumping out of a plane.


----------



## Buka

Part of the frogman's ballad...

_I’m a hard bodied hairy chested, Ruttin’ Tuttin’ Shootin’ Parachutin’ demolition double cap krimpin’ Navy Frogman. 
There aint nothing I can’t do_.

Former SEALS have told me that their training, surviving their training without quitting, was harder than any mission they were ever on.  I believe that's part of the point and method of their success in missions.

I think Martial training should be similar, _obviously on a lesser level_, [so don't go getting all in my face about that comment] but similar in that training should be harder than any professional fight, harder than any self defense situation, harder than anything you ever do on purpose.....other than raising a family and working your butt off for a lifetime.

La-te-da training in Martial Arts ain't good for nothing other than having fun. If that's all you want, so be it, you're all set. But if it ain't....well, you know.


----------



## Juany118

oftheherd1 said:


> Interesting post as I see it, but maybe not as your intended.  You should teach martial arts and self defense, simultaneously imparting the fact that only the student can ensure they can use their instruction and that it may actually work.  Sometimes soldiers in their first combat do slow down their reactions.  Some freeze.  That usually goes away quickly as the desire to survive kicks in, but it sometimes happens.
> 
> There is no doubt prior training helps with that a great deal.  Sometimes a soldier may become somewhat befuddled but the training unconsciously kicks in without the soldier realizing it.  Especially in short self defense courses, that should be dealt with so the students are prepared for the possibility they may be inclined to become befuddled or freeze.
> 
> Navy Seals, as much other military fighting skill, must be taught, 'pressure tested' as much as possible, then used in combat.  However, it would be uncommon (unfortunately not unheard of) for someone to be thrown into 'the most intense' fighting without others around to bolster their responses.  Something not likely to be true for even the martial artist, much less the self defense student.  So both need to know that and be taught to prepare for individual action.
> 
> But all that said, frankly Navy Seals get so much training, they are very much more likely to simply begin reacting without much thought.  Other elite military units are much the same.  That is one reason it is sometimes difficult to compare MA or self defense training with military training.  We MA seldom get the repeated intense training military elite get.



The purpose of naming SEALs was simply this.  A "soldier" is trained to fight from the jump.  The Gunners Mate isn't.  Yet a Gunners mate can become a SEAL.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> No, I didn't claim that pressure testing doesn't prepare people. I've said repeatedly that pressure testing (well, I said "good training" I think) is very effective at preparing people.
> 
> I am claiming that pressure testing leads to application in every human activity except self defense training, and that the two aren't the same thing (but are often conflated because they are so directly related in human experience).  Pressure testing gets you to the rung on the ladder.  You have to then take a step.  You can't skip the application part of the cycle and just pressure test your way to the top of the ladder and declare yourself an expert.   You cannot train someone to an expert level in anything while excluding "real world" application (whatever that might look like).
> 
> Looking at the training a Navy Seal receives, they start with a little over a year of formal training.  if Wikipedia can be trusted,"All Navy SEALs must attend and graduate from their rating's 24-week "A" School known as Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) school, a basic parachutist course and then the 26-week SEAL Qualification Training program.[1]"
> 
> In this training, I presume they are applying the skills they are learning (i.e., they are actually diving underwater or jumping out of planes).  So, at a basic level, they are applying skills.  So far, so good.
> 
> Then, they go on to more training.  But the part that I think is particularly relevant is that, once they are outside of the formal schooling environment, they are assigned to a team and receive about 18 months more of what appears to be structured OJT.
> 
> The key here is that an office worker, school teacher or a lot of folks who are interested in self defense training won't ever get that OJT.   They don't even really get the benefit of the same quality of training because there is no corollary to diving or jumping out of a plane.



Your claim is "pressure testing works everywhere else BUT..." In one circumstance?  Sorry but that has some MAJOR issues with logical consistency.

See my response above as to why I mentioned SEALs btw.  It was an attempt to use a bit of hyperbole to make a point.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> Your claim is "pressure testing works everywhere else BUT..." In one circumstance?  Sorry but that has some MAJOR issues with logical consistency.
> 
> See my response above as to why I mentioned SEALs btw.  It was an attempt to use a bit of hyperbole to make a point.


I'm claiming pressure testing works in exactly the same way in every situation.  The difference between most self defense training and all other  training isn't pressure testing .  as I've said several times, good training is very helpful.  But training leads to performance in every human activity except self defense . Training, even really good training, has to culminate in application .  Even seals perform. You said so.  Wikipedia also says so.     

Regarding the seals training, I'm not too worried about why you brought it up .  I don't think its hyperbolic as much as its just not apples to apples when you think about professional violence and civilian self defense .  Seal training is more analogous to cop or professional combat sports training.   At its root though it works the same.  Its still training.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> The purpose of naming SEALs was simply this.  A "soldier" is trained to fight from the jump.  The Gunners Mate isn't.  Yet a Gunners mate can become a SEAL.


Let me try a different tack .  The training is sound.  It works . Seal recruits are trained to fight from the jump . 

So the training is solid.  

But most people don't succeed in the training . At each stage, more people wash out . The training is solid and those who survive to the end are well trained . But most don't . 

And at the end of the training, the newbie seal is ready to go . And its at this point  the newbie seal starts accumulating experience that leads first to full performance and expertise . 

The key here isn't the training . Its the individual and what happens after the training . To be like self defense training, the seal recruit would never graduate from their school . Instead of being a year long, it would be perpetual and incestuous (meaning the trainees are certified in training as junior and eventually senior instructors.)  The training itself would become viewed as the end rather than the means .


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Let me try a different tack .  The training is sound.  It works . Seal recruits are trained to fight from the jump .
> 
> So the training is solid.
> 
> But most people don't succeed in the training . At each stage, more people wash out . The training is solid and those who survive to the end are well trained . But most don't .
> 
> And at the end of the training, the newbie seal is ready to go . And its at this point  the newbie seal starts accumulating experience that leads first to full performance and expertise .
> 
> The key here isn't the training . Its the individual and what happens after the training . To be like self defense training, the seal recruit would never graduate from their school . Instead of being a year long, it would be perpetual and incestuous (meaning the trainees are certified in training as junior and eventually senior instructors.)  The training itself would become viewed as the end rather than the means .


And you keep my opically focusing on SEALs.

Can you explain how pressure testing in self defense training doesn't lead to application?  That seems to be a major flaw in your argument because pressure testing requires application.  That is what you are testing.


----------



## oftheherd1

Juany118 said:


> The purpose of naming SEALs was simply this.  A "soldier" is trained to fight from the jump.  The Gunners Mate isn't.  Yet a Gunners mate can become a SEAL.



Now you have me confused enough to ask questions.  Strictly speaking, SEALs are not Soldiers, just as Marines and Airmen are not soldiers.  If you doubt that, go ask a Seal, or Marine, or Airman if they are soldiers.  But when you are talking about service members who are trained for combat roles, how is a combat arms soldier better trained than a gunner's mate?  Mind you, I never served with any Navy units, so it is possible.  A gunner's mate, even an oiler if they still have them, can be trained to be a SEAL.  Depends on the man.

I don't understand what you mean by a soldier being trained to fight from the jump.  I am guessing you mean from exposure to a combat operation, whether attacking or defending?  Would not a navy gunner be also, whether on a large standoff gun or a smaller caliber and closer to the battle?



Juany118 said:


> Your claim is "pressure testing works everywhere else BUT..." In one circumstance?  Sorry but that has some MAJOR issues with logical consistency.
> 
> See my response above as to why I mentioned SEALs btw.  It was an attempt to use a bit of hyperbole to make a point.



This I am inclined to agree with.  I think testing learned skills, whether military combat or self defense, done as near to the real thing as possible, should give a person more confidence they can perform correctly.  It also just plain makes them better.  As I mentioned before, under stress, we tend to do what we train without thinking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You train managers right?  Ever do role play exercises in your training?  I do.  They're universally hated but are very helpful . But Is that application?   Id say no .  Its the same thing .


That's the same thing I discussed in another thread (I think) about de-escalation. Role playing doesn't present real resistance, because the emotion is missing. The physical mechanics of a throw or punch don't depend upon whether a person wants to kill me or rob me - just on whether they want me to throw them or punch them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What would you call it?


I've never really thought about calling it anything other than intimidation to back someone down.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Let me try a different tack .  The training is sound.  It works . Seal recruits are trained to fight from the jump .
> 
> So the training is solid.
> 
> But most people don't succeed in the training . At each stage, more people wash out . The training is solid and those who survive to the end are well trained . But most don't .
> 
> And at the end of the training, the newbie seal is ready to go . And its at this point  the newbie seal starts accumulating experience that leads first to full performance and expertise .
> 
> The key here isn't the training . Its the individual and what happens after the training . To be like self defense training, the seal recruit would never graduate from their school . Instead of being a year long, it would be perpetual and incestuous (meaning the trainees are certified in training as junior and eventually senior instructors.)  The training itself would become viewed as the end rather than the means .


I think this is a pretty valid point, Steve. I don't assume I can make a "fighter" out of everyone. I'm pretty sure I can improve most people's chances if they decide to fight back, and can improve their ability to make the choice to fight back. But all that is really up to them. Some folks won't put in the harder effort, won't train harder, and will request soft sparring - the equivalent of failing out of SEAL school. They will be less well-equipped than folks who press harder. There are folks who trained (and still do) harder than me, and they're most likely better prepared than I am.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> And you keep my opically focusing on SEALs.
> 
> Can you explain how pressure testing in self defense training doesn't lead to application?  That seems to be a major flaw in your argument because pressure testing requires application.  That is what you are testing.


I'm not at all focused on seal training .  I'm using the example you provided.  If you want to talk about learning to play golf, ride a bike, cook, drive a tank or anything, it's the same . 

It's not a flaw in my argument. Rather it's the flaw in self defense training that you are noticing. Those folks who do apply skills learned actually progress beyond application and actually begin to develop expertise . So, the skills a cop learns and applies are developed.   The skills a school teacher learns are not applied.  It's what I said in the first place.  You, I believe, have it spot on regarding training's role in preparing people to take action.  I just think you overvalue the training and undervalue (to the point now of completely dismissing) the critical importance of moving out of training and gaining actual experience.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's the same thing I discussed in another thread (I think) about de-escalation. Role playing doesn't present real resistance, because the emotion is missing. The physical mechanics of a throw or punch don't depend upon whether a person wants to kill me or rob me - just on whether they want me to throw them or punch them.


So close .  The mechanics of applying the 5 step thomas kilmann conflict model are the same too.  And a skilled trainer who has experience can do a pretty good job of simulating a realistic encounter through role play .But you accept in your management training that its artificial .  So how again is this differebt from your self defense training?  how is the emotion missing from role play in a de-escalation exercise and not missing from your physical training?  I mean, you talk about emotion in one, and about the mechanics of a punch in the other. 

Do you believe that your training adequately prepares a manager to apply the skills you're teaching them?  How likely do you think that your trainees are going to perform flawlessly out of the gate?  And does this likelihood go up or down if the trainee never applies the skills?  And is this trainee who has never applied the skills someone you think should be teaching other managers the skill?


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> A self defence is made up of a lot of different things. So if I was a track star. And someone attacked me and I ran away. I should be fairly successful at it. If I was a muay Thai fighter and I head kicked the guy I should be successful at that as well.
> 
> Looking at self defence is never really looking at the whole thing. But more looking at the things you can do. And then winging it for the parts you can't do. Until you are back to what you know.
> 
> So as far as preparation goes. It will be about doing the things you can do. And exposing yourself to situations where you have to wing it. Which should close those gaps off a bit.
> 
> In the same way I could do kick boxing and BJJ and probably do alright in MMA to a certain degree.
> Which for self defence is good enough.


This is exactly right.  What you're identifying here is what happens naturally when people apply skills and develop expertise.  They move beyond simple application and are able to use skills in different contexts.  For example, if you are taught to change the brakes on a '69 VW Bug, and get comfortable with the drum brakes, you would then be able to transfer that experience to other similar situations.  Or it can be much more complex, where you might become an expert in one field or system and then apply that expertise to another.  For example, an MMA fighter or a cop has experience that can be helpful to a civilian for self defense. 

In order to do this, though, you have to first build the skill.  You can't use your experience with brake jobs to change the drum brakes in a '84 Ford F150 if you've only ever read the Hayne's guide.  Reading the book isn't the same thing, even if you intellectually understand every step.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> So close .  The mechanics of applying the 5 step thomas kilmann conflict model are the same too.  And a skilled trainer who has experience can do a pretty good job of simulating a realistic encounter through role play .


The same point I made in the other discussion. A very skilled person can simulate the right reactions in role playing, and give a reasonable resistance to the person practicing.



> But you accept in your management training that its artificial .  So how again is this differebt from your self defense training?  how is the emotion missing from role play in a de-escalation exercise and not missing from your physical training?  I mean, you talk about emotion in one, and about the mechanics of a punch in the other.


In one case (role-playing) we're practicing working (with words and posture) on someone's mind. In physical self-defense, the physical mechanics of the technique are more important. Whether the guy is cold and mechanical or angry doesn't change the mechanics (it might change what openings they present, but once you find the opening, it's the same technique). Physical interaction isn't analogous to mental interaction.



> Do you believe that your training adequately prepares a manager to apply the skills you're teaching them?  How likely do you think that your trainees are going to perform flawlessly out of the gate?  And does this likelihood go up or down if the trainee never applies the skills?  And is this trainee who has never applied the skills someone you think should be teaching other managers the skill?



Actually, I rarely use role playing in training. That's not usually the nature of what I'm teaching. I teach them approaches to delegation (how to choose what to delegate, to whom, and how much oversight) and things like that. I'll use role-playing on those kinds of things more when it's 1-1 (coaching), so they can practice for a specific situation. But even then, my reactions (based upon "most likely") might not be what the other person presents. If they apply the principles and approaches over and over in everyday practice (like students do with their blocks, throws, and strikes), they'll get good enough at them to apply them under pressure. My short management training is not analogous to the ongoing training in MA. It's more analogous to a short seminar, because that's usually what it is.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> The same point I made in the other discussion. A very skilled person can simulate the right reactions in role playing, and give a reasonable resistance to the person practicing.
> 
> 
> In one case (role-playing) we're practicing working (with words and posture) on someone's mind. In physical self-defense, the physical mechanics of the technique are more important. Whether the guy is cold and mechanical or angry doesn't change the mechanics (it might change what openings they present, but once you find the opening, it's the same technique). Physical interaction isn't analogous to mental interaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I rarely use role playing in training. That's not usually the nature of what I'm teaching. I teach them approaches to delegation (how to choose what to delegate, to whom, and how much oversight) and things like that. I'll use role-playing on those kinds of things more when it's 1-1 (coaching), so they can practice for a specific situation. But even then, my reactions (based upon "most likely") might not be what the other person presents. If they apply the principles and approaches over and over in everyday practice (like students do with their blocks, throws, and strikes), they'll get good enough at them to apply them under pressure. My short management training is not analogous to the ongoing training in MA. It's more analogous to a short seminar, because that's usually what it is.


Okay.  I wasnt suggesting you use role play exclusively .  but as you say, it's very helpful when you're teaching a behavior .

As foe the rest, I would say that a skilled role player can help the training be more effective, but a person will not internalize and master a skill through role play (or any other training technique)  alone . Training can only get you so far no matter how good .

On another note, I think you've made an excellent point.  How do you develop a strong manager?  You train them a little and then they do the job a lot.  Then you train them some more.  You review what they may have let go and reinforce what they've internalized, and then you build on that. 

This is how we teach people to do most everything, except self defense training.  you still haven't given me that example I asked for.


----------



## blackbeltsomeday

Very interesting article.  I am just beginning my martial arts journey and I can see how martial arts mean different things to different people.  I do not consider myself to be learning self defense right now, just some fun moves that burn some calories.


----------



## Buka

I should probably read the whole thread again, I'm not sure if the question has offered up any answers. Maybe the question "Are you really training for self defense?" is rhetorical. I'll leave that up to the Philosoraptors to figure out.

If not, okay - Why, yes, yes I am really training for self defense. Thank you for asking. Not all the time, mind you, other parts of my training are for just plain fun, but for the most part, yes.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> And you keep my opically focusing on SEALs.
> 
> Can you explain how pressure testing in self defense training doesn't lead to application?  That seems to be a major flaw in your argument because pressure testing requires application.  That is what you are testing.



Depends how you are pressure testing. 

You become like the people you associate with. So if you train with a bunch of wimps. You will become a wimp.

Training and becoming the top wimp. Then teaching other people to become top wimps. Doesn't do anybody any good in a practical sense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Okay.  I wasnt suggesting you use role play exclusively .  but as you say, it's very helpful when you're teaching a behavior .
> 
> As foe the rest, I would say that a skilled role player can help the training be more effective, but a person will not internalize and master a skill through role play (or any other training technique)  alone . Training can only get you so far no matter how good .
> 
> On another note, I think you've made an excellent point.  How do you develop a strong manager?  You train them a little and then they do the job a lot.  Then you train them some more.  You review what they may have let go and reinforce what they've internalized, and then you build on that.
> 
> This is how we teach people to do most everything, except self defense training.  you still haven't given me that example I asked for.


Actually, I have. I teach managers to handle the common things, and how to apply those principles to more extreme situations. They "practice" on the everyday stuff (again, like when I practice throws against resisting partners, etc.). They then apply variations of those same skills when things blow up (which happens seldom enough, they can't "practice" on it) - just like self-defense. Again, very similar to the pilot training analogy. Pilots learn how to fly a plane, practice flying it a bunch in mundane conditions, then sometimes some of them have to apply those skills in a different way for emergencies (high wind sheer, engine on fire, etc.) which they've never been able to practice except in simulation and in the mundane use of the skills they recombine.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Depends how you are pressure testing.
> 
> You become like the people you associate with. So if you train with a bunch of wimps. You will become a wimp.
> 
> Training and becoming the top wimp. Then teaching other people to become top wimps. Doesn't do anybody any good in a practical sense.


I won't say it doesn't do anybody any good - but it's not a great approach for the topic at hand. Given a choice, I'd rather be top wimp than mid-wimp, I guess.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Okay. I wasnt suggesting you use role play exclusively . but as you say, it's very helpful when you're teaching a behavior .


To clarify, I see role-playing like situational training we do. Someone has to understand an attack/scenario well to provide a reasonable input for their partner to defend. But it's not at all like sparring and other resistive training methods.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I won't say it doesn't do anybody any good - but it's not a great approach for the topic at hand. Given a choice, I'd rather be top wimp than mid-wimp, I guess.



This is my experience with self defence guys. (As a trend don't get caught up) somewhere along the line they have trained themselves into becoming collapso tapout monkeys.

Side control suddenly. Becomes a fight ending submission. Every throw works. Punching breaks their structure.

Which then provides me with an arsenal of pressure tested rubbish. That I can pass on to my students.

Get one football player come in and suddenly he has wrecked everyone in the room.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This is my experience with self defence guys. (As a trend don't get caught up) somewhere along the line they have trained themselves into becoming collapso tapout monkeys.
> 
> Side control suddenly. Becomes a fight ending submission. Every throw works. Punching breaks their structure.
> 
> Which then provides me with an arsenal of pressure tested rubbish. That I can pass on to my students.
> 
> Get one football player come in and suddenly he has wrecked everyone in the room.


Agreed. It's a pet peeve of mine. I've heard instructors say black belt defense lines should be 100% successful. That's just LARPing. There are some drills where being a tapout monkey is reasonable, but only a few. It wants real pressure to get good feedback on what really breaks structure.

Mind you, all of my punches work. Every time. But I'm just that good.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. It's a pet peeve of mine. I've heard instructors say black belt defense lines should be 100% successful. That's just LARPing. There are some drills where being a tapout monkey is reasonable, but only a few. It wants real pressure to get good feedback on what really breaks structure.
> 
> Mind you, all of my punches work. Every time. But I'm just that good.



My theory by the way is hard contact drilling creates the problem. So you stand there with a crap intent and someone comes up and cranks the crap out of a body part.

Of course you are going to wind up collapsing as fast as you can.

Most of the defence to the technique has already been ignored.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I have. I teach managers to handle the common things, and how to apply those principles to more extreme situations. They "practice" on the everyday stuff (again, like when I practice throws against resisting partners, etc.). They then apply variations of those same skills when things blow up (which happens seldom enough, they can't "practice" on it) - just like self-defense. Again, very similar to the pilot training analogy. Pilots learn how to fly a plane, practice flying it a bunch in mundane conditions, then sometimes some of them have to apply those skills in a different way for emergencies (high wind sheer, engine on fire, etc.) which they've never been able to practice except in simulation and in the mundane use of the skills they recombine.


Okay.  So, I think we're having trouble with the word "practice."  You're using it in a few different ways.  When you're referring to pilots practicing and your students in aikido practicing, one isn't actually practice.  It's actually flying a plane.  You can simulate flying a plane, but we don't run into the same issue with pilots, because there is a clear and obvious difference between simulation and reality.  In self defense training, it's all simulation.  Unless, of course, you have some outlet for application, whether professional or personal. 

further, a pilot can only really move beyond the basics because they have actual experience flying planes.  Simply put, you cannot skip the flying the plane part.  You can't simulate your way to success in an emergency.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> To clarify, I see role-playing like situational training we do. Someone has to understand an attack/scenario well to provide a reasonable input for their partner to defend. But it's not at all like sparring and other resistive training methods.


I actually agree with Juany on this.  Role playing exercises can be as effective as any other form of scenario based training.  It's great if used well and in the right context.  It's still training, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My theory by the way is hard contact drilling creates the problem. So you stand there with a crap intent and someone comes up and cranks the crap out of a body part.
> 
> Of course you are going to wind up collapsing as fast as you can.
> 
> Most of the defence to the technique has already been ignored.


That would do it. If I consistently got joints torqued to near-injury, I'd tap out like a maniac every time they touched me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Okay.  So, I think we're having trouble with the word "practice."  You're using it in a few different ways.  When you're referring to pilots practicing and your students in aikido practicing, one isn't actually practice.  It's actually flying a plane.  You can simulate flying a plane, but we don't run into the same issue with pilots, because there is a clear and obvious difference between simulation and reality.  In self defense training, it's all simulation.  Unless, of course, you have some outlet for application, whether professional or personal.


But that's an artificial distinction, Steve. Flying a plane and sparring are both ways of practicing physical skills. They are also both ways of applying those physical skills. You can get practice with drills, or you can get practice by actually applying the techniques to a live "opponent" (person or the environment your'e flying in).



> further, a pilot can only really move beyond the basics because they have actual experience flying planes.  Simply put, you cannot skip the flying the plane part.  You can't simulate your way to success in an emergency.


Again, I see simulations/scenarios in MA as being like simulations in pilot training. I see sparring as the routine flying. Because you're actually doing the thing you've trained for, like a pilot flying a plane under reasonable conditions. And pilots never get to practice emergency situations except in drills and simulators - just like SD training can't practice defending against a live knife from someone really trying to gut you. Both of our distinctions are artificial. You don't see flying a plane as similar to sparring. I do. I don't think either of us is going to change the others' mind, because there's some logic to both positions.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> I'm not at all focused on seal training .  I'm using the example you provided.  If you want to talk about learning to play golf, ride a bike, cook, drive a tank or anything, it's the same .
> 
> It's not a flaw in my argument. Rather it's the flaw in self defense training that you are noticing. Those folks who do apply skills learned actually progress beyond application and actually begin to develop expertise . So, the skills a cop learns and applies are developed.   The skills a school teacher learns are not applied.  It's what I said in the first place.  You, I believe, have it spot on regarding training's role in preparing people to take action.  I just think you overvalue the training and undervalue (to the point now of completely dismissing) the critical importance of moving out of training and gaining actual experience.


The physical skills of the teacher can become applied through regular practice/pressure testing.  That is the key.  Going to a class then not practicing means little.  I am not referring to that.  I am referring to something that is practiced there after.


----------



## Buka

blackbeltsomeday said:


> Very interesting article.  I am just beginning my martial arts journey and I can see how martial arts mean different things to different people.  I do not consider myself to be learning self defense right now, just some fun moves that burn some calories.



Welcome to MartialTalk, BlackBeltSomeday. Hope you enjoy it, bro.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> The physical skills of the teacher can become applied through regular practice/pressure testing.  That is the key.  Going to a class then not practicing means little.  I am not referring to that.  I am referring to something that is practiced there after.


i don’t understand what you mean by this.  Are you saying that with a good enough teacher, a pilot student wouldn’t need to fly a plane or a seal wouldn’t need to dive?  The skills of the teacher would just sort of sink in?  That’s how self defense is trained, unless someone is lucky enough to have a means for application, whether competitive or professional.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> But that's an artificial distinction, Steve. Flying a plane and sparring are both ways of practicing physical skills. They are also both ways of applying those physical skills. You can get practice with drills, or you can get practice by actually applying the techniques to a live "opponent" (person or the environment your'e flying in).


sure.  When someone spars, they are practicing something.  It’s just not self defense.  





> Again, I see simulations/scenarios in MA as being like simulations in pilot training. I see sparring as the routine flying. Because you're actually doing the thing you've trained for, like a pilot flying a plane under reasonable conditions. And pilots never get to practice emergency situations except in drills and simulators - just like SD training can't practice defending against a live knife from someone really trying to gut you. Both of our distinctions are artificial. You don't see flying a plane as similar to sparring. I do. I don't think either of us is going to change the others' mind, because there's some logic to both positions.


Sparring is like role playing.  It’s like scenario based simulation.  And pilots do get to gain real skill as pilots.  Once again, flying the plane is the bulk of the ladder.  The upper rungs of the ladder are expertise, where you can adapt when things go awry. You can’t shortcut your way there.   You can’t expect a guy who hasn’t flown the plane to perform in an emergency, regardless of how good the training.   

You want sparring to be more than it is, because you are invested.   I get it.  But I think someday you’ll come around.   You’re a smart guy.   Give it another 4 or 5 years.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> sure.  When someone spars, they are practicing something.  It’s just not self defense.
> Sparring is like role playing.  It’s like scenario based simulation.  And pilots do get to gain real skill as pilots.  Once again, flying the plane is the bulk of the ladder.  The upper rungs of the ladder are expertise, where you can adapt when things go awry. You can’t shortcut your way there.   You can’t expect a guy who hasn’t flown the plane to perform in an emergency, regardless of how good the training.
> 
> You want sparring to be more than it is, because you are invested.   I get it.  But I think someday you’ll come around.   You’re a smart guy.   Give it another 4 or 5 years.



You sure do get me to thinking.
Seems like a conundrum for sure. Application of certain things is difficult. Myself and several of the guys at work were supposed to re-qualify at the range. We do so several times a year. But we were rained out for the third week in a row, it's basically a sea of sticky, fricken' mud.

Made me think about shooting. I've trained it for many a year, yet I've never actually shot anyone. Trained in a lot of ways, off hand shooting, speed reloading, clearing jams, prone, running, barricaded, cover fire, Hogans Allies, shoot/don't shoot films, run and gun, target shooting, blah, blah. Just hours and hours on lots of ranges.

Could I shoot someone? I imagine so. Hope I never find out. But my point is....the only way to apply all the practice and training, to see if it actually works, would be to actually shoot somebody in a bad situation.

Kind of the same thing with Martial training. Kind of difficult to apply a lot of it in actual life. At least the fighting part of it, unless you fight. And the whole idea is to not have to.

What about you, Steve, are you really training for self defense?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> sure.  When someone spars, they are practicing something.  It’s just not self defense.
> Sparring is like role playing.  It’s like scenario based simulation.  And pilots do get to gain real skill as pilots.  Once again, flying the plane is the bulk of the ladder.  The upper rungs of the ladder are expertise, where you can adapt when things go awry. You can’t shortcut your way there.   You can’t expect a guy who hasn’t flown the plane to perform in an emergency, regardless of how good the training.
> 
> You want sparring to be more than it is, because you are invested.   I get it.  But I think someday you’ll come around.   You’re a smart guy.   Give it another 4 or 5 years.


We're just going to disagree on this and leave it. You're starting to ignore parts of my statements and only reply to the parts you like. That gets tiring.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> You sure do get me to thinking.
> Seems like a conundrum for sure. Application of certain things is difficult. Myself and several of the guys at work were supposed to re-qualify at the range. We do so several times a year. But we were rained out for the third week in a row, it's basically a sea of sticky, fricken' mud.
> 
> Made me think about shooting. I've trained it for many a year, yet I've never actually shot anyone. Trained in a lot of ways, off hand shooting, speed reloading, clearing jams, prone, running, barricaded, cover fire, Hogans Allies, shoot/don't shoot films, run and gun, target shooting, blah, blah. Just hours and hours on lots of ranges.
> 
> Could I shoot someone? I imagine so. Hope I never find out. But my point is....the only way to apply all the practice and training, to see if it actually works, would be to actually shoot somebody in a bad situation.
> 
> Kind of the same thing with Martial training. Kind of difficult to apply a lot of it in actual life. At least the fighting part of it, unless you fight. And the whole idea is to not have to.
> 
> What about you, Steve, are you really training for self defense?


It's good that you're confident.  I believe you to be a thoughtful and serious guy, who wants to do a good job.  But even with all of that, could you shoot someone?  The answer is probably not, at least, not the first time you need to do so.  That's based on what I know about how people learn things, and also supported statistically.. 

According to a study done in NYC in 2008, cops had an accuracy rate of 18% under fire, and 30% when firing at someone who wasn't firing back.  So, if this is typical, then, the answer to your question is, maybe you could shoot someone, but if so, your odds of hitting them under fire are less than 1 in 5.  Even at "close range" (within 7 yards of the target), the accuracy from 1999-2006 was 37%.   in the study, the training methods are outlined for the NYPD, and they seem very similar to the training you guys all describe.  It sounds to me like terrific training for both recruits and in-service officers. 

The study also notes a statistical link between negative marks on the officers' records and rate of firing weapons.  Officers with an average of 3.1 or more Central Personnel Index (CPI) points are three times more likely to fire their weapons.  In other  words, the top 15% of cops with negative marks on their records were far more likely to fire a gun. 

So, all that said, I think it would depend on how well prepared the rest of your job functions prepare you to leverage the emergency skills.  In other words, how well does the training dovetail with the foundation you apply in your job every day?  Are the emergency actions you're training an extension of things you do every day, a complimentary (i.e., related) skillset, or are they a completely different skill set?  I would also say that whether you can do it or not would depend on things you bring to the table that are not specifically trained, such as judgment, temperament and emotional intelligence.  I think it's no accident that these traits would also make one less likely to fire the weapon in the first place.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> We're just going to disagree on this and leave it. You're starting to ignore parts of my statements and only reply to the parts you like. That gets tiring.


I do my best to respond to everything, but have limited time.  Sometimes, my only opportunity to reply is on my phone without my glasses on, and I think my posts are so disjointed and riddled with typos, it's hard to understand what I mean.

I think this is going to click for you, so, my interest isn't to ignore parts of what you say.

The article I reference above to Buka supports the things I'm trying to say.  It's not that good training is irrelevant or has no impact.  It's that application of training is critical, and in particular how the training is applied, the timeliness of the application relative to the training (i.e., how soon did you apply the training after the training was received?) and the relevance of the training to the task.

Here's another way to look at it.  The training isn't there to replace application.  It's there to facilitate the transition from not doing something to doing it.  Let's say there's a bridge.  On one side is incompetence and on the other is competence.  You can put a blind fold on, and ride across the bridge on a unicycle.  This is like self teaching...  people learn to do things all the time on their own.  You may not succeed... certainly, you've stacked the odds.   But people get to the other side all the time without any help from training.  Just figure it out.  Training allows you to walk across the bridge.  You'll get to the other side faster and without all the drama.  It won't be as exciting, but you've increased your odds for success.  But the bridge is still just the bridge.  Competence is on the other side.  Going back and forth on the bridge never gets you to the NEXT bridge.  You'll never even see it.

Everything overlaps. So, while skill development is linear and predictable, skillsets aren't, particularly when you start getting into complimentary skills sets.  It's more like the following (if I can make this make sense):  The point I'm trying to illustrate is that performance in skill 1 (whatever that might be) enables one to begin developing skills 2 and 3, which then enable one to train in skill 4.  And while that is happening, the person is continuing to apply skill one, and is moving beyond performance into expertise.

This same things can be applied at a skillset level, on a more macro scale.  Larger context, but it's the same thing.  Cops gain skills in one area of self defense.  MMA guys gain skills in another.  Each could approach self defense training from a different angle, because the skills they're actually acquiring are complimentary.

EDIT:  Just want to add that the reverse is true, too.  Sometimes, to get to the point where you can begin to train something, you will need to be performing or an expert in several other things...  So, the pyramid below expands based on dependency of skills or skillsets, but also contracts similarly, based on dependency.


Skill 4Skill 2 Skill 1Skill 3Skill 5Skill 6TrainingTrainingPerformanceTrainingTraining PerformanceExpertisePerformanceTrainingPerformanceExpertiseInnovationExpertisePerformanceTrainingExpertiseInnovationInnovationExpertisePerformanceInnovationInnovationExpertiseInnovation                  
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I do my best to respond to everything, but have limited time.  Sometimes, my only opportunity to reply is on my phone without my glasses on, and I think my posts are so disjointed and riddled with typos, it's hard to understand what I mean.
> 
> I think this is going to click for you, so, my interest isn't to ignore parts of what you say.
> 
> The article I reference above to Buka supports the things I'm trying to say.  It's not that good training is irrelevant or has no impact.  It's that application of training is critical, and in particular how the training is applied, the timeliness of the application relative to the training (i.e., how soon did you apply the training after the training was received?) and the relevance of the training to the task.
> 
> Here's another way to look at it.  The training isn't there to replace application.  It's there to facilitate the transition from not doing something to doing it.  Let's say there's a bridge.  On one side is incompetence and on the other is competence.  You can put a blind fold on, and ride across the bridge on a unicycle.  This is like self teaching...  people learn to do things all the time on their own.  You may not succeed... certainly, you've stacked the odds.   But people get to the other side all the time without any help from training.  Just figure it out.  Training allows you to walk across the bridge.  You'll get to the other side faster and without all the drama.  It won't be as exciting, but you've increased your odds for success.  But the bridge is still just the bridge.  Competence is on the other side.  Going back and forth on the bridge never gets you to the NEXT bridge.  You'll never even see it.
> 
> Everything overlaps. So, while skill development is linear and predictable, skillsets aren't, particularly when you start getting into complimentary skills sets.  It's more like the following (if I can make this make sense):  The point I'm trying to illustrate is that performance in skill 1 (whatever that might be) enables one to begin developing skills 2 and 3, which then enable one to train in skill 4.  And while that is happening, the person is continuing to apply skill one, and is moving beyond performance into expertise.
> 
> This same things can be applied at a skillset level, on a more macro scale.  Larger context, but it's the same thing.  Cops gain skills in one area of self defense.  MMA guys gain skills in another.  Each could approach self defense training from a different angle, because the skills they're actually acquiring are complimentary.
> 
> EDIT:  Just want to add that the reverse is true, too.  Sometimes, to get to the point where you can begin to train something, you will need to be performing or an expert in several other things...  So, the pyramid below expands based on dependency of skills or skillsets, but also contracts similarly, based on dependency.
> 
> 
> Skill 4Skill 2 Skill 1Skill 3Skill 5Skill 6TrainingTrainingPerformanceTrainingTrainingPerformanceExpertisePerformanceTrainingPerformanceExpertiseInnovationExpertisePerformanceTrainingExpertiseInnovationInnovationExpertisePerformanceInnovationInnovationExpertiseInnovation
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


There's nothing there I disagree with, Steve. You and I just disagree with where "application" starts, and whether skills for emergencies can reliably be developed unless you're frequently experiencing those emergencies.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> There's nothing there I disagree with, Steve. You and I just disagree with where "application" starts, and whether skills for emergencies can reliably be developed unless you're frequently experiencing those emergencies.


I provided statistical support for my belief.  Did you read the study I linked to in my response to Buka?  If not, I recommend you do.  It's consistent with everything I've been saying around here for a long time.

Also, the forum destroyed my table. It doesn't make much sense anymore.  Hopefully, the point made it through.  I'll try again:


Skill 4Skill 2Skill 1Skill 3Skill 5Skill 6..Training....TrainingPerformanceTraining..TrainingPerformanceExpertisePerformance..PerformanceExpertiseInnovationExpertiseTraining.ExpertiseInnovation.InnovationPerformanceTrainingInnovation...ExpertisePerformance....InnovationExpertise
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## Steve

Also, emergency skills can be developed.  Are they reliable?  Well, that depends entirely on what you mean by "reliable."  I will tell you, though, they are going to be far less reliable if you never use the training you've been taught.  Even less reliable if you don't use the foundational skills upon which the emergency skills rely.  And your chances of success approach "dumb luck" if you're learning both the foundational skills and the emergency skills from someone who is as inexperienced as you.

Have you ever watched Forged in Fire, the knife making competition on History Channel?  Great show, if you haven't.  Learning self defense from a typical martial arts instructor is like learning to forge knives from someone who is an expert at watching that show.

EDIT:  CPR training is another good example of the points I'm making.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> It's good that you're confident.  I believe you to be a thoughtful and serious guy, who wants to do a good job.  But even with all of that, could you shoot someone?  The answer is probably not, at least, not the first time you need to do so.  That's based on what I know about how people learn things, and also supported statistically..
> 
> According to a study done in NYC in 2008, cops had an accuracy rate of 18% under fire, and 30% when firing at someone who wasn't firing back.  So, if this is typical, then, the answer to your question is, maybe you could shoot someone, but if so, your odds of hitting them under fire are less than 1 in 5.  Even at "close range" (within 7 yards of the target), the accuracy from 1999-2006 was 37%.   in the study, the training methods are outlined for the NYPD, and they seem very similar to the training you guys all describe.  It sounds to me like terrific training for both recruits and in-service officers.
> 
> The study also notes a statistical link between negative marks on the officers' records and rate of firing weapons.  Officers with an average of 3.1 or more Central Personnel Index (CPI) points are three times more likely to fire their weapons.  In other  words, the top 15% of cops with negative marks on their records were far more likely to fire a gun.
> 
> So, all that said, I think it would depend on how well prepared the rest of your job functions prepare you to leverage the emergency skills.  In other words, how well does the training dovetail with the foundation you apply in your job every day?  Are the emergency actions you're training an extension of things you do every day, a complimentary (i.e., related) skillset, or are they a completely different skill set?  I would also say that whether you can do it or not would depend on things you bring to the table that are not specifically trained, such as judgment, temperament and emotional intelligence.  I think it's no accident that these traits would also make one less likely to fire the weapon in the first place.



Steve....oh, you suck sooooo bad.....that's meant as good natured ribbing, not an insult, I'll get back to why in a moment, bear with me.

Whether on not I could shoot someone if necessary, I believe you're basing your thoughts on the assumption that I've never been forced to take a life in a method not involving a firearm.

Also, as I asked at the end of my post that you quoted, "Are _*you*_ really training for self defense". I'm not questioning your art, you probably know how much I fricken' love BJJ, I'm just curious as to whether your particular journey has a mind set, be it total or just sometimes while training, when you're concentrating on self defense?

Okay.....now WHY you suck so badly, my brother. I've been reading for close to two hours so far.  [I hate you right now. No, really]

First I started with Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Fire-Discharge Process, which you provided the link to, thank you, and, of course, the Central Personnel Index.....and was then led to the landmark essay, The Functions of Police in Modern Society, which I'm not finished with yet.....it's like being at the dentist......and if Egon Bittner, the author, was still alive I'd personally shove a thesaurus right down his gullet....sideways. That's not based on disagreement, but on how he writes. And I'll still have to read the Supreme Court cases cited.

I so hate you, bro.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Steve....oh, you suck sooooo bad.....that's meant as good natured ribbing, not an insult, I'll get back to why in a moment, bear with me.
> 
> Whether on not I could shoot someone if necessary, I believe you're basing your thoughts on the assumption that I've never been forced to take a life in a method not involving a firearm.
> 
> Also, as I asked at the end of my post that you quoted, "Are _*you*_ really training for self defense". I'm not questioning your art, you probably know how much I fricken' love BJJ, I'm just curious as to whether your particular journey has a mind set, be it total or just sometimes while training, when you're concentrating on self defense?
> 
> Okay.....now WHY you suck so badly, my brother. I've been reading for close to two hours so far.  [I hate you right now. No, really]
> 
> First I started with Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Fire-Discharge Process, which you provided the link to, thank you, and, of course, the Central Personnel Index.....and was then led to the landmark essay, The Functions of Police in Modern Society, which I'm not finished with yet.....it's like being at the dentist......and if Egon Bittner, the author, was still alive I'd personally shove a thesaurus right down his gullet....sideways. That's not based on disagreement, but on how he writes. And I'll still have to read the Supreme Court cases cited.
> 
> I so hate you, bro.


So glad you thought that was interesting, Buka.  I figured you would.

Regarding whether I'm training for self defense, that's a great question.  I'd say no, but the training I do helps decrease my odds of being victimized.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> So glad you thought that was interesting, Buka.  I figured you would.
> 
> Regarding whether I'm training for self defense, that's a great question.  I'd say no, but the training I do helps decrease my odds of being victimized.



I would argue that decreasing one's odds of being victimized, is self defense. Pretty pure self defense at that.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I would argue that decreasing one's odds of being victimized, is self defense. Pretty pure self defense at that.


Yeah, I agree.  But if we're getting to what makes people less likely to be victimized, I believe it's more to do with building real skills and understanding the subsidiary benefits of the activity.  It's useful to train in an art where you get to use what you learn.  Judo, MMA, wrestling, Shuai Jiao, boxing... they all have an advantage over arts where you don't  use what you learn.  And that, in itself, is useful, because you will know not just that the techniques work, but that YOU can make the techniques work.  So, when it comes to whether someone will be able to perform in an emergency, the school teacher who competes in Judo is much more likely to succeed in using the skills in an emergency than the school teacher who has learned several ways to kill or maim someone with their car keys.  This is because the Judoka has applied the skills in a complimentary situation, in the same way that a cop will be able to rely on skills used on the job if he or she is in a self defense situation. 

But that's actually not the part that I believe makes me safer. The big thing is the subsidiary benefits of training in anything that has some structural integrity, which can be achieved by doing activities that don't involve fighting or maiming or killing.  Confidence, fitness, coordination, positive self image, feeling like you're a part of a group...  all of these things help you lead a balanced lifestyle.  Not doing drugs or hanging out in bars, starting fights at picnics or otherwise engaging in a high risk lifestyle.  These also help. 

Honestly, I think I'd have just as positive an effect on my odds of being victimized by doing Crossfit or Bikram Yoga as I do in BJJ.   I don't see a lot of difference between "self defense" training and, say, parkour training, or gymnastics, for example.  Self defense guys around here get pretty snooty when someone talks about XMA or things like that, but I think that when it comes down to it, those XMA kids have the ingredients that will make them less likely to be victimized. 

But the bottom line... will I be able to choke out a bad guy?  I'd say definitely, who knows?  Maybe?  I think my chances of successfully doing so are better than someone who trains in a non-competitive grappling style like ninjutsu.


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> The school teacher who competes in Judo is much more likely to succeed in using the skills in an emergency than the school teacher who has learned several ways to kill or maim someone with their car keys.



I would agree with the statement above, even when _competiton_ isn't involved.

I _am_ a school teacher and among other things, I train escrima and spend some time whacking away at partners with sticks. When we get bound up grappling ensues. And some punching. I have also (in another art. a long time ago) been instructed how to maim people with car keys (who hasn't?).

Anyway, if attacked, I would not hesitate to whack someone with a stick or punch them, or grapple with them. At my age I might not be all that successful, mind you. But I doubt I'd hesitate to react if necessary.

On the other hand, I have no confidence in my ability to instantaneously react and maim someone with car keys. Actually, I'd have issues using a knife too. Not something you're supposed to say when you are in FMA, but it's the truth.

On the other hand, hitting people with sticks makes me happy!


----------



## Steve

geezer said:


> I would agree with the statement above, even when _competiton_ isn't involved.
> 
> I _am_ a school teacher and among other things, I train escrima and spend some time whacking away at partners with sticks. When we get bound up grappling ensues. And some punching. I have also (in another art. a long time ago) been instructed how to maim people with car keys (who hasn't?).
> 
> Anyway, if attacked, I would not hesitate to whack someone with a stick or punch them, or grapple with them. At my age I might not be all that successful, mind you. But I doubt I'd hesitate to react if necessary.
> 
> On the other hand, I have no confidence in my ability to instantaneously react and maim someone with car keys. Actually, I'd have issues using a knife too. Not something you're supposed to say when you are in FMA, but it's the truth.
> 
> On the other hand, hitting people with sticks makes me happy!


If there is one thing more natural and instinctive than grappling, it's hitting people with sticks.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> But the bottom line... will I be able to choke out a bad guy?  I'd say definitely, who knows?  Maybe?  I think my chances of successfully doing so are better than someone who trains in a non-competitive grappling style like ninjutsu.



As you said in a following post, grappling has a natural and instinctive side to it. Especially from behind with a choke. It's almost like hugging yourself. And in my opinion, there's far less worry about injuring the chokee. [as in choker and chokee] 

I don't think there's any "maybe" there in your game, bro.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I would argue that decreasing one's odds of being victimized, is self defense. Pretty pure self defense at that.



There is a difference. Self defence is about putting up with duchebags. Decreasing being victimised means you don't have to.

pizza slap.


----------



## BigMotor

drop bear said:


> There is a difference. Self defence is about putting up with duchebags. Decreasing being victimised means you don't have to.
> 
> pizza slap.


I would not let him get by with that, and please interpret what I said ,however you like. But it would have not been one sided like that, it would have been different.


----------



## Steve

BigMotor said:


> I would not let him get by with that, and please interpret what I said ,however you like. But it would have not been one sided like that, it would have been different.


Can you tell us a little more about that?


----------



## BigMotor

Steve,
No I cannot elaborate, my post speaks for itself; and you are left to comprehend the tenor of it, on your own.
God gave all us the ability to understand implication, it is known as inferring. So, please infer.


----------



## Steve

BigMotor said:


> Steve,
> No I cannot elaborate, my post speaks for itself; and you are left to comprehend the tenor of it, on your own.
> God gave all us the ability to understand implication, it is known as inferring. So, please infer.


I'm unable to infer from your post what you really mean.  Honestly, it's a very young post, and doesn't have the world experience a more savvy post might have.  Expecting it to speak for itself is a lot to ask.  If you could give your post a little help, I'm sure it would appreciate the assist.

When you say you "cannot" elaborate, do you mean you choose not to, or that you are unable to?


----------



## BigMotor

Steve said:


> I'm unable to infer from your post what you really mean.  Honestly, it's a very young post, and doesn't have the world experience a more savvy post might have.  Expecting it to speak for itself is a lot to ask.  If you could give your post a little help, I'm sure it would appreciate the assist.
> 
> When you say you "cannot" elaborate, do you mean you choose not to, or that you are unable to?



Sorry, I thought that you might be a smarmy know-it-all or something. Below, I have quoted a few lines from the OP and the first post in this thread.

A final thought for those who are training for self-defence –
1.How much does your martial arts training prepare you for an assault? 
2.If you were faced with a potential threat tomorrow, similar to those mentioned above, would you change you training approach today?

Those are good questions, because if you MA cannot save your life from a violent man, then you need to reconsider things. That is how I conduct myself in my MA thought-life. Since I became old an withered: I can't practice TKD, Judo, Wrestling, MMA, or anything else.

I am a tater tot in ways, so I adjusted to using a walking staff, and if needed, a knife. I carry on a 10 speed bicycle, a staff, and that is my transport for now.
So, I must be proficient in ways with that staff, which is more like an aluminum baton.

I just went to a site, and found an old police manual PDF for batons, and I will look at it. It will give me some ideas, I know that it will. If I cannot stop a deadly assault with that walking stick, then it is useless. I am deluding myself, if I think that just having it, and waving it, will mean anything.

My point is, test your theory, to see if it works. A young man is well served by learning MMA, Ju Jitsu, etcetera; but not me, I am to stiff and I am tired.
An attacker is a dangerous thing, so always treat them as dangerous; so when you train, find a school that will teach you how to deck them.

Here is a for instance, without going to school for wrestling; I can tell you that it can be used to break a neck, or a someone's head. You can just grab them around the neck, and use a piledriver on them.

I saw the piledriver on pro wrestling, and they do it for entertainment; but think about it, you could kill somebody with it. It is how you think about things, and if you think that you can be a tough fighter, then you can be. But, it takes years of training, it is not all talk, and theory; and that is the tough part. Pick the school and train hard and smart.


----------



## geezer

BigMotor said:


> ...*I saw the piledriver on pro wrestling*, and they do it for entertainment; but think about it, you could kill somebody with it. It is how you think about things...



...umm ...ummmm,         ...I'm speechless. You lost me dude.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigMotor said:


> Steve,
> No I cannot elaborate, my post speaks for itself; and you are left to comprehend the tenor of it, on your own.
> God gave all us the ability to understand implication, it is known as inferring. So, please infer.


Inference often adds or changes meaning. Why not share what you actually meant?


----------



## pdg

BigMotor said:


> Here is a for instance, without going to school for wrestling; I can tell you that it can be used to break a neck, or a someone's head. You can just grab them around the neck, and use a piledriver on them.



So, without going to school for wrestling you're confident that you can "just" grab them around the neck and subsequently manipulate them into a position suitable for delivering a pile driver?

And the fact they might be stabbing you in the face with an ice pick at the time?


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> ...umm ...ummmm,         ...I'm speechless. You lost me dude.



There is plenty of pro wrestling stuff that would wreck people on the street if done with bad intentions.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> There is plenty of pro wrestling stuff that would wreck people on the street if done with bad intentions.



Sure, I never said wrestling stuff wouldn't ever work.

But, using the piledriver example from earlier - can someone who has watched a bit of wrestling on TV really be believed if they say they'd simply grab someone around the neck and piledrive them if they got attacked?


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> Sure, I never said wrestling stuff wouldn't ever work.
> 
> But, using the piledriver example from earlier - can someone who has watched a bit of wrestling on TV really be believed if they say they'd simply grab someone around the neck and piledrive them if they got attacked?



Pretty sure that is how most fights work.

Guys get in to a fight and wind up either throwing imaginary tennis balls or doing that move they saw on TV.






I mean you want to know why I discount anecdotal evidence. This is why.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> I mean you want to know why I discount anecdotal evidence. This is why.



I never asked why...

In all honesty, some bloke saying he heard about someone doing something that was possibly a move from a certain system means nothing to me either.

It's the whole "I know it's true, Dave down the pub told me"...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I never asked why...
> 
> In all honesty, some bloke saying he heard about someone doing something that was possibly a move from a certain system means nothing to me either.
> 
> It's the whole "I know it's true, Dave down the pub told me"...


He includes in his dismissal all experience related by cops, bouncers, etc., unless it’s also on video. And not just the one-offs, but the reports of what they find works reliably.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> He includes in his dismissal all experience related by cops, bouncers, etc., unless it’s also on video. And not just the one-offs, but the reports of what they find works reliably.



I have to say that it depends on the source for me.

Also, how many generations of transmission has it been through...

And then there's simple judgement.

Context. Context is important too.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> There is plenty of pro wrestling stuff that would wreck people on the street if done with bad intentions.



Yeah, sure I get that. A lot of pro wrestlers were _actual _wrestlers, and good ones, others were brawlers or bouncers, and sure, grabbing somebody around the waist, picking them up and slamming them hard on the ground _is _a real fight-ender.... 

...but using fantasy _pro wrestling_ as a source for fighting techniques? Heck, why not watch Star Trek. Ever see Kirk fight the Gorn?


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Yeah, sure I get that. A lot of pro wrestlers were _actual _wrestlers, and good ones, others were brawlers or bouncers, and sure, grabbing somebody around the waist, picking them up and slamming them hard on the ground _is _a real fight-ender....
> 
> ...but using fantasy _pro wrestling_ as a source for fighting techniques? Heck, why not watch Star Trek. Ever see Kirk fight the Gorn?



I guarantee there have been some clasp hands double punches thrown in street fights.

I mean it is absolutely on my bucket list.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I have to say that it depends on the source for me.
> 
> Also, how many generations of transmission has it been through...
> 
> And then there's simple judgement.
> 
> Context. Context is important too.


Practical skepticism is a useful tool.


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> ...but using fantasy _pro wrestling_ as a source for fighting techniques? Heck, why not watch Star Trek. Ever see Kirk fight the Gorn?



Looks like a variation of the Rhino  guard


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> Practical skepticism is a useful tool.



Indeed.

There are grey areas though - things that shouldn't work but do, and things that should work but don't.

I'm not a great believer in the "just punch them in the face" plan, but I know someone for whom it worked flawlessly. A good friend was out one night and someone threatened him with a weapon of opportunity (a temporary road sign of all things). As the assailant lifted it above his head to swing, my friend punched him and ran off. I count that as a win.

Also, I've stated before that I've not had need to "defend myself" - but that's not strictly true depending on how you interpret it...

I've verbally de-escalated a few times, and I've also gone for the "instant escalation shock and awe" tactic too - a kid (maybe 17-18) pulled a fairly small knife on me and demanded money.

I don't think he expected to be grabbed by the throat, shoved against a wall and threatened with a motorcycle helmet while I very loudly and with much venom explained what I was going to do to him.

I'd never recommend that course of action, because y'know, might get stabbed - but say and do are different things sometimes (plus his knife wouldn't have got that far through my armoured leathers anyway, even if he did choose to stab instead of cry).


I also wouldn't expect either of those incidents to be believed to the point of using them as an example either...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Indeed.
> 
> There are grey areas though - things that shouldn't work but do, and things that should work but don't.
> 
> I'm not a great believer in the "just punch them in the face" plan, but I know someone for whom it worked flawlessly. A good friend was out one night and someone threatened him with a weapon of opportunity (a temporary road sign of all things). As the assailant lifted it above his head to swing, my friend punched him and ran off. I count that as a win.
> 
> Also, I've stated before that I've not had need to "defend myself" - but that's not strictly true depending on how you interpret it...
> 
> I've verbally de-escalated a few times, and I've also gone for the "instant escalation shock and awe" tactic too - a kid (maybe 17-18) pulled a fairly small knife on me and demanded money.
> 
> I don't think he expected to be grabbed by the throat, shoved against a wall and threatened with a motorcycle helmet while I very loudly and with much venom explained what I was going to do to him.
> 
> I'd never recommend that course of action, because y'know, might get stabbed - but say and do are different things sometimes (plus his knife wouldn't have got that far through my armoured leathers anyway, even if he did choose to stab instead of cry).
> 
> 
> I also wouldn't expect either of those incidents to be believed to the point of using them as an example either...


Agreed. The point of talking to folks about what they’ve used - especially what they’ve used more than once - is to check assumptions. If I think a hip throw is great because Inused it once, but I can’t find anyone reliable (and trained in that technique) who has done so, then I need to question why not, and whether my view is skewed. And the converse is true for, say, standing arm bars. If I don’t like them and don’t trust them, but find folks who use them reliably on the job, then the problem is probably _my_ arm bar, rather than _the_ arm bar.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. The point of talking to folks about what they’ve used - especially what they’ve used more than once - is to check assumptions. If I think a hip throw is great because Inused it once, but I can’t find anyone reliable (and trained in that technique) who has done so, then I need to question why not, and whether my view is skewed. And the converse is true for, say, standing arm bars. If I don’t like them and don’t trust them, but find folks who use them reliably on the job, then the problem is probably _my_ arm bar, rather than _the_ arm bar.



That's the thing, I don't believe in "the one technique", nor do I believe there are many "bad" techniques (speaking fundamentally - any technique can be performed badly).

Other people can do things I can't - or can't without significant practice, which I may or may not feel is worthwhile for me. It may mean trying to change my defaults, which can be very difficult and counterproductive.

The opposite is also true.

And it's situational imo. I also don't believe that any technique can always be used against any opponent - it has to fit both parties to work.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> I don't believe in "the one technique", ...


You need 2 techniques. One attack the head. One attack the leg. Head lock and single leg can be a nice combination.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> That's the thing, I don't believe in "the one technique", nor do I believe there are many "bad" techniques (speaking fundamentally - any technique can be performed badly).
> 
> Other people can do things I can't - or can't without significant practice, which I may or may not feel is worthwhile for me. It may mean trying to change my defaults, which can be very difficult and counterproductive.
> 
> The opposite is also true.
> 
> And it's situational imo. I also don't believe that any technique can always be used against any opponent - it has to fit both parties to work.


All agreed. My point is that it’s just information to use in questioning assumptions. I’ve seen folks pull off those cool muscles from Capoeira and Kyokushin in professional fights, but won’t be adding either to my arsenal. But from those few instances, I now have a different view of such kicks. Same for all head kicks, which I tended to dismiss as not worth the effort until I saw them used in MMA, and those are something I’m capable of, already. 

I use 1-1 input from cops and prison guards the same way, though with more skepticism, since I’m depending upon their recall and ability to avoid inflating the story.


----------



## BigMotor

gpseymour said:


> Inference often adds or changes meaning. Why not share what you actually meant?


What I meant, in what context? What is your reference? Are you referring to the place where I said that, if you cannot use you style of fighting, in a deadly way, that it is worthless? Well it is worthless, if you cannot use it for a deadly force encounter. What is next, define deadly force for you? 



pdg said:


> So, without going to school for wrestling you're confident that you can "just" grab them around the neck and subsequently manipulate them into a position suitable for delivering a pile driver?
> 
> And the fact they might be stabbing you in the face with an ice pick at the time?


I would be returning the favor, I carry a knife and an aluminum stick, everywhere I go. And if anyone stabs me anywhere, with an ice pick, I will kill him. 
That is lawful self-defense, in most of America; or it is in Florida, West Virginia and Kentucky.


----------



## BigMotor

geezer said:


> ...umm ...ummmm,         ...I'm speechless. You lost me dude.


HOW did I lose you? How could you possibly not know what I meant? Would you care to elaborate on that?


----------



## pdg

BigMotor said:


> I would be returning the favor, I carry a knife and an aluminum stick, everywhere I go. And if anyone stabs me anywhere, with an ice pick, I will kill him.
> That is lawful self-defense, in most of America; or it is in Florida, West Virginia and Kentucky.



Whether it's a lawful course of action is irrelevant really.

So someone goes for a punch, your response is to "just grab him around the neck" and attempt a pile driver...

Firstly, yeah, alright, of course that'll work.

So then while you're trying that, he stabs you.

I don't rate your chances very high of being capable of your stick and knife based divine retribution.

With respect, your attitude so far of "I don't need no schoolin' to do it", while referring to techniques you've seen in (probably choreographed) TV entertainment doesn't do your stated age justice - need to subtract 50.


----------



## BigMotor

pdg said:


> Whether it's a lawful course of action is irrelevant really.
> 
> So someone goes for a punch, your response is to "just grab him around the neck" and attempt a pile driver...
> 
> Firstly, yeah, alright, of course that'll work.
> 
> So then while you're trying that, he stabs you.
> 
> I don't rate your chances very high of being capable of your stick and knife based divine retribution.
> 
> With respect, your attitude so far of "I don't need no schoolin' to do it", while referring to techniques you've seen in (probably choreographed) TV entertainment doesn't do your stated age justice - need to subtract 50.



Tell me about some of your fights and I will tell you about some of mine, I think that you have not had any. But, I could be wrong.
You have taken a single point and over-emphasized it, to the point of making yourself asinine. 
Allow me to make some points: I have won fights and I have lost fights; any fighter has, but I assure you that I remain a fighter. You are blowing smoke.


----------



## pdg

BigMotor said:


> You are blowing smoke.



Have you hacked my phone camera???


----------



## BigMotor

pdg said:


> Have you hacked my phone camera???


I can't believe some people, blowing smoke is a metaphor for.........oh, oh.... uh wait a minute....I get it!


----------



## pdg

BigMotor said:


> Tell me about some of your fights and I will tell you about some of mine, I think that you have not had any. But, I could be wrong.
> You have taken a single point and over-emphasized it, to the point of making yourself asinine.
> Allow me to make some points: I have won fights and I have lost fights; any fighter has, but I assure you that I remain a fighter. You are blowing smoke.



In a way you're right, I haven't been caught up in anything you'd likely consider a fight.

Anything that could have become a fight I've managed to avoid or talk down - and the few times that hasn't worked what has worked was instant and extreme escalation of threat of violence.

But that's irrelevant really, because I still know there's a busload more to a pile driver than "just grab them around the neck".

I mean, I could say "I'll just kick them in the head", but I know that unless everything falls into place (by chance or design) that's hugely unlikely.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> In a way you're right, I haven't been caught up in anything you'd likely consider a fight.
> 
> Anything that could have become a fight I've managed to avoid or talk down - and the few times that hasn't worked what has worked was instant and extreme escalation of threat of violence.
> 
> But that's irrelevant really, because I still know there's a busload more to a pile driver than "just grab them around the neck".
> 
> I mean, I could say "I'll just kick them in the head", but I know that unless everything falls into place (by chance or design) that's hugely unlikely.



It is doable because it is mostly just a guillotine or front headlock. And then you stuff their head between your legs and lift.

But it is a long way to go about throwing someone.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> It is doable because it is mostly just a guillotine or front headlock. And then you stuff their head between your legs and lift.
> 
> But it is a long way to go about throwing someone.



Didn't say it was impossible.

Unlikely without training though (TV doesn't count as training) and even less likely if the opponent doesn't present the opportunity.


----------



## geezer

BigMotor said:


> HOW did I lose you? How could you possibly not know what I meant? Would you care to elaborate on that?



Elaborate? I already did in my conversation with Drop Bear on the previous page, running from post 143 through 153. Check out post 152 in particular.
Basically I was flummoxed by your use of _professional wrestling_ as source! 

BTW this is the Wing Chun sub-forum. Much earlier you mentioned something about being old and stiff. If that's so, wouldn't something like Wing Chun offer you more useful material than pro-wrestling? Just a thought.


----------



## BigMotor

geezer said:


> Elaborate? I already did in my conversation with Drop Bear on the previous page, running from post 143 through 153. Check out post 152 in particular.
> Basically I was flummoxed by your use of _professional wrestling_ as source!
> 
> BTW this is the Wing Chun sub-forum. Much earlier you mentioned something about being old and stiff. If that's so, wouldn't something like Wing Chun offer you more useful material than pro-wrestling? Just a thought.



I have attended and watched pro wrestling, and those monsters could rip a man in two, IMHO. I will have to go back and read post 142-153, with emphasis on 152, to get my story straight. 
However, whether this is the Wing Chung sub-forum, or a gun/knife forum immaterial to me. The topic is Are You Really Training For Self Defense? My answer is yes I am, and if that is your answer as well, then we are simpatico on that.
Training for a deadly attack & the defense against that, is very serious business. And I take it that way, but I can be a drama king sometimes. I have some training in wrestling and Tae Kwon Do, and I feel competent enough to talk about any style of fighting. Call me reckless if you like.


----------



## BigMotor

drop bear said:


> There is plenty of pro wrestling stuff that would wreck people on the street if done with bad intentions.


Yeah, what he said! See, I ain't the only one. 
A good wrassler can break yer neck, and that is a good thing to keep in mind. And this video demonstrates what I have said in some of my posts, in this thread.
It can all end with getting dropped on your head; and if you get killed by such a move, don't say that I did not warn you.


----------



## BigMotor

drop bear said:


> Ok. Lets simplify the issue. If I can reliably do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many self defence situations can I resolve?


You could reselve the vast majority of self defense sireps with the little mans move, I watched that video, and he decks that bigger guy. It was a work of art.


----------



## WcForMe

Interesting read this post,

It's such a large subject self defence. In my experience I've personally done descalation techniques. Once being a victim of a road rage incident is Ann example. All I did was get out of the car, stood to the side of the guy because there's no way I'm standing straight on at him, with my hands in a non threatening position but close to guard as possible and noticing his car was full of tools such as hammers, chisels, general building tools that could kill you. To escalate that situation could possibly end in death or being stabbed or hit with a hammer I decided to talk him down. The guy probably had a bad day, lost his contract for work or something and lost his mind over the fact he didn't see I had my indicator on.

On the flip side I've done the escalate the situation until the person backs down technique too. It's just reading the situation and the person before action is taken. There  are people that no matter what you do want to fight. There are those than can be talked down because it's brovardo.

No matter where you live anything can happen. I've had guns to my head, knives to my thoart, been jumped by two guys. All of those was because I ran an off license in a small village in England. Personally I've never froze in these situations. Fight or flight is bred into all of us. It's a natural survival instinct. 

However I'm terrified of heights. A few years ago I went on a ski lift and got so scared I didn't talk for a whole day. I was shaking like a leaf for maybe 3 hours. You never really know how you will react until the situation happens regardless of training. The ski lift situation scared me so much, I was so shocked I reacted that badly due to all the violently encounters I have had in my life and I couldn't deal with a cable car what the hell!

As stated reading the room, reading people and environment and get the hell out before something happens Is my best policy. Not because I'm soft because I'm sensible. However threaten my life or my loved ones is a big difference from the rowdy guy at the pub and you accidentally spilt his drink. 

If it gets to the point where a fight Is going to happen and your posturing up pushing and shoving, running your mouth that situation can be dealt with without violence in my opinion. But getting sucker punched or jumped is totally different.

Recently there was a terror attack in London and a man stabbed a policeman to death and Injured 33 other people while another policeman sat in a car and watched it happen. Now before you say I'd be there and stop it happening. A guy with 2 big kitchen knives covered in blood is killing people in front of you, screaming as he does it, you have no weapons are you the one to act? Or will you do nothing because you want to live and see your family again?


----------



## Flying Crane

BigMotor said:


> I would be returning the favor, I carry a knife and an aluminum stick, everywhere I go. And if anyone stabs me anywhere, with an ice pick, I will kill him.
> That is lawful self-defense, in most of America; or it is in Florida, West Virginia and Kentucky.



Well, without knowing the particulars of the law in Florida, West Virginia, or Kentucky, I can say that it depends.  You do get to defend yourself, which might include stabbing him in return and killing him.  But if your assailant stabs and runs then he is no longer a threat to you and I do not believe that you get to chase him down and kill him.  That would make you the aggressor, and you can be prosecuted.  So don’t fool yourself into believing it is more simple than it is.


----------



## BigMotor

Flying Crane said:


> Well, without knowing the particulars of the law in Florida, West Virginia, or Kentucky, I can say that it depends.  You do get to defend yourself, which might include stabbing him in return and killing him.  But if your assailant stabs and runs then he is no longer a threat to you and I do not believe that you get to chase him down and kill him.  That would make you the aggressor, and you can be prosecuted.  So don’t fool yourself into believing it is more simple than it is.



The pieces of life's puzzle must be insoluble to you. You cannot use inference, and you cannot use logic, and yet you sit there and tell me that I will become the aggressor.

Stabbing is a very serious felony, and anyone is justified to use deadly force, against the attacker if it happens to them. That is English Common Law, and so is pursuit of a felon. 

What do you know about any of this? [I would be very justified to pursue them, if they ran and place them under citizens arrest. And If it turned into kill or be killed, then let it be that.]


----------



## Flying Crane

BigMotor said:


> The pieces of life's puzzle must be insoluble to you. You cannot use inference, and you cannot use logic, and yet you sit there and tell me that I will become the aggressor.
> 
> Stabbing is a very serious felony, and anyone is justified to use deadly force, against the attacker if it happens to them. That is English Common Law, and so is pursuit of a felon.
> 
> What do you know about any of this? [I would be very justified to pursue them, if they ran and place them under citizens arrest. And If it turned into kill or be killed, then let it be that.]



What do I know about this?  Well...

My father-in-law is a criminal defense attorney, as was my wife for about 17 years until she recently decided to change her career.

My brother was a prosecutor with the US Army JAG corps.

While I am not an attorney, I have worked in the legal industry for about 24 years so I’ve been around the discussions for a long time.

I hope I don’t need to start sending you postcards to a prison address.


----------



## Flying Crane

BigMotor said:


> The pieces of life's puzzle must be insoluble to you. You cannot use inference, and you cannot use logic, and yet you sit there and tell me that I will become the aggressor.



Where is all the hostility coming from?



> Stabbing is a very serious felony, and anyone is justified to use deadly force, against the attacker if it happens to them. That is English Common Law, and so is pursuit of a felon.



Deadly force MAY be justifiable IF you stabbed him in the middle of the conflict while he was trying to stab you.  If he is directly attacking you and your life is being threatened, you can defend yourself and deadly force MAY be justifiable.

But again, if he disengages and runs off, he is no longer a direct threat to you.  You do not get to chase him down and kill him.  That is vigilanteism and also revenge, and the law frowns on that behavior.  You can be prosecuted.

Postcards...


----------



## BigMotor

Flying Crane said:


> What do I know about this?  Well...
> 
> My father-in-law is a criminal defense attorney, as was my wife for about 17 years until she recently decided to change her career.
> 
> My brother was a prosecutor with the US Army JAG corps.
> 
> While I am not an attorney, I have worked in the legal industry for about 24 years so I’ve been around the discussions for a long time.
> 
> I hope I don’t need to start sending you postcards to a prison address.



What about you? I did not ask what your relatives do: I asked, what did you know about it? In my lowly eyes you are all mouth, one who has never fought; and never will stain its delicate hands, in a fight. [Why fight when you can dial 911, and run away?]

You are an onlooker, and that is it, and you will never matter in a fight. Do you drive a large PU, so that you can feel manly?  As for me, I have put up with yapping mutts all of my life, and you are just one more.  If any of this gets me banned or shunned, then I never needed your company to begin with.

Why are you on this forum? Why? You are a paper tiger.


----------



## BigMotor

Flying Crane said:


> Where is all the hostility coming from?
> 
> Deadly force MAY be justifiable IF you stabbed him in the middle of the conflict while he was trying to stab you.  If he is directly attacking you and your life is being threatened, you can defend yourself and deadly force MAY be justifiable.
> 
> But again, if he disengages and runs off, he is no longer a direct threat to you.  You do not get to chase him down and kill him.  That is vigilanteism and also revenge, and the law frowns on that behavior.  You can be prosecuted.
> 
> Postcards...



My hostility is coming from a fount of contempt. I was acquitted in 2 cases of using force, and I have heard the punky vigilantism schtick before.
If you get held up, it would be poetic! What would you do, stand there and contemplate?


----------



## Flying Crane

BigMotor said:


> What about you? I did not ask what your relatives do: I asked, what did you know about it? In my lowly eyes you are all mouth, one who has never fought; and never will stain its delicate hands, in a fight. [Why fight when you can dial 911, and run away?]
> 
> You are an onlooker, and that is it, and you will never matter in a fight. Do you drive a large PU, so that you can feel manly?  As for me, I have put up with yapping mutts all of my life, and you are just one more.  If any of this gets me banned or shunned, then I never needed your company to begin with.
> 
> Why are you on this forum? Why? You are a paper tiger.


Have a good life.  Stay out of prison.


----------



## Flying Crane

BigMotor said:


> My hostility is coming from a fount of contempt. I was acquitted in 2 cases of using force, and I have heard the punky vigilantism schtick before.
> If you get held up, it would be poetic! What would you do, stand there and contemplate?


Ditto.  You and I have nothing further to discuss.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigMotor said:


> What about you? I did not ask what your relatives do: I asked, what did you know about it? In my lowly eyes you are all mouth, one who has never fought; and never will stain its delicate hands, in a fight. [Why fight when you can dial 911, and run away?]
> 
> You are an onlooker, and that is it, and you will never matter in a fight. Do you drive a large PU, so that you can feel manly?  As for me, I have put up with yapping mutts all of my life, and you are just one more.  If any of this gets me banned or shunned, then I never needed your company to begin with.
> 
> Why are you on this forum? Why? You are a paper tiger.


Seriously? You feel the need to cop an attitude like this? That makes you feel stronger?

Sigh.


----------



## Steve

If i were attacked I'd tickle the bad guy and give him the gift of laughter.  He would be so grateful, he would give me his money.


----------



## Buka

Someone should have PM'd me.



I hate to miss a good one.....


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> Someone should have PM'd me.
> View attachment 21830
> 
> I hate to miss a good one.....
> View attachment 21831


PM sent.  Sorry I was late.


----------



## Buka

Flying Crane said:


> PM sent.  Sorry I was late.



Damn near peed my pants, I did.

 

Damn near.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> Damn near peed my pants, I did.
> 
> View attachment 21832
> 
> Damn near.


----------



## drop bear

BigMotor said:


> What I meant, in what context? What is your reference? Are you referring to the place where I said that, if you cannot use you style of fighting, in a deadly way, that it is worthless? Well it is worthless, if you cannot use it for a deadly force encounter. What is next, define deadly force for you?
> 
> 
> I would be returning the favor, I carry a knife and an aluminum stick, everywhere I go. And if anyone stabs me anywhere, with an ice pick, I will kill him.
> That is lawful self-defense, in most of America; or it is in Florida, West Virginia and Kentucky.



I have done bat on knife. And kind of thought the same way before hand. That I would chase the guy down and murder him.

But honestly I was more glad it was over rather than some sort of revenge thing. (I did beat a guy to a pulp one who had a knife once but it was probably the wrong move.)

Especially bat on knife because the risk if you reengage is huge.


----------



## _Simon_

Steve said:


> If i were attacked I'd tickle the bad guy and give him the gift of laughter.  He would be so grateful, he would give me his money.


Oh man for sure... especially if your assailant was this guy!


----------



## Nobody Important

pdg said:


> I never asked why...It's the whole "I know it's true, Dave down the pub told me"...


Dude, dont belive anything I say when Ive been drinking, I like to make sh!t up.


----------



## BigMotor

gpseymour said:


> Seriously? You feel the need to cop an attitude like this? That makes you feel stronger?
> 
> Sigh.


I said it, didn't I? And you are not my nanny.


----------



## BigMotor

Flying Crane said:


> Ditto.  You and I have nothing further to discuss.


No, we do not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigMotor said:


> I said it, didn't I? And you are not my nanny.


Nice.


----------



## Steve

BigMotor said:


> I said it, didn't I? And you are not my nanny.


You have a nanny?  I thought you were an adult.   How old are you?


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> You have a nanny?  I thought you were an adult.   How old are you?



The big question was she working in a bridal shop in Flushing Queens.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The big question was she working in a bridal shop in Flushing Queens.


I have to tell you, in spite of having heard your voice in at least one video (maybe more over the years), I always hear your posts in my head read by Dick Van Dyke in his allegedly-cockney accent from Mary Poppins that was clearly a really bad Aussie accent.

Just thought you should know.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I have to tell you, in spite of having heard your voice in at least one video (maybe more over the years), I always hear your posts in my head read by Dick Van Dyke in his allegedly-cockney accent from Mary Poppins that was clearly a really bad Aussie accent.
> 
> Just thought you should know.


What kind of accent do I have when you read my posts?  *please say French, please say French.*


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> What kind of accent do I have when you read my posts?  *please say French, please say French.*


So, I should explain that my mind is highly suggestible. So, your post now has this accent in my head:


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> So, I should explain that my mind is highly suggestible. So, your post now has this accent in my head:


That's ridiculous.  I don't even own a wheelchair.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> That's ridiculous.  I don't even own a wheelchair.


And now you sound like this:


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> And now you sound like this:


Why else would I be speaking in this funny french accent?


----------



## Buka

I knew that was Steve! I knew it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> I knew that was Steve! I knew it.


Whe knee there were castles in the Northwest?


----------

