# Techniques you learn in your MA that are probably not a good idea for Self Defense



## Steve (Nov 10, 2021)

In another thread on Hatred for Butt-Scooting (The hatred of boot scooting), the main objection seems to boil down to some version of, "Yeah, but... in a REAL fight...."

So, that got me thinking about other styles and things I've seen that also fit into the category of, "Yeah, but... in a REAL fight...."  I can think of a few, but I thought it would be fun if you guys thought about your styles and some things you train where if you're honest about it, in real life, they would be a terrible idea.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 10, 2021)

Steve said:


> In another thread on Hatred for Butt-Scooting (The hatred of boot scooting), the main objection seems to boil down to some version of, "Yeah, but... in a REAL fight...."
> 
> So, that got me thinking about other styles and things I've seen that also fit into the category of, "Yeah, but... in a REAL fight...."  I can think of a few, but I thought it would be fun if you guys thought about your styles and some things you train where if you're honest about it, in real life, they would be a terrible idea.


Bone breaking techniques in some styles like Fu Jow and Southern Dragon are pretty brutal, easy to pull off, and intended to cause long term injury.

Give you one example, left handed wrist pull and drop while rising right elbow to the underarm elbow socket.  At best a severe hyper extension, at worst a dislocation or compound fracture.  Meant to permanently maim a fighter rather than kill so that word got out that so-and-so got crippled by you know who.

Effective (and illegal in MMA) but ...just the thought of doing that to someone else anywhere makes me a little queasy.  I'm more of a defensive kung fool.


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Bone breaking techniques in some styles like Fu Jow and Southern Dragon are pretty brutal, easy to pull off, and intended to cause long term injury.
> 
> Give you one example, left handed wrist pull and drop while rising right elbow to the underarm elbow socket.  At best a severe hyper extension, at worst a dislocation or compound fracture.  Meant to permanently maim a fighter rather than kill so that word got out that so-and-so got crippled by you know who.
> 
> Effective (and illegal in MMA) but ...just the thought of doing that to someone else anywhere makes me a little queasy.  I'm more of a defensive kung fool.


Yeah, I always think of the curb stomp, and have said as much in other threads.  If a guy is on the ground and self defense is the goal, why are you killing him by stomping on his head?  Sounds like a terrible idea...


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 10, 2021)

Steve said:


> Yeah, I always think of the curb stomp, and have said as much in other threads.  If a guy is on the ground and self defense is the goal, why are you killing him by stomping on his head?  Sounds like a terrible idea...


Easily the most disturbing scene in American History X, and that's saying something.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 10, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Effective (and illegal in MMA)


Not at all illegal in MMA, just very hard to pull off against a competent resisting opponent.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 10, 2021)

Steve said:


> Yeah, I always think of the curb stomp, and have said as much in other threads.  If a guy is on the ground and self defense is the goal, why are you killing him by stomping on his head?  Sounds like a terrible idea...


There's a technique in shaolin kempo, with multiple extraneous movements (like most SKK techniques but most can be boiled down a bit). This particular one, has you do some stuff, then throw a head-high roundhouse kick, that presumably knocks the guy over. After he's knocked over, you curbstomp his privates. Then jump up to his head area, throw double fingers into his eye twice (different strikes, but comes down to he's getting 4 eyejabs). After you've presumably knocked him out/to the floor, mangled his nuts, and ruined his eyes, you then throw 3 different kicks to his head, with the last one being a soccer kick if I'm remembering the order of them right. Then you run away.

Only thing you're running from is the cops, because if you got through all of that without it being stopped, he's not getting back up, and no jury is going to say that was all needed for self-defense.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 10, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Not at all illegal in MMA, just very hard to pull off against a competent resisting opponent.


It's a 6-12 elbow.  No strike is allowed with it rising or falling.

It's not difficult at all to pull off against a resisting opponent, because it's basically an armbar that uses gravity rather than pressure.  It can be done standing or on the ground, too.

You'd quickly get DQ'd in BJJ competition if you even tried it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 10, 2021)

In Chinese wrestling, when you drag your opponent's arm and he resists, you borrow his resistance force and ...

I don't like this take down. In a street fight, to drop your knee on the hard ground can damage your knee joint in the long run.

My teacher always said, "What kind of person that will drop his knees in front of his enemy?" I assume he was talking about "in a REAL fight".






The same issue also exist in the western wrestling.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 10, 2021)

Steve said:


> In another thread on Hatred for Butt-Scooting (The hatred of boot scooting), the main objection seems to boil down to some version of, "Yeah, but... in a REAL fight...."
> 
> So, that got me thinking about other styles and things I've seen that also fit into the category of, "Yeah, but... in a REAL fight...."  I can think of a few, but I thought it would be fun if you guys thought about your styles and some things you train where if you're honest about it, in real life, they would be a terrible idea.


I don't like the question.  Or maybe I reject it?

Not all "real fights" are defined the same.  Let's say you're a great boxer; Golden Gloves champ.  You're walking down a hypothetical street when a hypothetical Escrimador attacks you with a 27" Bolo.  You are awesome at head-bobbing, know how to "cover," and have the rope-a-dope inside and out.  They're all inappropriate for the "real fight" which you are in *now*.

Part of the problem is not that "real fights don't have rules."  They actually do.  It's just that the rules change based on any number of things from location to culture and you may not know what the rules are. You may be well prepared for "real fights" in your own normal context but unprepared in some other.

What is or is not "a terrible idea ... in real life" is very much context driven.

And that is one of the things about martial arts, particularly <cough> "traditional" martial arts.  People who study "traditional" martial arts often study an art developed in a context ill suited for their specific needs of self defense, but they study them anyway because of their own personal interests.   This has been a noted paradigm for centuries.  Few people expected the Rapier to be used much on "the Battlefield."  And no one expects a modern "trained Marine" to lob a grenade in the process of a "bar fight."

Just because a given technique may not be applicable in some context that is seen by someone as a "real fight," doesn't mean that it is not valuable in the context of some other "real fight."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2021)

Related to some of the comments above, I ran across this video from 1943.  Note that there are some terms used by the narrator that are not generally acceptable by today's standards, but at the time we were at war with Japan and Germany:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 10, 2021)

lklawson said:


> It's just that the rules change based on any number of things from location to culture ...


In Chinese culture, before you start a street fight, you first try to find a brick (巷战神器 - street fight master tool).


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2021)

Along the lines of @Monkey Turned Wolf 's post, this was interesting to me:  






Relevant, I think, that this guy was banned from entering the UK 10 years ago because his training was "not conducive to the public good," for teaching people how to "maim and kill in self-defense."


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 10, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's a 6-12 elbow. No strike is allowed with it rising or falling.


I believe you are misinterpreting the rule. It's the 12-6 path coming straight down with the point of the elbow which is outlawed. I understand your confusion though, because the wording in the rules is a little unclear.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 10, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> After he's knocked over, you curbstomp his privates. Then jump up to his head area, throw double fingers into his eye twice (different strikes, but comes down to he's getting 4 eyejabs). After you've presumably knocked him out/to the floor, mangled his nuts, and ruined his eyes, you then throw 3 different kicks to his head, with the last one being a soccer kick if I'm remembering the order of them right. Then you run away.


I assume you are talking about a joke.

Many years ago, There was a post that said, "You crack open your opponent's skull. Take a handful of his brain, put into your mouse, look around, and smile.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 10, 2021)

Steve said:


> In another thread on Hatred for Butt-Scooting (The hatred of boot scooting), the main objection seems to boil down to some version of, "Yeah, but... in a REAL fight...."
> 
> So, that got me thinking about other styles and things I've seen that also fit into the category of, "Yeah, but... in a REAL fight...."  I can think of a few, but I thought it would be fun if you guys thought about your styles and some things you train where if you're honest about it, in real life, they would be a terrible idea.


A lot of my primary art is incorrectly viewed by some (including some instructors) as directly applicable to self-defense. My experience and my research both suggest that's not the case. There are several Classical techniques I refer to as "esoteric", which are about as directly applilcable as a speed bag. They are drills to develop principles, not actual fighting techniques. I think the fact that they are labeled "techniques", rather than "exercises" is a large part of the issue.

If you can find a video of the NGA  Unbendable Arm classical technique (not the ki technique, which is related) I challenge you to make that seem like a good idea in direct application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 10, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> There's a technique in shaolin kempo, with multiple extraneous movements (like most SKK techniques but most can be boiled down a bit). This particular one, has you do some stuff, then throw a head-high roundhouse kick, that presumably knocks the guy over. After he's knocked over, you curbstomp his privates. Then jump up to his head area, throw double fingers into his eye twice (different strikes, but comes down to he's getting 4 eyejabs). After you've presumably knocked him out/to the floor, mangled his nuts, and ruined his eyes, you then throw 3 different kicks to his head, with the last one being a soccer kick if I'm remembering the order of them right. Then you run away.
> 
> Only thing you're running from is the cops, because if you got through all of that without it being stopped, he's not getting back up, and no jury is going to say that was all needed for self-defense.


What, no re-stomp??


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 10, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I believe you are misinterpreting the rule. It's the 12-6 path coming straight down with the point of the elbow which is outlawed. I understand your confusion though, because the wording in the rules is a little unclear.


Whether it's 6-12 or 12-6, it's got to be illegal to strike through an elbow the wrong way.  That's unsportsmanlike conduct in any combat sport.  It's definitely not one of the kung fu techniques allowed in San Shou.  Instead of locking a limb, you just pull and fulcrum, fast.  Snap.

You don't see people in grappling matches doing it, not because it's difficult (no more than getting an armbar itself), but because it's a super lame thing to pull on someone.  Can you imagine if Gracie competitors starting striking through limbs, the real jujutsu way, rather than simulate it?  Call the cops.  No, the better solution is always to make your enemy plead for mercy, rather than cry in injury.

In the major southern family styles, this technique is called "Monkey Steals Peach".  There's no peach, but you never see the elbow smash coming.  Horrible way to mangle someone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 10, 2021)

Steve said:


> Related to some of the comments above, I ran across this video from 1943.  Note that there are some terms used by the narrator that are not generally acceptable by today's standards, but at the time we were at war with Japan and Germany:


Did they really have to put the Looney Toons concentric circles behind the title?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 10, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> What, no re-stomp??


There's another technique at I think 2nd degree brown which IIRC there is actually a groin restomp. Or a back-groin stomp (the "attacker" is laying down on their back at that point), can't remember which. It was a newer technique that got added a little bit before I left so I don't remember it as well.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 10, 2021)

Not a huge fan for RNC or even mount for holding people down. 

Go for Mabye a minute but if you have to hold that for twenty minutes under some fatty. Or with your knees grinding in to the concrete. You are not going to have a good day of it. 

Kasegetami is king in this case.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 10, 2021)

Eye gouges. I think they are slow to get on and don't do the job all that well. Pushing the nose back is quicker and hurts more.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 10, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Not a huge fan for RNC or even mount for holding people down.


Yeah. Bad idea. If you've got an RNC, don't hold them down. Just put them out.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 10, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Yeah. Bad idea. If you've got an RNC, don't hold them down. Just put them out.



Nah top pressure until their soul dies.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 10, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Nah top pressure until their soul dies.


Sure, that's fine, in some circumstances. My thinking here is based on my own situation. I don't fight with people in the street (I would, if absolutely necessary, but that's long odds). I do end up in way too many physical confrontations in the ER. Frankly, after Chauvin, using the tactics from that video is quite likely to upset some the administrative staff. 
Historically, most of our confrontations wouldn't require an RNC or anything of the sort. Just get hands on them, get them down, and that allows others to get involved. Over the years, there have been a few incidents where there wasn't going to be any help soon enough to matter. And in those cases, the goal is to put them out as quickly as possible. For that, the RNC is an excellent option (though obviously there are others).
For those who have never done this, there's one other issue worth mentioning....
In one case that required putting the patient to sleep, I was able to get them partly onto the bed. Torso on the bed, legs hanging down. Help arrived. Security started grabbing restraints, and another nurse bent down to grab the legs and help me get him on the bed. 
That's when his bladder let loose....
That nurse still tells people that I am responsible for his first Golden Shower.
And the fact that he says "first" creeps me out a little...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 10, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Not a huge fan for RNC or even mount for holding people down.


I had used RNC in the street. It worked very well.

https://i.postimg.cc/d3j0xP6h/my-sweep-choke.gif


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume you are talking about a joke.
> 
> Many years ago, There was a post that said, "You crack open your opponent's skull. Take a handful of his brain, put into your mouse, look around, and smile.


I wish I was talking about a joke. That is an actual technique we learned. At purple belt (fourth belt out of 12 total).


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 11, 2021)

My general answer to the basic question is: * Any technique that requires more than three separate motions to execute.  *A fundamental truth is that in a real confrontation, your beautiful dojo form will be halved.  Each motion has the capacity to not be perfect.  This, in turn, makes the next motion more difficult. Also, the capacity for the opponent to counter, slip out of, or stumble unpredictably exists at each step.  Complex tactics may work in chess, but combat has to be simple and fairly direct.  A double feint may work in a tournament, but not so smart in the street.  I'll take ferocity, speed, power and simple checks over fancy technique any time.*

*


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 11, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> My general answer to the basic question is: * Any technique that requires more than three separate motions to execute.
> *


Agree with you 100% there. I have always believed that 1 is better than 1,2 and 1,2 is better than 1,2,3.

For example, you step in your back leg and then kick your front leg can be a 2 steps process. But if you make it into a jump kick (kick front foot before you land back foot), it can be 1 step process. In MA training, we all try to reduce 1,2 to 1 and 1,2,3 to 1,2.

This is also why it's important to coordinate your foot with your hand. If you coordinate your foot and hand, 2 steps process can be combined into 1 step process.


----------



## geezer (Nov 11, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Whether it's 6-12 or 12-6, it's got to be illegal to strike through an elbow the wrong way.  That's unsportsmanlike conduct in any combat sport.  It's definitely not one of the kung fu techniques allowed in San Shou.  Instead of locking a limb, you just pull and fulcrum, fast.  Snap.


Illegal? Dunno. I'm not a close follower of MMA and am not really up on the rules, but is hitting _the elbow _to hyper-extend it any more horrible than doing the same thing to a _knee_? You know, thrust-kicking the knee to hyper-extend it ...or at least hurting it, Jon Jones style, like this:






Note: As the video shows, Jones doesn't necessarily have to hyper-extend his opponent's knee, but repeated hits will bruise the heck out of his opponent's leg. Similarly a hard hit against an opponent's elbow wouldn't have to break it to hurt it enough to serious reduce their ability to use their arm against you. That's how we train it in our Escrima, anyway.

So getting back to the topic of this thread, Maybe it's risky for competition. But, I'd say it's _not at all_ over the top for self-defense.


----------



## geezer (Nov 11, 2021)

BTW that front kick to the knee is really basic to Wing Chun sparring. Especially dealing with a boxer. In our group we use it almost like a boxer uses a jab. It's quick, sneaky and hard to see ("shadowless"), it controls distance, robs power from their punches (if they weight their front leg), and can make them drop their guard creating openings. All good things IMO.

And it can be trained safely with light, controlled contact, targeting the thigh, above the knee.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 11, 2021)

geezer said:


> Maybe it's risky for competition. But, I'd say it's _not at all_ over the top for self-defense.


There are many moves in Chinese wrestling that you don't use in "friendly sport", but only use in "unfriendly challenge". The outer leg twisting is a good example. You twist your opponent's knee joint side way to hurt his knee. If you use it in the

- friendly sport, it may end with a fist fight.
- unfriendly challenge, you can always say it's just an accident.

In my teacher's last tournament, he had a tie with Zhou Shi-Bin during his championship fight. Zhou got famous over night. Next day, my teacher's young brother challenged Zhou and hurt him badly during the challenge. It proves how dirty the MA society was. A challenge sometime means just to hurt your opponent badly.

Today we talk about sport and self-defense. We don't talk much about "unfriendly challenge".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Meant to permanently maim a fighter


This probably needs to be classified or redefined in Martial Arts as a whole.  There's very little that is found in Martial Arts that can "Permanently maim a fighter"  or in this case an "attacker" since the OP is stating this in the context of self-defense.

Permanently injuring people will vary based on the type of medical services a person has access to.  I don't have any doubt that it was accurate 100+ years ago, but these days modern medicine can pretty much patch a person up so that even the term "permanently injured" may be as small less flexibility or as severe as full loss of use.  

In terms of modern medicine permanently injured probably should be defined as things that medicine of the day cannot fix.  A lot of the injuries that we have seen in professional sports would be "game enders" a hundred years or more.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Steve said:


> If a guy is on the ground and self defense is the goal, why are you killing him by stomping on his head?


Because a guy can still be dangerous on the ground.  The question isn't that he's on the ground but what state is he in when he's on the ground.  Just because a person is on the ground doesn't mean that they are of no danger to you.   A person that's on the ground that is unable to continue to attack you is something different.  We can look at how police officers take care when putting people on the ground.  They still treat that person as a threat with guns drawn. 

Not nick picking, just not willing to make it a general statement as I know you are talking about someone who can no longer attack back.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In Chinese culture, before you start a street fight, you first try to find a brick (巷战神器 - street fight master tool).
> 
> View attachment 27559
> View attachment 27560


I always like your brick comments because my grandfather's saying is just that.  He saying is "if you fight someone who is bigger than you, find a brick, smash them in the face, and run." 

I can only assume there were a lot of bricks laying around at one time.  Or it could just mean, you find something that gives you an advantage and use it.  Which is how I think of his saying today.

The Run part of the saying is actually plan B.  If you throw a brick at your attacker and miss, then you have done 2 things.
 1. Made your attacker very mad for trying to hit him with a brick
 2. Given your attacker a brick to attack you with.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2021)

Steve said:


> Yeah, I always think of the curb stomp, and have said as much in other threads.  If a guy is on the ground and self defense is the goal, why are you killing him by stomping on his head?  Sounds like a terrible idea...


The goal of self defense is to end the threat. If the other person is on the ground, this may or may not mean the threat has ended. If it hasn't, curb stomping their head may well be a good choice.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I always like your brick comments because my grandfather's saying is just that.  He saying is "if you fight someone who is bigger than you, find a brick, smash them in the face, and run."


An instructor way back when told me "Hit the soft parts with your hand. Hit the hard parts with an implement". 
Pretty good advise, generally speaking.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> Did they really have to put the Looney Toons concentric circles behind the title?


ha ha ha. conspiracy times.  World Wars were actually the doing of Looney Toons .


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

geezer said:


> BTW that front kick to the knee is really basic to Wing Chun sparring. Especially dealing with a boxer. In our group we use it almost like a boxer uses a jab. It's quick, sneaky and hard to see ("shadowless"), it controls distance, robs power from their punches (if they weight their front leg), and can make them drop their guard creating openings. All good things IMO.
> 
> And it can be trained safely with light, controlled contact, targeting the thigh, above the knee.


I used to train it by redirecting the kick to the shins instead of the knee.  No one else in the school was good enough with it to have the necessary control to target the top of the thighs.  It's probably the most under utilized kick regardless of what it's targeting.  One of my favorite kicks


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 11, 2021)

geezer said:


> Illegal? Dunno. I'm not a close follower of MMA and am not really up on the rules, but is hitting _the elbow _to hyper-extend it any more horrible than doing the same thing to a _knee_? You know, thrust-kicking the knee to hyper-extend it ...or at least hurting it, Jon Jones style, like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The legs can take a lot more than the elbow.

And why do MMA fighters tap out to lose when arm locked, rather than scream in horrible pain?

It's because even though it's entirely possible to snap limbs in multiple ways, especially with jujutsu-based arts, professionally they don't allow it for at least a couple reasons. They don't want to lose fighters, it's unsportsmanlike and unnecessary.  The same goes for all the other banned techniques.

So an armbar is as far as it goes.  Gone are the days of just popping that socket out.  If you're suggesting it might save your life outside of sport, I also agree.  I would just never want to have to do it to someone.  

I've practice this technique with resistance, it's not funny at all.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 11, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> This probably needs to be classified or redefined in Martial Arts as a whole.  There's very little that is found in Martial Arts that can "Permanently maim a fighter"  or in this case an "attacker" since the OP is stating this in the context of self-defense.
> 
> Permanently injuring people will vary based on the type of medical services a person has access to.  I don't have any doubt that it was accurate 100+ years ago, but these days modern medicine can pretty much patch a person up so that even the term "permanently injured" may be as small less flexibility or as severe as full loss of use.
> 
> In terms of modern medicine permanently injured probably should be defined as things that medicine of the day cannot fix.  A lot of the injuries that we have seen in professional sports would be "game enders" a hundred years or more.


Bone splinting is part of the Southern Shaolin tradition, including Jow Ga.

When you find the kung fu styles with the EMT training built in, you've found the good stuff.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 11, 2021)

geezer said:


> Illegal? Dunno. I'm not a close follower of MMA and am not really up on the rules, but is hitting _the elbow _to hyper-extend it any more horrible than doing the same thing to a _knee_? You know, thrust-kicking the knee to hyper-extend it ...or at least hurting it, Jon Jones style, like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The elbow was done famously once. And the strong overhook elbow crank is done a bit.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Bone splinting is part of the Southern Shaolin tradition, including Jow Ga.
> 
> When you find the kung fu styles with the EMT training built in, you've found the good stuff.


I was thinking more along the lines to torn tendons and ligaments in which they wouldn't have the ability to medically heal those injuries.  There different types of bone breaks and not everyone had the same access to quality medical attention.

Bone setting is one thing Bone alignment for the setting of the bone is another. This photo would be the norm expected result.  Maybe not as deformed but misaligned, definitely.  A limp after one has broken their leg would be normal.  This would be proof of Malpractice with today's modern medicine but back then it would be accepted.  I'm sure there were people who were better at it then, but we would only be talking about a handful.






Compound fractures bring a different set of risks and challenges that probably would have resulted in death from infection or amputation.  In ancient Egypt a compound fracture was looked at as hopeless. Traditionally Chinese Cultures look at surgery as a last choice.  Which is why much of Chinese Medicine that is championed involves non surgery medicine.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Compound fractures bring a different set of risks and challenges that probably would have resulted in death from infection or amputation.  In ancient Egypt a compound fracture was looked at as hopeless. Traditionally Chinese Cultures look at surgery as a last choice.  Which is why much of Chinese Medicine that is championed involves non surgery medicine.


I think you mean open fractures.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 11, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think you mean open fractures.


While I agree, there are some poorly worded (non-professional) sources that define “compound fracture” as one that where the bone breaks the skin. Don’t know how that ever got into any text.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

I've been thinking about this, and for me it's going to be the tornado kick.  That's definitely not something I'll be pulling off an any kind of shape or form in a fight.  There are 2 other moves but I don't know the formal names to them.  One is like me holding onto your arms only by using my forearms.  I can't see that working at all.  Because of that I'm thinking the application that is taught isn't accurate.  I'm not saying that the technique doesn't work, but I really have my doubts that it's used as it was taught to me.  Maybe one day I'll understand it or get the correct application for it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think you mean open fractures.


Compound Fractures are the same as open fractures.  It's where the bone punctures the skin.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 11, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> the tornado kick.  That's definitely not something I'll be pulling off an any kind of shape or form in a fight.


I believe the tornado kick (or jump double crescent kicks) is designed to counter a floor sweep. You use the jump to escape the floor sweep. You then use the jump kick to kick your opponent's head.

If nobody uses floor sweep on you, you may never have chance to use your tornado kick.

https://i.postimg.cc/LshDsr3c/tornado-kick.gif


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> While I agree, there are some poorly worded (non-professional) sources that define “compound fracture” as one that where the bone breaks the skin. Don’t know how that ever got into any text.


Compound fracture is defined in the medical field as well and as been there as far back as 1971.  The term is used by John Hopkins
source: Fractures


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe the tornado kick (or jump double crescent kicks) is designed to counter a floor sweep. You use the jump to escape the floor sweep. You then use the jump kick to kick your opponent's head.
> 
> If nobody uses floor sweep on you, you may never have chance to use your tornado kick.
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/LshDsr3c/tornado-kick.gif


Tornado kick for me is the kick at the beginning and the kick at the end of the form





I used the modified version (the kick at the end of the form.) in my form due to me being overweight and I would like my knees to last lol.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Compound Fractures are the same as open fractures.  It's where the bone punctures the skin.


Oh my god! 40+ years in Emergency Medicine and I didn't know that!

Your definition is incorrect. The term is frequently misused. A compound fracture is a fracture with enough deformation that you can see it through the skin. 
There are lots of misused medical terms, even by people who should know better. I hear patches all the time with EMS people saying the person is coming in for "flu-like symptoms" when they mean nausea/vomiting/diarrhea. That's not flu-like. The flu is a respiratory infection. "Stomach flu" doesn't exist.
 I no longer bat an eye when people ask me "is it fractured or broken?"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 11, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Tornado kick for me is the kick at the beginning and the kick at the end of the form


We are talking about the same kick. IMO, the tornado kick and jumping crescent kick are similar. One turns 360 degree. The other only turn 90 degree.

https://i.postimg.cc/BbYSgLR7/my-crescent-kick.gif


----------



## Steve (Nov 11, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Because a guy can still be dangerous on the ground.  The question isn't that he's on the ground but what state is he in when he's on the ground.  Just because a person is on the ground doesn't mean that they are of no danger to you.   A person that's on the ground that is unable to continue to attack you is something different.  We can look at how police officers take care when putting people on the ground.  They still treat that person as a threat with guns drawn.
> 
> Not nick picking, just not willing to make it a general statement as I know you are talking about someone who can no longer attack back.


Wait a minute.  Have you seen the butt scoot thread?  You guys play both side of the same argument.


----------



## Steve (Nov 11, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> The goal of self defense is to end the threat. If the other person is on the ground, this may or may not mean the threat has ended. If it hasn't, curb stomping their head may well be a good choice.


Yeah, okay.  I guess it’s up to the jury to decide that one.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Oh my god! 40+ years in Emergency Medicine and I didn't know that!
> 
> Your definition is incorrect. The term is frequently misused. A compound fracture is a fracture with enough deformation that you can see it through the skin.
> There are lots of misused medical terms, even by people who should know better. I hear patches all the time with EMS people saying the person is coming in for "flu-like symptoms" when they mean nausea/vomiting/diarrhea. That's not flu-like. The flu is a respiratory infection. "Stomach flu" doesn't exist.
> I no longer bat an eye when people ask me "is it fractured or broken?"


I'm not questioning your expertise. Although 40+ years of experience doesn't mean that "All is known."   I'm just telling you what is out there and the history of the word and how it was taught to me.

According to Webster's dictionary the term Compound Fracture has been used since the 1500's and the other term, Open Fracture has been used since the 1800's.   It's also used in medical articles and by medical professions.

According to your definition.
"A compound fracture is a fracture with enough deformation that you can see it through the skin."

Does a bone sticking out of your leg not satisfy "enough deformation that you can see it through the skin."?

If you want to argue the correctness of the term then you should go to the medical schools and the doctors writing medical articles and tell them that they are incorrect about what they are posting and writing online is incorrect and that they should stop associating the two.  I have also found no evidence with the exception of you, GPseymour, and this guy





Everything else shows that the two terms are referring to the same thing.

As for the Flu Symptoms.  This is what the CDC says about it.
Source: Flu Symptoms & Complications

Flu Symptoms​Influenza (flu) can cause mild to severe illness, and at times can lead to death. Flu is different from a cold. Flu usually comes on suddenly. People who have flu often feel some or all of these symptoms:

fever* or feeling feverish/chills
cough
sore throat
runny or stuffy nose
muscle or body aches
headaches
fatigue (tiredness)
some people may have vomiting and diarrhea, though this is more common in children than adults.
Notice that the last one says that some people may have vomiting and diarrhea, though this is more common in children than adults.

Just saying that's what's out there.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Steve said:


> Wait a minute.  Have you seen the butt scoot thread?  You guys play both side of the same argument.


I'm pretty sure this is going to be one of these: "2 things can be true" or "context is everything moment"

Which 2 sides of the argument are you referring to?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 11, 2021)

Steve said:


> Yeah, okay.  I guess it’s up to the jury to decide that one.


Just for future reference.  When I hear Curb Stomping, I'm thinking of stomping on someone's head. I'm not thinking of the act of positioning someone's head on the curb to stomp them.

When I'm thinking someone as being dangerous on the ground, I'm not thinking of butt scoot.  I'm thinking of someone who has a good chance of physically hurting me getting back up and beating the crap out of me, be it with a concealed weapon or not.  If I feel the need to stomp someone's head in order to protect myself, then I will.  In terms of self-defense, I'm always surprised that many people will take the option to shoot someone multiple times but not stomp on their head? 

I think the ease and impersonal act of shooting someone gives the impression that it's less violent or less brutal than "stepping on someone's head." There's sort of a disconnect of what violence is and that disconnect tends to create messed up ideas of what is "Acceptable Violence" and what isn't. Shoot a home intruder 5 times you are hero.  Stomp on an home intruder's head after tripping him, you are a villain.

Maybe Hollywood is to blame.  How many movies do we see where the Hero shoots ups all of the bad guys and we think that's awesome.  How many times do we see heroes stomping on someone's head?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 12, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Just for future reference.  When I hear Curb Stomping, I'm thinking of stomping on someone's head. I'm not thinking of the act of positioning someone's head on the curb to stomp them.
> 
> When I'm thinking someone as being dangerous on the ground, I'm not thinking of butt scoot.  I'm thinking of someone who has a good chance of physically hurting me getting back up and beating the crap out of me, be it with a concealed weapon or not.  If I feel the need to stomp someone's head in order to protect myself, then I will.  In terms of self-defense, I'm always surprised that many people will take the option to shoot someone multiple times but not stomp on their head?
> 
> ...



Intent.
Ability.
And delivery system. 
(I think it has been a while) 

So they intend to kill you.

They are actually physically able to carry out that task.

And they can get to you to perform the job.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 12, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's a 6-12 elbow.  No strike is allowed with it rising or falling.
> 
> It's not difficult at all to pull off against a resisting opponent, because it's basically an armbar that uses gravity rather than pressure.  It can be done standing or on the ground, too.
> 
> You'd quickly get DQ'd in BJJ competition if you even tried it.








						Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts | UFC
					






					www.ufc.com
				




According to the unified rules, it would not be illegal to perform.  The elbow "banned" is the descending elbow strike (12 to 6).  It was allowed in earlier competitions and then a politician saw a demonstration of an ice break with the descending elbow and thought it was way to dangerous to allow, so it was banned back in the day to get MMA passed as legal (paraphrase).


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 12, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Just for future reference.  When I hear Curb Stomping, I'm thinking of stomping on someone's head. I'm not thinking of the act of positioning someone's head on the curb to stomp them.
> 
> When I'm thinking someone as being dangerous on the ground, I'm not thinking of butt scoot.  I'm thinking of someone who has a good chance of physically hurting me getting back up and beating the crap out of me, be it with a concealed weapon or not.  If I feel the need to stomp someone's head in order to protect myself, then I will.  In terms of self-defense, I'm always surprised that many people will take the option to shoot someone multiple times but not stomp on their head?
> 
> ...



Back when I started, "curb stomping" had a very specific meaning and that was putting someone's head on a "curb like" surface and busting out their teeth with a stomp.  I say "curb like" because, back in the day the foot rails on bars were also used.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm pretty sure this is going to be one of these: "2 things can be true" or "context is everything moment"
> 
> Which 2 sides of the argument are you referring to?


Go read the thread and pay attention to the "in a real fight" comments.


----------



## Petey Nunchakus (Nov 12, 2021)

Ive never taken Aikido, but I wouldn't be too confident in having to defend myself, if that's what I knew... That make sense?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 12, 2021)

Petey Nunchakus said:


> Ive never taken Aikido, but I wouldn't be too confident in having to defend myself, if that's what I knew... That make sense?


The OP question was about techniques in an art you’ve studied.


----------



## MadMartigan (Nov 12, 2021)

We have a Spear Finger thrust to the solar plexus.  The spear finger in general I find problematic...  tiny mistake and you break your own fingers. 
So why do I still teach it? For the movement principles it teaches.

The way we practice the movement is in kata or linework. The support hand performs a downward palm block (moving a guard hand out of the way ) then strike over top through the cleared path. 
While I may not attempt the exact movement in a dynamic situation... the timing and coordination that it practices translate very well to punches to the abdomen... and even to versions of the 'superman' punch.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 12, 2021)

MadMartigan said:


> We have a Spear Finger thrust to the solar plexus.  The spear finger in general I find problematic...  tiny mistake and you break your own fingers.
> So why do I still teach it? For the movement principles it teaches.
> 
> The way we practice the movement is in kata or linework. The support hand performs a downward palm block (moving a guard hand out of the way ) then strike over top through the cleared path.
> While I may not attempt the exact movement in a dynamic situation... the timing and coordination that it practices translate very well to punches to the abdomen... and even to versions of the 'superman' punch.


Nukite?  I hate nukite.  It's one of my first candidates for "technique I would never use."  But there are a few times, places, and people for which it could be applicable.  ...just not me, under almost any circumstance I can think of relevant to me.  

That said a buddy of mine, just messing around, pecked me in the solar plex with a "duck bill" version that left me gasping for air.  He was just sitting beside me and decided to thwack one in just to mess with me.  Hit exactly perfect.  No, it wasn't the traditional "spear hand" nukite; more like a chicken beak than a spear hand.  But I was left convinced of the effectiveness of strikes to the solar plexus.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Blindside (Nov 12, 2021)

> Techniques you learn in your MA that are probably not a good idea for Self Defense​



Ah, the kali defense against take downs.... *stands there with drawn knife* "go ahead, take me down."

Though admittedly it is also one of the early things I teach in the women's self-defense class.   So maybe under the right circumstances.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2021)

Steve said:


> Yeah, okay.  I guess it’s up to the jury to decide that one.


That's always the case, regardless of the curb stomp status.


JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not questioning your expertise. Although 40+ years of experience doesn't mean that "All is known."   I'm just telling you what is out there and the history of the word and how it was taught to me.


I'm well aware of how often words are misused. In cases like this, it leads to a degradation of precision in the language. And that's a bad thing.


JowGaWolf said:


> According to your definition.
> "A compound fracture is a fracture with enough deformation that you can see it through the skin."
> 
> Does a bone sticking out of your leg not satisfy "enough deformation that you can see it through the skin."?


Sure. All open fractures are compound fractures. But not all compound fractures are open. The more precise term should be used.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's always the case, regardless of the curb stomp status.



Not necessarily.  Many... I think we can safely say most... self defense cases aren't prosecuted at all, because the response was reasonable and proportional.

When you kill or seriously injure someone who is on the ground by stomping on their head... I mean, let's be real.  it's at least debatable in the best of circumstances.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 12, 2021)

Blindside said:


> Ah, the kali defense against take downs.... *stands there with drawn knife* "go ahead, take me down."
> 
> Though admittedly it is also one of the early things I teach in the women's self-defense class.   So maybe under the right circumstances.


Honestly, not a bad thing to do. Let them know you're armed and a lot of people won't want to try bum rushing you anymore.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 12, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Nukite?  I hate nukite.  It's one of my first candidates for "technique I would never use."  But there are a few times, places, and people for which it could be applicable.  ...just not me, under almost any circumstance I can think of relevant to me.
> 
> That said a buddy of mine, just messing around, pecked me in the solar plex with a "duck bill" version that left me gasping for air.  He was just sitting beside me and decided to thwack one in just to mess with me.  Hit exactly perfect.  No, it wasn't the traditional "spear hand" nukite; more like a chicken beak than a spear hand.  But I was left convinced of the effectiveness of strikes to the solar plexus.
> 
> ...


Agreed, nukite of all varieties are not practical most of the time - they are good only to the throat and eyes for us common people.  This was not always true. Open hand techniques were much more common in karate's early days.  It facilitated _tuite_ (grabbing techniques) and back then, were deadly striking weapons.

First, the old karateka conditioned their hands and fingers to a degree we'd call extreme.  Few karate experts back then could play the violin or piano, or become surgeons - their hands lost dexterity, their fingers lost the nails.  But I would hate having their nukite thrust into my liver or bladder.  But few today would choose a path of turning their hands from useful delicate tools into true bone-fused calloussed weapons.

The other factor, as you pointed out, is their application to pressure points.  This was also more common in the early history of karate and kung fu.  This art almost disappeared from karate (It was once part of the secret teachings and held back to the public school students as well as most others.)  Without these, often hard to reach points, nukite lost some of its usefulness.  I also have experienced the "chicken beak" or "crane bill" to various pressure points and am convinced of their painfulness/effectiveness as well.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2021)

Steve said:


> Not necessarily.  Many... I think we can safely say most... self defense cases aren't prosecuted at all, because the response was reasonable and proportional.


And even if you're prosecuted it won't necessarily go to a jury trial. But in any case, the action is subject to investigation and judgement by others. So... it's up to the jury to decide. 


Steve said:


> When you kill or seriously injure someone who is on the ground by stomping on their head... I mean, let's be real.  it's at least debatable in the best of circumstances.


Every action taken in self-defense is debatable, even in the best of circumstances. 
I am reminded of a video I saw a few years ago. The video showed an armed man in an active shooter situation being confronted by police. The video showed him dropping his gun and then the police shot him.
That all sounds horrible. And in that video, it sure looked horrible. Until you ALSO see the footage from the body cam of the officer BEHIND him. Because he dropped his weapon (which was empty) and then reached for the gun he was carrying in the small of his back. At which point "GUN" was shouted and the fellow was shot. 
So depending on your viewing angle, this was either a cold blooded murder or completely justifiable self-defense.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> And even if you're prosecuted it won't necessarily go to a jury trial. But in any case, the action is subject to investigation and judgement by others. So... it's up to the jury to decide.
> 
> Every action taken in self-defense is debatable, even in the best of circumstances.
> I am reminded of a video I saw a few years ago. The video showed an armed man in an active shooter situation being confronted by police. The video showed him dropping his gun and then the police shot him.
> ...


Okay. So you’re on one of those moods where Jury means whatever you want and cops shooting active shooters is self defense.  Cool.  I hope you have a good evening.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 12, 2021)

Steve said:


> Okay. So you’re on one of those moods where Jury means whatever you want and cops shooting active shooters is self defense.  Cool.  I hope you have a good evening.


It could be self defense or could be an unsavory part of the job. 
You are defending active shooters now?
Wow. Just, wow.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2021)

Steve said:


> Okay. So you’re on one of those moods where Jury means whatever you want and cops shooting active shooters is self defense.  Cool.  I hope you have a good evening.


So you're in one of those moods where what you read has nothing to do with what was written. Cool. I hope you have a good evening.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> You are defending active shooters now?
> Wow. Just, wow.


Really?  This isn’t okay.  You need to stop now.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> So you're in one of those moods where what you read has nothing to do with what was written. Cool. I hope you have a good evening.


Did you not equate jury trial with literally any judgment by pretty much anyone?  Did you not turn a discussion about martial arts into a discussion about cops?  By all means, carry on if that’s what you’re determined to do, but don’t drag me into it.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 13, 2021)

Steve said:


> Really?  This isn’t okay.  You need to stop now.


Then you need to do a much better job of clarifying your point. What you said sounds like you are defending the active shooter. This, combined with your previous loathsome posts about LEO and it is rather easy that people wonder.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 13, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Not a huge fan for RNC or even mount for holding people down.
> 
> Go for Mabye a minute but if you have to hold that for twenty minutes under some fatty. Or with your knees grinding in to the concrete. You are not going to have a good day of it.
> 
> Kasegetami is king in this case.



Personally, I'd use knee on belly over mount in a SD situation.

And yeah, Kesa Gatame is preferable over mount and side control in many cases as well. I would argue that KG gives you a bit more control, and the submissions are a bit smoother to accomplish.

Mount is pretty good for dropping bows on people's heads though.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 13, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Because a guy can still be dangerous on the ground.  The question isn't that he's on the ground but what state is he in when he's on the ground.  Just because a person is on the ground doesn't mean that they are of no danger to you.   A person that's on the ground that is unable to continue to attack you is something different.  We can look at how police officers take care when putting people on the ground.  They still treat that person as a threat with guns drawn.
> 
> Not nick picking, just not willing to make it a general statement as I know you are talking about someone who can no longer attack back.





Steve said:


> Wait a minute.  Have you seen the butt scoot thread?  You guys play both side of the same argument.


Speaking as someone who (in that other thread) didn't think butt scooting was a good idea in a self-defense situation, not really. What JowGaWolf and DD are talking about regarding the potential threat from someone who has been put on the ground isn't that they will butt scoot towards you, get a leg entanglement, and heel hook you. Not only is that highly unlikely in a self-defense scenario, but it would be easy to counter by just walking away. They're talking about the risk of the person getting back up and continuing to attack from their feet. Whether that's a legitimate concern depends on the situation and so the question of whether you would be legally or morally justified in stomping on the opponent's head once they are down also depends on the specifics of the situation.

Also in the other thread, no one was denying that a skilled person could fight effectively from the ground against a standing opponent. (Although I would argue that would be less than the optimal choice in a real fight.)  There were some (like myself) who were concerned with BJJ practitioners who only trained for competition neglecting the development of their standup and takedown skills. There were others with different opinions of what should constitute stalling under the sport rules. But I don't see anyone who is arguing opposite sides of the same argument.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 13, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Because a guy can still be dangerous on the ground.  The question isn't that he's on the ground but what state is he in when he's on the ground.  Just because a person is on the ground doesn't mean that they are of no danger to you.   A person that's on the ground that is unable to continue to attack you is something different.  We can look at how police officers take care when putting people on the ground.  They still treat that person as a threat with guns drawn.
> 
> Not nick picking, just not willing to make it a general statement as I know you are talking about someone who can no longer attack back.





Dirty Dog said:


> The goal of self defense is to end the threat. If the other person is on the ground, this may or may not mean the threat has ended. If it hasn't, curb stomping their head may well be a good choice.



Wouldn't choking someone out or even a joint break be preferable to a curb stomp?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 13, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't choking someone out or even a joint break be preferable to a curb stomp?


Sometimes. Given that there are uncountable different scenarios, pretty much anything is sometimes. And pretty much nothing is never.
For example, you're choking them out, and their buddy stabs you. Maybe you should have curb stomped the first one.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 13, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as someone who (in that other thread) didn't think butt scooting was a good idea in a self-defense situation, not really. What JowGaWolf and DD are talking about regarding the potential threat from someone who has been put on the ground isn't that they will butt scoot towards you, get a leg entanglement, and heel hook you. Not only is that highly unlikely in a self-defense scenario, but it would be easy to counter by just walking away. They're talking about the risk of the person getting back up and continuing to attack from their feet. Whether that's a legitimate concern depends on the situation and so the question of whether you would be legally or morally justified in stomping on the opponent's head once they are down also depends on the specifics of the situation.
> 
> Also in the other thread, no one was denying that a skilled person could fight effectively from the ground against a standing opponent. (Although I would argue that would be less than the optimal choice in a real fight.)  There were some (like myself) who were concerned with BJJ practitioners who only trained for competition neglecting the development of their standup and takedown skills. There were others with different opinions of what should constitute stalling under the sport rules. But I don't see anyone who is arguing opposite sides of the same argument.


Correct
We can look at MMA.  Why do they "Ground and Pound"?  Why do they attack when a person falls to the mat? They do it even when the other fighter is stumbling unable to defend themselves.?  Why do we say things like "put em away" when the opponent is least able to defend themselves?   

Keyword "Least able" which is more often occurs within short spans of time.  Example, being on the ground may only last 2 seconds or less, but once the person is standing back up, the full risk has returned.


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 13, 2021)

This ... Kokyu Nage


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 13, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sometimes. Given that there are uncountable different scenarios, pretty much anything is sometimes. And pretty much nothing is never.
> For example, you're choking them out, and their buddy stabs you. Maybe you should have curb stomped the first one.


I laugh because in real life.  I teach.  If you are being attacked by 2 or more people and you can't escape, then you have make the first one you can get a hold of striking or grappling and make that person suffer the worst.  Make that person scream as if they are dying so you can strike fear in the hearts and minds of their friends.   The reason why is because you have a better chance of making it out of that fight if they fear you.  If it helps, then throw some demon voice overs lol make some animal sounds. Go nuts. lol.  But make that first person a demo of what the others can expect.  

The other benefit is that if you hurt the first guy bad enough you can say things like "You might want to take your friend to the hospital, if that internal bleeding / bleeding doesn't stop, he'll die"  No you have put them in a situation where there is even more uncertainty.

In a multiple fight scenario, the first person is usually the one with more heart or stupidity who is willing to take that risk.  The others are just waiting for the opportunity to jump in.  Fighting back like this doesn't mean that you will win the fight, but the more doubt and uncertainty of victory that attackers have the better chances you have of making it out of a bad situation.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 13, 2021)

Here's something to think of in terms of being on the ground.

Law enforcement command people to go to the ground because it puts that person at a disadvantage.


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 13, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's something to think of in terms of being on the ground.
> 
> Law enforcement commands people to go to the ground because it puts that person at a disadvantage.


The police are normally mob handed if they do this. It´s like in a jail, if you will control a violent prisoner (who might be on drugs) they go mob handed. Pretty sensible ..TBH. 
A street fight is like this, you react or run. I was in a couple of situations where i just punched the nearest guy and i got out OK. Not saying it will always work but honestly if you are aggressive then you have more chance. most in a pack are just **** bags.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Personally, I'd use knee on belly over mount in a SD situation.
> 
> And yeah, Kesa Gatame is preferable over mount and side control in many cases as well. I would argue that KG gives you a bit more control, and the submissions are a bit smoother to accomplish.
> 
> Mount is pretty good for dropping bows on people's heads though.



You just get cut up on the gravel doing it. It's fine if you have a few days to recover.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 13, 2021)

@Steve I'm confused about what you're suggesting in this thread. In a couple ways.

1. You seem to be suggesting that the "butt scooting thread" is something viable in self-defense, where people are arguing that it isn't. There are two issues with this:
     1. From what I recall, Jowga isn't one of the one's complaining about that thread. So you can't put the complaints of the rest of us on                  him, if he didn't make the complain.
     2. He's referring to a guy that's on the ground. Theoretically, this is a guy on the ground preventing you from escaping (ie: you get cornered in an alley and the guy goes on the ground). This requires you to get past that guy in order to escape safely.

2. You seem to be under the impression that police can't act in self-defense. I get this idea, since they have their guns drawn, when engaging in an active shooter scenario. But it doesn't mean that they're not in a self-defense scenario.
    They're overly analyzed for what's appropriate/inapproriate, so even if they have their guns drawn they generally can't shoot unless there's no doubt whatsoever about the intent of the person they're shooting at. That gives a distinct advantage to the other person. And if they're concerned for their life, and shoot, it's just as much self-defense as any other person, even if they put themselves in harms way (presumably for the safety of other individuals).


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 13, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sometimes. Given that there are uncountable different scenarios, pretty much anything is sometimes. And pretty much nothing is never.
> For example, you're choking them out, and their buddy stabs you. Maybe you should have curb stomped the first one.



Couldn’t you still get stabbed by bad guy #2 while in the process of, or directly following curb stomping bad guy #1? I’m not seeing how curb stomping one guy stops a completely different person from stabbing you.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Couldn’t you still get stabbed by bad guy #2 while in the process of, or directly following curb stomping bad guy #1? I’m not seeing how curb stomping one guy stops a completely different person from stabbing you.



If you look at sucker punches on the street. Being standing doesn't exactly negate that third person intervention. 

Moving does and standing makes moving easier. 

But the standing vs ground isn't the distinction people think it is. 

As far as butt scooting goes. You have to be better at guard than the guy passing. And striking and slamming makes the guard pass game a lot easier. 

Where if you are in a top position. You don't really have to be that much better to stay there. And your striking game can be garbage and you will still probably dominate that from that position.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 13, 2021)

drop bear said:


> If you look at sucker punches on the street. Being standing doesn't exactly negate that third person intervention.
> 
> Moving does and standing makes moving easier.
> 
> ...



I agree with all of this. Just gets tiring playing the self defense version of Dungeons and Dragons over and over again.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> I agree with all of this. Just gets tiring playing the self defense version of Dungeons and Dragons over and over again.



That is how self defence discussions go. It is a weird thing people do.

You will even find normally sensible people suddenly go all fantasy role play when talking about the street.

Bjj in general is a lot of doing things wrong for self defense. Jumping of mount for arm bars. Regarding when you should be sitting out. That kind of stuff.

But they do it well enough that they get away with it generally.

Which then makes it the right thing by default.

I mean I do sacrifice throws on the street. But I get away with it because I learned it early in my life and my timing is really good. But I don't recommend them.

There is a kind of madness that attaches itself to self defence


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2021)

Which leads me to hip throws. I wouldn't do them as a self defense technique. If I was some sort of trained hip throw monster then yes. But a lot of systems try to teach them as short course self defence. Which I think is incredibly risky.

Worse than head kicks. Because at worst you are going to fall over and can get up or fight from guard. 

You are not basically giving away a free strangle hold.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 13, 2021)

caped crusader said:


> This ... Kokyu Nage


Kokyu nage is a whole group of finishes (as I understand it, it's named from the principle they all share). If all the throws in that opening sequence would be considered kokyu nage, then I saw one that could be directly usable, but I never thought that one was categorized as kokyu nage.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 13, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Couldn’t you still get stabbed by bad guy #2 while in the process of, or directly following curb stomping bad guy #1?


Of course you could. But since curb stomping them takes a LOT less time than, say, choking them out, it reduces their opportunity to stab you while you're occupied. It all comes down to the very specific circumstances involved in a particular confrontation.


Hanzou said:


> I’m not seeing how curb stomping one guy stops a completely different person from stabbing you.


I'm going to say that is a you problem, since it addresses something nobody said.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 13, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Of course you could. But since curb stomping them takes a LOT less time than, say, choking them out, it reduces their opportunity to stab you while you're occupied. It all comes down to the very specific circumstances involved in a particular confrontation.



So you’re saying that stomping or kicking someone in the head incapacitates them 100% of the time, and there’s zero chance of you missing, which would thus force you to attempt to do it again?



Dirty Dog said:


> I'm going to say that is a you problem, since it addresses something nobody said.



You implied that curb stomping would help prevent getting stabbed by the second ninja hiding in the shadows. You implied it again in your quote above.

Hidden Ninjas and 100% effective techniques aside, the point is that it would appear to be preferable (in the legal and/or ethical sense) to choke someone out, or even pop their shoulder or twist their ankle than to stomp their brains in with your combat boots.

Obviously if you're dealing with someone attempting to murder you, that sort of precaution goes out the window. However, it's important to note that there are SD situations where murdering your attacker or turning them into a vegetable isn't a viable option.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm going to say that is a you problem, since it addresses something nobody said.



Rules of the street discussions. If in doubt we just add an extra hypothetical problem.

So if you go to ground. Then they have a knife.

Take that knife. Then they have two knives.

Take both knives Then they have friends.

Bash all their friends. Then their friends have guns.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 13, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Of course you could. But since curb stomping them takes a LOT less time than, say, choking them out, it reduces their opportunity to stab you while you're occupied. It all comes down to the very specific circumstances involved in a particular confrontation.


Seems common sense to me.  With multiple attackers, you canNOT get tied up with one guy.  The extra few seconds you spend with him gives his buddies ample opportunity to mob or stick you.  You have to get rid of #1 ASAP (ideally keeping him between you and the others) and be in position to handle the rest. If he's down but still a player, and stomping him is the fastest way to put him out of the fight, do it.  If you can break his arm as you take him down, even better. Of course, if he's out before he starts going down, that's the best case scenario.

This situation of multiple attackers is one sport karate does not deal with.  You get only one "point" to work with (sudden death).  That one strike, or an immediate follow up, has to be_ decisive and debilitating_:  Clean heavy head shot, take out an eye, larynx strike, knee break, etc.  No back and forth sparring.
Only forth.


caped crusader said:


> It´s like in a jail, if you will control a violent prisoner (who might be on drugs) they go mob handed


A tactical team approach is used for several reasons.  Detention/Correction Officers are not usually well trained in combat.  If one is, it is bad optics to beat up a detainee with punches and elbows.  Mobbing him uses weight to immobilize him, causing minimum damage to all concerned.  Of course, it takes several minutes (or more) to assemble a team - that's the downside.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 13, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Seems common sense to me.  With multiple attackers, you canNOT get tied up with one guy.  The extra few seconds you spend with him gives his buddies ample opportunity to mob or stick you.



The problem is that the original scenario wasn't multiple attackers.

The other problem is that there are definitely situations where you cannot curb stomp someone. Even if being attacked by multiple assailants.


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> @Steve I'm confused about what you're suggesting in this thread. In a couple ways.
> 
> 1. You seem to be suggesting that the "butt scooting thread" is something viable in self-defense, where people are arguing that it isn't. There are two issues with this:
> 1. From what I recall, Jowga isn't one of the one's complaining about that thread. So you can't put the complaints of the rest of us on                  him, if he didn't make the complain.
> ...


the entire idea of qualified immunity basically means it’s never a matter of self defense for cops.  Right?  If we are talking about self defense in a legal sense.


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2021)

I will just say I’m sincerely surprised that the idea of stomping on a dude’s head while he is on the ground being a really dumb idea is controversial.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> I will just say I’m sincerely surprised that the idea of stomping on a dude’s head while he is on the ground being a really dumb idea is controversial.



No offense to anyone, but I seriously wonder what some MAs are teaching people. I used to work in the education system, and teachers would occasionally be attacked by their students. On the high school level, some of the kids were larger than the adults. According to my contacts still in the system, attacks on teachers have increased a bit due to the after effects of the pandemic.

I was attacked by a student, and that student was trying to seriously injure if not possibly kill me. However, after I choked the student and got him off of me, no way in hell would I have stomped his head to make sure he was no longer a threat. I would have ended up in jail because he was a minor, despite him being bigger than I am.

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine in Maryland was teaching a class when a few football players rolled in to harass a smaller student. Unable to stop the boys from accosting the smaller student, (and her being a small woman), she immediately ran across the hall to grab her husband and another teacher to stop the incoming attack.

By the time they got in there, the boys were already pummeling the smaller kid. The teachers attempted to stop the attack, and they were attacked as well, but were eventually able to stop the melee when a few more teachers arrived. In that chaos, if a teacher had curb stomped a kid's head they would be out of a job and looking at some serious punishment.

There are plenty of options for controlling someone on the ground and ending a threat. Curb stomping IS an option, but it shouldn't be a go-to option, and in fact should be WAY down the list of possible options.


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 14, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> No offense to anyone, but I seriously wonder what some MAs are teaching people. I used to work in the education system, and teachers would occasionally be attacked by their students. On the high school level, some of the kids were larger than the adults. According to my contacts still in the system, attacks on teachers have increased a bit due to the after effects of the pandemic.
> 
> I was attacked by a student, and that student was trying to seriously injure if not possibly kill me. However, after I choked the student and got him off of me, no way in hell would I have stomped his head to make sure he was no longer a threat. I would have ended up in jail because he was a minor, despite him being bigger than I am.
> 
> ...


Totally understand your views as a teacher but the problem is will they do it to you?  It´s difficult to deal with some situations.  some of the youngsters running around now have no scruples about busting your head in.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2021)

caped crusader said:


> Totally understand your views as a teacher but the problem is will they do it to you?  It´s difficult to deal with some situations.  some of the youngsters running around now have no scruples about busting your head in.


Does it make sense to train it though, or wouldn’t it make more sense to learn 

Efficacy aside, I don’t recall ever seeing a kata or a 3 step demo in which a person learns a defense against the curb stomp. 

for what it’s worth, I think the real issue here is whether teaching average folks that they need to be prepared to kill people is a good idea.   I don’t.


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> Does it make sense to train it though, or wouldn’t it make more sense to learn
> 
> Efficacy aside, I don’t recall ever seeing a kata or a 3 step demo in which a person learns a defense against the curb stomp.
> 
> for what it’s worth, I think the real issue here is whether teaching average folks that they need to be prepared to kill people is a good idea.   I don’t.


Don´t get me wrong i would not do it either as a Teacher. Was actually the opposite in my school where some of the male Teachers gave some a slap round the ear. 
I thought American schools had security?  we had Janitors who were all ex Army and were not frail old man. The USA is different though with Guns and such.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 14, 2021)

caped crusader said:


> Totally understand your views as a teacher but the problem is will they do it to you?



Maybe. However, as an adult, it's a risk you take when you take a job in high crime and poverty areas. I'm sure that kid who tried to kill me would have curb stomped me if he had the chance. However when I had the opportunity, I didn't do it in return. Adults really shouldn't be curb stomping children and minors. There's something very wrong with that mentality.



caped crusader said:


> It´s difficult to deal with some situations.  some of the youngsters running around now have no scruples about busting your head in.



Which means as an adult, you need to be an example and not drop down to their level of violence.


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 14, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> Kokyu nage is a whole group of finishes (as I understand it, it's named from the principle they all share). If all the throws in that opening sequence would be considered kokyu nage, then I saw one that could be directly usable, but I never thought that one was categorized as kokyu nage.


I only trained for about 2 years in Aikido so not an expert but my understanding was it was "Breathing throws"


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 14, 2021)

When I think of techniques that aren't good for


drop bear said:


> So if you go to ground. Then they have a knife.


There's nothing unrealistic about this.

Assuming that someone doesn't have a weapon is a good way to find out the hardway.  Even if a person is on the ground, doesn't mean that they don't have something else for you.





Not everyone pulls out their knives or guns at the beginning of the confrontation or fight. Even after winning a fight there is a risk that a person may go to their car or bag and pull out the weapon that's stored there.

I grew up during a time period where people were shot for trash talking during a basketball game.  Maybe that type of stuff doesn't happen in Australia, but it's a real possibility in the U.S.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> I think the real issue here is whether teaching average folks that they need to be prepared to kill people is a good idea. I don’t.


I try to train people to do horrible things.  What is defined as horrible varies from person to person. In terms of self-defense I train them to put emotions aside because they may need to do horrible things in order to get out of that situation.  It's not good when your emotions are unchecked and you care more about the attacker than your own safety.

When I spar, one of the things I try to teach students is to clear there mind and emotion and focus on the task at hand which is to attack me without being attacked.  During the sparring I would ask them.  What are they thinking about.  If they answer with what they are thinking then I give them a lecture and we start sparring again.   The only answer I want to hear is.  "I'm watching, I'm moving you..., I'm setting you ups... I'm targeting..."  I don't want hear about "I'm trying to figure out what you are doing next."

Based on my experience the only way people can do horrible things  is to clear their mind of emotions and thought and focus on the task at hand.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 14, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> When I think of techniques that aren't good for
> 
> There's nothing unrealistic about this.
> 
> ...



Then what is stopping him having 2 knives?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 14, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Then what is stopping him having 2 knives?


Like I said.  That stuff may not happen in Australia or it may happen there and you aren't aware of it.  But if you come to the U.S. then don't assume what people will do and what they won't do with a weapon or weapons.  This is why criminals get patted down even after they drop the weapon that the police see.

*2019 Source:* https://apnews.com/article/da4b5ea291414f6c81688f9a634b44f0
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Latest on a deadly stabbing rampage in Southern California (all times local):
5:11 p.m.
Surveillance video shows a woman defending herself against a man with two knives who attacked and wounded her during a stabbing rampage that left four people dead in two Southern California cities.

*2021 source* :Portage woman stabbed man with 2 knives during argument, state police say
A Portage woman is behind bars after police say she stabbed a man with two kitchen knives during an argument Monday night.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 14, 2021)

caped crusader said:


> I only trained for about 2 years in Aikido so not an expert but my understanding was it was "Breathing throws"


Yeah, the definition I've heard is loosely "breath and timing throws", so more or less the same thing.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 14, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> No offense to anyone, but I seriously wonder what some MAs are teaching people. I used to work in the education system, and teachers would occasionally be attacked by their students. On the high school level, some of the kids were larger than the adults. According to my contacts still in the system, attacks on teachers have increased a bit due to the after effects of the pandemic.
> 
> I was attacked by a student, and that student was trying to seriously injure if not possibly kill me. However, after I choked the student and got him off of me, no way in hell would I have stomped his head to make sure he was no longer a threat. I would have ended up in jail because he was a minor, despite him being bigger than I am.
> 
> ...


Context. Like I said very early on in this thread. In your example the very real fight had rules that included not using deadly force unless it is to resist deadly force. In that case the head stomp is morally, ethically, and legally prohibited.

In other "real fight" contexts that do not necessarily include modern civilized self-defense in the united states, a head stomp might be not only justified, but encouraged.  Many of the world war II era hand-to-hand combat systems, from which most RBSD systems today seem to derive, include techniques such as "stab your opponent in the back before he knows there's a fight."

Both are "real fights," per se but different contexts.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## lklawson (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> Does it make sense to train it though, or wouldn’t it make more sense to learn
> 
> Efficacy aside, I don’t recall ever seeing a kata or a 3 step demo in which a person learns a defense against the curb stomp.


I've seen kata which include stomping. Ask three different instructors what the stomp is supposed to mean and you'll likely get four different answers. But at least one of them will be stomping on an opponent that has been downed for some reason.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## lklawson (Nov 14, 2021)

caped crusader said:


> Totally understand your views as a teacher but the problem is will they do it to you?  It´s difficult to deal with some situations.  some of the youngsters running around now have no scruples about busting your head in.


In most places it is considered legal to use deadly force in response to deadly force being used against you.

There are often modifiers and conditions, but that's the general rule.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 14, 2021)

lklawson said:


> In most places it is considered legal to use deadly force in response to deadly force being used against you.
> 
> There are often modifiers and conditions, but that's the general rule.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)


I will use my Ninja Nin Jutsu ....haha


----------



## lklawson (Nov 14, 2021)

caped crusader said:


> I thought American schools had security?


Most school security in the US is a joke. Very often it is supposedly secured doors, sometimes magnetometers and searches, and usually an extremely disproportionate number of resource officers. And that's kind of a best case. In many places now open campuses mean security doors that aren't very well secured, usually no magnetometers or searches, and some schools are, rather inexplicably to me, deciding that school resource officers are a problem and need to be taken out of the schools.




caped crusader said:


> we had Janitors who were all ex Army and were not frail old man. The USA is different though with Guns and such.


I'm not sure what you mean by the inclusion of guns here. Most of the schools that have a school resource officer, have the resource officer armed. There are many states which give the local school board the option to allow some teachers to be armed with concealed handguns, but there is always a training requirement and it tends to vary based on the politics of the area and state. Left leaning States tend to prohibit that and right leading States tend to allow. But, even then, the ratio of armed personnel to area and students to protect tends to be pretty disproportionate.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 14, 2021)

lklawson said:


> I've seen kata which include stomping.


That's impossible.  Stomping wasn't invented until MMA.  No way TMA would have thought of doing such a thing. lol.  And he's stomping a  down opponent who is trying to defend themselves.





I don't understand why there is so much debate on stomping on someone


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 14, 2021)

lklawson said:


> I've seen kata which include stomping.


It's called "follow on striking". When you take your opponent down, your task is not finished yet.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 14, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's impossible.  Stomping wasn't invented until MMA.  No way TMA would have thought of doing such a thing.


Stomp and then punch opponent when he is on the ground did exist in CMA.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 14, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Stomp and then punch opponent when he is on the ground did exist in CMA.


Definitely.  I was saying it in a joking manner because I posted stomping being done in a MMA video.  I'm sure stomping on a downed opponent was universal on all fighting systems globally (historically).   Out of all of the "Martial Arts" techniques out there stomping on someone would be relatively easy to do if you can keep your balance on one leg long enough to stomp down.  Most people learn the stomping motion on their own as kids.   

Ask a toddler to step on an ant and the first thing most do is try to stomp the mess out it lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 14, 2021)

But back on track.

I just thought of a bunch of things that I probably wouldn't use in self-defense and most of that can be found in knife defense and martial arts gun disarms


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 14, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Context. Like I said very early on in this thread. In your example the very real fight had rules that included not using deadly force unless it is to resist deadly force. In that case the head stomp is morally, ethically, and legally prohibited.
> 
> In other "real fight" contexts that do not necessarily include modern civilized self-defense in the united states, a head stomp might be not only justified, but encouraged.  Many of the world war II era hand-to-hand combat systems, from which most RBSD systems today seem to derive, include techniques such as "stab your opponent in the back before he knows there's a fight."
> 
> ...



Yeah, but this isn't WW2 and we're not soldiers fighting a total war. In addition, if you stab someone in the back before a fight begins, you're going to jail for a very long time. This is what I mean when I say that I seriously question what MAs are teaching people.

In the majority of self defense encounters you're likely going to deal with in "the real world", there are "rules" in place. Those rules are otherwise known as *laws*. Laws effect you just as much as the person who is possibly going to assail you. If someone is on the ground and you're standing, that person is no longer considered a threat, period. You _believing_ that that person is a continued threat is open to interpretation, and if it's just you and that other person, your personal ethics is all that matters. If your moral compass allows you to stomp someone to death, so be it. 

However, if there are witnesses, well that changes things a bit. If people see you stomp a grounded assailant to death, well there's a very good chance you're going to jail when the cops arrive.

Now, if a gang of ninjas burst into your home and attempt to kill you and your family, feel free to stab them in the back when they're not looking, or stomping their brains in with your combat boots. But in all seriousness, the chances of that happening are not very high, even in America.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 14, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's impossible.  Stomping wasn't invented until MMA.  No way TMA would have thought of doing such a thing. lol.  And he's stomping a  down opponent who is trying to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well the initial debate was about *curb* stomping someone.






						Curb stomp - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2021)

lklawson said:


> I've seen kata which include stomping. Ask three different instructors what the stomp is supposed to mean and you'll likely get four different answers. But at least one of them will be stomping on an opponent that has been downed for some reason.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)


I’ve seen that as well. What I’m talking about is self defense against stomping.  Or is the idea that you would just, I don’t know, never allow that to happen?  Personally, if I’m paranoid enough to believe I need to train to kill bad guys with a good stomp to the temple, it seems inconsistent NOT to train how to avoid bad guys stomping on my head.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I try to train people to do horrible things.  What is defined as horrible varies from person to person. In terms of self-defense I train them to put emotions aside because they may need to do horrible things in order to get out of that situation.  It's not good when your emotions are unchecked and you care more about the attacker than your own safety.
> 
> When I spar, one of the things I try to teach students is to clear there mind and emotion and focus on the task at hand which is to attack me without being attacked.  During the sparring I would ask them.  What are they thinking about.  If they answer with what they are thinking then I give them a lecture and we start sparring again.   The only answer I want to hear is.  "I'm watching, I'm moving you..., I'm setting you ups... I'm targeting..."  I don't want hear about "I'm trying to figure out what you are doing next."
> 
> Based on my experience the only way people can do horrible things  is to clear their mind of emotions and thought and focus on the task at hand.


Personally, I don’t think most people need to learn how to do horrible things. Given how unlikely it is that they will ever need to actually defend themselves, that seems like a bad idea to me.  I like the idea of teaching them to perform under pressure and mindfulness is a good thing.  But that will come with application, and is hard to do without application.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> Personally, I don’t think most people need to learn how to do horrible things. Given how unlikely it is that they will ever need to actually defend themselves, that seems like a bad idea to me.  I like the idea of teaching them to perform under pressure and mindfulness is a good thing.  But that will come with application, and is hard to do without application.


Semantics. You are both saying the same thing, just saying it differently.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but this isn't WW2 and we're not soldiers fighting a total war. In addition, if you stab someone in the back before a fight begins, you're going to jail for a very long time. This is what I mean when I say that I seriously question what MAs are teaching people.
> 
> In the majority of self defense encounters you're likely going to deal with in "the real world", there are "rules" in place. Those rules are otherwise known as *laws*. Laws effect you just as much as the person who is possibly going to assail you. If someone is on the ground and you're standing, that person is no longer considered a threat, period. You _believing_ that that person is a continued threat is open to interpretation, and if it's just you and that other person, your personal ethics is all that matters. If your moral compass allows you to stomp someone to death, so be it.
> 
> ...


I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Semantics. You are both saying the same thing, just saying it differently.


Given your recent track record of not understanding what is being discussed, I really think you need to do more reading and less writing for a while.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy.



Quite a few of these responses sound like a fantasy. Curb stomping people, preemptively stabbing someone n the back because they look "scary", it's all like a bad 80s action movie.

Curb stomping is especially some very brutal and heinous stuff, and I would highly question one's sanity if they decide to use it against another human being.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 14, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but this isn't WW2 and we're not soldiers fighting a total war. In addition, if you stab someone in the back before a fight begins, you're going to jail for a very long time. This is what I mean when I say that I seriously question what MAs are teaching people.


Like I said, context.  Both are real fights but in very different contexts



Hanzou said:


> In the majority of self defense encounters you're likely going to deal with in "the real world", there are "rules" in place. Those rules are otherwise known as *laws*. Laws effect you just as much as the person who is possibly going to assail you. If someone is on the ground and you're standing, that person is no longer considered a threat, period. You _believing_ that that person is a continued threat is open to interpretation, and if it's just you and that other person, your personal ethics is all that matters. If your moral compass allows you to stomp someone to death, so be it.


But... But... I keep reading that "there are no rules in a real fight."   

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## lklawson (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> Personally, I don’t think most people need to learn how to do horrible things. Given how unlikely it is that they will ever need to actually defend themselves, that seems like a bad idea to me.  I like the idea of teaching them to perform under pressure and mindfulness is a good thing.  But that will come with application, and is hard to do without application.


By the same token, those people never need to learn any martial arts at all. People study different types of martial arts, designed for different contexts, for their own personal reasons. Not necessarily because they expect to have to put it into use attacking or protecting from a horde of Nazis or feudal samurai.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## lklawson (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy.


I don't. I know a great number of people who carry the firearm. None of them fantasize in this way. Are you sure you actually know real people?

I'm not trying to insult, but this is a thing that I hear a lot. And it's just not true the majority of the time. It's something that people say who are afraid of the gun. I don't think that's you but it concerns me that you are willing to repeat that silliness.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 14, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Quite a few of these responses sound like a fantasy. [...] preemptively stabbing someone n the back because they look "scary", it's all like a bad 80s action movie.


Straw man. I never wrote that and I don't think you believe that I did. I wrote that it is a legitimate technique for a "real fight" within its own context, which may be different from other context such as, *as I specifically wrote*, modern self-defense in the United States.

This has been my point all along. There is no one thing that qualifies as a "real fight" and it is silly to try to throw out certain techniques because it doesn't seem to fit into some narrow definition of what a "real fight" is.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> Personally, I don’t think most people need to learn how to do horrible things. Given how unlikely it is that they will ever need to actually defend themselves, that seems like a bad idea to me.


For me the problem that no one expects to be in a horrible situation.

1. People think their risk of drowning is very low so they don't take swimming lessons and then one day they drown

2. People think their risk of experiencing a home invasion is low so they don't prepare in ways that will make that low risk a reality.  Like locking doors or making a what if plans.

3. People think that the risk of their house being on fire is low so they don't buy a smoke detector.  Then one day their house burns and sometimes they die in that fire.

Most people who prepare to do horrible things do so in the hopes that they never will have to do such things.  They understand that it's better to have that ability if that rare chance occurs, than to not have it. 

Sort of like seat beats.  I went almost 50 years without being in a car accident.  Based on your logic, there is no need for me to wear a seat belt because it's rare that I would be in a car accident.  Then one day I was in a bad car accident where the car almost flipped over.  I wore a seat belt.  Not because I was likely that I would be in a car accident, but I wore it in case of that rare even occurred and it did.

Most people who are attacked violently never thought it would happen to them. And when it did it was too late to learn anything.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 14, 2021)

lklawson said:


> I don't. I know a great number of people who carry the firearm. None of them fantasize in this way. Are you sure you actually know real people?
> 
> I'm not trying to insult, but this is a thing that I hear a lot. And it's just not true the majority of the time. It's something that people say who are afraid of the gun. I don't think that's you but it concerns me that you are willing to repeat that silliness.


Same here. With the exception of 2 or 3 people I've known in my life.  Those gun owners knew they could shoot someone, but hoped they never would have to.  That includes Police officers and family who served in the military.   

No on the other hand, we could probably look at those who do fantasize about shooting people, and I'm willing to bet that those people didn't shoot someone out of self-defense.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 14, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Straw man. I never wrote that and I don't think you believe that I did. I wrote that it is a legitimate technique for a "real fight" within its own context, which may be different from other context such as, *as I specifically wrote*, modern self-defense in the United States.



Where's the strawman? That's exactly what you said;


lklawson said:


> Many of the world war II era hand-to-hand combat systems, from which most RBSD systems today seem to derive, include techniques such as *"stab your opponent in the back before he knows there's a fight."*





> This has been my point all along. There is no one thing that qualifies as a "real fight" and it is silly to try to throw out certain techniques because it doesn't seem to fit into some narrow definition of what a "real fight" is.



I never said there was. However, I think it would be wise to throw out certain techniques because they can land us in prison, even if we were defending ourselves. Curb Stomping and "Stabbing someone in the back before they even know there's a fight" would qualify as two such examples.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> I’ve seen that as well. What I’m talking about is self defense against stomping.  Or is the idea that you would just, I don’t know, never allow that to happen?  Personally, if I’m paranoid enough to believe I need to train to kill bad guys with a good stomp to the temple, it seems inconsistent NOT to train how to avoid bad guys stomping on my head.



Ankle picks or low singles basically.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2021)

lklawson said:


> By the same token, those people never need to learn any martial arts at all. People study different types of martial arts, designed for different contexts, for their own personal reasons. Not necessarily because they expect to have to put it into use attacking or protecting from a horde of Nazis or feudal samurai.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)


That’s true.  So why are instructors trying to normalize killing folks?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> it seems inconsistent NOT to train how to avoid bad guys stomping on my head.


This is how you may try not to let your opponent to stomp on you when you are on the ground.

If a stand up person would never attack a person who was on the ground, I assume this technique would never be invented.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> For me the problem that no one expects to be in a horrible situation.
> 
> 1. People think their risk of drowning is very low so they don't take swimming lessons and then one day they drown
> 
> ...


a seat belt is literally called a passive restraint.  It doesn’t involve killing someone or normalizing violence.  Swimming is a wonderful sport and learning to swim is great exercise, though neither learning to swim or not learning to swim involves normalizing the act of taking another person’s life.  

locking doors, installing smoke detectors.  I don’t think they involve normalizing violence either.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Ankle picks or low singles basically.


Yeah, grappling does a pretty good job, I think.  But there aren’t a lot of curb stomps in wrestling or BJJ.  I think there’s an interesting point in there.  I bet you get it, but I’m not sure how many others will.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2021)

lklawson said:


> I don't. I know a great number of people who carry the firearm. None of them fantasize in this way. Are you sure you actually know real people?
> 
> I'm not trying to insult, but this is a thing that I hear a lot. And it's just not true the majority of the time. It's something that people say who are afraid of the gun. I don't think that's you but it concerns me that you are willing to repeat that silliness.


I’m not afraid of guns at all and, while not an expert by any means, have used them professionally in the military and for fun at the range personally.  

regarding the fantasy, I think you’re being very generous with your friends.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 14, 2021)

Steve said:


> Yeah, grappling does a pretty good job, I think.  But there aren’t a lot of curb stomps in wrestling or BJJ.  I think there’s an interesting point in there.  I bet you get it, but I’m not sure how many others will.



The thing I have always found interesting about this torture porn style of martial arts is that people will go to a course pay a bucket load of cash to get taught how to throw the slipper in to a guy when he is down, and think they have learned something.

I could have come up with curb stomping on my own.

Let's use old Tim larkin. This for all its deadly deadlyness. Is not good technical striking.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 14, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> So you’re saying that stomping or kicking someone in the head incapacitates them 100% of the time, and there’s zero chance of you missing, which would thus force you to attempt to do it again?


In most cases I'd be surprised that someone read something so totally different to what was actually written, but it seems to be your specialty.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> In most cases I'd be surprised that someone read something so totally different to what was actually written, but it seems to be your specialty.



You implied that a *curb stomp* takes far less time and is more efficient than a choke or a limb break. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were really talking about general head stomps and not actual curb stomping, which would require quite a bit of set up to get the desired effect. I'm rather positive that I can pop a limb or choke someone out long before you properly set up someone to get curb stomped.

*Curb stomping* someone would definitely end a confrontation, but it requires you to actually set up your assailant's body and head to get the desired effect. You stomping their head on the concrete is not the same thing, and has a chance of not ending the confrontation.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> You implied that a *curb stomp* takes far less time and is more efficient than a choke or a limb break.


I implied nothing. I said flat out that *in some circumstances* it is the best choice. Trying to turn that into some absolute statement of 100% effectiveness is purely your imaginary argument.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Of course you could. *But since curb stomping them takes a LOT less time than, say, choking them out*, it reduces their opportunity to stab you while you're occupied. It all comes down to the very specific circumstances involved in a particular confrontation.
> 
> I'm going to say that is a you problem, since it addresses something nobody said.





Dirty Dog said:


> I implied nothing. I said flat out that *in some circumstances* it is the best choice. Trying to turn that into some absolute statement of 100% effectiveness is purely your imaginary argument.



You're right, you didn't imply it, you outright said it. My mistake.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> Given your recent track record of not understanding what is being discussed, I really think you need to do more reading and less writing for a w


You wish you could evade the vague and pompous comments you made that easy. 

Explain what is different about your post and @JowGaWolf's post in regards to intent in a SD situation? And what that has to do with the OP?

For the first time that I can remember you acknowledged SA, however vague and indirect, as valid. But you have spent most of this thread as a tool to further you SD bashing agenda. 
It is way past tiring.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy.


Where, in your video games? That is Your pure fantasy.

If you truly know of such people, what have you done about it? Reported them to the authorities? Are they on a watch list? 
It is more truthful for you to admit that you think of all LEO as you described in your post. 
Just more of your vagueness and obvious hate for law enforcement.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> That’s true.  So why are instructors trying to normalize killing folks?


I don't see how teaching someone to protect themselves or to do something horrible is normalizing killing folks.  How many people are in military?  How many of those people are out there performing mass shootings at schools and on the streets.

There is a different between doing something out of self-defense and doing something because you want to commit a crime.  No one here has made or implied that these things should be done outside of self-defense or to be done to assist in a crime.



Steve said:


> a seat belt is literally called a passive restraint. It doesn’t involve killing someone or normalizing violence.


There is nothing passive about a seat beat if you have to manually put it on.  You must perform the act of putting it on.  Failure to do that action may result in you killing yourself or in the case of youth, a young child.



Steve said:


> though neither learning to swim or not learning to swim involves normalizing the act of taking another person’s life.


Not knowing how to swim could easily result in you drowning, there for killing yourself.  Not knowing how to swim lower your risk of being able to save someone who can't swim or who is unable to swim.



Steve said:


> locking doors, installing smoke detectors. I don’t think they involve normalizing violence either.


Now here is the true issue.  You are of the belief that violence isn't normal.  I do not hold that believe.  I not only believe that violence is normal but people should embrace violence and then learn to be responsible and not criminal with the violence that they commit.

Sparring is violence, boxing is violence, shooting a gun is violence, practicing physical self-defense is violence, watching action movies, horror movies normalizes violence.  John Wick, Saw, Purge, Three Stooges.  Playing football (US), soccer, baseball, basketball all have violence.  Wars. Crime, Law Enforcement all have violence in the actions of men, women, and children.  Drones, tanks, hit and run, Poisoning, killing of animals.  Those are all acts of violence.

So when you say that self-defense teachings Normalize Violence,  It's just hard for me to see that, especially when the group of people who are trained in a martial arts school to do horrible things are such a small group. In comparison to all of the other violent stuff going on out there.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but this isn't WW2 and we're not soldiers fighting a total war. In addition, if you stab someone in the back before a fight begins, you're going to jail for a very long time. This is what I mean when I say that I seriously question what MAs are teaching people.
> 
> In the majority of self defense encounters you're likely going to deal with in "the real world", there are "rules" in place. Those rules are otherwise known as *laws*. Laws effect you just as much as the person who is possibly going to assail you. If someone is on the ground and you're standing, that person is no longer considered a threat, period. You _believing_ that that person is a continued threat is open to interpretation, and if it's just you and that other person, your personal ethics is all that matters. If your moral compass allows you to stomp someone to death, so be it.
> 
> ...


I have to say it seems like both of you are arguing from each end of the possible encounter. 
One is talking about ways to end the encounter before it ever starts and the other is talking about the 'what-if's' of what may happen after the fact. 
So let's talk what-if's.
What if you hesitated and did not plant the knife when you had a chance and instead ended up disarmed, and dead? It could just as easily happen in our made up "what-if" story. 
I think what is missing from both of the previous conclusions is the evaluation and assessment that would have taken place up to that point. This can come in small, measured amounts or be f full on split second decision. Something that really, really makes it hard to measure. 
An old saying you do not hear too often anymore is "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I feel this is very applicable here.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> Yeah, grappling does a pretty good job, I think.  But there aren’t a lot of curb stomps in wrestling or BJJ.  I think there’s an interesting point in there.  I bet you get it, but I’m not sure how many others will.



I think in BJJ we have layers to the violence we practice. I can tie a loved one up and not harm them. I can pin someone down and immobilize them. I can choke someone unconscious from multiple angles. I can break arms, legs, shoulders, and wrists. Anything beyond that point would require someone seriously threatening my or my family's life, and even the limb breaking is crossing a line IMO. So yeah, I'm a bit taken aback by some posts I've seen in this thread.

Jumping straight to curb stomping is really an entirely different level of violence, because it  is the equivalent of executing someone. If you have the time and ability to drag someone's head to a curb, and have them open their mouths so that they can bite down on said curb, you should have more than enough time and ability to do something far less violent and frankly sadistic. 

Are people going straight for curb stomping and other insane acts of violence because they don't understand basic pins, chokes, and locks? I beginning to wonder.....


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> You wish you could evade the vague and pompous comments you made that easy.
> 
> Explain what is different about your post and @JowGaWolf's post in regards to intent in a SD situation? And what that has to do with the OP?
> 
> ...



I think self defense is inherently funny, and honestly, this thread was very enjoyable.  My mistake was to underestimate how many people on this forum think curb stomping is not just a good idea, but essential training for most people. My bad on that.  

If you're tired, you could take a nap, or use the ignore feature.  I don't mind at all.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Where's the strawman? That's exactly what you said;


Because you wrote, "preemptively stabbing someone in the back because they look 'scary'."  That is *NOT* what I wrote about in any way, shape, or form. What I wrote was, "Many of the world war II era hand-to-hand combat systems, [...] include techniques such as 'stab your opponent in the back before he knows there's a fight'."  And then I specifically wrote, "Both are'"real fights,' per se but different contexts."

So, no, I never suggested that anyone stab someone in the back because they look scary.  It's a straw man that you threw out just to knock down.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> That’s true.  So why are instructors trying to normalize killing folks?


Who says they are?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I have to say it seems like both of you are arguing from each end of the possible encounter.
> One is talking about ways to end the encounter before it ever starts and the other is talking about the 'what-if's' of what may happen after the fact.
> So let's talk what-if's.
> What if you hesitated and did not plant the knife when you had a chance and instead ended up disarmed, and dead? It could just as easily happen in our made up "what-if" story.
> ...



I would need more information frankly than what you're providing here. If someone had broken into my house in the middle of the night, then yeah stabbing them in the back is a possible option, because this person is a potential threat, and there's no time to ask questions.

However, beyond that situation, where else would me preemptively stabbing someone in the back make sense? I really can't think of too many situations where that situation would arise. Further, if I'm wrong and a stab a person who wasn't doing anything wrong, I've just earned a ticket to a prison cell. Same applies if I bring a knife to a bar fight.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Because you wrote, "preemptively stabbing someone in the back because they look 'scary'."  That is *NOT* what I wrote about in any way, shape, or form. What I wrote was, "Many of the world war II era hand-to-hand combat systems, [...] include techniques such as 'stab your opponent in the back before he knows there's a fight'."  And then I specifically wrote, "Both are'"real fights,' per se but different contexts."
> 
> So, no, I never suggested that anyone stab someone in the back because they look scary.  It's a straw man that you threw out just to knock down.



I do believe that we're getting hung up on semantics here.

To clarify; Do you think that stabbing someone in the back based purely on the suspicion of future violence is a viable tactic to use in a self defense situation? It's along the same lines as "shoot first, ask questions later".


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> I’m not afraid of guns at all and, while not an expert by any means, have used them professionally in the military and for fun at the range personally.
> 
> regarding the fantasy, I think you’re being very generous with your friends.


You think that people who carry firearms for self defense purposes fantasize about killing people.  I hear this nugget frequently enough and it's just not true.  It's just simply not all that common at all.  It happens with probably lower frequency than Black Belts fantasizing about killing hoards of ninjas.  I know that pretty much everyone here who studies (or has studied) "traditional martial arts" has heard someone claim that they're just fantasizing about being in an 80's ninja movie.  You know it's not true.  You know it's not true for pretty much everyone else who studies TMA because you run in those circles and talk to those people.

It's the same in the firearms for self defense community.  There's always some yahoo accusing them of fantasizing about shooting people, but it's not true.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't see how teaching someone to protect themselves or to do something horrible is normalizing killing folks.



Do you not see the inherent conflict in that statement?  Unless by "horrible" you mean torture and maim, but not kill?  I truly don't see a distinction.  



JowGaWolf said:


> How many people are in military?  How many of those people are out there performing mass shootings at schools and on the streets.



How many of them commit suicide?  How many of them struggle with mental and emotional trauma so significant that they harm their loved ones?  You're looking at this all wrong.  I encourage you to look into it if you haven't done so already.  20 years of war and advances in field medicine have resulted in a lot of disabled veterans who need a lot of help, and the trauma of killing and seeing people killed and injured takes a toll.  



JowGaWolf said:


> There is a different between doing something out of self-defense and doing something because you want to commit a crime.  No one here has made or implied that these things should be done outside of self-defense or to be done to assist in a crime.



Self defense is inherently a defense against prosecution for committing a crime.  




JowGaWolf said:


> There is nothing passive about a seat beat if you have to manually put it on.  You must perform the act of putting it on.  Failure to do that action may result in you killing yourself or in the case of youth, a young child.


It's literally referred to as a passive restraint system.  But honestly, that's beside the point, which is that putting it on doesn't involve an ethical dilemma or preparing oneself to kill someone else.  The emotional and mental load of the act is very low.  Click it or ticket.  I really don't think you are getting the point.  



JowGaWolf said:


> Not knowing how to swim could easily result in you drowning, there for killing yourself.  Not knowing how to swim lower your risk of being able to save someone who can't swim or who is unable to swim.



It's early and I'll be honest, I don't know if you're yanking my chain or not at this point.  I may just need more coffee, but this seems really ridiculous in a discussion about possible long term effects on regular folks who are being indoctrinated into a belief that they need to always be on guard and prepared to kill someone else, or be killed themselves.



JowGaWolf said:


> Now here is the true issue.  You are of the belief that violence isn't normal.  I do not hold that believe.  I not only believe that violence is normal but people should embrace violence and then learn to be responsible and not criminal with the violence that they commit.



Okay.  Cool.  We can agree to disagree on this.  Or at least, disagree that the idea of killing someone is something we should all get used to.  I think it's pretty much always a lot healthier for folks to train for sports in a supportive school with a good coach... more reliable skill development, too. That's very ironic, to me. 



JowGaWolf said:


> Sparring is violence, boxing is violence, shooting a gun is violence, practicing physical self-defense is violence, watching action movies, horror movies normalizes violence.  John Wick, Saw, Purge, Three Stooges.  Playing football (US), soccer, baseball, basketball all have violence.  Wars. Crime, Law Enforcement all have violence in the actions of men, women, and children.  Drones, tanks, hit and run, Poisoning, killing of animals.  Those are all acts of violence.
> 
> So when you say that self-defense teachings Normalize Violence,  It's just hard for me to see that, especially when the group of people who are trained in a martial arts school to do horrible things are such a small group. In comparison to all of the other violent stuff going on out there.



There's a logical fallacy in there, but I'm going to make myself some coffee and let you find it yourself.  I'll give you a hint.  When I talk about this idea that people need to be prepared to kill folks and having them practice techniques that will permanently maim and kill, and you talk about sparring...  we're having two different discussions.  

For what it's worth, I agree to an extent, that pretend violence has an impact, though not as significant as being personally told someone you trust to train you, who appears credible to you, that you have to compartmentalize your emotions and be ready to kill someone else, and then learn from that person techniques you believe will do the job... that's not the same.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> You think that people who carry firearms for self defense purposes fantasize about killing people.  I hear this nugget frequently enough and it's just not true.  It's just simply not all that common at all.  It happens with probably lower frequency than Black Belts fantasizing about killing hoards of ninjas.  I know that pretty much everyone here who studies (or has studied) "traditional martial arts" has heard someone claim that they're just fantasizing about being in an 80's ninja movie.  You know it's not true.  You know it's not true for pretty much everyone else who studies TMA because you run in those circles and talk to those people.
> 
> It's the same in the firearms for self defense community.  There's always some yahoo accusing them of fantasizing about shooting people, but it's not true.


We're literally in a thread where TMA guys are talking about killing folks.  I think whether it's a fantasy or not depends on whether you're in the community or not.  Inside the community, I'm sure it's just common sense self defense.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> You think that people who carry firearms for self defense purposes fantasize about killing people.  I hear this nugget frequently enough and it's just not true.  It's just simply not all that common at all.  It happens with probably lower frequency than Black Belts fantasizing about killing hoards of ninjas.  I know that pretty much everyone here who studies (or has studied) "traditional martial arts" has heard someone claim that they're just fantasizing about being in an 80's ninja movie.  You know it's not true.  You know it's not true for pretty much everyone else who studies TMA because you run in those circles and talk to those people.
> 
> It's the same in the firearms for self defense community.  There's always some yahoo accusing them of fantasizing about shooting people, but it's not true.



I seriously have to wonder what level of threat you think lies outside your front door for you to believe that you need a gun for "self defense". I see people going to Walmart or Chipotle with guns strapped to them like they're on their way to Afghanistan, and it boggles my mind.

As a person who doesn't own a gun, and has lived in America their entire life (including "bad" areas of major cities), I really don't understand the need unless you're living in a constant state of fear and paranoia. In that constant state, yeah I can see someone fantasizing about shooting a few people and being the "hero".


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> I do believe that we're getting hung up on semantics here.


Perhaps.



Hanzou said:


> To clarify; Do you think that stabbing someone in the back based purely on the suspicion of future violence is a viable tactic to use in a self defense situation? It's along the same lines as "shoot first, ask questions later".


Of course not.

In fact, that's an important element of my point.  In the context of self defense, stabbing someone in the back "based purely on the suspicion of future violence" is immoral and illegal.  But that's the modern U.S. self defense context.  Change the context to WWII Sentry Removal and not only is it acceptable, it's a darn good idea.

Both are "real fights" but are wildly different contexts.  I have continuously argued in this thread that it is a silly proposition to say technique XYZ is not useful in "a real fight" and therefore is not worthwhile for inclusion in a martial art or for study.  

And that includes "self defense."  As an example, the techniques of Iaido, or the core concepts of a quick draw of a sword with defensive and offensive elements are not particularly applicable to modern U.S. "self defense" fighting.  And yet, within their own historical and geographic context, were 100% applicable to self defense.  Famously, Cyrano De Bergerac was supposed to have fought off a large number of men who attacked him suddenly.  He had to quick draw his rapier, using defensive movements, and then proceed into attack.  Few people suggest today that anyone should study techniques for quickly deploying a rapier as valid modern self defense.  Nevertheless, it is still valid within it's context.   

Just because I will never need to use a rapier for my personal self defense doesn't mean that the techniques are not worth studying.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> We're literally in a thread where TMA guys are talking about killing folks.  I think whether it's a fantasy or not depends on whether you're in the community or not.  Inside the community, I'm sure it's just common sense self defense.


Talking about the necessity being forced is not the same as fantasizing about it.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> 
> Of course not.
> ...



Thank you for the clarification.

But clearly you see that you're talking about a context that is no longer valid, while I'm talking about a context that people are currently experiencing right? As I said in the original response, we're not in WW2, but we are in a society where teachers are attacked by their students, and in those attacks, an educator can't just outright kill their attacker.

And I completely agree with you that just because something is archaic or obsolete doesn't mean that it lacks value. However, we were discussing *curb stomping*, and in general self defense, I simply don't see where it fits. Again, it's a form of execution that goes well beyond simply defending yourself.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Talking about the necessity being forced is not the same as fantasizing about it.


Is it a necessity for most people, though?  I think you've captured the nut of the debate.  If we don't agree that it's a necessity, it makes perfect sense that we would disagree on whether it's a fantasy or not.  Don't get me wrong.  

When you question this presumption that everyone should be prepared to kill or be killed, it leads to a lot of really interesting and (in my opinion, at least) constructive questions.  For example, why are all cops armed at all times?


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> I seriously have to wonder what level of threat you think lies outside your front door for you to believe that you need a gun for "self defense". I see people going to Walmart or Chipotle with guns strapped to them like they're on their way to Afghanistan, and it boggles my mind.
> 
> As a person who doesn't own a gun, and has lived in America their entire life (including "bad" areas of major cities), I really don't understand the need unless you're living in a constant state of fear and paranoia. In that constant state, yeah I can see someone fantasizing about shooting a few people and being the "hero".


Well, first off, let me say that if you make a decision for you then that's 100% fine, as long as you're not feeling like you should make decisions for other people.

If you're wondering about statistics, on the other hand, the Cliffs Notes version is that there have been multiple studies of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) in the U.S. and results range from the low of around 76,000 per year in 1996 (1996 National Crime Victim Survey by the DOJ) t a high of somewhere north of 2,000,000 per year (Centers for Disease Control survey) with various others in the middle such as the Hart studies and the Mauser study.  

Interestingly, even the lowest of those DGU numbers, 76,000, exceeds the latest CDC annual murder rate of 19,141 by   around 4 times, meaning that Americans use firearms to protect their lives at a minimum of 4 times more often than people are murdered, and likely a lot more if the DGU rate falls closer to the CDC DGU number or somewhere in the middle.

What I think you're seeing here is a bias (either intended or unintended) against reporting DGU's on the national level combined with a bit of Normalcy Bias ("I don't see it happening regularly, therefore it can't happen") but DGUs happen, literally, every day. Here's a running list of some of them: NRA-ILA | Armed Citizen®

Just going by the statistics, it looks like there's reason enough for someone in the U.S. to decide that legally carrying a firearm for personal defense is a reasonable decision.  I understand if you haven't "seen" the information.

If you don't believe that it's the right decision for you, that's fine.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> Do you not see the inherent conflict in that statement? Unless by "horrible" you mean torture and maim, but not kill? I truly don't see a distinction.


Horrible = doing the following when someone attacks you. Each varies and depends on the danger that the person feels that they are in or actually in. These are things done for the purpose of trying to stop the attack or the attacker
1. Break an arm
2. Poke an eye with the intent on damaging the eye or blinding them.
3. Intentionally strike your attacker with brutality.
4. Stab someone
5. Shoot someone
6. Hit someone in the face or head with a bat
7. Stomp on someone's head
8. Push someone into traffic
10. Shoot someone multiple times
11. Stab someone multiple time
12. Elbow someone
13. Punch someone
14. Throw a rock, brick, at someone.
15. Stab someone with a spear
16. Kick someone's knee with the goal of dislocating it.
17. grab a mans groin and squash the grapes.
18. In extreme cases kill someone as a result of doing any of the above.

All of these things are horrible things.  Torture is not done in self-defense. 

Maiming can be done in the act of self-defense.  There's literally numerous techniques in martial arts that are for the purpose of doing such a thing. 



Steve said:


> We're literally in a thread where TMA guys are talking about killing folks.


Yes, because striking, kicking, stabbing, shooting, choking out and attacking someone in the context of self-defense can do such a thing.  To act as if those things cannot produce death is irresponsible. 

People have died in combat sports because they were hit in the back of the head.  People have died from repeated strikes to the head. People have died from being shot in act of self-defense.  Regardless of if a person intends to kill someone or not.  The possibility is real.  And know one should think that a blow to the head is something that isn't horrible.  

I'm pretty sure that some teens would have "played the knockout game" had they known that their punch could have resulted in someone's death.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> I'm sure it's just common sense self defense.


Nothing common sense about it.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
> But clearly you see that you're talking about a context that is no longer valid, while I'm talking about a context that people are currently experiencing right?


Not exactly.  I'm talking about a context that isn't valid *for you*. It could be valid for other people, living right now, who are in a different context. Should I go on youtube again and start posting "machete fights" or "knife fights?" I'll concede that "sword fights" don't happen much in the U.S. so self defense for most in the U.S. doesn't often include that. In South America, on the other hand, "sword" attacks (machete and the like) are more common. People are currently experiencing them. Just because it's not valid for you or may not be valid for me, doesn't mean it's not valid.





Hanzou said:


> As I said in the original response, we're not in WW2, but we are in a society where teachers are attacked by their students, and in those attacks, an educator can't just outright kill their attacker.


And I've given half a dozen other examples which still fit as valid for self defense in someone else' context even if not for yours.  Which is my point.




Hanzou said:


> And I completely agree with you that just because something is archaic or obsolete doesn't mean that it lacks value. However, we were discussing *curb stomping*, and in general self defense, I simply don't see where it fits. Again, it's a form of execution that goes well beyond simply defending yourself.


And I thought we were discussing "Techniques you learn in your MA that are probably not a good idea for Self Defense."   Which I generally reject because "self defense" and a "REAL fight"  (as specified in the opening post) are highly context sensitive.  What may or may not constitute a "REAL fight" and "self defense," right now, in Venezuela (for instance) may not be the same as in Portland, Indiana. I have a buddy in Venezuela. Things are rough there, today, right now. He's been kidnapped for ransom multiple times, assaulted, mugged, and witnessed straight-up executions. So just trying to limit it to "a context that people are currently experiencing" still leaves pretty much everything on the table.

See what I'm getting at?


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> Is it a necessity for most people, though?


If they are forced to it, yes.  Perhaps there was some confusion because I thought that's what I wrote.: Talking about being forced into a situation where one may be required to use deadly force to preserve life and limb is not fantasizing about shooting someone.



Steve said:


> I think you've captured the nut of the debate.  If we don't agree that it's a necessity, it makes perfect sense that we would disagree on whether it's a fantasy or not.  Don't get me wrong.


I think we're still at loggerheads.  Realizing that there is some non-zero chance of being forced into such a situation, then discussing it (and possibly training to mitigate) is not the same thing as fantasizing about it.




Steve said:


> When you question this presumption that everyone should be prepared to kill or be killed,


Odd.  I don't presume that everyone should be prepared. I presume that if they decide to be prepared for the possibility it does not equate to fantasizing about killing someone.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Nothing common sense about it.


Every time I hear "common sense," I think of this:




__





						Common Sense
					

On the famous Thomas Paine pamphlet "Common Sense"




					www.thomaspainesociety.org
				




Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Well, first off, let me say that if you make a decision for you then that's 100% fine, as long as you're not feeling like you should make decisions for other people.
> 
> If you're wondering about statistics, on the other hand, the Cliffs Notes version is that there have been multiple studies of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) in the U.S. and results range from the low of around 76,000 per year in 1996 (1996 National Crime Victim Survey by the DOJ) t a high of somewhere north of 2,000,000 per year (Centers for Disease Control survey) with various others in the middle such as the Hart studies and the Mauser study.
> 
> ...



I really don't want to turn this into a debate about guns, but don't you think it's a little problematic that the statistics for DGU are almost 30 years old, and that they range from 76k to over 2 million? I would really like to see more recent and better statistics for that, but I'm sure I read somewhere that powerful folks in the gun lobby prevented the government from doing that type of research.

In any case, yeah I agree everyone has a right to decide for themselves whether or not carrying a gun is right for them. I'm just a little concerned that there's bad actors out there making our society seem more violent and dangerous than it actually is.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Not exactly.  I'm talking about a context that isn't valid *for you*. It could be valid for other people, living right now, who are in a different context. Should I go on youtube again and start posting "machete fights" or "knife fights?" I'll concede that "sword fights" don't happen much in the U.S. so self defense for most in the U.S. doesn't often include that. In South America, on the other hand, "sword" attacks (machete and the like) are more common. People are currently experiencing them. Just because it's not valid for you or may not be valid for me, doesn't mean it's not valid.



Uh, I never said machete or knife attacks weren't valid in the modern era. I'm saying a WW2 tactic where you stab an enemy soldier in the back before they kill you isn't a very valid tactic in the modern, civilian world.



lklawson said:


> And I thought we were discussing "Techniques you learn in your MA that are probably not a good idea for Self Defense."   Which I generally reject because "self defense" and a "REAL fight"  (as specified in the opening post) are highly context sensitive.  What may or may not constitute a "REAL fight" and "self defense," right now, in Venezuela (for instance) may not be the same as in Portland, Indiana. I have a buddy in Venezuela. Things are rough there, today, right now. He's been kidnapped for ransom multiple times, assaulted, mugged, and witnessed straight-up executions. So just trying to limit it to "a context that people are currently experiencing" still leaves pretty much everything on the table.
> 
> See what I'm getting at?



Okay, but again, we were talking about *curb stomping*, a form of unarmed execution that requires a decent level of setup and sadism to pull off.  Perhaps we have different views of what self defense is, but I believe that forcing a downed assailant to bite down on a curb while you stomp the back of their neck goes quite a bit beyond the confines of self defense.

Do you believe that *curb stomping* is a viable tactic for self defense purposes?


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> I really don't want to turn this into a debate about guns,


That's fair.  I don't want to either.  Nevertheless, to be fair, you brought out the topic by opining, "I seriously have to wonder what level of threat you think lies outside your front door for you to believe that you need a gun for "self defense". I see people going to Walmart or Chipotle with guns strapped to them like they're on their way to Afghanistan, and it boggles my mind."

If you'd like to retract that line, I'm OK with that.




Hanzou said:


> but don't you think it's a little problematic that the statistics for DGU are almost 30 years old,


I included the '96 CVS in an effort to be honest and complete.  It represents the low-water mark and I wanted to be honest and fair in the bounds of the numbers.  Yes, it's old.  Newer studies put the numbers much higher, often a lot.  But, again, I was wanting to be fair in what I was was writing.   Various other studies are much more recent and show increasingly higher DGU numbers.  The DGU numbers for more recent studies usually come in at a low-water mark of around 500,000 per year and go up from there:








						Data Visualization | Defensive Gun Uses in the U.S. | The Heritage Foundation
					

According to almost every major study on the issue, Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. From @HeritageDataViz




					datavisualizations.heritage.org
				




If you prefer, I can recast my statement, leaving out the '96 CVS study and moving to the 500,000 minimum number:
_Interestingly, even the lowest of those DGU numbers, 500,000, exceeds the latest CDC annual murder rate of 19,141 by   more than 26 times, meaning that Americans use firearms to protect their lives at a minimum of 26 times more often than people are murdered, and likely a lot more if the DGU rate falls closer to the CDC DGU number or somewhere in the middle._




Hanzou said:


> and that they range from 76k to over 2 million? I would really like to see more recent and better statistics for that,


No problem.  I'll include a link with references (above).




Hanzou said:


> but I'm sure I read somewhere that powerful folks in the gun lobby prevented the government from doing that type of research.


I know you've read that.  I've read it too.  But they lied to you.  I wrote about it here:








						Let The CDC Study Gun Violence
					

Let The CDC Study Gun Violence by Kirk Lawson  [The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention logo (tm)]  Should there be studies on gun violence?  A lot of America gun owners seem as if they are afraid of studies on gun violence. If someone on on social media suggests that there should be...




					www.hipointfirearmsforums.com
				







Hanzou said:


> In any case, yeah I agree everyone has a right to decide for themselves whether or not carrying a gun is right for them. I'm just a little concerned that there's bad actors out there making our society seem more violent and dangerous than it actually is.


I understand.  No one wants to see something they love bad mouthed.  Violent crime in the U.S. (well, most places) is a complex topic that it seems too many people want to apply simplistic solutions to which will typically not be particularly effective.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Do you believe that *curb stomping* is a viable tactic for self defense purposes?


For me, in my context?  Probably not.  But I'm unwilling to completely discount it because I can easily envision a potential scenario where it would be both morally justified and legal and, therefore, "valid."  Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean the possibility is zero.

Would you like me to posit one of these potential, if unlikely, scenarios?  You're smart so I know you can come up with one or two yourself.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> For me, in my context?  Probably not.  But I'm unwilling to completely discount it because I can easily envision a potential scenario where it would be both morally justified and legal and, therefore, "valid."  Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean the possibility is zero.
> 
> Would you like me to posit one of these potential, if unlikely, scenarios?  You're smart so I know you can come up with one or two yourself.
> 
> ...



If I'm being totally honest, I really can't. So I'd like to hear your scenarios for where curb stomping would be justified.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> If I'm being totally honest, I really can't. So I'd like to hear your scenarios for where curb stomping would be justified.


Let's base it off of a real life event.  Happened to a buddy of mine.  We'll start there then twist the knob just a little bit.   

Like my buddy, let's suppose you're out late one night and get jumped by three men.  Now, what happened to my buddy is that one of them drew a knife and he started with that guy.  One of them claimed he had a gun, but it turned out he was lying.  Punching, grappling, and throws occurred.   Now posit, you, in the situation, are jumped by same three.  You throw or knock one to the concrete (or asphalt; fill in the [hard surface]) and end up standing near his head.  His two buddies, still standing, advance on you while the downed attacker draws a firearm.  At that point, you are morally and legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, including stomping on his head (the nearest part of his body to you).

It doesn't take much knob-twisting from an actual event to get there.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Let's base it off of a real life event.  Happened to a buddy of mine.  We'll start there then twist the knob just a little bit.
> 
> Like my buddy, let's suppose you're out late one night and get jumped by three men.  Now, what happened to my buddy is that one of them drew a knife and he started with that guy.  One of them claimed he had a gun, but it turned out he was lying.  Punching, grappling, and throws occurred.   Now posit, you, in the situation, are jumped by same three.  You throw or knock one to the concrete (or asphalt; fill in the [hard surface]) and end up standing near his head.  His two buddies, still standing, advance on you while the downed attacker draws a firearm.  At that point, you are morally and legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, including stomping on his head (the nearest part of his body to you).
> 
> ...



I got you, but what you're describing is NOT a curb stomp. In that situation, a head stomp or a soccer kick to the head or face is perfectly justified.

A curb stomp is purposely placing someone's open mouth or chin on a curb or an elevated hard surface and stomping the back of the head or neck in order to cause severe injury or death. This isn't some heat of the moment thing, this is a methodical act that you do after your assailant is no longer a serious threat.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> I got you, but what you're describing is NOT a curb stomp. In that situation, a head stomp or a soccer kick to the head or face is perfectly justified.
> 
> A curb stomp is purposely placing someone's open mouth or chin on a curb or an elevated hard surface and stomping the back of the head or neck in order to cause severe injury or death. This isn't some heat of the moment thing, this is a methodical act that you do after your assailant is no longer a serious threat.


I agree that this would be deliberate execution.  I've never heard that definition until this thread.  It's a hole that was in my vocabulary.

I'm now really curious as to the etymology of the term.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> If they are forced to it, yes.  Perhaps there was some confusion because I thought that's what I wrote.: Talking about being forced into a situation where one may be required to use deadly force to preserve life and limb is not fantasizing about shooting someone.


The literal definition of fantasy is to describe the act of imagining things that are improbable.    



lklawson said:


> I think we're still at loggerheads.  Realizing that there is some non-zero chance of being forced into such a situation, then discussing it (and possibly training to mitigate) is not the same thing as fantasizing about it.


Oh, no question we don't agree.  But I think I better understand the disagreement.  I'm okay with that.  



lklawson said:


> Odd.  I don't presume that everyone should be prepared. I presume that if they decide to be prepared for the possibility it does not equate to fantasizing about killing someone.



Well, on this we agree.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Let's base it off of a real life event.  Happened to a buddy of mine.  We'll start there then twist the knob just a little bit.
> 
> Like my buddy, let's suppose you're out late one night and get jumped by three men.  Now, what happened to my buddy is that one of them drew a knife and he started with that guy.  One of them claimed he had a gun, but it turned out he was lying.  Punching, grappling, and throws occurred.   Now posit, you, in the situation, are jumped by same three.  You throw or knock one to the concrete (or asphalt; fill in the [hard surface]) and end up standing near his head.  His two buddies, still standing, advance on you while the downed attacker draws a firearm.  At that point, you are morally and legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, including stomping on his head (the nearest part of his body to you).
> 
> ...


If you kill the guy because you stomp his head into the concrete, you _might_ be legally justified.  And to say that he would be morally justified is highly subjective.  There are a lot of folks in the world, myself included, who believe that the morality of killing someone is complicated at best, and not something to discuss so cavalierly.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> The literal definition of fantasy is to describe the act of imagining things that are improbable.


But that you want to happen.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
fantasize
verb [ I or T ]
 (UK usually fantasise) 
/ˈfæn.tə.saɪz/ 

*to think about something very pleasant that is unlikely to happen:*
 - He fantasized about winning the Nobel Prize.
 - [ + that ] As a child, Emma fantasized that she would do something heroic.









						fantasizing
					

1. present participle of fantasize 2. to think about something very pleasant…




					dictionary.cambridge.org
				





There is a very distinct difference between using visualization drills or "imagining that something could happen" and saying that someone is fantasizing about it and we all know it.   Using the term "fantasize" clearly implies that the person "imagining" it wants it to happen or that it would be "pleasant" for them.

You wrote, "I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy" which has the clear implication that you believe that they want to "pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy."  I've seen this exact verbiage of "fantasizing" a lot with exactly that implication and, again, it's just not true.

Now, if you want to clarify and restate, "oh, well I didn't mean to imply that they actually want to shoot someone, but only that they considered the possibility" then this is the time.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> If you kill the guy because you stomp his head into the concrete, you _might_ be legally justified.  And to say that he would be morally justified is highly subjective.  There are a lot of folks in the world, myself included, who believe that the morality of killing someone is complicated at best, and not something to discuss so cavalierly.


Not when it is a clear case of self defense against deadly force being used against the defender.  

When deadly force is being used against you, you have every right to use deadly force in defense of yourself.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> That's fair.  I don't want to either.  Nevertheless, to be fair, you brought out the topic by opining, "I seriously have to wonder what level of threat you think lies outside your front door for you to believe that you need a gun for "self defense". I see people going to Walmart or Chipotle with guns strapped to them like they're on their way to Afghanistan, and it boggles my mind."
> 
> If you'd like to retract that line, I'm OK with that.
> 
> ...


There's always a way to fantasize about something worse, in order to justify more.  A guy joins the wrestling team because he wants to defend himself better.  He becomes fit and relatively skilled on the ground.  But then someone says, "Hey, what if?"  And now that guy thinks he needs to learn striking to defend himself, but then someone says, "But what if?"  And so the guy starts getting into knife defense and gun defense... which leads him to buy a gun.  But what if there are three guys?  I should have a bigger gun, or more guns.  Maybe guns and a knife in my sock?  I mean, the fantasy could keep going until you have an arsenal... which is exactly where our country is now. Nevermind that the actual danger that guy can reasonably anticipate is very low, or perhaps coming from a completely different place.  Like a person in the Midwest carrying an earthquake rider on their homeowner's insurance.  I'm sure you could buy it, but do you need it?

To be honest, when I think about self defense and the actual, real dangers I may likely face, it's from neighbors who have arsenals in their homes and espouse conspiracy theories.  I am wary of neighbors or strangers who flout mask mandates, not because I'm overly concerned about COVID.  Rather, it's an indication that they may be radicalized, and I always presume they are well armed and willing to take a life.  Is it fair that I'm painting with such a broad brush?  Probably not, but where I live, I'm not going to get jumped by three guys in a dark alley.  The danger here is a person who is radicalized and well armed, looking for a reason to use their weapon "in self defense."


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> But that you want to happen.
> 
> From the Cambridge Dictionary:
> fantasize
> ...


I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.  I don't believe a fantasy needs to be something pleasant, and plenty of dictionaries agree with me.  Thanks, though.  Are there any other words you'd like me to clarify for you?


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Not when it is a clear case of self defense against deadly force being used against the defender.
> 
> When deadly force is being used against you, you have every right to use deadly force in defense of yourself.


Whether some action is reasonable in the moment, and whether something is deadly force being used against you" are both judgements made by other people.  You're presenting a hypothetical as immutable fact.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> But that you want to happen.
> 
> From the Cambridge Dictionary:
> fantasize
> ...



The NRA sells via fantasy. 






Let's not be silly here they are selling a completely emotional argument. And every ad I have ever seen is the same. That owning a gun is this fantasy of being some sort of better person. With extra power and more control over their lives.

The idea that nobody buys In to their power fantasy is pretty naive.

The same power fantasy that is the ability to curb stomp bad guys.

And people buy in to that as well.

Look pretending people don't is fine. Pretend as much as you want. You are also selling an image. Which is of the responsible gun owner. And is the supporting fantasy to the power one.

But it is an image that lacks a lot of introspection. And when it comes to whether or not you are going to kick someone's head off on the deck. I think some honest introspection is warranted.

Rather than selling a fantasy.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 15, 2021)

*Posts are moving in and out of original topic. So to be clear.*

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*_

*Please, return to the original topic.*
*
 Seasoned: *
* Martial Talk Senior Moderator.*


----------



## drop bear (Nov 15, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The NRA sells via fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Check this out for a back on topic twist. 

This is why we have the self defense systems that are ultra violent while also being super easy to be good at.

This is why you can do over a room full of guys in your first week of RSBD. While MMA you are still struggling to get that arm lock on one bloke. 

Almost all of these techniques you learn are not a good idea for self defense. Because they either don't work or only work when you are so much better off than your opponent that you become the predator.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> There's always a way to fantasize about something worse, in order to justify more.  A guy joins the wrestling team because he wants to defend himself better.  He becomes fit and relatively skilled on the ground.  But then someone says, "Hey, what if?"  And now that guy thinks he needs to learn striking to defend himself, but then someone says, "But what if?"  And so the guy starts getting into knife defense and gun defense... which leads him to buy a gun.  But what if there are three guys?  I should have a bigger gun, or more guns.  Maybe guns and a knife in my sock?  I mean, the fantasy could keep going until you have an arsenal... which is exactly where our country is now. Nevermind that the actual danger that guy can reasonably anticipate is very low, or perhaps coming from a completely different place.  Like a person in the Midwest carrying an earthquake rider on their homeowner's insurance.  I'm sure you could buy it, but do you need it?
> 
> To be honest, when I think about self defense and the actual, real dangers I may likely face, it's from neighbors who have arsenals in their homes and espouse conspiracy theories.  I am wary of neighbors or strangers who flout mask mandates, not because I'm overly concerned about COVID.  Rather, it's an indication that they may be radicalized, and I always presume they are well armed and willing to take a life.  Is it fair that I'm painting with such a broad brush?  Probably not, but where I live, I'm not going to get jumped by three guys in a dark alley.  The danger here is a person who is radicalized and well armed, looking for a reason to use their weapon "in self defense."


I think you fundamentally misunderstood that entire exchange.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> Whether some action is reasonable in the moment, and whether something is deadly force being used against you" are both judgements made by other people.  You're presenting a hypothetical as immutable fact.


No.  There is nothing hypothetical about the long-standing moral and legal justification of self defense using lethal force against someone engaged in an unjustified lethal attack against the defender.  This established doctrine goes back to at least the Code of Hammurabi or earlier.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The NRA sells via fantasy.


Well thanks for bringing up the NRA because, you know, it's not particularly relevant to the discussion, just like the rest of the post.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> I think you fundamentally misunderstood that entire exchange.


Possible.  Or it's possible I've heard it before, and have different things in mind.  I don't think you're ready to listen to me yet, at any rate.  


lklawson said:


> Well thanks for bringing up the NRA because, you know, it's not particularly relevant to the discussion, just like the rest of the post



Definitely relevant, though I will grant not convenient to your assertions about gun fantasies.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> No.  There is nothing hypothetical about the long-standing moral and legal justification of self defense using lethal force against someone engaged in an unjustified lethal attack against the defender.  This established doctrine goes back to at least the Code of Hammurabi or earlier.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 15, 2021)

seasoned said:


> *Posts are moving in and out of original topic. So to be clear.*
> 
> _*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*_
> 
> ...


*I'm getting this out ahead of this thread. Heed or points and infractions will be given out.*


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2021)

seasoned said:


> *I'm getting this out ahead of this thread. Heed or points and infractions will be given out.*


Can you please be a bit more specific?  Which posts are veering too far off?

I'll follow a disagreement, time and personal interest permitting, but I'm trying not to run afoul of an official warning here.

Thanks.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> In South America, on the other hand, "sword" attacks (machete and the like) are more common. People are currently experiencing them. Just because it's not valid for you or may not be valid for me, doesn't mean it's not valid.


The Dominican republic has quite a few.


Steve said:


> There are a lot of folks in the world, myself included, who believe that the morality of killing someone is complicated at best, and not something to discuss so cavalierly.


That level of violence is always complicated it's not supposed to be easy.  It's not supposed to be something people look forward to doing. It's not something that should be done because one feels afraid of another person.  Discussion of things is healthy.  In my opinion discussion is better than debating. I don't know about other countries but the U.S does too much debating to score points and not enough discussion, especially if it's a discussion about uncomfortable topics.  

We only breed assumptions when we don't talk about the hard topics.  People should debate the small stuff like "best tasting icecream" and discuss the difficult topics, especially if it makes everyone uneasy.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Can you please be a bit more specific?  Which posts are veering too far off?
> 
> I'll follow a disagreement, time and personal interest permitting, but I'm trying not to run afoul of an official warning here.
> 
> Thanks.


Some posts seems to have veered quite a bit from the original purpose, to a discussion on gun control and law enforcement.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 15, 2021)

To get things back on topic.  Here's another one.  Not so much with Jow Ga that I know of but it's something I've seen before.   The 20 strike combos that are taught in class should not be used in a real self-defense situations.  It looks good in a demo, but in practical use, it's difficult to lay a large change of combination attacks that will follow as trained.  Any thing beyond a 5 strike combo because increasingly unlikely.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

seasoned said:


> *I'm getting this out ahead of this thread. Heed or points and infractions will be given out.*


I don't get it.  I'm cool with a DM letting me know what the concern is and am happy to comply.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2021)

seasoned said:


> Some posts seems to have veered quite a bit from the original purpose, to a discussion on gun control and law enforcement.


Not gun control, but certainly the real world hazards that having heavily armed neighbors represents.  The former is legislative and the latter is real world self defense.

Regarding law enforcement... is that an off limits topic now?  I didn't get that memo.  

Sincerely not trying to be coy or clever here.  I 100% don't understand your reaction or what you are all discussing behind the scenes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 15, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> To get things back on topic.  Here's another one.  Not so much with Jow Ga that I know of but it's something I've seen before.   The 20 strike combos that are taught in class should not be used in a real self-defense situations.  It looks good in a demo, but in practical use, it's difficult to lay a large change of combination attacks that will follow as trained.  Any thing beyond a 5 strike combo because increasingly unlikely.


My read of these has always been that they're for training the transitions between the techniques. So, it's not assuming you'll get to do those 20 in a row, but that each of those pairs (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, etc.) is a valid pairing, so you're working the transitions and flow. In addition, it's meant to build a habit of continuing attack, so long as there are openings and the threat exists.

I'd go back to the idea of shadow boxing. Nobody presupposes someone shadowboxing expects the fight to go in exactly that sequence, but they expect the combinations they are practicing to be useful. Of course, shadowboxing tends to be based on some fairly predictable fight mechanics, while the long combos you're talking about may not be.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> I would need more information frankly than what you're providing here. If someone had broken into my house in the middle of the night, then yeah stabbing them in the back is a possible option, because this person is a potential threat, and there's no time to ask questions.
> 
> However, beyond that situation, where else would me preemptively stabbing someone in the back make sense? I really can't think of too many situations where that situation would arise. Further, if I'm wrong and a stab a person who wasn't doing anything wrong, I've just earned a ticket to a prison cell. Same applies if I bring a knife to a bar fight.


I can say with certainty that it depends on where you are at (globally/regionally) and the circumstances surrounding the encounter. 

I took the 'stabbing in the back' as an inference, an single example of many possible scenarios.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 15, 2021)

Steve said:


> I think self defense is inherently funny, and honestly, this thread was very enjoyable.  My mistake was to underestimate how many people on this forum think curb stomping is not just a good idea, but essential training for most people. My bad on that.
> 
> If you're tired, you could take a nap, or use the ignore feature.  I don't mind at all.


Not tired at all. Sounds like you are the one who is fading. Usually happens when your bluff gets called.

So for you, MA's training, in your case BJJ allegedly, is purely for competition?

Did you ever consider that "curb stomp" was just an analogy?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 15, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> My read of these has always been that they're for training the transitions between the techniques. So, it's not assuming you'll get to do those 20 in a row, but that each of those pairs (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, etc.) is a valid pairing, so you're working the transitions and flow. In addition, it's meant to build a habit of continuing attack, so long as there are openings and the threat exists.
> 
> I'd go back to the idea of shadow boxing. Nobody presupposes someone shadowboxing expects the fight to go in exactly that sequence, but they expect the combinations they are practicing to be useful. Of course, shadowboxing tends to be based on some fairly predictable fight mechanics, while the long combos you're talking about may not be.


That's how I see the training as well.  I don't look things like that as one long string of combo.  However, in demos that's how it's presented and unfortunately that is never made clear to students who then expect that such long combos are possible. 

I believe long combination strikes are possible, but I don't believe long predetermined combinations are possible.

Edit a long combo for me would be strikes 1-3 predetermined set.  Strikes 4-5-6.  It's whatever comes next which is totally based on my my attacker does after my 3rd strike.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I can say with certainty that it depends on where you are at (globally/regionally) and the circumstances surrounding the encounter.
> 
> I took the 'stabbing in the back' as an inference, an single example of many possible scenarios.



Isn't that a bit of a cop out though? Certainly if we're talking about everywhere and anywhere, everything and anything applies. However, I'm willing to bet that the majority of us on this forum live in wealthy, western countries, and thus we have a limited amount of situations that can realistically apply to us.

Take my SD experience for example where I was attacked by a large person wielding a hammer. If I would have stabbed that person in the back _before_ I was attacked, I'd be typing to you from a jail cell right now.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> If I would have stabbed that person in the back _before_ I was attacked, I'd be typing to you from a jail cell right now.


My SC teacher's 2nd son was stabbed from behind right in front of his house. Even today, nobody can find who killed him that day.

To stab from behind mean that person won't know who kills him.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My SC teacher's 2nd son was stabbed from behind right in front of his house. Even today, nobody can find who killed him that day.
> 
> To stab from behind mean that person won't know who kills him.



Well that wouldn't have been me. There were cameras.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 15, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> a long combo for me would be strikes 1-3 predetermined set. Strikes 4-5-6. It's whatever comes next which is totally based on my my attacker does after my 3rd strike.


A 1-2-3 (or 4) move set initial combo is very doable, though it should take into account at least one counter attempt, so checks and body angle should be built in. After that, as you say, who knows just how the guy will be positioned and what his resulting capabilities are?  Thru some firm pair training we can see what the 2 most common results will be and have an A and B version of 4-5-6 accordingly to deal with them.  Of course, there can be a C or D version we haven't foreseen.  Checks and angles can minimize this risk and give us a chance to adapt.    


gpseymour said:


> So, it's not assuming you'll get to do those 20 in a row, but that each of those pairs (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, etc.) is a valid pairing, so you're working the transitions and flow. In addition, it's meant to build a habit of continuing attack, so long as there are openings and the threat exists.


I underlined this part to stress the high importance of what you are saying in this sentence.  It is key to coming out the victor, especially in a real fight with a capable opponent.  Physically, yes, keep punching, manipulating, elbowing and kneeing (don't get sloppy, so practice those 20 in a row with good form and balance) until the threat is gone.  Also, spiritually to stick to the opponent AND the mission - commitment to complete it.

I have seen fights in boxing, MMA, karate and more where one guy has done a few good strikes, then stops for whatever reason, giving the opponent a chance to recover his poise!!!  In war, this is like retreating, then having to retake the ground (something Gen. Patton hated).  Why on earth give him a break?  Three reasons:  Stupidity, lack of physical capability, lack of commitment.  If I remember Sun Tzu correctly, he said "After penetrating enemy territory, do not stop."


----------



## drop bear (Nov 15, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> I have seen fights in boxing, MMA, karate and more where one guy has done a few good strikes, then stops for whatever reason, giving the opponent a chance to recover his poise!!! In war, this is like retreating, then having to retake the ground (something Gen. Patton hated). Why on earth give him a break? Three reasons: Stupidity, lack of physical capability, lack of commitment. If I remember Sun Tzu correctly, he said "After



Yeah. If you get too buck wild when you think you are winning it becomes very easy to be countered.

You see it in bare knuckle. Where you just can't trade as safely. The have very short combinations.

The very first exchange is a good example. One guy is putting a flurry on and gets caught. 





So say you have this sort of environment where one punch can end you. You have to be really careful about how much you expose yourself.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 15, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Isn't that a bit of a cop out though? Certainly if we're talking about everywhere and anywhere, everything and anything applies. However, I'm willing to bet that the majority of us on this forum live in wealthy, western countries, and thus we have a limited amount of situations that can realistically apply to us.
> I
> Take my SD experience for example where I was attacked by a large person wielding a hammer. If I would have stabbed that person in the back _before_ I was attacked, I'd be typing to you from a jail cell right now.


So let's narrow it down to the USA. 
A person's curtilage is somewhat loosely defined and moves with them to a large degree. If I am in my house, the room I am in has legally been argued as curtilage. The same is true for the inside of a vehicle. Within these confines if a person has reason and can reasonably argue that their defense, no matter what that entailed, can be justified and pretty much anything goes. That includes a preemptive strike such as in the case of a knife to the back. Granted and again, there would have to be conditional factors involved. Of course that does not include something as benign as getting cut off in traffic and it would have to be of an extraordinary circumstance, but in the example of protecting life, limb, family, and friends, these would go a very long way. 

You take these items outside western culture, excluding exceptions like some European countries, and I would say the bar is lowered considerably.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 15, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Well thanks for bringing up the NRA because, you know, it's not particularly relevant to the discussion, just like the rest of the post.



The idea was that it is a big organisation that appeals to a mainstream part of the community. And that it sells via fantasy.

Where when you mentioned your friends don't have those same fantasy's. But that is such a small number as to be irrelevant.

And look selling via power fantasy, a fear fantasy and then trying to justify that with a responsibility fantasy. Is almost a blue print on how to sell martial arts. Or guns. Or a lot of stuff to be honest.

The sheepdog fantasy.

But eventually you get this.





Where people get to play at being the sort of person who could actually handle 3 people coming at them with sticks and knives or stuff. 

Or the sort of person who thinks he could kick a person to death. Or shoot someone or whatever. 

And look. Good luck to them. Not all martial arts are about learning to fight. Some focus on the other thing.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 15, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> So let's narrow it down to the USA.
> A person's curtilage is somewhat loosely defined and moves with them to a large degree. If I am in my house, the room I am in has legally been argued as curtilage. The same is true for the inside of a vehicle. Within these confines if a person has reason and can reasonably argue that their defense, no matter what that entailed, can be justified and pretty much anything goes. That includes a preemptive strike such as in the case of a knife to the back. Granted and again, there would have to be conditional factors involved. Of course that does not include something as benign as getting cut off in traffic and it would have to be of an extraordinary circumstance, but in the example of protecting life, limb, family, and friends, these would go a very long way.
> 
> You take these items outside western culture, excluding exceptions like some European countries, and I would say the bar is lowered considerably.



Yeah, like I said in an earlier post, if I got some goons in my house trying to murder my family, a few knives in the back would be more than justified.

Some guy is being a jerk in a bar?

I'm substitute teaching and a large HS kid is balling up their fist and pacing the classroom?

I'm a woman and my date is starting to make some unwelcome advances?

Not so much.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 15, 2021)

*THREAD LOCKED PENDING STAFF REVIEW*


----------

