# What MUST be taught in a Self-Defense Course?



## Justin Chang (Oct 5, 2016)

I am teaching a very short Self-Defense Class (2 hours) in late November and was going over my past courses' syllabus and wanted to fine tune it a bit.

What do you think MUST be taught in a quick and dirty Self-Defense seminar?  

The people attending will likely have no experience in Martial Arts or Self-Defense and most likely will not be following up with any additional training either.  What would you offer someone in 2 hours time that could assist them in defending themselves in the futute?

Thanks in advance for your feedback!


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 5, 2016)

Personally, I believe in injecting a little reality check into a self-defense course. Let them know there is no way they can develop the muscle memory in such a short class. When they are attacked 2 months after their 2 hour course, they will not have the motor skills to handle it...unless they continue to train. This isn't so much for the curriculum of your course itself as it is for you to have a higher student body in the future. This is what is called an "upsell."

As for the course itself, you obviously don't want any complicated techniques or counters. Teach them to strike for vulnerable parts of an attacker's body while using not-so-vulnerable parts of theirs. Another biggie would be situational awareness: don't walk around zoned out on your cell phone, so you can notice the guy who has been following you for one block too many. Being able to spot danger before it gets physical is huge.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2016)

How to ring the cops.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 5, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Personally, I believe in injecting a little reality check into a self-defense course. Let them know there is no way they can develop the muscle memory in such a short class. When they are attacked 2 months after their 2 hour course, they will not have the motor skills to handle it...unless they continue to train. This isn't so much for the curriculum of your course itself as it is for you to have a higher student body in the future. This is what is called an "upsell."
> 
> As for the course itself, you obviously don't want any complicated techniques or counters. Teach them to strike for vulnerable parts of an attacker's body while using not-so-vulnerable parts of theirs. Another biggie would be situational awareness: don't walk around zoned out on your cell phone, so you can notice the guy who has been following you for one block too many. Being able to spot danger before it gets physical is huge.



I agree with all of that, I definitely try to give them a honest reality check and not try to sell them a product I cannot deliver.  You will not learn to conquer any foe you will ever face for the rest of your life in my little 2 hour seminar, I will not be teaching you any moves that "will work 100% of the time GUARENTEED".


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> How to ring the cops.


probably the worst response to my question.


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2016)

In two hours, if you're teaching them any physical skills, you're wasting their time.   Identifying high risk behaviors and deescalation techniques, along with how to ring the cops.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 5, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I agree with all of that, I definitely try to give them a honest reality check and not try to sell them a product I cannot deliver.  You will not learn to conquer any foe you will ever face for the rest of your life in my little 2 hour seminar, I will not be teaching you any moves that "will work 100% of the time GUARENTEED".


 

Right...and not that we are in this because it's all about the Benjamins, but that will potentially give you repeat customers for the future.


----------



## TwentyThree (Oct 5, 2016)

Situational awareness, avoiding going places where bad guys tend to be, making yourself a harder target, and recognizing when things are going bad and it's time to skedaddle.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I am teaching a very short Self-Defense Class (2 hours) in late November and was going over my past courses' syllabus and wanted to fine tune it a bit.
> 
> What do you think MUST be taught in a quick and dirty Self-Defense seminar?
> 
> ...


I'm assuming you were asked to do this as a martial artist, so they want some physical defense (otherwise, my answer would be all about avoidance, de-escalation, target hardening, etc.).

For a course that short, I'd give 15-30 minutes to some thoughts about avoidance and target hardening. Then, I'd pick a few responses that are close to what most people's flinch reactions are, and just teach those. No punches (if they don't have the form already, those won't be useful), but perhaps some knees/elbows. The only block I'll teach in a short course is what I call the "plow block", where you flinch both hands up and step into the attacker with both arms. No muscle memory development is necessary for that, and it works reasonably even if they step back or fail to step. Then, choose a series of attacks they can defend against with similar or progressive moves. All you can do in 2 hours is give them a few quick tools. As others have said, be clear with them about the limitations of what you're doing.

If you teach a program that might be a good choice, have someone from that program there with you so you can demonstrate what you guys do, so they can see how much farther the training can go.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2016)

Steve said:


> In two hours, if you're teaching them any physical skills, you're wasting their time.   Identifying high risk behaviors and deescalation techniques, along with how to ring the cops.


It depends what was requested. For a 2-hour course, this would be my preference, but if I've been asked to teach physical defensive technique, I will focus on that. I'd still carve out a segment of time to teach some of these concepts, too, because that's the biggest value they'll actually get out of a short seminar like that.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 5, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I am teaching a very short Self-Defense Class (2 hours) in late November and was going over my past courses' syllabus and wanted to fine tune it a bit.
> 
> What do you think MUST be taught in a quick and dirty Self-Defense seminar?
> 
> ...


Are you teaching a self-defense class or a fighting back class?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 5, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> probably the worst response to my question.



Not in my opinion.  It is good to know how to summon help if it will be needed.  It is just as important to know when to summon help.  Since so many carry cell phones these days, certainly that is a thing to consider.  Be sure they know the quickest way to make a 911 call, even if their phone is password protected.

But also carrying a whistle of some kind to attract attention.  And not being embarrassed about shouting at the top of their lungs.  Many malefactors will be put off by things that call attention to themselves and if lucky, may disengage.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 5, 2016)

Steve said:


> In two hours, if you're teaching them any physical skills, you're wasting their time.   Identifying high risk behaviors and deescalation techniques, along with how to ring the cops.



I know where you are coming from and agree two hours is not a lot of time to teach useful stuff.  But beside situational awareness basics, they can be taught how to identify environmental weaponry, vulnerabilities such as eyes and gouging, kicking knees, how to appear non-aggressive until an opening appears.  The advantages of living rather than protecting property.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> How to ring the cops.


This deserves a funny and agree.  2 hours is such a short time that anything that only awareness tips and how to call the police are going to fit in.  This is in the context of people who don't know how to punch or may never have punched in their lives.

A 2 hour session would be good for an introductory class to a much larger self defense seminar.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 5, 2016)

A couple more questions:

1) How many people are supposed to be attending?

2) Do you have anyone assisting in instruction with you, or who could at least go around and give people pointers as they try to execute techniques?

My point here is this: if you had 10 people and you are the only one who can give tips 10 times over...well, then you won't be able to teach too many techniques because your time will be drained super fast. Then again, that could be a good thing: picky only 2-3 actual physical techniques to show them. That way you will leave them wanting more...hopefully, for your sake AND theirs.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 5, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Are you teaching a self-defense class or a fighting back class?


Self-Defense


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It depends what was requested. For a 2-hour course, this would be my preference, but if I've been asked to teach physical defensive technique, I will focus on that. I'd still carve out a segment of time to teach some of these concepts, too, because that's the biggest value they'll actually get out of a short seminar like that.


Sure but the question wasn't whay is he obligated to teach.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 5, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Not in my opinion.  It is good to know how to summon help if it will be needed.  It is just as important to know when to summon help.  Since so many carry cell phones these days, certainly that is a thing to consider.  Be sure they know the quickest way to make a 911 call, even if their phone is password protected.
> 
> But also carrying a whistle of some kind to attract attention.  And not being embarrassed about shouting at the top of their lungs.  Many malefactors will be put off by things that call attention to themselves and if lucky, may disengage.



I seriously doubt people are paying to attend a Self-Defense class to learn how to use their phone to call 911.  And I'm equally sure that calling the police as you're being assaulted is going to work out well for you.  Now avoidance techniques, calling out for help, rape whistles those would have been useful reccomendations.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 5, 2016)

I wasn't going to comment at first as I didnt want to sound disrespectful but since others have said it ill offer my opinion. Doing 1 2 hour class isn't going to teach much I mean martial artists train for years and years perfecting their techniques and moves to be able to defend themselves and learn what they know 2 hours won't be much and In all likelihood they'll have forgotten it in 2 weeks and will give them false sense of security. E.g they'll see something that could be trouble instead of just walking away some may think oh I've done self defence I can protect myself and stay around the danger which could get them hurt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2016)

Steve said:


> Sure but the question wasn't whay is he obligated to teach.


Agreed. When someone asks me for a self-defense class, I clarify whether they're looking for physical self-defense or how to avoid being a victim. Those are two different things, and my experience is that most folks are asking for a focus on physical self-defense, so I use it as a platform to bring in some avoidance knowledge, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> I wasn't going to comment at first as I didnt want to sound disrespectful but since others have said it ill offer my opinion. Doing 1 2 hour class isn't going to teach much I mean martial artists train for years and years perfecting their techniques and moves to be able to defend themselves and learn what they know 2 hours won't be much and In all likelihood they'll have forgotten it in 2 weeks and will give them false sense of security. E.g they'll see something that could be trouble instead of just walking away some may think oh I've done self defence I can protect myself and stay around the danger which could get them hurt.


That risk is fairly easy to mitigate by discussing it realistically at the beginning of the session. That's a risk even in a 6-week series (which I've done before). They simply won't build any new habits in those few hours, but I can give them some new tools to work with.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 5, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> probably the worst response to my question.


Actually no.  It was dead-on.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 5, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I seriously doubt people are paying to attend a Self-Defense class to learn how to use their phone to call 911.  And I'm equally sure that calling the police as you're being assaulted is going to work out well for you.  Now avoidance techniques, calling out for help, rape whistles those would have been useful reccomendations.



They may indeed think they are paying for a two hour self defense class, and that it will consist of learning how to fight to protect themselves.  You should know that anybody's ability to teach fighting against a determined opponent in two hours is problematic.  Do you have insurance?  Regardless of what you teach them you might want to consider that.

How do you plan to teach them to overcome panic?  Including how to overcome it enough to use a cell phone, pull out a whistle, scream, and oh, by the way learn 5 years worth of martial arts' self defense?  If part of your situational awareness is going over scenarios in their mind and what their responses would best be, would that be useful to suppress panic enough to better protect themselves?

If you don't agree, that is up to you.  You are free to do as you wish.


----------



## marques (Oct 5, 2016)

2 hours?
Well, I would put it in context. Stats, violence dynamics and prevention, prevention, prevention. Reading scenario (identifying exit routes in every closed spaced). Self defence concept... Already too much speaking.

So... In 2 hours? For general public?
Perhaps teach them 1 very common situation (2 max) in order to make them trust your "stuff" and find it useful. Then envite them to continue on regular classes. 

Again, 2 hours? I don't trust very much an instructor with less than 10 years regular training... I would try to make the public like it, and if they (beginners) can 'learn' how to manage that one situation in that 2 hours, I would consider the event a success.


----------



## HW1 (Oct 5, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I am teaching a very short Self-Defense Class (2 hours) in late November and was going over my past courses' syllabus and wanted to fine tune it a bit.
> 
> What do you think MUST be taught in a quick and dirty Self-Defense seminar?
> 
> ...


 Not sure how much you can fit in 2 hours but here are a few ideas:

Prevention
Distance control
Stance
The fence
Don't fight force with force
Targets
Use of available weapons (keys, pens, purse, etc.)

Good luck and update us on how it went and what you've covered and learned in the process.


----------



## Buka (Oct 5, 2016)

Justin, it's a difficult question to answer. You're in a situation where you'll offer the best you have to give.
Take what you know, look at some of the suggestions here, and just give them your best, honest teaching.

In the future, you might consider offering a "crime prevention and personal safety" class. It many places you can get the local police to help you in some/many ways. And that can only help you, as well as who you teach.

Keep us posted as to how it goes, bro.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 6, 2016)

1.  Not martial arts
2.  Anatomically correct torso targets
3.  Put a weapon in their hand
4.  Create a chaotic environment
5.  Have them hit, move, hit, move, hit, move
6.  Have them move, hit, move, hit , move hit
7.  Give them a different weapon
8.  Have them hit, move, hit, move, hit move
9.  Have them move, hit, move, hit, move, hit
10.  Give them another weapon...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> 1.  Not martial arts
> 2.  Anatomically correct torso targets
> 3.  Put a weapon in their hand
> 4.  Create a chaotic environment
> ...


I'm not sure that's useful for a 2-hour course. They will not learn to be proficient in any one weapon, much less several, much less in a chaotic environment (which normally inhibits early learning).


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

No physical skills can be taught in only 2 hours. (I am not a MA instructor but almost 19 years as a LEO).  In 2 hours however you may be able to teach warning signs, target hardening and this last bit... And I mean this from the cop end 100%

If you are fearful call 911/999.  Those three things, with a 2 your block, are the best things you can teach

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## thanson02 (Oct 7, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I am teaching a very short Self-Defense Class (2 hours) in late November and was going over my past courses' syllabus and wanted to fine tune it a bit.
> 
> What do you think MUST be taught in a quick and dirty Self-Defense seminar?
> 
> ...


There have been some good points brought up.  I would also add that if you decide to teach situational awareness, make sure to focus in scenarios that they have a good probably running into.  There are police websites that you can do some resurch to see what violent situations happen the most in your area.  If you use that as a basis, what techniques and methods you should use will become more apparent.

Above all things though, show them how to de-escalate the situation so there is no longer a threat.  If they get that, they will be ahead if the mark.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 7, 2016)

Thanks everyone for your feedback!  I agree 2 hours is not very much time to get anything done correctly, hopefully if it goes well they will want to continue and make it a standard Self-Defense course.  I will let you know how it goes!

Thanks again!


----------



## marques (Oct 7, 2016)

Call the police (by phone) looks reasonable in theory. But they need about 1 hour to arrive, if we have an opportunity to do it and if they have a "car available" (I experienced that in 3 European countries.) ... which does not look like a solution giving that. (Yet, It worked for a Brazilian girl that grabbed a thug - perhaps during one hour - until police arrive).

On the other hand, if the Police are already around the corner, they do not need a car and do not have excuses. And it worked for me. In spite of being the morning hero and arrive late (or never) to my job, I just explained to 2 cops what I was assisting (2 guys stalking and threatening a sole girl in the tube) and they moved in the right direction. 

PS: Police are faster in the US or Canada? I had a good experience in Canada, but 1 is not statistically enough...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 7, 2016)

marques said:


> Call the police (by phone) looks reasonable in theory. But they need about 1 hour to arrive, if we have an opportunity to do it and if they have a "car available" (I experienced that in 3 European countries.) ... which does not look like a solution giving that. (Yet, It worked for a Brazilian girl that grabbed a thug - perhaps during one hour - until police arrive).
> 
> On the other hand, if the Police are already around the corner, they do not need a car and do not have excuses. And it worked for me. In spite of being the morning hero and arrive late (or never) to my job, I just explained to 2 cops what I was assisting (2 guys stalking and threatening a sole girl in the tube) and they moved in the right direction.
> 
> PS: Police are faster in the US or Canada? I had a good experience in Canada, but 1 is not statistically enough...



I can't speak about Canada, I've never been there, only Quebec.     And I never had to call the police. 

Kidding aside (Actually, I found the people there to be really nice, and quite friendly.), I suspect they are like the police in most areas of the US.  They will get there as soon as they can, and that will usually be measured in short minutes.  Again, I don't know about other places.  In the US, most people in the police profession are there because they want to help people and keep the peace.  Most keep that attitude, but some may indeed become jaded.  I would say they are a small minority. 

But the more time they spend as a policeman, they do learn some caution, and may not run pell mell into a situation they know nothing about.  Also how a caller describes a situation will play into that, as well as what else is going on at the time.

Hopefully, those who are active cops may want to comment as well.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

marques said:


> Call the police (by phone) looks reasonable in theory. But they need about 1 hour to arrive, if we have an opportunity to do it and if they have a "car available" (I experienced that in 3 European countries.) ... which does not look like a solution giving that. (Yet, It worked for a Brazilian girl that grabbed a thug - perhaps during one hour - until police arrive).
> 
> On the other hand, if the Police are already around the corner, they do not need a car and do not have excuses. And it worked for me. In spite of being the morning hero and arrive late (or never) to my job, I just explained to 2 cops what I was assisting (2 guys stalking and threatening a sole girl in the tube) and they moved in the right direction.
> 
> PS: Police are faster in the US or Canada? I had a good experience in Canada, but 1 is not statistically enough...


 
Depends on the community.  The response time in the small city I work in, for an assault, is less than 5 minutes typically, as long as all units aren't tied up on other calls (which does happen) then we either have to free up units or ask for a neighboring agency to assist, which causes a longer delay.  That is the average btw for all 50 Department's in my County.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure that's useful for a 2-hour course. They will not learn to be proficient in any one weapon, much less several, much less in a chaotic environment (which normally inhibits early learning).



Maybe you don't think basic enough.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Maybe you don't think basic enough.



Basic still needs to be of practical use and unless you are spending 2 hours on a single technique I don't see the 2 hours being enough there.  Now as i said before, teaching some of the "class room" aspects, yeah but physical techniques to a neophyte? Not so much


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Basic still needs to be of practical use and unless you are spending 2 hours on a single technique I don't see the 2 hours being enough there.  Now as i said before, teaching some of the "class room" aspects, yeah but physical techniques to a neophyte? Not so much



So, the assumption is what?  No one asked what material would be covered, or how or what kind of weapons would be used, or what environment we would train in...but people assume they know what will or will not work.  The assumptions are made based on a preconceived notion of martial arts...you don't think basic enough.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Maybe you don't think basic enough.


How basic do you think you can get with absolute neophytes and several weapons in 2 hours? You'll give them a 2-minute demo, hand them the weapon, and they'll have about 15 minutes to use it. That's not a useful timeframe for teaching from scratch. About all you can hope to do with physical stuff in a 2-hour class is pass along ways to use what they already know, or give an introduction to what they may want to learn later.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> So, the assumption is what?  No one asked what material would be covered, or how or what kind of weapons would be used, or what environment we would train in...but people assume they know what will or will not work.  The assumptions are made based on a preconceived notion of martial arts...you don't think basic enough.




Um no.  First more than a couple of us have spoken about what we think can be taught in that block, not simply what can not.

Second a preconceived notion is an opinion formed beforehand *without adequate evidence*.  The people commenting on what can and can not be taught adequately in a two hour block are experienced Martial Artists and fighters, some of them even Instructors with a focus on self defense.  That is speaking from experience, experience is evidence ergo it is not based on a "preconceived notion" of the Martial Arts.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 7, 2016)

In terms of martial arts. How long did it take you to be able to use a technique in sparring or competition? Did you have any conditioning before learning the technique? The time that it took you to learn with training will probably take twice as long or longer.  We all have seen students who have trained for years and not have the ability to do anything beyond basics.

This should give anyone a good starting point for teaching techniques in a self-defense class.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> How basic do you think you can get with absolute neophytes and several weapons in 2 hours? You'll give them a 2-minute demo, hand them the weapon, and they'll have about 15 minutes to use it. That's not a useful timeframe for teaching from scratch. About all you can hope to do with physical stuff in a 2-hour class is pass along ways to use what they already know, or give an introduction to what they may want to learn later.



Not really, but one can get very basic...


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Um no.  First more than a couple of us have spoken about what we think can be taught in that block, not simply what can not.
> 
> Second a preconceived notion is an opinion formed beforehand *without adequate evidence*.  The people commenting on what can and can not be taught adequately in a two hour block are experienced Martial Artists and fighters, some of them even Instructors with a focus on self defense.  That is speaking from experience, experience is evidence ergo it is not based on a "preconceived notion" of the Martial Arts.



The assumption everyone is making is that they know what weapons will be used, what format will be used, if any "techniques" will be taught, the effectiveness or lack thereof of any technique teaching...no one has even come close to asking a basic question like...what weapons would you use?  What would you do with those weapons?  What is the goal of the session?  Simply because everyone assumes they already know...not basic enough.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> The assumption everyone is making is that they know what weapons will be used, what format will be used, if any "techniques" will be taught, the effectiveness or lack thereof of any technique teaching...no one has even come close to asking a basic question like...what weapons would you use?  What would you do with those weapons?  What is the goal of the session?  Simply because everyone assumes they already know...not basic enough.



Sorry but I don't care what weapon or technique is used.  I have been a soldier, am a cop and throughout a martial artist.  You are the one with preconceptions that appear to be based on limited experience.

As an example, I would challenge you to name a weapon which would be used in such a seminar that one of us who have been responding to this thread don't have experience with.  As for the goal, we have answered that, indirectly by saying "you can teach X" in a two hour block.  The other things not so much.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Sorry but I don't care what weapon or technique is used.  I have been a soldier, am a cop and throughout a martial artist.  You are the one with preconceptions that appear to be based on limited experience.
> 
> As an example, I would challenge you to name a weapon which would be used in such a seminar that one of us who have been responding to this thread don't have experience with.  As for the goal, we have answered that, indirectly by saying "you can teach X" in a two hour block.  The other things not so much.




I am confused...where did I say you did not have experience with a  weapon?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> The assumption everyone is making is that they know what weapons will be used, what format will be used, if any "techniques" will be taught, the effectiveness or lack thereof of any technique teaching...no one has even come close to asking a basic question like...what weapons would you use?  What would you do with those weapons?  What is the goal of the session?  Simply because everyone assumes they already know...not basic enough.


No, I've made precisely NONE of those assumptions. I'm saying that it doesn't matter which weapons you choose, which techniques you choose, and what teaching methods you use. In 2 hours, you cannot teach beginners useful techniques with multiple weapons. It has to do with understanding how the brain learns physical skills. That's just not enough time for anything new.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> No, I've made precisely NONE of those assumptions. I'm saying that it doesn't matter which weapons you choose, which techniques you choose, and what teaching methods you use. In 2 hours, you cannot teach beginners useful techniques with multiple weapons. It has to do with understanding how the brain learns physical skills. That's just not enough time for anything new.



So, once again, you are making assumptions that are not true.  Who said there was anything new?  Who says there is any learning happening?  Not enough basic thinking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> So, once again, you are making assumptions that are not true.  Who said there was anything new?  Who says there is any learning happening?  Not enough basic thinking.


Since the title of the thread includes the word "taught", that's what we should be talking about. If there's no learning, there's no teaching. If you're not introducing anything new, then you're assuming the participants are all capable of at least a few techniques with weapons, which would be a bad assumption for all but a few audiences.

Try being less insulting in your replies. It does nothing to make you sound more intelligent.


----------



## Brian King (Oct 7, 2016)

For a two hour block of instruction- getting them to understand when they have the right to fight/get physical according to the local laws and customs (legal, social, moral). Run them through scenarios where they get loud and put up fence, disengage, or avoid. Have your 'assaulting dummy' well trained in how to approach the folks to get their nervous system engaged and then let them practice breathing and talking to regain 'calmness' and clarity of thought. Do not have an assaulting dummy that must always get physical. Wolfing is deep enough for such a short block.

Give examples of people engaging in violence (but not necessarily physical) and get the class to discuss the examples. For example people getting into someone's space to argue is a form of violence that often is answered with violence even though the person that was originally doing the arguing did not think that they were engaging in violence, or that it might be answered with physical violence. Give examples of social and asocial violence and get them thinking about how they might respond to being engaged in or witnessing such violence.

The class should get them thinking about self defense but not leave them afraid. It should help to get them to start noticing situations and circumstances around them. It should be fun and empowering not fear educing or endangering.

Good luck with your class
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> I am confused...where did I say you did not have experience with a  weapon?


My point was you said "you don't know what weapons maybe be used..." Etc (a paraphrase).  The point is, collectively, between me, @JowGaWolf and @gpseymour we likely cover everything you can think of, GP has his own school, so please rather than keep saying we don't know, tell us something that could be taught in 2 hours to practical effectiveness in regards to physical techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2016)

Brian King said:


> For a two hour block of instruction- getting them to understand when they have the right to fight/get physical according to the local laws and customs (legal, social, moral). Run them through scenarios where they get loud and put up fence, disengage, or avoid. Have your 'assaulting dummy' well trained in how to approach the folks to get their nervous system engaged and then let them practice breathing and talking to regain 'calmness' and clarity of thought. Do not have an assaulting dummy that must always get physical. Wolfing is deep enough for such a short block.
> 
> Give examples of people engaging in violence (but not necessarily physical) and get the class to discuss the examples. For example people getting into someone's space to argue is a form of violence that often is answered with violence even though the person that was originally doing the arguing did not think that they were engaging in violence, or that it might be answered with physical violence. Give examples of social and asocial violence and get them thinking about how they might respond to being engaged in or witnessing such violence.
> 
> ...


This is an excellent suggestion.


----------



## marques (Oct 8, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> ...How long did it take you to be able to use a technique in sparring or competition?...


That leads to other interesting points:

- There is knowing 1) the technique alone, 2) then applying the technique in combination, 3) applying in sparring, 4) applying in competition, 5) and applying in self-defence or war...

- Another thing (quite similar) is we may be able to KO, brake articulations, kill..., but capable? In wich circumstances? Rory Miller asked in a book, 'In which circumstances would you kill?' It was an interesting philosophical reflexion and the conclusions useless, I hope... I am digressing.

The first point is more about 'can we apply under fear, adrenaline?' The second point is more about conflictual values (we may think so strongly that killing is bad that we may be killed instead of kill...).

PS: Reading myself, I found to much "kill" here. But it is only the higher end of 'self-defence'! We should not (need to) worry too much about that...


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2016)

Yeah I am getting pretty conceptual here.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 9, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> My point was you said "you don't know what weapons maybe be used..." Etc (a paraphrase).  The point is, collectively, between me, @JowGaWolf and @gpseymour we likely cover everything you can think of, GP has his own school, so please rather than keep saying we don't know, tell us something that could be taught in 2 hours to practical effectiveness in regards to physical techniques.



I have not said that you do not know.  What I have said is that you are too stuck in your preconceived notions to even bother asking what weapons, and in what way would their use be instructed...you have finally gotten to that point, but certainly not from a standpoint of wanting to know and understand, but rather from a standpoint of you collectively already know everything so you are challenging me.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 9, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> I have not said that you do not know.  What I have said is that you are too stuck in your preconceived notions to even bother asking what weapons, and in what way would their use be instructed...you have finally gotten to that point, but certainly not from a standpoint of wanting to know and understand, but rather from a standpoint of you collectively already know everything so you are challenging me.



Here is how a discussion like this actually works.

1. A premise is put forward, questions are asked.  In this case 





> I am teaching a very short Self-Defense Class (2 hours) in late November and was going over my past courses' syllabus and wanted to fine tune it a bit.
> 
> What do you think MUST be taught in a quick and dirty Self-Defense seminar?
> 
> The people attending will likely have no experience in Martial Arts or Self-Defense and most likely will not be following up with any additional training either. What would you offer someone in 2 hours time that could assist them in defending themselves in the futute?



2. People based on their experience answer the question.

3. If someone disagrees with these conclusions you don't simply dismiss them by saying "preconceived" this or that in what amounts to fiat statements, instead you propose what alternatively could be taught in the context of the original question.

Now I am all for learning new stuff, many a post on these forums have opened my eyes to other possibilities.  If you have something that fits into the last half of #3 I would actually be very interested in reading it.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 9, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Here is how a discussion like this actually works.
> 
> 1. A premise is put forward, questions are asked.  In this case
> 
> ...




If I may:

1.  A question was asked.
2.  I posted my thoughts on the issue
3.  Immediately I was told that it was not practical, and would not work...no where, not once did anyone say "what do you mean"?  or "what weapons" or "what techniques" etc...nothing...

So, I am a little confused by your post as all I did was post my thoughts, then when no one was interested in understanding any part of what I posted because they all own schools, have experience, etc., it is true that it is preconceived notions that are tainting the thought process.

So, since you asked...let's start with a stick, or a pen, or a flashlight...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 9, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> If I may:
> 
> 1.  A question was asked.
> 2.  I posted my thoughts on the issue
> ...


And do what with it?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 11, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> So, once again, you are making assumptions that are not true.  Who said there was anything new?  Who says there is any learning happening?  Not enough basic thinking.



Perhaps it would help my understanding if you told me (and others) what basics you are referring to.  You keep saying basics, but I don't recall you ever defining what they are in the context of this thread.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 11, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> If I may:
> 
> 1.  A question was asked.
> 2.  I posted my thoughts on the issue
> ...


No you simply said that other people were making assumptions based on preconceived notions, that is not thoughts on the original question.  However, again, if you want to actually note "basic" techniques that could be taught in the context of OP I would be interested to see them.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 11, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> If I may:
> 
> 1.  A question was asked.
> 2.  I posted my thoughts on the issue
> ...


 

I don't think we need to ask what weapons because in 2 hours you will not be able to show enough. Now if you did only one weapon and showed one use for it, or if you picked several weapons that were similar and could be used in the same way, THEN you might have something there.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 11, 2016)

Brian King said:


> For a two hour block of instruction- getting them to understand when they have the right to fight/get physical according to the local laws and customs (legal, social, moral). Run them through scenarios where they get loud and put up fence, disengage, or avoid. Have your 'assaulting dummy' well trained in how to approach the folks to get their nervous system engaged and then let them practice breathing and talking to regain 'calmness' and clarity of thought. Do not have an assaulting dummy that must always get physical. Wolfing is deep enough for such a short block.
> 
> Give examples of people engaging in violence (but not necessarily physical) and get the class to discuss the examples. For example people getting into someone's space to argue is a form of violence that often is answered with violence even though the person that was originally doing the arguing did not think that they were engaging in violence, or that it might be answered with physical violence. Give examples of social and asocial violence and get them thinking about how they might respond to being engaged in or witnessing such violence.
> 
> ...


 

Good idea...except for when it comes to what would be legal or not, I would not bring that up unless the person leading the class (1) is a lawyer or someone in law enforcement who knows the laws, or (2) is able to bring an attorney to address the class.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 11, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Good idea...except for when it comes to what would be legal or not, I would not bring that up unless the person leading the class (1) is a lawyer or someone in law enforcement who knows the laws, or (2) is able to bring an attorney to address the class.



I like this advice, perhaps encourage them to look into the laws and explain that you are not a professional in that area so that you are not legally held responcible.  I plan on discussing things like what is self-defense VS. fighting and here in NYS we don't have stand your ground laws so I plan on encouraging them to make sure they know what their rights and responcibilities are.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 11, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I like this advice, perhaps encourage them to look into the laws and explain that you are not a professional in that area so that you are not legally held responcible.  I plan on discussing things like what is self-defense VS. fighting and here in NYS we don't have stand your ground laws so I plan on encouraging them to make sure they know what their rights and responcibilities are.


 
I covered "Stand your ground" laws briefly in a book I wrote, which is on Amazon, which no one buys. LOL


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 11, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I covered "Stand your ground" laws briefly in a book I wrote, which is on Amazon, which no one buys. LOL


I don't want to "like" this since your book apparently hasn't sold well, but at the same time thanks for replying.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 11, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I don't want to "like" this since your book apparently hasn't sold well, but at the same time thanks for replying.


 
I think it has to do with exposure more than it being a matter of a bad book. You can't expect something to sell simply because you put it on the interwebs.

Anyway it is called THE SEARCH FOR THE WARRIOR'S PATH. Some people have read it and left reviews, mostly good ones...either 4 or 5 stars.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 11, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Good idea...except for when it comes to what would be legal or not, I would not bring that up unless the person leading the class (1) is a lawyer or someone in law enforcement who knows the laws, or (2) is able to bring an attorney to address the class.


Agreed. I normally only talk generalities with this sort of thing and provide some examples of what is probably NOT legal. Then I recommend they do their research and learn what IS legal. This way, I can enlighten them on the concept, without taking a change of mis-informing them (or exposing myself and my program to legal risk).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 11, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I think it has to do with exposure more than it being a matter of a bad book. You can't expect something to sell simply because you put it on the interwebs.
> 
> Anyway it is called THE SEARCH FOR THE WARRIOR'S PATH. Some people have read it and left reviews, mostly good ones...either 4 or 5 stars.


I think he was saying he didn't want to "like" the fact that it wasn't selling. That would be harsh.

"My book isn't selling well."
"Yay!"


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 11, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I think he was saying he didn't want to "like" the fact that it wasn't selling. That would be harsh.
> 
> "My book isn't selling well."
> "Yay!"


 
Oh I know what he meant. I was just reflecting on why it isn't selling. lol


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 11, 2016)

Some of the responses here are in the right place but honestly, who goes to a self defense class to learn how to dial 911? That is a stupid answer because that is something we all already know how to do. What people expect from a self defense course is knowledge on what they can do while police are on their way or when they cannot be called. 

They want to know how to fight back when someone is attacking them not learn how to run away and call for help. If this class is 2 hours long that is plenty of time but it would also have to be at least 3 days out of the week or something, these students might not really be able to even apply what they learned until they been there for at least a couple of months. That is just reality, many people can learn fancy moves and even simple ones but as soon as they feel threatened they panic and forget all their training. 

This is why resistance training is important.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Oct 11, 2016)

If your end result is to avoid the "fight"..

Learning to run fast should work.

Take up track

I kid, I kid


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 11, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Some of the responses here are in the right place but honestly, who goes to a self defense class to learn how to dial 911? That is a stupid answer because that is something we all already know how to do. What people expect from a self defense course is knowledge on what they can do while police are on their way or when they cannot be called.
> 
> They want to know how to fight back when someone is attacking them not learn how to run away and call for help. If this class is 2 hours long that is plenty of time but it would also have to be at least 3 days out of the week or something, these students might not really be able to even apply what they learned until they been there for at least a couple of months. That is just reality, many people can learn fancy moves and even simple ones but as soon as they feel threatened they panic and forget all their training.
> 
> This is why resistance training is important.


The idea wasn't to just call 911, think of it like a CPR class.  in this case learn various cues that can indicate and attack, target hardening tactics that help to minimize the chance of an attack, situational awareness concepts so you can be aware of avenues of escape and THEN call 911. 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Some of the responses here are in the right place but honestly, who goes to a self defense class to learn how to dial 911? That is a stupid answer because that is something we all already know how to do. What people expect from a self defense course is knowledge on what they can do while police are on their way or when they cannot be called.
> 
> They want to know how to fight back when someone is attacking them not learn how to run away and call for help. If this class is 2 hours long that is plenty of time but it would also have to be at least 3 days out of the week or something, these students might not really be able to even apply what they learned until they been there for at least a couple of months. That is just reality, many people can learn fancy moves and even simple ones but as soon as they feel threatened they panic and forget all their training.
> 
> This is why resistance training is important.



So What information do you need in order to report a crime?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> If your end result is to avoid the "fight"..
> 
> Learning to run fast should work.
> 
> ...



Track is sport and so does not work in the street.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 11, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So What information do you need in order to report a crime?



Whatever you witnessed that is against the law, but people don't go to self defense classes to learn that. They go to learn what to do when talking and running aren't options.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Whatever you witnessed that is against the law, but people don't go to self defense classes to learn that. They go to learn what to do when talking and running aren't options.



Your location is first. Because if you get necked half way through the conversation the police know where to go.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 11, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I covered "Stand your ground" laws briefly in a book I wrote, which is on Amazon, which no one buys. LOL


It's the effort that counts... Selling a book isn't the easiest thing to do, but at least you can say that you wrote a book.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 12, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Some of the responses here are in the right place but honestly, who goes to a self defense class to learn how to dial 911? That is a stupid answer because that is something we all already know how to do. What people expect from a self defense course is knowledge on what they can do while police are on their way or when they cannot be called.
> 
> They want to know how to fight back when someone is attacking them not learn how to run away and call for help. If this class is 2 hours long that is plenty of time but it would also have to be at least 3 days out of the week or something, these students might not really be able to even apply what they learned until they been there for at least a couple of months. That is just reality, many people can learn fancy moves and even simple ones but as soon as they feel threatened they panic and forget all their training.
> 
> This is why resistance training is important.



Exactly. So many people get on their high horses. "Uh....yeah well MY self-defense course teaches de-escalation because WE are superior human beings and don't sink to the level of fighting like cavemen." Please. People go to these classes so they can learn how to hurt people who are hurting them. I can understand throwing in instructions like "Call 911" in a brief mention, but then if you go into talking about how to de-escalate, most (if not all) of the class will walk out. You can always mention de-escalation as one method and tell them it would be explained further if they kept training, but those people are there to do something physical.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2016)

In two hours the best you could hope for is some preventative strategies. Not a physical skill.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 12, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Some of the responses here are in the right place but honestly, who goes to a self defense class to learn how to dial 911? That is a stupid answer because that is something we all already know how to do. What people expect from a self defense course is knowledge on what they can do while police are on their way or when they cannot be called.
> 
> They want to know how to fight back when someone is attacking them not learn how to run away and call for help. If this class is 2 hours long that is plenty of time but it would also have to be at least 3 days out of the week or something, these students might not really be able to even apply what they learned until they been there for at least a couple of months. That is just reality, many people can learn fancy moves and even simple ones but as soon as they feel threatened they panic and forget all their training.
> 
> This is why resistance training is important.



So a group comes to you and they say they have all been robbed more than once, both by strong arm and by knife wielding robbers.  They are tired of it and want you to teach them how to use their guns to kill the next person who tries to strong arm them or threatens them with a knife.  What are your obligations?

Do you tell them to meet you at your indoor range where you will teach them specifically how to kill their next strong arm or knife wielding assailants by shooting them?  Will you agree to only teach them other ways of defending themselves rather than putting themselves at risk of jail, knowing they may walk out on you since you aren't teaching them how to kill their next assailants?

As to two hours, that is what the OP said he had; not two hours several days a week.  Isn't being able to summon help part of self defense?  Would you like to let them know if they panic their response may not be what they think they would like it to be, and some ways to overcome that?

Maybe after that, then teaching physical self defense would be a worthwhile endeavor.



wingchun100 said:


> Exactly. So many people get on their high horses. "Uh....yeah well MY self-defense course teaches de-escalation because WE are superior human beings and don't sink to the level of fighting like cavemen." Please. People go to these classes so they can learn how to hurt people who are hurting them. I can understand throwing in instructions like "Call 911" in a brief mention, but then if you go into talking about how to de-escalate, most (if not all) of the class will walk out. You can always mention de-escalation as one method and tell them it would be explained further if they kept training, but those people are there to do something physical.



Are you sure that all people go to self defense classes to learn how to hurt people who are hurting them, or that even if they are, that they wouldn't prefer to learn how to avoid such confrontations?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Exactly. So many people get on their high horses. "Uh....yeah well MY self-defense course teaches de-escalation because WE are superior human beings and don't sink to the level of fighting like cavemen." Please. People go to these classes so they can learn how to hurt people who are hurting them. I can understand throwing in instructions like "Call 911" in a brief mention, but then if you go into talking about how to de-escalate, most (if not all) of the class will walk out. You can always mention de-escalation as one method and tell them it would be explained further if they kept training, but those people are there to do something physical.


Not true. I talk about situational awareness, de-escalation, and those sorts of things when I teach SD seminars. Nobody walks out.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Not true. I talk about situational awareness, de-escalation, and those sorts of things when I teach SD seminars. Nobody walks out.


 
But do you agree that most people are there to learn that and ONLY that, or do you agree they are expecting to learn some kind of PHYSICAL self-defense techniques too?

The point I'm getting at is that some people act like they are morally superior when someone says, "I'm teaching a self-defense class. What techniques should I show them?" More often than not, "technique" in this context means something you have to do with your body, like repel an attack by hitting someone in the throat. While de-escalation and situational awareness are all good, there is nothing wrong with teaching the techniques you would have to use when running and/or talking an aggressor down are no longer an option.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> But do you agree that most people are there to learn that and ONLY that, or do you agree they are expecting to learn some kind of PHYSICAL self-defense techniques too?
> 
> The point I'm getting at is that some people act like they are morally superior when someone says, "I'm teaching a self-defense class. What techniques should I show them?" More often than not, "technique" in this context means something you have to do with your body, like repel an attack by hitting someone in the throat. While de-escalation and situational awareness are all good, there is nothing wrong with teaching the techniques you would have to use when running and/or talking an aggressor down are no longer an option.


It depends how the class is advertised. When I advertise mine, I mention both. If someone brings me in to teach a self-defense class and advertises it to their group as being physical self-defense, I minimize the non-physical. If they advertise it as something like how to avoid being a victim, I spend more time on the non-physical.

Frankly, if I advertised a class as "How to Avoid Being a Victim" and clearly advertised that it would include how to avoid dangerous situations, how to recognize threats, etc., then I would expect no problems if I did zero physical work with them. That's why I asked the OP what the expectation was. In a 2-hour timeframe, if no prior expectation had been set, I'd spend at least most of the time on non-physical work. I might show them one or two simple things they could do without much practice, but that's it. If it has been advertised as physical defense, then I'd probably teach at most 4 or 5 easy techniques in that span, building one on the others.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It depends how the class is advertised. When I advertise mine, I mention both. If someone brings me in to teach a self-defense class and advertises it to their group as being physical self-defense, I minimize the non-physical. If they advertise it as something like how to avoid being a victim, I spend more time on the non-physical.
> 
> Frankly, if I advertised a class as "How to Avoid Being a Victim" and clearly advertised that it would include how to avoid dangerous situations, how to recognize threats, etc., then I would expect no problems if I did zero physical work with them. That's why I asked the OP what the expectation was. In a 2-hour timeframe, if no prior expectation had been set, I'd spend at least most of the time on non-physical work. I might show them one or two simple things they could do without much practice, but that's it. If it has been advertised as physical defense, then I'd probably teach at most 4 or 5 easy techniques in that span, building one on the others.


 
I agree with everything you said there.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 12, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> But do you agree that most people are there to learn that and ONLY that, or do you agree they are expecting to learn some kind of PHYSICAL self-defense techniques too?
> 
> The point I'm getting at is that some people act like they are morally superior when someone says, "I'm teaching a self-defense class. What techniques should I show them?" More often than not, "technique" in this context means something you have to do with your body, like repel an attack by hitting someone in the throat. While de-escalation and situational awareness are all good, there is nothing wrong with teaching the techniques you would have to use when running and/or talking an aggressor down are no longer an option.



But if those who attend a self defense class come in expecting to be Johnny BA after two hours, do you have no obligation to teach them non-violent was to avoid a violent confrontation in the first place?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 12, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> As to two hours, that is what the OP said he had; not two hours several days a week. Isn't being able to summon help part of self defense? Would you like to let them know if they panic their response may not be what they think they would like it to be, and some ways to overcome that?
> 
> Maybe after that, then teaching physical self defense would be a worthwhile endeavor.



I would personally tell them to find a place to continue their training, because 2 hours only and nothing after it will give you nothing. 




oftheherd1 said:


> So a group comes to you and they say they have all been robbed more than once, both by strong arm and by knife wielding robbers. They are tired of it and want you to teach them how to use their guns to kill the next person who tries to strong arm them or threatens them with a knife. What are your obligations?
> 
> Do you tell them to meet you at your indoor range where you will teach them specifically how to kill their next strong arm or knife wielding assailants by shooting them? Will you agree to only teach them other ways of defending themselves rather than putting themselves at risk of jail, knowing they may walk out on you since you aren't teaching them how to kill their next assailants?



Why the hell does someone need training on how to shoot someone? It is not complex, you point and pull the trigger. I understand where you are coming from here but honestly I am not a law guy, especially since in my country these very situations can all lead to very different verdicts. In my state shooting an unarmed person to death is rarely ever justifiable while in other states you can literally pick a fight with someone then shoot them and claim self defense. 

In this situation I would tell them they could into some serious legal trouble and send them somewhere else. I would never teach people how to shoot people because that is not in my martial arts curriculum or any martial arts curriculum that I have seen, it is simply something so basic it should not need instruction.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 12, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I would personally tell them to find a place to continue their training, because 2 hours only and nothing after it will give you nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If your two hours will give them nothing, it would not seem right to take their money and spend their time.

Bolded:  How little you know.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 12, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> If your two hours will give them nothing, it would not seem right to take their money and spend their time.
> 
> Bolded:  How little you know.



Behold how little I care, I am not a martial arts instructor, you asked me something so I answered it, any training of actual value will take more than one two hour lesson. If people could learn enough in one two hour session to protect themselves then martial arts dojo's would be in big trouble, no returning members would be a bad thing. 

I guess the majority of us just waste our time since we all have spent much more than 2 hours training.


----------



## Headhunter (Oct 12, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I would personally tell them to find a place to continue their training, because 2 hours only and nothing after it will give you nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Completely disagree now I'm not a weapons guy I've never used a weapon in my life and never even held a gun let alone fired one and I have no interest in doing so but it is not something basic. If it was do you think the military would spend ages training people how to shoot same with police. Do you reckon you can shoot just as well as a world champion shooter of course you can't. People can say fighting is so basic and anyone can fight and yes anyone can fight but doesn't mean the fight well.

Now I disagree with the whole using a gun for self defence I'm not a fan of guns at all but saying its basic and doesn't take skill is silly and ignorant


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 12, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Behold how little I care, I am not a martial arts instructor, you asked me something so I answered it, any training of actual value will take more than one two hour lesson. If people could learn enough in one two hour session to protect themselves then martial arts dojo's would be in big trouble, no returning members would be a bad thing.
> 
> I guess the majority of us just waste our time since we all have spent much more than 2 hours training.


Not everyone trains just for self defence I started training because I was bored and overweight and now I do it because its fun I know I can defend myself but its not a major priority to me and I'm sure it's the same for plenty of others


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 12, 2016)

Headhunter said:


> Completely disagree now I'm not a weapons guy I've never used a weapon in my life and never even held a gun let alone fired one and I have no interest in doing so but it is not something basic. If it was do you think the military would spend ages training people how to shoot same with police. Do you reckon you can shoot just as well as a world champion shooter of course you can't.



There is a big difference between a common shotgun and handgun compared to a fully automatic rifle or sniper rifle which is what the military uses most of the time. You also don't need to be a world champion marksman to defend yourself, you are getting a sport mixed up with self defense. 

When someone attacks you odds are they are going to be at point blank range, it does not a lot of skill to shoot someone point blank while shooting a target several yards away takes lots of skill. It is similar to how you don't need to be a world championship boxer or Judoka to defend yourself against the common thug.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 12, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Not everyone trains just for self defence



Nobody said they did, but the question here is what should be taught in self defense, so of course self defense is in the equation here as the people who signed up for the class would be expecting that instruction.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 12, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Nobody said they did, but the question here is what should be taught in self defense, so of course self defense is in the equation here as the people who signed up for the class would be expecting that instruction.


Fact is some people don't have the time or the money to spend years training so these courses are just to learn a few basics its better than nothing I agree you can't become an expert but its still better than sitting on the couch doing nothing


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 12, 2016)

In answer to the OP spend ten minutes on the oral presentation.
Then split into two groups. Drill the simplest standing RNC defense that you know how to teach (hint: thumb into eyesocket). Group A defends, while group B applies the RNC. Three RNCs/defends, and rotate partners (every attacker rotate one person to the right.) After 45 minutes, group B becomes the defender, learning the escape same deal. 3 times, rotate.

10 + 45 + 45 = 100 of your allotted 120 minutes.

Resume oral presentation.
Issue handouts and have them agree to practice it every day with friends or concerns workers.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 12, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I don't think we need to ask what weapons because in 2 hours you will not be able to show enough. Now if you did only one weapon and showed one use for it, or if you picked several weapons that were similar and could be used in the same way, THEN you might have something there.




Ahh...now you might have something there!


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 12, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Perhaps it would help my understanding if you told me (and others) what basics you are referring to.  You keep saying basics, but I don't recall you ever defining what they are in the context of this thread.




I never said anything about basics...I said that there are people on here who do not think basic enough.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 12, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> There is a big difference between a common shotgun and handgun compared to a fully automatic rifle or sniper rifle which is what the military uses most of the time. You also don't need to be a world champion marksman to defend yourself, you are getting a sport mixed up with self defense.
> 
> When someone attacks you odds are they are going to be at point blank range, it does not a lot of skill to shoot someone point blank while shooting a target several yards away takes lots of skill. It is similar to how you don't need to be a world championship boxer or Judoka to defend yourself against the common thug.



Just a suggestion:  When you don't know anything about a subject, don't talk as if you did.  You just make yourself look silly.  You certainly don't know anything about the US military, and apparently nothing about firearms either.  Good grief!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> There is a big difference between a common shotgun and handgun compared to a fully automatic rifle or sniper rifle which is what the military uses most of the time. You also don't need to be a world champion marksman to defend yourself, you are getting a sport mixed up with self defense.
> 
> When someone attacks you odds are they are going to be at point blank range, it does not a lot of skill to shoot someone point blank while shooting a target several yards away takes lots of skill. It is similar to how you don't need to be a world championship boxer or Judoka to defend yourself against the common thug.


It actually takes a fair bit of skill for some to pull the trigger at the right time under that kind of stress. Even at relatively close range (not point-blank - point-blank range use of a gun without retention training is highly problematic) people miss if they make the common mistakes - which are exaggerated by the decrease in motor control.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> I never said anything about basics...I said that there are people on here who do not think basic enough.


Yes, and you never clarified that condescending remark by providing any sort of framework to support your assertion that it could be feasibly accomplished. That omission leaves me with no evidence besides my own experience, which tells me trying to teach even a single weapon in an hour to a group with no foundation training is destined for failure. And let's be clear, with introductions and questions folks will have, you're going to have little more than an hour for the actual physical training.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 12, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Just a suggestion:  When you don't know anything about a subject, don't talk as if you did.  You just make yourself look silly.  You certainly don't know anything about the US military, and apparently nothing about firearms either.  Good grief!



I know plenty about the firearms I have used and been around. Just because someone says something you don't want to hear doesn't mean they are totally ignorant on the subject. I have never used fully automatic weapons though because I have no reason to and no desire too. So as far as those go I have no experience with.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It actually takes a fair bit of skill for some to pull the trigger at the right time under that kind of stress. Even at relatively close range (not point-blank - point-blank range use of a gun without retention training is highly problematic) people miss if they make the common mistakes - which are exaggerated by the decrease in motor control.



So you are telling me that it is difficult to shoot someone that close? I think many people here are arguing simply to argue, people shoot people close range all of the time. More than often without any kind of formal training, I recall a case in Florida where a woman shot her abusive husband, I doubt she spent any time at the shooting range.

How about all the gangs who shoot eachother on an almost weekly basis? Are they all training too? One of the very reasons a gun is such a powerful weapon is because possession of one can turn the weakest person into a large threat.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Oct 12, 2016)

You don't need to be hard on your self just teach them the basic self defense class and that would be good for 2 hours and they can learn already or do you wanna teach them take down stuff or throw down or even self defense agains a weapon you can


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2016)

I'm saying


Ironbear24 said:


> So you are telling me that it is difficult to shoot someone that close? I think many people here are arguing simply to argue, people shoot people close range all of the time. More than often without any kind of formal training, I recall a case in Florida where a woman shot her abusive husband, I doubt she spent any time at the shooting range.
> 
> How about all the gangs who shoot eachother on an almost weekly basis? Are they all training too? One of the very reasons a gun is such a powerful weapon is because possession of one can turn the weakest person into a large threat.


I'm saying that using a gun at all is a task best conducted with a modicum of skill. Even at close range, people miss...kind of a LOT.

And a single data point (the lady shooting her husband) doesn't provide useful evidence in and of itself, especially since we don't actually know whether she has had any experience or not. My first wife had more "rounds fired" than almost anyone I knew at the time other than myself.

And, yes, it can turn a weak person into a threat. It can also make them dangerous to themselves and others if used poorly. And if deployed when it can't be used effectively (in the middle of an attack), it can easily end up in the hands of the attacker.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm saying
> 
> I'm saying that using a gun at all is a task best conducted with a modicum of skill. Even at close range, people miss...kind of a LOT.
> 
> ...



Easily? I don't know about that, not everyone knows what to do against a gun, the majority of people are going to panic at the sight of the gun.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 13, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I know plenty about the firearms I have used and been around. _Just because someone says something you don't want to hear doesn't mean they are totally ignorant on the subject._ I have never used fully automatic weapons though because I have no reason to and no desire too. So as far as those go I have no experience with.



So what is your experience with hand guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles?  What firearms have you used? 

Actually, you don't have to answer.  You have pretty well shown your knowledge of firearms already.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Easily? I don't know about that, not everyone knows what to do against a gun, the majority of people are going to panic at the sight of the gun.


If they're already attacking, then they are in range to lay hands on it and the other person is already dealing with a dump of fear reactions. If the person with the gun doesn't have training to help with retention, the advantage goes to the guy whose hands aren't tied up trying to get the gun out of the holster.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 13, 2016)

What is that one rule I heard about...the 21 foot rule or something like that? If your gun isn't already drawn and an attacker is within 21 feet, you might not have the upper hand. Victory does not automatically go toward the person with the gun.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 13, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, and you never clarified that condescending remark by providing any sort of framework to support your assertion that it could be feasibly accomplished. That omission leaves me with no evidence besides my own experience, which tells me trying to teach even a single weapon in an hour to a group with no foundation training is destined for failure. And let's be clear, with introductions and questions folks will have, you're going to have little more than an hour for the actual physical training.



It really is not condescending...just an observation that seems to have been validated by how everyone has taken what I said.

I clarified that nothing should be taught, and I laid out the format before...move and hit, hit and move, move and hit, hit and move...all in a chaotic environment that is a close to a real environment as possible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> It really is not condescending...just an observation that seems to have been validated by how everyone has taken what I said.
> 
> I clarified that nothing should be taught, and I laid out the format before...move and hit, hit and move, move and hit, hit and move...all in a chaotic environment that is a close to a real environment as possible.


So, you're not going to teach them anything - just hand them a weapon and say "hit them"? What if they use the weapon ineffectually?


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 13, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> So, you're not going to teach them anything - just hand them a weapon and say "hit them"? What if they use the weapon ineffectually?



When you teach, the learner must recall what has been taught and apply it to the situation.  The whole recall process causes a delay in action, causes the learner to react or respond.  The reaction, response, recall, delay all cost time, and in a confrontation, time is death.

Naturally occurring repetitive kinetic occurrences must be martialized so that the movements and actions are natural, and have already been done.  We increase awareness so the trainee realizes that the movements they already know can and should be used for personal protection.

We p[rovide a few parameters, and to be honest, in the beginning...is anyone going to be accurate in their strikes?  No, so instead of focusing on specific areas, we focus on general areas of the body...multiple, repeated strikes.

This is not instruction foreign to the person that must be integrated, but rather intrinsic induced déjà vu so the trainee is comfortable.  This allows the trainee to have the confidence to act with success.  If they have the will to act, when they have to act, they will.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 13, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> So what is your experience with hand guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles?  What firearms have you used?
> 
> Actually, you don't have to answer.  You have pretty well shown your knowledge of firearms already.



Then why even waste time asking me if you don't care about my answer? I used my friends guns when I lived in the mountains, it was one of the most boring experiences in my life and all we had to do was shoot things. 

He had lots of guns, I'd say an alarming level of them so he'd loan me one of them when we went shooting old computer parts and televisions from the shop. I used some 40 caliber Glock and some 12 guage pump shotgun.

I can't tell you the model number or the manufacturer but I can tell you they were not difficult to use, let alone hit something close up.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 13, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> What is that one rule I heard about...the 21 foot rule or something like that? If your gun isn't already drawn and an attacker is within 21 feet, you might not have the upper hand. Victory does not automatically go toward the person with the gun.



That's if the attacker is in a full sprint and the gun is safetied and holstered.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> When you teach, the learner must recall what has been taught and apply it to the situation.  The whole recall process causes a delay in action, causes the learner to react or respond.  The reaction, response, recall, delay all cost time, and in a confrontation, time is death.
> 
> Naturally occurring repetitive kinetic occurrences must be martialized so that the movements and actions are natural, and have already been done.  We increase awareness so the trainee realizes that the movements they already know can and should be used for personal protection.
> 
> ...


You are still talking about teaching them a new movement, call it what you will. Most of your attendees will not have some intrinsic skill at hitting with a weapon (much less several weapons), so I'm not sure what existing movement you're expecting to draw on that would require no new learning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> That's if the attacker is in a full sprint and the gun is safetied and holstered.


Actually, it's a static start. So, both are standing still, and the attacker charges. And, yes, it assumes the gun is holstered, because we can't walk around with out guns drawn in anticipation of an attack. That's the point I'm making - drawing a gun _during an attack _is highly problematic.

I read a while back that the FBI had revised this to a 30-foot safe range, though I don't know the practical application of that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Then why even waste time asking me if you don't care about my answer? I used my friends guns when I lived in the mountains, it was one of the most boring experiences in my life and all we had to do was shoot things.
> 
> He had lots of guns, I'd say an alarming level of them so he'd loan me one of them when we went shooting old computer parts and televisions from the shop. I used some 40 caliber Glock and some 12 guage pump shotgun.
> 
> I can't tell you the model number or the manufacturer but I can tell you they were not difficult to use, let alone hit something close up.


And they weren't moving, threatening you, or doing anything else to make hitting them (or even handling the gun) difficult.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You are still talking about teaching them a new movement, call it what you will. Most of your attendees will not have some intrinsic skill at hitting with a weapon (much less several weapons), so I'm not sure what existing movement you're expecting to draw on that would require no new learning.



No...all movement has already pretty much been done...take movements they are familiar with (putting on glasses, pushing open a door, etc.) and martialize that movement by expanding their awareness that movement is movement and the intent of the movement can be adjusted to appropriately fit the need.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> No...all movement has already pretty much been done...take movements they are familiar with (putting on glasses, pushing open a door, etc.) and martialize that movement by expanding their awareness that movement is movement and the intent of the movement can be adjusted to appropriately fit the need.


So, you're claiming that in about 90 minutes, you can change "putting on glasses" into an effective, repeatable strike with more than one weapon? I find that extremely unlikely.

Tell me again about the assumptions I'm making.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> So, you're claiming that in about 90 minutes, you can change "putting on glasses" into an effective, repeatable strike with more than one weapon? I find that extremely unlikely.
> 
> Tell me again about the assumptions I'm making.



Well, I did not say that this particular movement is an effective repeatable strike...it is about martializing all movement...your assumption is that you think basic enough when you do not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Well, I did not say that this particular movement is an effective repeatable strike...it is about martializing all movement...your assumption is that you think basic enough when you do not.


Your assumption is that I do not.

I teach people to use existing movements (what you term "martializing" - I like that term!). They do not adapt them quickly unless they have prior training. If you add something like a weapon they don't know how to use, their adaptation is even slower.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Your assumption is that I do not.
> 
> I teach people to use existing movements (what you term "martializing" - I like that term!). They do not adapt them quickly unless they have prior training. If you add something like a weapon they don't know how to use, their adaptation is even slower.



Our combined experience is the exact opposite...in fact...we provided personal protection training for a corporate client and within a few weeks, one of the attendees had to protect herself...she picked up the curling iron and used it in the exact way she used other weapons during training...90 minutes of training literally saved her.

If you take someone, give them permission to succeed, make all movement and all hitting a success, they will be successful.  DO that by putting a pen, or flashlight, or stick in their hand..have them repeatedly hit anatomically correct torso targets...have them move and hit...it is natural for them to do...once they get over the societal conditioning that has taken over their survival instinct...once they get over that (and it is very quick when you set the stage for them), the shine in their performance.

If we forget about teaching technique and focus on awakening their will to fight and survive, that is the first thing that is needed...after all, we can teach all of the stuff we want, but if they don't act, it will do no good.

Get the trainees to act...to fight...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 14, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> That's if the attacker is in a full sprint and the gun is safetied and holstered.



Holstered, standing start, safety irrelevant, since the most popular carry guns don't even _have_ a thumb safety.
As with most things of this sort, the 21' rule is more a guideline than a rule; there are _waaayyyy_ too many variables to pretend it's a one-size-fits-all answer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Our combined experience is the exact opposite...in fact...we provided personal protection training for a corporate client and within a few weeks, one of the attendees had to protect herself...she picked up the curling iron and used it in the exact way she used other weapons during training...90 minutes of training literally saved her.
> 
> If you take someone, give them permission to succeed, make all movement and all hitting a success, they will be successful.  DO that by putting a pen, or flashlight, or stick in their hand..have them repeatedly hit anatomically correct torso targets...have them move and hit...it is natural for them to do...once they get over the societal conditioning that has taken over their survival instinct...once they get over that (and it is very quick when you set the stage for them), the shine in their performance.
> 
> ...


You are using examples of motivated clients. I could relate literally dozens of examples of students who, when starting, couldn't bring themselves to deliver a strike with or without a weapon with any force that would be more than distracting.

You're assuming a room full of folks attending a 2-hour self-defense workshop will be like your client who feels threatened enough to hire personal security. Those are two entirely different audiences.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You are using examples of motivated clients. I could relate literally dozens of examples of students who, when starting, couldn't bring themselves to deliver a strike with or without a weapon with any force that would be more than distracting.
> 
> You're assuming a room full of folks attending a 2-hour self-defense workshop will be like your client who feels threatened enough to hire personal security. Those are two entirely different audiences.




I used one example...of someone who attended our training, who was threatened, and who acted...I don't know where the personal security comes in...a corporate client is a company who offered the training to their employees...not an individual who hired us...

Maybe the differences in our outcomes are a function of the difference in efficaciousness of the training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> I used one example...of someone who attended our training, who was threatened, and who acted...I don't know where the personal security comes in...a corporate client is a company who offered the training to their employees...not an individual who hired us...
> 
> Maybe the differences in our outcomes are a function of the difference in efficaciousness of the training.


A single example, as others have pointed out in recent discussions, is not much evidence. My wife's Design of Experiments professor used to say, "Don't get too excited about a single data point. It has to go somewhere." Are you seeing this as a common occurrence?


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> A single example, as others have pointed out in recent discussions, is not much evidence. My wife's Design of Experiments professor used to say, "Don't get too excited about a single data point. It has to go somewhere." Are you seeing this as a common occurrence?



No, it is actually the only time our training has ever been effective, so we are excited about it...

Oh wait...all I did was cite one recent example.  The training we conduct is the exact same approach that combat trainers have in the military...what is first and foremost in our mind is the consequences of our training, because there are consequences.  If we fail, the potential is loss of life.  It really is as simple as that...life and death.  That is why skills cannot be taught in this type of environment.  To employ any skills, it take time and training...what these folks don't have.

In order for someone to be successful first, they must have the will to act...then they have to act, because they will act if they have the will to act...we weaponize their mind while having them use weapons...effectively, in a chaotic environment...

Here's the thing...if one is attacked, it is not going to be in a sterile environment.  If one trains in a sterile environment, one will be shocked if the actual environment is not sterile...so the trainee needs to be accustomed to an unsterile environment...chaotic, hectic, 360 degrees, etc.

If one is attacked, let's assume there will always be multiple attackers...and if there are  not, it is easier to deal with.  If we bring the trainees awareness to 360 degrees, in a cluttered chaotic environment, with people all around, moving, bumping into each other...does that resemble combat or battle a little more than nice neat lines with someone doing a static attack?

Then, we assume everyone is armed...including the one being attacked...so we arm them...in the chaotic, hectic environment, with people all around, anatomically correct torso targets for hitting, while bumping into people, getting bumped into...striking all levels...sitting, standing, kneeling...fighting up and fighting down...

...


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> And they weren't moving, threatening you, or doing anything else to make hitting them (or even handling the gun) difficult.



If they were that would be pretty alarming.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 14, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> That's if the attacker is in a full sprint and the gun is safetied and holstered.



While the last part is correct, weapon holstered but it is not with the weapon on safe or the subject already sprinting.  Here is a video that goes a bit into it if both subjects are very skilled.  






Instructor Zero having his back to Doug is also a fairly good replacement for genuine surprise.  So not only do you need to do more than draw and shoot you have to move or shoot in an unusual position.  Conversely if the knife wielder has half a brain your reactionary gap can be, in essence, infinite rather than 21 feet because you won't suspect the hostility until the knife wielder is already in striking range.

Here is a video with Guro Dan explaining the gap as it relates to Police Officers with typical training.   




Now most civilian self defense scenarios will have the defender with the firearm holstered and in a concealment condition.  Add to that they will likely not have the extensive training of A. Deploying a weapon under stress and B. Moving and shooting there is a problem.

On the street, I am far more worried about a knife than a gun tbh because as Doug said in the previous video someone who really wants to do harm to me, and is not having a mental health crisis, will likely not even display the knife and I will instead feel it first.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Your assumption is that I do not.
> 
> I teach people to use existing movements (what you term "martializing" - I like that term!). They do not adapt them quickly unless they have prior training. If you add something like a weapon they don't know how to use, their adaptation is even slower.



Pretty much this, for a few reasons.  First you have to really work on generating "intent" to make a "normal" motion become a defensive/offensive motion.  Second adding a weapon changes body mechanics.  Let's say you want to convert showing open a door into a thrust with a kubaton say. The wrist alignment is different and you need to train them in proper alignment otherwise they can end up having a strike that would be weaker than a "simple" punch.  This also doesn't even include learning to deploy it rapidly under stress.  What good is knowing how to use the weapon if when surprised you are fumbling in your pocket and now don't have that hand (hands) up to defend.

  Additionally one has to very careful with what weapons, if any are used/taught because many can be illegal in various states, even a kubaton, as many States have laws regarding "Prohibited offensive weapons" which basically just means "if it's only/primary purpose is to cause injury/maim another person it's illegal."


----------



## Buka (Oct 14, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I covered "Stand your ground" laws briefly in a book I wrote, which is on Amazon, which no one buys. LOL



If you mentioned this before, I missed it. Didn't miss it this time, just bought it with the one click thingy. Thanks, bro.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 14, 2016)

Buka said:


> If you mentioned this before, I missed it. Didn't miss it this time, just bought it with the one click thingy. Thanks, bro.


 
You bought my book? Holy cow! First sale in years!


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Pretty much this, for a few reasons.  First you have to really work on generating "intent" to make a "normal" motion become a defensive/offensive motion.  Second adding a weapon changes body mechanics.  Let's say you want to convert showing open a door into a thrust with a kubaton say. The wrist alignment is different and you need to train them in proper alignment otherwise they can end up having a strike that would be weaker than a "simple" punch.  This also doesn't even include learning to deploy it rapidly under stress.  What good is knowing how to use the weapon if when surprised you are fumbling in your pocket and now don't have that hand (hands) up to defend.
> 
> Additionally one has to very careful with what weapons, if any are used/taught because many can be illegal in various states, even a kubaton, as many States have laws regarding "Prohibited offensive weapons" which basically just means "if it's only/primary purpose is to cause injury/maim another person it's illegal."




A few items:

The difference seems to be that you are worried about their form, while I am worried about how many times they can hit and be able to escape with their life.  Sure, form is important, but we can all recognize that we are not going to instruct proper form to new people in 90 minutes or 2 hours...not going to happen.  They need to act...and what happens if when they are repeatedly hitting the attacker escaping with their life they sprain their wrist, or hurt their hand?  That's life!!  That's combat!!  That's battle!  That's not self defense.

Concerning what weapons to cover..l.we do not change ever what weapons we cover...we do not provide the legal advice of what to carry and use and what not to...this is about survival and each individual can make that decision...but then again, I do not know any state where a pen, flashlight, stick are illegal..or lanyard for more advanced training, or a stapler, or a pencil, or, or, or, or...you see, it is not about teaching different weapons...it is about having the mindset that everything is a weapon...


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> A few items:
> 
> The difference seems to be that you are worried about their form, while I am worried about how many times they can hit and be able to escape with their life.  Sure, form is important, but we can all recognize that we are not going to instruct proper form to new people in 90 minutes or 2 hours...not going to happen.  They need to act...and what happens if when they are repeatedly hitting the attacker escaping with their life they sprain their wrist, or hurt their hand?  That's life!!  That's combat!!  That's battle!  That's not self defense.
> 
> Concerning what weapons to cover..l.we do not change ever what weapons we cover...we do not provide the legal advice of what to carry and use and what not to...this is about survival and each individual can make that decision...but then again, I do not know any state where a pen, flashlight, stick are illegal..or lanyard for more advanced training, or a stapler, or a pencil, or, or, or, or...you see, it is not about teaching different weapons...it is about having the mindset that everything is a weapon...



I'm not talking about picture perfect form.  I am notorious in my school for being a good fighter but not a "pretty one." I am talking about form in terms of not hurting oneself.  If you hurt yourself while defending you often might as well not defended at all.

Second legality is very important, especially with weapons.  Forget about whether an expandable baton or a black jack etc may be illegal but there is the issue of reasonableness.  Example if someone goes and shoves you and you use a weapon of any sort you are going to find yourself in legal trouble.  So, imo, to simply teach weapon use for self defense without bring this into the mix and saying instead "it's on them" is irresponsible.

That aside I think you greatly over estimate the actual efficacy of any technique, especially weapon related, that is taught only in a 1-2 hour seminar.  I have taken such courses as a Law Enforcement Officer and they are, essentially, useless and that was my opinion of the course BEFORE I renewed my interest in studying martial arts.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I'm not talking about picture perfect form.  I am notorious in my school for being a good fighter but not a "pretty one." I am talking about form in terms of not hurting oneself.  If you hurt yourself while defending you often might as well not defended at all.
> 
> Second legality is very important, especially with weapons.  Forget about whether an expandable baton or a black jack etc may be illegal but there is the issue of reasonableness.  Example if someone goes and shoves you and you use a weapon of any sort you are going to find yourself in legal trouble.  So, imo, to simply teach weapon use for self defense without bring this into the mix and saying instead "it's on them" is irresponsible.
> 
> That aside I think you greatly over estimate the actual efficacy of any technique, especially weapon related, that is taught only in a 1-2 hour seminar.  I have taken such courses as a Law Enforcement Officer and they are, essentially, useless and that was my opinion of the course BEFORE I renewed my interest in studying martial arts.




If you hurt yourself while defending yourself, then it really doesn't matter because defense is too late.  If you hurt yourself while protecting what is personal to you, is that not better than, let's say...being raped, or killed?  Would I accept a broken hand over no longer breathing?  Yeah...any day of the week.

Let us not forget that we only have these people for a VERY short period of time, and they came to learn how to protect themselves...let them talk to their favorite lawyer or LEO over a cup of coffee to be told what not to do.  I am going to empower them to do what they need to do to protect themselves.

Once again, there is an assumption that we say it is OK for someone to shoot a 12 year old who bumps into them...organic to the training is not only "action" but "appropriate action" and that can only be done by putting people in as real of a scenario as they can handle...and maybe a bit more...

Legality is not my issue...I am going to instruct people how to increase their chances of surviving an encounter...

That aside, I think you make assumption on the efficacy of what we do without ever having experienced it.  I will state again...need to get out of the mindset of teaching technique, but rather programming people for action.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> If you hurt yourself while defending yourself, then it really doesn't matter because defense is too late.  If you hurt yourself while protecting what is personal to you, is that not better than, let's say...being raped, or killed?  Would I accept a broken hand over no longer breathing?  Yeah...any day of the week.
> 
> Let us not forget that we only have these people for a VERY short period of time, and they came to learn how to protect themselves...let them talk to their favorite lawyer or LEO over a cup of coffee to be told what not to do.  I am going to empower them to do what they need to do to protect themselves.
> 
> ...



Just on the last bit...I am not making any assumptions.  I have taken courses that claim the same you do, right down to using the same language, "programming for action" and that try to use natural and/or instinctive movements.  The work well during that seminar but they do not work in actual defense situations.  They lack realistic (though simulated) pressure (which is very important for just deploying a weapon let alone using it) and they don't generate the necessary muscle memory that one needs so they can build upon it by practicing on their own.

Also the language you are using here "..I am going to instruct people how to increase their chances of surviving an encounter" works against the idea that legality isn't your issue.  All you have to do is look at a number of threads here where people have little clue as to what force can be used when.  Language like this only serves to further an impression that defense is simply defense and people likely won't even bother thinking about asking.  It doesn't take a whole lot of time to simply say "hey, you can only use weapons when you can properly articulate that you were in fear of serious bodily injury/death, were being robbed or raped etc. Heck you just give a hand out that explains it.


----------



## Buka (Oct 14, 2016)

It's a different world than it used to be. Sooner or later, legality will be part of what any instructor covers.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> On the street, I am far more worried about a knife than a gun tbh



I don't agree with this statement because for one the knife has to be close to me, that is where I am best at, there I can at least fight back and possibly disarm the attacker, With a gun I would have little to no chance because the person can kill me from a distance where I cannot do anything to them.

I feel like a lot of people are really undermining just how dangerous a gun is.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 14, 2016)

Buka said:


> It's a different world than it used to be. Sooner or later, legality will be part of what any instructor covers.



Waiting for the day the instructor gets sued when a student uses an inappropriate level of force...either by the student or "victim" for "he didn't tell me the ramifications".  I mean they have to write "Caution Hot" on coffee cups because McDonalds got sued.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 14, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't agree with this statement because for one the knife has to be close to me, that is where I am best at, there I can at least fight back and possibly disarm the attacker, With a gun I would have little to no chance because the person can kill me from a distance where I cannot do anything to them.
> 
> I feel like a lot of people are really undermining just how dangerous a gun is.



Ummmm, I know precisely how dangerous a gun is since I have to carry one everyday at work.  Here is the difference IMO though...

Unless I am ambushed I will usually be in a position to seek cover and concealment to then return fire.  Also depending on the skill of the shooter (luckily most crooks suck) can be a mixed bag.  Yes it means they can attack without closing but the distance also has an impact on the chances to actually him me.  If you look at recent police shootings where officers were killed they were either perpetrated by trained military personnel (rare) or at very close ranges.

As for the knife it's about someone who just does something that is common sense, don't let the person know you have the knife until you have already cut/stabbed them.

Simply look at the Guro Dan video (the second one).  You don't get that kind of surprise with a gun, unless again it's a genuine ambush.  Additionally my body armor does jack for a knife except one place, a 4" by 6" panel in the center of my vest where I took an old steel trauma plate and put it under the issued soft trauma plate.  Also knives are essentially everywhere.  Most officers I know either share my assessment or say both are equally concerning.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> If you hurt yourself while defending yourself, then it really doesn't matter because defense is too late.  If you hurt yourself while protecting what is personal to you, is that not better than, let's say...being raped, or killed?  Would I accept a broken hand over no longer breathing?  Yeah...any day of the week.
> 
> Let us not forget that we only have these people for a VERY short period of time, and they came to learn how to protect themselves...let them talk to their favorite lawyer or LEO over a cup of coffee to be told what not to do.  I am going to empower them to do what they need to do to protect themselves.
> 
> ...



See that video i put up about how to defend against a crocodile?

None of it was about how to fight one after it has grabbed you. 

If you only have so much time you have to play the techniques with the highest percentage of success.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 14, 2016)

Buka said:


> It's a different world than it used to be. Sooner or later, legality will be part of what any instructor covers.



At which point i will be glad i do a sport and not have to subject myself to whatever is the accepted version of self defence. 

"what do you mean you hit him?  Haven't you been trained in wrist locks? "


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> No, it is actually the only time our training has ever been effective, so we are excited about it...
> 
> Oh wait...all I did was cite one recent example.  The training we conduct is the exact same approach that combat trainers have in the military...what is first and foremost in our mind is the consequences of our training, because there are consequences.  If we fail, the potential is loss of life.  It really is as simple as that...life and death.  That is why skills cannot be taught in this type of environment.  To employ any skills, it take time and training...what these folks don't have.
> 
> ...


What did any of that rant have to do with my comment? I said nothing about sterile vs. chaotic (neither of which, by the way, is a good answer in and of itself). I said nothing about where your training came from. Your reply seems irrespective of my comment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> You bought my book? Holy cow! First sale in years!


You'll have another as soon as I remember when I am on a browser that remembers my Amazon password. Crap, now I'm over here grumbling about new-fangled passwords like an old man.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> A few items:
> 
> The difference seems to be that you are worried about their form, while I am worried about how many times they can hit and be able to escape with their life.  Sure, form is important, but we can all recognize that we are not going to instruct proper form to new people in 90 minutes or 2 hours...not going to happen.  They need to act...and what happens if when they are repeatedly hitting the attacker escaping with their life they sprain their wrist, or hurt their hand?  That's life!!  That's combat!!  That's battle!  That's not self defense.
> 
> Concerning what weapons to cover..l.we do not change ever what weapons we cover...we do not provide the legal advice of what to carry and use and what not to...this is about survival and each individual can make that decision...but then again, I do not know any state where a pen, flashlight, stick are illegal..or lanyard for more advanced training, or a stapler, or a pencil, or, or, or, or...you see, it is not about teaching different weapons...it is about having the mindset that everything is a weapon...


Ignoring form doesn't make it unimportant. If they don't use some workable form, the strikes can become ineffective and can even potentially harm the striker.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> If you hurt yourself while defending yourself, then it really doesn't matter because defense is too late.  If you hurt yourself while protecting what is personal to you, is that not better than, let's say...being raped, or killed?  Would I accept a broken hand over no longer breathing?  Yeah...any day of the week.
> 
> Let us not forget that we only have these people for a VERY short period of time, and they came to learn how to protect themselves...let them talk to their favorite lawyer or LEO over a cup of coffee to be told what not to do.  I am going to empower them to do what they need to do to protect themselves.
> 
> ...


You are making fairly blatant assumptions about others' assumptions. Nothing in his statement led me to believe he assumed you were teaching anything of the sort. In fact, your statements lead me to believe you are teaching nothing of the sort, and just ignoring the fact that this risk exists.

And no, a broken wrist is not preferable to anything, because the defender breaking their wrist is unlikely to end the attack. It's likely to leave the defender more helpless than if they hadn't delivered that ineffectual strike.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 14, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't agree with this statement because for one the knife has to be close to me, that is where I am best at, there I can at least fight back and possibly disarm the attacker, With a gun I would have little to no chance because the person can kill me from a distance where I cannot do anything to them.
> 
> I feel like a lot of people are really undermining just how dangerous a gun is.


It has to do with how they are likely to be used. There are plenty of recorded and reported incidents of people getting "punched", only to find out later they were actually stabbed. That's less likely with a gun. Yes, if properly used, a gun is at least as dangerous (arguably moreso because of the distance advantage). But by "properly used", I mean pointing it at a target and pulling the trigger. If you watch some YouTube videos of robberies, you'll see more than a few videos of people getting way too close with a gun.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Our combined experience is the exact opposite...in fact...we provided personal protection training for a corporate client and* within a few weeks, one of the attendees had to protect herself*...she picked up the curling iron and used it in the exact way she used other weapons during training...90 minutes of training* literally saved her.*
> ...


Do you know her life was literally in danger?   I always wonder when I hear or read statements like this.   I mentioned a few days ago the self serving nature of anecdotal evidence,   @gpseymour,  This is a good example of what I was talking about.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You'll have another as soon as I remember when I am on a browser that remembers my Amazon password. Crap, now I'm over here grumbling about new-fangled passwords like an old man.



Wow, man. Thanks for the support!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 14, 2016)

Steve said:


> Do you know her life was literally in danger?   I always wonder when I hear or read statements like this.   I mentioned a few days ago the self serving nature of anecdotal evidence,   @gpseymour,  This is a good example of what I was talking about.



Obviously he will just have to accept the validity of the evidence presented.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Obviously he will just have to accept the validity of the evidence presented.



Anecdotes are not evidence. They're anecdotes.
Neither anecdotes nor actual evidence are proof, and are often skewed, exaggerated, or even completely fabricated.

So, no, he is not obligated to accept the anecdote as anything other than an anecdote.


----------



## Balrog (Oct 15, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Personally, I believe in injecting a little reality check into a self-defense course. Let them know there is no way they can develop the muscle memory in such a short class. When they are attacked 2 months after their 2 hour course, they will not have the motor skills to handle it...unless they continue to train. This isn't so much for the curriculum of your course itself as it is for you to have a higher student body in the future. This is what is called an "upsell."
> 
> As for the course itself, you obviously don't want any complicated techniques or counters. Teach them to strike for vulnerable parts of an attacker's body while using not-so-vulnerable parts of theirs. Another biggie would be situational awareness: don't walk around zoned out on your cell phone, so you can notice the guy who has been following you for one block too many. Being able to spot danger before it gets physical is huge.


Heh.  My favorite line when I teach the women's SHARP course is to tell them: "I've only got you for 4 hours.  You ain't gonna be Xena, Warrior Princess when you walk out."  

Big agreement on situational awareness.  In addition, I explain why the defenses are built around an immediate counterstrike - they absolutely have to change the attacker's mindset and make him stop thinking about attacking you and make him start thinking about "OWWWWWW!"


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Anecdotes are not evidence. They're anecdotes.
> Neither anecdotes nor actual evidence are proof, and are often skewed, exaggerated, or even completely fabricated.
> 
> So, no, he is not obligated to accept the anecdote as anything other than an anecdote.


He was being ironic, I think, because we are often told that when a guy like Chris parker says it, it must be true because he says it and he's an expert because he says so.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 15, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Anecdotes are not evidence. They're anecdotes.
> Neither anecdotes nor actual evidence are proof, and are often skewed, exaggerated, or even completely fabricated.
> 
> So, no, he is not obligated to accept the anecdote as anything other than an anecdote.



Well, just on a technical point, anecdotal evidence does exist.  Example if you have a witness or victim testify to something that doesn't have other evidence like photographs, finger prints etc.  You may have this in harassment and stalking cases and the way you verify their testimony is often via corroboration from other witnesses who testimony is equally anecdotal.


----------



## Headhunter (Oct 15, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> So you are telling me that it is difficult to shoot someone that close? I think many people here are arguing simply to argue, people shoot people close range all of the time. More than often without any kind of formal training, I recall a case in Florida where a woman shot her abusive husband, I doubt she spent any time at the shooting range.
> 
> How about all the gangs who shoot eachother on an almost weekly basis? Are they all training too? One of the very reasons a gun is such a powerful weapon is because possession of one can turn the weakest person into a large threat.


Any idiot can fire a gun those idiots also take risks because they don't really know what they're
doing what if I got attacked ad I had a gun and I tried to fire but my aim was crap and I missed and the bullet just hit you in the foot sure it'd hurt but might stop a guy off his head on drink and drugs then you could get disarmed then your screwed. I heard of a case recently where someone tried to use a gun to defend himself and his wife but he got into a tussle with a guy and the gun went off and shot his wife so.

You do seem to be quite ignorant and dismissive to things you don't understand like I said previously anyone can throw a punch 3 year olds can do it but does that mean they can punch hard enough and well enough to defend themselves of course not same goes for a gun


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 15, 2016)

Headhunter said:


> Any idiot can fire a gun those idiots also take risks because they don't really know what they're
> doing what if I got attacked ad I had a gun and I tried to fire but my aim was crap and I missed and the bullet just hit you in the foot sure it'd hurt but might stop a guy off his head on drink and drugs then you could get disarmed then your screwed. I heard of a case recently where someone tried to use a gun to defend himself and his wife but he got into a tussle with a guy and the gun went off and shot his wife so.
> 
> You do seem to be quite ignorant and dismissive to things you don't understand like I said previously anyone can throw a punch 3 year olds can do it but does that mean they can punch hard enough and well enough to defend themselves of course not same goes for a gun



He seems to not understand that discharging a weapon is considered fine motor function.  Proper grip, sight picture and trigger pull all quickly go out the window without adequate training under stress.

You can be around guns all your life putting holes in paper and blowing apart electronic scraps and still know very little about what dynamics occur in an actual "fight or flight" situation.

The gang shootings he referred to, they are spray and pray.  I have responded to the scenes of shootouts where we are collecting scores of shell casings and no one got hit.  I had one shooting a couple months ago where the shooter was 5 feet away from his target, popped off 3 rounds, 1 hit the target, in the left forearm.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 15, 2016)

Headhunter said:


> doing what if I got attacked ad I had a gun and I tried to fire but my aim was crap and I missed and the bullet just hit you in the foot



Were you spun around 20 times before firing? If i am close to you then you should be able to hit me center mass, even If I am shot in the foot as you said could you fight well with a  bullet wound in your foot? Even in the case of drugs or alcohol what is to stop you from taking another shot and another shot?  I understand accidents happen but there will always be anecdotal evidence for either side.


----------



## Headhunter (Oct 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> He seems to not understand that discharging a weapon is considered fine motor function.  Proper grip, sight picture and trigger pull all quickly go out the window without adequate training under stress.
> 
> You can be around guns all your life putting holes in paper and blowing apart electronic scraps and still know very little about what dynamics occur in an actual "fight or flight" situation.
> 
> The gang shootings he referred to, they are spray and pray.  I have responded to the scenes of shootouts where we are collecting scores of shell casings and no one got hit.  I had one shooting a couple months ago where the shooter was 5 feet away from his target, popped off 3 rounds, 1 hit the target, in the left forearm.



Well to be fair neither do I I have no clue about guns no idea what it's like and I don't want to know but I'm not dumb enough to say its some easy chore like I said if it was easy why would they bother training soldiers how to shoot they'd just throw them a gun and say there you go get shooting


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 15, 2016)

Headhunter said:


> Well to be fair neither do I I have no clue about guns no idea what it's like and I don't want to know but I'm not dumb enough to say its some easy chore like I said if it was easy why would they bother training soldiers how to shoot they'd just throw them a gun and say there you go get shooting



Now admittedly at the close range Iron is speaking about sight picture shouldn't be an issue but trigger pull is.  Especially when suddenly drawing, when not used to stress shooting, people will often start pulling the trigger as soon as they clear leather.  In such circumstances it's not unusual for people to actually shoot themselves, that's on top of incidents like the close range shooting I noted, people missing even then because they are simply blindly pulling the trigger.

That call was actually funny.  We responded for shots fired.  I see three guys walking down the side walk and as I say "hey do you guys hear something that sounded like gunshots" my brain is registering the blood on the guys arm and he says "yeah I'm the one who got shot."


----------



## drop bear (Oct 15, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Anecdotes are not evidence. They're anecdotes.
> Neither anecdotes nor actual evidence are proof, and are often skewed, exaggerated, or even completely fabricated.
> 
> So, no, he is not obligated to accept the anecdote as anything other than an anecdote.



Since I teach for self-defense, for use in the real world, I fail to see why real-world experience is not evidence. That's just being willfully blind to evidence that exists, because it's not the evidence you want to be the ONLY evidence.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 15, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Since I teach for self-defense, for use in the real world, I fail to see why real-world experience is not evidence. That's just being willfully blind to evidence that exists, because it's not the evidence you want to be the ONLY evidence.


I think he was more referring to the source of it. It stated when someone claiming they were told a person they taught used what they learned to successfully defend themselves with no actual context as to how/why etc.  So you had heresay (not even their experience) with no context.  That is sketchy.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 15, 2016)

Steve said:


> He was being ironic, I think, because we are often told that when a guy like Chris parker says it, it must be true because he says it and he's an expert because he says so.



There are gradations. Whether you like Chris or not, he has a great depth of knowledge about his particular arts and their history. Like Buka (a former federal agent) talking about law enforcement or Kirk talking about early boxing, the words of people who are known to have expertise on a subject are going to carry more weight than context-less "I knew a guy who told me he heard about a woman who..." statements.



Juany118 said:


> Well, just on a technical point, anecdotal evidence does exist.  Example if you have a witness or victim testify to something that doesn't have other evidence like photographs, finger prints etc.  You may have this in harassment and stalking cases and the way you verify their testimony is often via corroboration from other witnesses who testimony is equally anecdotal.



Multiple witnesses repeating the same story is quite different.



Ironbear24 said:


> Were you spun around 20 times before firing? If i am close to you then you should be able to hit me center mass, even If I am shot in the foot as you said could you fight well with a  bullet wound in your foot? Even in the case of drugs or alcohol what is to stop you from taking another shot and another shot?  I understand accidents happen but there will always be anecdotal evidence for either side.



A bullet in the foot is very unlikely to stop someone from fighting. 



drop bear said:


> Since I teach for self-defense, for use in the real world, I fail to see why real-world experience is not evidence. That's just being willfully blind to evidence that exists, because it's not the evidence you want to be the ONLY evidence.





Juany118 said:


> I think he was more referring to the source of it. It stated when someone claiming they were told a person they taught used what they learned to successfully defend themselves with no actual context as to how/why etc.  So you had heresay (not even their experience) with no context.  That is sketchy.



This.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Oct 15, 2016)

Dirty Dog just went dad mode on all of us, I'll shut up now.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 15, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> There are gradations. Whether you like Chris or not, he has a great depth of knowledge about his particular arts and their history. Like Buka (a former federal agent) talking about law enforcement or Kirk talking about early boxing, the words of people who are known to have expertise on a subject are going to carry more weight than context-less "I knew a guy who told me he heard about a woman who..." statements.



This is very true.



> A bullet in the foot is very unlikely to stop someone from fighting.



Absolutely.  If your fight or flight hasn't kicked in before the gun shots it WILL kick in once the shots start and you know they are shooting at you.  Like I said there was that kid who was shot in the forearm, he didn't fight but managed to zig zag around cars to avoid other shots.  I  arrived on scene maybe 90 seconds after the call went out and found him walking normally to the point only the blood on his arm was an indication of a gun shot wound and the inside of his arm must have been interesting.  He was released from the Trauma Center 2 hours later.  "Why" some may ask (but not you, if I recall right you work in an ER?)?  The X-Ray revealed the bullet (small caliber .32 or smaller) had hit one of the bones in the forearm and fragmented.  They would have done more damage going in and removing the fragments so they said "here are your follow up instructions, good luck they are a souvenir."


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> This is very true.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  If your fight or flight hasn't kicked in before the gun shots it WILL kick in once the shots start and you know they are shooting at you.  Like I said there was that kid who was shot in the forearm, he didn't fight but managed to zig zag around cars to avoid other shots.  I  arrived on scene maybe 90 seconds after the call went out and found him walking normally to the point only the blood on his arm was an indication of a gun shot wound and the inside of his arm must have been interesting.  He was released from the Trauma Center 2 hours later.  "Why" some may ask (but not you, if I recall right you work in an ER?)?  The X-Ray revealed the bullet (small caliber .32 or smaller) had hit one of the bones in the forearm and fragmented.  They would have done more damage going in and removing the fragments so they said "here are your follow up instructions, good luck they are a souvenir."


Academic knowledge isn't the same as practical knowledge.   Stories are just stories if you have limited actual experience.  Buka has a career in law enforcement to draw upon... practical experience, and I've never seen him suggest that a story he's telling be taken at face value just because he said it.   Chris is a guy who has done a lot of homework.  As a historian, I think Parker is very credible.  The distinction between the two is very important.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 15, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> There are gradations. Whether you like Chris or not, he has a great depth of knowledge about his particular arts and their history. Like Buka (a former federal agent) talking about law enforcement or Kirk talking about early boxing, the words of people who are known to have expertise on a subject are going to carry more weight than context-less "I knew a guy who told me he heard about a woman who..." statements.



Only if you take the religious approach.

The scientific approach has fairly definite ideas on the subject.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Absolutely.  If your fight or flight hasn't kicked in before the gun shots it WILL kick in once the shots start and you know they are shooting at you.  Like I said there was that kid who was shot in the forearm, he didn't fight but managed to zig zag around cars to avoid other shots.  I  arrived on scene maybe 90 seconds after the call went out and found him walking normally to the point only the blood on his arm was an indication of a gun shot wound and the inside of his arm must have been interesting.  He was released from the Trauma Center 2 hours later.  "Why" some may ask (but not you, if I recall right you work in an ER?)?  The X-Ray revealed the bullet (small caliber .32 or smaller) had hit one of the bones in the forearm and fragmented.  They would have done more damage going in and removing the fragments so they said "here are your follow up instructions, good luck they are a souvenir."



Bullets to extremities will do one of four things:
1 - In and out without hitting anything major ([Monty Python]It's only a flesh wound![/Monty Python]) - clean it up and send them out. 
2 - In, damage nothing major, and stop - clean it up and send them out. The puncture wound from the bullet track is less traumatic to the body, generally speaking, then digging it out.
3 - In, break the bone or damage vascular structures - repair the damage. This will generally mean a trip to the OR.
4 - In and out (with or without hitting anything major in the limb) and then into the another body part (usually the torso). Probably a trip to the OR.

The first two are the most common. Bullets are considered sterile by many, so most aren't even started on antibiotics. The wounds are most often not even closed, because closing the end(s) of a puncture wound provides a perfect environment for an anaerobic infection.

Although I did see one interesting case that started with an extremity injury...
Three men, hunting deer. 30-06 loaded on the dash. Stopped dinner. Slammed the door, knocked the gun off, and it fired.
The bullet hit the first guy, went through his upper arm, then in the ribs at an angle, bounced off the *inside* of his sternum, and exited on the other side. He got chest tubes in both sides, and did fine.
Hits the second guy below the ribs, exits on the other side, rupturing his aorta and pulling a big loop of bowel out through the exit wound. Died very quickly.
Hits the third guy at the lower ribs, penetrates a couple inches and stops in the lung. Removed it, put in a chest tube, he also ultimately did fine.

As to the original subject...
I think one thing that needs to be stressed in these short courses is that the goal is *not* to beat the other person. It's to create an opportunity to escape.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 15, 2016)

Steve said:


> Academic knowledge isn't the same as practical knowledge.   Stories are just stories if you have limited actual experience.  Buka has a career in law enforcement to draw upon... practical experience, and I've never seen him suggest that a story he's telling be taken at face value just because he said it.   Chris is a guy who has done a lot of homework.  As a historian, I think Parker is very credible.  The distinction between the two is very important.



Well, and maybe I am off here but I believe in terms of what he really knows, he is also a practitioner.  If you know not just the practice but the history of an art I would say you can comment. /shrug



Dirty Dog said:


> Bullets to extremities will do one of four things:
> 1 - In and out without hitting anything major ([Monty Python]It's only a flesh wound![/Monty Python]) - clean it up and send them out.
> 2 - In, damage nothing major, and stop - clean it up and send them out. The puncture wound from the bullet track is less traumatic to the body, generally speaking, then digging it out.
> 3 - In, break the bone or damage vascular structures - repair the damage. This will generally mean a trip to the OR.
> ...



The above jives, tbh when I inspected the injury before the bus arrived, the entry wound was basically covered by the swelling, hence our suspicion as to the small caliber.  I usually see larger wounds, 9mm +.  No way to know due to the fragmentation when it hit bone.  tbh in 18+ years that was the weirdest thing I ever saw, the "victim" was almost ready to leave the trauma center before the detective got there (no 24 hour Det coverage at my PD had to call him in and tell him to go to a center that is a 25 minute drive away.)

As to the last point 100% spot on.  There is no way in 90-120 minutes you learn to beat someone.  Metaphorically speaking it's "kick em in the balls and run" anmd that is a best case scenario imo.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> As to the last point 100% spot on. There is no way in 90-120 minutes you learn to beat someone. Metaphorically speaking it's "kick em in the balls and run" anmd that is a best case scenario imo.


This is my thinking. Give them a very small number of ways to do this. Where you can, use a common flinch reaction, maybe show them some very easy targets (e.g., side of the neck). Let them practice those very few things a bit so that MAYBE they will do them under stress later. The more important part you'd be teaching is that "hit, gain space, get out" approach. If you have them practice this every time they practice a movement, you're doing them some good - as much as you probably can with physical defensive skills in that time period.

Wrap each segment with discussion of the non-physical skills (awareness, avoidance, etc.), and you're probably doing the best you can in that space of time.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 16, 2016)

Quickly...back to the gun bit and how you can easily miss at close range.  Fast trigger pulls are what happen in self defense situations. Most people don't train for this and even at close range, under pressure, it can make you miss.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Only if you take the religious approach.
> 
> The scientific approach has fairly definite ideas on the subject.




The problem here is that it's not just about a "scientific approach" that defines expertise.  These people aren't speaking from assumed authority, a consensus has been formed among a majority of the community that Chris and Buka are experts in the particular fields they decide to speak with authority on.  As an example in a Court Room.  I have been certified as an expert in both Narcotics and Gangs.  How?  I was asked questions regarding certifications by the Prosecution, then asked questions to test my knowledge by the Defense.  The Defense may try to debate with me as to whether an answer was accurate or not but in the end the Judge decides.  In this case the Judge is the consensus of other knowledgeable people.  The few that disagree are, in our context, the Defense.  

So really I think your video works against your point.


----------



## Steve (Oct 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The problem here is that it's not just about a "scientific approach" that defines expertise.  These people aren't speaking from assumed authority, a consensus has been formed among a majority of the community that Chris and Buka are experts in the particular fields they decide to speak with authority on.  As an example in a Court Room.  I have been certified as an expert in both Narcotics and Gangs.  How?  I was asked questions regarding certifications by the Prosecution, then asked questions to test my knowledge by the Defense.  The Defense may try to debate with me as to whether an answer was accurate or not but in the end the Judge decides.  In this case the Judge is the consensus of other knowledgeable people.  The few that disagree are, in our context, the Defense.
> 
> So really I think your video works against your point.


This isn't court.  And there's a clear line to be drawn between the two posters you've named.  One has experience with real world violence and the other has none.

The big difference between you, buka and Chris Parker is that you guys have worked as cops.   Parker has admitted in the past he has limited, practical experience with real world violence.   It's all theoretical with him.    A person who has trained as a cop but never actually worked in the profession wouldn't be an expert in court.   Would he?   As I've said in the past, he's the flight instructor who's never actually flown a plane, but speaks with authority because he has a lot of experience in a simulator.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> This isn't court.  And there's a clear line to be drawn between the two posters you've named.  One has experience with real world violence and the other has none.
> 
> The big difference between you, buka and Chris Parker is that you guys have worked as cops.   Parker has admitted in the past he has limited, practical experience with real world violence.   It's all theoretical with him.    A person who has trained as a cop but never actually worked in the profession wouldn't be an expert in court.   Would he?   As I've said in the past, he's the flight instructor who's never actually flown a plane, but speaks with authority because he has a lot of experience in a simulator.



First I am not personally aware of the admission you said Chris made.  I went on the respect he is shown by many here (I am still, imo, the fng here)

As for me mentioning court it was simply to show that being called an "expert" doesn't necessarily require letters next to your name and diplomas on the wall.

If on your point about "training as a..." it would depend on the context.  What are they testifying to.  You can have someone trained as a forensic analyst via the military (they exist for the analysis of enemy leaders etc) testify in a Criminal Case in the civilian world, as an example.

But if someone has limited to no experience as to how real fights go down and then tries to speak of them, it would be situational I will admit because then context of the response becomes very important.  By context I don't only mean what was said but in totality.  If someone who admits to lacking rl experience matches what is said by those who have said, that needs to be considered.

I say the last because there are people who from years of training and study simply "get it."  Even without the rl practical experience they know the answer too.  However as I said in the beginning I don't really follow/stalk anyone here so often look at what the consensus is and say "good enough for me." As a relative FNG here that's my default setting when it comes to reputation.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The problem here is that it's not just about a "scientific approach" that defines expertise.  These people aren't speaking from assumed authority, a consensus has been formed among a majority of the community that Chris and Buka are experts in the particular fields they decide to speak with authority on.  As an example in a Court Room.  I have been certified as an expert in both Narcotics and Gangs.  How?  I was asked questions regarding certifications by the Prosecution, then asked questions to test my knowledge by the Defense.  The Defense may try to debate with me as to whether an answer was accurate or not but in the end the Judge decides.  In this case the Judge is the consensus of other knowledgeable people.  The few that disagree are, in our context, the Defense.
> 
> So really I think your video works against your point.



The group just decided?

So it is less about actual verifiable information and more about popular support.

That is almost the definition of dogma.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The group just decided?
> 
> So it is less about actual verifiable information and more about popular support.
> 
> That is almost the definition of dogma.



The video you linked speaks to consensus.  Ultimately the simplest definition of a consensus is "the largest group of <insert X> decided" and that's not an exaggeration. 

The question lies in how much do you respect the knowledge of those in the group.  That said see my response to Stage above.  My mind isn't closed and I admit to gaps in my knowledge of personages there.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The video you linked speaks to consensus.  Ultimately the simplest definition of a consensus is "the largest group of <insert X> decided" and that's not an exaggeration.
> 
> The question lies in how much do you respect the knowledge of those in the group.  That said see my response to Stage above.  My mind isn't closed and I admit to gaps in my knowledge of personages there.



Which is the missing phrase in this discussion. "Expert in my opinion."

Not this universal expert that seems to be implied.

The definition of dogma by the way. 

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.


----------



## Steve (Oct 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> First I am not personally aware of the admission you said Chris made.  I went on the respect he is shown by many here (I am still, imo, the fng here)
> 
> As for me mentioning court it was simply to show that being called an "expert" doesn't necessarily require letters next to your name and diplomas on the wall.
> 
> ...


An academic expert wouldn't be the same as a practical expert.   Correct?   Someone who knows about something isn't necessarily able to do that thing.  that is the simple point I'm trying to make.  The difference between theoretical expertise and practical expertise.

And Parker had indicitated he has very limited actual experience with real world violence.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> An academic expert wouldn't be the same as a practical expert.   Correct?   Someone who knows about something isn't necessarily able to do that thing.  that is the simple point I'm trying to make.  The difference between theoretical expertise and practical expertise.
> 
> And Parker had indicitated he has very limited actual experience with real world violence.



For your first point it really is all about context.  Example, you don't need to have actually broken or dislocated a joint to understand, via years of training, that mechanics and physics means a technique can do just that.  Now my wife does yell at me for the same thing I will admit but context is everything to me.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> For your first point it really is all about context.  Example, you don't need to have actually broken or dislocated a joint to understand, via years of training, that mechanics and physics means a technique can do just that.  Now my wife does yell at me for the same thing I will admit but context is everything to me.



You would need some sort of trend of that joint being broken in whatever manner.

You cant have spent 20 year going
 " kiai joint break" in some gym.

For example most people will think a kimura breaks the shoulder. But it tends to break the arm.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You would need some sort of trend of that joint being broken in whatever manner.
> 
> You cant have spent 20 year going
> " kiai joint break" in some gym.
> ...



Then let me rephrase, you don't need to have broken something to know that a technique and physics dictates that something will break.  Here you really did devolve to a defense based largely in minutia/semantics and not the substance.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Which is the missing phrase in this discussion. "Expert in my opinion."
> 
> Not this universal expert that seems to be implied.
> 
> ...


Actually no.  You made a claim about the video.  if you watch the video and listen to the narration, it speaks for itself in very blunt and specific terms... The idea of successfully moving and drawing a firearm doesn't come in until the end.  Before that they say (short form) "get in that close with a knife fighter you lose."

I wasn't making a dogmatic statement, only calling out a statement of fact as to what a video said, which for many years as standard training for my now almost 20 year career but you claimed it said something different.  if you used a different video I may either have answered differently or not at all.  I literally can be that anal retentive when it comes to direct evidence like a video


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Then let me rephrase, you don't need to have broken something to know that a technique and physics dictates that something will break.  Here you really did devolve to a defense based largely in minutia/semantics and not the substance.



Is this real physics we are applying? Or martial arts physics.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 17, 2016)

Groundfighting and chokes should be taught in any viable self defense course (especially for women). Those aspects of MA can swing a confrontation into your favor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Is this real physics we are applying? Or martial arts physics.


Does this question add anything to the discussion? Or are you just trying to be argumentative?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Groundfighting and chokes should be taught in any viable self defense course (especially for women). Those aspects of MA can swing a confrontation into your favor.


Not in a 2-hour seminar, they shouldn't.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Groundfighting and chokes should be taught in any viable self defense course (especially for women). Those aspects of MA can swing a confrontation into your favor.


In a standard course I would agree with you, but I don't think in 2 hours it would be a skill I could teach that would be retained, I think I will stress the importance of not going to the ground in the first place and if you do to fight like hell to get off the ground ASAP.  Rather than teach a choke I would prefer to teach them to punch, chop, strike the throat and run away as fast as they can.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Does this question add anything to the discussion? Or are you just trying to be argumentative?



Yes.

If we are talking actual physics. say like this study done on whether the human hand is desighned for hitting.
Human Hands Evolved for Fighting, Study Suggests
Then juanny has a valid point.

If we are discussing martial arts physics like this.
AMOUNTS OF FORCE NEEDED TO DO DAMAGE TO HUMANS

Then. No training and physics wont really help you much.


It is important to understand the difference. Because there is a big difference in the two methods.

Now i am pretty sure Juanny subscribes to martial arts physics as we have had the F=M×A discussion before.

And all the evidence in the world did not change his opinion on that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yes.
> 
> If we are talking actual physics. say like this study done on whether the human hand is desighned for hitting.
> Human Hands Evolved for Fighting, Study Suggests
> ...


Nothing Juany stated even remotely implied that he was using false physics. He was referring to what you can know from training (not what you heard somewhere). For instance, I've never used an arm bar to break an arm, but I've taken it to the pain points often enough to know where that break would happen and how variable that zone is among individuals. That's understanding the physics of it, and has nothing to do with the argumentative question you posted.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 17, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> In a standard course I would agree with you, but I don't think in 2 hours it would be a skill I could teach that would be retained, I think I will stress the importance of not going to the ground in the first place and if you do to fight like hell to get off the ground ASAP.  Rather than teach a choke I would prefer to teach them to punch, chop, strike the throat and run away as fast as they can.



You can teach the importance of not ending up on the ground, but that doesn't protect you from having to deal with the possible scenario of ending up on your back with someone on top of you. We just had a thread in this very same forum where a female asked what to do if someone was on top of her. So that scenario is very real, and should be covered in a self defense seminar.

In the span of a 2-hour course you can at the very least teach simple escapes from someone on top of you.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> You can teach the importance of not ending up on the ground, but that doesn't protect you from having to deal with the possible scenario of ending up on your back with someone on top of you. We just had a thread in this very same forum where a female asked what to do if someone was on top of her. So that scenario is very real, and should be covered in a self defense seminar.
> 
> In the span of a 2-hour course you can at the very least teach simple escapes from someone on top of you.



I'm not sure I could teach them simple and effective escapes in 2 hours along with other material that they would retain other than hit and kick and scream.  Any "technique" that could be taught is not usually something that will be retained unless practiced throughout life which I highly doubt people would do.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Nothing Juany stated even remotely implied that he was using false physics. He was referring to what you can know from training (not what you heard somewhere). For instance, I've never used an arm bar to break an arm, but I've taken it to the pain points often enough to know where that break would happen and how variable that zone is among individuals. That's understanding the physics of it, and has nothing to do with the argumentative question you posted.



Yes it does.

Asking a question isnt argumentative. 

Using the word physics if you are not trained in physics is false physics.


----------



## Steve (Oct 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Then let me rephrase, you don't need to have broken something to know that a technique and physics dictates that something will break.  Here you really did devolve to a defense based largely in minutia/semantics and not the substance.


I think there needs to be sufficient, credible evidence that the technique does work. Speculation isn't that.   And then it's just a question of whether you can do it or not, and are training in a way that will lead to being able to execute the technique.

But knowing how to execute an armbar doesn't make a person an expert in law enforcement, self defense or real world violence.


----------



## MI_martialist (Oct 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Not in a 2-hour seminar, they shouldn't.



I you put a small weapon in their hand, and empower them to hit, hit, hit, it does not matter what orientation they are in, they can still hit, hit, hit...  Teaching specific techniques for specific orientations, etc., will not work.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 17, 2016)

There are 2 things that you must learn. Those are:

1. Against striker - Protect your head from punches.
2. Against grappler - Control your opponent's shoulders so his hands won't reach to your leg or waist.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> You can teach the importance of not ending up on the ground, but that doesn't protect you from having to deal with the possible scenario of ending up on your back with someone on top of you. We just had a thread in this very same forum where a female asked what to do if someone was on top of her. So that scenario is very real, and should be covered in a self defense seminar.
> 
> In the span of a 2-hour course you can at the very least teach simple escapes from someone on top of you.



In two hours you think that will give the highest percentage results?

personally in two hours you could teach crappling. Which defeats the pourpose.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2016)

Hey guys we are using science.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> In two hours you think that will give the highest percentage results?



Sure! There's a couple of high percentage mount escapes that can be learned very quickly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 18, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> You can teach the importance of not ending up on the ground, but that doesn't protect you from having to deal with the possible scenario of ending up on your back with someone on top of you. We just had a thread in this very same forum where a female asked what to do if someone was on top of her. So that scenario is very real, and should be covered in a self defense seminar.
> 
> In the span of a 2-hour course you can at the very least teach simple escapes from someone on top of you.


I agree that this is good material for self-defense - especially for women. I just don't think it's possible to teach anything that new to someone in that amount of time, in a way that would be repeatable for them under stress.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> Asking a question isnt argumentative.
> 
> Using the word physics if you are not trained in physics is false physics.


One need not be a physicist to understand physics, much less to be able to use the word in a meaningful way.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> One need not be a physicist to understand physics, much less to be able to use the word in a meaningful way.



You kind of do. Ever talked to a climate change sceptic?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Hey guys we are using science.


And what has that video to do with anyone's comment here? Using it as an example of anything said in this thread is a strawman.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You kind of do. Ever talked to a climate change sceptic?


I'm not a physicist, but I can discuss basic physics. I can even do the math for some fairly advanced physics (though not as much as my wife, who has a degree in Engineering, and is ALSO not a physicist). My background is psychology. That doesn't make me unable to grasp the science of physics.


----------



## Steve (Oct 18, 2016)

after reading this thread, I believe I am convinced it is unethical to sell a 2 hour self defense class.   It's snake oil, much like a miracle diet or a risk free money making seminar.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> And what has that video to do with anyone's comment here? Using it as an example of anything said in this thread is a strawman.



Relates back to this. 

"Then let me rephrase, you don't need to have broken something to know that a technique and physics dictates that something will break."

He knows through training and physics ( well some sort of science) That all of these things will occur. 

That is martial arts physics. And seriously that was just a tragic interpretation of the defined method..

 Now when i asked the question insetead of defining what sort of physics he was talking about. (which is the use of physice without any proper grounding in physics? interested to see where this one goes by the way)

 You evaded the question and made it about me. 

So is that technique and physics as you are defining it. Or are you using a different method of technique and physics?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2016)

Steve said:


> after reading this thread, I believe I am convinced it is unethical to sell a 2 hour self defense class.   It's snake oil, much like a miracle diet or a risk free money making seminar.



You could sell it like my crocodile vid and have merit.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not a physicist, but I can discuss basic physics. I can even do the math for some fairly advanced physics (though not as much as my wife, who has a degree in Engineering, and is ALSO not a physicist). My background is psychology. That doesn't make me unable to grasp the science of physics.



Having not the correct grounding in physics and then using it to make a point is like a blind man describing an elephant. You will miss something and be wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 18, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Sure! There's a couple of high percentage mount escapes that can be learned very quickly.


In a way that they'll repeat them under stress? After maybe a couple dozen repetitions?


drop bear said:


> Relates back to this.
> 
> "Then let me rephrase, you don't need to have broken something to know that a technique and physics dictates that something will break."
> 
> ...


That video has nothing to do with my training, so why use it as an example? His references to spinal reflexes are not physics (that would be physiology or kinesiology, if his statements are even accurate). The break he demonstrates could produce sufficient opposing forces (his pull down on the forearm and the attacker's weight, against the rising force from his legs) to create a dislocation of the elbow if he keeps the parts in place. I'd expect that to require him drawing the attacker more forward to sustain the base long enough to bring those forces to bear.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the physics of the break (because you asked about physics), not about how he gets to it, nor about whether there are counters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Having not the correct grounding in physics and then using it to make a point is like a blind man describing an elephant. You will miss something and be wrong.


Again, you are assuming that only a person who has a degree in physics can actually understand it. Physics is a science, not an arcane art.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> In a way that they'll repeat them under stress? After maybe a couple dozen repetitions?
> 
> That video has nothing to do with my training, so why use it as an example? His references to spinal reflexes are not physics (that would be physiology or kinesiology, if his statements are even accurate). The break he demonstrates could produce sufficient opposing forces (his pull down on the forearm and the attacker's weight, against the rising force from his legs) to create a dislocation of the elbow if he keeps the parts in place. I'd expect that to require him drawing the attacker more forward to sustain the base long enough to bring those forces to bear.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm talking about the physics of the break (because you asked about physics), not about how he gets to it, nor about whether there are counters.



The video fits the argument so is valid. Whether or not it fits your training is apparently argumentative.


It doesnt fit my training either because martial artists citing physics is generally bloody stupid considering the person using the physics may not understand it and the person learning the physics may not understand it.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Again, you are assuming that only a person who has a degree in physics can actually understand it. Physics is a science, not an arcane art.



And you can understand a science without studying that science?


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> after reading this thread, I believe I am convinced it is unethical to sell a 2 hour self defense class.   It's snake oil, much like a miracle diet or a risk free money making seminar.


I think it depends on how you market the class, if you say that they will learn everything they need to know to defend themselves or come out unharmed then I agree, however if you market it as an introduction to the subject matter then I don't think it is unethical.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 19, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I think it depends on how you market the class, if you say that they will learn everything they need to know to defend themselves or come out unharmed then I agree, however if you market it as an introduction to the subject matter then I don't think it is unethical.


You can also market it as a seminar for those already familiar with the concept(s) to be presented imo.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> I think it depends on how you market the class, if you say that they will learn everything they need to know to defend themselves or come out unharmed then I agree, however if you market it as an introduction to the subject matter then I don't think it is unethical.


I don't know that I agree.  I mean, if you were actually up front about how little, practical information they could get from a 2 hour session, you wouldn't have anyone attend.  I can imagine someone coming in and saying, "Hey, I'm interested in hearing from you what I could easily watch for free on eHow."



Juany118 said:


> You can also market it as a seminar for those already familiar with the concept(s) to be presented imo.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


I agree, but I didn't think that was what this thread is about.  I'll also admit that I think seminars are largely a waste of time.  They're a way for guys to make some quick cash.  Most valuable thing about seminars is the networking.

Thinking about this a little more, my opinion is that if there is any value to a 2 hour intro to self defense it would be marketed as a demonstration and recruiting event.  If you were marketing it as this, there could be value as it would give people an introduction to your system, and then they can make a (hopefully) informed decision about whether to sign up for classes.  Because, after all, you aren't actually selling self defense.  You're selling your system, whether that's as a grappler, a ninja, a kung fu master, or whatever else you might be teaching.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> I don't know that I agree.  I mean, if you were actually up front about how little, practical information they could get from a 2 hour session, you wouldn't have anyone attend.  I can imagine someone coming in and saying, "Hey, I'm interested in hearing from you what I could easily watch for free on eHow."
> 
> I agree, but I didn't think that was what this thread is about.  I'll also admit that I think seminars are largely a waste of time.  They're a way for guys to make some quick cash.  Most valuable thing about seminars is the networking.
> 
> Thinking about this a little more, my opinion is that if there is any value to a 2 hour intro to self defense it would be marketed as a demonstration and recruiting event.  If you were marketing it as this, there could be value as it would give people an introduction to your system, and then they can make a (hopefully) informed decision about whether to sign up for classes.  Because, after all, you aren't actually selling self defense.  You're selling your system, whether that's as a grappler, a ninja, a kung fu master, or whatever else you might be teaching.


Yeah I agree about seminars I remember from my kenpo days they'd always hype up seminars as this huge thing and you'll learn so much you didn't know before and every time I've been to one I really didn't learn anything I couldn't have learnt in a normal class and a lot was stuff I'd already learnt. The only one that benefited was the visiting instructor who probably made about 800 quid with the cost of each seminar


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Yeah I agree about seminars I remember from my kenpo days they'd always hype up seminars as this huge thing and you'll learn so much you didn't know before and every time I've been to one I really didn't learn anything I couldn't have learnt in a normal class and a lot was stuff I'd already learnt. The only one that benefited was the visiting instructor who probably made about 800 quid with the cost of each seminar


You get a cool photo with the visiting instructor that you can show to people a few decades later that "proves" you trained with him or her.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> You get a cool photo with the visiting instructor that you can show to people a few decades later that "proves" you trained with him or her.


I mean the guys who come over are probably great instructors in their regular schools but let's be honest even if they do teach anything good it'll be forgotten by everyone in about a week since you really can't just something once and then everyone has it takes a while to reinforce the idea which you can't do when your not training with the instructor all the time. The last one I went to the guy spent the whole hour teaching the salutation you do st the beginning and end of each class. Now I've known that since my first week of training and I'm paying 50 quid for this guy to teach me it again. I refused to do any seminars after that


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> In a way that they'll repeat them under stress? After maybe a couple dozen repetitions?



Yes. The goal is to not make a woman the next Angela Lee or MacKenzie Dern. Just teaching 1 or 2 simple escapes can be very beneficial for someone if they wind up on their back.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Again, you are assuming that only a person who has a degree in physics can actually understand it. Physics is a science, not an arcane art.



Heck there are "conceptual physics" courses in HS and Colleges that allow people to study and understand the effects of physics without the math.  But, as an example imo is an army sniper.  The sniper doesn't need to know the mathematical equation on how wind and the coriolis effect, range etc. will impact the trajectory of a bullet so as to accurately adjust one's aim.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> You get a cool photo with the visiting instructor that you can show to people a few decades later that "proves" you trained with him or her.



We get some cool concept stuff. I think it depends on the guy.


----------



## Buka (Oct 20, 2016)

Haven't been on this thread in a while. Been busy doing important stuff.....reading other threads. 

Wasn't going to post this, it's different than the norm and will probably get some tsk, tsks, probably won't read well in print, but it worked in real life, year after year. So, anyway...

I never did a self defense seminar for people other than Martial Artists, military and cops. But I did a lot of short self defense courses for Corporate America in the eighties, (that's where the money was, helped support the dojo) in and around the Boston area, a few in Providence Rhode Island. They were four to six week courses, twice a week, an hour and a half each class. They were after work for the employees of the hiring company, once in while they were during their work hours. The company provided the area to teach. It was real good money, and I usually had an assistant or two, a lot of times my wife.

Made lots of cash. But I stopped doing them, used the old "scheduling conflicts" excuse instead of the truth - "you're wasting your money, I don't think they're helping in the way you want them to." I was feeling guilty, irresponsible even.

What they wanted, what everyone wants (I think so, anyway) is to learn to fight off an attacker(s). I just don't think it can be done in six weeks. I felt like it was a disservice. I did start doing some courses in crime prevention, along with cops from different departments, though. I think the information helped more than what I had been doing before. Maybe if I had an idea of what fighting on the ground was about back then, it could have been different, better, more complete. But I had no experience there until the early nineties, so I don't know.

Then I got called and asked to speak to a girls graduating high school that was heading away to college. So I did, didn't accept any cash, did it as a public service. I had been recommended by a former student who had ties to the school. I guess he told them what to expect. (but, surprisingly, they asked me anyway) I ended up doing these frequently.

I'd show up, dressed a certain way, very polite, quiet and smiling. It was usually a large group of young women, two or three graduating senior classes from several schools. Three or four hundred kids. They knew I was in law enforcement and taught self defense. A dozen or so teachers and administrators, from the attending schools, were standing around the walls. I made it a point to introduce myself to all staff  before it started, chatting about this and that, trying to make them comfy.

I would address the girls with a quick intro, very straight laced, wishing them well on their way to college, such an important time of their lives blah, blah, blah. By this point they figured I was as boring as their least favorite teacher. I'd usually be on a stage, at a podium, but then I'd start to walk around, making the kids a little uncomfortable. (no microphone)

"As I've stated, I work as a federal law enforcement officer. In my duties we work with people in the Behavioral Sciences. They've taught us a lot. We profile people. We learn warning signs, eye signals, postures - we read "the tells". Then I'd go into a couple minute spiel about "tells".

"What I'd like to share with you today is a one hundred percent, foolproof method of determining if a young man is lying to you. There is a "tell". And this tell is ALWAYS there, and this tell is NEVER wrong." (pause for dramatic effect as my voice rose)

"And, I promise, I'm going to share that information with you. You will all know and remember it before you leave today. But, first, let's talk about something else. Let's talk about men." Giggles, rustling in the seats, a cheer or two, as I turn my back and walk towards the stage again, then turn.

"Every man that has ever met you since you were twelve years old has thought about f-king you. Every single one, even if it's only for a hundredth of a second. It's what they do, it's what they are, it's biologically hard wired."  

And, yes, that's the word I always used, pure shock value, pure truth. And if you don't think I have one hundred percent of their attention by now, you don't know young women. And believe it or not, once their surprise and shock wore off, now I had their trust. (I've spoken to many of these young women, years later)

"And now you're going away to a new place, a new school, with new men you don't know. Wouldn't it be a good idea to know that "tell" I mentioned, to KNOW when a young man is lying to you? So, what do you look for, what is that one indicator that the young man is one hundred percent lying to you? 

"His LIPS ARE MOVING. If his lips are moving, he is lying his *** off."

There is much laughter at this point, some applause, and the teachers, who looked like they were going to stroke out a minute ago, almost start to relax. Almost.

"So lets talk about crime against women. Preventing crime and fighting against crime. Do you know what a sexual predator looks like?" I walk around pointing at various girls, "Do you know, do you, how about you?"

"He looks like me. He looks like your best friend. He looks like your teacher, your neighbor, your mailman, your favorite cousin, He looks like everyone and anyone you know. He is usually sweet, charming and witty. Sometimes he's really cute, a big shot at school, the kind of guy you want to be around, the kind of guy you want to be seen with."

"I'm sure you've all heard about court case that involve sexual assault. Where the woman said no, and things were supposed to stop. Close proximity is not the place to say stop. If you're already on thin ice in the middle of a river, it's far more difficult to stay safe and warm than if you didn't drive your car onto that ice in the first place. (I'm walking away at this point, then quickly turn and mimic a girl) "But Jenny said it was okay"!" (laughter) We all have friends who said it was (air quotes) "okay", don't we ladies?" (eating out of my hand at this point)

Let's talk about other things you've heard in the news, about sexual assault against unconscious women. There's really only two ways to become unconscious, on your own, or by somebody else. 

ON YOUR OWN......do you really want to get so drunk you couldn't save your best friend or little brothers life if all you had to do was pick up a phone? So drunk that you couldn't run out a door if the building caught fire? Really, is that what you want? (then I say, "Don't answer that!")

Let's talk about unconscious by somebody else's hand. Somebody spikes your drink. You get a roofie. This is kind of a new phenomena, ya? Didn't have to deal with it in my day. (I usually walk around with my head down for a few seconds)

Do you know when Phohibition was? (then I usually ask if they know WHAT it was)
Prohibition started in 1920. My father was a bartender since BEFORE prohibition. He warned me about spiked drinks when I was a kid. He was warned about it by older bartenders when _he_ was a young man. So, new? Not hardly. More prevalent? Probably, or maybe we just hear about it more because there's more media. So when that slick young thing that's making you swoon, asks you, can I get you a drink? what was the tell that made you know he was lying???? Together, now, ladies, his....and they all yell out LIPS ARE MOVING!"

This goes on for about an hour. Talking about drink safety, driving safety, walking safety, room security, knowing your campus, your friends and your frenemies. We talk about "secondary crime scenes". (One of the scariest words in Law Enforcement.) we talk about their summers, dating boys, watching how those young men treat their moms, their sisters their friends, if they're nicer to the cute girls than they are to others - because they're going to treat you in exactly the same two-faced way. And watch their lips, ladies, if they're moving, they're - and I'd point to the group, and they all yell the answer.

We talk about anything and everything, there's questions and answers, and the only way to answer them is with the truth. And by the time the Q and A part of it comes, you've been so open, they'll know if you're lying.

The first class I did was so well received, I was called back the next year. The place was packed, standing room only, people crammed in everywhere. Even some parents. And the local news was there (not in a bad way) but we (principle and administrators and myself) wouldn't let them in until the first part - with unconventional language, was over.

Probably couldn't do it that way today, probably get in trouble, and I don't encourage anyone to use the language I used - you have to know how to do that, there's a certain knack to it. But it's the way I always taught my own female students, and the way I always will.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 20, 2016)

Buka said:


> Haven't been on this thread in a while. Been busy doing important stuff.....reading other threads.
> 
> Wasn't going to post this, it's different than the norm and will probably get some tsk, tsks, probably won't read well in print, but it worked in real life, year after year. So, anyway...
> 
> ...


Thank you for sharing!  I would have loved to attend your seminar.  I have to say though, as guilty as you felt for taking their money for your 6 week course I am sure everyone left with at least some new knowledge on how to defend themselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The video fits the argument so is valid. Whether or not it fits your training is apparently argumentative.
> 
> 
> It doesnt fit my training either because martial artists citing physics is generally bloody stupid considering the person using the physics may not understand it and the person learning the physics may not understand it.


There's nothing stupid about citing physics. It's a science that includes force, acceleration, and other matters that are directly applicable to what we do. It would be stupid to speak outside one's own knowledge on anything, but not to use applicable science within one's own understanding.

As for the student not understanding it, that's the point of teaching it. If we didn't teach anything someone didn't already understand, we wouldn't teach much.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And you can understand a science without studying that science?


I never said I didn't study it. I said it wasn't my area of study (a different thing). Basic physics isn't terribly complicated (though some of the math can be). Understanding force equations, leverage equations, and acceleration/deceleration equations doesn't require an advanced degree in physics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2016)

Steve said:


> I don't know that I agree.  I mean, if you were actually up front about how little, practical information they could get from a 2 hour session, you wouldn't have anyone attend.  I can imagine someone coming in and saying, "Hey, I'm interested in hearing from you what I could easily watch for free on eHow."
> 
> I agree, but I didn't think that was what this thread is about.  I'll also admit that I think seminars are largely a waste of time.  They're a way for guys to make some quick cash.  Most valuable thing about seminars is the networking.
> 
> Thinking about this a little more, my opinion is that if there is any value to a 2 hour intro to self defense it would be marketed as a demonstration and recruiting event.  If you were marketing it as this, there could be value as it would give people an introduction to your system, and then they can make a (hopefully) informed decision about whether to sign up for classes.  Because, after all, you aren't actually selling self defense.  You're selling your system, whether that's as a grappler, a ninja, a kung fu master, or whatever else you might be teaching.


I tend to agree with you on this, Steve. If the focus is on physical defense (rather than delivering information about avoidance, cues, etc.), I'm not sure there's much of substance that can be accomplished in 2 hours (really, about 90 minutes of training - just one of my regular classes) with people who don't already know the subject.

If it was a seminar to give people some new stuff to work on (experienced martial artists, etc.) that would be a different ball game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Heck there are "conceptual physics" courses in HS and Colleges that allow people to study and understand the effects of physics without the math.  But, as an example imo is an army sniper.  The sniper doesn't need to know the mathematical equation on how wind and the coriolis effect, range etc. will impact the trajectory of a bullet so as to accurately adjust one's aim.


But he still needs to understand the basic physics of it (with or without the math), or he has to learn it entirely by rote. I doubt he just learns by trial and error that the bullet will drop over distance (actually, time). Discussing that drop - and how much it will be - is a discussion of physics. If he is going to know before the shot how far it will drop, he'll have to do some math.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> We get some cool concept stuff. I think it depends on the guy.


I agree. I think it also depends upon the student, and what they are looking for from the seminar. I've learned some really valuable lessons in seminars - some things that have helped shape how I teach.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> But he still needs to understand the basic physics of it (with or without the math), or he has to learn it entirely by rote. I doubt he just learns by trial and error that the bullet will drop over distance (actually, time). Discussing that drop - and how much it will be - is a discussion of physics. If he is going to know before the shot how far it will drop, he'll have to do some math.



The first part is my point.  You can understand the basic physics behind something without knowing the equations Einstein would.  And there is math but it's fairly customized, and now they have watches you can store it in to help (Google D.O.P.E).  Wish they had that when I was in, I had a diary.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I never said I didn't study it. I said it wasn't my area of study (a different thing). Basic physics isn't terribly complicated (though some of the math can be). Understanding force equations, leverage equations, and acceleration/deceleration equations doesn't require an advanced degree in physics.



We are essentially talking about kenesiology though. Aren't we? people are not generally solid objects moving through vacumes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The first part is my point.  You can understand the basic physics behind something without knowing the equations Einstein would.  And there is math but it's fairly customized, and now they have watches you can store it in to help (Google D.O.P.E).  Wish they had that when I was in, I had a diary.


Agreed. The math he'd need to know (assuming no watch - that's just cheating!) would be simple enough to be done on the fly with moderate precision. A fairly basic allowance for the drop over a 1,000 yard distance, with some acceleration of drop factored (actually the deceleration of the round, but it amounts to the same thing).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> We are essentially talking about kenesiology though. Aren't we? people are not generally solid objects moving through vacumes.


Kinesiology is one science involved. Basic physics is also in there. Leverage can be discussed in terms of basic physics (which would assume a static situation), then the kinesiology can be added in (so that we now have to evaluate the stability of the base, the ability of the load to move, etc.).


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. The math he'd need to know (assuming no watch - that's just cheating!) would be simple enough to be done on the fly with moderate precision. A fairly basic allowance for the drop over a 1,000 yard distance, with some acceleration of drop factored (actually the deceleration of the round, but it amounts to the same thing).



DOPE is a little more complicated but not by much.  You basically keep a diary of sorts that details the performance of weapon + ammo + weather + your physical + range conditions. You then apply that info to future calculations.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Kinesiology is one science involved. Basic physics is also in there. Leverage can be discussed in terms of basic physics (which would assume a static situation), then the kinesiology can be added in (so that we now have to evaluate the stability of the base, the ability of the load to move, etc.).



So simple right?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Kinesiology is one science involved. Basic physics is also in there. Leverage can be discussed in terms of basic physics (which would assume a static situation), then the kinesiology can be added in (so that we now have to evaluate the stability of the base, the ability of the load to move, etc.).



I think most people forget what the following article explains rather well.  In short without physics there is no kinesiology.

Physics - kinesiology, biology and physics


----------



## Buka (Oct 21, 2016)

One of the reasons Bill Wallace kicks so well is he has a Masters in Kinesiology. (bachelors in phys ed, too)


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 21, 2016)

**UPDATE**

I spoke with the people who had asked me to offer the 2 hour class on Self-Defense and informed them of the limitations of only offering 2 hours for the subject matter and reccomended offering a longer course (perhaps 6 weeks, 1.5 hours per week) 

They informed me that they traditionally only offer small, one time classes to the public instead of a course that participants have to attend multiple classes.  They offer classes in every topic imaginable (auto repair, candle making, tarot reading, belly dancing, you name it) most of these classes are just brief introductions to the subjects and range from $10-$30 per class.  

After some more discussion they did agree that if I could make each class able to be taken by itself that I could make 6 seperate classes and just let people know for best results they should try to attend each class.  

 So I think I will attempt to re-write my lesson plans to make 6 individual Self-Defense classes that hopefully will be taken as an entire course by most people but could be taken seperately if they wish.  

Wish me luck lol.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 21, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> **UPDATE**
> 
> I spoke with the people who had asked me to offer the 2 hour class on Self-Defense and informed them of the limitations of only offering 2 hours for the subject matter and reccomended offering a longer course (perhaps 6 weeks, 1.5 hours per week)
> 
> ...


 
I might have missed this, but what exactly is the place where this class is being hosted?


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 21, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I might have missed this, but what exactly is the place where this class is being hosted?


The place is called the Brainery, they offer classes to the public in just about any topic you can imagine.  Most of their classes are inexpensive and attract community members who are looking to learn more about various topics.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 21, 2016)

That's cool. I am trying to find places around here where I could host a class like colleges, plus some libraries have really large meeting rooms. It's not easy. Most colleges turn me down because I am not faculty or a student, but the biggest college here is open to it. I'll keep on plugging away.


----------



## Buka (Oct 21, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> **UPDATE**
> 
> I spoke with the people who had asked me to offer the 2 hour class on Self-Defense and informed them of the limitations of only offering 2 hours for the subject matter and reccomended offering a longer course (perhaps 6 weeks, 1.5 hours per week)
> 
> ...



That sounds great, bro, hope it all works out. Good luck!


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 22, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> **UPDATE**
> 
> I spoke with the people who had asked me to offer the 2 hour class on Self-Defense and informed them of the limitations of only offering 2 hours for the subject matter and reccomended offering a longer course (perhaps 6 weeks, 1.5 hours per week)
> 
> ...




I might be running a program like this, but to introduce wing chun to newbies. Any chance you could share your outline with me? Maybe I could model something after it.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 24, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I might be running a program like this, but to introduce wing chun to newbies. Any chance you could share your outline with me? Maybe I could model something after it.


It's real rough right now but so far this is what I have: 

Self-Defense Class Bios 


1.	Basic Self-Defense: Intro to Self-Defense- This is the first in a series of 6 different Basic Self-Defense Classes that can be taken either individually or for best results as a complete course on the subject.  This particular class will give you an understanding of what Self-Defense is, how to avoid dangerous situations, and a general overview of what to expect from the other 5 classes.  This class is a beginner’s course and it is open to all ages and sexes.  (2hrs)

2.	Basic Self-Defense: Avoidance- This is the second in a series of 6 different Basic Self-Defense Classes that can be taken either individually or for best results as a complete course on the subject.  This particular class will teach you how to become aware of dangerous situations and avoid conflicts before they start. The course will include de-escalation techniques, verbal judo, and the legalities of Self-Defense. This class is a beginner’s course and it is open to all ages and sexes.  (2hrs)

3.	Basic Self-Defense: Striking-   This is the third in a series of 6 different Basic Self-Defense Classes that can be taken either individually or for best results as a complete course on the subject.  This particular class will teach various striking tools (fists, elbow, kicks, knees, palm heel) and how to spot vulnerable striking targets/pressure points. This class is a beginner’s course and it is open to all ages and sexes.  (2 hrs)

4.	Basic Self-Defense: Stances, Movement, Blocks- This is the forth in a series of 6 different Basic Self-Defense Classes that can be taken either individually or for best results as a complete course on the subject.  This particular class will teach you how to stand properly, how to effectively move, and how to best block attacks. This class is a beginner’s course and it is open to all ages and sexes.  (2hrs)

5.	Basic Self-Defense: Weapons- This is the fifth in a series of 6 different Basic Self-Defense Classes that can be taken either individually or for best results as a complete course on the subject.  This particular class will dispel the myths about fighting against a weapon and teach techniques for disarming and defending against guns, knives, and sticks and will teach you how to spot and use improvised weapons. This class is a beginner’s course and it is open to all ages and sexes.  (2hrs)

6.	Basic Self-Defense: Techniques/Ground Work- This is the sixth and final class in a series of 6 different Basic Self-Defense Classes that can be taken either individually or for best results as a complete course on the subject.  This particular class will teach escapes from common attacks such as grabs, chokes, bear hugs as well as what to do should you be taken to the ground or pinned down, and we will also teach escapes from zip ties and duct tape. This class is a beginner’s course and it is open to all ages and sexes.  (2hrs)

I am currently re-working it but this is my very rough draft so far.


----------



## aedrasteia (Oct 24, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> It's real rough right now but so far this is what I have:
> 
> I am currently re-working it but this is my very rough draft so far.



this is a useful and informative thread - Thanks, Justin, for putting your outline out where others will see it.
I have more to put here - but I wanted those on this thread, especially those who are putting their perspective
out here, to know of my appreciation and respect.
A


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 24, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> It's real rough right now but so far this is what I have:
> 
> Self-Defense Class Bios
> 
> ...



Looks interesting.  I don't want to sound like I am telling you what to do, since apparently you have done this before, but have you considered that it might be good to switch 3 and 4?  That is, teach standing, moving and blocking before striking with fists and/or weapons?

5 and 6 will keep you quite busy considering how many things you will teach in 2 hours.

I wish you luck, and hope you do indeed find a way to make this good for your students.  It will be a good service if you accomplish that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 24, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So simple right?


Yes, leverage is simple.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 24, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> The place is called the Brainery, they offer classes to the public in just about any topic you can imagine.  Most of their classes are inexpensive and attract community members who are looking to learn more about various topics.


For someplace like that, I'd be inclined to have someone join me, so I could do about 5 minutes of demonstrations and explanations each class, to give attendees a glimpse of what more there is to learn.


----------



## Justin Chang (Oct 25, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Looks interesting.  I don't want to sound like I am telling you what to do, since apparently you have done this before, but have you considered that it might be good to switch 3 and 4?  That is, teach standing, moving and blocking before striking with fists and/or weapons?
> 5 and 6 will keep you quite busy considering how many things you will teach in 2 hours.
> 
> I wish you luck, and hope you do indeed find a way to make this good for your students.  It will be a good service if you accomplish that.


I was actually thinking the same exact thing when I wrote this up, I will be switching 5 and 6 around.


----------



## wingchun100 (Nov 16, 2016)

Justin Chang said:


> It's real rough right now but so far this is what I have:
> 
> Self-Defense Class Bios
> 
> ...


 
Hey man,

I got the Power Point, but I have been beyond busy. Working 3 jobs (full-time, part-time, and freelance writing). I will definitely look it over though!


----------



## TieXiongJi (Jan 26, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Personally, I believe in injecting a little reality check into a self-defense course. Let them know there is no way they can develop the muscle memory in such a short class. When they are attacked 2 months after their 2 hour course, they will not have the motor skills to handle it...unless they continue to train. This isn't so much for the curriculum of your course itself as it is for you to have a higher student body in the future. This is what is called an "upsell."
> 
> As for the course itself, you obviously don't want any complicated techniques or counters. Teach them to strike for vulnerable parts of an attacker's body while using not-so-vulnerable parts of theirs. Another biggie would be situational awareness: don't walk around zoned out on your cell phone, so you can notice the guy who has been following you for one block too many. Being able to spot danger before it gets physical is huge.


Very true. I love attending Self Defense classes after personally training for over 12 years. I do my best not to critique the instructor, but sometimes they are too wrong not to throw in your two cents.


----------

